Knock, Knock, World

Daniel Beaty is a performer, poet and thinker who can move people with words like few others of our generation. If you do nothing else for yourself today, take two and a half minutes and watch this video of his 2004 Def Poetry Jam appearance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nktBsI0PYPs

I cannot imagine too many can watch Mr. Beaty’s riveting performance and not walk away changed in some way. Words can be powerful tools, as they are for Mr. Beaty, and they can be destructive weapons.

I did not address last week’s flap over the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama in this space. I discounted the controversy as more of the same harmless chatter being tossed about in a political game. I told myself I did not want to elevate the debate. I was copping out.

Much of last week’s dither I will not address, except for one recurring theme. Many of the President’s naysayers repeated a refrain that when it came to peace the President had done little more than give eloquent speeches. In order to stay on topic, I will set aside the substance argument for now. For the Nobel Prize Committee, many Americans and a lot of people throughout the world, the tone Mr. Obama set during the campaign and in these first few months of his presidency are important.

Words beget action. Mr. Obama added a new dimension to the familiar tough talk that usually comes from American leaders. With words he reached out and offered to begin a new dialogue aimed at peace. This is not a bad place to start. Time will tell whether Mr. Obama’s actions will reflect those expressions. But, if one poet can incite change in an audience like Mr. Beaty, perhaps one leader can incite a little change in the world.

I am pulling for President Obama. You keeping speaking, but don’t forget to roll up your sleeves and do the hard work you were elected to do after the microphone is unplugged.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

White House is Losing Focus; It’s Time to Stop Squabbling with Media and Lead

Looks like the White House found the FoxNews bait irresistible. They are engaging the conservative media through their own snippy blogs, news releases and cleverly staged interviews with key staff. Worst of all, they are throwing the word “liar” around like they are a rogue member of Congress.

Believe it not, I am with Fox on this one. Leadership comes from, well, leading. The White House needs to spend less time wrestling with Glenn Beck and more time doing the job they were elected to do.

The link below is to a TIME piece released today about the White House “engagement” strategy.
Calling ‘Em Out: The White House Takes on the Press
TIME.com, Thursday, October 8, 2009

















Photo: Callie Shell / Aurora for Time










This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

While Talk Shows Rarely are Confused with Art, Danger Lurks when Reality Begins to Resemble this Entertainment

Michael Calderone’s Politico piece, “Divide between right and mainstream media,” compares the coverage of a handful of recent stories by traditional media outlets to that of talk shows and blogs. Not surprisingly, traditional media dedicated less time and column space to some of these stories than did their counterparts. But, more than demonstrate a bias of papers like the New York Times, this analysis reveals that bloggers and talkers have the luxury to cover part of the news to make a point while the others try to cover a more complete picture.

Since people are involved, it is foolish to say newspapers and television news organizations can report information free of bias even with the best of intentions. But, there is a fundamental difference between putting together a newscast and producing a talk show. Blogging on a few select topics is unlike producing a newspaper that covers community, national and/or world affairs.

It is easy to understand why right leaning Fox News might dedicate hours of coverage to the resignation of White House staffer Van Jones who made outlandish and racist comments. Mr. Jones was a deserving target and attacking the Obama Administration plays to the audience. As easy to understand is why Fox News skipped the 2005 resignation of Bush White House staffer Philip Cooney who repeatedly toned down government climate documents to play down global warming. While it appears Mr. Jones never had the opportunity to use his position to influence a particular policy, Mr. Cooney actually used his to do so. However, attacking Mr. Cooney or a Republican President would not play well with conservative viewers. I get it.

Free speech is good. Debate and discussion is how we make decisions in a democracy. However, some of these talk shows and bloggers are breeding an animosity that is dangerous by desensitizing us to name calling and disrespectful dialogue.

