On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:52:12 GMT, "The Tutor" <Tutors@aol.com> wrote:

<Matt Osborn> wrote in message news:ljhei1h5g0lpcj0m69esbntd2plcgrbks4@4ax.com...

The Republicans canned Brown because he was drawing heat. Just like
Bush and Roberts ran away from the Federalist Society when Roberts
appeared on a member list.

Brown got canned because he was drawing heat? Drawing heat for what?
He got sacrificed by the Republicans just for drawing heat? He didn't do
anything wrong? Any of you Republicans agree with that? Will Republicans
throw someone to the wolves that didn't do anything wrong just for drawing
heat?

I see you didn't want to address this.

You keep avoiding my words. I said it was politics.

By all reports, FEMA responded to this disaster than they have to any
other disaster in their history.

All reports? Check the latest Newsweek for just one of many different views.
(If you would like to make a point, it would help to specify HOW you claim
they responded. I'm guessing you wanted to claim faster.)

Newsweek is a bit populist rag that appeals to emotions. It's writing
is a bit sensationalist for my taste.

Well, you did say "all reports" and I mentioned Newsweek to show that you,
once again, got it wrong. Newsweek is not the only one. I'll get you more.
So to clarify, it's not "All reports?"
BTW, what did Newsweek say that wasn't true?

Turns out that "all reports" are not "all reports" after all but you also ran away
from addressing that.
BTW, what did Newsweek say that wasn't true? You ran away from that also.

I no longer read Newsweek; I found that it only reports what it wants me
to know. You didn't post anything from Newsweek, so I didn't either.

If you wish to learn what the standard is rather than what the media
thinks it should be, read this.

<http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf>

I've quoted Appendix 5 so you don't have to read the whole thing.

Appendix 5
Overview of Initial Federal Involvement Under the Stafford Act
This overview illustrates actions Federal agencies likely will take to
assist State and local governments that are overwhelmed by a major
disaster or emergency.

-- msosborn at msosborn dot com

I stopped reading at "actions Federal agencies likely will take." That has
about as much force as "We would hope that" or "Chances are they will."

Now you're getting the picture. Those who would depend upon the
Federal Government are always going to be disappointed.

I point out the fault in your extended cut and paste and you turn that inside out
to "Now you're getting the picture." Apparently it's YOU who lacks the tools
to get the picture. You seem to prefer quantity posts over quality posts.
But you're right about the disappointment. I'm disappointed in Bush and his
Uncle ***** to the point of tears. Glad you see that too.

No, Tutor, you tend to have a rather rigid learning scheme. If you don't
like what you hear, you reject it. For instance, when I pointed out that
it takes 50lbs of food, water, clothing and medicine per person per day
in a relief effort, you went over the wall so to speak.
That was our first encounter if I recall, and it went downhill from
there. Not because you came up with different numbers, you just said my
numbers were wrong.
Take a look at this number:
"Water purification units provided to Tamil Nadu and the Andaman and
Nicobar Islands provide 100,000 litres of clean water each day for 1,000
people"
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/DDAD-69XPK7?OpenDocument
That's 100 liters per day per person or 26 gallons per day per person. I
think their numbers are high, most estimates are 5 gallons per person per
day.
"Example 2. A 40-man platoon doing a variety of work over an entire day.
The platoon requires 4 gallons of water per man per day for drinking, and
2.5 gallons per man per day for personal hygiene, or 6.5 gallons per man
per day. For the whole platoon, 260 gallons (6.5 x 40) per day are
required. (Meals not considered.) "
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-3/Appg.htm
Again these numbers are higher than mine, but they're dealing with
healthy young men.

What we have here is a failure of expectations and misplaced faith.

Exactly! Failure of expectations and misplaced faith in Bush/Cheney!

You chastise me when I cast doubt on the government's abilities further
on in this post for bring 'politics' into the post. It seems you don't
think your above point has a political message?

There was one group that had mixed performance levels, the
governments, local, state and federal. Of the three, the federal
government did more to help than the other two. Of course, it had
more resources, but the city and state had more resources than they
employed.

I've already said that there is enough blame to go around. You, on the
other hand, have blamed the state, city and victims themselves for the
entire fiasco while defending to the point of making false statements,
FEMA and the federal gov.
Here's another question you'll dodge. If the Feds did such a good job,
what is Bush taking the blame for?

No, I didn't blame them, I said the Feds were doing a good job. I don't
believe you know how good of a job they did. Look at these numbers:
"I write this column a week and a day after the main levee protecting New
Orleans breached. In the course of that week:
More than 32,000 people have been rescued, many plucked from rooftops by
Coast Guard helicopters.
The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and begun
pumping water out of New Orleans.
Shelter, food and medical care have been provided to more than 180,000
refugees."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm
If you listened to Bush, you would know he isn't taking the blame for
anything. He said he was responsible for what the federal relief effort
accomplished. You think it failed and because you think that, you think
Bush also thinks it failed.
Bush does intend to determine what could be done better, but he certainly
doesn't think that it failed.

There were three groups who performed with excellence and competence.
Churches, private organizations and the military.

I want to believe this but unlike yourself, I don't know it for fact. How you
know it is beyond me but then I do know that you like to make general,
sweeping statements that make it sound as if you know what you're talking
about (you most often don't.)

Has the Mayor or the Governor complained? Have the Media played up any
short comings? If not, I think we have a clue as to what happened. How
many people are still in the Astrodome? 6,000, maybe 10,000? Where did
the rest go? Churches and their members took refugees into their homes.

From a conservative perspective, it is a slam dunk. Keep the
government's role to a minimum and when we do involve the government,
let them provide the cash and material and allow those who know what
they're doing actually run the show.

Good point. Put competent people in charge of important projects instead
of political payoffs to the party faithful.

Thank goodness we don't have national health care. We would see this
same performance there except that it would happen to us one at a time
and nobody else would know.
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com

In the face of a natural disaster, you can't resist bringing your political agenda
into the discussion.

See above, I'll quote it for you:

yours - Exactly! Failure of expectations and misplaced faith in Bush/Cheney!

Now, which of our two statements introduced politics?

I guess the good news is that you won't accept Medicare benefits if you live
to be 65. You don't believe in that, right?

So I should pay for something and not use it? Tell you what, give me
back all the money I've paid and I won't use it. Deal?
-- msosborn at msosborn dot com