Time to discuss merits of trophy hunting?

Theunis Botha likely wouldn’t want to be considered a poster person for any cause.

He was a South African outfitter and big-game hunter who died in the act of killing a dangerous animal. A lot of folks know the story already.

Botha was leading a group of hunters in Zimbabwe when they encountered a group of elephants. Three of the beasts charged the hunters, one of whom shot one of them. The mortally wounded elephant then grabbed Botha with her trunk and then collapsed, crushing Botha to death.

The man’s death leaves me with terribly mixed feelings. Part of me feels badly for the family he leaves behind. Another part of me questions the whole notion of trophy hunting.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/south-african-hunter-crushed-to-death-by-elephant-after-it-is-fatally-shot-35740420.html

I’ll stipulate that I am not a hunter. Yes, I’ve packed a rifle into the woods in search of game. I have done so a couple of times in my life. To be candid, I do not grasp the thrill of shooting a creature just so I can have it stuffed and displayed.

That’s the kind of activity that Botha engaged in.

This man’s death has reopened some discussion about the merits of this type of hunting. Indeed, tracking and hunting the biggest of game animals — such as elephants — is dangerous in the extreme.

Wildlife experts have had this discussion already in recent months. You’ll recall the Minnesota dentist, Walter Palmer, who shot Cecil the Lion to death in a notorious incident that called attention to hunting methods; outfitters lured Cecil away from his protected refuge and then Palmer shot the big cat repeatedly before the beast died.

I suspect this story about Theunis Botha will rattle around the planet for a time before receding as the world’s attention gets yanked away to other matters.

At least his demise — caused by one of his victims — might spur some more constructive discussion about this notion of hunting trophy animals that already are facing increasing pressure from humans encroaching on their habitat.

Happy Trails, Part 19

You might know already that I am a big fan of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department.

TP&W runs our state parks. The park system offers a nice perk to those of us who live in Texas. We are able to purchase a pass that enables us to enjoy the parks without paying an entrance fee, which isn’t steep by any means, but it adds up over time if you use the parks frequently.

My wife and I now are fully retired. We’ve been spending a lot more of our time sleeping in our recreational vehicle. Thus, we are pulling our RV to state parks around the state and are enjoying the parks without having to shell out entrance fees every time we arrive at park entrances.

As we ramp up our RV use, we intend to make ample use of our state parks.

I’ve griped long and loud over many years about Texas government. I am, though, a big fan of the state’s park system. We have a couple of first-class parks in the Panhandle: Palo Duro Canyon and Caprock Canyons. We haven’t yet hauled our RV onto the floor of PD Canyon, but we have stayed at Caprock Canyons and have enjoyed the park immensely.

Later this summer, we’re going to camp at Lake Arrowhead State Park near Wichita Falls, Lake Bob Sandlin State Park east of Dallas and Village Creek State Park in the Big Thicket in Deep East Texas. We’ve already discovered several other state parks: Goose Island in Rockport, Garner in Uvalde, Lake Casa Blanca in Laredo, San Angelo State Park, Stephen F. Austin near Houston, Balmorhea near the Davis Mountains.

Am I a cheerleader for the state’s public park system? You bet I am. I encourage everyone I can think of to use the parks. They’re a treasure that make me proud of my state.

We’ve only just begun to enjoy them.

Here’s why war against terror is so damn difficult

Just how difficult is it to win this global war against terror?

Tonight we witnessed another example of that difficulty. British police believe a suicide bomber detonated a device at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England. Nineteen people reportedly died, dozens more were injured.

Is this an act of terror? Well, yes, if the police early analysis is correct. Is it of the type of terror we’ve all seen since 9/11 — the kind perpetrated by Islamist perverts? That hasn’t been revealed just yet.

Police reportedly have identified the monster who blew himself up at the concert.

My point, though, is that the war on terror — no matter the type, the motivation of the terrorists — presents the kind of dilemma that law enforcement faces every single day around the world. Indeed, these threats existed long before 9/11. It took that act nearly 16 years ago to heighten our alert levels to the threats that have lurked among us likely for far longer than any of us would care to acknowledge.

