Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Munkii on September 12, 2005, 01:34:35 PM
-
I'm not sure what exactly is truthful in this article. I'm assuming since it came from TIME it's semi-reliable. I just a have a question that I honestly don't know. Is the Director of FEMA a politcal appointee? If so, did anyone know about all of this or is this new news so to speak.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1103003,00.html
-
Let me break it down for you.
Originally posted by Munkii
I'm not sure what exactly is truthful in this article. I'm assuming since it came from TIME it's semi-reliable.
In todays environment, one can never be sure. Though TIME's reputation is so far untarnished.
I just a have a question that I honestly don't know. Is the Director of FEMA a politcal appointee?
Yes.
If so, did anyone know about all of this or is this new news so to speak.
I wonder how many people of all levels could withstand a serious investigation of their resume. Padding, embelishing and the like is a common practice. It is even encouraged in many a 'resume creation' handbook. In the private sector these embelishments can be weeded out during the interview process. I have a feeling that much of this gets 'overlooked' in the public sector.
-
There have been several articles in written about this. It appears brown made himself out to have more responsibilities and power in a previous job that he in fact was only an assistant.
-
THIS JUST IN: Directors do more budget work than anything else
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
I wonder how many people of all levels could withstand a serious investigation of their resume. Padding, embelishing and the like is a common practice. It is even encouraged in many a 'resume creation' handbook. In the private sector these embelishments can be weeded out during the interview process. I have a feeling that much of this gets 'overlooked' in the public sector.
I would agree with you, infact I'm assuming that most of the Political Appointee's have hardly anything to do with their position anymore. I'm not sure who started the trend, but I'm not really concerned. It's very frustrating, but it's the people under them that don't get any recognition but do all the work I'm happy about. I'm not overly worried about it now that I know he is an appointee, he probably doesn't do much but show up to fundraisers anyways.
-
Well He just resigned.
Now we are going to hear all sorts of finger pointing from the left over his resignation when a week ago they were asking Bush to fire him.
-
Originally posted by Munkii
I would agree with you, infact I'm assuming that most of the Political Appointee's have hardly anything to do with their position anymore. I'm not sure who started the trend, but I'm not really concerned. It's very frustrating, but it's the people under them that don't get any recognition but do all the work I'm happy about. I'm not overly worried about it now that I know he is an appointee, he probably doesn't do much but show up to fundraisers anyways.
I'm sure that resume padding has been around as long as the resumes have been around. I'll admit that I've been had on this one myself. I've interviewed many a person for junior and mid-level technical positions and had a few get through that looked good until you actually put them to work. That's what the probationary period is for.
Problem is that when you get into the upper management positions, and this goes for government too. It turns into less of a "right person for the job' thing than a 'i don't want anyone to know I screwed up' thing. I've seen numerous cases of a Director or VP hired on for a 6 figure salary and the guys a blithering idiot. Now, no one wants to admit that fact, especially the guy/gal who made the hiring decision in the first place. We are going through this at my employer now. Our current President was hired for reasons 'other' than his knowledge of our industry or management skills. After 18 months he has been quietly 'reassigned' to other responsibilities. It would have been to embarassing for a powerfull individual to just fire his incompetant arse.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
I'm sure that resume padding has been around as long as the resumes have been around. I'll admit that I've been had on this one myself. I've interviewed many a person for junior and mid-level technical positions and had a few get through that looked good until you actually put them to work. That's what the probationary period is for.
I have a problem with not putting enough on my resume. I usually get little piddly jobs during the summer since I'm a student, then just do contract painting in the evenings and weekends during the school year. I never really bother to put down the piddly jobs on the resume, and it actually costs me. I worked for Midland Mortgage for a while and it would be a great experience to put down, but I forgot all the details of the company I worked for. (It was through a temp agency) Midland cannot confirm my employment because technically I never worked for them.
Back on topic, I'm not happy he resigned, because he should have at least some accountability for anything that might have went wrong in the relief effort. I personally don't know what or if anything else could have been done, I'm not in that position of power for a reason. I do know that with his resignation, any accountabilty for any faults in the response will not hinder him in any way, unless of course we go for the head of Homeland Security, since FEMA is under them now. Oh well, more wasted tax dollars investigating something that will never go anywhere instead of fixing things that can be fixed.
-
Originally posted by Munkii
I have a problem with not putting enough on my resume. I usually get little piddly jobs during the summer since I'm a student, then just do contract painting in the evenings and weekends during the school year. I never really bother to put down the piddly jobs on the resume, and it actually costs me. I worked for Midland Mortgage for a while and it would be a great experience to put down, but I forgot all the details of the company I worked for. (It was through a temp agency) Midland cannot confirm my employment because technically I never worked for them.
Back on topic, I'm not happy he resigned, because he should have at least some accountability for anything that might have went wrong in the relief effort. I personally don't know what or if anything else could have been done, I'm not in that position of power for a reason. I do know that with his resignation, any accountabilty for any faults in the response will not hinder him in any way, unless of course we go for the head of Homeland Security, since FEMA is under them now. Oh well, more wasted tax dollars investigating something that will never go anywhere instead of fixing things that can be fixed.
Usually a persons resignation (in situations like this) IS a self admittence of failure
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Well He just resigned.
Now we are going to hear all sorts of finger pointing from the left over his resignation when a week ago they were asking Bush to fire him.
Ahh, 'tis a good thing though. At least he was man enough to "take one for the team'. One thing I think GW has that is a fault is that he can be too loyal to his people. There are time when you just have to cut your losses.
I don't think the Libs are gonna get much traction on this event anyways. The public just isn't buying it. Once the facts come out I think we will all see that there were failures at all levels. Especially the fact that it was overlooked at all levels that the 1st responders could be as much victims of the event as anyone else. Only government could miss this obvious truth.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Usually a persons resignation (in situations like this) IS a self admittence of failure
Gunny is quite correct. Once you get above a certain level you really do not get fired. You are politely asked to submit your resignation. It helps to keep the lawyers in their holes.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Usually a persons resignation (in situations like this) IS a self admittence of failure
When is the medal ceremony?
-
Originally posted by Silat
When is the medal ceremony?
I would say never smart ass
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I would say never smart bellybutton
Well Guns a great American has resigned. Off you go Brownie... Thanks for lying on your resume...
Now really, When is that medal ceremony?:)
Isnt it a crime to lie on your resume to the feds?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Well Guns a great American has resigned. Off you go Brownie... Thanks for lying on your resume...
Now really, When is that medal ceremony?:)
Isnt it a crime to lie on your resume to the feds?
I wondered about the medal myself. lol
As far as I know he didn't lie as to the job titles he just exaggerated his responsibilities he had at them.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
As far as I know he didn't lie as to the job titles he just exaggerated his responsibilities he had at them.
Except the Nursing home. No one had heard of him.
-
They usually don't give medals for being the fall guy.
-
They should give a science medal to Nagin and Blanco, for proving buses can not float in water..
-
Typically when somene resigns it is because he was asked to. Or is given the choice of resigning or being fired.
The resignation is a way to be seen as saving face.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
I don't think the Libs are gonna get much traction on this event anyways. The public just isn't buying it. Once the facts come out I think we will all see that there were failures at all levels. Especially the fact that it was overlooked at all levels that the 1st responders could be as much victims of the event as anyone else. Only government could miss this obvious truth.
Not through lack of effort for some like Bill Maher.
Anyone check out this weeks "Real Time with Bill Maher"?
Dont think I've seen a group of more clueless people in my life.
Least on this topic.
Everything from the feds didnt go in because they people there were black to The feds shoulda been in there the second day.
I cant watch more then 5 min of the show before I want to reach therough the TV set and grab Maher by his selfrightous throat and just choke him till his eyes pop out LOL
Basically is a show of liberals bashing anything they can on the right. As often as not they lure some right winged sucker in there as a sort of sacraficial lamb and proceed to have their way with them.
The more I see of this kind of nonsense the more I am inclined to agree with a local Radio show host out here.
"I hope the Dems win the next election. I really do.
Not because I support them but because I just cant take the whining anymore.
Take the presidency, here its yours. Just PLEASE stop all the whining."
-
Brown was an appointee, but he had to be approved by the THEN Democratically-controlled Senate...Lieberman gave him a warm tribute at the time
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Not through lack of effort for some like Bill Maher.
Anyone check out this weeks "Real Time with Bill Maher"?
Dont think I've seen a group of more clueless people in my life.
Least on this topic.
Everything from the feds didnt go in because they people there were black to The feds shoulda been in there the second day.
I cant watch more then 5 min of the show before I want to reach therough the TV set and grab Maher by his selfrightous throat and just choke him till his eyes pop out LOL
Basically is a show of liberals bashing anything they can on the right. As often as not they lure some right winged sucker in there as a sort of sacraficial lamb and proceed to have their way with them.
The more I see of this kind of nonsense the more I am inclined to agree with a local Radio show host out here.
"I hope the Dems win the next election. I really do.
