Vol. 4 No. 40 -- September 3, 2010
Obama's "Mission Accomplished"
This week marked an ironic convergence of two events, the end of the
U.S. combat role in Iraq and the end of what the Obama administration
had touted as "recovery summer." We all remember George W. Bush's
"a photo-op too far," the famous "mission accomplished" news conference
announcing the end of combat in Iraq. That was seven years ago,
and the continued fighting and dying made a mockery of Bush's premature
claim of victory. On Tuesday of this week, Bush's successor gave
a subdued "mission accomplished" speech of his own from the Oval
Office. It coincided with the withdrawal of the last U.S. combat
troops from Iraq. President Obama, rightfully so, said that he
had met his campaign promise to end American combat in Iraq.
The irony is that Obama was claiming the fruits of a timetable
established by Bush and made possible by a surge Bush engineered and
that Obama opposed. Of course, there are still 50,000 U.S. troops
in that troubled country. It remains to be seen whether they will
depart with dignity or we will be faced with a scene reminscient of
Saigon 1975. However, Obama's biggest challenge is on the
domestic front, where the economy continues to confound his
government's best efforts. It would be easy to give Obama a pass
on the economic mess. It is easy to lay the blame on Bush.
But here's the rub: The Obama administration took ownership of
the economy when it hung a big "mission accomplished" banner of its own
by declaring this to be "recovery summer." Just as Bush was lured
into a false sense of accomplishment by early battlefield victories,
Obama belatedly learned the danger of drinking his own Kool-Aid.
Certainly "cash for clunkers" and the new-home owners incentive
worked for awhile. However, once the federal funds dried up,
so did car and home sales. Unemployment is as as least as bad - and may
be worse when you consider the folks no longer eligible for
unemployment aid and are not counted - as it was when "recovery summer"
began. Obama's problems are also compounded by a realization that he
doesn't walk on water. Rather than be the savior so many projected him
to be, he is a mortal man with all of the attendant flaws. Obama made
the same mistake his predecessor made: Unrealistically claiming victory
over forces with which he had no control. As it turns out, hubris is
nonpartisan.
x
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 39 -- August 27, 2010
Boomer and the Skunk
Having a dog is a lot like being a parent, except that it is usually
the dog that has control over the relationship. Such is the case
with Boomer, my golden retriever and pride-and-joy-boy. His power to
control (disrupt) my life was on display last night when he had an
unfortunate run-in with a skunk. For all of you who are F-O-P-L-P
(Friends of Pepè le Pew), let me make it clear: It was not the
skunk's fault. It is obvious that Boomer provoked the little
stinker. The unfortunate confrontation occurred on Boomer's last
potty break before going to bed. The dog charged out the back door of
our house - presumably targeting the scent of the aromatic intruder.
As Boomer ran off into the dark, I used my best "master" voice to
get him to return. Within 30 seconds, man's best friend scampered back
home with blinking eyes, smacking his lips as if he had eaten the
sourest of sour balls and - in the immortal words of Loudon Wainwright III,
"stinking to high, high, high, heaven." Boomer immediately - and
reluctantly - hit the shower. (Please keep in mind that this happened
only eight hours after I had dropped a cool 80 bucks on his grooming.)
While I (unsuccessfully) tried to flush the stink from his fur,
my bride checked on the Internet for an emergency treatment. The gods
of cybersense suggested that we pour mouthwash over him. The rationale
was that the same ingredients used to dampen halitosis should stifle
the stink of a skunk. How did it do? Instead of a dog smelling like a
skunk, Boomer became a dog that smelled like a skunk with minty-fresh
breath. As I write this, I have every fan in the house running in an
attempt to air out the place. Boomer is back at the groomer's getting a
skunk bath. And I am writing this blog, thinking of buying some air
freshener and trying to remember why dogs are called "man's best
friend."
x
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
|
Vol. 4 No. 38 -- August 23, 2010
Year Twenty
This morning, for the 20th time, I start a new school year at the
University of Kansas. Coincidentally, I will teach in the same room
(100 Stauffer-Flint) and the same course (Public Relations) I taught
when I first stepped in front of a classroom on August 26, 1991.
I've learned a lot over the years - and need to learn more.
Any teacher who begins a new school year thinking he or she has
nothing to learn is hubris. Times change, people change, and even
knowledge, itself, changes. Perhaps the best example of that change is
the medium you are using right now, the Internet. This year marks the
20th anniversary of the World Wide Web. When I stepped in front
of a classroom for the first time, there was only one Web site in the
world. Today, there are approximately 250 million. The job - the
challenge - of a teacher is to keep up with the changing world of
knowledge. One does that by paying attention, reading and conducting
research. One also does that by listening to students and
understanding the teacher is not the sole repository of knowledge
in the room. Today's students do not respond well to the "sage on the
stage." They want to have a conversation. I try to achieve that in my
classes - not always with success. I make no pretense that I am a great
teacher. However, that is something for which I strive. I have
been blessed to teach some very smart people - many much smarter than
myself. I learn a lot from my students, and there's much more to learn.
I am ready to launch into Year 20. Every year, every class is different
from the last. This should be fun. Come to think of it, it
is.
x
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 37 -- August 14, 2010
The Value of Core Values
On a visceral level, they appear to be outrages against common sense: a
mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero and automatic U.S. citizenship for
babies of illegal aliens. The construction of a mosque near the
site of the World Trade Center is a provocative act insulting to sacred
ground, much like building a WalMart adjacent to Arlington National
Cemetery. Then there are illegal aliens who seek to benefit from
American law by ignoring it. An automatic birthright appears to be a
perverse reward for those unwilling to follow the rules and wait their
turn. However, once the chest-thumping and teeth-gnashing have been
rendered, we eventually have to come to grips with the reality that
Muslims and, yes, even illegal aliens, are granted rights under the
world's greatest expression of core values, the U.S. Constitution.
Do I believe there are better sites for the proposed Islamic
Center? Yes. But I also know that as long as they fulfill the
zoning and building requirements of New York City, Muslims have a
right to build their center wherever they want. As a nation born out a
quest for religious freedom, permitting this structure on this site
makes a powerful statement about American core values. And as a
nation of immigrants, how can we proclaim ourselves as The Land of the
Free while trying to slam the door shut on those seeking that freedom?
I do not favor blanket amnesty for illegal aliens - laws cannot
be meaningful if we ignore the acts of those who break them.
However, I support former President George Bush's proposal for
limited amnesty with a road map to citizenship. It is the only
practical solution that has been offered. We call them illegals.
Would we feel the same if we thought of them as refugees from
Mexico's drug wars? The push to amend the Constitution to deny
automatic citizenship to the offspring of undocumented aliens is little
more than an artificial wedge issue introduced by callous politicians
seeking votes from a frustrated American public. The need to
adhere to core values is never greater than in times of stress.
This is one of those times. American strength was not
achieved through intolerance and exclusion. If you truly believe that
the United States of America is the greatest nation on earth - what
Ronald Reagan called "a shining city on the hill" - let's prove it by
living what we say are our core values. After call, actions speak
louder than words.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 36 -- August 8, 2010
Taxing Questions
As we approach this fall's General Elections, a lot of statistics about
our nation's tax policy will be thrown around. And we all know
that statistics don't lie, but statisticians do. As our country
prepares to discuss whether we should extend some of the Bush-era tax
cuts, here's some food for thought. According to the National
Taxpayer's Union, the top 1 percent of U.S. wage earners pay more than
40 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent pay only 3
percent and the bottom one-third pay no taxes at all. It is easy to
dismiss this statistic because most of us - including yours truly - are
nowhere near to being in that elite 1 percent income group. However,
here's a statistic that may give you pause. According to the
non-partisan Tax Foundation, those with income in the nation's top 25
percent (more than $66,532 a year) earned 68.7 percent of the nation's
income, but paid 86.6 percent of the taxes. The Tax Foundation also did
an impact analysis of allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire.
