This is directed to everyone out there who find it good and right to blame a man giving orders and trying to get stuff done and laud another man who sat on his hands and after the events of 8/29/2005 whined and complained when things went bad. Now, I'm not claiming that George W. Bush is God...far from it. Nor am I claiming that he is perfect...again, far from it. But he's doing something. He stepped in and gave executive orders to get aid and rescue to people when the local authorities did nothing, spare talk about what happened. Is it his fault things didn't arrive but a few days after he said he would send them? Not really, he isn't the one driving the trucks, piloting the planes and helicopters, or manning the helm of the boats. He gives the orders; that's what the commander-in-chief is supposed to do.

Why was he so "slow" in doing so? Because the first response and previous preparedness is supposed to fall on the shoulders of the local officials. Unfortunately, charisma is simply not enough when you want to get things done, and nothing happened until big brother stepped in. So, the result is what we see happening now. The federal government—and especially President Bush—which is supposed to support the local government, is getting blamed for no or a delayed response.

Here's another passage from scripture that is relevant:

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

Matthew 7:24-27

If ANYTHING, in light of recent events, this should teach us a little something about preparedness. You know the rains and winds are going to come when a hurricane approaches. You can be sure there will be high water, too. And if you live below sea level, why the hell did you not prepare in advance for the worse, including, but not limited to, having stuff waiting and people on standby to help those who would be stranded? This is the responsibility of the local officials and the local populace. I don't expect the federal government to come trouncing into southeastern South Dakota everytime a tornado barrels through and destroys some stuff and kills some people, unless FEMA money and aid is requested. The first line of defense and response is my own preparedness, followed by my local elected officials.

But, that passage also has another relevant meaning. The house of the foolish man is beat against as if to take offense (the Greek word translated "beat" has that connotation—see this sermon for more information). In other words, the foolish man is offended when the house he foolishly built is destroyed by the weather; this, not at himself, but at whomever else he can blame for his misfortune. After all, in his mind he's not responsible for his own actions. The same may be said of the people in New Orleans, especially the mayor and governor of the state.

Much has also been said in order to compare the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to the events of and following September 11, 2001. Many would like to compare President Bush's reaction to 9/11 with that of Hurricane Katrina in order to prove that he favors famous, populous, rich, and a lot whiter New York over less famous, less populous, poor, and a lot blacker New Orleans. That seems rediculous to me. As a fellow (displaced) southerner, I'm sure his opinion of New Orleans is greater than that of New York, but not because of any political, racial, or socio-economical reasons, but because it is a southern city with southern charm.

Those many seem to overlook a crucial difference between the two events. I'm not talking about the path and amount of destruction; without a doubt, Hurricane Katrina was a more costly disaster, in terms of area destroyed and possibly even lives lost. I'm not even talking about the differences mentioned in the above paragraph; the condition and demographics of New York versus the condition and demographics of New Orleans is merely circumstantial—which someone lead some to make the baseless claimes that President Bush is a racist (tell that to Secretary of State Rice and former Secretary of State Powell, nevermind the other minorities on Bush's cabinet). No, the major difference I'm talking about is the nature of the disasters. 8/29 is a natural disaster, caused by a hurricane. 9/11 is a terrorist attack, caused by foreign revolutionaries attempting to wage war on the United States of America. Doesn't it behoove the commander-in-chief to make a quick and decisive action against a foreign militia-like group bent our our nation's destruction? Is he supposed to send out the bombers against future hurricane development? Like I said earlier, first response and initial preparedness for storms or earthquakes we know are coming or could come at any moment fall into the purview of the local officials (and they can't send out the bombers, either). The national government steps in when it is asked or when the local goverments are incapacitated or incompetent (the later being the case in Louisiana), as it has provisions for.

I think I've said all I can say about it. I don't expect to convince anyone who is so hellbent on hating President Bush, nor can I get them to see the picture clearly. Just as the sinful nature blinds the soul to the sweetness of God's mercy, grace, and forgiveness, hate such as this blinds people to the truth. Sadly, so can an attitude of extreme admirations; a "my-guy-can-do-no-wrong" mentality.

I'm not claiming to have full understanding of all of the events, nor do I claim to see the whole picture. I guess my beef is with those who think they do because they have been spoon fed this hate and blame by the mass media. I'm just telling things like I see them.