Vol. 6 No. 6 -- But Do They Really Mean It?
February 1, 2012
In the wake
of the sexual abuse scandal at Penn State University, the late football
coach Joe Paterno was fired because he didn't do more than the law and
university policy required. Beyond reporting the allegations against
former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky to his superiors, the school's
governing board decided that Paterno should have done more, jumped the
chain of command, and gone directly to law enforcement. Since then,
university officials across the country, in a thinly veiled effort to
insulate their schools from similar liabilities, have enacted policies
requiring employees to immediately report instances of sexual
abuse or assault on children to law enforcement authorities.
University of Kansas Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little articulated such
a policy only yesterday. While I applaud the sentiment behind
such declarations, one can't help but wonder if they really mean it?
Are we not, as citizens, duty-bound to report any and all crimes we
witness to law enforcement? And we are not just talking about child
sexual assault. During my two decades at this university, I can cite many
situations where KU has chosen to deal with potentially criminal
violations internally rather than risk public embarrassment. Whether it
be the sleazy athletic director who gets a $2 million buyout to go away
or the incompetent dean who suddenly decides he misses the classroom,
KU has a long history of being less than candid when it comes to
dealing with the questionable legal conduct of some of its employees.
The university may not have known it, but its pious statements
concerning child sexual abuse have established a legal standard of
disclosure by which employees may be judged. They are now
required to to do more than the law says they should. In fact,
the next time I see something in the workplace I consider legally
questionable, I am not going to tell my supervisor. I am going to
do exactly what KU infers that I should do: I am going to call the cops.
That's
it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 6 No. 5 -- The State of the Union 2012
January 24, 2012
For those
who drink President Obama's Kool-Aid, tonight's State of the Union
Address was masterful and visionary. For the Obama-bashers, it
was a cynically partisan affair. In fact, the only thing those two
groups have in common is that they had already made up their minds on
whether they loved or hated the speech before they heard it. For
someone like me, who doesn't allow political affiliation to dictate how
I vote, I found things I liked in the speech, as well as those I
didn't. Thematically, I liked the President's focus on economic
fairness. However, like most people, tax policy and what a
so-called "tax overhaul" will actually mean is not my strong suit.
I can see merits in both sides of the
argument. However, the creation of international trade and financial
regulation enforcement units made good sense. At one point, the
president joked about "crying over spilled milk," a reference to a
recently slashed regulation that treats spilled milk as a hazardous
substance. From there, he seamlessly pivoted into a vigorous defense of
government regulatory oversight. Rhetorically, I felt it was brilliant,
as was his call for unity at the end of the speech. However, much of
the speech was more about political positioning than substance.
Did you notice how many times he would mention the name of cities
located in key electoral battleground states, such as Cleveland,
Pittsburgh and Raleigh? At one point he urged Congress to not slash
funding for university-based research - just five minutes after
threatening to slash funding to colleges and universities because of
their rising tuitions. He talked about a peace dividend we will
supposedly receive with the conclusion of the Iraq and Afghanistan
wars. But it seems shallow to talk about peace dividends when, in
the same breathe, the President says "no options are off the table"
when it comes to dealing with Iran and we are moving troops to
Australia to counter growing Chinese military influence in the
Pacific Rim. As for the President's defense of his energy policies, it
came across as nothing less than a sea of contradictions. He bragged
about opening up 75 percent of the nation's offshore oil and gas
reserves just days after denying a permit to build the Keystone XL
pipeline that would ship crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast. It
seems the nearly six years that have passed since the project was first
proposed didn't give the government enough time to make a decision. Now
those jobs and oil are headed for China. One also can't listen to Obama
talk about investing in alternative energy without thinking about his
administration's dubious - and possibly criminal - $535 million loan
guarantee to the failed alternative energy company Solyndra. Many
within his administration thought it was a bad idea, but were overruled
by the White House. It was also obvious that the President is math
challenged, crowing about the creation of three million jobs in the
same sentence he acknowledged that we had lost at least four million
jobs on his watch and eight million since the start of the Great
Recession. While tonight's State of the Union Address may have
fired up Obama's most fervent supporters as well as his opponents, for
the undecided voters like me, we should take it for what it was,
politics as usual.
That's
it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 6 No. 4 -- Letterman's Question
January 10, 2012
David
Letterman loves to ask provocative questions. In fact, he is well paid
to do so. There are times Dave will ask a guest a question with no
expectations that he or she will answer. Instead, Letterman is
more interested in the reaction to his questions. That happen
last week, when he asked NBC News anchor Brian Williams "When did the
Republican Party become the party of the emotionally unstable?" Williams,
understandably, dodged the question. To take Williams
off Letterman's hook, I'd like to answer Dave's question with just
two words: "Newt Gingrich." The former House Speaker and
soon-to-be former presidential candidate is one of architects of the
poisonous slash-and-burn tactics that have virtually destroyed civility
in American politics. Granted, every ying must have its yang and that
there are a number of Democrats - James Carville comes to mind - who
have the same blood on their hands. However, Gingrich is the only
one of those late-1980s/early-1990s politicos currently running for
president. And despite his best intentions, Newt can't miss an
opportunity to remind us that beneath his soft, cuddly and intellectual
exterior is one callous and mean-spirited son of a bitch. His
behavior during the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary campaigns has
been nothing short of an embarrassment. Newt wants to portray himself
as a latter-day Wizard of Oz - "pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain." His past behaviors - political and personal - are
supposed to be off-limits. We are supposed to focus on the "new
Newt" - the seasoned intellectual who has benefited from life's
lessons. However, considering the ferocious attacks he has
unleashed at his opponents - especially Mitt Romney - the truth is that
the more things change, the more they stay the same. Newt wants to
claim the mantle of Republican Saint Ronald Reagan. However, even
Democrats will tell you that Reagan was not a nasty, bare-knuckles
politician. Reagan could be tough. And he was a lot smarter than
many of his opponents thought. And with Reagan, it was never personal. I never voted for Reagan - an artifact of
his challenge to Gerald Ford in 1976. But I learned to respect
him and his presidency. So, to paraphrase the late Lloyd Bentsen,
"Newt. I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. And
you are no Ronald Reagan."
That's
it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 6 No. 3 -- Gutting the Fifth Amendment
January 6, 2012
Almost
everyone knows the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as
the one that protects individuals from self-incrimination in a court of
law. However, the beginning clause of the amendment is equally
significant: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital,
or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger." Unfortunately, the
Congress and President of the United States have chosen to trash the
Fifth Amendment in the recent Defense Authorization Act, which includes
a provision (section 1021) which makes it possible for the military to
indefinitely detain anyone -- including American citizens -- who may be
suspected of terrorism. It also removes certain individuals from
civilian judicial jurisdiction and places them under the control of
military justice. This bill passed both houses of Congress with
substantial bipartisan majorities. Rep. Tim Huelskamp was the only
member of the Kansas congressional delegation to vote against it.
President Obama signed the measure into law New Year's Eve after saying
he would veto it if the legislation contained these Fifth
Amendment-gutting provisions. Obama signed the bill, along with an
1,800-word signing statement which said his administration would comply
"with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."
This was a particularly cynical action on the part of this
president, who has been critical of his predecessor for using similar
signing statements to dampen or justify his approval of controversial
legislation. I have three major objections to this bill. First,
and most obvious, it is unconstitutional. Not only does it
violate the Fifth Amendment, it also violates 14th amendment "due
process" guarantees. Second, this questionable provision is -
essentially - our government saying that it has no faith in our system
of laws, checks and balances. Congress may not trust our courts to do
the right thing. But has it checked its own approval ratings as
of late? Finally, this provision puts in place a legal mechanism for a
coup d'etat. Frankly, I do not believe that Obama or any of the people
currently running for president would do anything that extreme.
But who is to say that isn't a possibility for the future?
We need a strong Constitution to protect our people from rash and
convenient quick fixes -- such as arresting anyone who disagrees with
us in the name of national security. Could that happen here? Who
is to say it can't? Just ask any Japanese-American alive during the
Second World War. I condemn our elected leaders - especially
President Obama - for blithely accepting this heinous assault on
American values. If you can't govern using the framework the
founders gave you, step aside in favor of those who will adhere to the
values we all hold true and dear as Americans.
That's
it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 6 No. 2 -- The Iowa Caucuses
January 3, 2012
The first
meaningful votes in the 2012 presidential campaign have been cast.
But what do the results of tonight's Iowa caucuses really mean?
The flippant answer would be to say "not much." But that's not
true. For Mitt Romney, the convenient conservative, he leaves the
Hawkeye state in good shape. He hadn't campaigned in Iowa as much as
his rivals. It was only a few weeks ago that polls suggested Romney
might crash and burn - meet his Waterloo (Iowa), so to speak. Now he
rolls into next week's New Hampshire primary in a position of strength
with what is, essentially, a home court advantage. While Rick Santorum
and Ron Paul unquestionably had a good night, the euphoria they feel
will not last very long. Santorum, a late bloomer in this race who
ended in a virtual dead-heat with Romney, has neither the money nor
organization to mount a serious challenge. Frankly, he has been a weak
debater - a major problem for him now that the spotlight on him will
shine brighter. The former Pennsylvania senator may be able translate
tonight's showing into much-needed hard cash, but I have my doubts.
As for Ron Paul, the more seriously people take his candidacy,
the less they will like what they see and hear. Rick Perry's
embarrassing fourth place finish has him headed home to Texas to
reassess his campaign - a sign that his candidacy may be short-lived.
The angry and baggage-laden Newt Gingrich, who finished fourth in Iowa
will hang around until South Carolina, hoping he can marshal the Bob
Jones University crowd behind him. Michele Bachmann has suffered a
crushing defeat and should be hard pressed to continue her campaign.
However, she is just as stubborn as Gingrich and may fight on through
South Carolina. Even Jon Huntsman - viewed by Iowans as a RINO
(republican in name only) - will hang on for at least another week.
He's been staking his hopes on a decent showing next Tuesday in more
moderate New Hampshire. Unfortunately for his handful of
followers, polls suggest Huntsman is running a distant third in the
Granite State. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Iowa caucuses
is exit polling suggesting that republicans are more interested in the
electability of their nominee than in his or her ideology - something
that bodes well for Romney. Another interesting aspect is the
relatively low turnout - a sign of republican voter apathy and
potentially good news for President Obama. EDITOR'S
NOTE: Michele Bachmann suspended her presidential campaign on the
morning after the caucuses. Perry announced on the morning after that
he would skip New Hampshire and focus his efforts on South Carolina.
That's
it for now. Fear the Turtle.
x |
Vol. 6 No. 1 -- Leap into 2012
January 1, 2012
The start of
a new year is always a time of reflection and prediction. This
year is no different. However, 2012 promises to be anything but
ordinary. It is a leap year, a presidential election year, an
Olympic year and, according to Mayan prophecy, the year in which the
world ends. In just a matter of hours, the first meaningful event
of the presidential campaign, the Iowa caucuses, will occur. After a
series of roller-coaster polls, it appears as if former Massachusetts
Governor Mitt Romney may finally get some love from his fellow
republicans. Despite scatter-brained and radical ideas,
Representative Ron Paul (R-Tex) has a superior organization in Iowa and
could upset the Romney bandwagon. As for Newt Gingrich, his latest
15-minutes are up. For the record, I will not endorse a candidate for
president -- if at all -- until after the last fall presidential
debate. But my guess is that it won't matter who the Republicans
choose as their nominee. I believe President Obama will be
reelected. His amazing fund-raising ability, combined with the
advantages of incumbency and the Republicans' penchant toward
self-destruction, gives him the edge. A wild card is the European
economy. It could drag us into a double-dip recession and hurt Obama's
chances. A second wild card is Iran, which has been doing a lot of
saber rattling as of late. Any military confrontation with Iran would
(a) end badly for the Iranians and (b) would ensure Obama's reelection.
Unfortunately for the Iranian leadership, hatred cuts both ways. Iran
is the country that the American people hate more than any other. Give
us the slightest excuse, and we will level Tehran before lunch without
an ounce of guilt. A third wild card: This will be a year when we
may see a third-party candidate - probably Ron Paul. It won't be
Donald Trump, although he will threaten to do so in an effort to
generate more of the mindless publicity that he seeks. In any
event, a third-party challenger will probably come from the right,
which can only hurt the GOP's chances. If Nancy Pelosi finally
retires - and there are hints that she is considering it - the
Democrats will have a chance to win the House. But if she remains
in the picture, her continued presence will invigorate Republicans,
ensure that they keep their hold on the House, and could endanger
Obama's chances. There's one other fact to consider: The 2010 Census
resulted in a redistribution of votes in the Electoral College, one
that favors Republicans. There's a lot to consider in 2012 - and we
even get an extra day to do it! One final prediction for 2012: The
Mayans were wrong and I will be explaining how I screwed up my
predictions one year from today.
That's
it for now. Happy New Year! And Fear the Turtle.
x |
|
|
|
|