What makes this analysis unique is that the organization examined the
impact it would have in each congressional district. For example,
if you live in the Kansas Third (east Lawrence), the average tax
liability would jump by $1,919 or 27.7 percent. If you live in
the Kansas Fourth (west Lawrence), the average tax bill would rise
$1,466 or 54 percent. However, before you think that I am about
to lead a Tea Party revolt, let me share with you another statistic I
recently learned. According to the College Board, the United States has
fallen from first to 12th among developed nations in the percentage of
young people with colleges degrees. How can this nation expect to
survive - let alone lead - the 21st century global economy if we are
not developing the young minds from which future innovations spring?
My point is this: Not all taxes are bad. Nor do I mind
paying taxes. It is how the money is spent that is my greatest
concern. It is not as simple as a guns for butter proposition.
Even if the U.S. were to miraculously disengage from its two
foreign wars, that does not mean that we will suddenly receive a peace
dividend. Perhaps we should cut some taxes - especially those
that hinder economic growth. However, at the same time, we should not
engage in a tax cutting frenzy that ignores critical national
priorities such as education. I would not mind seeing the
Bush-era tax cuts expire if I thought Congress would invest the
windfall wisely. As we decide the future of taxes, we need to ask our
representatives hard questions. If the tax cuts are extended,
what will government do gather resources necessary to address urgent
national priorities? And if we let the tax cuts expire, how will
government take advantage of the tax windfall? To me, these are the
questions voters need to ask of our politicians in the coming months.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 35 -- August 4, 2010
A New Chapter in an Old Struggle
It is very likely that a lot of people living outside of Kansas think
of the Sunflower State as one that is politically conservative. After
all, Kansas is about as Republican as any state in the union. However
those who perpetuate this stereotype tend to fall in one of two
camps: Blue Dog Democrats blinded by their own partisanship or those
who have no concept of Kansas politics. Kansas is a state with
three political parties: Democrats, Republican moderates and the
Republican conservatives. The history of this state pivots on the
struggle between the GOP's center and right. The only time Democrats
win in Kansas is when the two Republican parties are at war with one
another. U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran's narrow victory over U.S. Rep. Todd
Tihart in the U.S. Senate primary is a prime example of the
double-edged nature of Sunflower politics. Moran, an independent-minded
legislator with a willingness to buck his party's leadership, was
forced to run to his right to fend off Tihart's ultra-conservative
challenge. It was not a pretty campaign, as the two congressmen
engaged in an unflattering mud fight. On the surface, it appeared to be
a struggle over who had the more conservative credentials. However,
that is an overly simplistic interpretation of the campaign.
It was really a fight to define what it means to be a republican
- whether one can ocassionally seek compromise with the democrat
opposition or must consistently tow a strict ideological line.
Granted, no one is going to confuse Moran with Eastern Republican
moderates like Rudolph Guiliani or the first President Bush. But he
didn't always stay in lock-step with the Dick Cheneys or Rush
Limbaughs of the right. The fight in Kansas Republican circles has
always been between the pragmatic center and the idealogical right.
That Moran won the party's nomination is a minor miracle, considering
that "true believers" - in this case the ideologues on the right - are
the voters most likely to cast ballots in a scorching mid-summer
primary election. As Tihart's strong showing and immigration reformer
Kris Kobach's convincing victory in the secretary of state primary
demonstrated, the republican right remains a force in Sunflower State
politics. While Moran will face token Democrat opposition in the
general election, Kobach will need to mollify republican moderates lest
they abandon him in favor of the Democrat incumbent. And the beat goes
on. Yesterday's balloting didn't really resolve the struggle over the
soul of the Kansas GOP - it just wrote a new chapter.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 34 -- July 20, 2010
Self-Imposed Tyranny
A story broadcast this morning on CNN caught my attention.
Quoting the lead from the online version of the story: "A black
Agriculture Department employee who resigned after a video clip
showed her talking about a white farmer said Tuesday her remarks were
taken out of context. Shirley Sherrod, the department's former state
director of rural development for Georgia, told CNN on Tuesday the
incident she discusses in the clip took place more than two decades ago
-- and she recounted it to an audience to make the point that people
should move beyond race." This incident, along with other recent
examples in the news, is evidence of a self-imposed tyranny upon
American political discourse. In this particular case, a conservative
blogger took a soundbite from a speech Ms. Sherrod gave last March and
presented it out of context. Without context, her remarks sounded as if
she, as a USDA official, had purposely discriminated against a white
farmer on the basis of race. However, the incident Ms. Sherrod
described occurred 24 years ago - long before she was a federal
official - and was presented as a personal learning experience. In
fact, the point she was making was exactly the opposite of what
the out-of-context statement suggests: Race should not be a factor.
She was forced to resign and, to add insult to injury, was
vilified in statements by the secretary of Agriculture and the
president of the NAACP. In a society where we supposedly value free
expression and the marketplace of ideas, we should condemn people who
maliciously parse statements to distort their true meanings. In
this case, the true villain is conservative website publisher Andrew
Breitbart. However, we should also condemn Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack and NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous for failing to listen
to what the woman actually
said. For those who think distortion is the sole province of the
political right, let me remind you that this is the same sort of
nonsense recently suffered upon House Minority Leader
John Boehner, who suggested Obama administration financial reforms are
overbroad and "like killing an ant with a nuclear
weapon." (Vol. 4 No. 32).
The political left went nuts, took the statement out of context,
and distorted Boehner's true meaning. There's even the case of
Dwayne Wade of the NBA's Miami Heat, roundly criticized for making
the following statement: "There's going to be times when we might
lose one, two games in a row, maybe two games, three games in a row,
you never know. It's going to seem like the world is crashed down. You
all are going to make it seem like the World Trade has just went down
again. But it's not going to be nothing but a couple basketball games
lost and we'll have to get back on track." I understand what he was
trying to say. Does anyone really
think he was making light of the World Trade Center disaster? If Wade
is guilty of anything, it may be that he is guilty of a poor analogy.
But was his statement so outrageous and offensive that he had to drop
everything he was doing and issue a nationally televised apology? It
seems to me that the American people live in a society where everything
anyone says, regardless of context, can be twisted into damning lies.
We are raising our children to be fearful of what they say to others for
fear of the repercussions of rubbing the wrong people the wrong way.
Even in the academic world in which I live, I see people afraid to
raise valid points in public debate for fear of being branded as
racist, sexist, homophobic, zenophobic or, dare I say, republican. Do
you know what we call a society in which people live in constant fear
of what they say and think? North Korea.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 33 -- July 11, 2010
Summer of Apathy
After weeks, months, perhaps even years of unrelenting build-up, the
world last week held its collective breath as we learned that "King"
LeBron James had decided to apply his trade along South Beach instead
of the shores of South Lake Erie. Guess what? I don't care.
The future of the National Basketball Association - a collection
of undereducated and overpaid prima donnas - isn't really a concern of
mine. Nor am I interested in the angst of the poor people of Cleveland,
a place I have never been and will not feel cheated if I never go. I am
not a fan of the Cavaliers, the Indians, Browns or Ohio State. I
actually root for teams that often oppose them. It's not even
that I don't like Cleveland native Drew Carey. It's just
that The Price is Right
isn't the same without Bob Barker. It's not that I don't care
about what's going on in the world. I just don't like the King
James version - the news media's focus on the inane and irrelevant.
For example, I don't really care about Lindsay Lohan. All I
really know about her is that she is an attractive young woman who has
confused celebrity with maturity. I don't care about Mel Gibson, who
apparently needs to split his time between the Betty Ford Clinic and
anger management classes. Nor do I care about the illegal aliens along
the Gulf of Mexico who feel it is unjust that BP will not compensate
them for lost wages because they are undocumented. Like most
people, I am disturbed about the situation in the gulf and I expect BP
to make restitution and to follow the rules. But if BP is expected to
play by the rules, shouldn't the undocumented workers, too? It's not
that I am an uncaring old sot. But I do have a balanced sense of
justice - that's what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Many of the people and issues we hear about are in the news
because of self-selecting circumstances. Whether it be the anguished
sports fan of Cleveland who really needs to get a life, the actor-class
of Hollywood that really needs to get real jobs that don't involve
make-believe, or illegal aliens who demand the right to break the law -
I don't care.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 32 -- July 1, 2010
Nuking Ants
Is it possible to have a rational political debate in this country?
More and more, the answer appears to be a resounding "no."
