Snapping Turtle
The personal blog of David W. Guth
 

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

Archives:  2007    2008    2009

Return Home

 
 
Testudo's Tales
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