Obama's Lack of Leadership

You might find this hard to believe, but there is a word in the dictionary that is appropriate for what's happening in our intervention into Libya's festering civil war.  The word is OBAMBULATE, which means to "wander or walk about aimlessly."  You can check it out if you don't believe me.

It's a fitting word for the lack of leadership coming from President Obama on the majority of issues he has faced in his two years of office.

Starting with Libya, yesterday during a press briefing, we were treated with this hilarious exchange between Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes and a journalist who asked:  "If it's not a war, what's the right way to characterize this operation?"

Leader of the Pack
Vince Lombardi

Mr. Rhodes said:  "I think what we've said is that this is a military operation that will be limited in both duration and scope.  Our contribution to this military operation that is enforcing a U.N. Security Council resolution is going to be limited to the from end, and then we'll shift to a support role..."

Question:  "But it's not going to war then?"

Mr Rhodes answered:  "Well, again, I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis and setting up a no fly-zone.  Obviously that involves "kinetic military action", particularly on the front end..."

In response to the earlier question, it's clear that President Obama has no interest in exhibiting any leadership on the Libyan conflict.  Not only won't he call it a war, but he talks about providing humanitarian aid, to enforcing the no fly zone to providing naval and air support, with little or no clarity to our mission.  His dependency on NATO (who's origins date back to creating a North Atlantic Alliance to support member countries -- of which Libya IS NOT ONE) eliminates the United States and President Obama from taking the lead in what is understandably a difficult situation.

Can you imagine President George Washington, Ulysses Grant,  Prime Minister Winston Churchill or better yet, General George Patton using "kinetic military action" to describe our activities?  For President Obama, not only is war hell -- but apparently -- so is just saying it.

President Obama has shown NO leadership in the handling of one of the biggest problems our country is facing -- illegal immigration.  Instead of showing support for tough new immigration reform -- designed to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants -- President Obama filed a lawsuit against Arizona saying that the state was taking matters into its own hands.  That's our job, the U.S. Justice Department argued.

Apparently their job is to oppose Arizona's new immigration law.  Speaking at a naturalization ceremony last year, President Obama call for an overhaul of immigration laws to avoid "irresponsibility by others." He later added that the Arizona law threatened "to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans...".  Huh?  Since when does identifying ILLEGAL immigrants and deporting them undermine American fairness?  Maybe breaking the law is an acceptable way of doing business in Chicago, but not for the rest of the country.

I understand that President Obama, being a democrat, was likely to oppose the new law.  What I don't understand is why he decided to interject himself into this debate at all.  States across the country have proposed or enacted hundreds of bills addressing immigration since 2007 (some 222 laws and 131 resolutions in 48 states) because the federal government won't enforce the laws that will make these states safe.  If he wants to exhibit leadership on this issue, he should stop micromanaging immigration reform and just tell the Justice Department to "do their job."

For too many years, politicians have put votes and their survival before the safety of their constituents and the rights of states to protect their borders.  President Obama's no different.

If Obama takes the lead on anything these days, it's getting out there and apologizing for occasions when America has been " arrogant, dismissive and derisive" toward Europe.  Rather than being a statesman for a strong America, Obama has claimed that America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. has "used a nuclear weapon."  In Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."

Why the criticism?  As Nicolle Wallace explained in a Daily Beast article last year "Why is Obama Apologizing for America?" it's not because Obama is anti-American.  It's because he views America as needing to BE SAVED from its past (bombing Hiroshima, the Bay of Pigs and Pershing and cruise missiles in Europe and the Middle East).  And as it's savior, Obama must tear it down before he can save it.

By all accounts, President Obama does not see American exceptionalism.  Lacking in his definition is a belief in America's special accomplishments and a history of unrivaled freedom, generosity, productivity, innovation, militaristic and diplomatic strength and record as liberators, protectors, and defenders.

Finding fault in America has never had a seat in the Oval Office quite like it does with Obama.

My last post talked about how people are feeling like things have never been worse.  Throughout the history of this great country -- through depressions, wars and unemployment -- citizens have looked to our president for confidence, a great vision, and hope.  It is also important that our leaders hold an optimistic view of the world, so that they can inspire others to achieve better things and overcome obstacles to freedom and choice.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in her eulogy of former president Ronald Reagan, stated the following:  "In his lifetime, Ronald Reagan was such a cheerful and invigorating presence that it was easy to forget what daunting historic tasks he set for himself.  He sought to mend America's wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world and to free the slaves of Communism."