Politicians throughout the world vow to “wipe out” the bad guys. They vow to eradicate terrorist organizations. They claim to be all-knowing about how to fight these bastards.

Then we see the kind of attack that occurred today in England. It appears to be the act of a “lone wolf.” A monstrous killer who snuck into a large crowd of cheering music fans. He found what’s called a “soft target,” which are everywhere in contemporary society.

Just how do law enforcement agencies protect every single venue against these kinds of heinous acts?

We are left to pray for those who were killed or injured, for the law enforcement officials who are looking for answers.

As if we needed any reminders, we have learned yet again just how difficult it always will be to eradicate this kind of monstrosity.

Sign the texting-while-driving-ban bill, Gov. Abbott

OK, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

You’ve got a bill that bans texting while driving a motor vehicle on your desk, somewhere. You need to make it the law of the state.

The Texas Legislature has worked out some differences in the bill and it has approved it and sent it to you for your signature. You need to do this. You need to make texting while driving illegal throughout our vast state.

Furthermore, Gov. Abbott, you need to show the guts that your predecessor, Rick Perry, failed to show in 2011 when he vetoed a similar bill that landed on his desk. Gov. Perry said then that the bill was too “intrusive,” that it demonstrated some sort of government overreach into motorists’ lives.

Good grief, man! Is driving too fast an intrusion? How about banning open containers of alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles? We also require motorists to be insured; we demand they have valid driver’s licenses. Are those measures intrusive as well?

I know you really don’t need to hear this from me, but I will say it anyway. A statewide ban lends continuity to laws across the state. It pre-empts local ordinances that ban texting while driving. Indeed, not all communities in Texas have been as proactive as, say, Amarillo has been.

Indeed, the state can post signs at every entry point at state borders warning motorists that state law prohibits them from texting while driving. It’s a dangerous and foolish activity.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/05/22/texas-texting-while-driving-ban-governor/

I am particularly proud of our Texas Panhandle legislative delegation that has supported this ban. They belong to the same party as you do, governor.

Listen to them. Follow their lead. Sign the bill and make it law.

A lot of us out here want you to do the right thing.

Preferring the U.S. method of letting ’em protest

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross cannot possibly be a dim bulb.

Or can he?

Ross offered a critique of the welcome that Donald J. Trump’s presidential entourage received in Saudi Arabia.

“There’s no question that they’re liberalizing their society, and I think the other thing that was fascinating to me, there was not a single hint of a protester anywhere there during the whole time we were there,” Ross said in an appearance on CNBC. “Not one guy with a bad placard.”

Not one guy, eh?

Someone ought to inform the secretary that public protest in Saudi Arabia remains highly illegal. Protesters generally are rounded up, arrested, given lashes until they bleed … you know, the kind of thing that occurs in countries run by repressive regimes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wilbur-ross-trumps-saudi-visit_us_5922dd3ce4b03b485cb31054

CNBC reporter Becky Quick sought to inform Ross of those prohibitions. He answered:

“In theory, that could be true,” he replied. “But boy, there was certainly no sign of it. There was not a single effort at any incursion, there wasn’t anything. The mood was a genuinely good mood, and at the end of the trip, as I was getting back on the plane, the security guards from the Saudi side who’d been helping us over the weekend all wanted to pose for a big photo op, and then they gave me two gigantic bushels of dates as a present, a thank you for the trip that we had had. That was a pretty from-the-heart, very genuine gesture and it really touched me.”

I believe I will stick with the American way. It allows protests. It gives people the freedom to speak angrily against the government, although the only stipulation I can find in the First Amendment is that it guarantees the right of citizens to protest “peaceably.”

Violence? Nope. Can’t do that, not even in America.

It still sure beats the dickens out of the prohibitions against such behavior in Saudi Arabia.

What? Is it now ‘Low Energy’ Donald?

I know I didn’t dream this, but didn’t Donald J. Trump once accuse Republican rival Jeb Bush of being “low energy Jeb” and didn’t he say that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton lacked the “stamina” be president of the United States?

So … what happened to the president in Saudi Arabia? He blurted out the term “Islamic extremism” when he meant to say “Islamist extremism.” Muslims understand the difference between “Islamic” and “Islamist.” The former term often is used to lump all Muslims in with the monsters who terrorize innocent people.

The president’s staff blamed the slip on “exhaustion.” Trump was pretty darn tired, they said. He didn’t mean what he said, supposedly.

http://fox2now.com/2017/05/22/wh-trump-was-exhausted-when-he-said-islamic-extremism/

This is not that big of a deal. It does, however, point out the danger of the kind of rhetoric that poured out of a presidential candidate’s mouth and it brings into sharp relief his performance while holding the office he fought so hard to obtain.

I won’t stoop to calling the president any of the names he hung on so many of his political rivals.

I just thought I would remind everyone of what he said about others and how they might feel now that he’s sitting squarely in the hot seat.

Just think, too: He did this at the beginning of his first overseas venture as president. I mean, c’mon! He had all the time in the world to rest up and get ready for it.

Invoking the Fifth usually doesn’t imply innocence

What in the world are we to make of this bit of news, that former national security adviser Michael Flynn will reject a U.S. Senate committee subpoena and invoke his Fifth Amendment rights protecting him against self-incrimination?

Let me think. My takeaway is that Gen. Flynn doesn’t want the world to know certain things about, um, certain foreign governments.

Flynn’s role in the still-burgeoning controversy surrounding Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign and its potential relationship with the Russian government has taken another, apparently far more serious, turn.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ap-source-says-flynn-will-invoke-fifth-amendment/ar-BBBowHX?li=BBnb7Kz

The Associated Press is reporting that Flynn won’t appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee and that he’ll clam up under his constitutional protection.

If someone were to ask me, I’d say that he doesn’t want to say something that’s going to get him tossed into prison. What might that be?

Hmm. It might be that he did do something potentially illegal when he went to work for Turkey’s government, drawing a substantial stipend for the Turks as a lobbyist while also serving as the president’s national security adviser.

Gen. Flynn, who also served on Trump’s transition team, also might have said something to say about Russian officials who had worked to undermine the 2016 presidential election. There well might be some collusion between the Trump team and the Russians to be revealed … yes? Well, maybe.

Flynn also reportedly sought immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony after the president fired him as national security adviser.

I’m smelling something terribly foul. Do you smell it, too?

Billy Bush is ba-a-a-a-ck … sort of

Billy Bush is trying to wiggle his way back into the media limelight.

I never thought I’d be commenting on him ever again. You know who this guy is, right? He was the other guy in an infamous 2005 video talking to a reality TV celebrity/real estate mogul about certain aspects of his private life.

The fellow to whom he was talking that day now is the president of the United States, Donald John Trump.

Bush is now 45 years of age. He got fired from the “Today” show after the video surfaced. Many Americans — yours truly included — thought for certain that Trump’s presidential campaign would go down in flames after the video surfaced. It had some audio with it in which Trump joked about how he grabbed women by their private parts.

Yep, the man who would be elected president actually admitted to committing sexual assault.

Ahh, but then we have Bush, the fellow who yukked it up with Trump as he regaled “Access Hollywood” listeners about his boorish behavior.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/billy-bush-breaks-his-silence-on-trump-the-access-hollywood-tape-nbc-and-a-comeback-plan-exclusive/ar-BBBnmi3?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Does this guy deserve to return to the public spotlight? Not if I had any pull over his future. Then again, I am just one individual.

Pop culture being what it is, however, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see this clown re-enter the entertainment world. I’ll just have to make a point to look the other way.

Rep. Chaffetz spoils possible role as truth-seeker

I had thought Jason Chaffetz might emerge in the U.S. House of Representatives as a lame duck with some bite.

The Utah Republican for now chairs the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform. He’s about to surrender that chairmanship and apparently his congressional seat as he heads back home to ponder what he wants to do next.

My hope had been that Chaffetz would be unafraid of political blowback as the congressional probe of Donald J. Trump’s relationship with Russian government officials picked up steam. The committee he chairs plays a principal role in the search for the truth.