The latest example of this irrationality is the limpid left's
reaction to a comment made by House Minority Leader John Boehner. In
response to a question about the Obama administration's proposed
regulatory overhaul of the financial industry, Boehner said he feels
the regulations go to far, punishing many who had no role in the Wall
Street meltdown of 2008. "This is like killing an ant with a nuclear
weapon," Boehner said. It didn't take long for the limpid left
to parse that analogy into something that total misrepresents Boehner's
meaning. Keith Olbermouth of MSNBC immediately launched into his
best Chicken Little/Howard Beale impersonation. He accused
Boehner of blindly dismissing the pain and suffering caused by the
Great Recession as if it were some minor inconvenience.
Oblermouth used the out-of-context statement to again accuse
republicans of being out of touch with reality. I have grown to
expect Olbermouth's irrational diatribes. This morning, I picked up my
morning paper, the Kansas City Star,
only to find that columnist Yael T. Abouhalkan - "Yabba Daba Doo" as I
like to refer to him - joining in this distorted chorus. Yabba
Dabba Doo pretty much echoes Olbermouth, parsing and twisting Boehner's
words until they do not remotely resemble their original intent.
Perhaps just as damning, Yabba Dabba Doo's commentary was,
itself, presented out of context - a headline tease on the paper's
editorial page designed to drive readers to the Star's
web site. I do not always agree with the House Minority Leader. (Come
to think of it, I rarely agree with the House Minority Leader.) But,
come on. Can't he raise legitimate objections over the scope of the
Obama administration's financial reforms - objections shared by many
economists - without being demonized by the Olbermouths and Yabba Dabba
Doos of the limpid left? Can we have a serious debate in this
country without the demagogues of the radical right and limpid left
rending it into a meaningless mud fight? In other words, why do these
pompous pundits always choose to use nuclear weapons to kill ants?
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
Vol. 4 No. 31 -- June 27, 2010
I Told You So
This old world has spun on it axis seven times since I got married on
June 19. Judging by the pile of unread newspapers that accumulated
during my honeymoon interlude, the old adage (previously quoted in my
post of January 1, 2009, Vol. 3 No. 1)
must be true: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Perhaps the biggest news of the week was that which falls into the
category of "I told you so." President Obama's decision to fire General
Stanley McChrystal,
the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, shouldn't have been a surprise
to anyone who reads this blog. I warned General McMouth that he
was headed toward a McArthuresque demise in my blog of October 5, 2009 (Vol..3 No. 36).
I also read that U.S. Senate Republicans continue to block passage of a
bill that would extend unemployment benefits to more than one million
Americans. Once again, this falls into the "I told you so" category. Allow me to refer you to an old blog entry,
February 15 of this year (Vol. 4 No. 8),
"They Still Don't Get It." The GOP's rationale is that we can't afford
to increase the deficit by extending the benefits. This ignores
the fact that those funds not only help real people with real needs,
but directly pump needed dollars back into our sluggish economy.
Let me quote what I said last February: "If
the
Republicans are seen as
do-nothing obstructionists, they threaten to author another season of
electoral discontent. I was right one year ago and am still right
today: The public will give its support to whomever is willing abandon
partisanship and lead through compromise. And while his numbers are
down, it is President Obama who is currently winning that
battle." When I left town on my honeymoon, British Petroleum's
busted oil well was gushing up to 100,000 barrels of crude into the
Gulf of Mexico every day. I'm home and BP still hasn't plugged the
leak. Since I'm not an engineer, I am not going to hypocritically
suggest that I know the answer to that problem. However, as a public
relations educator and practitioner, I can only shake my head in
amazement at the clumsiness of BP's response to the oil spill. Granted,
even the head of BP deserves a day off after two months of unrelenting
crisis. However, someone needs to give the guy a reality check: You
don't go flitting around on your million-dollar sailboat enjoying
pristine waters and sea breezes while your company treats the Gulf
Coast as if it was BP's private privy. One only hopes that there is a
special place in hell for people that stupid. However, I am certain
that there are "special places" for BP's bozos within the federal
prison system. And if justice is done, I will again have a chance to
say "I told you so."
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
Vol. 4 No. 30 -- June 18, 2010
I'm Gettin' Married in the Morning
Yes, it is a line from the song "Get me to the Church on Time" from My Fair Lady.
It is sung by Alfred Doolittle at the end of a pre-nuptial bar crawl in
London. It has been on my mind for the past few days because - as you
may know - I'm getting
married in the morning, as well. (Technically, 1:00 p.m. CDT. However,
if you are reading this in California, it would still work.) My
bride-to-be is Maureen Manning Deeds, a warm-hearted and caring woman
with an Irish spirit and Midwest sensibilities. She can make me
laugh. She can also reel me back in when I am so full of myself -
as I am often prone to be. She has brought new joy into my life. After
three difficult years, I can now open a new chapter. As I write this,
people are gathering in Lawrence from around the country to share in
our big day. Not only is getting married a life-affirming
experience, so are the expressions of love and support Maureen and I
have received from our family and friends. This is especially
true of the Fillmans, my late-wife's family. I am touched and
honored by their presence on what has to be a bittersweet ocassion. I
love them dearly and will always consider myself to be a Fillman.
I know I'm supposed to be nervous and all of that. But I am
not. I am happy to be sharing the rest of my life with a wonderful
woman and to celebrate our union in the presence of people we love. It
is because of those people, especially my bride-to-be and daughter,
that I am at peace. So, as old Alfie would say, "Hail and salute me,
then haul off and boot me. And get me to the church on time!"
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
Vol. 4 No. 29 -- June 12, 2010
The Angry World of Dolph Simons
Every Saturday morning, the readers of the Lawrence Journal-World
are delivered the wisdom of the paper's publisher, Dolph C. Simons, Jr.
In many ways, Simons' World Company is a leader in 21st century
journalism. His media company was among the first to recognize
the changes enveloping mass communications and appears to have
developed a business model that will help his company thrive while
others in the industry fight to survive. However, while Simons
may have mastered the business of journalism, he appears to have little
knowledge or respect for the practice of journalism. Today's "Saturday Column"
is a prime example: a series of broad, unattributed statements and
opinions that are often unencumbered by evidence. Today's column
focuses on the precarious position that the University of Kansas finds
itself during this period of athletic conference realignment. And
while Simons raises some valid points, much of his criticism of KU
administration ignores the most critical issue in this whole Big Ten -
Pac Ten - Big Twelve shuffle: It is all about television markets, of
which Kansas City and Topeka are minor or - as in a case of Topeka -
nonexistent players. Simons' arguments also presume that KU officials
are being reactive and waiting to see what happens next. Perhaps he is
right. However, I'd like to think that KU officials are smarter
than their counterparts at Missouri and know better than to negotiate
the university's future in the press. Wouldn't it be smarter to
wait and see what these officials do than to condemn before they have a
chance to play out their hand? Is the criticism about the officials'
inaction or more about the fact that Simons is not - and never will be
- on the inside and calling the shots? Today's "Saturday Column" has
the tone of so many of Simons' diatribes - one in which he make it is
clear that he is angry that the world isn't run in the manner in which
he operates his media company, a sometimes benevolent but often
malevolent dictatorship in which Simons' opinions, fact-based or not,
are all that matter.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
Vol. 4 No. 28 -- June 10, 2010
Nothing Has Changed
The University of Kansas yesterday released the findings of an internal
investigation of Athletics Director Lew Perkins' use of loaned athletic
equipment. Perkins has been cleared of allegations that he exchanged
premium men's basketball tickets for use of the equipment in his
personal home. The allegations come at a time the KUAC is facing
a federal investigation into the misappropriation of at least $1.2
million in tickets. Several people have resigned in the wake of the
scandal. The investigation, conducted by two capable KU administrators,
also cleared Perkins of charges made by the former KU sports medicine
director, charges involving alleged irregularities in drug testing and
the academic eligibility of student athletes. I have no reason to
question the validity of the investigation. It was conducted by
honorable people. But we should remember that the investigation
did not address questions concerning possible violations of state
ethics codes, nor does it address Perkins' management of an
organization that, at face value, lacks adequate supervision.
That this entire mess has embarrassed the university and damaged
its reputation is without dispute. The truth is that the release of the
findings of the internal investigation have not changed anything.
