FEMA

[GGT]

Acronym. FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Rather a repeat on emergency services and disaster planning (since threads post-Katrina).

But this time, during a US election cycle, there are politicians claiming any/everything from FEMA being our worst enemy (Ron Paul says FEMA taught dependence and learned helplessness), to those saying disaster relief should be off-set by other cost containment social/welfare spending (Ryan, Cantor), and even staunch republicans espousing the value and importance of federal disaster relief (Christie, Perry)

Perry only admitted that as Sec of Ag for Texas, and as Governor, while asking for federal funds. But as a candidate for POTUS...not so much.

Anyway, what are YOUR views about emergency management and/or disaster relief? Is it something each state should be responsible for, on their own, and not expect help from the other 49 states?

Yeah, it's a politically charged question.

[Ominous Gamer]

Emergency Management for natural disasters simply isn't something that can and should be left up to individual states. Especially in our current times. Just read an article talking about how one of the states is having to borrow helicopters from neighboring states because all their helicopters are with the National Guard over seas.

[agamemnus]

It's a problem because you don't want to punish people for living in disaster areas, but you don't want to encourage builders to build houses in disaster areas, and apparently you can't do both at the same time.

[CitizenCain]

It's a problem because you don't want to punish people for living in disaster areas, but you don't want to encourage builders to build houses in disaster areas, and apparently you can't do both at the same time.

Almost. It's a problem because, apparently, we have to impose government assistance on everyone, which means interfering in everyone's personal decisions, particularly when people would like to choose a more expensive option, like living in an area prone to natural disasters.

[earthJoker]

It's a problem because you don't want to punish people for living in disaster areas, but you don't want to encourage builders to build houses in disaster areas, and apparently you can't do both at the same time.

Didn't we just had an earthquake at the east coast and a tropical storm flooding Vermont? I agree that you shouldn't encourage builders to build at risky places, but that doesn't mean that there won't still be victims of natural disasters.

[agamemnus]

You mean won't?

[earthJoker]

Yeah, sorry. Corrected.

[agamemnus]

Yeah, so the issue is still there. At what point do you say "sorry, you're just out of luck but we won't give you money to rebuild"?

If you're a lender and you are insured by the FDIC, the government will typically force your borrowers to have federal flood insurance if they think you're in a flood-prone zone.

Our house requires flood insurance for the mortgage even though we are about 12 feet off on a hill, and there would need to be a flood as bad as the New Orleans one for us (minus the basement) to actually get flooded. The federal government is really terrible at designating flood zones, apparently.

There are two problems, currently, I think. Firstly there's the problem that the government can't correctly price flood insurance. The smaller problem, by scale, is that some people have the option not to have it (non-FDIC insured lenders or they paid off their mortgage), and the government bails them out anyway.

So, do you just get rid of federal flood insurance? It seems private companies don't want to be involved in flood insurance, but perhaps only because the federal government is monopolizing it.

If you get rid of federal flood insurance, you'd have to get rid of the flood insurance requirement or I think there would be price gouging. You could then regulate the private industries, I suppose, to prevent price gouging?

Or, of course, the government could stop requiring flood insurance from the FDIC-insured banks..

[GGT]

Which area of the US doesn't have disasters? Does it matter if they're "natural" or man-made?

Like EJ said, the east coast had an earthquake, and land-locked Vermont was flooded after a hurricane. Last spring all that mountain snow flooded several Mississippi River states. Tornadoes don't just happen in Kansas or Oklahoma, either. Texas is still battling huge fires. NO state can afford the tab for emergency rescue operations, let alone relocating people or rebuilding roads/structures.

Hell, our states can't even afford to upgrade or maintain the bridges, train tracks, or interstate highways....disaster or not.

[agamemnus]

It's a question of frequency... Kansas IS known for tornadoes, you know, and Texas is known as a hot and dry place.. the government shouldn't encourage people building in dangerous areas because that makes it more expensive for everyone else...

[earthJoker]

There are some natural disasters which occur frequently, like bush fires in dry places, or tornados/hurricanes. But that are also the kind of disasters that only happen once in centuries but have very devastating effects. You simply can't use your logic for "encourage" people to live at the right place for both kinds of disasters.

If your government really suck at city planning, maybe that would be the right choice to start a change.

[GGT]

There are some natural disasters which occur frequently, like bush fires in dry places, or tornados/hurricanes. But that are also the kind of disasters that only happen once in centuries but have very devastating effects. You simply can't use your logic for "encourage" people to live at the right place for both kinds of disasters.

