Searching for a leader...

We often refer to our presidents as "our leaders". Sometimes (often, during the last 8 years) begrudgingly. As commander-in-chief, and chief executive of our nation's government, the president dictates the focus of the nation every year during the State of the Union address to Congress and watches as hopefully his agenda is carried out.

President Bush set agendas and then infamously dragged the country kicking and screaming down his paths. He was a leader, and a strong one. But the issue of whether he was a wise leader, or a good leader tends to receive some harsh responses.

President Obama came to office preaching that he would lead the country down a new path: a path paved with ethics, guided by reason, and directed to prosperity. Nobody will argue that he was given an extraordinary assignement, given the number of tasks at hand - both inherited, and conceived during his election campaign.

But, in a routine reminiscent of "The Emperor's New Clothes", I'm forced to wonder whether this confident man is leading the country, or simply parading about naked with nothing but his oratory and charm to save him.

The argument flairs on both sides of the coin. He is often praised for successfully addressing the things on his campaign agenda. But, if you look at what he's accomplished, the tasks were much like his campaign - a lot of talking.

In creating a Stimulus Plan, he addressed the media and Congress while Congressional Democrats drafted a plan and put it before him. In bringing science to the foreground, he gave an Executive Order. And, in bringing the war in Iraq to a successful close, he once again promised to pull troops in the next 18 months, while simultaneously promising to send more troops to Afghanistan. In fact, many of the other items he promised were simply earmarks on a bloated stimulus bill that had no chance of being defeated anyway.

A leader surrounds himself with good people, able to do their jobs and lend their expertise. Yet, to-date Obama's team finds itself short-staffed - due in no small part to the crookedness of his picks. Those people that have successfully joined his teams, come largely from the Wall Street World which many people blame for causing the problems so rife in our economy.

The stimulus and bailout plans being penned under his watchful gaze are touted as part of his progressive thinking. But, when you look at the plans, you see that they look to tax "those that can afford it", spend hundreds of billions of dollars, and create spending geared towards a typically liberal agenda. This is not new thinking. Right or wrong, this plan could have been crafted by John Kerry or Al Gore. Obama may not excel in politicking, but his marketing skills are top notch. He has taken the old way of thinking and re-branded it to seem new.

Obama's success is that he has maintained the confidence of the people around him. He tosses gold coins to them in the form of Executive Orders and speeches. But we will wait to see if he can deliver true leadership, or whether as in the story, a little girl points out that this emperor has nothing to show us.

I hope for a strong recovery for our good country, but would have a hard time accepting the victory as belonging to Obama unless he can demonstrate that he was instrumental in bringing about that change. We will succeed. But will it be because of him, or in spite of him?

Stem cell debate rages - who wins?

I've spent a lot of time reading about stem cells since Obama's Executive Order on March 9, lifting President Bush's ban on using federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells (ESC).

As an educated person, I should be elated by the developments. I work for an organization that supports stem cell research, so I should be professionally satisfied. Instead, I find myself irritated.

What I know of stem cells is that they have good potential. From what I've read, that's about all anyone knows about them. So, why is the scientific community standing on its head?

Many people say that those who argue on the grounds of religious beliefs are blinded by their faith. As such, they are labeled "fanatics" or "zealots". And, certainly many of the more vocal opponents do sound zealous.

But, when you look at those who support the research, there is an equal potential for blindness. Scientists follow a belief in science - that learning and understanding is paramount. And, some of the most vocal lay supporters are people and families stricken by diseases they hope will be cured. They too, place their faith in science that it will cure them. Is one faith or belief more blind than another? Opponents of ESC research would suggest that the research community has turned a blind eye to the benefits already achieved through the use of adult stem cells.

Scariest to me is that the controversy over stem cell research has become a weapon of sorts. People use it to place labels on others. It casts a dividing line in the sand, and all those that are not on the right side are on the wrong.

This is a debate that has the potential to linger for decades. Any successes in the research are assured to be years off. That assumes that success in the areas of ESC research ever takes place. I have maintained the personal philosophy to remain cautious unless I know I'm right. So, do people know they are right?