Not because I support them but because I just cant take the whining anymore.
Take the presidency, here its yours. Just PLEASE stop all the whining."
Yea I happen to watch this weeks and last weeks epp and it really got me mad. Normally the show is entertaining but they basically called all the reports of looting "right wing slant" These tards have no clue what FEMA does nore do they know the geography of NO. It was pathetic idiocy.
Notice how when ever you see somone on TV tell a liberal about the complete failures of the local govt they say somthing like: "yes there's probably plenty of blame to go around and we'll find that out later BUT" And the next sentence contains one or both of the following words "Bush" or "FEMA".
You gotta love liberals.....they try so hard at failing.
-
"Brownie, your doing a heckuva job!"
"Nobody had any idea that the levees wouldn't hold."
Anyone care to guess who these quotes are from? Kinda makes you wonder about the others he has and wants to appoint, doesn't it?
-
It's been 4 years since 9/11. What's changed? Well for one, Homeland Security was created, and FEMA was rolled into it.
So lets imagine that it wasn't NOLA the last couple of weeks. Lets imagine instead that it was Los Angeles. And lets say that it wasn't a flood, but some catastrophic terrorist attack. Nukes or germs or something.
Now, what would all the finger pointing about jurisdiction sound like to you? What would blaming a mayor sound like to you? What would the excuses for five days of inaction sound like? How to account for the near total breakdown of communications, command and control? How to account for the lack of any meaningful leadership?
Would it be enough to say "Well yeah, Homeland Security tried to do its job, but the damned Mayor screwed it all up!" Would that really fly? I hope not.
So four years after 9/11, what is the lesson of NOLA?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Brown was an appointee, but he had to be approved by the THEN Democratically-controlled Senate...Lieberman gave him a warm tribute at the time
I don't like Lieberman, so boo on him for them not fact checking. Besides, if it's a political appointee, the only reason they are usually denied is if they purposefully pissed someone off in a seat of power on one of the committees.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Now, what would all the finger pointing about jurisdiction sound like to you? What would blaming a mayor sound like to you? What would the excuses for five days of inaction sound like?
How to account for the near total breakdown of communications, command and control?
How to account for the lack of any meaningful leadership?
Would it be enough to say "Well yeah, Homeland Security tried to do its job, but the damned Mayor screwed it all up!" Would that really fly? I hope not.
Juristiction.
Placing the blame where it belongs. Although he shares it with the governor who deserves the lions share
The Law.
Screw up with FEMA
What happens when a beurocrat is appointed to a position he is unqalified to have.
the Fed did try to do their job. The Governor and mayor DID screw up.
Dunno about the land of the maple leaf but down here there are laws the federal government HAS to follow
Fly or not. thats the way it is
-
Well good luck to ya then.
If Homeland Security hasn't already worked it all out with the various states when it comes to getting in there and averting compounded disaster, then what good are they?
Are we to assume that Homeland Security is gonna do its job, so long as all the phones work, and an amicable solution can be reached within 48 hours of the event on the questions of jurisdiction; upon such time resources will be freed up and allocated?
This is a response to disaster?
Dunno about you. Seems weak to me. If this stuff aint figured out in advance then why even bother?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
They usually don't give medals for being the fall guy.
How soon you forget Tenet.
-
Working for the Feds,...Being Honest?
Those two things together just don't sound right.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Brown was an appointee, but he had to be approved by the THEN Democratically-controlled Senate...Lieberman gave him a warm tribute at the time
I knew this feasco was all the dems fault, I just didnt know exactly how, thanks for the heads up :)
shamus
-
Nash I really hope you lie awake each night worrying about America's Homeland Security.
:D
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's been 4 years since 9/11. What's changed? Well for one, Homeland Security was created, and FEMA was rolled into it.
So lets imagine that it wasn't NOLA the last couple of weeks. Lets imagine instead that it was Los Angeles. And lets say that it wasn't a flood, but some catastrophic terrorist attack. Nukes or germs or something.
Now, what would all the finger pointing about jurisdiction sound like to you? What would blaming a mayor sound like to you? What would the excuses for five days of inaction sound like? How to account for the near total breakdown of communications, command and control? How to account for the lack of any meaningful leadership?
Would it be enough to say "Well yeah, Homeland Security tried to do its job, but the damned Mayor screwed it all up!" Would that really fly? I hope not.
So four years after 9/11, what is the lesson of NOLA?
Said about the same exact thing to my brother. It shows me we are nowhere near prepared for any large scale terrorist attack and if one occurs you will have a repeat of NOLA. You would have thought they would be ready for any large scale disasters/attacks, but obviously we are not.
