I don't think funding watchdog organizations really fits the goal of the article.
The article also went over realistic and unrealistic risks and urged the reader to focus on realistic risks and not zombie apocalypse scenarios.
I don't think funding watchdog organizations really fits the goal of the article.
The article also went over realistic and unrealistic risks and urged the reader to focus on realistic risks and not zombie apocalypse scenarios.
If I trusted FEMA or the Red Cross - which I don't, for reasons I mentioned - then I would likely face simpler adversities.
If those relief organizations were able to get tents, food, and water to New Orleans within 2 days after Katrina hit - which they could do if they were well-run and funded - then I wouldn't have to plan for possibly two weeks of self-sufficiency should a major hurricane hit.
Is it better for me to spend a lot of money on myself for something that isn't likely? Or pay less for something that is of overall more use for myself, my community, city, state, and nation?