If your government really suck at city planning, maybe that would be the right choice to start a change.

True. Texas is a red state, with a governor and legislature loath to "tell people what to do". I was shocked to hear a spokesperson for firefighters say there are still Texans using BBQ grills, around all that dry brush and trees that are like tinder, and asking people to be "more cautious". I'd have thought a ban on outdoor burning and water restrictions during drought would have been enacted long ago.

As for FEMA, Gov. Perry needs the federal assistance to get the inferno under control, then help with recovery and clean-up costs. Doubt he'll eat his words promising "to make the federal government as inconsequential in your lives as possible", though. For politicians who wants more state-control than federal involvement, they should be asked whether their city planning/zoning ordinances and local laws were sufficient....or if they even existed.

[agamemnus]

Doubt he'll eat his words promising "to make the federal government as inconsequential in your lives as possible", though.

Interesting. If he actually said that, and people find out, he's going to lose almost every urban dweller in a general election.

[GGT]

“I’ll promise you this,” Perry said. “I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1XBy8hBp3

[CitizenCain]

True. Texas is a red state, with a governor and legislature loath to "tell people what to do". I was shocked to hear a spokesperson for firefighters say there are still Texans using BBQ grills, around all that dry brush and trees that are like tinder, and asking people to be "more cautious". I'd have thought a ban on outdoor burning and water restrictions during drought would have been enacted long ago.

Because you think there's actually a risk of wildfires being caused by backyard grilling? There isn't even a risk of setting your own yard on fire with a backyard grill, never mind everyone else's.

Par for the course, though. GeeGee invents problem, expects government to have solved imaginary problem already, rants that government isn't doing anything about imaginary problem.

Besides, if we're going to be dealing with problems in Texas, the biggest problem is that the vast herds of unicorned albino armadillos that once covered the state thickly enough to make the state look like a glacier from space have been hunted to extinction in Texas, and the government isn't doing anything about it. They haven't even banned hunting endangered unicorned albino armadillos in neighboring states, or allocated any funds to reintroduce the unicorned albino armadillo into its natural Texan habitat.

And even if you don't care about mother Earth, the unicorned, albino armadillos once served an important role in stopping wildfires (as they are naturally flame retardant). But those crazy, gun toting Texan Wall Street Banker Madison Avenue Executive j00 Nazis had to hunt them to extinction in order to use their horns to rape gays... while drinking the blood of children and summoning Satan.

Why, oh why, didn't the government step in and ban those things sooner?!?!? If only you'd been around to demand the government outlaw gay rape and human sacrifices and setting the state of Texas on fire, we wouldn't have this mess where half the country is currently on fire, 7 out 10 gays in Texas is raped to death with extinct animal parts every day and 3.8 million children are sacrificed annually in attempts to summon Satan.

[Nessus]

Was he like this back in 2005 or whatever? Although I guess I would've found that funny then

Hell, I guess it's funny now

[GGT]

Because you think there's actually a risk of wildfires being caused by backyard grilling? There isn't even a risk of setting your own yard on fire with a backyard grill, never mind everyone else's.

Par for the course, though. GeeGee invents problem, expects government to have solved imaginary problem already, rants that government isn't doing anything about imaginary problem.

You're wrong about fire. It's a documented fact that "most fires are caused by reckless human behavior". Whether it's too many extension cords under a live Christmas tree, a hot match at a campground, or stray embers from a backyard grill....fire spreads. Texas has been in drought status for about a year, with less than a couple inches of rainfall. Trees and shrubs may look green but they're ripe for tinder. Winds blow a spark from house to house, and can "jump" down the street.

I haven't invented one damn thing. Thousands of acres and hundreds of homes are burning through Texas, and it's 0% controlled. That's a real problem, and a big one. Local and state government could have/should have stepped into mandatory prevention/protection mode ages ago, limiting outdoor burning, indoor chimney or wood stove use, fireworks, BBQ grilling, using flammable liquids near dry grasses, etc. To limit risk and save lives....for the Greater Good.

I know you hate teh evil gummint for almost everything, but it does have a useful purpose.

[Enoch the Red]

I haven't invented one damn thing. Thousands of acres and hundreds of homes are burning through Texas, and it's 0% controlled. That's a real problem, and a big one. Local and state government could have/should have stepped into mandatory prevention/protection mode ages ago, limiting outdoor burning, indoor chimney or wood stove use, fireworks, BBQ grilling, using flammable liquids near dry grasses, etc. To limit risk and save lives....for the Greater Good.

"It's looking a lot better," said Palo County Sheriff Ira Mercer.

"We actually released some firefighters to go fight the Bastrop fire."
Mercer said all roadblocks have been lifted on public roads and local authorities have begun dealing with other issues they had set aside for the last week.

The Texas Forest Service said the Possum Kingdom fire, known as the 101 Ranch Fire, was 85 percent contained this morning and firefighting conditions had changed for the better during the last 24 hours as the winds have died down.

That's not to say every wildfire in Texas is at that level of containment, rather to point out that you are grossly Chicken Little-ing the situation. Easily 99.999% of backyard BBQ's are not going to start a Bastrop style wildfire. Should we ban car use in drought prone areas because it's conceivable a car backfire could start a wildfire?

[GGT]

That's not to say every wildfire in Texas is at that level of containment, rather to point out that you are grossly Chicken Little-ing the situation. 99.999% of backyard BBQ's are not going to start a Bastrop style wildfire. Should we ban car use in drought prone areas because it's conceivable a car backfire could start a wildfire?

Glad that Possum Kingdom fire is getting controlled. There are at least three huge fires raging in separate areas, affecting Austin and Houston and their suburbs.

You may think it's "chicken little-ing" to recognize risk contagion. Especially when it comes to fires in dry, drought-ravaged areas, with high winds changing direction. But I don't downplay fire (or flood) at all. In fact, it's part of Emergency Management and Disaster Planning on every local level. Whether local legislation is part of that effort remains to be seen.

99.999% of backyard BBQ's aren't being made in Texas, or under their same risky conditions. It's SOP whenever there are dry, drought conditions that local governments implement temporary bans, just as state and federal parks and campgrounds do for any use of flame or fire. No fireworks, no grilling, no campfires, no smoking, no burning garbage, no burning of dormant crop fields. Because fire spreads as part of its nature, and spreads faster and easier on high winds over dry vegetation.

You're being ridiculous using banning cars as a comparison.

[CitizenCain]

You're wrong about fire. It's a documented fact that "most fires are caused by reckless human behavior".

Where definitions of "documented fact" == what GeeGee pulls out of her ass.

And again, backyard grilling does not cause wildfires, so there's no need for you to have your precious guvmint ban it. Again, what you need to be doing is focusing on the plight of the unicorned albino armadillo, and how government inaction allowed them to be hunted to extinction, used as a weapon of sexual violence in gencoiding the gayosexuals, and directly contributed to sacrificing millions of children to Lucifer every year. do something about THAT.

Banning grilling as solution to wildfires makes about as much sense as banning telephones to combat email spam.

Chicken Little

Let's stop bashing Chicken Little, eh? Chickens are delicious and amusing (watching the headless ones run around is amusing, at least), not to mention GeeGee makes Chicken Little look like the voice of reason. The delicious, amusing voice of reason....

[GGT]

Where definitions of "documented fact" == what GeeGee pulls out of her ass.

And again, backyard grilling does not cause wildfires, so there's no need for you to have your precious guvmint ban it. Again, what you need to be doing is focusing on the plight of the unicorned albino armadillo, and how government inaction allowed them to be hunted to extinction, used as a weapon of sexual violence in gencoiding the gayosexuals, and directly contributed to sacrificing millions of children to Lucifer every year. do something about THAT.

Banning grilling as solution to wildfires makes about as much sense as banning telephones to combat email spam.

I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. In fact, I've done that quite a bit over the years. But I'm not wrong (or pulling facts out of my ass) when it comes to fire. Fact: the spokesperson from the Texas Forest Service reminds people that most, if not all, fires are caused by human behavior. Her name is Mary Kay Hicks, in case you doubt me, and her statements are readily available on the intarweb machine. Quite consistent with every other professional forestry manager, and fire prevention authorities.

Dry forests don't spontaneously combust without some human element. Backyard trees or grasses don't start their own conflagrations. But yes, one reckless backyard BBQ griller can send a live ember or blowing spark into a grove of private dry trees or brush, and start a fire that turns into a wildfire. One stray match can burn swaths of public forest. Fire doesn't recognize private vs public lands. That's why local fire prevention ordinances are supposed to be fairly strict.

Let's stop bashing Chicken Little, eh? Chickens are delicious and amusing (watching the headless ones run around is amusing, at least), not to mention GeeGee makes Chicken Little look like the voice of reason. The delicious, amusing voice of reason....

Actually, I AM the voice of reason when it comes to FIRE. The only reasonable position is to recognize that FIRE is a living, breathing entity that spreads itself quite easily. Fire doesn't discriminate, and is something to be actively prevented and controlled. You and Enoch are busy using stupid analogies to disrespect the role of government, like banning cars or telephones, instead of respecting FIRE.


Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this Texas inferno plays out using federal funds and FEMA. More people than Perry have stated Texans don't need no stinkin' federal gummint meddling in their state affairs. That only freeee markets and private insurers can "dictate" where people build homes and businesses *or make BBQ's or campfires*, that states can take care of themselves dagnabit----and that's all there is to that!

[Enoch the Red]

Actually a good number of wildfires are caused by lightning strikes, not back yard barbeques. The majority in the American Southwest, in fact. A large percentage of man made wildfires are caused by arsonists, (the kind not worried about cooking meat for their friends and family and therefore not impacted by restrictions against them).

See, dry forests do spontaneously combust without human intervention, and have done so since time immemorial. In many cases it's actually a healthy and necessary part of the local ecosystem.

And of course, you realize that human behavior is such a wide net that it includes the fact that most of the population of Texas uses power and power lines are a possible cause of many wildfires.

[GGT]

Actually a good number of wildfires are caused by lightning strikes, not back yard barbeques. The majority in the American Southwest, in fact. A large percentage of man made wildfires are caused by arsonists, (the kind not worried about cooking meat for their friends and family and therefore not impacted by restrictions against them).

See, dry forests do spontaneously combust without human intervention, and have done so since time immemorial. In many cases it's actually a healthy and necessary part of the local ecosystem.

And of course, you realize that human behavior is such a wide net that it includes the fact that most of the population of Texas uses power and power lines are a possible cause of many wildfires.

Lightning strikes that spark wildfires are fairly rare, and don't put their own fires out unless the lightning is accompanied by rain showers. Most fires often need human intervention to keep from spreading, unless a state has several thousand acres ready to be burnt "naturally", while everyone stands around and watches.

Don't confuse "natural burning" from healthy local ecosystems when it butts up against (and threatens) civilization.

Power lines are introduced by humans. So are personal diesel-fueled generators. Both can start fires, but you'd rather cite lightning as a reason NOT to have local burning ordinances?

Well, WTF...I'd love to see how you could possibly support row homes or town homes that share walls or attics, without an evil gummint law requiring staunching fire walls. Mandatory lightning rods?

[Enoch the Red]

Lightning strikes that spark wildfires are fairly rare, and don't put their own fires out unless the lightning is accompanied by rain showers. Most fires often need human intervention to keep from spreading, unless a state has several thousand acres ready to be burnt "naturally", while everyone stands around and watches.

Don't confuse "natural burning" from healthy local ecosystems when it butts up against (and threatens) civilization.

Power lines are introduced by humans. So are personal diesel-fueled generators. Both can start fires, but you'd rather cite lightning as a reason NOT to have local burning ordinances?

Well, WTF...I'd love to see how you could possibly support row homes or town homes that share walls or attics, without an evil gummint law requiring staunching fire walls. Mandatory lightning rods?

Lighting strikes that cause wildfires are not rare. They caused over 800 wildfires in California in 2008 in a single storm. They account for 60-70% of wildfires in the Southwest. You also seem unfamiliar with heat lightning, which is not accompanied by rain showers.

Look, can human carelessness cause forest fires? Absolutely. In some areas are they the primary cause? Yes. Does that mean that your average back yard BBQ is going to cause, or is a likely cause, of wide spread wildfires? Absolutely not.

Theoretically it is possible that a grill could cause a fire, but it's also theoretically possible that a backfire from a car, or a motorcycle without a spark arrestor, or someone absent-mindedly dropping a piece of steel on the ground could.

There are any number of possible ignitions for fires, and banning/regulating them all still won't prevent fires from starting.

[CitizenCain]

I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. In fact, I've done that quite a bit over the years.

Radical thought - focus on not being consistently wrong in the first place.

But I'm not wrong (or pulling facts out of my ass) when it comes to fire. Fact: the spokesperson from the Texas Forest Service reminds people that most, if not all, fires are caused by human behavior. Her name is Mary Kay Hicks, in case you doubt me, and her statements are readily available on the intarweb machine. Quite consistent with every other professional forestry manager, and fire prevention authorities.

FACT: The spokesperson for the American Aryan Nation reminds people that most, if not all problems in this country are caused by evil j00s and their proxy soldiers, the stupid niggers and ignorant spics.

Therefore, most, if not all problems in this country are caused by niggers and spics, under the direction of their scheming, j00ish masterminds! Q.E.D.

Chrst, GeeGee, stop being such a racist asshole, blaming all these wildfires on the j00s.

Dry forests don't spontaneously combust without some human element. Backyard trees or grasses don't start their own conflagrations. But yes, one reckless backyard BBQ griller can send a live ember or blowing spark into a grove of private dry trees or brush, and start a fire that turns into a wildfire. One stray match can burn swaths of public forest. Fire doesn't recognize private vs public lands. That's why local fire prevention ordinances are supposed to be fairly strict.

The government, having banned and thus eliminated, all natural causes of fire with the BONFIRES (ban on natural fire sources) act of 1893.

Plus, my erect penis could be hit by a meteorite, be gruesomely severed and sent flying into some neighbor child's mouth!!! We must act to ban all erections immediately, unless you're in favor of sexually assaulting children! And, by the by, that's a great deal more likely to happen than my grill sending embers off to ignite some wildfire. Propane, the most popular fuel for backyard grilling, generally doesn't create embers, just for future reference.

Actually, I AM the voice of reason when it comes to FIRE.

Only for people who live their lives completely immersed in gasoline.

That only freeee markets and private insurers can "dictate" where people build homes and businesses *or make BBQ's or campfires*, that states can take care of themselves dagnabit----and that's all there is to that!

Compared to the alternative, where ignorant twits get hysterical about the risks of propane embers igniting wildfires that live, breathe, summon Satan and rape children while being completely preventable with ink on paper... Jesus Christ. The next logical extension of your idea, by the way, is banning electricity, since it causes tens of thousands of times more wildfires every every year than backyard grills ever have. Seriously, show me a wildfire started by a backyard grill.

Lightning strikes that spark wildfires are fairly rare,

Actually, they're exceptionally common, and happen thousands of times a year. On the other hand, propane embers erupting into infernos that scorch thousands of acres are completely imaginary and non-existent.

[Loki]

I think the only solution to this is to ban everyone from ever leaving their house.

[GGT]

Okay, sure, go ahead and let people start charcoal grills in dry crispy areas, during long droughts. Let any Larry, Curly or Moe set off fireworks, or build a campfire in the woods. Theoretically none of that should start a fire that spreads, let alone a statewide wildfire. Everyone tends to think fire containment is something controllable at their own hands, with a hose or fire extinguisher, or just a 911 phone call away. Well guess what, that's not the reality of Fire or how Fire works.


Besides, what's that got to do with what to do with Texas being on fire, or needing federal assistance?

[Aimless]

If someone starts a large fire that consumes Texas, what should be done with that someone?

Other than awarding mefalls I mean.

[agamemnus]

Theoretically it is possible that a grill could cause a fire, but it's also theoretically possible that a backfire from a car, or a motorcycle without a spark arrestor, or someone absent-mindedly dropping a piece of steel on the ground could.

There are any number of possible ignitions for fires, and banning/regulating them all still won't prevent fires from starting.

That's silly; of course it will. 1000-1 is always going to be 999, never 1000...

The government, having banned and thus eliminated, all natural causes of fire with the BONFIRES (ban on natural fire sources) act of 1893.

... comedian.

Seriously, show me a wildfire started by a backyard grill.

Wasn't there one that was reported by Fox like last year? At least! GGT and I watch the same teevee...

[GGT]

Oh, for fuck's sake. The Great Chicago Fire was started either by a person or a bovine, or maybe hay and a flammable liquid, but all had human impetus. Fire, itself, didn't care who started it. It just followed its nature, which is to jump and spread, using winds and tiny parts of its whole, until it finds a barricade or distinguishing element.

Who the hell wants to rely on natural barricades or rainfall, when it comes to saving towns, cities, properties, and human LIVES?

Some of y'all just want to get rid of fire departments and fire marshals as prevention activists? Forestry departments and civil engineers that aid emergency responders from having to respond in the first place? Zoning ordinances for shared walls/attics and fire walls? Temporary bans on outdoor burning during severe and prolonged droughts? Really? Really?