Finally, our new pastor grabbed the microphone and scolded the congregation: "Remember, this is for God."
And the very next person who was nominated sheepishly accepted the position.
I think I was only 13 at the time. But, I think it's safe to say that, in that moment, I knew what evil was.
I complained to my mother and father that our pastor had just manipulated the faith of our congregation to achieve his ends. Granted, we needed someone to head up the program. Yes, it was for a noble cause. But it was the WAY he did it.
A man who'll do anything is, by definition, a man who cannot be trusted.
Roughly 5 years later, I was off to Princeton, but my church was in shambles. The congregation had been reduced to a skeleton crew - many long time members were driven away by the irrational, vendictive, tactics and rank incompetence of the pastor. The parsonage was in disarray. The church was practically bankrupt from extravagant, yet totally unnecessary & irresponsible projects like installing central air throughout a 150 year old gothic cathedral. And the conference refused to heed the cries of those who remained, desperate for a new leader. It was only after those members who were left withheld their offerings and refused to financially support the church or the conference, that the bishop finally got the message and got us a new pastor. In time, the church rebuilt into something even better than it's past glory.
Many years later, my mother (one of the diehards who would NEVER let anyone, not even a whack pastor, run her out of HER church) told me that one of the other members had run into our old, whack pastor. Not only was he completely unrepentent about the damage he'd done to my church. He proudly proclaimed that God had sent him on a mission to break the church down.
Why am I telling this story today?
America lost a city this week.
Whoops.
As my girlfriend often says "everything is for you." It's either for your benefit, or it's for your education.
I think we have alot more learning in store over the next three years, y'all.
I don't think this is a simple tale of incompetence. The reason the military wasn't rushed in to help along the Gulf Coast is, I believe, the same reason nothing was done to stop looting after the fall of Baghdad. Flood control was neglected for the same reason our troops in Iraq didn't get adequate armor.Amen.
At a fundamental level, I'd argue, our current leaders just aren't serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in need or spending on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for shared sacrifice.
9 comments:
bro. young,
since i can't imagine that you're blaming the hurricane itself on our beloved president, i assume you mean that the federal response (or ther co-ordination thereof?) leaves something to be desired? or are you speculating that people will try to draw religious conclusions about why this happened to the people of New Orleans?
just wondering...usually it's pretty clear what you mean, but this time i didn't quite follow.
yes, despite the Louisiana federal delegation BEGGING for the money to finish the leveys, and despite FEMA listing the hurricane & subsequent flooding of New Orleans if the leveys weren't finished as one of the three biggest natural disasters looming in America two years ago, the Federal government (i.e. congressional republicans & the president, since they control everything), cut the funding so that the leveys could not be finished. Why? So they could fund the invasion of Iraq & tax cuts. Not to mention that 40% of the Louisiana National Guard is in Iraq, along with most of their equipment, so they can't help with crowd control or evacuation or search and rescue.
No, the hurricane itself isn't the President's fault. But the disaster that's happened as a result was totally avoidable, and that is a failure of leadership on the President's part.
And, no, the President doesn't get credit for having the foresight to put troops on the ground to protect our oil interests, because the number of troops he sent DON'T protect our oil interests. All they've done is turn a Fascist dictatorship into an Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy.
My point is, the President is incompetent - he can't even accomplish the goals that he himself has set, with full control of the Federal government. He can't protect the nation.
BUT, we need examples of incompetent leadership every now and then to remind us what a leader is really supposed to do so that we know what to really ask for next time.
My understanding is that they've known since the 1960's that the levees would not withstand more then a cat 3 storm. All of your life they've known that this could happen and they did nothing.
As for the most recent budget, the congress puts pork in all the time, which the President bemoans (be it Bush or the beloved Clinton). The Louisiana congressional delegation could have gotten that money back in 2 years ago or even last year.
As for the Guard and their equipment. I doubt their equipment is in Iraq. Units have been falling in on the equipment of the units that have preceded them. Besides that, if the Louisiana Guard is an Armored unit, you can't move people on tanks and Bradleys or rocket launchers. So them being home may not have made a difference...except move people caught in downtown New Orleans.