-
Yeah, the biggest flaw in the H.L.S's plans was their relience on the local 1st responders to handle the situation in the 1st few hours/days after the event. Not taking into account that those same 1st responders would have been evacuated or in the case of say a nuclear attack, they'd be dead.
We now know that in disasters, as in warfare, the plan seldom last long after the event/battle begins. What we need are leaders that will make decisions and get it done and damn the concequences. (and damn the lawyers also!)
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
We now know that in disasters, as in warfare, the plan seldom last long after the event/battle begins. What we need are leaders that will make decisions and get it done and damn the concequences. (and damn the lawyers also!)
Bingo.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Well good luck to ya then.
If Homeland Security hasn't already worked it all out with the various states when it comes to getting in there and averting compounded disaster, then what good are they?
Are we to assume that Homeland Security is gonna do its job, so long as all the phones work, and an amicable solution can be reached within 48 hours of the event on the questions of jurisdiction; upon such time resources will be freed up and allocated?
This is a response to disaster?
Dunno about you. Seems weak to me. If this stuff aint figured out in advance then why even bother?
Lets say Im a fireman and your a homeowner.
Now lets say that by law even though your house is in fire I cannot enter your home to put out the fire without your expressed consent.
Now lets say your house is on fire and I ask you to let me into your house to put it out and you say "No" untill the house is half burned down.
Who's fault is it your house burned up?
Mine for following the law?
Or yours for refusing to let me in until it was already half destroyed?
-
"
Lets say Im a fireman and your a homeowner."
which completly misses nashs point.
if that were the case, people would be required to sign a paper saying "if i *** up and burn down the house, you can save my stupid ass" while there buying said house...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
"
Lets say Im a fireman and your a homeowner."
which completly misses nashs point.
if that were the case, people would be required to sign a paper saying "if i *** up and burn down the house, you can save my stupid ass" while there buying said house...
and if Bush had sent troops into LA. without permission from the gov. she and other dems. would have been screaming bloody murder.
not to mention he would have broken the law.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
"
Lets say Im a fireman and your a homeowner."
which completly misses nashs point.
if that were the case, people would be required to sign a paper saying "if i *** up and burn down the house, you can save my stupid ass" while there buying said house...
Perhaps you should reread the rest of my post.
Nash, and perhaps you miss the point that the federal government has to follow the law with respect to states rights
Although the changing of that law may be debateable.
Until it is. Its not even a subject thats debateable.
If it were to happen again tomorrow in lets say Ga. and the governor there said "no you cant come in" the federal government is obligated by law not to.
thats just the way it is
Point is the feds BY LAW. cannot just go into a state and take over without the consent of said state.
The Governor refused to give that consent until the damage was already half done.
Now whos fault was it that the feds didnt get in there sooner?
the Feds for obeying the law? Or the governor for not giving concent till after it was already too late.
Yes I will agree the fed bungled it once they did get in. But the situation was made far far worse then it needed to be by the governors refusal to allow the feds in.
the only way the feds could legally go in is if there was in insurrection and that wasnt the case. Looting does not an insurrection make.
And even if they had gone in federal troops are not allowed BY LAW to do policework.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and if Bush had sent troops into LA. without permission from the gov. she and other dems. would have been screaming bloody murder.
not to mention he would have broken the law.
Exactly.
Yea maybe the "right" thing to do was to say the hell with the consequences just go in and do it. But the would also be setting a very dangerous precident
-
Oh? (http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/crskatrinarept91205.pdf)
-- All necessary conditions for federal relief were met on August 28. Pursuant to Section 502 of the Stafford Act, "(t)he declaration of an emergency by the President makes Federal emergency assistance available," and the President made such a declaration on August 28. The public record indicates that several additional days passed before such assistance was actually made available to the State;
-- The Governor must make a timely request for such assistance, which meets the requirements of federal law. The report states that "(e)xcept to the extent that an emergency involves primarily Federal interests, both declarations of major disaster and declarations of emergency must be triggered by a request to the President from the Governor of the affected state";
-- The Governor did indeed make such a request, which was both timely and in compliance with federal law. The report finds that "Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco requested by letter dated August 27, 2005...that the President declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period from August 26, 2005 and continuing pursuant to (applicable Federal statute)" and "Governor Blanco's August 27, 2005 request for an emergency declaration also included her determination...that 'the incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of disaster."
What now, folks?
-
If thats true then thats not the way I heard it.
New news to me.
I suspect in the comming months we will be able to peice together what really happened