Snapping Turtle
The personal blog of David W. Guth
Copyright © 2012
x
X
 

X

Blogging my way from Tornado Alley to your computer screen, these are the personal observations of David W. Guth.  There are a lot of people online with nothing much to say.  I am not one of those folks.  I hope that you find my comments insightful, provocative and occasionally amusing.  I am a college professorJayhawk Journalist and writer.  I am not software engineer.  I am a content guy. Whatever this blog may lack in flash will be more than made up for in substance.  From the photo (left) you may also assume that I have East Coast roots -- I grew up on Maryland's Eastern Shore and am a proud Terrapin. The purpose of this blog is simple: I want to practice what I teach.  How can a guy talk to students about social media if he doesn't participate in the online discussion?  So here is my foray into Web 2.0.  I also want to demonstrate that writing doesn't take a lot of words: My blog entries will brief. If you wish to comment on anything you read, please feel free to do so at dguth@ku.edu.  I'll answer you directly or in this space as the demands of my real life permit. And now, the legal stuff: Opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of his employer, his publisher, the Internet service provider or that of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball.  Unless otherwise noted, the contents of this blog are the intellectual property of David W. Guth - which means they are copyrighted.  So there!

Archives:     2007     2008     2009    2010     2011

Return Home
x

 
 
Testudo's Tales

Vol. 6 No. 24 -- Johnny Carson
May 16, 2012


The Public Broadcasting Service ran an outstanding biography of the late Johnny Carson on its American Masters series this week. It brought back a wave of fond memories of a man who directly and indirectly had a tremendous influence on my life.  I was in high school when I "discovered" Carson. He was everything I wanted to be - handsome, glib, admired and humble. I read a biography of him and it reinforced my admiration.  Carson, like me, was inherently shy. We also shared a lack of self-confidence.  It was from Carson that I learned the value of self-deprecating humor. He also inspired me to seek a career in broadcasting. Sure, I envisioned myself as the "next Johnny Carson." Of course, that was pretty foolish - there was only one Johnny Carson. As I grew older and learned of the power of journalism, my career direction changed. However, it was Johnny Carson who provided its initial inertia.  Everything after that is chaos theory: Broadcast journalism, public relations and then college professor.  Indirectly, he influenced more than my career.  Without the pursuit of broadcast career, where I have gone, the people I met and the person I became would have been quite different.  Does Carson get all the credit - or  the blame - for who I have become?  Of course not.  However, he was the one who first ignited the spark that became my career. For that, I owe the King of Late Night a lot.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x

Vol. 6 No. 23 -- Pandering Cowardice
May 13, 2012


For me, at least, last week became a metaphor for much was what is wrong with the American nation. One issue dominated the news last week - same-sex marriage.  First the vice president and then the president thrust it front and center in the nation's political debate.  Mitt Romney and the social conservatives he is trying to woo then jumped into the fray.  It's an easy issue to get people riled up about - which is precisely why the politicos are arguing about differing interpretations of morality when there are more pressing and appropriate issues on the table.  Who made government the arbiter of right and wrong?  At what point do we, as individuals, get to decide?  I thought about that - a lot - while I was waiting two and one-half hours this week in line to pay for my car tags.  Motorists all over Kansas were subjected to incredibly long delays in renewing their licenses because the state Department of Revenue switched to a new computer system without adequately training anyone in its use.  Why would the state do this? First, it sees the new system as a means to lower state government costs by pushing all of the data input to the county government level. Second, because data input is now a county responsibility, it is no longer the state's problem. And who bore the brunt of the public's anger?  The poor county clerk who had absolutely nothing to do with creating this mess. This is why I see the past week as a metaphor -- we have a government that prefers to dwell on emotional social issues than deal with the stuff that, for most people, really matters.  Talking about abortion, same-sex marriage and immigration is a lot easier than actually creating better schools, building safer roads and bridges or providing other services that fall in the realm of government responsibility. I believe that a majority of Americans have reached a consensus on most of the social issues -- one that is somewhere between the extremes.  Americans favor a limited right of abortion, but are unwilling to provide a blank check. Americans favor civil unions without regard to gender, but they don't want the government to tell them whether or not it is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage. As for immigration -- most people understand that a free society must have open doors, just as long as the people coming here follow reasonable rules. Yet for all of the American public's common sense, the political agenda has been surrendered to extremists, liberal and conservative, who are rendering government impotent. Our so-called political leaders are complicit in this hijacking because they know that arguing about things that are, for most people, intangible, is a lot easier than actually doing the tangible stuff that affects us all. Obama, Romney, Brownback, Kobach - they are all guilty of mistaking pandering cowardice for real leadership.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 22 -- No Drama Obama?
May 7, 2012


Barack Obama won the presidency four years ago because he ran a near-perfect campaign. Sure, a crumbling economy, an unpopular incumbent and a Republican opponent who made an incredibly stupid choice for a running mate helped. However, Obama didn't suffer from any self-inflicted wounds. The Obama campaign was a finely-oiled machine. But that was then and this is now.  And the days of "No Drama Obama" seem a distance memory. The events of the past 24 hours are illustrative. For months, the president has been walking a tightrope. He wants - no, he needs - the support of the GLBT community.  And he also needs the support of the black community. While those two constituencies have many interests in common, they have one significant point of conflict: same sex marriage. Obama also knows that it is an issue that can mobilize conservative Republicans who have been, at best, lukewarm to Mitt Romney. A debate over same sex marriage is last Obama wants or needs.  Enter Joey from Scrantron, his truculent Vice President who emphatically pushed his boss into the fray this weekend on Meet the Press.  He unequivocally gave his support of same sex marriage. Then Education Secretary Arne Duncan voiced his support for it this morning in an MSNBC interview. "Obama aides worked to manage any political fallout," the Associated Press reported. "They said the back-to-back remarks by two top administration officials represented personal viewpoints and were not part of a coordinated effort to lay groundwork for a shift in the president's position." So on a day when the president should be touting the first monthly federal revenue surplus in three and one-half years, he and his minions were trying to pry Biden's and Duncan's feet out of the president's mouth. Meanwhile, two groups the President relies on for support are becoming increasingly disillusioned while the people who desperately want to beat him are becoming energized. Not bad for a day's work. And it is only May.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 21 -- The Wantin' School
May 1, 2012


