here you can read case study ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/us/nationalspeci… )
and below are questions
1. Which of the three perspectives do you find most persuasive? Least persuasive? Support your answer.
3. Setting aside the philosophical and legal issues this case raises, what are the management or efficiency arguments for and against a more centralized response to large national disasters like Hurricane Katrina? Why would we not want to have a federal fire department? If the federal government tells the states and cities they will receive no assistance in the event of a disaster, what do you think will happen?
