About Me

Name: Drexel Kleber,...
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Obama and Chavez: Really? It's Come to This?

Posted by Drexel Kleber, Host, Kicking the Anthill on AM 930 KLUP on Monday, April 20, 2009 10:45:31 PM
As a former airline pilot I used to hear guys complain about their wives and ex-wives all the time. I told them I didn’t want to hear it. Your spouse is the only significant relationship in your life that you get to pick. Your parents and siblings are given to you. Your kids are given to you. But you picked your wife. “If she’s a b*&ch then you’re a moron,” I used to tell them. “You picked poorly.”

It seems common among newly divorced people to tear down their ex. I guess somehow it makes the one party feel better to believe that all that went wrong was someone else’s fault and they are simply the victim. Of course, not only do we all know that this is never the case, but I’ve never understood how these folks feel their position is advanced by making derogatory remarks about someone they once loved; how they feel that they are somehow better because their ex is a moron of epic proportions. Do they honestly feel better spending their days pondering what accident would befall their former mate if, for just one day, they were omnipotent? Can’t it simply be that both people are relatively fine folks who can simply no longer live together? Good night! For the sake of the kids play nicely. 

Listening and reading to the recent palaver surrounding President Barack Obama’s interaction with Hugo Chavez seems just as illogical. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich charged Monday that President Obama's cordial greeting with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez sends a poor message to enemies of America. Gingrich isn’t the only one. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, told CNN on Sunday it was "irresponsible" for Obama to have been seen "laughing and joking" with Chavez. Republican talk radio is on our Commander in Chief for this egregious blunder like a fat boy on a cupcake.

So what’s the plan, gents? Continue the politics of clenched teeth and furrowed brows that has been so successful the last eight years? Unfortunately, we’re getting exactly what we knew we’d get from Republican talk radio with a democrat in office—at least four years of “nuh uh.” No matter what the President does, RTR bashes away. No substantive discussion of another way to handle the situation. No introspective pause to wonder if, perhaps, the guy has a plan. It’s been a hundred days and as a fairly consistent republican voter I continue to be embarrassed by this association. 

When I instructed pilots at a major US airline, I had to find different approaches to reach different students. Of course, like most, I have a default—an approach that generally works best for me in most circumstances. Sometimes, though, I had to take a student aside and tell him, “You’re the greatest pilot in the world. Anybody could have made that mistake (ugh—killed 200 passengers in the simulator). You’ll do better, I just know it.” Gag me. What I wanted to say was, “Nut up, man, and do your job. I don’t have the time or inclination to blow sunshine up your skirt.” And sometimes I had to take a student aside and rattle his cage: “Sweet fancy Moses that sucked. That was horrible; despicable. You’re lucky I let you back in the simulator to try that again. If you did that in real life you’d kill hundreds of people. I’m fairly confident you’re the worst pilot I’ve ever seen.” I didn’t like to berate people, but some people only respond when you call them out. But, as I said, I had a default. I was generally an honest encourager who used some humor to get through the day. 

I’m going to bet I’m not alone. It could be that our new CINC has decided to make nice—to attempt to co-opt other world leaders to work with him. Maybe his default is to be an encourager. It would certainly seem that way. Maybe he’s got a whole good cop/bad cop thing going on and he’s leaving the dirty work to his underlings. I’m open to the idea that someone at State (Hil seems like a sweetheart doesn’t she?) is taking the time to explain the situation to Mr. Chavez: the olive branch is offered but the sword is at the ready and if you want to do this the hard way, we can certainly do that too. 

But the pundits see only the moment. If these same folks had been asked to comment on D-Day they would have concluded that by noon on June 6 all was lost. Clearly no victory could come from such an ill-conceived plan. 

I’ll tell you the response I really liked though: Obama’s response to the criticism. “I’m the President of the United States and I’ll handle these situations any d*#n way I please and you all can blow it out your a#$.” Ok those were my words summarizing what he said. He was much more Presidential: “And in all these conversations, here's what I emphasized,” Obama actually said, “that we're not going to agree on every issue, but that, as long as we are respectful of democratic processes, as long as we're respectful of principles of sovereignty for all nations, that we can find areas where we can work in common.”

I don’t need to agree with him. But we’re stuck with each other now. Are we really going to go through four years criticizing his every move just because he’s a Democrat? For the sake of the kids, er, country, can’t we just give him a chance? Sink or swim and he’s in the deep water now. If he blows it, he blows it. And I’ll be first in line with the frosting and the sprinkles.
Tags: obama   chavez  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bridges not Dams

Posted by Drexel Kleber, Host, Kicking the Anthill on AM 930 KLUP on Saturday, April 18, 2009 10:49:31 AM
In the April 13, 2009, edition of Newsweek Magazine Newt Gingrich wrote, “Let’s be clear: our energy crisis is not due to a lack of American energy resources. We have more coal than any other country in the world. There are 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lying undeveloped offshore. Shale-oil reservoirs in parts of Colorado and Utah could hold upwards of 1 trillion barrels of oil—more than three times the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia. Nuclear power is a clean source of energy that produces zero carbon emissions. Instead America is suffering fro an artificial energy crisis. What America needs is a rational energy policy that utilizes all our homegrown energy resources….”

I love ya, Speaker Gingrich, but you’re dead wrong. If I’m feeling generous in voicing my disagreement I think it might be most accurate to say we don’t have an “imminent” energy crisis. The lesson we must learn from the development of the problematic petroleum and power source paradigm we find ourselves in today is NOT that oil is bad. Rather, the lesson is that any energy paradigm that is dependent on finite resources is not sustainable and will ultimately require another fix, another solution, another investment, another crisis of resources.

On this Gingrich is right: we are a resource rich nation. To wit, we currently have 264 billion tons of coal; enough to last 225 years at current rates of usage. I won’t nit pick the actual availability of and the cost to bring to market the many resources Gingrich also mentions in Newsweek. However, I will point out the land-cost of exploiting those resources. Mining, drilling, and digging for those resources will tear up land that we may need for crops as our population grows. The land that isn’t useable for agriculture could support infrastructure needed for an increasing population base. Mr. Gingrich proposes a liberal use of our land resources and by liberal I mean wasteful and careless given what we’ve learned in the last century. The vast quantity of available resources isn’t the issue. The issue is that his solution—exploit our existing resources to solve today’s energy problems—doesn’t address the energy crisis. The energy crisis is not TODAY’S problem. It is tomorrow’s problem. If we know today that we will have a coal problem in 225 years then we have a coal problem today. Yes, we have 225 years to solve it, but we can’t allow ourselves to press on, business as usual, acting as if there is no problem and never will be. Business as usual is bad business. We are better than that. We are smarter, more thoughtful, and more considerate of future generations than to pass the buck to our great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. Perpetuating the status quo isn’t the kind of progressive, values based innovation I expect from the former Speaker. What would be? In order to discover what the future of global energy might be and how we can get there, let’s start with the end in mind. Few people seem to be talking about a 100 year plan, or a 200 year plan: let me postulate one vision for the future, expanding on technologies that already exist, if only in their infancy. I envision a world in which enormous solar arrays deployed in space efficiently collect the suns rays 24 hours a day and beam power via lasers or microwaves to rectifying antennas and transmitting stations on earth. These transmitting stations wirelessly transmit that energy like radio waves and wireless networks transmitted today. Electricity will be ubiquitous and accessible. Our cars, and power-requiring devices will simply connect to the electricity the way our radios and telephones do today. We will pull our cars out of the garage and they will connect, or plug in, like wireless technology today and simply “go.” All the world’s citizens will have electricity from a completely ecologically renewable source.

With that vision of the future in place, how do we get there? Speaker Gingrich is correct about utilizing these resources; but not as the end game; not as the solution. These resources are a bridge to the future. We can, and should, utilize all of our available resources to improve our foreign policy options and to provide the US with marketable resources that we can sell in order to fund healthcare, social security and education.

The US needs to develop a diversified energy portfolio in the short term and Speaker Gingrich correctly identifies many of the resources at our disposal to do just that. In fact, this is already taking place throughout the country. These measures need to continue—not just on a national and strategic level, but also for individuals. Individual homes should begin to develop their own diversified energy portfolios; combinations of demand reduction and energy efficiency measures, then solar, wind, geothermal HVAC. We are a century or more away from achieving a completely renewable and sustainable source of power and distribution system. Until that time, we can intelligently create new infrastructure, design our cities and structure our lifestyles to facilitate achievement of a sustainable energy future.

By not referring to our resources as what they need to be--bridges to a future the world can live with--Gingrich instead turns our resources into dams--instruments used to hold back progress.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Compassion vs. Consequences

Posted by Drexel Kleber, Host, Kicking the Anthill on AM 930 KLUP on Sunday, April 05, 2009 10:00:22 AM
Events arise periodically which elicit a variety of responses from conservative voices in America. Often these voices oppose each other, which shouldn't be surprising. Diversity is normal. As for me, I try to use this tension to develop and cement my own beliefs: what is it about conservatism that I like? How do I apply it? Is there hypocrisy in my value set? Who's voice do I value most. 

A recent article by Garret Keizer in Harper’s Magazine (April 2009) reminded me of an important distinction within the community of folks who call themselves conservatives. There is a group that places great value on an absence of government intrusion into their lives. In fact, as Keizer points out, these folks might even go a step further and place the highest value on self-reliance in general—not just free from government intrusion but from any communal bonds. These folks, in the conservative tradition, believe that they are responsible for their own behavior. They don’t need to be told what to do—they are capable and accountable. Leave them alone and they will be fine. Extending their politics to the community at large they would say, “Leave citizens alone and they will be fine.”  

In the other conservative corner is a group that values community over self. Self-reliance is a wonderful and cherished value and a characteristic to be encouraged in our children. But they also believe that the community in which they live adds value to their lives—socially, economically, spiritually. These conservatives don’t wish to be left to their individuality as much as they wish to be left to their community. The community is the center of their lives and the source of solutions to problems. They don’t wish to pull away from communities, as the first camp does, but rather wishes to see the importance of their community continue to grow. The first camp is likely to be more representative of those who form the libertarian branch of the Republican Party and characterized by their emphasis on consequences; and the latter ought to be representative of religious right characterized by their emphasis on compassion. 

The difference stems from differing outlooks on life. Brent Bozell wrote in the National Review over 40 years ago on the tension between virtue and liberty, two ideas conservatives highly value, if in differing degrees. All of us love and cherish our liberty. It is the bedrock of the American experience. But what are we to do with that liberty? The libertarian would say, “whatever you please” (within legal constraints, though those are too many as it is). This is the end game for the libertarian. For the “communitarian” our liberty affords us the freedom to be good. We are free from restrictions on our lives that prevent us from being able to serve others. 

In fact, this is the essence of Christianity. Christians have been set free (from enslavement to their sins) that they might use that freedom to serve others. When we are slaves, in any context, our activities are dictated by others and our energy is used to pursue freedom itself whether temporary or permanent. We have little time or resources to pursue activities that serve others when we are consumed with achieving personal liberty. But when liberty is granted us--when we are free from enslavement-- we can do as we wish. The Christian life compels Christians to voluntary enslave themselves to the service of others (Christ-likeness). But it is a choice we make--a choice we have the freedom to make--and not one forced upon us. When we enslave ourselves to others voluntary then virtue follows. Virtue is the result of the voluntary acquiescence of liberty.

Today we find in our papers repeated stories of the demise of General Motors. How should government respond to this dilemma? Clearly there are far reaching effects in a myriad of sectors of American society. How do we help without creating problems? First, we must acknowledge that we cannot accurately foretell the future. Anything can happen and probably will. So we must make decisions not based on what we expect the outcome will be but rather from the standpoint of a solid set of values. As a consequence, regardless of the result, we know that we behaved consistent with our moral compass and not with selfish ends in mind. What guiding values, though? 

 

Most conservatives, but primarily the libertarian-conservative, will say that we should allow the natural consequences to occur. Companies that don’t adapt and change to meet the needs of their customers should perish. Government should not bail them out. Ronald Reagan said that government exists to protect us from each other, not from ourselves. So we should not save GM from itself. Let it die. The communitarian conservative, though acknowledging and valuing the aforementioned argument, is likely to add that it is the people who suffer. GM as a company has been irresponsible, but what about the employees who will lose their jobs? Shouldn’t government step in and care for these people, even if it means that the company gets new life when it shouldn’t? Ronald Reagan once said that government exists to protect us from each other not from ourselves. So shouldn’t we protect these people from the catastrophic consequences of corporate malfeasance? 

Did I just use that same quote to defend opposite arguments? Indeed, because it reflects the tension. It is the same tension the apostle Paul created when telling the Galatians (6:5) “….each one should carry his own load.” (NIV) and also instructing them to “Cary each other’s burdens….” (6:2, NIV). So which is it? Carry our own load or carry each other’s load. The libertarian-conservative says “a” the communitarian-conservative says “b.” 

I believe it’s possible to do both. We can encourage and value self-reliance and be compassionate. We can tell people that they have to take responsibility for their actions. Their behaviors have consequences and we cannot negate or eliminate those consequences. Nor should we, for consequences are powerful mentors that make us better. But we can also show compassion so that people need not endure these experiences alone. For General Motors, it is appropriate to let the company fail. The weak must perish and the strong move in to take their place. No one benefits perpetuating failure. But governments can take care of the individuals. Governments can begin to put in place retraining programs so that those who lose their jobs can one day move into new fields. Governments can expand jobless benefits for those displaced. Governments can work with unions to ensure that seniority is maintained if GM workers go to other companies. Yes, we all pay some price in these suggestions, but isn’t it better to pay a little to show compassion to our neighbor than to pay a lot to reward failure? Isn’t it better to show compassion to others knowing that one day our own ability to be self-reliant may be compromised? 

Life is a series of trade-offs and imperfect solutions. Conservatism, too, is a compilation of variably applied values. What do you value most? And what does the “conservative” pundit on your TV value most? Of course, the greater problem these days is that the GOP represents neither of these two facets of conservatism well. Maybe Newt Gingrich is correct, as others have postulated, that a third party is necessary. Maybe we'd be better off to divide these two factions of the conservatives. There is no unifying voice for conservatism. We are left to spectate the debate, unsure of why it even exists. Or maybe we just need to understand what it truly means to be conservative. The onus is on us, as always, to be accountable for what we believe.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »