WOLFIE! WOLFIE! WOLFIE!

I pick Wolf! I think she'd be great!

I keep it at work, so I'll have to check. The name doesn't ring a bell. It might even be a house brand. It's an orange-yellow box with red writing.

I think Wolf would be a perfect choice for the job. After all, Bush is so big on faith-based initiatives and I think Pagans are severely underrepresented in the recovery work right now. They have the right and the duty to care for "their people" in NO :D

Brown's job is not to manage disasters.

It is his job to manage a huge corporation whose job it is to manage disasters.

Neither of which is he qualified for.

Which is why the top man must have experience in managing disasters? Business school philosophy says Brownie needs no disaster experience to "manage an organization that manages disasters". Ironic. George Jr is a graduate of that education. Damning coincidence - or also why other disasters such as the NE Blackout two years ago, the Challenger, and Three Mile Island all have those same symptoms. Top management had no experience with the organization's product.

According to business school concepts, an acceptable manager of a mental health facility would be a realtor or a bank auditor - especially if he has no medical or science training.

I'm pretty sure the CEO of IBM can't build a computer, and probably has trouble turning one on.

That was when IBM was losing money everywhere. Let us look at what Bill Gates found on CEO Aker's desk and on the desk of everyone else in IBM corporate in early 1990s. IBM XTs with CGA monitors. IOW when the top man could not even use a computer, then IBM's own corporate office was using computers that could not execute any software sold in computer stores.

Then Gerstner arrived bring with him some MBAs. IBM still lost employees, sales, etc. Then Gerstner promoted five long time IBM employees - all with product experience - to top positions. Today we now see the so productive response. Meanwhile Gerstner could also use a computer.

You don't have to know how to build a computer to meet the criteria defined. Just like a hospital administration need not have performed surgery. But that hospital administrator better have some kind of medical experience. It’s called 'having dirt under the fingernails'.

Correctly stated - Wolf's credentials are better than Brownie's for a job as Director of FEMA. That does not say Wolf is qualified for the job. It does explain the obvious - why Brown is so bad - not anywhere near as qualified as Wolf. Brown was more than that bad - a classic example of a political appointee or how a classic MBA selects subordinates. It's no accident that FEMA had a massive brain drain about 4 fours ago.

Both Michael Brown and his boss Chertoff are lawyers. Both have no experience in disaster management. So as Michael Brown was outrightly lying and impeding assistance to the victims, Michael Chertoff was saying Brown was doing a good job. Notice that lies and inventing reality are what lawyers do and other lawyers approve of. Michael Chertoff had no idea of the job Brown was doing because Chertoff was only a lawyer.

And then it gets worse. Both men answer to an MBA who in turn says, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." One need only look at the resumes to appreciate that Wolf is far more qualified for a disaster management job. The resumes along say, "More than 85% of problems are directly traceable to these top managers." People died as a result.

Who elected these people anyway? Notice they are the ones now so silent.

Another small step in the right direction - Brown is officially out, according to Daily Kos.

Question:

From the Bush Administration's perspective, which scenario offers the best spin? Fire Michael Brown, or accept his resignation?

I would have thought there would be points (maybe poll points) to be earned by acknowledging his poor performance and firing him. I know this administration, and GWB in particular, value loyalty very highly. Perhaps they thought that firing him would diminish that reputation. Certainly they don't think that they're expecting to shed any responsibility for Brown's (in)actions by meekly accepting his resignation?

Or, worse, don't think that he should leave the post at all?

Here's a real article.

Another link on Brown's resignation.

My favorite excerpt:
Oops. Tee-hee.
:lol2::lol::lol2:

Assistant to the City Manager
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffic...ain_gareth.jpg

Bigger question, slightly off topic:

Why, oh why, would you lie on your resume? I mean, really. Don't you think the stakes are a little high? And with an interested party (your employer) with whom you're hoping to have a long term relationship. I don't get it.