DR6
Wildchild
D6.docxWrite a 120 word response to Ashley post use Reference as well
Ashley,
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established in 2002, after the al-Qaeda terrorist attack to the US on 9/11/2001. The DHS consists of 22 different federal departments and agencies in one integrated Cabinet agency. According to its government website, the DHS has one vital mission: “to secure the nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 240,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, and our goal is clear - keeping America safe” (About DHS, 2019). With that being said, the DHS has had a journey of both successes and failures since they were created in 2002.
To be completely honest, it was much harder to find success stories on DHS over the failures. I wanted to find something current, so I investigated what DHS is doing for COVID. “The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts in preparedness and readiness have facilitated a speedy, whole-of-government response in confronting COVID-19, keeping Americans safe, and helping detect and slow the spread of the virus” (Overview of DHS Response, 2020). Over the last few weeks, the country began to slowly reopen, and the DHS has been at the aid every step of the way. As of June 15th, 2020, the DHS has been maintaining the following to ensure the public safety; providing cyber resources to public Safety communications partners during the pandemic, enhanced screenings at airports, keeping Americans safe while ensuring continuity of U.S. travel and commerce, FEMA continues to deliver needed medical supplies, supporting DHS information sharing, using data to protect first responders, care providers, and the general public, monitoring vessels that pose a risk to public health, keeping the American public safe from COVID related scams and fraud.
Based on the available evidence, DHS has not always been successfully executing its five main missions. Some of DHS’s programs could use more reconsideration, reforming DHS must begin with changing Congress’s approach to homeland security. The example I will use for this case study is the Nation’s border. The DHS's second-largest mission is to secure and manage the nation's border. “ While DHS officials have claimed that the border is more secure than ever, evidence reviewed shows that vast spans of the Southern and Northern borders remain uncontrolled and are vulnerable to illegal entry”(Coburn, 2015). In 2014 over 700 miles of US borders were left unmanned because the DHS did not deploy assets to control these areas. Until recently, DHS did not have a comprehensive strategy for securing the border and continue to ineffectively use its assets, such as its aerial surveillance equipment, to monitor the borders and assist personnel on the ground.
In conclusion, I feel that the DHS, like many new large agencies, is still growing and learning and will make some mistakes along the way but overall, they are effective and an asset for our country. Without the DHS we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to many threats that would bring us to our knees. No matter the fails, the agency always learns and grows and comes back better and stronger than before.
Write a 120 word response to Charles post use Reference as well
Charles,
Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, proved the government agencies needed better communication and coordination throughout the protective federal agencies' network. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002 was stood up to resolve many of the issues that directly affected National Security. I realize that as emergency managers we acted a localized homeland security with a much smaller reach, but providing a much-needed skillset to coordinate assets, provide guidance, and information working hands-on to ensure the best effort is put forth to protect life and property within the area assigned.
The Department of Homeland Security does the same job, but on a national scale. I clearly say the one thing the Department of Homeland Security got right or is a success is its versatility. The ability to learn from disasters like hurricane Katrina and grow and get better. The ability to be versatile is shown it coordinates and brings the agencies together while sharing knowledge and makes the information readily accessible for everyone. The campaign, “If You See Something, Say Something” (DHS, 2019). I remember this, so it must have been a very popular public message. This is where I see the DHS excelling.
Sadly, we must discuss the failure, or area that needs improvement. For many reasons, the biggest failure of the DHS is in the active shooter response. Not early enough, not in enough volume was the Department of Homeland Security’s training and education for dealing with active shooters. This is the one when you fail it is hard to find positives. This is the area that can cause almost as much pain and anguish as a major terrorist attack because this could be our kids, our neighbors, or the local school or theater. Not many events pull on the heartstrings as much as these events. Whatever agency fails here is going to have their reputation tarnished. Not that all active shootings are the fault of DHS, but this is the subject that needed to be better prioritized. For instance, “Active Shooter Emergency Action Planning Describes the fundamental concepts of developing an Emergency Action Planning (EAP) for an active shooter scenario, including important consideration of EAP development” (DHS, 2019). A great concept, but it should have had a heavier focus before now.
Write a 120 word response to Anell post use reference as well
Anell Robbins
Houses of Trash
Would you live in a house of trash if it guaranteed today's ten year olds a livable future? Explain.