There is plenty of heated language spewing forth from the airwaves these days, but as the article did, let us turn our attention to the current rising purveyor of rants and raves, Glenn Beck. Mr. Beck can be heard daily on radio and nightly on Fox News. In many ways, Beck exemplifies the good, the bad and the ugly of what ideologues with a microphone and marketing savvy can accomplish. Glenn Beck is an entertainer who relies on the outrageous outburst to make his point. He has built an audience with whom he can lure advertisers and to whom he can sell books and merchandise. Good for him. He knows what his audience wants and he is eager to throw them his brand of red meat verbosity.

You need look no further than the Tea Party march this past weekend to learn two important things about Beck. 1) He has amassed a sizeable following. 2) His recipe for attracting these followers is concocted from equal parts news, historical interpretation, fear mongering, and salacious innuendo. I am not sure he has ever uttered the current common phrase among his followers, “give us our country back,” but he clearly implies it with huge helpings of disdain for those he disagrees during every broadcast and his fans love it.

Glenn Beck and his fellow talk jockeys provide a certain service by making people think, providing information and challenging people to get involved. However, Beck is careless with the power his cameras and microphones provide. Calling the President a racist – calling anyone a racist – is a serious charge. To do so in such a casual manner is reckless and harmful to civilized political debate. Histrionics about people who are out to destroy the country because of a liberal agenda is outlandish. Liberals and conservatives may disagree on the how, but I still believe the vast majority of Americans share a common goal to make our country better and stronger. Beck sells vitriol because it gins up his audience and it is good business. But, he is doing more harm than good by sowing toxic seeds of distention and animosity.

Go forth, watch Glenn Beck and the others. Listen to them paint a picture of partisan distrust and cheer them as they go after the latest scapegoat for what is wrong with the other party, if you wish. Just remember, the name calling and finger pointing may make good TV, but it is finding common ground that will make us a better country.

The State of the Nation

The other day a friend asked me to give him my impression “of the state of the nation, President and overall feelings of where we are headed.”

OK, let’s start with the state of the nation. The U.S. faces obstacles that could not have been imagined a decade ago. That being said, I have great confidence in our capacity as a people to prevail. Our hope and our very successes lie in our ability to debate openly, to disagree when we must and, most important, to unify as a country to move forward.

It has been nearly eight years since 9/11. These acts of terrorism brought us real war on two fronts, incalculable economic costs and effects, and forever altered our relations in the world community. The pullback of troops in Iraq has begun, but as this week’s increased violence there demonstrates, this country will be a source of concern and will cost us dearly for many years to come. Afghanistan is increasingly violent and appears as far away from a peaceful resolution as it ever was. The Taliban’s capture and unlawful holding of an American serviceman there is evidence that the Taliban threat is real and alive.

The events of 2001 changed the course of our country. I am not interested in a political parlor game of whether the Bush Administration made matters better or worse by the actions they took and/or how they lead. In looking to the future, pointing fingers at the players of the past or comparing them to the current players is not productive. The fact is the economy was in a nosedive and the US faced an unprecedented international crisis when the new President took the Oath of Office on January 20. I am sure we agree it would have been unreasonable to expect any of these problems (war, terrorism, or the economy) were going to be dispensed of within six months time.

President Reagan took office during dark economic times. Depending on how you measure such factors, the country hit an economic low point a full year after Reagan became President. Fans of the “Gipper” will tell you it took time for Reaganomics to have an effect. The timing of his lowest public approval numbers were impacted for a period by the economy and situation he inherited. He needed time to lead and Americans needed time to evaluate his performance. Six months or a year are only a snapshot of a presidency.

But, that serves as an excellent segue to providing my opinion of where we are headed. I believe we are headed toward brighter days. However, I think the country will emerge remarkably different economically. Further, I think the United States’ place and influence in the world will be altered in ways good and bad as well.

