Mike Shanin

Listening to a KMBZ talk show the other day, I heard a caller railing about what was going to happen with the debt-ceiling battle.  Clearly, he was unhappy and wanted no part of anything resembling a compromise.

I marveled at his lack of logic when he presented the following point:  They (apparently the congress) bailed out the banks.  They (again the congress) bailed out the automakers.  Now, they want us (apparently the citizens) to bail them (apparently the national government) out.  They (our elected officials, elected by us) want us (citizens and voters) to bail them out?

The fact this caller misses a fundamental truth–maybe, THE fundamental truth—about our nation could be what’s wrong with it today.

There’s no us and them.  THEY and WE are ONE AND THE SAME.

A few days ago, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made the mistake of saying the economy has “vastly improved.”  This, of course, engendered a discussion on our afternoon program. I was asked how Carney could say any aspect of the economy was better than when President Obama took office.

Trying to offer a reasonable answer, I offered these points.  1)  Most improvements he could point to would be “anemic,” not vast.  2)  The lone exception is Wall Street where there has been substantial growth.  This not only benefits so-called “fat cats,” but folks like most of us with 401K investment programs.  3)  When Obama was inaugurated, job losses were in the hundreds of thousands each month.  Now there is some growth, albeit, very weak.  4)  On January 20, 2009, America’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was in negative territory.  It was dropping in size, not growing.  Now, GDP shows quarterly increases; however, they are small and generally unimpressive.

My comments angered a texter who apparently thought my recitation of factual material was propaganda.  He (or she) wrote:  I should have known it.  You always defend Obama.  I made a bet at work that you would.  I won.

Maybe, the media environment of today has rendered us unable to distinguish between factual context and tendentious commentary.  I wasn’t defending Obama.  I’m a Reagan Republican.  I was defending the facts.

And, as Ronald Reagan noted at the 1988 GOP convention, for some people “facts are stubborn things.”

It was interesting to see this past weekend that same-sex marriage was approved in New York state, making it the sixth and the biggest state in the union to adopt such a law.

I’ve always thought civil unions were a better solution.  But, I’ve also realized for some time that sooner-or-later, probably sooner, like it or not, same-sex marriage is going to become a federally guaranteed right.  In Missouri and Kansas, there are constitutional bans on gay marriages, so it will take action by the U.S. Supreme Court or a federal constitutional amendment (or state ones) to overturn them.

As attitudes toward homosexuals and lesbians have changed over the decades, so has the meaning of the word most commonly associated with them:  gay.

When I was growing up, gay meant happy, light-hearted.  Then, it become a term used by and about homosexuals and lesbians.  Now, it seems to be used generally to describe anyone or anything that seems not to please the speaker.  “Man, that’s so gay!”

Because words undergo change over time, I’d like to suggest a change in the language now that same-sex marriage is legal in six states.

During that period when homosexual couples announce their marital plans, they should simply say, “Hey, we’re “en-gay-ged.”

It’s almost impossible to talk about the Congressman Weiner episode and not say something salacious or utter a double-entendre without even trying.  I was thinking about topics for next week on the “Ruckus”  program that I moderate on channel 19.  We’ve been off for the last couple of weeks and have not addressed the Weiner issue.  My concern was whether the whole controversy would be irrelevant by show time.  By now, most everyone knows the essential details.  So, I figured maybe the way to go would be trying to anticipate what happens next. What direction will the story head? Then, I realized the obvious answer is to talk about Weiner’s fate.  Will he remain in Congress?  I jotted down the topic idea.

“Will Weiner stick it out?”

Sometimes, it’s too easy!

Some general observations about things that amuse or amaze:

—I often stop at various “sub” shops to pick up a sandwich for lunch.  Virtually every time at every location, I hear patrons in line asking the clerk “Can I get pastrami on rye??

The answer is yes.  That’s why it’s on the menu.  Why couldn’t you get it?

—-Do you ever wonder how long Kansas City, Mo., can go without an election?  The next one may be an effort to stop the zoning change on the Country Club Plaza.

—Amid all the jokes about the death of the Al Qaeda, I rather liked mine.  “He no longer is to be called Osama bin-Laden.  Now, he’s Osama has-bin Laden”

—-I watched the South Carolina GOP presidential debate on Fox.  Aside from Governor Tim Pawlenty, I didn’t see any possible top-tier candidate on the stage.  The other four were Congressman Ron Paul, Governor Gary Johnson, former senator Rick Santorum and Herman Caine.  Governor Johnson’s big issue is legalizing marijuana.  Herman Cain is an impressive man, but he spouts platitudes and shibboleths.  Rick Santorum strikes me as pious and self-righteous.  And Ron Paul is….well, Ron Paul.  The big guns–Romney, Gingrich, Daniels, et. al.–didn’t participate.  Let’s hope they show up soon for the sake of the party and the nation.

Callers to the radio program keep asking about my preference for the Republican presidential nomination next year.  I keep responding Governor Mitch Daniels.  They keep replying “who?”  I’ll keep an open mind, but Daniels, the governor of Indiana, a former budget director in the federal government and a former chief executive officer of a major private-sector company, will be hard to surpass.

Daniels was the speaker at an event held during the recent CPAC convention.  The speech was aired the next day on CSPAN.  I happed to “C” it.  At its conclusion, I remarked that it was one of the most lucid, thoughtful and compelling presentations about American Conservatism in decades.  Daniels talked of a Republican party that, for 2012 at least, needs to unify, not purify.

“Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers. King Pyrrhus is remembered, but his nation disappeared. Winston Churchill set aside his lifetime loathing of Communism in order to fight World War II. Challenged as a hypocrite, he said that when the safety of Britain was at stake, his “conscience became a good girl.” We are at such a moment. I for one have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying “I told you so” or “You should’ve done it my way.”

We must be the vanguard of recovery, but we cannot do it alone. We have learned in Indiana, big change requires big majorities. We will need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean. Who surf past C-SPAN to get to SportsCenter. Who, if they’d ever heard of CPAC, would assume it was a cruise ship accessory. “

One other item that might make Daniels attractive to many voters in both parties:  He rides a Harley.

Frequently, callers to our afternoon programs  offer dire predictions about the future, tell us the end is near and the United States is about to go the way of Rome and the other great civilizations that came before us.

Reading what this speaker says might cause you to be equally pessimistic.

“. These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed- income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people.

Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, causing human misery and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity.

But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.”

Almost enough to make one give up and surrender to the forces of history.  However, the speaker did offer one ray of optimism.  And it’s something I often say to despondent callers.  There is still reason to believe in the concept of American exceptionalism–this nation is unique among the nations of the world.

“It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God’s help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

And, after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans. “

The speaker was Ronald Reagan.  The occasion was his first inaugural address.  It was delivered in 1981.

We survived.  And will again.

As a child being taken to the movies by a show-biz oriented mom and later as an adult, fascinated myself by old movies on television, I became a Charlie Chan fan.

Charlie was a Chinese detective who worked in Honolulu.  He was so good his services were often requested, indeed, required, elsewhere.  He always solved his cases, cases that were convoluted and confusing, at least to this viewer.

The Chan movies used to be on television frequently.  In the early days of cable, one network advertised itself as “The Charlie Channel.”

Political correctness, or something akin to it, keeps Chan movies off the air these days.  Aspects of Chan are, understandably, offensive to Chinese-Americans who resent the stereotyping and the depiction of Chan’s black driver (valet, errand boy, etc.) is truly despicable.

The history of the Chan character, who is based on a real-life Hawaiian detective, is outlined in a fascinating new book.  Perhaps the most entertaining part of it–and what I liked best about the old movies—is Chan’s wit.  He would offer pithy sayings, referred to by the author as “Charlie Chanisms.”  Several caught my attention.

“At night all cats are black.”

“Big head is only a good place for very large headaches.”

“Tongue often hang man quicker than rope.’

And, my favorite:  ”Advice after mistake is like medicine after dead man’s funeral.”

(All the Chanisms are found in:  “Charlie Chan:  The Untold Story of the Honorable Detective and his Rendezvous with American History.”  The author is Yuante Huang.)

What does it mean when someone says “I’m just saying’ at the end of a statement?

Is it, in fact, meant to reinforce an earlier comment.  Is it just a meaningless expression used by people who want to say something but have nothing to say?

I also wonder about “Wow! I never saw that coming,” which seems to follow someone else making a funny remark.  Does the retort mean that it really was funny and totally unexpected?  Or does it mean that the remark was so obvious, it could have been said by anyone or, better yet, ignored by everyone.  I’m not sure.

I’m just saying.

Bet you saw that coming!

If there’s been a recurring theme about this year’s mayoral election in Kansas City, it is this:

Boring!  There are a couple of reasons and I don’t mean the candidates.  First, Kansas City’s municipal elections are “non-partisan,” which means candidates’ party affiliations aren’t included on the ballot.  So, we don’t see the rough-and-tumble excitement generated when the Democrats and Republicans put their party machinery into action. (By the way, both Sly James and Mike Burke are Democrats.) The other is the structure of local government.  It’s a council-manager system which means the mayor is not really the top city executive.  He’s one of thirteen council members who has a little extra authority.  He can appoint committees, boards and commissions, veto legislation and play a role in formulating the budget.  He can not run the city departments.  That’s the manager’s job. Voters have come to realize that mayor candidates promise many things.  Mayors deliver far fewer.  And these bland campaigns are delivering fewer voters to the city’s polls.