I feel like every week I'm completely blown away by the documentaries from this class. This weeks documentary Garbage Warrior by Oliver Hodge was no different(2007). When discussing if I would personally live in a house of trash if it assured the future generation's livable future, my answer is unquestionably yes.
Although some of my family may think I may have lost my mind to live with no power, gas or septic lines, I feel like at some point we may not have a choice. I could not have taken this class at a more significant time. The current situation with COVID-19 has altered our world forever, and although it is not climate related it is related to change of life. Many people were left scrambling with trying to figure out how to obtain their food, and how to sustain themselves financially when there is no work. Not everyone has a job that can be done from home, and therefore many were left with out money to purchase food. Living in a house where you can sustain yourself and your family would also give you the ability to grow your own food, and have your own animals if you choose too. It would not only help the younger generation, but give you the freedom from modern technology and consumerism to get through life. You would have everything available on your own property. It would be a positive contribution to the world and to our future generation.
On the flip side of this, I feel like just because we would live in a so called garbage home, it doesn't mean we cannot live in a presentable home. A stated by Stewart, "Global innovator Miniwiz is showing how sustainable products can create a sleek, contemporary interior with the House of Trash" (2018). Miniwiz used hard core evidence to show that it is possible to live with recycled or upcycled products. It's all a matter of reprogramming our brains to think differently.
On a personal level I have three sons ages 22, 7 and an almost 10 year old, so this hits close to home. I know as a parent I would do anything in my power to ensure their future and that includes living in a house of trash. Change will also allow the ten year olds of this generation to learn how to live differently, so they can give their future generation a fighting chance. I know some people would disagree with me, but this should be a world project not just an individual project. As Michael Reynolds showed us in this weeks documentary, there are so many everyday objects, bottles, tires etc that we could use to make homes and make a sustainable living for us all.
I agree with Los Angeles Times columnist Susan Carpenter who concludes in her column, "LivingHomes C6 and the promise of affordable prefab" (Los Angeles times, 02/18/202) that these new C6 homes have the lowest environmental impact. Two reasons she gives to support her conclusion are : 1) The paint is volatile organic compound-free, and the cabinets and carpet are free of formaldehyde and urea. 2) Some of the materials have recycled to include decking, and windows and quartz counter tops. All these reusable material will help our environment.
In conclusion, change always comes with sacrifice, and I feel that as the current generation we should sacrifice for the lives of the future generation. I'm grateful for innovative people like Michael Reynolds, now all we have to do is jump on board.
Write a 120 word response to Jamie post use reference as well
Jamie,
After watching the documentary The Garbage Warrior, I have gone back and fourth on whether or not I could possibly live in a house of trash. It raised a lot of debate in my head like whether if it was actually that sturdy enough to withstand a hurricane or earthquake, can it really withstand the temperature changes we will go through, has there been enough time to determine if there were side effects health wise and home wise?, etc. I cannot imagine living in such a humid state with a house made of trash. I would think my home would be more susceptible to mold or bugs. Because this question asked me if I could live in a house of trash, I assumed would all of my trash be able to be used in the building of me house? I assume it would not, so I do not think I could live in my trash unfortunately. In the beginning of the documentary Michael Reynolds mentioned how his dad kept all of his mayo containers in his basement because he did not know what to do with them. That to me sounds like hoarding which is what I picture when being told to live in a house of trash. I also would not want to live off the grid like most Earthship homes.
I agree with Mike Reynolds (not the same as Michael Reynolds for the documentary, just a strange coincidence!) in his article with Ecohome that explains the design flaws that Earthships will face when being built in other states and countries. “The biggest flaw in the Earthship design can be traced to the misconception that the ground will keep you warm in all climates. Yes, the ground will add warmth to a cold house, but only up until the point that the temperature of your house and that of the ground reach thermal equilibrium, meaning they are equal. This is known as the Zeroth law of thermodynamics.”. As stated before, Michael has built Earthships off the grid and in Mexico as well as other typically higher temperature cities. In this article, they are questioning if it will be effective to build and Earthship in Canada is around 6.3 degrees Celsius. Michael Reynolds ended up having to use insulation in the walls for the Earthship he built in Canada.
To conclude, I would not live in trash in order to guarantee today’s 10 year old’s a livable future. I do not think there would be enough people who would make an Earthship to make the change.