The people who are to be in the forefront on this crisis are the Governor and the Mayor. The Feds support them, not the other way around. There is a lack of leadership, but its at the local level. Usually, the Feds come when called. If the locals don't or can't call, the Feds show up late.
I know Bush is hated and is the current President, but this has been in the making since hurricane Camille.
As for the Iraq, maybe we should wait to see what they do with their constitution. But we do have enough troops to attack and secure the oil fields. There is a big difference between securing a city and an oil field and the pipelines.
Just food for thought!!
Who's talking about Clinton?
See, what I think is very instructive here is that, whenever anyone complains about something Bush is doing, Harold, you immediate reaction is to say "well, Clinton didn't do any better". Bill Clinton is no longer President.
I know you support the goals of the Iraq war, and I know you yourself are unhappy with the way that the war has been conducted, even going as far to say Rumsfeld should be fired. But Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the President.
Even if local officials had to use a special bat phone to call the President to get Federal aid, there are other things that the president can do, short of declaring martial law, such as freezing the price of oil, or ordering the airlines to provide emergency transportation, or simply cutting his vacation short and IMMEDIATELY going to the disaster site as soon as it's safe to provide leadership if it looks like the locals are failing.
This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton, and, frankly, I'm amazed that, 6 years after the fact, guys like you are still so insecure about your president that you need to take every opportunity when someone criticizes him to try to make it into a Bill Clinton attack.
And, clearly, the US does not have enough troops on the ground to attack and guard the oil in Iraq, because the bombings have increased and the oil isn't flowing.
So, Bush has failed in his goals to democratize & pacify Iraq. He's failed to prevent the deaths of maybe thousands in New Orleans by taking his sweet time to get down there or to make sure that resources are down there.
Now, I know you'll argue that none of the things I've just said are actually true, or that they don't matter (probably because Bill Clinton did something worse, right?).
So, my question is, what does matter? What would have to happen for you to say that George Bush is a failure as President? What would it take for you to admit that he is not fit for duty?
Would it be something silly like getting a blow-job in the Oval Office? or would it be something that actually has to do with his job, like protecting the people of the United States?
See, my suspicion is that there is NOTHING that Bush could do that would get you to actually criticize him. Given your responses over the years, I've come to believe that Bush could come light your house on fire and you'd still find a way to justify it and say "I still support the president".
WHY?
What has this man done for you to earn your undying loyalty, even in the face of rank incompetance?
is it because you think he's doing God's work?
is it because he pretends to love the military as much as you do?
is it because he likes to go shoot and blow up things?
Or, is it just because you can't admit you made a mistake in backing this particular pony?
Listen to yourself...I understand that folks hate Bush! But to blame him for what's going on in New Orleans is bizarre!
I've been in military planning sessions for relief in an African country. It takes time to move equipment and people. If they planned in Louisiana for a Cat 3 storm, they were wrong. But they need infrastructure left to operate. So planning for a cat 4 may have been useless. And why did a city sitting in a bowl not have a 20 year old plan for such an emergency?
I mentioned Clinton in the context pork barrel spending!! That's it!! Some folks mention Clinton to show how hypocritical the Bush bashers can be. But I only mentioned him this time, in that he faced the same problem as Bush.
I read an article today that says the first levee to break was the one just refurbished...by Bush. They thought it was the strongest one. It failed. I guess Bush made sure the repairs were done poorly, so New Orleans could be destroyed.
Did Bush send people to the Superdome with a cat 4 storm heading their way? I think that was the Mayor or the Governor. I also guess it was Bush who sent folks to the Astrodome only to find out the Fire Marshalls would only allow in 12,000.
Are you disputing the fact that they've known that New Orleans could be destroyed by a hurricane for the past 30 years. And if you don't dispute that fact, why is it Bush's fault?
You say Bush should order the airlines to perform emergency transport...but fly in where. The military has just got the nearest airport back up. You can't fly planes into a destroyed airport.
Freezing the price of oil does what? Further, some of the oil platforms in the gulf were damaged or destroyed as well as the refineries. Aren't the oil companies going to need money to rebuild? We're not even going to talk about this country's lack of oil refining capacity...I guess that's Bush's fault too.
