Mixed-gender relays in the Olympics? Sure, why not?

I kind of like this notion.

The International Association of Athletics Federations is considering an idea to allow track and field relay teams to comprise men and women competing in the same races.

It’s not as though the IAAF would allow female shot putters to compete against the men. Or pole vaulters. Or discus throwers. This idea deserves a fair hearing.

Let the women run with the men

They’ve done this already at a meet in the Bahamas. The 4-by-400 relay featured two men and two women on each team. They ran in no particular order. The home team won the event, which thrilled the fans. But the race reportedly drew a lot of attention leading up to it.

“The crowd was incredible, I still have goosebumps thinking about it. These are the kind of things we need to look at,” said Olivier Gers, head of the IAAF.

My own preference would be to have men and women running against competitors of the same gender in each leg of the relay. But what the heck, it’s not my call.

Frankly, such an event at the Olympics would spur my interest even more. I suspect it also would gin up interest around the world as well.

Happy Trails, Part 15

I don’t get this question very often, but I have heard it from a few of my friends: What hobbies are you going to be able to enjoy now that you’re retired?

Hobbies? I am not a hobby kind of guy.

I am not a hunter or much of a fisherman. I like to hike in the wild, which my wife and I do together … but I don’t consider “hiking” to be a hobby. I don’t play board games and I haven’t played a hand of poker since I was in the Army a century or two ago.

If pressed to declare a hobby, I’m going to say that I am doing it at this very minute. I am writing this blog, which I suppose you could call a hobby, given that I enjoy it greatly.

Some of my better friends have handed me compliments over the volume of blogs I post daily. “You are so damn prolific,” said one of my dearest friends, who lives in Portland, Ore., with her husband and son. I tell her, “Well, it’s what I do.”

I don’t intend to let up on pursuing this hobby of mine even as my wife and I get deeper into full-time retirement.

I’ve griped at times about the Internet and what it has done to the industry where I worked for 37 years. Newspapers are struggling to find their way as the Internet takes bigger bites out of daily print circulation. Newspaper publishers are looking for business models that allow them to keep making money while changing to a “digital presence.”

The Internet, though, does provide yours truly a forum to keep writing — some would say “spewing” — opinions about this and/or that public policy issue.

I won’t limit the blog to those matters. I want to comment also on “life experience,” which more or less is what this post is all about.

I guess retirees need hobbies to keep them fresh and reasonably alert. Therefore, I’ll keep writing this blog.

‘Greatest threat … on Earth’

FBI Director James Comey had a big day earlier this week fielding questions from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

The bulk of the attention regarding his testimony dealt with the 2016 presidential election and how he justified blowing the whistle on Hillary Clinton’s e-mail matter while staying quiet about an FBI probe into Donald J. Trump’s alleged connection with the Russian government.

Buried in all that testimony came his answer to a question about whether Russia poses a threat to the United States.

Comey’s answer? He called Russia “the greatest threat of any nation on Earth.”

I heard the FBI director’s response and wondered immediately: Why cannot the president of the United States treat Russia as the “greatest threat of any nation on Earth”? Why doesn’t the president condemn the Russians for seeking to influence the outcome of the 2016 election? Why couldn’t he acknowledge flat out on national TV that Vladimir Putin is a “killer”?

Comey’s assessment of Russia’s threat to this nation harkens back to a Cold War-era fear of the Big Bear, the Evil Empire. Putin’s rule of Russia only heightens that reminder.

If only the president of the United States would speak as strongly against Russia and its subversion of our electoral process as the FBI director as just done.

His relative silence on Putin and the nation he governs seems to speak eloquently about something no one in this country should want to hear.

Trump is evangelicals’ ‘dream president’?

Jerry Falwell Jr. attended an executive order signing ceremony today and declared that Donald J. Trump is the “dream president” for the nation’s evangelical Christians.

Wow. Let’s ponder that one.

* Trump has been married three times. I don’t fault him for that, per se. However, he has boasted about cheating on his first two wives.

* The president was riding a bus a dozen years ago with Billy Bush and was overheard telling the “Access Hollywood” host that he grabbed women by their private parts. He said he could get away with that kind of behavior because he is a “celebrity,” a “star.”

* The president has mocked a reporter with a serious physical disability.

* Trump has talked about how he was able to walk in on half-dressed beauty pageant contestants because he owned the pageant.

Today, though, the president signed some executive orders that allows preachers to endorse political candidates from the pulpit. He also signed an order that enables business owners to cite religious objections when they refuse to provide services to, say, gay customers.

He did all this in the name of “religious liberty,” which pleases Falwell, the president of Liberty University.

Thus, evangelicals’ dream has come true. All the other stuff, the boorish behavior, doesn’t matter.

Oh, boy.

No gunfire in Amarillo — get out and vote!

I visited today at lunchtime with Daniel Martinez, a candidate for the Amarillo College Board of Regents — and heard a bit of news about the upcoming local election.

It is that, according to Martinez, about 7,000 voters cast ballots early. Martinez thinks that bodes well for a big turnout when Election Day rolls around on Saturday.

I do not share my friend’s optimistic outlook.

What I think it means, sadly, is that a lot of Amarillo’s voters are casting their ballots early. And that’s it!

Then I watched a video posted on Facebook of an interview with outgoing Mayor Paul Harpole. The mayor said the city is projecting a turnout of 12,000 to 14,000 voters. Let that sink for a moment.

Harpole told Panhandle PBS’s Karen Welch that the city has 104,000 registered voters living here. Amarillo’s population is on the cusp of 200,000 residents.

If Harpole’s projection is correct, that puts the percentage of voter turnout at slightly more than 10 percent.

Hey, let’s stand up and cheer!

On second thought, let’s not!

Harpole then told a story about a couple in Fallujah, Iraq, who made sure to vote while gunfire was erupting just blocks away. The wife handed her infant child to her husband while she voted, Harpole said; she came back out, took the baby, and then her husband went in to cast his ballot.

Harpole then told Welch that Amarillo residents don’t have to face the prospect of getting shot on the street while they vote — which is his way of saying that we have no excuses, none at all, for refusing to have our voices heard in this critical election.

I am running out of ways to urge residents to cast their ballots in these local races. The very idea that nine out of 10 Amarillo residents would sit this election out — and leave these decisions to other residents — means that the democratic process is in danger of going on life support.

Get set for next fight over health care overhaul

Congressional Republicans kept their vow to vote — no matter what — on repealing the Affordable Care Act.

It was a squeaker, 217 “yes” votes to 213 “no” votes. Every congressional Democrat voted “no,” which gives the minority a faint claim of bipartisanship, as some moderate Republicans joined them in voting against the Trumpcare health bill.

I want to make only a couple of observations about this effort.

First, Republicans yapped and yammered that Democrats shoved the ACA down the GOP’s throats in 2010. The GOP response was to do precisely the same thing to Democrats. Payback is a bitch, right?

The GOP throat-shoving, though, took on a little different tone than what the Democrats did in 2010. President Obama tried to get Republicans to sign on, but was unsuccessful. Donald J. Trump didn’t make that effort; neither did House Speaker Paul Ryan. Oh, no. They relied on their healthy Republican majority to win the day — barely, it turns out — in a now-or-never vote on the House floor.

Second, the initial effort to repeal the ACA and replace it with the American Health Care Act, ran into a Congressional Budget Office “score” that told a grim story of 24 million Americans losing their health insurance under the new plan.

This time the GOP didn’t bother to wait for the CBO to “score” this latest rendition of the replacement bill. Republicans forged ahead anyway. Damn the scoring! Who needs to know how this is going to affect Americans?

Oh, and the polls around the country indicate a growing base of support for the ACA. Hmm. Imagine that. The House of Representatives isn’t exactly representing its constituents.

The AHCA now heads to the Senate, where it faces an even steeper climb than it had in the House. The GOP majority in the upper chamber is pretty skimpy and the Republicans cannot afford to lose any support among their ranks. The initial signs don’t look good for final approval in the Senate.

House Republicans sought to win over reluctant conservatives by sweetening the pie for them; then they assuaged some moderate GOP concerns by tossing in some money to pay for those with pre-existing medical conditions.

What say you, senators?

Now it falls on the Senate to decide what to do with this legislation that doesn’t yet have any analysis on how much it will cost and how many Americans might lose their insurance.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are back-slapping each other like crazy. They said they’d cast that vote to repeal President Obama’s signature domestic achievement.

They got the job done. Now they can go home for their 11-day recess. I would bet real American money they’re going to run into a good bit anger among the home folks.

Obama veto comes back to bite him … and his predecessors

Barack Obama just had to veto a bill this past year that would have cut presidential pensions.

Then the former president just had to accept a speaking invitation in which he raked in a cool 400 grand for remarks he delivered on health care issues.

Congress may try again

Now we hear that Congress might reintroduce the pension-cutting bill that will affect not just former President Obama, but all the other four living ex-presidents.

I was mildly critical of President Obama getting paid such a huge speaking fee. It’s not that he isn’t entitled to earn what the market will pay, but only that he ought to do as CNN commentator Van Jones suggested: take a poverty tour to see how “the other side” struggles.

President Obama issued the veto in 2016. Republicans in Congress didn’t try to override it. As USA Today reported: “At the time, Obama argued that the bill would have ‘unintended consequences’ and ‘impose onerous and unreasonable burdens’ on former presidents by requiring them to immediately lay off staff and find new office space.”

The legislation being considered is called the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act. It would roll back presidential pensions to $200,000 annually, plus another $200,000 annually for office and staff expenses. The bill would roll back the pension dollar for dollar for anything more than $400,000 in outside income a former president earns in a year.

According to USA Today: “Under the Former Presidents Act, the nation’s five living former presidents — Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama — get a pension equal to the salary of a current cabinet secretary: $207,800 in 2017. They also get $150,000 to pay staff, and ‘suitable office space, appropriately furnished and equipped.'”

I get that presidents deserve a nice pension once they leave office. They have all earned it, having served in the toughest job in the nation, if not the world.

However, the legislation being considered really isn’t an unreasonable alternative to what’s on the books now. Two hundred grand a year plus expenses isn’t a bad living at all.

Former congressional loudmouth pops off

Joe Walsh once was known as a loudmouth politician from Illinois.

Now he’s just a former loudmouth pol, who has entered the discussion about health care reform in a most undignified and ironic manner.

Late-night TV comedian Jimmy Kimmel went on the air Monday night and revealed that his newborn son was born with a heart ailment. Nurses detected a problem with the baby, a renowned cardiac surgeon was summoned and he repaired the infant’s heart.

Kimmel gave a heartfelt and tearful testimony that saluted the medical staff at the hospital where little Billy was born — and argued on behalf of efforts to guarantee health insurance for all Americans.

Then came Joe Walsh, who tweeted, “Sorry Jimmy Kimmel: your sad story doesn’t obligate me or anybody else to pay for somebody else’s health care.”

Social media erupted with outrage at Walsh’s insensitive reaction. Walsh is a former Republican lawmaker who once popped off with remarks about Black Lives Matter and President Barack Obama that some folks had interpreted as a threat. Walsh, who’s now a TEA Party activist and a talk-radio host (imagine that), was defeated for re-election.

There’s more — of course.

Walsh also once was caught failing to pay child support for his own children; he reportedly owed about $117,000 in support payments.

Tsk, tsk, tsk …

For this clown to interject himself into a heartwarming story involving an entertainment personality and his family speaks pretty graphically about this individual’s profound lack of character and compassion.

The word “hypocrite” also comes to mind.

Who needs analysis of ACA repeal bill? Not the GOP

Did I hear this correctly?

Congressional Republicans are pushing a vote on a measure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act without knowing the “score.” Is that right? I guess it is. That’s what the “enemy of the American people” media are reporting.

Republicans got themselves into a jam the first time they tried to repeal the ACA when the Congressional Budget Office delivered some bad news about the American Health Care Act: The AHCA, according to the CBO, would toss about 24 million Americans off their health insurance programs.

That frightened enough Republican congressmen and women to forestall a vote on a repeal/replace measure.

So, the GOP leadership found a way around that. They made the new repeal/replace law more drastic than the previous one and have scheduled a House vote before the CBO has a chance to “score” it.

The conservative Freedom Caucus, which bucked the original bill, is now on board. Moderate Republicans, meanwhile, are the wild card in the vote that’s coming up.

Democrats? They hate this bill even more than the first one. They’re out. Forget about the Democrats.

Memo to GOP leaders: This is not how you build a “good government” environment.

To think, too, that Republicans were just furious that Democrats allegedly tried in 2010 to shove the Affordable Care Act down Republicans’ throats.

Who’s angry now?

ACA repeal vote illustrates what is wrong with Congress

Americans are now scheduled to receive an up-front view of what is so terribly wrong with their U.S. House of Representatives.

It is a body that doesn’t represent the nation. It represents political dogma.

House members are slated to vote Thursday morning on a repeal of the Affordable Care Act; yes, the vote also will include provisions on a replacement for the ACA.

Look at the polls, pols

Congress is dysfunctional in the extreme! Why? Because poll after poll shows that Americans support the ACA. Yet the Republicans who control the House — and the Senate — are hell bent in their determination to do away with it.

The vote Thursday won’t have any Democratic support and a few moderate Republicans are going to vote against the ACA replacement option. What we are seeing here is continuing fallout from enactment of the ACA in the first place. Congress enacted the ACA in 2010 with zero Republican support. Democrats had to go alone on this deal — despite concerted efforts from the White House to persuade Republicans to join in the effort to provide health insurance to Americans who couldn’t afford it.

Congressional Republican leaders said, “No way, man.”

Here we are, seven years down the road. President Obama is out of office. Republicans now control both congressional chambers and the White House. Has the new president sought to work with Democrats to bring them aboard? Umm. Nope.

Yet the congressional leaders have decided to blow the ACA apart because they contend it is a “disaster.” It isn’t. Independent analyses suggest that the ACA is continuing to stabilize and that Americans are signing up for health insurance.

Is it perfect? No. Premiums are still too costly. Insurance providers have bailed out.

I’m at a loss as to why Republicans cannot concede that much of the ACA is worth keeping, but that they could improve certain elements in it.

It can be mended without ending it, correct? Isn’t that how you legislate? You work with lawmakers from across the aisle, seek some common ground and then hammer out differences. Legislating is a complicated process at times. Providing health insurance for Americans has proved to be among the most complicated and contentious exercises we’ve ever witnessed.

OK, so here we go. House members will vote Thursday. The GOP leadership concedes the vote will be razor thin. If repeal fails Thursday morning, then the Republicans have nowhere else to go.

Once the details of the replacement legislation becomes more widely known, my trick knee tells me that our Republican congressional leaders are going to get a snootful from their constituents. Many of them have heard already at those raucous town hall meetings that voters are none too happy with what is likely to take place on Capitol Hill.

Yep. This is how you describe government dysfunction.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience