|
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 |
|
|
|
|