Perkins remains an albatross around the university's neck. I
continue to hold to my position stated in an earlier post (Vol. 4 No. 26) that Lew Perkins must resign. At this point, it is the only honorable option he has.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
Vol. 4 No. 27 -- June 6, 2010
Toxic Sludge and the Challenge of Leadership
President Barack Obama and KU Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little have
discovered what their predecessors learned the hard way - that they
often pay the price for the actions of others. Obama has been
sharply criticized for the federal government's response to the BP oil
spill disaster. It doesn't matter that his administration didn't create
the situation. Nor does it matter that officials are dealing with
a crisis of unprecedented scale. According to the most recent USA Today/Gallup
Poll, 53 percent of Americans believe the Obama administration's
response to the disaster has been "poor" or "very poor." Of course,
this situation is rich in irony, as another disaster in the Gulf
Coast region, Hurricane Katrina, proved to be George Bush's albatross.
While Bush deserved criticism for problems with the federal
government's response, the most serious failures were those of state
and local governments, the entities with the legal responsibility for
emergency response. But that didn't matter: Bush was president and bad
stuff happened on his watch. Now it's Obama's turn to take the
heat. At KU, the toxic sludge isn't spewing from a busted oil
well. Instead it is emanating from the athletics department.
Former Chancellor Robert Hemenway was twice forced to find new
leadership for KUAC, cleaning up the popular Bob Frederick's
self-inflicted financial train wreck and firing Frederick's
replacement, the unpopular Al Bohl, who was on the losing end of a
power struggle with then basketball coach Roy "I don't give a
[expletive deleted] about Carolina" Williams. Gray-Little faces a far
more serious problem, allegations of ethical and criminal violations.
And again, the KUAC's leadership is in focus. The Chancellor has
ordered an internal investigation of Athletics Director Lew Perkins. At
issue is his personal home use of athletic training equipment from a
vendor, an arrangement that allegedly led to an attempt to blackmail
Perkins. At the same time, KUAC has acknowledged the misappropriation
of more than $1 million in game tickets by athletic department
officials. Several people have resigned or been fired, and criminal
charges are possible. Gray-Little's challenge is to restore public
confidence in KUAC and determine Perkins' fate. For an administrator
who has been on the job less than a year, this is a tall order.
It has been made even more difficult by this weekend's published
reports of basketball coach Bill Shelf's support of Perkins. The
Chancellor finds herself in a no-win situation. Firing Perkins runs the
risk of alienating Self, the most popular man on campus (assuming, of
course, that Self's expression of support was more than just lip
service). Retaining Perkins risks the appearance of her allowing
the tail - in this case, the KUAC - to wag the dog. Of course, no
one told Obama or Gray-Little that being in charge is a piece of cake.
That's why they get the big bucks - and why the buck stops with them.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
Vol. 4 No. 26 -- May 30, 2010
Lew Perkins Must Go
If you are a fan of the University of Kansas athletic teams, these are
the times that try your soul. First there was the embarrassment of last
fall's fight between the men's football and basketball squads. After
winning its first five games, the football team dropped its last seven,
including a season-ending loss to arch-rival Missouri. That game was
played under a cloud, as coach Mark Mangino was the focus of a probe of
alleged player abuse. Mangino was eventually forced to accept a buy-out
of his contract. As noted in an earlier post (Vol. 3 No. 47),
I believe the Mangino affair had more to do with fund raising for the
ill-conceived Gridiron Club than it did with any genuine concern for
the welfare of athletes. Jayhawk fans thought the worst had happened
when the top-ranked men's basketball team made a premature exit from
the NCAA tournament last March. But it wasn't. We have since learned
that the KU Athletics Corp. is the focus of a
federal investigation into the illegal sale of more than 20,000
tickets worth more than $1 million. While acknowledging that he, as
athletic director, is ultimately responsible for KUAC's operations, Lew
Perkins also trys to convince us that he is a latter-day Sergeant
Schultz and that he knows "nothing, nothing" about the ticket scam.
Today we learned that Perkins is allegedly the "victim" of unspecified
blackmail scheme. And he would have us believe that this is
something that happens to prominent people like him all of the time. Had enough? I have. I
don't know if Perkins is a victim of either disloyal employees, a
greedy scam artist or an ethical blind spot. That's not particularly
relevant. What is important is that some of the characters implicated
in this mess are people Perkins brought to KU. And while Perkins,
himself, may be as honest as the day is long, it is also undeniable
that he has created an environment of arrogance and hubris within the
KUAC that help breed this sorry state of affairs. In doing so, he has
dragged the good name of the University of Kansas through the mud.
Sure, I want the Jayhawks to win - but not at the expense of the
university's reputation. It was under Perkins' watch that the football
team received NCAA sanctions for what was described as "a loss of
institutional control." Does anyone in his or her right mind consider
the current sordid state of KU Athletics as having any semblance of
institutional control? I do not say this lightly, but it must be said:
Perkins has worn out his welcome in Lawrence and should resign. If he
doesn't, then the Chancellor needs to demonstrate that she has a
backbone and should fire him with cause. She also needs to restructure
the KUAC and bring it under tighter university supervision. I don't
care what some fat-cat boosters or local sports media apologists
think. Lou Perkins and his slipshod management of KUAC
are cancers on the university community that must be eradicated.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 25 -- May 20, 2010
The Gold Dress
As I mentioned in a recent post (Vol. 4, No. 23),
packing my belongings and preparing to move to a new home is a
nostalgic exercise. As one goes through the transitional triage
of deciding whether to pack, toss or donate something, every item has a
memory attached. That is especially true when that memory is of a loved
one who has passed away. It has been more than three years since my
wife Jan died unexpectedly. Over time, I have been able to steel myself
against the flood of grief that accompanied her death. For the
most part, the packing process has gone smoothly with little angst.
However, there has been one reminder of Jan that caused me to pause and
painfully reflect on her untimely passing: a gold formal dress with a
glittering golden top. It had never been worn. The price tags
were still on it. I found it more than a year after her death,
carefully hidden in a laundry bag under the bed in the guest room. In
the year preceeding her passing, Jan had lost more than 100 pounds
through a vigorous combination of diet and exercise. I always thought
she was pretty. However, after the weight loss, Jan was sensational.
She used to joke that she had become my "trophy wife." I came to
realize that the gold dress was meant to be a surprise for me. It isn't
hard to imagine how stunningly and incredibly beautiful she would have
looked in it. Now, the dress is nothing more than a cruel reminder of a
promise unfulfilled - of what might have been. After consulting with my
daughter, we decided to donate the dress. Perhaps it will bring
wonderful memories to someone else. As I prepare to move to a new home
in five days and get married in 29 days, I direct most of my focus
toward the future. However, it is only natural that I occasionally
glance back and remember a special love with a heart of gold and a
dress to match.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 24 -- May 19, 2010
All Politics are Local
It has been amusing to watch the punditry of the past few hours.
Primary elections - and one special election - were held in three
states yesterday. Once results were tabulated, the speculation
began as to their meaning. Despite White House support,
Democrat-come-lately Arlen Specter was defeated in his bid for a sixth
term in the U.S. Senate by Rep. Joe Sestak. Did Pennsylvania
voters oust Specter in a wave of anti-incumbency -- the main theory
among the chattering class? It is more likely that Pennsylvania
Democrats decided to vote for a guy who was actually a Democrat, and
not for the guy who spent 29 of his 30 years in the Senate as a
Republican. Perhaps more significant was the Rand Paul's surprisingly
easy win in the Republican U.S. Senate primary in Kentucky. Paul,
the son of maverick Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, rode a Tea Party
bandwagon of dissent over Sen. Mitch McConnell's hand-picked candidate.
The conventional wisdom is that the Tea Party is becoming a force in
Republican party politics. Maybe that is true. However, it
doesn't take into account that McConnell has fallen out of favor among
most Kentuckians, that name recognition for Paul's dad was a big plus,
and that Kentucky has a long history of being somewhat schizoid when it
comes to red and blue politics. Then there's Arkansas, where incumbent
Sen. Blanche Lincoln has been forced into a June 8th Democratic primary
runoff by Lt. Governor Bill Halter. Was this really an
anti-incumbent vote - as Halter and the pundits claim? In this case,
I'll agree - to a point. Sen. Lincoln is far more moderate
than most of her Democrat base. If she can survive the run-off,
her moderation will serve her well in November. And then there's the
case of the congressional special election in Pennsylvania, where a
Democrat held on to the seat vacated by the death of Rep. John Murtha.
