Arrogance over Protocol

The recent gatecrashers at the White House bring to mind what happens when a new administration comes into office. Understandably, they are pumped up over their recent win and now want to put their own mark on the country. Unfortunately new administrations also have the tendency to walk over the rank and file and don't listen to the real people who run the departments regardless of who is president. The new presidents tell the old-timers that they don't want to hear the excuse of "that's how we always did it" and now want things done their way. However, the new administration has neither the experience nor the patience to listen to the very peope who could help them. In their arrogance at being elected Presidents don't understand that the intricate protocol that has been perfected over the past 100 years enables new presidents to fulfill their new duties with poise and class and avoid potentially embarrassing mistakes. I have a sneaking suspician that this is at the heart of the lapse in security at the Obama's first state dinner.


If I remember correctly, there were horror stories about the last two Democratic administratons. Both the Clinton and the Carter incoming teams were young, inexperienced and few on their team had much managerial skills or spent any time in DC. Yet these young politicians came across as arrogant, cocky, power hungry and charged with the belief that they were empowered to do whatever they felt was best for the country. There were rumors that the Clintons sold overnight stays at the White House to major donors or their Hollwood friends. Then there was Bill Clinton's conduct in the White House with that woman which showed a complete lack of respect for the office of the President and for the White House, itself. Carter wasn't much better as he invited his adolescent daughter to a formal state function where she then proceded to read a book at the dinner table.

In contrast to the disastors created by Carter and Clinton's administrations, both of the Bush's had very smooth transitions. Yes, George HW Bush went from VP to President, retaining a number of people from Reagan's regime. But Bush himself was a career politician who knew the ins and out of Washington. Ford was another old time politician who stepped into the void left by one of the country's most traumatic experiences. Yet Ford was still able to assure the country and the world that the US would continue intact. But this kind of transition isn't always that smooth, as both LBJ and Truman had very rocky transitions from VP to President.


Clinton's administration not only began disastrously but it ended equally shamefully with stories of trashed offices and destroyed computers. But, like his father, George W. Bush had class and never complained about the mess left by the Clintons. And unlike the Clintons and Carters, Bush had a team that included career politicians who understood DC, which helped his team have an easier transition than if they were all newcomers.


Now we have Obama who has even less experience than Carter and Clinton, who had both been governors. To his credit, Obama did keep a few men from Bush's administration. This was particularly helpful in providing a smooth transition to our military, although, ironically, this caused Obama a lot of grief with the very liberal base who elected him.


In spite of the media's shunning of any negative story about the Obama administration, more and more cracks are starting to appear. People are beginning to question if mistakes are being made due to Obama's ignorance and inexperience or perhaps due to his determination to do things his way or to a combination of all of the above.


There are Obama's continuing bows to other state leaders when rarely if never has a President bowed that low for it is seen as a symbol of weakness. At times Obama comes across as too parochial. He had a favorite during the World Series, he of course cheered on the Chicago basketball team and he somehow found the time to travel overseas to help promote his hometown in its failed bid for the Olympics. On the other hand, he snubbed all of the activities regarding World War II.


Speaking of traveling, he really shouldn't be proud of the fact that he has traveled more than any other president in the first year. Someone with more experience, who truly understands his role as President, which isn't to go sightseeing with his wife and kids, belongs first and foremost at home. This is especially true when the country is hurting as much as the US is with the high unemployment, horrible housing markt and in the middle of a major recession.


And now we have a couple breaking through what should be extreme security to crash the Obama's first state dinner. (I also can't help but wonder why it took them 10 months before they had their first major official event.) I am sure that the Secret Security will take a major hit for this breach in security. Yet there are faint hints that the Obamas have tried to relax some of the security surrounding the White House and themselves. Perhaps once again a young inexperienced first couple is bulldozing over the rank and file so that they can do things their way. They might not realize that there is a reason behind the established protocol. Both of the Obamas need to stop talking so much and to start listening to the old-timers around them. Their very lives might depend upon it.

Happy Thanksgiving

Many years ago after a heated Thanksgiving Day discussion with my father, he quoted Winston Churchill who said "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." I can't help but think of this quote as families gather round the Thanksgiving dinner table today.

A big part of the charm of Thanksgiving is that it does bring together multiple generations. No surprise then that these differing generations will result in children of all ages clashing with parents. And thanks to our longer living elders, it is not unusual for the middle aged to be the parent while carving the turkey and then the child by the time the pumpkin pie is being served.

I worry, however, that the family arguments this Thanksgiving will be more heated, more divisive then in the past. Even though we all know better than to discuss religion, sex or politics within the family nonetheless our political differences will permeate the dinner table like an unwanted guest. Make a toast to every one's health and the next thing you know there is an argument about the health care plan. Offer a prayer of thanksgiving and it turns into a heated discussion about religion and schools. I worry that nearly any innocent word or gesture will become a launching point for a vitriolic discussion from either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

I had forgotten that Abraham Lincoln was the President who nationalized this holiday. I mention this because it seems to me that the chasm between the Liberals and Conservatives today is not necessarily due to Churchill's generational gulf such as we had in the 1960's but that it dates back another hundred years to the 1860's Civil War's North vs. South division. I realize that it is dangerous for me to say this out loud because Liberals will now label me as a bigot because I am a Southerner. Their tunnel vision will immediately conclude that I, like all Southerners, dislike Obama because he is an African American and therefore all Conservative Southerners, must be racists. I am not naive enough to believe that there are no racists; I am sure that Obama's heritage is a problem for some Southerners.

But I think it is just as racist to feel compelled to like someone because of his race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. as it is to dislike someone for the same reason. The people I know who dislike Obama do so not because of his race but because of his politics. Conservatives are fearful that Obama is rapidly changing our country by gathering more and more power to the federal government by taking power away from the individuals and states. Just as this was a major factor in the Civil War, it is again a division between the North and South rather than a generational chasm.

It just occurred to me that this argument is even older than the Civil War and in fact stems back to the very beginning of our country. While writing the Declaration of Independence and setting up our first government a feud broke out between Northerner John Adams and Southerner Thomas Jefferson. Adams sounding like Kennedy, Kerry or any other fellow Massachusetts politician argued for more power for the federal government and less for the individual. While the Southern tea bag parties echoed the refrain first stated by Thomas Jefferson who wanted greater state and individual rights and a weaker federal government.

And now here we are 250 years later sitting around the Thanksgiving dinner table and still arguing for a stronger central government while others heatedly argue against it. Perhaps the very fact that our forefathers were divided over the issues that divide us today will help put it into perspective.

So whether you love him or hate him, the truth is that Obama's policies probably won't matter in the long run. The United States has been arguing the very same topics since our beginning and yet we still stand tall and strong as a beacon of freedom for the whole world to see. Now that is something for which we can all be thankful.

Finally, on a personal note, I have an awful lot to be thankful for this year. Just the fact that I am alive, healthy and have both legs is a minor miracle. And I am thrilled that although I missed the family reunion because of my health I was still eventually able to be with my family and will sit down to our Thanksgiving dinner with four generations. But most of all, I am thankful for all my friends and family's help, prayers and thoughts during this very difficult year. Thank you and may y'all have a wonderful and peaceful Thanksgiving.

Follow Up

A few weeks ago I wrote the following blog about the loss of childhood freedomsz during what had been a relatively slow week. Then something happened which caught my attention so I tucked this article away for this week when I knew I would be busy preparing for Thanksgiving next week.

Imagine my surprise when after publishing my reminisces of childhood freedoms I found the following article on www.Time.com Can These Parents Be Saved about overly protective parents! So if you want to read more, and I do mean more as Tme devotes four pages on line to this topic then check out this Times article. However, after page after page of hand wringing over helicopter parents the Time article concludes pretty much with what I started out with:

If you embrace this rather humbling reality, it will be easier to follow the advice D.H. Lawrence offered back in 1918: "How to begin to educate a child. First rule: leave him alone. Second rule: leave him alone. Third rule: leave him alone. That is the whole beginning."
Of course, that was easy for him to say. He had no kids.

And I suppose I should also disclose that I don't have kids either. But I was one....

Lost Childhood Freedoms

Do you remember the feeling you had when you were a kid and you were riding your bike? The wind was in your face and the hot sun beating down, speeding away or perhaps swaying back and forth or maybe practicing wheelies. You were in your own little world where there were no parents or siblings or even friends to bother you or pick a fight or break the silence with their talking. Nope, instead the world consisted of just you and your bike.

I thought of that because today we are never on our own and out of touch with the world as we were when we were kids 20+ years ago. As adults we are plugged into the world 24/7 thanks to cell phones, blackberries, PCs, and round the clock cable news. And I doubt if even kids today will ever know that kind of freedom; as they are always carrying their cell phones too.

I feel sorry for these kids today. Every 12 year old needs to think that they have eluded their parent’s grasp and are free to do whatever it is 12 year olds want to do. My parents probably never knew that my friend and I would save our pennies then would bike a few miles away to a park where we would rent a little row boat. We would row out to the middle of the lake then stretch out in the boat; eat our forbidden Twinkies and simply float around; daydreaming, looking at the clouds while trailing a hand in the water and of course talking and giggling. It was harmless but to us it was magical as it was our little secret getaway.

I couldn’t even begin to imagine that idyllic summer scene interrupted by the insistent ring of a cell phone. To have that quiet escape broken by a mother’s interrogation of where are you, what are you doing, who are you with, when will you be home, etc. etc. Yet that is now the every day life for children today.

Perhaps parents reading this would be horrified if their 12 year olds went off on a similar little escapade. I am almost embarrassed to admit just how free we really were back then. (Oh my, I am turning into an old foggie complete with the prerequisite “In my day…”) Anyway, we were freer and less fearful than kids today. Take riding my bike for example. I had no helmet or pads and would have thought anyone wearing that stuff was a sissy. (Ok a part of me still thinks that!) I would think those funny little helmets were hot and would definitely interfere with the wind blowing through my hair.

I could, however, understand wearing a hardhat during my horseback riding lessons. But a bike? Over the years, I was thrown more times from a horse than a bike and yet even then I still never landed on my head. I wonder if making kids wear the helmets is also making them more fearful. Seems to me the kids of my childhood were fearless. I admit to a healthy respect and fear of falling from a horse but I never once worried about falling from a bike. I loved that bike. Yet making a child wear a helmet implicitly tells a child that riding a bike is dangerous; that you could fall and get hurt so be afraid and wear this helmet. How sad.

When I was young my sisters and I knew that we needed to be in whistle range. Mom had this very loud whistle and when it was time to come home she would stand on the front steps and call us with the whistle. So as long as we could still hear the whistle we were free to explore the neighborhood. When we were older we were given even more freedom. I had friends who lived a mile or more away and after getting permission would hop on my bike to go to their homes. No cell phones, just my trusty bike and I facing the world together.

Today my 11 year old niece is nervous about walking two blocks in her upscale residential neighborhood to her bus stop. (Although in her defense, this same young lady thinks nothing of hurling her body in flips while staying on a balance beam!) Nonetheless, she worries that maybe someone might try to kidnap her. Wow. Has the world changed that much? Were there not pedophiles when I was a child? I would think there were. I just wonder if no one talked about it back then, not even on the news. And so if you were ignorant then you could be carefree as ignorance truly is bliss.

Stranger – danger is what is drilled into today’s children. But the majority of strangers are not dangerous. The odds are that most children would go through their childhood and never meet a dangerous stranger. And yet they are taught to be afraid of all of them. How very sad. And think what they are missing by being scared to talk to an adult.

I worry that we are teaching our children to be afraid of life. Be afraid of your bike and wear a helmet. Be afraid of strangers and stay away. Be afraid of someone with the sniffles – you might catch the swine flu. Is this what Political Correctness is doing to our children? Making them afraid of life? What kind of grown ups will they become? What kind of America will we become? Now I think I am afraid….

Names do matter

After Nidal Malik Hasan killed and wounded our soldiers at Fort Hood, some woman being interviewed said with a straight face “I wish his last name was Smith.” And for me, that summarizes all this PC stupidity.

People just won’t admit the fact that a large group of radical Muslims want to incite terror and kill us. Liberals are so afraid of being politically incorrect that they simply refuse to face reality. Wake up America! It’s not ‘Smiths’ or ‘O’Brians’ or ‘Yamamoto’s’ who have issued jihads or holy wars against us. It’s people with Arabic names. It’s people who are Muslim’s. It’s people who hate our way of life and the very freedom for which we stand.

We need to recognize that we can no longer sit back and enjoy our freedoms. Our freedoms and way of life are being attacked. And not just with bullets. They are using our very own freedoms and courts to shelter and advance their malignant religious rules and laws. Already there are examples of how they are trying to corrupt our country with their extreme laws. At least some reporters are starting to investigate the murder of Muslim women who dared to be Americanized. Women who only wanted to dress like Americans, get an education, be more than the wife to a radical Muslim husband who believes he has the right to kill his wife without facing any penalties by his culture. In fact, why aren’t more women libbers taking up the cause of these Muslim women? They were sure quick to go after radical Mormons who illegally had multiple wives. Yet they are suspiciously quiet while radical Muslim men abuse their wives and daughters in the name of Allah and the Koran.

Perhaps a part of the problem is that we are a country of nice people. It is almost impossible for us to understand that radical Muslims could treat their women that cruelly. And then there is the little fact that millions of strangers want us dead. Liberals refuse to believe this. They think maybe if they could talk to them, sit down and listen to their leaders, perhaps even understand where they “are coming from” that they could then find some common bonds that will lead to understanding and acceptance. Wrong. Sure they will sit down and talk, their leaders might even make promises to be better in the future. And then at the earliest opportunity they will find a way to kill our soldiers and blow up innocent bystanders with their suicide bombers and ignore their promises.

When the world doesn’t act in a manner that Liberals approve of then Liberals end up turning issues inside out arguing that enemies are friends and friends are enemies? Words no longer mean what we were taught and they give nicer names to things that threaten them so as to feel better. They will insulate themselves by believing that they are superior to other Americans and that their greater intelligence allows them to see the “big picture” and understand the other side. They will always argue that a minority is at the mercy of the oppressive white man. Ironically, most Liberals won’t believe the stereo types of the "abused" minority but will quickly embrace any negative stereo type of the rest of us. And the scary part is that this group is who is running our country today.

Now we had a man of Arabic background, a Muslim, go on a shooting spree killing unarmed soldiers. I had hoped that perhaps our military hadn’t been quite as corrupted by political correctness such as our universities, media and local schools have been. This episode with Fort Hood demonstrates just how wrong I was. Political correctness, fear of upsetting a minority, worrying about playing fairly; it is this stupidity that allows a US soldier like Hasan to go so far as to communicate with al Qaeda and email with a radical imam. Not only was his outrageous conduct tolerated but this traitor was even promoted and sent to Fort Hood. Why did no one stop him? How many more unstable Muslims are there in our military? And better yet, does the FBI or military have what it takes to finally go after these men now?

What makes it doubly hard is that much of the hatred begins and ends in their temples. Radical Imams preach against the godless Americans, raise their children to despise us and our way of life, imprison their women into a life of servitude and encourage their young men that killing Americans is not only right but will give them eternal gratitude when they give their life for the cause. And these temples are not just found overseas. They are here in America, too.

Of course not every Muslim temple harbors radicals. But we need to stop the PC bullshit and admit that yes, some of them are our enemies. We need to be penetrating these temples, putting in taps and all that espionage stuff and letting the FBI do their job; rather than being persuaded by liberals and the ACLU start that we are being prejudicial and unfair to this religion. We need to recognize that there are cores of truth in stereo types. We need to take action if someone is showing questionable actions, such as this Hasan had without worrying that some ACLU lawyer will come after you.

And maybe the first step is to call things by their right names. When Nidal Malik Hasan began killing unarmed soldiers it was a terrorist attack; Hasan was literally creating terror and fear and not a “man made disaster” which is what our Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplitano would have you call it. That’s right. A terrorist attack is supposed to be called a man made disaster. It would be laughable if it weren’t so, well, terrifying.