Is it too much to expect the same from Obama?

Flash! It's the End of the World! --- Again

JAPAN FACING 20,000 DEAD, POTENTIAL NUCLEAR MELTDOWNS,ECONOMIC COLLAPSE!

MASS DEPOPULATION.  GENOCIDE.  WWIII?

ECONOMIC ARMAGEDDON.  HERE WE COME!

IS THIS THE END OF LABOR IN AMERICA?

ALEXANDER McQUEEN CHOSEN TO DESIGN KATE MIDDLETON'S WEDDING DRESS! 

All of these headlines indicate doom, gloom and the end of life as we know it -- except for the last one, which makes me want to end it all.  As a writer -- proudly inculcated at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's journalism school -- I know a lot about getting people to read the news.

At the least, I can write a good headline when I need to.

As a result, I feel like I'm qualified to view today's news with a skeptical eye, especially when it uses a certain brand of "armageddon journalism."

I have talked to more people lately that wonder if things have ever been as bad as they are today.  And if you cut up your local rag into just headlines, you might agree.  News editors will always say that bad news sells papers.

Even my 82-year-old mother lamented the other day that she feels things have never been worse. This from a lady who lived through the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor and the advent of WWII, the historic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan, the assassination of John Kennedy, the horrors of the Vietnam War and finally 9/11.  Even the advent of Elvis Presley and his pelvic gyrations from the 50's and 60's don't depress her as much as the protests occurring in Madison, Wisconsin and their recall efforts to undo the 2010 elections.

Are things really worse today than the soup lines during the Great Depression?  Sending a nation of young men into World War II?  Or storming the beaches of Normandy?

Maybe it's the immediacy of today's news.  No more waiting for next week's Time Magazine or tomorrow's newspaper.  You can't turn on the radio or cable news without being reminded of how terrible things are in the world today (TROUBLE IN MICHIGAN:  DETROIT POPULATION SHRINKS BY 25%!).  There's no escaping the hostility and vitriol coming from the mouths of politicians, cable news talking heads and newspaper opinion/editorial pages (WHOOPIE GOLDBERG IS HACKED OFF AT DONALD TRUMP, THINKS HE'S A RACIST!).  Or visit a gas station without being reminded of recall efforts.

Today's mainstream media have developed a style of reporting that I call Armageddon journalism which means that they report facts as quickly as possible and in the most dramatic way to garner the most coverage and influence opinion.  Three examples come to mind:  1) the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, 2) the global warming scare and 3) the earthquake/tsunami coverage in Japan.

If you didn't know better, last year's British Petroleum oil spill caused irreparable damage to the coast area bordering Louisiana.  Daily viewing of oil slick beaches and marshes (2,000 SQUARE MILES OF WETLANDS LOST FOREVER!), dead wildlife (DOLPHIN CARCASS FOUND IN THE GULF BLEEDING FROM MOUTH AND BLOW HOLE!) and unemployed fisherman  (ONE MILLION JOBS PERMANENTLY LOST IN GULF DISASTER!) created an image of immense destruction, with the only solution being a complete moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  Damn the later evidence which pointed to a situation that was much less destructive than previously predicted.

Since Al Gore presented his infamous "An Inconvenient Truth" there have been numerous doomsday predictions claiming that global warming is real, potentially catastrophic and caused by humans.  Don't let Al Gore's political agenda -- including carbon taxes (HOLLYWOOD EARNS PUBLIC PRAISE THROUGH CARBON CREDITS!), redistribution of wealth (WHERE DID MIDDLE CLASS GO?) and green energy business (GARBAGE TRUCK CUTS HARMFUL EMISSIONS, BUT STILL STINKS!)  -- muddy the real truth which includes record low temperatures, an increasing ice mass around the poles and naturally occurring carbon dioxide in everything from trees to flatulent dairy cows.

Japan has been severely hurt by the the recent earthquake and tsunami as evidenced by the death of thousands and the destruction of towns, crops and infrastructure.  However, there has been quite a bit of hysteria (RISKY BUSINESS: NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE IN JAPAN!) by every news outlet claiming the dangers of nuclear energy to human life.  Greenpeace and every other uber-liberal group has been shouting at the top of their lungs that we must put an end to nuclear power because it's just TOO DANGEROUS.  "More windmills and solar panels," they shout.  Yes, the nuclear accident in Fukushima Daiichi is terrible.  But, just like the oil spill and global warming threat, the potential dangers of nuclear power plants have to be put into perspective.  It's so easy to predict disaster when the potential for disaster exists.  Hysterically reporting a nuclear meltdown in Japan is not only armageddon journalism at its finest, but also has the long term effects of limiting the energy options needed by our society for years to come (as does misreporting the BP oil damage in the Gulf of Mexico).

[As an aside, the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum reported that there were 35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 to 2010.  Nuclear energy, by contrast, did not kill a single American in that time.  So you tell me which has been the deadlier alternative in the United States?]

I think the internet has changed everything, beginning with social networking.   There's never been an easier way to make your opinion known than Facebook, My Space, Twitter or any other networking site.  These opinions -- (WALKER DESTROYING WORKING CLASS IN WISCONSIN!) -- drive a wedge between friends and enemies, men and women, sports fans and high school classmates.  Don't like how the latest election went?  Get on line and broadcast your political views so everyone, including casual friends, family and coworkers who support a different view, can think less of you than before.  And be sure to sign off with a something along the lines of "can't we all just get along?"

All this bad news is affecting how we get along with people, including complaining about young girls or boys who sell girl scout cookies or lemonade to people in the neighborhood or at fairs and festivals.  What has happened to society when they can't put their own, unhappy lives aside for a little old-fashioned entrepreneurship?

We need a night at the drive in movies to remind us of the better things in life.  Or maybe a night of dancing the foxtrot, rhumba and swing.  How about we try "spades, alone." in a game of euchre?  

I always feel better after a vacation (MAMA MIA!  ITALIAN VACATIONS FOR 65% LESS!) when I don't watch the news or read the daily news.  Vacations are excellent for creativity, stress-reduction and for relieving job burnout.  As much as any of those, I think the fact that you can sit in an Irish pub drinking a pint of Harp, Guinness or Beamish instead of watching BBC America (IS THE TEA PARTY THE END OF AMERICA?) , lends itself to feeling better after seven days in Galway, Ireland.  Get away from it all and it's amazing what you think you can accomplish.

People need to unplug themselves from their cell phones and daily diet of news, cable tv, reality shows and social networks if they want to return to a less stressful life.   Wouldn't it be nice if network news, national public radio and big city newspapers could put aside their political leanings and just report the news?  Isn't it time for society to find its soul again, and feel good about their jobs, country, family and future?

If not --  it's the end of life as we know it (THE BORG ARE COMING!).  Again.

Two of a Kind

I can still see my wife's face as she asked me the question.  She was lying on the living room couch, fear in her eyes and uncertainty in her voice as she said, "How are we ever going to do this?"

She might have been talking about choosing the right dress to go with her peep toe shoes or drapes for the bedroom windows (things that bring tears to my eyes), but no, she was wondering how we were going to find the money, time and energy to bring a new child into this world.

Back in 1986, we were living in Grand Rapids, Michigan having been married for a little over a year.  She was a nurse at Butterworth Hospital and I was a communications specialist for a small engineering firm called Rapid Engineering.  We were in love and focused on our careers like many newlyweds in their mid 20's.

 

I really envy people who are able to pick the time and place to have children.  They must either be really organized or able to control their sexual urges, or both, because we WERE NOT trying to bring another thumb sucker into this world.  We had plans for fixing up the house, taking vacations and planning ways to save for a cabin by the lake (still trying to do that one).  And yet, here we were discussing the impact of paying for diapers, formula and daycare on two paychecks worth about $500 a week, pre-tax.  Needless to say, we had little choice in the matter, and our first son was born about eight months later to two very excited parents.

Fast forward to 1992, and suddenly I was faced with the likelihood that my wife's visit to the obstetrician was about to confirm another bout of uncertainty and worry (insert graphic image of stomach ulcer).  I had recently taken a job with Beadle-Ewing Insurance in La Crosse, Wisconsin.  We were renting a small duplex while we adjusted to new jobs, friends and timezone.  I had recently been through the highs and lows of job searching and had decided to return home to try my hand at insurance sales.  Liz, always the steady one, was working in cardio-testing at Gundersen Clinic.

I should have known that the combination of a difficult job market, the attacks on Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, and the completion of Bret Favre's first year in Green Bay, would forewarn the coming of our second son.

I can't say that the experience of our first child birth prepared me -- or my wife, since she had a role in it -- any better for the second time.  A full moon on the night of his birth is a standing joke with both of us every time I think about his arrival.  Needless to say, before the delivery was done, I learned how to combine "ass," "pretzel" and "head" thanks to my wife's suddenly expansive vocabulary.

I 'm sharing these moments of joy and perturbation because in a few months, this house will once again belong to just my wife and me.  It's an experience neither of us gave much thought to as my wife's belly -- and our food, clothing and school bills -- began to grow 25 and 18 years ago.

Our youngest boy (Sean) will be going away to college, joining his brother (Matt) in the pursuit of world knowledge, girls, coffee shop guitar jams, Miles Davis -- and if lucky -- the answer to why out-of-state colleges are so much more expensive than in-state ones.  Our house will no longer be filled with the sounds of cell phone alarm clocks, tables covered by homework, and entryways blocked by tennis shoes, backpacks or trumpet cases.  Images of our kids playing after a big snowfall or monopolizing the Mac will be replaced by empty place mats at the kitchen table and two toothbrushes in the upstairs bathroom.

It's too bad that their grandfathers didn't get to know our boys better before passing away.  In so many ways they are completely different.  Early on, Matt found success in his studies and tae kwon do, while Sean seemed to be a natural in sports, whether it was baseball, skiing or tennis.  Matt was more comfortable sleeping on a boat, while Sean couldn't wait to bait a hook and go fishing.  Both expressed an interest in all things musical, including playing trumpet in jazz band, wind ensemble and show choir.  The combined best band trophies between them could fill a small room.

As their father, I got to know them by being a scout parent, helping them advance through  the Tiger, Wolf, Bear and Webelos ranks.  Scout camping was never a favorite of mine, but the night spent in the car with Matt because of his fear of spiders will never be forgotten. If there was a flicker of enjoyment remaining to sleeping in a small tent, it was quickly extinguished on a trip to the Sangre De Cristo Mountains in Colorado with a church youth group.  I'm convinced the combination of 1) lack of sleep 2) high altitude flatulence and 3) instant breakfast burritos contributed to the hallucination of trail horses wearing cowboy hats and party dresses.

Matt has chosen Architecture as his field of study, with two and a half years to go before earning his Master's degree.  His focus and ability to get by on 3 hours of sleep served him well at the University of Minnesota and now at Washington University in St. Louis.  Sean, who will be attending the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire is looking at the medical field or engineering.  After serious consideration of private school, community college and public school, he is ready to leave high school (and all its immature trappings) behind.


I think the uncertainty of bringing children into this world is much easier than letting them go.

So much energy, money and time was spent on them while growing up, that the void left by their exit will be daunting.  Their mother has spend years assembling memories of their time with us in scrap books that reflect on their time and talents in elementary, middle and high school.

Life is a journey, whether you're lucky enough to have children or not.  Our journey has been one of tremendous joy and appreciation.  Our boys could not have turned out better.  Rest assured, we will be watching their continued success with worry and trepidation but with the realization that -- while they may go their own ways, work at different jobs and live in different cities -- they will always represent a piece of ourselves.  Our lives.  Our values.

Our boys -- two of a kind.

Whad'Ya Know? Time for Big Bird to Stand on His Own

I've been a follower of National Public Radio for many years.  I'm not a supporter, although I enjoy their Saturday morning shows, "Whad'Ya Know" and "Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me!", usually while traveling back and forth to Minnesota, Iowa or Illinois.  Both of my sons have National Public Radio as their home pages on their laptops and listen to their various programs throughout the week.  Occasionally, I'll even listen to "Prairie Home Companion" even though I can't stand Garrison Keillor.  So it's safe to say that there's enough NPR voices coming through the radio to give me a good idea of what they are all about.

This week those voices are about two of their very own:  NPR's president and CEO, Vivian Schiller and NPR senior vice president, Ron Schiller.

On Tuesday, Ron Schiller resigned following controversial statements about Tea Party people, conservatives and the need for taxpayer-funding. Within hours, Vivian Schiller resigned after the Board of News for NPR threatened to oust her after losing confidence in her leadership.  To summarize, Ron Schiller, a major fundraiser for NPR, was caught on tape saying that the GOP had been "hijacked" by groups hostile to Muslims.  He later added that the Tea Party is a "... sort of white, middle-America, gun toting.  I mean, .... they're seriously racist people."  If that wasn't bad enough, Mr. Schiller condescendingly said "there is a real anti-intellectual move on the part of a significant part of the Republican Party..."  Perhaps most damning, however, was his comment on being "better off without government money", which accounts for about 10% of its yearly budget.

His last statement is bad news for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR.  Since the 1970's with Nixon and more recently in 1994, when the Republican-controlled Congress began pushing for the draw down of public funding for PBS and NPR, there has been heated debate about the need for taxpayer money to keep Big Bird and company afloat.  Mr. Schiller's comments puts renewed doubt on the subject, especially now that that Republicans control the nation's spending and are looking for ways to cut fat from Washington's budget.

NPR's and PBS's main argument for continued funding comes from an "elite ideal" that they are too important and too valuable to people who rely on their foreign and domestic departments for news.  An example of this was given by Mark Shield's of PBS who said recently, "There are 934 public radio stations.  A lot of them are in very remote and rural areas and their only source of the kind of information we are talking about.  I mean, really, that factual, worldwide, great reporting...."  Another argument made is that they are the only source of good reporting in an era when newspapers are failing and most cable news channels ( FOX among them) are covering stories like Charlie Sheen.  NPR's Nina Totenberg, of Inside Washington, said the following: "In an era when newspapers are disappearing in droves... and where commercial forces, both in television and radio, have driven out -- you know.  There's a reason that a big story like BP actually broke on NPR.  The Obama Administration was not telling us the truth about the amount of the leak.  I mean -- there, we do the job that news organizations used to do, and really don't anymore..."

It's bad enough that NPR and PBS think so highly of themselves.  It's worse that they think so little of the rest of us.  At least, a large segment of us living somewhere other than the left or east coasts of America.  In a 2004 FAIR study, NPR's target audience was documented to be 1) highly educated, 2) white and 3) liberal.  Their elitist perspective of "the rest of us" falls firmly in line with that of President Obama when he said, " they are bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."  To NPR and PBS, we are the unwashed masses that need to be enlightened to the ways of green environmentalism, gay marriage/adoptions and native American/Black reparations, to name a few.

NPR thrives in liberal college enclaves like Madison, Wisconsin -- which continues to make news by fighting Governor Walker's attempt to neuter public service unions.  I wonder how unbiased their reporting of the situation has been in light of a their usual guest list:  academia, journalists, think tanks, and students?  As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I'm not a big listener of NPR -- but I do wonder how many non-public union employees were interviewed.  Business owners who are able to make payroll by limiting the amount of money going into their own retirement plans?  Employees who pay 75%-100% of their health care benefits , including deductibles and co pays?  The average worker, who is too busy working to spend time in Madison protesting work benefits that are the best in the country?  Maybe their voices were heard, but I suspect it was drowned out by those shouting "Shame!  Shame!"

I'm not saying that I want NPR or PBS to go away.  On the contrary, I want to hear opposing views and opinions.  And as I've said, I like some of the their programs, which are intelligent, musical, humorous and interesting.  Give me more of "Whad'a Know" and "This Old House" and less "Morning Sickness" and "Real Housewives of Atlanta."

If Mr. Ron Schiller and Ms. Vivian Schiller think so highly of their one-of-a-kind product -- tailored to an educated, white,  and democratic base -- they need to pay for it by selling it the same way other radio stations do.  NPR and PBS claim they are growing.  If so, then it's time for Big Bird, Elmo and Ernie to stand on their own.

Without this Wisconsin taxpayer's money.



Update:  This past Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to stop funding NPR for all public sources, including the Corporation of Public Broadcasting by a vote of 228-192.  The bill cuts off all federal taxpayer money from being used to support NPR,  as well as the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce and the national Endowment for the Arts.  Not a single Democrat voted in favor of this bill.