Out of touch?

Good evening to all,

"Don't buy gas if you don't need it", were the words of advice President Bush gave in response to a question about gasoline prices that have gone through the roof. Hmmm...... nice conservation plan ya got there? I can't help but say with a questioning tone, and a puzzled look on my face. "Don't buy gas if you don't need it", I guess that would be compared to buying gasoline just for the entertainment value? With my 40 gallon tank, and a V8 engine that is recommended to run on higher octane fuel, it's not exactly entertaining to pay $120+ dollars to fill up my tank with prices slightly over $3.00 per gallon in my area. Isn't everyone buying gasoline just out of necessity, wasn't it that way even before the price increase? I don't jump in the car just to go for a drive anymore, and my travel is solely based upon the need to go somewhere, my once beloved vehicle has become increasingly utilitarian, and that's no fun. I wonder why there wasn't a public outcry about that statement? I assume it was because the attention of the American public was on the aftermath of the storm, but it was said in a way that seemed so out of touch, all I could do was stare blankly at the screen as I heard it, actually I'm still staring blankly at the screen while thinking about it now.

Here's an excerpt from an article I read, it also brings the question "out of touch?"

--------Begin Quoted Material (all rights reserved for the source: Newsweek)--------

Sept. 19, 2005 issue - It's a standing joke among the president's top aides: who gets to deliver the bad news? Warm and hearty in public, Bush can be cold and snappish in private, and aides sometimes cringe before the displeasure of the president of the United States, or, as he is known in West Wing jargon, POTUS. The bad news on this early morning, Tuesday, Aug. 30, some 24 hours after Hurricane Katrina had ripped through New Orleans, was that the president would have to cut short his five-week vacation by a couple of days and return to Washington. The president's chief of staff, Andrew Card; his deputy chief of staff, Joe Hagin; his counselor, Dan Bartlett, and his spokesman, Scott McClellan, held a conference call to discuss the question of the president's early return and the delicate task of telling him. Hagin, it was decided, as senior aide on the ground, would do the deed. The president did not growl this time. He had already decided to return to Washington and hold a meeting of his top advisers on the following day, Wednesday. This would give them a day to get back from their vacations and their staffs to work up some ideas about what to do in the aftermath of the storm. President Bush knew the storm and its consequences had been bad; but he didn't quite realize how bad.

The reality, say several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president, did not really sink in until Thursday night. Some White House staffers were watching the evening news and thought the president needed to see the horrific reports coming out of New Orleans. Counselor Bartlett made up a DVD of the newscasts so Bush could see them in their entirety as he flew down to the Gulf Coast the next morning on Air Force One.

How this could be—how the president of the United States could have even less "situational awareness," as they say in the military, than the average American about the worst natural disaster in a century—is one of the more perplexing and troubling chapters in a story that, despite moments of heroism and acts of great generosity, ranks as a national disgrace.

--------End Quoted Material (all rights reserved for the source: Newsweek)--------

To read the rest of the article, here's the link.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm, people worried about disturbing the elected leader of our country, with news of a catastrophy, and the ensuing calamity brought about by unpreparedness? I consider this as such, surely in the various jobs we've all had in our days, we've all come across the new manager, one who hasn't yet learned the proper method to get the most work done, and keep the work environment running smoothly. Fairness and accessibility with open lines of communication at all times, coupled with working (just as hard, sometimes having to work harder) side by side with the rest of the workers, is an example of a method that works, but the bad manager simply sits in the office while his employees do all the work, until one dreads having to knock on the door to ask a question. Should something go wrong, the manager denies responsibility, and blames the worker. I've had my share of bad managers, this isn't just a made up description to prove a point, it's an actual description of a manager I once worked for. The comparison to what was described in the quoted material above is a bit troubling..

**Just a note: The example was from years ago, one of my first jobs, and no, I wasn't the employee blamed when things went wrong, the manager blamed a new guy he had hired**

"Cringing before the displeasure of the president"? Look above, find that quote, and consider this: Aren't the difficult times part of the job? Times surely can't always be good, but to cringe at the thought of mentioning a bad situation, reeks of bad management. Some examples maybe in context, I'm sure people in the courts of kings were worried about displeasing their ruler, people in dictatorships are surely worried about displeasing their ruler, but to worry about displeasing an elected official doesn't make sense to me, didn't "the elected" try really hard to get their job? Why would they be upset (oops..... displeased)? Also, what's up with a "five-week" vacation during a war on two fronts, crazy gas prices, and a hurricane bearing down on a city shaped like a bowl?