If Bush would have gone straight there on Tuesday, people would have complained that he was either grandstanding or he was using resources that could have been better utilized to help the citizens of New Orleans. Remember it takes a lot to move the President...even one as hated as Bush.
Please keep in mind one thing, the infrastructure of the gulf coast has been destroyed. The military must travel by rail (tracks knocked out), road (washed away) or air (airports destroyed). So they can only move so fast. And if you pre-position stuff, you still need to get to it and it must survive the storm and the flood.
What is a failed Presidency? Truman got us into the Korean conflict, which we did not win...it was a draw. Johnson got us into Vietnam...which we lost. Lincoln got the country into a civil war and half of it was destroyed. No one calls them failed Presidents. Bush still has 3 years to complete his goals, whatever they may be. At the end of 3 years we can determine whether his presidency was a failure or not. Oh, as for the oil in Iraq. I saw a report that said they are pumping at close to 90% capacity. And the Marines took the oil fields when Saddam wanted to blow them up. You only hear about the pipelines being bombed you don't hear anything about the oil fields being bombed...I wonder why! The security at the oil fields seems fine.
As for me, I'm not singing Bush's praises. He's a white man like all the rest of our Presidents. I won't say whether I think he's failed or not until his term is over. At this point I think he's done well with the hand he was dealt. Besides that, I'm sure you never thought he would win re-election (no I'm going to debate whether he really won the first time).
Do you think if Kerry had won the election, the hurricane would not have destroyed the gulf coast...or that we'd be out of Iraq today? And, if a comet hit Chicago today (since scientist have said its only a matter of time before the planet is hit, and we could have developed a defense system to stop it) would that be Bush's fault!
the city's sitting on a marsh - it's been sinking, which is why, now, it's below sea level.
AND, the fed removed the restrictions against development in the wetlands that had previously helped protect the city from flooding.
Let me repeat - I'm not blaming Bush for the hurricane. I'm blaming him for cutting funding to finish the leveys in the last budget, right after we'd had the worst hurricane season on record. The Louisiana delegation has been getting ignored by this for years - silly me, I assumed, after watching three hurricanes in a row destroy huge chunks of Florida last year, SOMEBODY in charge might have actually listend to them. I'm blaming him for sending the national guard over to Iraq, many of whom would have been the first responders in their civilian jobs who could have reacted to this crisis. I'm blaming him for dragging his feet all week. Who cares if the people hate him or if people think he's grandstanding? he's the President of the United States. he's SUPPOSED to be there, whether he's popular or not. It's a national emergency. The governors & the mayors have been screaming all week that they don't have the resources to respond, or coordinate, which is why they've been begging for the feds to get involved.
The oil companies have been breaking profit records every year since Bush took office. Somehow, I think they'll be alright. The point of freezing the price of oil is to prevent price gouging and minimizing the effect of this disaster on the overall economy (i.e. consumer gasoline, heating oil, transportation & shipping, etc.). Let the oil companies eat a bit of the profits for a while as part of their civic duty to chip in.
Truman? It was a draw. I'd consider him a wash.
Johnson? Domestically, he did great things. Internationally, he was a failure, which preventing him from doing greater things domestically.
Lincoln? To say he got us into the civil war kind of removes the culpability of the rebels, don't you think? And, in the end, he won and reunited the country. Sounds like a success to me.
If the war is so important to our national security, why hasn't the President publicly plead the case for young men & women to sign up and contribute to the effort? Why hasn't he issued war bonds or raised taxes to help pay for it instead of
borrowing from Japan & Germany & China, mortgaging the country's future?
His energy plan has done zilch to effect the price of gasoline. His education plan, since it doesn't fund the mandates it imposes, has nearly bankrupted the states, to the point where some, like Connecticut, are actually suing the feds.
They've put in place a perscription drug plan that actually forces the government to spend MORE money for medicare drugs.
The military keeps adjusting their recruiting goals, and, even at the lower numbers, they continue to miss them, while guardsmen & reservists are forced into longer foreign tours well beyond what they'd ever signed on for or committed to.
