Question of Leadership

     For the past 3 years I have heard the repeated refrain of "This country lacks leadership from this president". I've heard it from segments of both sides of the political spectrum. But what makes a good leader?

     The definition of leadership, by necessity, changes to match the circumstance at hand. We are hearing from the right and even from some on the left that business experience is the form of leadership we need today. The problem with that is, in the current political environment, the divide is substantially different than what is faced in business. In business a leader is faced with competition and is backed by employees and investors who have the same goal in mind, which is financial gain. This goal is clear and easily defined and quantified. In the challenging present day politics there is no competition, only opposition. The mission of those that form this opposition is not to reach a common goal that benefits everyone, but to ignore the general welfare of the country in the short term to gain what they hope is a long term grasp on power.

     By that measure, have we ever had a true leader? Has there ever been a military leader that has been able to change the goals of our enemies? No, we fight wars and kill the opposition until they feel it will be too costly in lives and money to continue. They surrender but seldom if ever deny their beliefs. Is there a sports coach who has, by virtue of his leadership, caused the other team to give up? No, the game is played on until the time runs out and the score is tallied. But the other team keeps playing through to the final whistle. The losing team walks away thinking wait until next time. So are those generals and coaches not good leaders, are they failures?

     To say that this president lacks leadership skills based on the inability to change the minds of an ideologically entrenched opposition is to imply that anyone who has led a select group against a group that is fundamentally programmed to oppose anything offered, regardless of historic agreement to those offerings, and not changed that groups beliefs is a flawed leader. Why has there been a new definition of leadership been written for this president alone? A leader can lead only those that are looking for leadership, who envision a common goal, not those who live only to oppose.

     All successful presidents from the past, regardless of party, had cooperation from the the other side of the isle or would have never succeeded. This president has none of that cooperation.

Divide to Concur

       The incessant cry of "DIVISION" has emanated from the right since before the inauguration of 2008. The only problem with that is they cannot, when asked directly, say how that division is being fostered by our current administration. They will make reference to something called "Class Warfare" but ignore the truth that the class war had been declared on the poor and middle class by policies put in place by both parties long before the election of President Obama. The rich have been getting richer for the past 30 years while the portion of this nation's wealth held by the middle class has decreased incrementally over this same period.

      That is war no doubt, and the right sees no problem with the current policies that allow for this war and instead want to expand the arsenal that promotes it. Republicans seem most intent on dividing the middle class from the security they have worked for from how they will live in the future. Beyond that all I've seen is mumbled incoherence. 

      That's just one of  the more obvious form of divisions that can be attributed to the present day Republican Party. This once reasonable opposition party has managed to create division in ways no one had considered in the not so distant past. Their blind ideological drive to remove President Obama from office at any cost has moved them to the point of shattering even their own party, while damaging the foundation of this country. 

How else can anyone explain the rights' fight with itself that has resulted in Republicans arguing with Catholics, not the "Church" but the people who make up that church? When their tax breaks are the only thing that will save this country but any tax relief proposed by this administration will bring the country to its knees. What else explains the situation we see in the primaries where there have been no fewer than 9 lead changes, from a crazy eyed manic candidate to a governor without a clue to a former business magnate that had just 1 idea and a few issues to explain to his wife . And who can forget the Donald? Nuff said there. Romney, Gingrich, back to Romney. But wait, here comes Santorum.  Confused? No more than the Republican party.

       They appear to be against themselves in their blind desires. To achieve their goal they have separated the party from women, African Americans, Hispanics, independent voters, gays and even divided the moderate, reasonable Republicans from the far right. The blatant disregard shown to the majority of Americans when it comes to fair tax laws, gay marriage, health care, unions and those who do not live in the lofty clouds of the 1% of the 1% makes the plan clear. They want to end the Obama administration at any cost, and if that cost is borne by the poor and middle class it's even better. We wouldn't want to put a strain on those invisible job creators now would we? That struggling group of people that make more than $77,000.00 a month needs help too.

        They proudly declare on a daily basis what they are against, any where, any time. But one need only watch the circle jerk they have created in the 112th Congress to see the direction they are looking to take this country. 

What they haven't done is provide Americans any solutions, anything positive.

 And they scream "DIVISION".

 How can a party that is against everything and everyone in this country bring us back together?

Convictions of Convenience

I just finished reading an article in the Dec. 5, 2011 issue of Newsweek regarding the amazing concept of Newt Gingrich winning the evangelical vote.

All I can think is !!!  WTF!!!

Conservative radio host Steve Deace said - "I see a lot of parallels between King David and Newt Gingrich"and from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council  - "Under normal circumstances, Gingrich would have some real problems with the social-conservative community. But these aren't normal circumstances".  With sentiments like this it is painfully obvious that the right is desperately trying to justify the total loss of morals and ethics in their quest to unseat President Obama. 

This willingness to ignore and, even worse, accept Gingrich's well documented personal failings is shameless. The same voices that condemn the misbehavior of former President Clinton are now happy to give the Newt a free pass because they feel that he has somehow sought and received forgiveness from some invisible entity that has a mystical power of forgiveness.  Tamara Scott, director of Concerned Women for America said,  "Here is the difference: Bill Clinton denied what he did. He didn't repent." The part of reality that this woman seems to bypass is the fact that Mr. Clinton is still married to Mrs. Clinton. That's Mrs. Clinton #1 as opposed to Mrs. Gingrich #3. Apparently Mr. Clinton asked for and received forgiveness from the only person who can actually give forgiveness, Mrs. Clinton. Newt asked  for and  received forgiveness from who, himself? Good trick and an even better trick to get so many to believe him.  Ralph Reed, leader of the Faith and Freedom Coalition says "These voters believe in redemption." leaving out the truth that, to the right, redemption goes only to those with parallel political beliefs.

There is a group in Iowa that calls itself the Iowa FAMiLY Leader led by Bob Vander Plaats that claims to be the protector of family values in Iowa that has made Gingrich one of their chosen. This group also asks its chosen to sign a pledge called "The Marriage Vow" that says  "We acknowledge and regret the widespread hypocrisy of many who defend marriage yet turn a blind eye toward the epidemic of infidelity and anemic condition of marriage in their own community".  And with that as their mission statement they still endorse Mr. Gingrich? Really? I mean shit REALLY? So defective is the moral compass of those driving this obsession to end the Obama presidency they will say anything, even contradicting themselves to the point of making any and all utterances meaningless.


It's fine, even healthy for the country, to have honest policy disagreements with any administration. But when the conversation veers off into a fantasy land of twisted logic, undulating values and convenient convictions there is no longer an exchange of ideas with mature thinking people but a living, contemporary example of what happened at the Tower Of Babel.

Many voices saying nothing .

Backward, Into the Future

Three contemporary definitions of the term "Political Conservative":
1. Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
3. In politics, the desire to maintain, or conserve, the existing order.

As indicated, it appears that the current Republican party adheres to this concept with unwavering certainty. Regression is their definition of progress. So let's venture back to the days of old, shall we? It might be good to return to the past. It might be, but it won't be because the right has decided to rewrite the past to fit their present.

The Republican party holds the name REAGAN as the banner of everything good. The torch that lights the way forward. The only problem with that is they don't hold his ideas, his understanding of the complexities of the economy of this country, in the same light. During one of his speeches in Georgia in 1985, he asked,  "Do you think millionaires ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver?"  He also said "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share."  Sound familiar? Were he to say that today the present day Republicans would call him a socialist that wants to bring down the republic.

Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, calls the present day philosophy "an anti-tax jihad".  Forget the real numbers from those days.  During Reagan's 8 years in office, for 7 of those the top rate was higher than the current 35% and for 6 of those years it was above 50%.  Since 1997, the the average income of the top 400 richest has more than tripled while their tax obligations have decreased by 40%. Today, any one of these select 400 pay about 17% in federal income taxes (after deductions) while a person making $25,000.00 pays about 24%.  Are the Republicans yattering to return to the days of yore willing to go back to the tax rates of the past? Back to the real days of old? Oh God no.


Three contemporary definitions of "Political Liberal".
1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3. A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)


There are people out there (in more ways than one) that are saying by their support of certain presidential candidates that the way forward for this country is to turn back the clock to the days of old.  Just not the real days.  A business in trouble will not correct itself by not buying new inventory.  A successful business adapts to the reality of today.  As all societies change over time, so too should our government. To think that this country can excel with the policies of the past, while ignoring the truth of the past, is to ignore the advances made from the inception of this country to today.

Take the titles away from the definitions and choose. Which concept you would rather live with? Which world do you want your children left with? Where do you want to be next year?

What's the punchline?

I have been watching, with great interest and occasional amusement, the Republican reality show disguised as the run up to the primaries. As one after the other  prospective candidates have come to the front of the pack they have been exposed as, at best, entertainment, but more often than not absolutely uninformed, morally bankrupt, issue vacant, empty suits. Or in Michele's case, empty pantsuit. Those eyes, so creepy.

This clown parade presented by the Republicans comes at a time when very serious problem are hammering this country daily. It's almost like the right is playing a dangerous prank on the country. A practical joke that doesn't appear to have a punchline. It's just a pointless display of partisan blathering which, when exposed to the light of day, show these buffoons for what they are. I always thought that front runner status came after the public heard what the candidates positions were, not before. Not this time though. The Republicans are so grasping at straws this cycle they will declare their newest leader before they know where they are being lead. It's like all of the candidates are driven to the "debates" in a tiny car, to be dumped off at the front door of the house of mirrors at a carnival.

First it was Mitt. Mitt, the whirling dervish of position politics. How does he feel about a particular issue? Depends on what time it is. It's surprising he hasn't tossed his lunch like a kid on a tilt-a-whirl. Michele Bachmann was the next to ride into the fray, with what could have only been a religious fever caused call for an investigation of the House of Representatives and their Un-American thoughts. Thanks a lot Chris Mathews. Next up The Donald, nuff said. Seriously folks. The Donald?!!! Then came the call to Rick Perry to ride to the rescue of right wing conservative ideology. Rick Perry, the guy who came to the attention of those on the right by suggesting that Texas should consider seceding from the country he now wants to lead. Brilliant!!! Now it's Herman Cain. I'd like to take this time to point out his flaws but so many are surfacing on a daily, or has it become hourly, basis it's impossible to keep up. And somewhere in this mess we had T. Paw, the disappearing puff of policy smoke. In between we were subjected to a lineup of personalities that represent the who's who of far right nut jobs that don't really think they can win. Newt (serial divorcer of terminal wives), Santorum (google it for fun), Ron Paul ("bless his heart" as they say in the South), "the invisible man" Jon Huntsman, Buddy (really Buddy?) Rommer, and Mr. "Smoke it if you got it" Gary Johnson. Their only purpose for being here is self-promotion. Books to sell, speeches to be paid for, dinners to be invited to.  A tag team of disparate, desperate publicity whores. 

The cream of the crop. The best they have to offer. The solution to our national dilemma.
Is it a cure if the treatment kills the patient?

If this isn't just one big joke on this country I don't know what it could be. I just wish they would step out from behind the curtain and scream "You've been PUNKED".

Imbalance of Power

Enough is enough. Day after day there are some on the far left whining that the President is not doing what they want the way they want it done. Last week there was an article in Newsweek saying that President Obama is our countries Neville Chamberlain. Then this "journalist" suggested that the best thing our President could do was resign. And why does this person feel this way? Because in his words President Obama is an appeaser.  A compromiser.  Never mind the reality that there were never the votes to do anything else. Never mind the fact that you cannot win by losing. This writer would rather see a great but pointless fight. 

Talking heads on the left are saying that this President is not showing the kind of leadership they want. Since when did President Obama give any indication that he would do anything other than what he has tried to do from his first day in office? He said in his campaign speeches that he wanted to have business done differently in Washington. And he worked hard to accomplish things that everyone in this country, both left and right, would in the end support. How is it his fault that the Republicans had decided from the outset of this administration, or more accurately when the original Contract on America was foisted on this country, that the best way to regain power was to sacrifice the welfare of the country? Block, lie and create fear of everything he proposed.  This country has a very complex system of governance and he is required by law to work within that process. You know, democracy. He is not in the position to change the process of government to allow him to dictate the terms of running the country. And if a person would take the time to research the truth, that person would find that President Obama has accomplished a great deal against all of the efforts of the Republicans to stop it.

And there are now many of those best described as ground troops that feel these people might be right. They appear to be longing for the days when a president walks on stage in an Air Force jumpsuit complete with a waaaaay oversized codpiece as a show of leadership. Until then they are more inclined sit back and let someone else do the heavy lifting. "I'll vote for him but I can't do any work for him. He hasn't done enough for me".   Well, la de da. What have YOU done lately? How much have YOU done to promote the agenda you support? How hard did YOU work to keep the new freshman class (term used loosely) of Republican mouth breathers out of office? What... not that much? Well thanks a lot.

 We, Democrats, have allowed the present imbalance of power to come about by not working harder, talking louder, asking questions and fighting the spread of misinformation. And if the whining doesn't stop, if we sit back and say all is lost, if we again allow the hardcore right to lie and bully its way into an  even more powerful position then we will get what we deserve. Instead of complaining maybe we should spend more time and energy pointing out what has been accomplished, what has become better and what we stand to lose. We should work hard to get this President reelected and work even harder to get those that are willing to sacrifice this great country for the ideologically twisted goal of an America that only the privileged would want thrown from their positions of destruction. Then and only then will we be able to act on the ideas that will make this country again the place that the rest of the world can only wish it could be.

It's not just this President's job to fight for what we want, it's a job for all of us.

Taxed Enough Already? (Just my patience)

1952    First successful cardiac pacemaker

Paul M. Zoll of Boston’s Beth Israel Hospital, in conjunction with the Electrodyne Company, develops the first successful cardiac pacemaker.  Around the same time a battery-powered external machine is developed by Earl Bakken and C. Walton Lillehei.

1953    First successful open-heart bypass surgery

Philadelphia physician John H. Gibbon performs the first successful open-heart bypass surgery on 18-year-old Cecelia Bavolek. The device is the culmination of two decades of research and experimentation and heralds a new era in surgery and medicine. Today coronary bypass surgery is one of the most common operations performed.

1982    First permanent artificial heart implant

Seattle dentist Barney Clark receives the first permanent artificial heart, a silicone and rubber device designed by many collaborators, including Robert Jarvik, Don Olsen, and Willem Kolff. William DeVries of the University of Utah heads the surgical transplant team.

1944    Federal Aid Highway Act

The Federal Aid Highway Act authorizes the designation of 40,000 miles of interstate highways to connect principal cities and industrial centers.

1956    New Federal Aid Highway Act

President Dwight D. Eisenhower signs a new Federal Aid Highway Act, committing $25 billion in federal funding. Missouri is the first state to award a highway construction contract with the new funding.

1960s    Reflective paint for highway markings developed

Paint chemist and professor Elbert Dysart Botts develops a reflective paint for marking highway lanes. When rainwater obscures the paint’s reflective quality, Botts develops a raised marker that protrudes above water level. Widely known as Botts’ Dots, the raised markers were first installed in Solano County, California, along a section of I-80. They have the added benefit of making a drumming sound when driven over, warning drivers who veer from their lanes.

  1958    United States launches its first satellite

The United States launches its first satellite, the 30.8-pound Explorer 1. During this mission, Explorer 1 carries an experiment designed by James A.Van Allen, a physicist at the University of Iowa, which documents the existence of radiation zones encircling Earth within the planet’s magnetic field, The Van Allen Radiation Belt.

  1969    Neil Armstrong becomes the first person to walk on the Moon

Neil Armstrong becomes the first person to walk on the Moon. The first lunar landing mission, Apollo 11 lifts off on July 16 to begin the 3-day trip. At 4:18 p.m. EST on July 20, the lunar module—with astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin E. (Buzz) Aldrin—lands on the Moon’s surface while Michael Collins orbits overhead in the command module.

1951    First computer designed for U.S. business

Eckert and Mauchly, now with their own company (later sold to Remington Rand), design UNIVAC (UNIVersal Automatic Computer)—the first computer for U.S. business. Its breakthrough feature: magnetic tape storage to replace punched cards. First developed for the Bureau of the Census to aid in census data collection, UNIVAC passes a highly public test by correctly predicting Dwight Eisenhower’s victory over Adlai Stevenson in the 1952 presidential race.

1946    Tupperware

As a chemist at DuPont in the 1930s, Earl Tupper develops a sturdy but pliable synthetic polymer he calls Poly T. By 1947 Tupper forms his own corporation and makes nesting Tupperware bowls along with companion airtight lids. Virtually breakproof, Tupperware begins replacing ceramics in kitchens nationwide. What do these 10 accomplishments have in common? Major accomplishments in health, transportation, communication and easy living? Accomplishments that cost the US government and private entities time and money? All of these and many more came during a time of incredible technological advancement and  economic growth while the country was being taxed at an average of 49.5% for corporate tax rates and 72.5% top rate for private citizens. Our periods of greatest growth in American economic prosperity came first during the Eisenhower (R) administration (1953- 1961) with a top corporate rate of 52% and individual rates between 22% to 91%. The next jump came during Bill Clintons term while the country was saddled with individual rates between 15% and 39.6% and corporate rates at 37% with fewer "loopholes" than are written in our tax codes today. Even during saint Ronnies reign the top rate for corporations was 46%. Do the newly elected "members" of the freshman congressmen feel that we as a country are as good as we will ever be? Or do they just feel that they have theirs so let the future "eat cake"? Why else would they be so against changing the tax rates back to the levels that allowed this country to be the country the rest of the world could only wish they could be? To be the place they wanted to live in, be part of?  Less government, lower taxes, fewer programs. No protection, no advancement, no hope for those in need. What kind of country do they envision for the future, or do they really care?