Thus, I figured that Chaffetz — free from the pressure of seeking re-election — would be unleashed as he pursued all the facts.

But he’s going to leave the House of Reps at the end of June. His committee chairmanship will go to someone else.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-watch-their-step-in-a-slow-retreat-from-trump/ar-BBBmjUS?li=BBnbcA1

In the meantime, there’s reporting now that congressional Republicans are beginning to pull back from the president as his domestic political troubles deepen even as he continues his first overseas trip as president. Trump’s journey to the Middle East got off to a good start with his speech at the Arab summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. His trip continues in Israel, where he well might face a rockier reception, given the trouble he got into regarding his release of Israeli intelligence information to visiting Russian dignitaries at the White House the other day.

There well might come a moment if the FBI probe deepens into the president’s Russia connections, or as the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller picks up steam when key congressional Republicans tell the president the political truth. That his support is dwindling to dangerous levels.

I had thought that Chairman Chaffetz might emerge as that GOP go-to guy, given that he won’t face a re-election in 2018. That’s not going to happen.

At issue, of course, is whether Russian hackers sought to influence the 2016 presidential election. Chaffetz lamented today that the president has been eerily silent about those allegations, other than to dismiss them and disparage the intelligence agencies that have concluded that the Russians did try to manipulate the election.

“You would like, I would think, the president to kind of beat (Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov) over the head with the fact that, if they actually did interfere in any way, shape or form, how wrong that is and how outraged America is on both sides of the aisle,” Chaffetz said on ABC’s “This Week.”

The president hasn’t done such a thing. Instead, he bragged about the “great intel” he had and spilled many of the beans about what he had regarding certain Islamic State activities in the Middle East.

No can do, Mr. President.

As for Chaffetz, he’s nearly a goner and he’ll hand over a key congressional committee gavel to a politician who won’t nearly be as candid as the lame-duck chairman.

This reunion thing can get maddening

I am blessed beyond measure with wisdom that comes from members of my immediate family.

My frame of reference is my wife and my two sons.

One of them offered me a bit of wisdom this weekend that is giving me serious pause about whether I should attend a reunion of my high school graduating class.

It’s the 50-year reunion that is coming up in October. I had leaned against attending. As of this moment, I’m back on the fence. Totally neutral. I have indicated to close friends that I could be “talked into” going.

My wife and I attended my 10-year reunion in 1977; I flew back for my 30-year reunion in 1997 — and I hated almost every minute of it. I vowed then I wouldn’t return for any subsequent reunions. The 40-year reunion occurred without me. I had no regrets about staying away.

But then my son and I had a conversation this weekend that went something like this:

Me: You know, of course, that I am thinking about whether I want to go to my 50-year high school reunion.

Son: Yes, I know. I also know that you aren’t too keen on going.

Me: That’s right.

Son: Let me offer this bit of advice. You said your 30-year reunion was a bummer, that you hated it. I think the reason was that you went alone. Mom wasn’t there. You also set the bar too high. Why not just go this next reunion with Mom, see your friends, have a good time — and then go do whatever you want to do with Mom?

Do you see what I mean about wisdom? I’ve never told my sons that I was the knower of all knowledge. I’ve always had an open mind to whatever advice either of them — along with my wife — were willing to give me.

My wife and I now are retired. We purchased a fifth wheel recreational vehicle, which we tow behind a big ol’ pickup. Were we to go, we likely would haul our RV to Portland, Ore., where we both graduated from high school.

As I understand it, our Parkrose High School class of 1967 is planning a dinner in October at a hotel near Portland International Airport. We could attend the dinner, have some laughs, get caught up; my wife knows a couple of my classmates — one quite well, the other not nearly so.

Then we could say goodbye. Go back to our RV, visit some family and a few of our many other friends we have in the city of my birth.

Then we would be on our way to, oh, destinations to be determined.

I won’t set the bar too high. I won’t seek to rekindle relationships that I learned at the 30-year reunion did not exist in the first place.

Hmm. I am now thinking carefully about the wisdom I received from my son. That reunion is beginning to beckon — and I am beginning to pay attention.

I’ll keep you posted.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience