Vol. 4 No. 7 -- February 6, 2010
Good on Paper
Leonard Pitts often speaks of the "idiocracy" that is taking over
the United States. He is distressed that there is a dumbing down of
America, and that we have no one to blame but ourselves. “We have
embarked on an era where many of us believe that all facts are created
equal,” the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist told a KU audience
yesterday. “Saying it out loud, putting it online makes it
true.” Pitts came to Lawrence to accept the 2010 William Allen
White Foundation National Citation. The honor is given
annually to an outstanding journalist. Past winners include Walter
Cronkite, George Will and Bob Woodward. Yesterday was the second
time I had met Pitts. I helped arrange a Fall 2007 campus visit by the
liberal columnist. In terms of our politics, he and I disagree on
a number of issues. However, as a columnist, I have a great deal
of respect for both his writing skills and his integrity. He, like I,
believe in the power of truth. In a world of pompous punditry and
talking heads, we both believe there is too much being bandied about as
"truth" when, in fact, it is at best an opinion or, at worst, an
outright lie. I believe he sincerely would like to see the return of
civil debate in this country. However, it should be noted that
the columnist's concept of civility does not necessarily carry over to
comments made in personal appearances. He is not unlike a lot of
people - there's the public side, and then there is the private side.
In the times I have seen him in more private, one-on-one settings,
Pitts has been sometimes guilty of using the same pandering, dismissive
and inflammatory rhetoric for which he has often chastised the right.
In this regard, Pitts strikes me as somewhat an elitist
- although I am certain he doesn't see himself in that light.
However, to Pitts' credit, he is careful of the tone and accuracy of
his twice weekly nationally syndicated column. While his private voice often reflects the tone-deaf dialog from which our nation suffers, his public
voice - the voice reflected in his books and columns - is a model of
reasoned civility. Pitts is not afraid to make controversial and
unpopular points. But he backs them with solid research and sound
logic. Perhaps the best part of Leonard Pitts' nature is that he is
willing to listen to anyone - even those who disagree with him - if
they are willing to exercise the same level of respect and critical
thinking. While it can be said that Leonard Pitts is better on
paper than he is in person, when one considers the quality of what he
puts on paper, that's still pretty darn good.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 6 -- January 27, 2010
The Same Old Same Old
Like a lot of red-blooded American citizens, I sat before my television
tonight to listen to our President discuss the State-of-the-Union. It
is an annual ritual mandated by the Constitution. Actually, the
President doesn't have to deliver it in a speech to a joint session of
Congress. For example, during the height of the Watergate scandal,
President Nixon skipped making a speech and instead sent lawmakers a
written statement. (I doubt the envelope in which Nixon sent it was
sealed with a kiss.) It really doesn't matter who the President
is, State-of-the-Union addresses usually resemble bad kabuki theater.
It happens every year: The President uses coded words designed to
provoke applause from his supporters and stone cold silence from the
opposition. On those rare ocassions when the President slips and
accidentally says something ironic, his supporters sit on their
hands while the opposition gives a derisive Standing O. Of course,
everyone stands and cheers for the military, the First Lady and any
suggestion that America is the best by-gum nation in the whole darn
universe. As for tonight's speech, most of it was predictably
mundane. However, the end of the speech was remarkable. President
Obama's solemn appeal for bipartisanship - a section of the speech
where he refreshingly admitted fault for some of his administration's
missteps - struck just the right tone for a nation weary of partisan
bickering. As for the Republican response, it, too, was predictable.
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's speech was much like every opposition
SOTU response I have ever heard, one walking the fine line between
conciliation and contempt. Frankly, I wondered why the
Republicans choose a guy who had been in office only 11 days to make
their big speech. But then I remembered that was the exact length
of time Obama had been in the White House to qualify for the Nobel
Peace Prize. I don't know that Governor McDonnell will win a Nobel
Prize. But, if he is lucky, Publisher's Clearing House will be
stopping by the mansion real soon.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 5 -- January 19, 2010
The True Message from Massachusetts
Just one year ago this week, more than a million people stood in
subfreezing temperatures to witness the historic inauguration of Barack
Obama. For Democrats, it was a heady time. In the November 2008
election, the Democrats regained the White House after an eight-year
absence and strengthened their majorities to both houses of Congress.
It is now a year later, and the landscape has dramatically
shifted. First the Republicans reclaimed governships in Virginia and
New Jersey in November off-year elections. As bad as that was for
Democrats, the news out of Massachusetts has stunned them. A
Republican tonight claimed the U.S. Senate seat that the late Ted
Kennedy had held for 46 years. There are a lot of reasons for
this stunning reversal. Republican Scott Brown ran a smart,
centrist and populist campaign. Democrat Martha Coakley, who had
registered a 30-point lead in the polls last fall, ran a smug, arrogant
and incompetent campaign. Keep in mind that Democrats outnumber
Republicans in Massachusetts by a three-to-one margin. Obama won the
state in 2008 by a 26-point margin. Republicans will tout Brown's
election as a rejection of Obama's health care initiative and excessive
spending. Democrats will say it was a "perfect storm," the combination
of a weak candidate, the continuing poor economy and frustration over
Congressional failure to pass health care reform. However, the
truth be told -- and that's all that's ever delivered in this space --
it is not about Republicans or Democrats. The largest block of
voters in Massachusetts are independents and the overwhelming majority
of them voted for Brown. Independents are worried about
continuing gridlock, something they can't understand with the Democrats
holding a super majority in Congress. They expected Obama to be a
bipartisan leader. However, he is no less partisan than any of his
predecessors. And when it comes to Obama's promise to bring sound
financial management to government, fuggedaboutit. I think the
message voters are sending is this: After three decades of political
warfare between the radical right and the limpid left, the middle is
taking charge. Independent-minded voters are saying "enough is enough."
They want action and are willing to shake-up the political landscape to
do it. If the President and lawmakers of both parties do not dial
back the rhetoric, start rolling up their sleeves and seek a bipartisan
consensus on the weighty issues of the day, then the most popular
campaign slogan this year will likely be "Re-elect No one."
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 4 -- January 11, 2010
Fiscal Anarchy
I listened to democrat Governor Mark Parkinson tonight give his State
of the State address to the Kansas General Assembly. I also
listened to republican House Speaker Michael O'Neal's response.
I hope a lot of Kansans listened. If they did, they would
have heard a stark difference between two visions for the state's
future. Parkinson laid out a specific plan for addressing a $400
million state revenue shortfall. He detailed at great length how
this state's schools, universities and community colleges have helped
Kansas to prosper during its 150-year history. Saying that massive cuts
that have already occurred have hurt Kansans, Parkinson proposed a
one-cent increase in the state sales tax that would almost entirely
sunset in three years. He also proposed raising the state tax on
cigarettes to the national average. The governor said he was open to
other ideas that would raise revenue without crippling already damaged
state services. On the other hand, O'Neal delivered Reaganesque
platitudes about how it is better to have people spend their own money
than have the government spend it for them. O'Neal would be right
if this were 1980. At that time, federal government spending was
out of control and Ronald Reagan was right to reel in overzealous
bureaucrats. But this is 2010, the state is in the midst of a
deep recession and facing budget deficits because of decades of
legislative adherence to the bogus belief that all taxes are bad and
should be cut to spur business growth. Of course, O'Neal didn't
say where he was going to cut
the budget. However, he did chastise public school officials
threatening to sue the state over inadequate funding. O'Neal also
suggested that the state should be operated more like a business.
But even businesses raise their prices to cover increased costs.
Using O'Neal's logic, why should government be any different?
Don't get me wrong - I am a fiscal conservative. But unlike
many Kansas legislators who have an almost Pavlovian adherence to
supply-side economics, I am not a fiscal anarchist. Real
leadership means making tough - and at times - unpopular choices.
Recklessly cutting spending to avoid raising taxes may make it
easy to win reelection. However, doing so erodes the
economic underpinnings and general welfare of our state -
thus eclipsing any short-term gains born of political expediency.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
|
Vol. 4 No. 3 -- January 9, 2010
A Cancer on the American Body Politic
Oh Lord, how I hate the abortion debate. It is a cancer on the American
body politic. I especially dislike how fringe elements on the radical
right and the limpid left have hijacked political debate in this
country. Recently, the abortion issue has been forced to the back
burner by more legitimate issues such as health care, national security
and the economy. People have a right to disagree with one another in a
democracy. And a healthy debate on abortion is fine.
However, thanks to a well-meaning but misguided district court
judge, the radicals and the limpids are about to thrust their
self-righteous selves back onto center stage. Sedgwick County
District Court Warren Wilbert yesterday ruled that Scott Roeder - the
sleaseball who murdered abortion doctor George Tiller in a crowded
church last year - can seek a voluntary manslaughter conviction in lieu
of one on first-degree murder. Judge Wilbert said he would allow the
defense to argue that Roeder acted "upon an unreasonable but honest
belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force."
For the record, I believe that the use of abortion as a means of
birth control is immoral. I also believe in requiring parental
consent for abortions involving minors. But I also believe that
abortion is a moral - not legal - matter between a woman and her
doctor. As for Judge Wilbert's ruling, I have no reason to doubt his
motives. I would like to believe that he did what he thought was
right. However, I also wonder what the ruling might have been if
the circumstances were different - if instead of the shooting of a
doctor in a church, the gunman had shot a judge in a courtroom? It is a
reasonable question to ask when dealing with unreasonable people.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
Vol. 4 No. 2 -- January 3, 2010
Profiles in Correctness
The unsuccessful Christmas bomb attack on a U.S. airline has reawaken
the debate over racial and religious profiling. The radical right
would have us strip search anyone who "just doesn't look right." The
limpid left believes that any form of profiling is fascism. A
reasonable person believes that under certain circumstances, profiling
is not only appropriate, but is preferred. Should police pull
over black people driving expensive cars out of a belief that they
couldn't possibly afford such a sweet ride? Of course not.
However, it is hard to escape the logic of one Israeli official
who correctly noted recently that while not all Muslims are terrorists,
nearly all terrorists are Muslims. While this rationale should not be
an excuse to hassle individuals solely on the basis of their religion,
it does provide reasonable cause in matters where there is a clear and
present danger. By that, I mean access to international flights,
entrance into the United States and when entering areas of high
security. Because we are a free society, we shouldn't require
that every person of Middle Eastern or Islamic heritage wear a "Scarlet
T" for terrorist.
However, we can take reasonable precautions in our own self
defense. And it is not as if it is America that bears the sole burden
in these matters. As long as the world's Islamic community fails
to decisively act against those who pervert their religion by committing
dumb-ass murder in the name of God, then living under a cloud of
perpetual suspicion is the price they have to pay. The more we
handcuff this nation's security forces, the easier we make it for those
who wish us harm. The military, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA and the
police are not the bad guys. I hope some of those on the limpid
left will remember that the next time they board an airplane.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
Vol. 4 No. 1 -- January 1, 2010
Predictions
A new year and new decade dawn with hope born of innate optimism.
It's an exercise in which we engage every new year: Hoping that
the future will live up to past promises unfilled. The new year 2010 is
no different. It is an election year -- but when is is ever not
an election year? The republicans believe they will make gains in
the mid-term congressional elections. They probably will, but not
enough to change the balance of power in Congress. Despite its national
success, the democrat party is pretty much DOA in the state of Kansas.
Senator Sam Brownback will be elected our next governor, and a
republican will be elected to succeed him in the U.S. Senate. In fact,
the democrats' only realistic hopes are in the second and fourth
congressional districts. However, with democrats completely in
charge in Washington and George W. Bush back in Texas, the Dems are
saddled with the baggage of Washington incumbancy. With democrat Dennis
Moore retiring in the fourth district, the only thing that will keep
the republicans from reclaiming his seat are the republicans,
themselves. The democrats' best hope is that the GOP nominates a
right-wing reactionary who splits the party. In the second
district, republican Lynn Jenkins will get a determined democrat
challenge. However, without the perfect storm of 2006 which swept
democrats into power, the second district will remain a tough place for
blue-staters. As for President Obama, the education of the Nobel Prize
winner will continue. No doubt he has learned that the presidency isn't
as easy as he portrayed it to be on the campaign trail. While he has
struck a less aggressive tone on the world stage than his predecessor,
his limpid response to the abortive Christmas bomb attack on a U.S.
airline has made him appear weaker and less decisive than former
President Bush. The best thing going for President Obama is the
void of leadership in the republican ranks. Even with his flaws, Obama
will - for the foreseeable future, at least - look better than any
alternative on the other side of the aisle. In short, I don't see 2010
being a major turning point in history. Any election year would seem a
letdown from the sea change election of 2008. Instead, 2010 will be a
year of positioning, prodding and poking. The heavyweights will be
testing one another for weaknesses. And the lightweights will continue
to drive the political agenda.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
|
|
