Amanda Ripley Author of The Unthinkable

Now the Senator from Louisiana is in an old-fashioned brawl with the White House over his hold on the nomination of Craig Fugate at FEMA, with the respective spokespeople sending hate messages back and forth across the playground, via reporters.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs called Vitter’s maneuver “political posturing”. Then Vitter’s office fired back that it had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with reforming FEMA…

Here’s Mike Allen’s take on the feud in Politico:

“I can assure you that this isn’t about politics,” Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) writes in an e-mail complaining about the Obama administration’s handling of his inquires about FEMA.

But click on a “PUTTING LOUISIANA FIRST” logo embedded right next to that quote in the mail, and you’re whisked away to the David Vitter for U.S. Senate website, which says: “We need your help in order to win this campaign.”

An update on Sen. Vitter’s hold on FEMA nominee Craig Fugate. On Monday, Vitter, Fugate and the acting director of FEMA met to try to talk it out, but it seems Vitter is not done making his point.

Why does Vitter care so much about Grand Isle? That is the mystery. Grand Isle is a small fishing and recreational community located on a barrier island. A lovely but dangerous place. The kind of place that has been battered by hundreds of storms. The kind of place that will flood again.

Vitter seems to want the federal government to fund a gym, library and firehouse in this area regardless of the risks. That seems irresponsible and reckless. The kind of pork-barrel entitlement thinking that a Republican like Vitter should abhor.

Now I realize that for the residents of Grand Isle and places like it, the equation is not so simple. These are people who have lived there for generations. But the question is, should we expect federal taxpayers to sponsor the rebuilding of a place that is not safe to live in? Does that not doom us to repeat our failures over and over again?

Why not let the locals pay for this kind of development, if it must be done? The state seems to be on its way to doing just that. So it’s unclear why this is the battle Vitter wants to fight… Meanwhile, hurricane season begins in 26 days. And FEMA still has no leader.

By the way, I called Vitter’s press secretary on Monday to learn more about this, but I haven’t heard back yet. In the meantime, his office did release this not-very-helpful statement.

Just did my first webinar of all time. I am still not sure how to explain what a webinar actually is, but I have to say, it was surprisingly pleasant. Basically, myself and two emergency managers California and Florida chatted with about 250 people about how to craft warnings (from hurricanes to wildfires to swine flu) that people will actually listen to.

Thanks to Governing Magazine for inviting me and to Visa Public Sector for sponsoring the show. I learned a lot from the listeners and my fellow panelists—Ron Lane, Emergency Services Director in San Diego County, CA, and Pete McNally, Emergency Management Director, Polk County, FL.

To hear the audio of the webinar, go here. (It’s possible I called Joe Biden a “yahoo,” but I said it with affection.)

CQ reports that Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana has blocked Craig Fugate’s nomination to run FEMA. Quite a surprise, since he sailed through the Senate Homeland Security earlier this week.

Check out the alleged reason for Vitter’s hold, as reported by the Miami Herald

“Vitter’s concerns…apparently relate to FEMA’s maps of controversial ‘high-velocity flood zones,’ a designation related to coastal areas that are at high risk in a hurricane or an area that faces significant risk in the event of a flood. Federal regulations currently prohibit FEMA from funding new construction in such zones, and Louisiana officials want more flexibility.”

Wow. So if this is right, he’s blocking the confirmation of a seasoned emergency manager (during a national emergency, no less) because he wants FEMA to fund new construction in high-risk flood zones?

Irony: Thick and swampy, like a Louisiana summer.

TSA workers are going to be searching bags on the subway in New York City, according to this unsettling report by MyFoxNY.com. Here’s the deal: NYPD is short on cops, so the TSA guys would free up some officers to go above ground, the story says.

Let’s think about this. What was the point of having cops search bags on the subway to begin with? Oh yeah, deterrence. Because after all, there’s no chance there will ever be enough cops (or TSA workers or squeegee guys) to actually find a ticking needle in a haystack.

So the upside was deterrence. And the downside? Well, that was freedom, of course—freedom from being stopped and having your personal property groped by lawmen on your way to work. I actually thought that was a reasonable trade, given the high risk of a subway bombing.

But that’s because I had faith that the guys doing the groping were trained police who understood the complicated ecosystem that is New York City. NYPD understands terrorism better than most law enforcement types, and that includes much of the FBI.

Now, I’m not saying the best detectives were down there searching bags on the F train (at least I hope they weren’t). But whoever was searching bags belonged to an organization that, while flawed in important ways, I basically sort of almost trust.

Not so with TSA. Nothing against TSA employees—who are generally hard-working, polite and underpaid. But they are not nearly as well trained as police officers. At airports, they search everyone, more or less. They aren’t expected to use their discretion to find the narrow line between reasonable searching and profiling.

And what about the upside? Well, since TSA employees don’t carry weapons, can’t arrest anyone and aren’t particularly well-respected, they won’t act as much of a deterrent, either.

So what are we left with? Carry the 2 and add the 3… Let’s see: Less deterrence, less freedom. Lose-Lose.

(Thanks to a loyal reader for the heads up on this.)