QROT-12: Misgivings on "Emergency Management"
Sep 13, 2021, 11:30 AM
1. Emergencies are meant to be exceptional, not full-time.
2. "Emergency Management" makes leaders not lead.
3. It causes confusion.
Emergency Management as play-time.
If they're rare (by definition they are), how can and should they justify whole offices.
Why aren't manuals with steps just used by the related teams that are operational every day? Those are the people who you use anyway (police, fire, search and rescue, etc) who ARE the experts for emergencies.
3:05: Tending toward accepting of a full-time emergency.
3:47: Confusion and coincidence.
4:55: Turns into military mindset of "follow your superior" and "follow the steps we told you" automatically. And to what extent does it take it into the need to return to normal life? Especially in an ongoing emergency that changes the basics of life.
8:28: We already have emergency services that contains operational experts and their management.
10:15: Whether meant or not, emergency management infrastructure is an apparatus, where leaders don't lead. "Who am I to lead? I'm only the mayor after all."
18:12: Imagined convo:
"Who am I. I'm ONLY the President. Who am I to really, really analyze, and make my own decisions, if some health technocrats [or emergency management types] tell me NOT to?"
"WHO do you think you are?!"
"Well, I thought I was the President. I feel like I should have some pretty good say so here."
"NO. We're on automatic mode now! . . . There's no analysis to be done, unless and until we tell you."
18:37: [Tyson]: "huh, I wonder, if that serves the interest of some people, if they won't influence the, quote, emergency management types, the technocrats, the 'health experts,' to continue that situation. And be 'OUTRAGED' that a political officeholder would dare to to exercise independent thought and leadership."
["Explicit" for two curse words. One mild, and then the other one - the F word. Well two f-words if you count that I mention Anthony "Fearci."]
2. "Emergency Management" makes leaders not lead.
3. It causes confusion.
Emergency Management as play-time.
If they're rare (by definition they are), how can and should they justify whole offices.
Why aren't manuals with steps just used by the related teams that are operational every day? Those are the people who you use anyway (police, fire, search and rescue, etc) who ARE the experts for emergencies.
3:05: Tending toward accepting of a full-time emergency.
3:47: Confusion and coincidence.
4:55: Turns into military mindset of "follow your superior" and "follow the steps we told you" automatically. And to what extent does it take it into the need to return to normal life? Especially in an ongoing emergency that changes the basics of life.
8:28: We already have emergency services that contains operational experts and their management.
10:15: Whether meant or not, emergency management infrastructure is an apparatus, where leaders don't lead. "Who am I to lead? I'm only the mayor after all."
18:12: Imagined convo:
"Who am I. I'm ONLY the President. Who am I to really, really analyze, and make my own decisions, if some health technocrats [or emergency management types] tell me NOT to?"
"WHO do you think you are?!"
"Well, I thought I was the President. I feel like I should have some pretty good say so here."
"NO. We're on automatic mode now! . . . There's no analysis to be done, unless and until we tell you."
18:37: [Tyson]: "huh, I wonder, if that serves the interest of some people, if they won't influence the, quote, emergency management types, the technocrats, the 'health experts,' to continue that situation. And be 'OUTRAGED' that a political officeholder would dare to to exercise independent thought and leadership."
["Explicit" for two curse words. One mild, and then the other one - the F word. Well two f-words if you count that I mention Anthony "Fearci."]