The White House and Democrats hail this as Tuesday's only meaningful
result - the only one where a Democrat faced a Republican. However,
this result means absolutely nothing more than that a predominantly
Democratic district voted for - surprise - a Democrat. So what's the
true meaning of Tuesday's election results? In the words of the late
House Speaker Tip O'Neill, all politics are local. Trying to draw
broad conclusions from the actions of voters is three disparate states
is ludicrous.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 23 -- May 13, 2010
This Old House
In less than two weeks, I will be -- both in symbolism and reality --
moving on to the next phase of my life. On May 25, I move to a
brand-spanking new house in Northwest Lawrence. It will become home for
me and my bride-to-be. I will be leaving a home I have lived in longer
than any other I have known. My wife, daughter, dog and I moved to my
current home in January 1992 when it, too, was brand-spanking new.
For the 15 years that followed, this was a happy house of
Christmas parties, Girl Scout meetings, Easter egg hunts and graduation
parties. For my wife Jan, it was Tupperware Central - the hub of a
thriving plasticware empire. For my daughter Susan, it was Barbieland
in the basement - the home to a tribe of anatomically incorrect dolls.
And for me, it has been the "Worldwide Headquarters of Guth
Communications," a bedroom converted into an office where I toiled many
hours to gain tenure. For Brooksie, our first family dog, it was her
last home before she passed one year to the day we moved to Lawrence.
For Rusty, whom my sister called a "yodi-doh-doh" dog, it was the only
home he knew in his nearly 11 years. And now it the place where my
golden retriever, Boomer, is large and in charge. It has been a
wonderful place to call home. Of course, everything changed on March
17, 2007, when Jan died. Since then, I have known that my days on
Chouteau Court were numbered. No matter what fond memories - and
sad ones - these walls hold, the time has come for me to go. I leave
Chouteau Court with great anticipation. For what lies ahead is
Carver Lane, marriage to a woman I love, and the rest of our lives
together. When I think back on my 18 years in this old house, I will
remember the happy times. I will also remember the good people of
Chouteau Court who were there for me and my family in the sad times.
But mostly, I will be grateful to have called it my home, and hopeful
that its new occupants find happiness here.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 22 -- May 6, 2010
Back in Alderson
This is a unique post in Snapping Turtle
history. It has been written, edited and uploaded in Alderson
Auditorium, Kansas Union, at the University of Kansas. The room is
empty now, as I sit patiently awaiting another round of student
practice sessions. My JOUR 676 Strategic Communication Campaigns class
will present integrated marketing communications plans to their client,
the Coalition for Space Exploration, in just a few hours. I told
one of my students in an earlier practice this morning that I always
get the jitters on client presentation day. I always have, dating
back to my very first class presentation in this room in November 1991.
On that ocassion, the class client was the Ryan Gray Playground for All
Children, an accessible recreational area adjacent to the Hillcrest
Elementary School in Lawrence. That class developed plans to raise
$300,000 to build the playground. Ultimately, the playground was built.
The class is remembered with a memorial brick at the facility. I
get nervous on these ocassions because I want my students to do well. I
would be less than honest if I didn't acknowledge that I also view
their performance and the client's reaction as a reflection on my
teaching. However, the main reason for my jittery nature on
presentation day is the realization that a sometimes arduous four-month
process of discovery and planning is culminating in four 20-minute
presentations tonight. This class is the capstone class in the
J-school's strategic communications curriculum - meaning that this is
the place where students are supposed to show that they know their
stuff and are ready to go out into the "real world." And they are. They
always are. That's because despite any flaws and failings their
professor may have, I am blessed to teach good, smart people who are
willing to produce when it is all of the line. And that, more than
anything, is why I love teaching.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 21 -- April 28, 2010
Oh-Dark Thirty Ramblings
It has been a couple of weeks since I last posted, and there's a heck
of a lot of stuff going down! Arizona continues to hold on to its
cherished title of "State Most Likely to be Boycotted." MS-NBC
apparently stands for "Must Simply Not Belittle Colleagues." (If you
don't believe it, ask Donny Deutsch.) Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh
are blaming each other for everything from the Oklahoma City bombing to
the heartbreak of psoriasis. (Someone please tell those clowns
that the 1990s are over.) George W. Bush is writing a book.
(Insert your own joke here.) Nancy Pelosi believes the American
voters will embrace the Democrats in the fall elections. (Insert your
own joke here.) I hear that Tiger Woods and Ben Roethlisberger
have been admitted to the George Michael Clinic for the Sexually
Stupid. The Baltimore Orioles and the Kansas City Royals appear
to be headed for the World Series - the one they hold in Williamsport,
Pennsylvania, every summer. Congress wants to clamp down on
profanity on television -- unless, of course, the viewers are tuned to
C-SPAN and watching Senator Carl Levin drop the S-bomb on Goldman Sachs
executives 11 times. I could write more about these and other
exciting topics, but it is oh-dark-thirty in the morning, and I have a
Carl Levin load of work to do tomorrow, er, I mean later today.
I'll be back in touch soon, once I have some time to surface for some
air.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 20 -- April 11, 2010
Forgiveness Doesn't Come With A Debt
As one who has researched and written about history, I am often
appalled at how some will simplistically apply so-called "lessons of
history" to make a strident point in the context of current political
debate. I have seen an example of this today in CNN commentator
Roland S. Martin's provocatively titled essay "Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?"
This, in response to a public outcry over Virginia Governor Bob
McDonnell's decision to sign a meaningless, ceremonial and poorly
worded proclamation for Confederate Memorial Day - something that has
been done in Southern states for more than a century. In today's
cancerous political environment, political opportunists used the
proclamation as a hammer to suggest that McDonnell was defending the
Old South's embrace of slavery. (What probably happened was that
some overworked gubernatorial aide failed to place proper historical
context into a document that has as much moral authority as a used
Kleenex.) Martin has joined the drumbeat of dissent. He has
characterized all Confederate soldiers as "domestic terrorists." Of
course, this is political hogwash - the cherry-picking of words and
ideas in an attempt to frame an absurd notion. For the record,
most of my family wasn't even in the U.S. at the time of the Civil War.
Those who were fought for the Union. I have also lived in
the South - Georgia and North Carolina - and understand why the people
of that region cling to their heritage. The Confederacy and all
that it entails is as much of part of the region's DNA as the Border
War of the 1850s is to the people of Kansas and Missouri. And
while most would agree that the people of the North and the people of
Kansas were on the side of the angels during those conflicts, an honest
examination of history tells us that the motivations of Southerners and
Missourians were not limited solely to the issue of slavery. Some were
defending their homeland - not a totally absurd notion in the context
of 19th century America. The Civil War was an inevitable conflict
to clear the ambiguities of the federal-state relationship left by the
nation's Founders. And in both wars, atrocities were committed by both
sides. Should we condemn the Confederacy for what it was, an
armed rebellion against the United States in defense of an immoral
institution? Absolutely. Should we paint Southerners who fought in that
conflict with the broad brush of terrorism? Not unless you are
personally willing to wear the mantle of responsibility for My Lai,
Abu Ghraib and other atrocities committed in the name of the
United States. (By the way, that's the same logic used by Fred
Phelps, the Minister of Hate.) We are constantly reminded that not all
Muslims or Arabs who oppose the West are terrorists. It has been
nearly 150 years since the Civil War. The South has emerged as a
culturally diverse and socially progressive region. Can we not
allow Southerners to reflect on their heritage without disingenuous
scorn? Let us remember the words of singer-songwriter Mary Chapin
Carpenter who said "forgiveness doesn't come with a debt."
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 13 -- March 28, 2010
Say Goodbye to Joe College
With little fanfare, Joe College is shutting its doors this week. For
those unfamiliar with Joe College, it is an edgy T-shirt shop in
downtown Lawrence that specializes in skirting the boundaries of
copyright infringement. Its major source of business is the sale
of Jayhawk sports T-shirts - although not a one of them has ever
used the term "Jayhawk." To do so, Joe College would have to play a
hefty licensing fee to KU. Instead, the company uses generic
terms such as "Kansas" and "Hawk" in its T-shirts. Perhaps it would
have been left alone if had not gone a step farther by linking the
Jayhawks to T-shirts that were sometimes tasteless, bordering on
the obscene and almost always wicked funny. ("Muck Fizzou" was its most
popular item.) While the university's efforts to reign in Joe College
has been often portrayed as a David versus Goliath confrontation, it is
not that simple. By law, if the university is to protect its
copyrighted and trademarked symbols and brand, it has to occupy them.
In legal terms, that means actively using them and taking steps to
protect their misuse by others. While Joe College may seem a somewhat
sympathetic figure in this dime-store drama, it is really little more
than a story of two bullies fighting over money. And while the
sudden shutdown of its nemesis may be seen as a victory for KU
Athletics, there's little reason to celebrate in the House that Lew
Built. This has been a disastrous year of underperforming teams, an
ill-conceived Gridiron Club fund-raising scheme, a publicly
orchestrated campaign of character assassination against the former
football coach, and now a ticket sales probe. The latter, the
ticket sales scandal, is, by far, the most volatile situation facing KU
Athletics. The university community can live with losses on the field
and on the court. But when people supposedly acting in our name
end up in court, then a line has been crossed. As I said last December
13 in this space (Vol.3 No. 48),
there are some things done in the good name of this university that
cannot and will not be tolerated. And if Athletic Czar Lew Perkins
doesn't get that message and get it quick, then he soon will go the way
Joe College - a bad memory relegated to history's trash bin.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 12 -- March 9, 2010
Hard Choices
It is America's true national pastime - slamming and dissing
incompetent politicians. Mind you, it doesn't really matter whether the
politicians are actually
incompetent. We just feel better assuming that the only reason
they got into politics is to feather their own pockets. Tell that
to the members of your local school board. Even in the best of
times, theirs is a thankless job. And in case you haven't noticed,
these are not the best of times. What has happened locally is a
microcosm of education budgetary battles taking place throughout the
nation. In the face of a severe budget shortfall, the Lawrence school
board tonight announced a plan to cut $5 million from its budget
without closing any elementary schools. This, in the face of
public opposition to earlier plans that considered the closing some of
the smaller, older schools. Under the banner of "Save Our Schools," a
group of latter-day NIMBYs often viciously attacked the motivations
of local school board members. They accused school officials of
maintaining a bloated bureaucracy at the expense of neighborhood
schools - although they never supported the charge with any facts. They
said it was an outrage that anyone would consider closing little
Johnny's or little Janie's school - even if current enrollment patterns
at those schools do not justify their continued operation. In the face
of this storm of criticism, the school board voted to close one of its
early childhood centers, eliminate an elementary school principalship,
and cut $200,000 in instructional materials. The board also saved another
$1.1 million by raising the district's student-teacher ratio by one
pupil. All of this just one night after it sliced another
$2.8 million off the school budget. However, a previously announced
reduction measure, elimination of sixth-grade band, was rescinded.
Although this would have saved the district nearly $300,000, one can
only assume that the latter-day NIMBYs would have none of it. You
see, they live by a very simple credo: All government spending is
wasteful - unless, of course, it is something they like. As bad
as the current political environment is, it may only get worse. It
could be another three or four budget years before the economy is fully
back on it feet. And as hard as this year's choices have been for local
school officials, next year's could be even harder. And those
decisions will not be made any easier as long as a belligerent public
on one hand continues to unfairly question the integrity of public
servants who are underpaid and under siege, while on the other
hand, insisting they can have their cake and eat it too.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 11 -- March 1, 2010
Number One Hundred
When I began the Snapping Turtle
blog on Sept. 28, 2007, I wasn't really sure what I was doing or
why I was doing it. It was only six months after the tragic death
of Jan, my wife of nearly 32 years. On one level, the purpose of this
blog, as it says in the description above, was "to practice what I
teach" - social media. However, on a deeper level, this blog was
a form of outreach to a world that had suddenly seem unmercifully cold
and cruel. If you read my earliest posts, you can tell that I was
trying the best way I could to cope with the unbearable grief that
comes with immeasurable loss. I bring this up at this time
because this post - Vol. 4 No. 11 - marks the 100th entry in the Snapping Turtle
saga. It seems appropriate to mark this milestone with a reality check.
Less than a month ago, I had a chance to renew a passing
acquaintance with nationally syndicated newspaper columnist Leonard
Pitts. It was during an informal chat with the KU journalism
faculty that Pitts said that it took him some time of churning out two
columns a week for him to find his "voice." I immediately understood
what he meant. It has only been recently that I felt that I found
my voice for this blog. It has evolved from its origins as a digital
cathartic release to what I hope is seen as a mostly thoughtful
commentary on American life and the human condition. Sometimes
I am surprised at your reactions to what I have written. In the
first place, I am amazed - and honored - that anyone actually takes
time to read Snapping Turtle.
However, I get my greatest satisfaction when I confound people who
thought they had me pegged at a particular point on the political
spectrum. Never was that more evident with the reaction to my Oct. 18,
2008, post in which I - a one-time political appointee of a republican
governor's administration - announced my endorsement of Barrack
Obama for president. Talk about shock and awe! Of course, the
tone of this blog isn't the only evolution since Snapping Turtle was
launched 100 posts ago. My life has changed for the better.
Thanks to my daughter, my family (the Guths and the Fillmans), my
friends and a woman who I love and am now engaged to marry, the sun is
shining once again. There's no doubt that I will always love Jan and
cherish my memories of her. But I have learned that there is room
in my heart for Maureen, a warm-hearted woman who has become my best
friend. Who knows where the journey will have taken me when I
reach my 200th Snapping Turtle post? I invite you to stick around and find out.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 10 -- February 24, 2010
Been There, Done That
If, as we have been told at the start of every iteration of the Star Trek
saga, that space is "the final frontier," I wonder why Americans have
lost their pioneering spirit? Hearings were held on Capitol Hill today
to discuss the future of U.S Space exploration in light of 21st century
budget realities. Among those testifying was Miles O'Brien, the former
CNN space correspondent who is now an online columnist and host of the
vodcast This Week in Space.
Just 24 hours earlier, O'Brien talked to my Strategic Communication
Campaigns students at the University of Kansas. The
self-professed space junkie, who is also a member of the NASA
Advisory Council, spoke to the students through an Internet television
hook-up. The class produces integrated marketing communications
plans for real-world clients. This semester, our client is the
Coalition for Space Exploration. So, who better to talk about the
possibilities of space exploration than someone with the passion of a
Miles O'Brien? He told the class pretty much the same thing he later
told Congress, that Americans have lost interest in the space program
because, among many things, the loss of a sense of direction. An
example was the recently canceled Constellation
return-to-the-moon program, what O'Brien called "Project Apollo
on steroids." He said the attitude of the American people and their
elected representatives has been pretty much "been there, done that,
have the T-shirt." As much due to a lack of imagination as it is
to a lack of money, NASA and America's exploration of the final
frontier are pretty much lost in space. "What is the next great human
mission in space? Frankly it isn’t clear," O'Brien told the
Senate Committee on Science and Transportation. "And that is a big
worry. It is important to have goals. We children of the Space Race
love a destination and a deadline. But goals that simply lead to
uninspired jobs programs are not what we need. " I couldn't agree with
him more. Look at the 1968 cinema classic 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Stanley Kubrick's vision was that of a time where people visited hotels
in orbit before traveling to a permanent colony of the moon. The
film was made at a time when American optimism was high and our
horizons unlimited. But that was before the disillusionments of
Vietnam, Watergate, the Arab oil embargo, Jimmy Carter's malaise,
Iran-Contra - and the list goes on. Now, at a time when our nation
is positioned as the world's only true superpower, we are suffering
from a lack of imagination and vision. O'Brien told my class that
America is "coasting" into the 21st century. Again, we are in
agreement. Unless the United States is willing to commit itself
to both public and private investment in space exploration, we will be
ceding our hard-won leadership in that area to others. And while
that may not seem much of a concern in today's economic climate, it is
a decision that could have dramatic economic and national security
implications for our nation's future. Christopher Columbus didn't
return from the New World and say, "Been there, done that, have the
T-shirt." Nor should we.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 9 -- February 19, 2010
Glass Houses
Like a lot of people, I stopped what I was doing this morning to listen
to Tiger Woods apologize to his wife, children, mother, friends,
sponsors and fans for his "irresponsible and selfish" behavior, which
he said included infidelity. It was his first public appearance
since his one-car, one-tree Thanksgiving night accident near his home
in Florida. The unusual and secretive circumstances surrounding that
event led to a chain reaction of rumors about women, the future of his
marriage, and the viability of the brand we have come to know as
"Tiger." On a personal level, I don't care about Tiger's private life.
He is correct when he says that is solely a matter between him
and his wife. But as a public relations educator and a crisis
communications professional, I have to admit that I have been stunned
at the clumsy manner in which he has handled this entire sordid affair.
I commend him for today's remarks. I think they were remarkably
candid and appropriately self-deprecating. However, the statement he
made today should have been delivered two months ago. And that he made
today's statement in a controlled environment in which he did not have
to answer any questions only further delayed the public interrogation
he ultimately will face. In that regard, I can't help but wonder
if cowardice is one of the clubs in his bag of serious character flaws.
The future of his marriage is a personal matter in which I have
no interest. However, while his personal life may be Tiger's business,
he has spent his entire adult life making his image the central
focus of his business. So Tiger, please don't cry crocodile tears
about a lack of privacy as you drive your recently repaired Cadillac
Escalade to the bank. There's something to be said about people living
in glass houses, especially when they make it a lifestyle choice.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 8 -- February 15, 2010
They Still Don't Get It
After two elections in which they took a pounding, the Republicans are
feeling pretty good about this year's mid-term congressional elections.
The bloom is off President Obama's rose. His job approval dropped
from a high of 69 percent right after the inauguration to just 47
percent one year later. (The current Gallup Poll has President Obama's
job approval rating at 53 percent.) In the most recent Washington Post-New York Times
Poll, 48 percent of voters said they would be more likely to vote for
the Republican congressional candidate, compared to just 45 percent for
the Democrat. Just today, another Democrat, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.),
has seen the handwriting on the wall and withdrew from seeking
reelection. I'd like to hearken back to words I wrote in this space
a little over a year ago (Vol. 3 No. 5, February 1, 2009),
"There's a reason the Republicans are out of power. That's
because they appeared to be uncaring and out of touch with the
people. The people kicked them out. However, it is also important
to remember that there was a reason Republicans achieved power in the
first place. That's because the Democrats also appeared to be out
of touch with the people." At that time, I said the uninspired
leadership of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy
Pelosi was leading Democrats down the path to ruin. That may still come
to pass. But the Republicans, hungry for some red meat, are
showing signs of making the same mistakes of the past. Reports out of
Washington indicate Republicans see political advantage in obstructing
Obama's legislative agenda. Their reasoning is that the less the
President accomplishes, the better Republican chances will be in
November. However, I agree with Washington Post
columnist David Broder who wrote this past weekend that the Republicans
are in danger of misreading the polls. While the public may not
be wild about Obama's health care proposals, it also wants something
to be done. That means civility and compromise on the part of both
Republicans and Democrats. If the Republicans are seen as
do-nothing obstructionists, they threaten to author another season of
electoral discontent. I was right one year ago and am still right
today: The public will give its support to whomever is willing abandon
partisanship and lead through compromise. And while his numbers are
down, it is President Obama who is currently winning that battle.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 7 -- February 6, 2010
Good on Paper
Leonard Pitts often speaks of the "idiocracy" that is taking over
the United States. He is distressed that there is a dumbing down of
America, and that we have no one to blame but ourselves. “We have
embarked on an era where many of us believe that all facts are created
equal,” the Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist told a KU audience
yesterday. “Saying it out loud, putting it online makes it
true.” Pitts came to Lawrence to accept the 2010 William Allen
White Foundation National Citation. The honor is given
annually to an outstanding journalist. Past winners include Walter
Cronkite, George Will and Bob Woodward. Yesterday was the second
time I had met Pitts. I helped arrange a Fall 2007 campus visit by the
liberal columnist. In terms of our politics, he and I disagree on
a number of issues. However, as a columnist, I have a great deal
of respect for both his writing skills and his integrity. He, like I,
believe in the power of truth. In a world of pompous punditry and
talking heads, we both believe there is too much being bandied about as
"truth" when, in fact, it is at best an opinion or, at worst, an
outright lie. I believe he sincerely would like to see the return of
civil debate in this country. However, it should be noted that
the columnist's concept of civility does not necessarily carry over to
comments made in personal appearances. He is not unlike a lot of
people - there's the public side, and then there is the private side.
In the times I have seen him in more private, one-on-one settings,
Pitts has been sometimes guilty of using the same pandering, dismissive
and inflammatory rhetoric for which he has often chastised the right.
In this regard, Pitts strikes me as somewhat an elitist
- although I am certain he doesn't see himself in that light.
However, to Pitts' credit, he is careful of the tone and accuracy of
his twice weekly nationally syndicated column. While his private voice often reflects the tone-deaf dialog from which our nation suffers, his public
voice - the voice reflected in his books and columns - is a model of
reasoned civility. Pitts is not afraid to make controversial and
unpopular points. But he backs them with solid research and sound
logic. Perhaps the best part of Leonard Pitts' nature is that he is
willing to listen to anyone - even those who disagree with him - if
they are willing to exercise the same level of respect and critical
thinking. While it can be said that Leonard Pitts is better on
paper than he is in person, when one considers the quality of what he
puts on paper, that's still pretty darn good.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 6 -- January 27, 2010
The Same Old Same Old
Like a lot of red-blooded American citizens, I sat before my television
tonight to listen to our President discuss the State-of-the-Union. It
is an annual ritual mandated by the Constitution. Actually, the
President doesn't have to deliver it in a speech to a joint session of
Congress. For example, during the height of the Watergate scandal,
President Nixon skipped making a speech and instead sent lawmakers a
written statement. (I doubt the envelope in which Nixon sent it was
sealed with a kiss.) It really doesn't matter who the President
is, State-of-the-Union addresses usually resemble bad kabuki theater.
It happens every year: The President uses coded words designed to
provoke applause from his supporters and stone cold silence from the
opposition. On those rare ocassions when the President slips and
accidentally says something ironic, his supporters sit on their
hands while the opposition gives a derisive Standing O. Of course,
everyone stands and cheers for the military, the First Lady and any
suggestion that America is the best by-gum nation in the whole darn
universe. As for tonight's speech, most of it was predictably
mundane. However, the end of the speech was remarkable. President
Obama's solemn appeal for bipartisanship - a section of the speech
where he refreshingly admitted fault for some of his administration's
missteps - struck just the right tone for a nation weary of partisan
bickering. As for the Republican response, it, too, was predictable.
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's speech was much like every opposition
SOTU response I have ever heard, one walking the fine line between
conciliation and contempt. Frankly, I wondered why the
Republicans choose a guy who had been in office only 11 days to make
their big speech. But then I remembered that was the exact length
of time Obama had been in the White House to qualify for the Nobel
Peace Prize. I don't know that Governor McDonnell will win a Nobel
Prize. But, if he is lucky, Publisher's Clearing House will be
stopping by the mansion real soon.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 5 -- January 19, 2010
The True Message from Massachusetts
Just one year ago this week, more than a million people stood in
subfreezing temperatures to witness the historic inauguration of Barack
Obama. For Democrats, it was a heady time. In the November 2008
election, the Democrats regained the White House after an eight-year
absence and strengthened their majorities to both houses of Congress.
