I really do not mind that US Presidents take "vacations," since I cannot believe they are "vacations" in the sense most of us think of the word. I understand that they must choose locations where their security and the security of their families will not be compromised, and where they can be in touch with the whole world at any time they need to be. What fun is all that?
As to whether President Obama should have gone to Louisiana, the clear answer to that seems to be "No, not right away." All they needed was a whole 'nother set of complications to worry about in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.
Maybe we ought to spend our time evaluating politicians' responses to flooding in Louisiana (and to fires in California) by talking about what they plan to do to deal with climate change, since these two kinds of natural catastrophes are clearly what we've been told for decades that climate change will bring. The denial of a changing climate can no longer be accepted; the reality of it threatens us all. Who is going to lead us toward at least slowing it down? (Hint: not the guy who wants to revive the coal industry.)
If we question the vacation of the President, why aren't we also questioning the many hiatuses of Congress? Business workplaces have morphed their working models and operate differently than they did even 10 years ago in order to meet the needs of their clients. From my viewpoint it seems that Congress' time in session is decreasing as the number of issues that need addressing increase. It would be nice to see Congress truly working hard to come to consensus.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. Congress needs to spend more, not less, time in Washington, truly working together to address our common issues as a nation. The fragmentation of Congress along with the constant need to stroke donors limit its effectiveness and impact. Of course, that is just what some people seem to want. In the long run, however, it's not good. Thank you for reply that advances the issue.
Delete