They even rejected the initial offerings of aid & financial support from other countries to help with the Gulf Coast disaster before cooler heads in the State department finally prevailed.
America is poorer, weaker, and less safe. ALL of which was avoidable, had the commander-in-chief made different decisions.
So, if he can undo the things that are his fault in the next three years, great. But he's had five already, and what has that gotten us?
If Kerry had won the election, I don't think he'd be on the news making excuses like 'no one could have anticipated this'. I don't think his FEMA director would be making rediculous comments like "we'll we told them all to get out of the city, so if they stayed, they basically get what they deserve." Huge chunks of these people are sick, elderly, or can't afford transportation of their own, and the mayor told FEMA that. Kerry certainly wouldn't be on a 5-week long vacation. And I don't even LIKE Kerry!
Let me repeat: I'm NOT saying Bush caused the hurricane (and I'm amazed I even have to say that, let alone say it twice).
What I AM saying is that Bush's policies were a major hinderance to New Orleans ability to defend itself against the hurricane, and Bush's casual attitude to the whole thing helped to make matters even worse.
Now, you say that Bush is so hated. That wasn't always the case. Remember how high his approval ratin g was just after 9/11? Heck, the guy just got re-elected less than a year ago.
People don't hate in a vacuum. ANd a whole lot of those people who hate Bush now voted for him last year. Clearly, something's changed.
Even Bush HIMSELF admits they hadn't done enough! See this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9157866/
So, now that the President himself has said that the federal response to the crisis was unacceptable, are you willing to at least concede THAT point? Or do you just want to argue for the sake of arguing?
So are yo giving Bush credit for admitting that things didn't go well? I doubt that very seriously.
I've been watching C-SPAN, their pretty a-political. They've had on the Commander of the Army Corps of Engineers. He refutes at lot of what people are saying. He said yesterday, that there was money for the wetland project. But it wouldn't have helped. A levee project was just completed. It was the levee that failed!!
The Mayor of New Orleans told his people to go to the Superdome, knowing he had no way to get them out if the city flooded.
The FEMA director said for them to evac New Orleans, but they didn't. Now the Fed doesn't come in until the disaster strikes, so getting folks out ahead of the event was on the city and state...they dropped the ball!!
The Corp of Engineers said that there was never a plan to get the levees up to withstand a Cat 4 storm. But folks had known for a very long time that New Orleans could be hit.
As for the Guard personnel, they would have been in the storm, and refugees just like everyone else. There are New Orleans cops that are unaccounted for...I think 500. The Guardsmen had to be activated by the Governor...there seems to have been a lag in that happening. One story says once all the communication (phone lines and towers) went down the Governor couldn't get the word out to the Guards or the Feds. With all of the deployments of the military I guess you missed the story that 38, 000 troops (Guards) have been deployed to the region. How is that, they took folks from other places to help out...which takes time. Remember, the Guardsmen are sitting at home or work when they call for them to come in. This time on a moments notice.
As for the price of gas and their profits...aren't they in business to make a profit? I don't remember the last time they didn't make a profit, especially when in the economy is humming right along. If they weren't making a profit we'd all be in trouble!!!
There is nothing Bush could ever do to win over the Bush haters. These folks will jump on every little thing to say how bad he is! We don't know all of the facts, and until they do the usual after action, Congressional investigation we won't know what did or didn't happen.
You still won't deal with the fact that New Orleans has had 30 years to work their evac plans (oh we don't have one), plans to feed people who they told to go to the Superdome (oh no food and water), and back-up communications (lets get on TV and cry). Yes the response was pettiful, but it starts at the local level, then the state, and finally the feds. I just wish the Bush haters would wait for the dust to settle, actually the water to recede to start placing blame!! Especially, when this is the worse natural disaster this country has ever seen!!
In other words, "no, you're not going to concede what Bush himself has already admitted, because you'd prefer to argue in his defense."
As far as you're concerned, the President bears no responsibility. Bush can do no wrong. It's everybody else's fault.
Thanks for taking the time to clear that up.
Post a Comment