Tenaciously Optimistic

I heard a phrase the other day which immediately resonated in me. I don’t remember where I heard it but the phrase was “tenaciously optimistic”. Isn’t that great? We all know people who never seem happy; who complain about every little thing that happens to them. On the other hand, there are those few people who truly have had terrible adversities in their life and yet they still seem happy. They are tenaciously optimistic. They know that when life throws you a curve ball it would be easy to feel sorry for yourself or become bitter but instead they work to remain hopeful and cling to their belief that life is to be enjoyed. I should know. I also think that this phrase describes the attitudes of our best politicians and leaders, not just here but world wide.

Think of Winston Churchill who never gave up during WWII. One of his many quotes that he is famous for is: ... we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Wow. Now that is the epitome of being tenaciously optimistic! Churchill had faith that they would win but he knew they would have to work hard to achieve that win; in other words they needed to be tenaciously optimistic.

Our most revered Presidents are also those who were tenaciously optimistic. Roosevelt inspired Americans with his upbeat view during the Great Depression and then WWII. In fact, Roosevelt applied this sentiment in his personal life. He could have been bitter after being struck by polio and losing the ability to walk. Instead he fought to be happy. So did Kennedy who also had serious illnesses and a debilitating back problem. Like Roosevelt, he overcame his personal problems with humor and confidence that he could do anything.

Perhaps the President who most exemplified tenacious optimism was President Reagan. He was elected during a terrible recession, interest rates greater than 20%, unemployment well over 10% and an energy crisis. Yet during his campaign he exuded optimism and hope that things would be better. And the American people responded and swept him into office twice. How could you not admire a man who as he was being wheeled into surgery after being shot during an assassination attempt quipped to his wife “Honey, I forgot to duck.” Reagan knew that humor is frequently used as a means to deflect adversities.

Obama was also tenaciously optimistic. He would have to be as he was the first African American to be on the Democratic ticket for President. Few African Americans ever thought there would be a black president in their lifetime but not Obama. He even turned his tenacious optimism into his campaign slogan “Yes We Can”. And he did.

I mention this because I heard someone, I think it was the Republican House Minority Whip, say that the two Republicans who just became governors of Virginia and NJ were “sunny Republicans”. The pundits discussed how these two Republicans each ran a campaign of hope and ideas of how to improve life for the citizens of their state. On the other hand, the Democratic candidates ran angrier campaigns attacking their opponent and playing the blame game. Voters have shown over and over that they don’t respond to those kinds of campaigns. We don’t want leaders to blame other people, we want them to explain how they will improve the situation. And once again voters responded to the tenacious optimism of the Republican candidates of Virginia and New Jersey.

Something else has occurred to me. As previously mentioned, when running for President, Obama was enthusiastically hopeful with his “Yes We Can” motto. But since becoming President he seems to have lost that ebullience and hopefulness. Instead every time he gives a speech it is about doom and gloom, how bad things are and continuously blaming President Bush for all the problems. In looking back, Clinton had a lot of problems but if not exactly cheerful, he did have this cocky self assurance. Carter, however, was like an old time Southern Baptist pastor preaching of fire and brimstone unless people changed. He lasted one painful term and yet never learned for he is still preaching doom and gloom.

All the pundits are analyzing the election results from last night. What does it portend for Obama and his agenda? How will it affect the health care bill? What does it mean for the Republican party? Personally, I think the message is an old one. That voters are tired of being told how awful life is, they know that things are tough all over. They don’t need politicians telling them how bad it is or blaming the other party and voters definitely don’t want politicians telling them that they need to sacrifice (ie. pay higher taxes) in order to help others. And they also respond badly to threats – that if they don’t do something then life will be horrible in the future (think climate change).

Voters want those “sunny Republicans”. They want to hear that life is good and is only going to get better. They want solutions but not solutions that makes life tougher for themselves. They want leaders who are confident and hopeful in a better future. Leaders who won’t promise easy fixes since most of the time the voters end up paying for that. Instead these leaders will tell you how they will work to improve your family’s life. These leaders are tenaciously optimistic; finding joy and pride in America even during the darkest hours and exuding hopefulness that we can work together to create a shining future.