It is now a year later, and the landscape has dramatically
shifted. First the Republicans reclaimed governships in Virginia and
New Jersey in November off-year elections. As bad as that was for
Democrats, the news out of Massachusetts has stunned them. A
Republican tonight claimed the U.S. Senate seat that the late Ted
Kennedy had held for 46 years. There are a lot of reasons for
this stunning reversal. Republican Scott Brown ran a smart,
centrist and populist campaign. Democrat Martha Coakley, who had
registered a 30-point lead in the polls last fall, ran a smug, arrogant
and incompetent campaign. Keep in mind that Democrats outnumber
Republicans in Massachusetts by a three-to-one margin. Obama won the
state in 2008 by a 26-point margin. Republicans will tout Brown's
election as a rejection of Obama's health care initiative and excessive
spending. Democrats will say it was a "perfect storm," the combination
of a weak candidate, the continuing poor economy and frustration over
Congressional failure to pass health care reform. However, the
truth be told -- and that's all that's ever delivered in this space --
it is not about Republicans or Democrats. The largest block of
voters in Massachusetts are independents and the overwhelming majority
of them voted for Brown. Independents are worried about
continuing gridlock, something they can't understand with the Democrats
holding a super majority in Congress. They expected Obama to be a
bipartisan leader. However, he is no less partisan than any of his
predecessors. And when it comes to Obama's promise to bring sound
financial management to government, fuggedaboutit. I think the
message voters are sending is this: After three decades of political
warfare between the radical right and the limpid left, the middle is
taking charge. Independent-minded voters are saying "enough is enough."
They want action and are willing to shake-up the political landscape to
do it. If the President and lawmakers of both parties do not dial
back the rhetoric, start rolling up their sleeves and seek a bipartisan
consensus on the weighty issues of the day, then the most popular
campaign slogan this year will likely be "Re-elect No one."
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 4 No. 4 -- January 11, 2010
Fiscal Anarchy
I listened to democrat Governor Mark Parkinson tonight give his State
of the State address to the Kansas General Assembly. I also
listened to republican House Speaker Michael O'Neal's response.
I hope a lot of Kansans listened. If they did, they would
have heard a stark difference between two visions for the state's
future. Parkinson laid out a specific plan for addressing a $400
million state revenue shortfall. He detailed at great length how
this state's schools, universities and community colleges have helped
Kansas to prosper during its 150-year history. Saying that massive cuts
that have already occurred have hurt Kansans, Parkinson proposed a
one-cent increase in the state sales tax that would almost entirely
sunset in three years. He also proposed raising the state tax on
cigarettes to the national average. The governor said he was open to
other ideas that would raise revenue without crippling already damaged
state services. On the other hand, O'Neal delivered Reaganesque
platitudes about how it is better to have people spend their own money
than have the government spend it for them. O'Neal would be right
if this were 1980. At that time, federal government spending was
out of control and Ronald Reagan was right to reel in overzealous
bureaucrats. But this is 2010, the state is in the midst of a
deep recession and facing budget deficits because of decades of
legislative adherence to the bogus belief that all taxes are bad and
should be cut to spur business growth. Of course, O'Neal didn't
say where he was going to cut
the budget. However, he did chastise public school officials
threatening to sue the state over inadequate funding. O'Neal also
suggested that the state should be operated more like a business.
But even businesses raise their prices to cover increased costs.
Using O'Neal's logic, why should government be any different?
Don't get me wrong - I am a fiscal conservative. But unlike
many Kansas legislators who have an almost Pavlovian adherence to
supply-side economics, I am not a fiscal anarchist. Real
leadership means making tough - and at times - unpopular choices.
Recklessly cutting spending to avoid raising taxes may make it
easy to win reelection. However, doing so erodes the
economic underpinnings and general welfare of our state -
thus eclipsing any short-term gains born of political expediency.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x
|
Vol. 4 No. 3 -- January 9, 2010
A Cancer on the American Body Politic
Oh Lord, how I hate the abortion debate. It is a cancer on the American
body politic. I especially dislike how fringe elements on the radical
right and the limpid left have hijacked political debate in this
country. Recently, the abortion issue has been forced to the back
burner by more legitimate issues such as health care, national security
and the economy. People have a right to disagree with one another in a
democracy. And a healthy debate on abortion is fine.
However, thanks to a well-meaning but misguided district court
judge, the radicals and the limpids are about to thrust their
self-righteous selves back onto center stage. Sedgwick County
District Court Warren Wilbert yesterday ruled that Scott Roeder - the
sleaseball who murdered abortion doctor George Tiller in a crowded
church last year - can seek a voluntary manslaughter conviction in lieu
of one on first-degree murder. Judge Wilbert said he would allow the
defense to argue that Roeder acted "upon an unreasonable but honest
belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force."
For the record, I believe that the use of abortion as a means of
birth control is immoral. I also believe in requiring parental
consent for abortions involving minors. But I also believe that
abortion is a moral - not legal - matter between a woman and her
doctor. As for Judge Wilbert's ruling, I have no reason to doubt his
motives. I would like to believe that he did what he thought was
right. However, I also wonder what the ruling might have been if
the circumstances were different - if instead of the shooting of a
doctor in a church, the gunman had shot a judge in a courtroom? It is a
reasonable question to ask when dealing with unreasonable people.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
Vol. 4 No. 2 -- January 3, 2010
Profiles in Correctness
The unsuccessful Christmas bomb attack on a U.S. airline has reawaken
the debate over racial and religious profiling. The radical right
would have us strip search anyone who "just doesn't look right." The
limpid left believes that any form of profiling is fascism. A
reasonable person believes that under certain circumstances, profiling
is not only appropriate, but is preferred. Should police pull
over black people driving expensive cars out of a belief that they
couldn't possibly afford such a sweet ride? Of course not.
However, it is hard to escape the logic of one Israeli official
who correctly noted recently that while not all Muslims are terrorists,
nearly all terrorists are Muslims. While this rationale should not be
an excuse to hassle individuals solely on the basis of their religion,
it does provide reasonable cause in matters where there is a clear and
present danger. By that, I mean access to international flights,
entrance into the United States and when entering areas of high
security. Because we are a free society, we shouldn't require
that every person of Middle Eastern or Islamic heritage wear a "Scarlet
T" for terrorist.
However, we can take reasonable precautions in our own self
defense. And it is not as if it is America that bears the sole burden
in these matters. As long as the world's Islamic community fails
to decisively act against those who pervert their religion by committing
dumb-ass murder in the name of God, then living under a cloud of
perpetual suspicion is the price they have to pay. The more we
handcuff this nation's security forces, the easier we make it for those
who wish us harm. The military, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA and the
police are not the bad guys. I hope some of those on the limpid
left will remember that the next time they board an airplane.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
Vol. 4 No. 1 -- January 1, 2010
Predictions
A new year and new decade dawn with hope born of innate optimism.
It's an exercise in which we engage every new year: Hoping that
the future will live up to past promises unfilled. The new year 2010 is
no different. It is an election year -- but when is is ever not
an election year? The republicans believe they will make gains in
the mid-term congressional elections. They probably will, but not
enough to change the balance of power in Congress. Despite its national
success, the democrat party is pretty much DOA in the state of Kansas.
Senator Sam Brownback will be elected our next governor, and a
republican will be elected to succeed him in the U.S. Senate. In fact,
the democrats' only realistic hopes are in the second and fourth
congressional districts. However, with democrats completely in
charge in Washington and George W. Bush back in Texas, the Dems are
saddled with the baggage of Washington incumbancy. With democrat Dennis
Moore retiring in the fourth district, the only thing that will keep
the republicans from reclaiming his seat are the republicans,
themselves. The democrats' best hope is that the GOP nominates a
right-wing reactionary who splits the party. In the second
district, republican Lynn Jenkins will get a determined democrat
challenge. However, without the perfect storm of 2006 which swept
democrats into power, the second district will remain a tough place for
blue-staters. As for President Obama, the education of the Nobel Prize
winner will continue. No doubt he has learned that the presidency isn't
as easy as he portrayed it to be on the campaign trail. While he has
struck a less aggressive tone on the world stage than his predecessor,
his limpid response to the abortive Christmas bomb attack on a U.S.
airline has made him appear weaker and less decisive than former
President Bush. The best thing going for President Obama is the
void of leadership in the republican ranks. Even with his flaws, Obama
will - for the foreseeable future, at least - look better than any
alternative on the other side of the aisle. In short, I don't see 2010
being a major turning point in history. Any election year would seem a
letdown from the sea change election of 2008. Instead, 2010 will be a
year of positioning, prodding and poking. The heavyweights will be
testing one another for weaknesses. And the lightweights will continue
to drive the political agenda.
That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.
X |
|
|
