International news

Immigrants make us great

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

The most infuriating clause in the proposed America First caucus platform is the one that talks about what its adherents call “mass immigration.”

The so-called congressional caucus — pitched by far right wing conspiracy theorists and assorted loons in Congress — seeks to promote what they refer to as an “Anglo-Saxon culture.” Included in that is this despicable clause denigrating “mass immigration” from places I presume they mean do not fit the Anglo-Saxon stereotype.

I am a product of immigrants from southern Europe. All four of my grandparents chose to spend their lives in United States after moving here from Greece and Turkey. They were patriots. They worked hard. They played by the rules. They brought 10 children into this world among them. One of those children — my father — enlisted in the U.S. Navy on the very day that Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and dragged this country into World War II.

The America First caucus does not understand or appreciate the tenet to which all patriotic Americans should subscribe, that the very essence of American greatness and its “unique” culture rests in the hearts of those who choose to come here. I mean no disrespect for native-born Americans; hell, I was born here, too.

I just take profound offense at those in Congress who suggest that immigration — and immigrants — are somehow bad for the country. They all seek to “make America great again” by closing our doors, erecting walls across our southern border and issuing some sort of merit-based standard for those seeking to build new lives in the Land of Opportunity.

Had there been such a standard in force at the turn of the 20th century, I doubt any of my grandparents would have been allowed to come here, allowed to marry and allowed to build their own families.

Am I offended by this America First caucus? You’re damn right I am.

national news

Assault weapons have their place, but …

2 Comments

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

This picture showed up overnight on my Facebook news feed and by golly it pretty much sums up what I believe about assault weapons.

They have their place. They belong in the hands of fighting men and women who are in battle against enemies of the state. They are built to kill lots of people in rapid fashion. Should our military personnel carry them? Abso(freakin’)lutely, man!

What role does a weapon that packs dozens of rounds of ammo have in civilized civilian society? None. Zero. They are used too often by lunatics to kill innocent human beings in fits of rage.

So it is that this debate has been joined once again in the wake of the Indianapolis massacre at the FedEx facility. Eight people died in that mayhem before the lunatic shooter killed himself with the weapon he used against his victims.

Gun-rights enthusiasts/fanatics continue to harp on the notion that the Second Amendment guarantees their right to own whatever weapon they want to own. Even those that carry high-capacity magazines that the weapon can empty in seconds. For what purpose?

As the sign I posted with this blog item declares, it ain’t to kill lots of critters in the forest. Their intent is to kill human beings in short order.

I’ll be clear on this point: We shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for Congress to exhibit any semblance of sanity by banning these weapons. Nor should we expect any sign of courage among those who are willing to stand strongly against the gun lobby that keeps lying about what the Second Amendment allows.

medical news

U.S. still stands in dubious infamy

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

The worldwide death count from the COVID-19 virus has surpassed 3 million human beings.

Of that total, more than 560,000 deaths have been among Americans.

OK, so what? Here’s what.

The United States comprises less than 5 percent of the world population of 7 billion people. However, our COVID-19 death count totals more than 20 percent of the worldwide total.

Five percent vs. 20 percent.

Hmm. What do we make of that? I’ll offer this brief bit of spewage/wisdom. The United States failed to respond in a timely manner during the pandemic’s early stages. Our president at the time, Donald Trump, did not sound the alarm. He lied to us about the severity of the pandemic and he withheld what he knew about what would happen, that the virus would spread and would become a worldwide threat to human health and well-being.

Trump got beat in the 2020 election. President Joe Biden is calling for a ramped-up effort to fight the disease. Vaccines have been approved and humans are being vaccinated at an accelerating pace.

However, dammit to hell anyway! We never should have been subjected to this level of misery and pain. If only we had been quicker on the trigger in this fight against a killer.

national news

Not ‘too soon’ to debate gun violence

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Eight more Americans died this week in a shooting that erupted in Indianapolis, Ind., and once again we’re sending our “thoughts and prayers” to the victims’ loved ones.

A solution to the gun violence remains a mystery. President Biden, though, is trying to appeal to our sense of national shame. He said, according to RealClearPolitics.com:

“This has to end. It is a national embarrassment … Every single day, there’s a mass shooting in the United States,” President Biden continued. “Who in God’s name needs a weapon that can hold 40 rounds?”

Biden said: “Congress has to step up to act and pass bills on gun reform. We need to ban assault weapons. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t also be working on COVID and the economy.”

