Floods in England

Totally, thank you! Like I just said in my response to Bernadette... living in an area that is very rarely ever hit with extreme weather conditions we don't have to deal with that sort of thing, so we have no idea how bad it can be to have to depend on a "helpful" organization to come to our assistance when the weather brings such devastation to our homes. I think us hearing that those affected by Katrina had FEMA on the way to "help" lulled us into a false sense of peace of mind for those people waiting for help. This has definitely opened my eyes, thank you!

*hugs* Gem

> and>> that explain the>> situation better than I could. I find it difficult to trust any>> organisation that accepts total incompetence as the norm.> > Ahh, okay, thank you! :o)>

This has been the wettest year for over 200 years in the UK so I can understand to some extent the lack of readiness to cope with these freak conditions. However, as New Orleans and some southern states of the USA are in "hurricane alley" I really can see no excuse for the lack of help for the people affected in those areas.

>> and>>> that explain the>>> situation better than I could. I find it difficult to trust any>>> organisation that accepts total incompetence as the norm.>> Ahh, okay, thank you! :o)>>>> Living in an area that rarely has extremely bad weather, and when we do it>> often by-passes us (except for major blizzards... we are in the snowbelt>> region of our area so we get a ton of the stuff and I'm glad I don't have>> to go out in it), we are lucky enough to not have to deal with such>> horrible things, nor with the incompetence of "helpful" organizations. So>> thank you for your message and the links.>>

Not only was there no excuse, Bernadette, but the Department of Homeland Security's earlier predictive assessments for major disasters in the U.S. included not just terrorist bombs but FLOODING IN NEW ORLEANS. The whole thing is just shameful beyond belief.

Will it be better if it happens in the future?

Mary

Ummm...not during this administration. Major changes are needed. Public TV did a special on how FEMA's budget and management were slashed and toyed with for years.

There's one other factor that's rarely mentioned; New Orleans was not so threatened as long as the city remained small. It used to be that banks would not give mortgages to structures built so close to the water -- since they knew what would happen if you built on a barrier island! BUT some years ago (I don't know exactly when), FEMA started guaranteeing such mortgages ... with the predictable results. People built there, insurance companies insured them to get the high premiums, then went out of their way to deny claims during predictable floods.

Why is not having FEMA a good thing?

1) In New Orleans, FEMA caused as many problems as they fixed. 2) They spent a lot of money.

There was a time when FEMA was one of the best organizations in the world. They planned, and they executed well. I worked with FEMA guys back in the early 90's. They were good! No, they were very good.

Bush broke FEMA when he folded it into the Department of Homeland Security.

Let us face the truth. We could spin long yarns about Bush not being able to "knit."

Aaron

Maybe so, but since being vehemently anti-Bush is not a requirement for participating in this group, I hope nobody does.

Melinda, who is still sort of on the fence and sees good and bad in what Bush has done but who still prefers him to who the alternative would have been

And since when has that been the case? We're discussing an obvious failure here, not politics.