The financial bailouts provided to corporations have placed the federal government in the position of what I would have once described as hyper-involvement in the marketplace. Few of us could have imagined the collapse of a giant international entity like AIG, the potential crash of a once thriving U.S. banking industry, and an economic slowdown of the magnitude we were facing in 2008. Fewer still could have calculated that all this would have occurred while we were pouring billions (dare I say, trillions) into a far flung military offensive.

If the majority of bailout dollars are repaid to the government (we will never recoup all of it) and if that recovered money is not re-spent (which is government’s usual inclination), we may come out of the bailout mess ahead of the game. If this money remains unpaid, or is repaid and spent on other government programs, the bailout will serve to drive up our national debt over the long term and we will find ourselves in a deeper hole than when we began. Members of Congress and the Administration need to continue to redefine, monitor and work with those corporations who received bailout funds to ensure the money is repaid.

Did the bailouts work? We may never know. Wells Fargo Bank, in example, received $25 billion in bailout money and reported a $3 billion profit last quarter, up some 80% from a year ago and nearly 30% from last quarter. I am not sure how we taxpayers calculate our payback on our “loan” to Wells Fargo, but few of us ever see a profit increase like that in tough times. Either the taxpayers won a huge gamble, or we got snookered by a company who just made a huge gain based on our largess. Maybe the jobs at the new GM will be worth it, but I doubt many of the former GM investors and car dealers feel too ‘stimulated’ today. Only time will tell.

The political maneuvering on healthcare has reached a fever pitch. Most of what is left is posturing and gamesmanship that has less to do with fixing a problem(s) than it does with scoring political points against the other team. Truthfully, I do not think we have even come to an agreement as to what the problem is. As a small business owner who pays 100% of his health insurance premium, I can tell you the current system is too costly and is stifling economic growth. Let me buy into a bigger pool and put some controls on skyrocketing costs and you make a difference for me. I would like to see the GOP and the Dems dial back the rhetoric and start over. First, let’s agree on what we are trying to fix and then let’s work on a solution. This talk of “breaking” the other guy or “winning this fight” is harming all of us, because all it produces is hot air.

This leads to my assessment of the President. As stated earlier, President Obama has been in office for six months, a little more than 10% of his term. He has delivered on some things and has yet to deliver on others. On those where he has yet to act, I am willing to give him time. If he fails to keep his word; I, like most voters, will judge him for it. But, that comes later. For now, Americans are well served to vigorously debate how to move forward and stop trying to label the President and/or those with whom he disagrees just for the sake of winning the next election.

Arguably, the challenges our country confronts are unlike any new president has ever faced (some have tackled worse, like Lincoln and a nation headed toward Civil War; others, like Eisenhower, came to power during peace and a bright economic picture). The President has been accessible to the public – he holds his fifth news conference today. And, he has been forthright about his agenda (whether you agree with him or not). He has also, however, chosen to withhold action on some items in an effort to prioritize a full agenda. I am partly and, in a few cases, significantly disappointed in this prioritization. But, as a leader, the President has the right and responsibility to do much of this on his terms.

In example, like many Americans I supported President George W. Bush’s decision to enter into war with Iraq. I trusted and had faith that we needed to face the evil that had wrought terror and posed an imminent threat to our country. I had a responsibility as an American to learn what I could about this threat and to form an opinion about what my country should do. I did not support President Bush’s decision because the 2004 election loomed. I did so because I believed he was leading us well and making informed decisions. Time may or may not prove that this war was a good decision and my opinion in 2009 as I write this is not pertinent to an answer about this President. As we look to the obstacles that stand in our way, we must learn from the past and demand that our leaders provide us with the facts and make decisions in the open. In many ways, the Obama Administration is doing well on this front. In others, they have made unfortunate and harmful decisions to continue business as usual.