Joe Biden on Gun Violence: Mass Shootings “Every Day” Are “A National Embarrassment” And “It Has To End” | Video | RealClearPolitics

The president is preaching to the proverbial choir here, man. But the ongoing spasm of gun violence is a “national embarrassment.” I have difficulty explaining to my overseas friends how American politicians can allow this to continue.

I do my best, though, to explain to them foreigners the nuance contained in the Second Amendment to our Constitution. It reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The one element of that Amendment that I cannot explain is the construction of the single sentence, which seems to contain a couple of non-sequiturs. I cannot connect the part about the “well-regulated Militia” with the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

But it’s written into our nation’s founding government document. That makes it virtually impossible to trifle with.

However, I shudder at the thought of all this violence. I have trouble facing down my overseas friends who challenge the idea that our political leaders cannot find a solution that keeps faith with what our founders carved out.

OK, so here we are. Eight more victims have been slain by a madman. We need to ramp up the debate right now over how we can eliminate this “national embarrassment.”

legal news

‘Older liberal justices?’ Seriously?

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

It’s rare that I would challenge the reporting of a major news outlet, but I cannot let this item go without offering a tart response.

The Business Insider reports that U.S. Rep. Mondaire Jones, a Democrat, wants Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire at the end of the court’s current term. He also favors expanding the ranks of justices from nine to 13, filling the four additional seats with liberal justices.

I oppose Rep. Jones’s notion of packing the court, even though he calls it a longstanding “court tradition.” Which it isn’t.

OK, then the Business Insider reports this: Many Democrats, still smarting over Donald Trump’s installation of three jurists to the Supreme Court, want to avoid the court becoming even more conservative due to older liberal justices declining to step down during Democratic presidencies, which Jones alluded to in his interview.

Democratic Rep. Mondaire Jones calls on Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire (msn.com)

What? Three justices comprise the liberal wing of the court. Breyer is 82 years of age. He’s an “older” justice. The other two are Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan; Sotomayor was born in 1954, Kagan was born in 1960. Sotomayor is 68 years of age; Kagan is 61. I do not consider them to be “older” or “elderly.”

Justice Breyer will retire when he believes the time is right. President Biden is not about to nudge him toward the Back Forty. Neither should other Democrats in public life.

As for the Business Insider’s description of “older liberal justices,” the organization must be populated by Gen-Xers.

media news

Time of My Life, Part 56: Traffic controller

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

A long time acquaintance and social media friend reminds me of how times seemed to have changed regarding a critical aspect of managing the opinion pages of a newspaper.

He laments the frequency of some letter writers’ appearance on the pages of the Amarillo Globe-News in Texas, where I worked for nearly 18 years until August 2012. To be honest, I don’t know what the paper’s policy is these days. I don’t read the opinion pages much, as I have to subscribe to the AGN’s digital edition to obtain access to those pages. I, uh, have no particular interest in that.

Back in the day, we had a policy that we enacted not long after I arrived in January 1995 to run the opinion pages of the Globe-News, which at the time published morning and afternoon editions each day.

When I arrived I learned that the paper allowed letter writers to submit essays at will. The paper would publish virtually all of them. What I determined then was that only a few readers were taking part in offering commentary to the newspaper. One fellow would write damn near daily, man. He was an articulate fellow, but he could be harsh on those who disagreed with him; I figure he frightened away a lot of potential contributors.

So … I decided to impose a new rule: one letter every two weeks. Then I made another decision shortly after that: one letter per writer every calendar month.

We had an administrative assistant who then was tasked with keeping tabs on our letter writers. She did so with cool efficiency.

What happened almost immediately was quite stunning. We began getting letters from readers who rarely, if ever, submitted letters for us to consider publishing. Our pool of commentators grew exponentially over time.

It’s important to stipulate that the Globe-News circulated to many times more readers than it does today. The circulation of the paper is just a fraction of it was during the late 1990s and early 2000s. We had a sort of “luxury,” therefore, by being able to limit the frequency of writers, opening the door to many more contributors who wanted to weigh in with their thoughts on the issues of the day or on what we might have said about those issues in our editorial columns.

We took great pride in the wide range of opinions we invited onto our pages. Much of the criticism was constructive; much of it was, well … something else. That’s OK. We sought to exercise some discretion, some control over the quality of those points of view. Hey, we were entitled to do so!

national news

Jordan’s tirade reveals arrogance

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan’s tirade against Dr. Anthony Fauci this week underscores a chronic condition that afflicts politicians who think they hold the keys to power.

Jordan decided that because he is an “elected official” that he has some political right to be dismissive of experts in a given field. He shouted down Dr. Fauci, barely giving the esteemed doc the chance to answer questions that Jordan had asked of him.