I am not an economist - nor do I play one on TV.  I did not attend the famous Wharton School.  Instead, I am a graduate of the School of Hard Knocks with a masters degree from the Wantin' School.  And the driving economic philosophy instilled into graduates of the Wantin' School is that if you are wantin' something, you have to pay for it. It doesn't take an Alan Greenspan to know that stuff costs money. And in the real world, you have to pay for stuff.  Of course, government exists in a surreal world where we can run enormous deficits, leaving the bills for someone else's grandkids.  What the federal government has done under Bush and Obama has been obscene.  But now Kansas Governor Sam Brownback wants to follow the same path.  He has proposed tax cuts that could grind a $612 million state budget surplus into a $911 million deficit within five years. Of course, the Kansas constitution wouldn't allow him to run deficits. That means nearly a billion dollars in budget cuts from state spending. I do not believe that Kansas state government is a lean, finely run machine.  I am certain there is some fat that can be cut.  But I also know that economic prosperity -- the excuse behind the Brownback tax cut proposal -- comes with a price.  You have to have good schools to educate future generations of business leaders and workers.  You have to have a strong road, water, sewer and energy infrastructure to support economic activity.  Government should be in a position to foster new initiatives through grants, loans and, yes, even the occasional tax break. And we have to figure out a way to fuel our economic growth without fouling the land, air and water we need to survive.  This is what I want in my future. And I suspect Governor Brownback wants that, too. But running up a deficit and slashing programs to pay for it will not achieve that. Governor, it is important for you to remember the prime directive from the Wantin' School: If you are wantin' the same future I'm wantin', we will have to pay for it.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 20 -- A Failure to Lead
April 28, 2012


Unless the U.S. Congress acts by this summer, the interest rates on federally subsidized student loans will double.  Both Democrats and Republicans agree that this wouldn't be a good idea and seem posed to act to prevent it from happening.  As is often the case, money is the issue. It will cost $6 billion to forestall the rate increase. One would think that President Obama, who ran for office on the promise of trying to change the tone of politics in Washington, would have jumped at the chance to be seen as someone trying to bring the two parties together on this issue for a common good.  Even if he had tried and failed to bring a compromise, it would have been good politics and good for the country. However, Obama took the course he has repeatedly taken during his three years in the White House. He jumped on Air Force One and, on the taxpayer's dime, traveled to college campuses in important swing states to drum up a controversy where there hadn't been one. “The president keeps attempting to invent these fake fights because he doesn’t have a record of success or a positive agenda for our country,” House Speaker John Boehner said on Thursday. “It is as simple as this: The emperor has no clothes.”  When House Republicans then passed a plan to extend the lower student loan rates from unspent Obamacare funds, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi accused the GOP of stealing from women's health care programs as part of the Republicans' wider war on women.  This is not leadership.  Nor is it the change Obama promised. It is yet another act of desperation from a hack Chicago politician who has yet to demonstrate that he is the leader he said he was going to be.  There are a lot of reasons for voters to reelect President Obama. However as we move deeper into the general election campaign, this President seems insistent on giving us reasons to give his challenger another look.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 19 -- Reality TV: An Oxymoron
April 18, 2012


There are three reminders today of why television should never be confused with reality.  The first, ironically, came from television, itself.  In a PBS Frontline report last night, viewers were shown convincing evidence that criminal forensics dramas such as CSI, CSI Miami, CSI New York and CSI Tonganoxie are not only inaccurate, but that many of the techniques depicted on these shows and used in real law enforcement are little more than junk science. Truth be told, fingerprint, bite and splatter analysis are anything but the virtual certainty law enforcement has said they are over the years. We have been told as gospel truth that no two people in the world have identical fingerprints.  However, that statement has never undergone scientific validation. It is now, as the National Academy of Sciences is trying to sort the fact from the fiction. Then there's the case of those heroic TV tornado chasers who risk their lives to uncover the mysteries of nature's most violent event.  Of course, they downplay the fact that they take unnecessary risks so they can make big bucks selling dramatic pictures of tornadoes.  This morning's Lawrence Journal World has a front-page article on how emergency management officials in Western Kansas are complaining that these storm chasers actually inhibited emergency responses this past weekend - one in which dozens of tornadoes raked across the Plains. Their complaints centered on clogged roads full of rubberneckers and dangerous driving in pursuit of storms. As you might suspect, professional storm chasers bristled at the criticism. One suggested that storm chasers probably saved lives this past weekend -- a smart claim to make because it can't be proved. The last reminder of TV as fantasy comes out of the world of sports, where all five starters in this year's University of Kentucky national championship basketball team have announced that they are leaving college after one year to pursue careers in the National Basketball Association. At the beginning of this month, we saw the highly talented Wildcats presented on a national television stage as exceptional amateur student athletes. This mass departure puts the student part of that phrase to a lie. Scandal-ridden coach John Calipari gamed the system while thumbing his nose to the concept of intercollegiate athletics.  Even if everything was on the up-and-up, Slick Cal did little more than use scholarships to hire mercenaries to win a title. When one considers that Calipari is the only coach to have two Final Four appearances wiped off the books because of NCAA violations, one can only wonder how long it will be before the word amateur will go unchallenged.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 18 -- The World of Immanuel Can't
April 13, 2012


Wimpy, the appropriately named hamburger-eating character from the Popeye cartoon series, used to say "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." It's a funny line delivered by a chronic moocher. Unfortunately is that kind of wimpy philosophy that is pervasive in American society today.  From a White House and Congress that put off tough decisions until the next election cycle to the local school board that cannot bring itself to close and consolidate under-enrolled schools, too many of our so-called "leaders" lack the moral fiber to make the tough decisions that they know in their hearts are right.  This wimpy leadership is not limited to government. I've seen it at the University of Kansas, where deans and chancellors make wimpy compromises because the path to doing the right thing is just too hard. These are people who are followers of Immanuel Can't -- not to be confused with Immanuel Kant.  Kant is the father of the categorical imperative, a philosophy that says in an ethical society, we are all bound by the same rules. (A simplification, to be sure. But it makes the point.) However, in the world of wimpy leadership, Kant is transformed into Can't -- as in "we can't do that because not everyone agrees."  Lacking the will to tackle the most serious challenges we face, these so-called leaders hide behind narrowly defined rules more designed to preserve the status quo than to encourage meaningful change -- a sort of perverted categorical imperative.  When they do so, they say they are just being fair.
However, in reality, we pay a high cost for this narrow-minded approach to leadership.  Take, for example, the current presidential campaign. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will be eviscerated if they veer -- even slightly -- from statements they made in the past. And we will parse everything they say in an effort to button-hole them into intractable positions. We don't like "flip-flops" -- which also means we don't like our leaders to change their minds. We say it is a sign of weakness. And when our elected leaders reach a compromise to move the process of governing forward, we call them wimps. But make no mistake about it, a strict adherence to this perverse categorical imperative is nothing less than a safe harbor for cowards.  Real leaders make nuanced decisions based on the unique variables of each situation they face.  They are guided by principles and values, not by artificial one-size-fits-all rules. As we move down the perilous path that lies ahead, we would be best served to remember that we should ask no more of our leaders than we ask of ourselves. And if we demand little of ourselves, what can we expect from others?

That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 17 -- Smug Superiority
April 5, 2012


For a guy who was editor of the Harvard Law Review, Barack Obama often appears to have little understanding of the American judicial system. A lot of people, including at least one federal judge, took note this week when the President made the ludicrous assertion that it would be unprecedented for the United States Supreme Court to overturn his controversial health care law. Obama's reasoning: How can the court dare to overturn legislation passed by a majority of the Congress? Barry, the court has been doing that sort of thing since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.  And lest you forget, your own administration has asked the court to overturn several laws it opposes, such as the Defense of Marriage Act. One could excuse the President's intemperate comments if it wasn't part of a disturbing pattern.  Last week, he jumped with both feet into the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida. It is one thing for the President, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, to express a desire for justice.  But to suggest that the young man could have been his own son had the effect of taking sides in a dispute in which the facts are anything but clear.  That is not what a President should do. And then there was Obama's State of Union last year, when the President called out the Supreme Court for its Citizens United ruling with the justices sitting only a few feet in front of him.  The image of Chuck Schumer and other Senate stooges standing over the justices' shoulders and showing open contempt for them is disturbing. That presidential ambush was not the act of a transformational leader who said he wanted to change the tone of American politics.  Instead, it was the act of a hack Chicago politician languishing in the polls desperately seeking reelection.  When I endorsed Obama for president in 2008 (Vol. 2 No. 26), I said that I had chosen to do so despite his reputation for arrogance.  However, Obama's calculated assault on the Supreme Court, one in which he has sought to intimidate the court for political gain, has crossed the line.  His defenders say that he is doing nothing more than his detractors have done. Point taken. But he is the President, which means he has to act like he is President. At a time when Republican infighting should be easing the way for the President's reelection, it is Obama's streak of smug superiority that gives his opponents hope.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 16 -- The Morning After
April 3, 2012


Four years ago on this very morning, the morning after the NCAA men's basketball championship game, Lawrence, Kansas, was at the center of joy.  The night before, the Jayhawks had rallied from nine points down in the final minutes to beat Memphis to win the title.  For awhile, last night's game had the same feel.  Kansas rallied from an even greater deficit to within a few points in the waning moments of the championship game against Kentucky.  But this time, KU's magic came up short and the Wildcats won their eighth NCAA title.  There may not be joy today in Lawrence, but neither is there despair. It is not like 2003, when the favored Jayhawks lost the title to Syracuse -- and game in which KU shot miserably from the free-throw line.  It is more like 1991's loss to Duke, when the Jayhawks exceeded all expectations to reach the final night of competition.  There are a lot of things wrong with intercollegiate athletics - but to cite them here might ring of sour grapes.  However, there are a lot of things right, as well.  When one sees a team lift the spirits of an entire state - be that state Kansas or Kentucky - then there's something good to say for the enterprise.  Most of the players who figured prominently last night have played their final college game. Some, like Connor Teahan, will graduate at year's end. Others, like Thomas Robinson, are ready to play for pay in the National Basketball Association.  The rest of us will remain where we are now - with vivid, somewhat bittersweet memories and the promise of greater glory over the horizon.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 15 -- The Final Four
March 26, 2012


The Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team earned its 14th trip to the NCAA's Final Four yesterday. It's the fifth Final Four in my 21 years on campus.  There's something special about being on campus during Final Four week. There's a hum of anticipation.  The world is open to all possibilities.  Best of all, EVERYONE is in good mood.  It's a time when differences between majors, hometowns, political affiliations and religious beliefs are all set aside. For at least a short time, we are all members of the Jayhawk Nation.  I suspect that is true for the members of the Ohio State, Kentucky and Louisville campus communities.  What makes this particular Final Four so joyous is that, unlike those in the past, this one was unexpected.  Kansas is one a of a handful of basketball programs that can be considered a part of Roundball Royalty. However, with graduations and NBA departures from last year's highly ranked squad, this was supposed to be a "rebuilding year."  My highest expectation for this season was that the Jayhawks might - and I emphasize might - make it to the Sweet 16. However, Kansas dramatically matured during the year.  Thomas Robinson, a substitute on last year's squad, may well be named National Player of the Year. Jeff Withey, a mild-mannered Clark Kent of a center last year, has become a Superman in the middle. And Tyshawn Taylor, a high-risk, high-reward sort of player, has been more reward than risk as of late.  Of course, it doesn't hurt to have the best basketball coach in America on our side. And the best fans.  In the best arena. (That's not just me saying that - both the Jayhawk fans and Allen Field House have been proclaimed the best by others.) I am not going to pretend to know what's going to happen Saturday night in New Orleans.  I sure hope we win.  But if we don't, we've already won.  Final Four week is a gift from the team to the Jayhawk Nation.  Let's enjoy it.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle. And Rock Chalk Jayhawk!
x
Vol. 6 No. 14 -- Another Saint Patrick's Day
March 15, 2012


Saturday (March 17) is the fifth anniversary of the worst day of my life.  Without warning and in just a matter of minutes, my beautiful, intelligent and loving wife passed away.  It was a cerebral hemorrhage that claimed my wife of nearly 32 years on that mournful St. Patrick's morning. I never had to the chance to say goodbye and tell her how much I love her. While it would be 21 hours before the doctors made her death official, I know now that all she had ever been or will ever be ceased to exist within fifteen minutes of the onset of the hemorrhage. One small bit of comfort I have is the possibility that in her last cognitive moments she knew that I was trying to save her. The wounds of the past five years have not completely healed.  They probably never will.  But thanks to my remarkable daughter - who is blessed with her mother's brains and beauty and cursed with her father's warped sense of humor - I have survived. I also had the untiring support of my siblings, my late-wife's family, my Lawrence neighbors and my KU colleagues. To be certain, the road to recovery sometimes has been rocky. But a real sign that I have emerged from the greatest crisis of my life is that when I now think of Jan, I no longer automatically go back to that horrid day. Instead, I think of the bespeckled high school waitress in blue hose that I met on my first night in Kentucky in February 1974. I had moved from College Park, Maryland, to the little Ohio River town of Hawesville to begin my radio career. I had no idea of the adventure I had begun that rain-swept winter's evening. But it was a glorious ride. After Jan died, I doubted that I could ever love again. However, that wasn't the first - nor the last - time in my life that I was proven wrong. I am now 19 months married to a woman who has brought new joy to my heart and a spring to my step. Ironically, she is of Irish descent, which means that March 17 has its own special meaning for her. On the fifth anniversary of Jan's passing, it is important that I remember my first great love. But it is also important that I share in the joy of my Maureen's special day. And I believe that's how Jan would want it to be.  March 17 is the fifth anniversary of the worst day of my life. It is also the first day of the rest of my life.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 13 -- Yes, There Will Be Blood
March 12, 2012


No one in his or her right mind wants war with Iran. But wishing it away is no guarantee that it won't happen - and may actually hasten it. You can talk of morality all you want. But peace with Iran cannot exist as long as its regime is hell-bent on fomenting its particular brand of radical Islam. They call us infidels, bankroll assassins who kill American soldiers and proclaim us to be the Great Satin. Does anyone other than Jimmy Carter really believe that we can negotiate with people sworn to destroy us? Historians would tell us that the United States would not have the bad relations we have with Iran today if we hadn't propped up the repressive regime of the Shah for so many years. Of course, when one considers the democratic traditions of the Middle East, there's no telling what kind of despot would have taken his place. But there is one thing we do know: If the United States does not look out for its self-interests, there will be no power on earth to protect the interests of freedom-loving people everywhere.  There's an old saying: You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.  Do you want peace without war? Then we are going to have secure it the old fashioned way: Buy off and prop up the Iranian military which, in turn, will effect its own regime change. Yes, there will be blood. And yes, this kind of meddling doesn't seem to embrace the democratic values we hold dear.  However, it is a pragmatic solution to a deadly serious problem. And the blood spilled now may pale to that which will be spilled if we continue to engage in our foreign policy of wishful thinking.  Considering its track record on assessing foreign military strength, do you really believe American intelligence proclamations that Iran is two years away from obtaining nuclear weapons? And let's face reality: If Iran is allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, it is not a matter of if there will be war as it is when. And make no mistake about it: the Iranian regime is as much an enemy and threat to the United States as Hitler's Germany.  If blood has to be spilled -- and in my assessment it is unavoidable -- then let it be spilled inside Iran.  Before we sacrifice the youth of our nation in another Middle East adventure, let's explore every option for removing this cancer through clandestine means before it is allowed to spread. The alternative, to pray that unreasonable zealots will suddenly change their tune and seek compromise is not only naive, but reckless and immoral. In the final analysis, yes, there will be blood. The only open question is on whose terms it will be spilled.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 12 -- KeepingThem Honest
March 8, 2012


Is is a question of bias or collective amnesia?  Either way, the current media narrative on the race for the Republican presidential nomination doesn't make any sense.  According to the nation's punditocracy, the Republicans are engaged in a destructive primary process that will doom their chances for victory in November.  They say the fact that frontrunner Mitt Romney didn't sew up the nomination by Super Tuesday demonstrates his weakness. However, one need only to look back four years at the 2008 primary season to see the fallacy of this narrative. In that election cycle, Super Tuesday was on February 5 - a full month before it was this year.  It wasn't until four months and two days after Super Tuesday 2008 that Senator Barack Obama finally secured the nomination from the challenge of Senator Hillary Clinton. This year's narrative says the bitter infighting between the Republican candidates is fracturing the party. The assumption is that the losers' followers will stay home or vote for the Democrat nominee. Again, 2008 is instructive. In a singularly cynical and divisive move, Bill and Hillary Clinton pulled out the so-called "race card" in an unsuccessful effort to derail Obama in the 2008 South Carolina primary (See Vol. 2 No. 3). Yet Obama somehow won the presidency. It is well documented that conservatives - whether they be Romney conservatives, Gingrich conservatives or Santorum conservatives - dislike this president.  And while there is one significant difference between 2008 and 2012, the presence of an incumbant in the race, this particular incumbant is not that particularly popular, at least according to the  Gallup Poll. This is all to say "pay no attention to those pundits behind the curtain." Like the Wizard of Oz, they are little more than masters of smoke and mirrors.  Instead of providing measured observations designed to illuminate readers and viewers about our political process, they are mere surrogates for the candidates, themselves. (If they were public relations practitioners, the news media would call them "fronts" and accuse them of unethical behavior. Ironic, isn't it?) The next time you watch Anderson "Blow Dry" Cooper, Ed "the last Angry Man Standing" Schultz or Bill "Spin Doctor" O'Reilly, you will need to take what they say with more than a grain of salt. It will take a truckload.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 11 -- Romney Rising
February 28, 2012


Mitt Romney passed a major test tonight on his road to the Republican presidential nomination.  He successfully fended off Rick Santorum's challenge in Romney's native Michigan.  A loss there would not have necessarily ended Romney's campaign, but it could have crippled it.  The former Massachusetts governor can now go into next week's Super Tuesday primaries with something that will pass for momentum. As important as Romney's win was Santorum's loss. The former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania had been leading in the Michigan polls as recently as last week.  However, the more people got a good look at Santorum, the less they liked him.  He also made a strategic mistake by switching his message from fiscal conservatism to social and cultural issues. When Santorum goes off on that tangent, he scares the heck out of a lot of people -- including me.  Throughout this primary season, the media have focused their narrative on Romney's difficult courtship with Republican conservatives.  Tonight's twin victories in Michigan and mostly uncontested Arizona will not completely tamp down that storyline. However, they certainly won't feed it, either.  Next week's 10 Super Tuesday primaries - especially Ohio - could, effectively, sew things up for Romney.  Santorum is Romney's only serious challenger. Major losses next Tuesday may dry up his fund raising. Recent polls have Santorum ahead in Ohio, but tonight's results and the former senator's gaffe's may change that. Meanwhile, the delusionary and illusionary Newt Gingrich vows to fight on unto the convention. However, even he eventually must see that no one - especially Republicans - want him on the ticket. Ron Paul is that crazy uncle that everyone hopes will just go away. And while Romney is the decided underdog in the fall election against President Obama, the fall election is not a slam dunk.  And don't think that the Democrats don't know it. Why else were they urging Michigan Democrats to vote in the Republican primary for Santorum? And just as Democrats put their primary battles behind them four years ago to support their nominee, the Republicans will do the same. And lest we forget, President Obama's current job approval rating is only 43 percent. Romney is not out of the woods yet, but his stock is rising.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 10 -- Gut-Check Time in America
February 21, 2012


Recently, a Super Bowl commercial featuring Clint Eastwood declaring that it is "Halftime in America" created quite a stir. It was the Chrysler Corporation's way of saying that the U.S. auto industry is leading a resurgence of the American spirit - and, by the way, buying a Chrysler wouldn't hurt. It was a take off of the famous Ronald Reagan "Morning in America" reelection spot of 1984 - another homage to the reemerging American spirit.  Far from me to argue with Dirty Harry or Dutch, but I feel that a far more accurate characterization of our times is that it is Gut-Check Time in America.  We have some very difficult choices to make. These are choices about the role of government in our lives and, more importantly, whether we have any faith in that government. It is a tug of war between those who want to expand government programs and those who believe we are already taxed too much and want to see spending slashed.  Of course, when one engages in a tug of war, it leaves little room for compromise.  We have hard choices ahead of us and I can't but wonder if we are up to the task.  It is easy to deride Washington or Topeka politicians for "doing nothing." However, what I have seen locally brings me little cause for hope. For example, the local school board created a 26-committee and charged it with making recommendations on how to save money by consolidating some of Lawrence's elementary schools. (Of course, "consolidate" is a code for "close.")  Rather than do what it was charged to do, the committee split into two camps, one that said we shouldn't close schools but should spend more money improving those we have and another that left the option of closing schools open (without an specific recommendations) and also said we should spend more money. In short, rather than doing what it was charged to do, the committee punted. And who could blame it? The creation of the committee, itself, was the callous act of a school board seeking to insulate itself from making the hard choices its members were elected to make.  To its credit, the committee rejected the false dichotomy of "tax or cut."  Guess what - we have to do both.  If it means raising taxes and consolidating schools to get our financial house in order, so be it. The United States can't continue borrowing 41 cents for every dollar it spends. We have to make strategic decisions. Not everything can be our top priority. That kind of decision-making involves having a backbone - something that appears to be in short supply among American voters and politicians. And the clock is ticking. It's Gut-Check Time in America.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 9 -- Someone Waiting at Home
February 16, 2012


I was driving home in a typically dreary midwinter twilight last night when it hit me: Someone was waiting at home for me. As I walked in the door, I was enveloped with a warm "hi" and the sights, sounds, and smells of a home during dinner preparation. I realized that it had been five years since I had relished in the glory of coming home.  Five years since my wife Jan passed away.  While she was never a homebound mom, she had been telecommuter since 2001. Her daily commute was to and from her basement office - often in fuzzy slippers. There was comfort in knowing she was always at home waiting for me. Walking into a bustling home is almost spiritual.  When you do, all seems right in the world. As a widower, there was no joy returning at day's end to an empty house. I was greeted, as always, by my dog, Boomer.  He's a great guy, but not much of a conversationalist. Even after I remarried in June 2010, my bride commuted to the Kansas City area every weekday. That meant that she usually would leave for work before I did and return home after me. However, Maureen recently retired from her job in Olathe. And now, when I come home, I am no longer greeted by deafening silence.  It is easy to take the little things in life for granted.  It is easy to forget how hard it is to sit in one's home and hear only the sound of a ticking clock - serving as a constant and painful reminder that that time was all I had. The grieving for a loved one never really ends.  However, with the restoration of normalcy comes the restoration of one's soul.  There's someone waiting at home - for me. What was once an everyday occurrence is now music to my ears.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 8 -- Backing Away from Bad Ideas
February 11, 2012


One can only hope that state Rep. Forrest Knox (R-Altoona) will learn a lesson in humility and practical politics from President Barack Obama.  The President yesterday backed down from a proposed policy that would have required religious organizations pay for birth control for their workers. Under his compromise, women would still get free birth control. Instead of making religious organizations ignore their values, Obama proposed that insurance companies serving those organizations be required to provide it free under a separate contract. In announcing this compromise, the President backed away from what I consider a constitutionally untenable position. Proponents argued that similar regulations had successfully fought off challenges before.  However, those proponents conveniently forget to mention that these victories were won through administrative and regulatory channels and not within the courts. By backing away from this overreaching regulation, Obama has avoided an election-year showdown with the Catholic Church that would have undermined his reelection. This takes us to Rep. Knox, who has proposed a Kansas state law that would allow persons licensed to carry concealed weapons to do so in public buildings that do not have weapons screening at their entrances. The effect of this regulation would be to allow people to carry concealed weapons onto college campuses.  Either that, or already money-strapped institutions would have to take on the added burden of creating an TSA-like bureaucracy to continue the existing weapons ban.  One can't help but wonder on what planet do people think mixing guns with young people makes sense?  After senseless massacres at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, how is this a good idea? If Knox's argument is that concealed weapons would deter future slaughters, why stop at guns? Let the campus bookstores sell handgrenades and flame throwers. Does that seem a bit extreme and ludicrous? Of course it is. It is just as ludicrous as introducing guns into an often-stressful environment dominated by sometimes immature, hormone and alcohol-driven young adults. The sad fact is similar legislation passed the Kansas House of Representatives two years ago - when memories of Virginia Tech and NIU were still fresh. Fortunately, the bill failed in the Kansas Senate. Let's hope that this year's version meets the same fate. Rep. Knox, please back away from this very bad idea. Introducing weapons into classrooms and other public settings will not deter violence. Instead, it will increase the likelihood of it. Despite any good intentions you may have, the ultimate effect of your bill would be to do more harm than good. Rep. Knox, if you bring violence to our campuses, the blood will be on your hands.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 7 -- The Winds of War
February 5, 2012


I hate to be the bearer of bad news. However, in case you haven't noticed, our country is slowly slipping into one of the most dangerous crises it has faced since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. There is an increasing possibility that we will be in an military conflict with Iran - and its friends the Russians and the Chinese - within a few weeks.  The thing is, it may not be a fight of our choosing. A dangerous threshold was passed yesterday, when the Russians and Chinese vetoed an Arab League-backed U.N. resolution against the Assad regime's brutal crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Syria. The U.N.'s impotence in the face of Assad's criminal behavior has sent a clear signal to Tehran that it has nothing to fear when it comes to joint military action against Iran's nuclear weapons program. The Iranians calculate that the United States doesn't have the backbone to take military action to halt the Islamic terror state's nuclear weapons development program.  However, the Israeli government has seen those same signals, has come to the same conclusion and feels less need to act with restraint.  A nuclear weaponized Iran poses a clear and present danger to the Jewish state.  The Israelis are posed to attack Iran as early as this spring. Given the U.S. government's almost blind allegiance to Israel, American involvement in the conflict is virtually assured - especially if Iran receives aid from the Russians and the Chinese.  However, Iran may not be willing to wait for an Israeli attack.  The U.N. sanctions against Iran are apparently working very well - so well, in fact, that the Iranians have begun to beat war drums. They are threatening to block key oil shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf. That, too, would result in American military intervention. And if you weren't listening closely, President Obama has done his own saber-rattling. In his recent State of the Union address, Obama said "no options are off the table" when it comes to preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons.  I don't know about you, but I sat right up in my chair when I heard him say that. That is unprecedented public language from a U.S. president that not-so-subtly reminded Iran that we have nuclear weapons of our own and are prepared to use them. Meanwhile, the Russians and Chinese have started acting as if they are trying to reinvent the Cold War by recklessly backing unstable and irrational regimes.  Perhaps the only thing that may give this unholy alliance pause to think is the realization that it is capitalism, not communism, that have given their nations a period of relative economic stability.  However, it makes me nervous to think that the difference between peace and war rests on whether the Russians and Chinese realize that World War III would be bad for business.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 6 -- But Do They Really Mean It?
February 1, 2012


In the wake of the sexual abuse scandal at Penn State University, the late football coach Joe Paterno was fired because he didn't do more than the law and university policy required. Beyond reporting the allegations against former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky to his superiors, the school's governing board decided that Paterno should have done more, jumped the chain of command, and gone directly to law enforcement. Since then, university officials across the country, in a thinly veiled effort to insulate their schools from similar liabilities, have enacted policies requiring employees to immediately report instances of sexual abuse or assault on children
to law enforcement authorities. University of Kansas Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little articulated such a policy only yesterday.  While I applaud the sentiment behind such declarations, one can't help but wonder if they really mean it? Are we not, as citizens, duty-bound to report any and all crimes we witness to law enforcement? And we are not just talking about child sexual assault. During my two decades at this university, I can cite many situations where KU has chosen to deal with potentially criminal violations internally rather than risk public embarrassment. Whether it be the sleazy athletic director who gets a $2 million buyout to go away or the incompetent dean who suddenly decides he misses the classroom, KU has a long history of being less than candid when it comes to dealing with the questionable legal conduct of some of its employees. The university may not have known it, but its pious statements concerning child sexual abuse have established a legal standard of disclosure by which employees may be judged.  They are now required to to do more than the law says they should.  In fact, the next time I see something in the workplace I consider legally questionable, I am not going to tell my supervisor.  I am going to do exactly what KU infers that I should do: I am going to call the cops.

That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 5 -- The State of the Union 2012
January 24, 2012


For those who drink President Obama's Kool-Aid, tonight's State of the Union Address was masterful and visionary.  For the Obama-bashers, it was a cynically partisan affair. In fact, the only thing those two groups have in common is that they had already made up their minds on whether they loved or hated the speech before they heard it.  For someone like me, who doesn't allow political affiliation to dictate how I vote, I found things I liked in the speech, as well as those I didn't.  Thematically, I liked the President's focus on economic fairness.  However, like most people, tax policy and what a so-called "tax overhaul" will actually mean is not my strong suit.  
I can see merits in both sides of the argument. However, the creation of international trade and financial regulation enforcement units made good sense. At one point, the president joked about "crying over spilled milk," a reference to a recently slashed regulation that treats spilled milk as a hazardous substance. From there, he seamlessly pivoted into a vigorous defense of government regulatory oversight. Rhetorically, I felt it was brilliant, as was his call for unity at the end of the speech. However, much of the speech was more about political positioning than substance.  Did you notice how many times he would mention the name of cities located in key electoral battleground states, such as Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Raleigh? At one point he urged Congress to not slash funding for university-based research - just five minutes after threatening to slash funding to colleges and universities because of their rising tuitions.  He talked about a peace dividend we will supposedly receive with the conclusion of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  But it seems shallow to talk about peace dividends when, in the same breathe, the President says "no options are off the table" when it comes to dealing with Iran and we are moving troops to Australia to counter growing Chinese military influence in the Pacific Rim. As for the President's defense of his energy policies, it came across as nothing less than a sea of contradictions. He bragged about opening up 75 percent of the nation's offshore oil and gas reserves just days after denying a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline that would ship crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast. It seems the nearly six years that have passed since the project was first proposed didn't give the government enough time to make a decision. Now those jobs and oil are headed for China. One also can't listen to Obama talk about investing in alternative energy without thinking about his administration's dubious - and possibly criminal - $535 million loan guarantee to the failed alternative energy company Solyndra. Many within his administration thought it was a bad idea, but were overruled by the White House. It was also obvious that the President is math challenged, crowing about the creation of three million jobs in the same sentence he acknowledged that we had lost at least four million jobs on his watch and eight million since the start of the Great Recession.  While tonight's State of the Union Address may have fired up Obama's most fervent supporters as well as his opponents, for the undecided voters like me, we should take it for what it was, politics as usual.

That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 4 -- Letterman's Question
January 10, 2012


David Letterman loves to ask provocative questions. In fact, he is well paid to do so. There are times Dave will ask a guest a question with no expectations that he or she will answer.  Instead, Letterman is more interested in the reaction to his questions.  That happen last week, when he asked NBC News anchor Brian Williams "When did the Republican Party become the party of the emotionally unstable?" Williams, understandably, dodged the question. To take Williams off Letterman's hook, I'd like to answer Dave's question with just two words: "Newt Gingrich."  The former House Speaker and soon-to-be former presidential candidate is one of architects of the poisonous slash-and-burn tactics that have virtually destroyed civility in American politics. Granted, every ying must have its yang and that there are a number of Democrats - James Carville comes to mind - who have the same blood on their hands.  However, Gingrich is the only one of those late-1980s/early-1990s politicos currently running for president. And despite his best intentions, Newt can't miss an opportunity to remind us that beneath his soft, cuddly and intellectual exterior is one callous and mean-spirited son of a bitch.  His behavior during the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary campaigns has been nothing short of an embarrassment. Newt wants to portray himself as a latter-day Wizard of Oz - "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."  His past behaviors - political and personal - are supposed to be off-limits.  We are supposed to focus on the "new Newt" - the seasoned intellectual who has benefited from life's lessons.  However, considering the ferocious attacks he has unleashed at his opponents - especially Mitt Romney - the truth is that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Newt wants to claim the mantle of Republican Saint Ronald Reagan. However, even Democrats will tell you that Reagan was not a nasty, bare-knuckles politician.  Reagan could be tough. And he was a lot smarter than many of his opponents thought. And
with Reagan, it was never personal. I never voted for Reagan - an artifact of his challenge to Gerald Ford in 1976.  But I learned to respect him and his presidency. So, to paraphrase the late Lloyd Bentsen, "Newt. I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. And you are no Ronald Reagan."

That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 3 -- Gutting the Fifth Amendment
January 6, 2012


Almost everyone knows the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as the one that protects individuals from self-incrimination in a court of law.  However, the beginning clause of the amendment is equally significant: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger." Unfortunately, the Congress and President of the United States have chosen to trash the Fifth Amendment in the recent Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision (section 1021) which makes it possible for the military to indefinitely detain anyone -- including American citizens -- who may be suspected of terrorism.  It also removes certain individuals from civilian judicial jurisdiction and places them under the control of military justice.  This bill passed both houses of Congress with substantial bipartisan majorities. Rep. Tim Huelskamp was the only member of the Kansas congressional delegation to vote against it. President Obama signed the measure into law New Year's Eve after saying he would veto it if the legislation contained these Fifth Amendment-gutting provisions. Obama signed the bill, along with an 1,800-word signing statement which said his administration would comply "with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."  This was a particularly cynical action on the part of this president, who has been critical of his predecessor for using similar signing statements to dampen or justify his approval of controversial legislation.  I have three major objections to this bill. First, and most obvious, it is unconstitutional.  Not only does it violate the Fifth Amendment, it also violates 14th amendment "due process" guarantees. Second, this questionable provision is - essentially - our government saying that it has no faith in our system of laws, checks and balances. Congress may not trust our courts to do the right thing.  But has it checked its own approval ratings as of late? Finally, this provision puts in place a legal mechanism for a coup d'etat. Frankly, I do not believe that Obama or any of the people currently running for president would do anything that extreme.  But who is to say that isn't a possibility for the future?  We need a strong Constitution to protect our people from rash and convenient quick fixes -- such as arresting anyone who disagrees with us in the name of national security. Could that happen here?  Who is to say it can't? Just ask any Japanese-American alive during the Second World War.  I condemn our elected leaders - especially President Obama - for blithely accepting this heinous assault on American values.  If you can't govern using the framework the founders gave you, step aside in favor of those who will adhere to the values we all hold true and dear as Americans.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 2 -- The Iowa Caucuses
January 3, 2012


The first meaningful votes in the 2012 presidential campaign have been cast.  But what do the results of tonight's Iowa caucuses really mean? The flippant answer would be to say "not much."  But that's not true. For Mitt Romney, the convenient conservative, he leaves the Hawkeye state in good shape. He hadn't campaigned in Iowa as much as his rivals. It was only a few weeks ago that polls suggested Romney might crash and burn - meet his Waterloo (Iowa), so to speak. Now he rolls into next week's New Hampshire primary in a position of strength with what is, essentially, a home court advantage. While Rick Santorum and Ron Paul unquestionably had a good night, the euphoria they feel will not last very long. Santorum, a late bloomer in this race who ended in a virtual dead-heat with Romney, has neither the money nor organization to mount a serious challenge. Frankly, he has been a weak debater - a major problem for him now that the spotlight on him will shine brighter. The former Pennsylvania senator may be able translate tonight's showing into much-needed hard cash, but I have my doubts.  As for Ron Paul, the more seriously people take his candidacy, the less they will like what they see and hear. Rick Perry's embarrassing fourth place finish has him headed home to Texas to reassess his campaign - a sign that his candidacy may be short-lived. The angry and baggage-laden Newt Gingrich, who finished fourth in Iowa will hang around until South Carolina, hoping he can marshal the Bob Jones University crowd behind him. Michele Bachmann has suffered a crushing defeat and should be hard pressed to continue her campaign. However, she is just as stubborn as Gingrich and may fight on through South Carolina.  Even Jon Huntsman - viewed by Iowans as a RINO (republican in name only) - will hang on for at least another week. He's been staking his hopes on a decent showing next Tuesday in more moderate New Hampshire.  Unfortunately for his handful of followers, polls suggest Huntsman is running a distant third in the Granite State. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Iowa caucuses is exit polling suggesting that republicans are more interested in the electability of their nominee than in his or her ideology - something that bodes well for Romney.  Another interesting aspect is the relatively low turnout - a sign of republican voter apathy and potentially good news for President Obama. EDITOR'S NOTE: Michele Bachmann suspended her presidential campaign on the morning after the caucuses. Perry announced on the morning after that he would skip New Hampshire and focus his efforts on South Carolina.


That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
Vol. 6 No. 1 -- Leap into 2012
January 1, 2012


The start of a new year is always a time of reflection and prediction.  This year is no different.  However, 2012 promises to be anything but ordinary.  It is a leap year, a presidential election year, an Olympic year and, according to Mayan prophecy, the year in which the world ends.  In just a matter of hours, the first meaningful event of the presidential campaign, the Iowa caucuses, will occur. After a series of roller-coaster polls, it appears as if former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney may finally get some love from his fellow republicans. Despite scatter-brained and radical ideas, Representative Ron Paul (R-Tex) has a superior organization in Iowa and could upset the Romney bandwagon. As for Newt Gingrich, his latest 15-minutes are up. For the record, I will not endorse a candidate for president -- if at all -- until after the last fall presidential debate.  But my guess is that it won't matter who the Republicans choose as their nominee.  I believe President Obama will be reelected. His amazing fund-raising ability, combined with the advantages of incumbency and the Republicans' penchant toward self-destruction, gives him the edge.  A wild card is the European economy. It could drag us into a double-dip recession and hurt Obama's chances. A second wild card is Iran, which has been doing a lot of saber rattling as of late. Any military confrontation with Iran would (a) end badly for the Iranians and (b) would ensure Obama's reelection. Unfortunately for the Iranian leadership, hatred cuts both ways. Iran is the country that the American people hate more than any other. Give us the slightest excuse, and we will level Tehran before lunch without an ounce of guilt.  A third wild card: This will be a year when we may see a third-party candidate - probably Ron Paul.  It won't be Donald Trump, although he will threaten to do so in an effort to generate more of the mindless publicity that he seeks. In any event, a third-party challenger will probably come from the right, which can only hurt the GOP's chances.  If Nancy Pelosi finally retires - and there are hints that she is considering it - the Democrats will have a chance to win the House.  But if she remains in the picture, her continued presence will invigorate Republicans, ensure that they keep their hold on the House, and could endanger Obama's chances. There's one other fact to consider: The 2010 Census resulted in a redistribution of votes in the Electoral College, one that favors Republicans. There's a lot to consider in 2012 - and we even get an extra day to do it! One final prediction for 2012: The Mayans were wrong and I will be explaining how I screwed up my predictions one year from today.  


That's it for now. Happy New Year! And Fear the Turtle.
x