The United States faces limitless opportunity and daunting impediments to reaching the shining city on a hill that has been envisioned in varying forms since John Winthrop spoke of it to his Puritan followers not long before their arrival in New England in 1630. Ronald Reagan evoked these words to describe his vision for America in the 1980’s and today you and I may see yet another gleaming city for which we should strive. But, now as in times past, Americans must do what we have always done. We must find a way to get past partisan, selfish and petty goals to ensure the country as a whole survives and thrives.

President Obama has some 40 months to go before he stands for election. We must give him time to do the job he was elected to do. We must give those elected officials who oppose this policy or that the opportunity to debate and swing public opinion to their point of view. However, if we allow our American political process to resemble a sporting match where we each select a team and victory is only achieved when one party scores the most points, America will have lost.

I believe President Obama is a person of great integrity who is interested in serving his country. I may disagree with him on some issues, but in these few short months of his term, I have never seen anything to make me question his ability to lead his countrymen in the direction of that shining city on the hill.

My Broken Face and the National Healthcare Debate

I had never been seriously injured and could count on one hand the number of visits to a doctor I made over the last fifteen years. That changed two weeks ago when during an after-dinner walk with my family and our dogs I managed to plant my forehead into the neighbor’s sidewalk. It is fair to say the ambulance ride, emergency room treatment, two days in Intensive Care and the bills now coming due for that care have impacted my analysis of the rhetoric coming out of Washington about reforming healthcare in America.

My wife and I run a small business and, as a result, pay every dime of our health insurance coverage ourselves. I will admit I groan every quarter when that bill comes due. Since our three kids were born, we have paid more in premiums than we have consumed in benefits paid under the policy. Of course, my tripping over the dog’s leash has changed that some. As of today, this ‘lapse of grace’ has resulted in medical bills closing in on $20,000 and counting. Suddenly, that July premium payment looks like a better deal.

At a recent meeting of the American Medical Association, President Obama said healthcare in America “has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession - a calling - to a business.” The President told the gathering, “You didn’t enter this profession to become bean counters and paper pushers. You entered this profession to be healers. And that’s what our healthcare system should let you be.”

It is hard to disagree with that, except most of those doctors have gigantic medical school debts and trying to calculate the cost of providing care in this country is enough to make my cracked head throb a tad more than it already does. Healthcare is a business and Americans have reaped the fruits of this industry for a long time. The crushing downside is that we are paying handsomely for it as consumers and taxpayers.

The President and his fellow healthcare reformers repeat a refrain that providers and insurers are stuck in a system that pays for procedures instead of patient care. This is exactly the type of intellectual call to action that makes me root for Mr. Obama. But, as I tried to decipher the argument and determine what our collective course to reform will be, the familiar ache in my forehead again made me wince.

When I was moaning in the hospital, I wanted two things; relief from the pain, and to recover fully. In short, access to the best healthcare had to offer. After all, isn’t that what I have been paying those outrageous premiums for all of these years? Truthfully, isn’t that what we all want - a system that is available when we need it and puts treating the injury or sickness before growing somebody else’s balance sheet?

I had my third and final CT Scan yesterday and my doctor tells me that everything is healing well. (He did, however, fail to recommend any treatment for a bruised ego caused by clumsiness.) I cannot say if three CT Scans were recommended because my health plan will pay for them, or because it made good sense from a medical standpoint. What I do know is that my wife and I were able to ask many questions and the doctor answered them using a kind of interactive picture of my broken head.

Those who claim the free market alone should be allowed to determine our course are as wrong as those who advocate a single national system. As a business owner, a good first step will be allowing me to buy into as big of insurance pool as feasible, one that spreads the risk among as many of us as possible. It is my right and my responsibility to pay for healthcare for my family, but the current system hampers economic growth for companies and has brought too many families financial ruin.

Regardless of the deal that will be struck in Washington to change healthcare in this country, I am pretty sure all of us will continue to pay a hefty price for it. I, for one, am a bit more willing to do so in light of recent events, and am grateful for the reminder of how lucky I am to live in a place where a guy can get such good care for a bump to his rather hard head.