To be fair, this is a bipartisan affliction that shows itself in Democratic and Republican pols alike. However, since we’re talking today about a GOP blowhard in Jim Jordan of Ohio, we’ll concentrate on the men and women of his particular party.

Jordan indeed should have demonstrated some humility while discussing the COVID pandemic and its impact on our lives with the nation’s leading infectious disease expert. In fact, he should be mindful that his boorishness might not play as well with all his constituents back home in Ohio’s Fourth Congressional District as he thinks it does.

Jordan is a GOP bully cut from the same cloth that produced Donald J. Trump. He just cannot stop yelling at witnesses when they appear before the committees on which he serves. He must possess some demonic creature that compels him to talk down to others, even those who are many times more expert than he is on whatever subject he has chosen to pontificate.

Jim Jordan is a volatile young man who needs to show some respect.

medical news, national news

Waters is right: Shut your mouth, Jim Jordan

2 Comments

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

So help me Almighty God in Heaven … I want to slap Jim Jordan bald-headed.

The Republican congressman/blowhard from Ohio’s Fourth Congressional District took it upon himself this week to scold, badger, hector and seek to intimidate the nation’s pre-eminent infectious disease doctor.

Jordan decided that he knows more about the nature of the COVID pandemic than Dr. Anthony Fauci. All he did, though, was demonstrate that he is a cheap, craven, loudmouthed political hack who — on matters of public health — can’t find his a** with both hands.

He bellowed and blustered over Dr. Fauci’s efforts to answer when the nation might be able to return to some semblance of normal living. Along the way, he felt the need to remind Fauci that he is elected by his congressional district constituents to represent their interests, while Fauci isn’t elected to anything.

Brilliant, Rep. Jordan.

You ought to take a few minutes to watch it here. It’s a hoot! Only you won’t want to laugh.

Rep. Jim Jordan yells at Dr. Fauci during heated exchange – Bing video

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters was right to tell Jordan to “shut his mouth.” Then again, the more he blathers the more revealing he becomes to those of us who detest his conduct.

national news

Anglo-Saxon caucus?

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

In the stunning but not surprising category of news items comes this report out of Washington, D.C.

A group of far right Republican members of the House wants to form a cabal, er, caucus comprising those who want to push forward a political agenda that calls attention to the Anglo-Saxon tradition of some of those who preceded us to these shores.

This group includes some real doozies: QAnon believer Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, accused sex trafficker Matt Gaetz of Florida and the lunatic birther from East Texas, Louie Gohmert.

Why is this so pernicious? As the grandson of immigrants who came to this country in the early 20th century from Greece and Turkey, I am appalled and aghast at a provision in the draft policy statement that declares that “mass immigration” would spoil the “unique culture” built in the United States.

Now, give that a moment’s thought. This nation’s uniqueness, the way I see it, is the built on its welcoming of immigrants from around the world. The Statue of Liberty’s inscription tells immigrants that this nation embraces their arrival.

What in the name of all that is decent are the far right wingers trying to do? I think I know. They are trying to slam the door shut on people of color, on the oppressed and fearful. They want our culture to remain true to some myth that we are an Anglo-Saxon nation first and foremost.

Nothing, not a damn thing, could be farther from that version of the truth about the founding and settlement of this country.

I am heartened to see some push back from GOP congressional leaders on this frightening notion. Can they deliver a kill shot to this right wing idiocy being pushed by the Donald Trump/America First wing of the Republican Party? I am going to hope so.

local news

Masks are … everywhere!

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

As long as we’re still politicizing the issue of mask-wearing and keeping our distance from each other, I feel the need to offer a good word about what I am seeing in my neighborhood.

Look, I live in a conservative, Republican-leaning county in North Texas. They make jokes about our part of the nation, about how Texans don’t like being dictated to by the federal government.

OK, as long as we’re clear about that, I want to say that I continue to be pleasantly surprised/impressed that so many folks I see in the city of Princeton where I live still wearing their masks, still observing social distancing, still doing the things that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tells us to do to avoid getting sickened — or killed — by the COVID-19 virus.

Yep, I see it when I venture out among the masses. At the grocery store. At the convenience store. When I fill my truck with fuel. When I stop for an occasional egg roll at the truck stop west of us on the highway toward McKinney.

I find myself wondering what in the world happened to that myth that Texans bristle at government mandates. Perhaps it’s because it is a myth. That it doesn’t really exist. That we’re just as concerned as other Americans that the danger of the virus is real and that we need to do what we can to protect ourselves.

Imagine that, eh?

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience