O’Reilly gets the boot … then he gets a lot of dough!

I am not too proud to admit that I do not know about a lot of things.

The Bill O’Reilly story has me confused. I’m baffled, befuddled and bedeviled.

Some women accused O’Reilly of sexual harassment. He paid some of them with millions of dollars in settlements. Fox News Channel, where O’Reilly worked until just the other day, shelled out big money, too, to the women.

Advertisers bailed from O’Reilly’s show, costing the network millions of dollars in revenue. O’Reilly then goes on “vacation.” Fox decided this week to cut O’Reilly loose. O’Reilly has denied the accusations of harassment.

Fox felt the pinch from the revenue loss.

But then the network has decided to pay its former talk-show colossus the equivalent of a full year’s salary.

How much is that? It’s being reported to be in the neighborhood of $25 million.

If someone is let go for cause — which is how I am interpreting Fox’s decision to part company with O’Reilly — how does a former employer justify paying out that kind of cash?

What in the name of TV ratings am I missing?

Amarillo Matters shucks the gloves

Amarillo Matters came into being as a pro-business political action committee with the aim of developing a “vision for a strong Amarillo built upon the first principles of free enterprise, economic growth, fiscal responsibility and traditional family values.”

I support Amarillo Matters’ overall agenda. I like and respect many of the men and women who are active in the organization.

Then something arrived in the mail today that gives me some concern. It’s not enough to turn me against Amarillo Matters, but it does make me wonder whether this outfit is as high-minded as its campaign rhetoric would suggest. It has driven its campaign buggy onto the low road.

It has endorsed a wholly new slate for Amarillo City Council. I strongly support some of the candidates Amarillo Matters is backing: Ginger Nelson for mayor; Freda Powell for Place 2 and Eddy Sauer for Place 3 all deserve to be elected. I also have lined up behind Elaine Hayes for Place 1 and Howard Smith for Place 4, both of whom are running against incumbents who are seeking re-election.

Here is where my concern rests with the Amarillo Matters flier the postal carrier dropped into my mail box today. It uses some curious language to describe Elisha Demerson, the Place 1 incumbent councilman. It calls him a “long-time Democrat officeholder and politician.”

For starters, I seriously dislike the term “Democrat” when used as an adjective. It’s the kind of language adopted two decades ago by far-right Republicans who sought to demonize in a subtle fashion their Democratic opponents. Demerson wasn’t a “Democrat politician”; he was a pol who belonged to the Democratic Party. Do you get it?

Second of all, Demerson has been out of elected partisan politics for two-plus decades. The last political post he held before being elected two years ago to the City Council was as Potter County judge, a countywide elected office.

Therefore, I challenge the assertion that Demerson is a “long-time” pol. Good grief! He had been sitting on the sidelines since leaving his county office.

Thirdly, the City Council is a non-partisan governing body. Its members do not run as Democrats or Republicans. Partisan affiliation should not inform council members as they deliberate municipal policy.

I recall in the 1990s when a mayoral candidate, Mary Alice Brittain, sought to rally all the city’s “good Republicans” to vote for her over incumbent Kel Seliger. I called her down then, citing the non-partisan nature of the city ballot. She lost badly to Seliger — and hasn’t been seen or heard from since.

I don’t mind that Amarillo Matters has weighed in on this campaign. It’s the prerogative of every individual — and, yes, any PAC — to make their voices heard.

Amarillo Matters does bring a valuable perspective to this campaign. I welcome it and I support generally the ideas it seeks to promote.

But not at any cost.

What about our allies, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has put Iran “on notice” yet again.

He also put several of our nation’s key allies on notice, too, by suggesting that the United States’ commitment to negotiated agreements isn’t as rock-solid as it must be.

Tillerson put the world on notice this week that the United States no longer thinks much of a deal meant to deny Iran the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. It’s part of Donald John Trump’s vow to renegotiate agreements that he says are worst in the history of humankind.

The Iran nuke deal falls into that category, according to the president.

The deal was brokered by former Secretary of State John Kerry in conjunction with foreign ministers from Great Britain, China, France, Germany and, oh yes, Russia. What would a U.S. withdrawal from the agreement mean to our partners?

This is just me, but perhaps it would mean that the United States isn’t a trustworthy partner. It well could fracture our international alliances, particularly as it regards the Brits, French and the Germans, who are critical players in our nation’s ongoing geopolitical struggle with forces that seek to undermine us at every turn.

I’m not going to assert that the Iran nuke deal is perfect in every single way. But it does allow for careful monitoring of the Islamic Republic’s intentions and it gives the United States plenty of room to re-impose economic sanctions if it’s determined that Iran isn’t complying with the terms of the agreement.

Tillerson’s comments centered on Iran’s continued support of international terrorism. OK, then. Deal with that separately, Mr. Secretary.

Although the secretary didn’t say directly that the Trump administration would back out of the nuke deal, he did sound a dire warning. According to Politico: “Apparently referencing a failed 1994 nuclear deal with North Korea, which now has nuclear weapons, Tillerson said Wednesday that the Iran agreement is ‘another example of buying off a power who has nuclear ambitions. We just don’t see that that’s a prudent way to be dealing with Iran.’”

Our partners are watching with great interest. I believe it would foolish to renege on a deal that took a long time to craft. After all, the United States isn’t the only actor in this drama.

So long, Chairman Chaffetz

Jason Chaffetz stunned his U.S. House of Representatives colleagues today by announcing his intention to step away from Congress next year.

The Utah Republican won’t seek re-election.

Scuttlebutt is going in a couple of directions: Chaffetz might run for Utah governor in 2020 or he might seek a U.S. Senate seat after that.

The young lawmaker has made a bit of name for himself during his time in Congress. He chairs the House Oversight Committee and spent a lot of time — and taxpayer money — looking for dirt to throw onto Hillary Rodham Clinton while she was running for president this past year. He came up empty, as did his predecessor as chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

My own thoughts of Chairman Chaffetz, though, go back to when he was first elected to Congress. He became one of those grandstanders who slept each night on a couch in his office. He didn’t bother with renting an apartment, or buying a home in Washington, D.C.

I recall him making some noise about wanting to connect with his constituents back home. He flew home regularly to be with his wife and children. I admire his dedication to his family.

However, I always have wondered about politicians who call attention to themselves ostensibly to make some sort of statement about staying in touch with the home folks. I am left to ask: How many folks back home sleep on office furniture?

Life isn’t fair, right, Bill O’Reilly?

We all can admit what we know, that life sometimes just isn’t fair.

It deals harsh retribution for some of us, while others seemingly get away with similar — if not even worse — behavior.

I present to you two cases of men who reportedly have treated women badly. One of them is a noted television news commentator/pundit/ correspondent/personality; the other is a well-known politician.

Fox News Channel has just cut Bill O’Reilly loose after revelations about allegations of sexual harassment became known. None of us can predict at this moment whether O’Reilly’s broadcast career is over. Suffice to say, though, that it doesn’t look good.

It is true that O’Reilly received a healthy severance from his former employer. It’s also true that the allegations from several women haven’t been adjudicated, even though O’Reilly and Fox have doled out substantial settlement payments to several of the complainants.

O’Reilly’s reputation is in tatters and will require substantial repair — if it’s even reparable.

The politician?

That would be Donald John Trump, 45th president of the United States of America.

What did this individual do? Oh, let’s see. He is heard on a 2005 “hot mic” recording collected by “Access Hollywood” actually bragging about how he has sexually assaulted women, grabbing them by their, um, genital area. What gave him license to do such a thing? Trump told Billy Bush that he could do it because he’s a “star” and that his status as a big-time celebrity somehow enabled him to act like an animal.

This recording became known during the midst of the 2016 presidential campaign. What price did Trump pay for it? Hardly nothing.

He got elected with 304 electoral votes on Nov. 8.

There you have it. The president of the United States is an admitted sexual assailant.

OK, the cases aren’t entirely parallel. Fox News suffered a serious decline in revenue as advertisers withdrew from O’Reilly’s nightly TV show. Trump didn’t have that particular staring him down as the chatter mounted over his “Access Hollywood” recording. All the Republican presidential nominee had to face was whether enough voters would be sickened enough by the revelation to turn to another candidate, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Trump apparently felt immunized sufficiently by his victory in the election to offer a word of support for O’Reilly, calling him a “good person” while the sexual harassment allegations began piling up around him.

I have no solution to this dichotomy. I simply remain baffled beyond belief — given what he has acknowledged about his behavior — that one of the principals in this blog was able to ascend to the highest office in the land.

USS Carl Vinson isn’t MIA, however …

Where, oh where, is the USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier thought to be heading toward the Korean Peninsula?

Not so fast, mates. The massive ship and the warships comprising its battle group aren’t exactly en route to the trouble spot.

This brings to mind yet another question about the commander in chief: Does the president know about which he speaks when it concerns the most powerful military apparatus the world has known?

Donald J. Trump told Fox News business correspondent Maria Bartiromo that the Vinson group, which he described as a “great armada,” was on its way to the region in a massive show of force against North Korean communist dictator/madman/goofball Kim Jong Un.

Except that it wasn’t.

The USS Carl Vinson was headed toward the Indian Ocean to perform military exercises with the Australian navy.

The U.S. Navy doesn’t comment on the precise location of its warships, so don’t expect the Pentagon to blow the Carl Vinson’s cover. This does illustrate nevertheless that the president once again has blabbed before knowing the facts.

You want unpredictability? This is it.

Trump has said he is determined to be as “unpredictable” as possible as it regards our adversaries. He doesn’t want to telegraph his next move, particularly when it regards potential military action.

The president says every option “is on the table” regarding Kim Jong Un. Fine. I get it.

Unpredictability, though, shouldn’t include hearing the president declare that a heavily armed naval strike force is steaming toward harm’s way when it in fact is moving in the opposite direction.

Or, has the president offered the world yet another definition of the word “is”?

https://highplainsblogger.com/2017/04/enter-the-uss-carl-vinson/

 

Is a ‘culture change’ in store at cable network?

21st-Century Fox made it official today: Bill O’Reilly, the company’s No. 1 blowhard and ratings juggernaut is gone.

He won’t be returning from his “long-planned vacation,” which commenced suddenly in the middle of this past week.

The reason for O’Reilly’s departure? A steady stream of negative publicity relating to sexual harassment complaints leveled against the veteran TV talk-show host.

O’Reilly paid out millions of bucks to women who had filed the complaints, all the while maintaining his innocence. Interesting, yes? Well, I think so. Fox News Channel coughed up a lot of cash, too, to women who had griped about O’Reilly’s treatment of them.

These media stories usually become the stuff of inter-network gossip. Competing networks — chiefly CNN and MSNBC — have had a field day covering this story for their audiences; Fox, meanwhile, hasn’t done much reporting at all on the difficulties that O’Reilly has brought to the network.

He’s gone now.

For me, it’s no great loss. I quit listening to O’Reilly a couple of Christmas seasons ago when he would allege that some phony “war on Christmas” was being waged by the “mainstream media” and assorted “left-wing pinheads.”

O’Reilly will get a big chunk of cash for, essentially, being fired for cause by Fox. That’s another part of these celebrity stories that baffles me. A big-ticket media talking head screws up, makes a big mistake — in this case, allegedly, several big mistakes — and he’s still able to walk away with a hefty severance package.

Whatever …

See ya in the funny papers, Bill.

As for the network, it lost its news boss — Roger Ailes — over similar accusations. Women have suggested there exists a “culture” of sexual harassment at Fox.

Perhaps we are witnessing a fundamental change in that culture and that female journalists and other “contributors” will feel more welcome and accepted for the talent they bring.

Stay ‘home,’ Mr. President

Donald J. Trump surely understands the importance of symbolism.

He plasters his name on tall buildings all around the world to symbolize his immense wealth. The rest of us get it, Mr. President. You’re worth a bundle, man.

So, why doesn’t he act a bit more symbolically with regard to the office he occupies and remain in the White House, where he was elected to serve?

U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, one of the president’s pals in Congress asked just the other day about his continual forays to that posh resort of his in Florida. Mar-A-Lago has become a sort of surrogate White House. Ernst doesn’t think Trump serves his office well by spending so much time there, enjoying the glittery fruits of his tremendous business success.

I happen to agree, although I want to stipulate something I’ve noted already on this blog. It’s that the president is the president wherever he is. He doesn’t leave any of the power of the office behind when he ventures away from the Oval Office.

However, this particular individual — the 45th president — campaigned as a populist; a friend of the little guy, the working man and woman, the Mom and Pop business owner. His constant jet trips to the glitz and glam of Mar-A-Lago suggest to me that he is more comfortable living the high life than he is in connecting with the rest of the country.

The president has some pretty nice digs at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Granted, they aren’t as gaudy as his south Florida palace. We pay for it. We maintain it for the president and (hopefully soon) his family. The grounds are immaculate. You can’t beat the home security system, either.

All that said, the president ought to heed the pleading of one of his congressional friends. He can choose to ignore those coming from the rest of us who dislike him.

Sen. Ernst is right. Donald Trump ought to park that that big blue-and-white Boeing 747 for a time and stick around the White House.

It’s the symbolism, Mr. President. Yes, it matters.

Will the city ever finish its bike-trail network?

Amarillo parks officials some years ago drafted a plan to create a citywide network of bicycle paths.

The network’s aim was to connect every corner of the city, enabling residents to get from any point in Amarillo aboard a bicycle. The city Parks and Recreation Department set aside some bike lanes. I’ve seen a few of them near my neighborhood. The trouble is, though, is that they don’t seem to go anywhere.

The then-parks director, Larry Offerdahl, retired. Rod Tweet succeeded him. I spoke once with Tweet while on assignment for KFDA-NewsChannel 10, talked to him about the future of the bike paths and the network. I recall him assuring me that it would get finished — eventually.

I don’t know when “eventually” will arrive, but I feel as though it’s time to offer this hope for the City Council campaign that is drawing to a close. The hope is that the candidates for all five council seats will pledge to make the bike network a greater priority than it has been for the past several years.

City voters rejected a parks improvement referendum in 2016, telling the city they didn’t want to spend money to improve the park and recreation offerings.

I consider the bike trails a seriously valuable asset to the city’s quality of life. My wish for years has been that the city could lure people out of the cars and allow them to ride non-motorist transport vehicles — such as bicycles — to wherever they need to go.

I recognize our love affair with motor vehicles. My wife and I own two of them: one of them — a hybrid — primarily for city use, the other primarily for use as a vehicle to tow our fifth wheel RV.

Amarillo started work on this bicycle network. Tweet and Offerdahl both made its aim crystal clear: They intended to provide a safe and enjoyable way for bicyclists get anywhere in Amarillo.

As near as I can tell, the network isn’t finished. It’s far from finished. I believe there needs to be a serious push from the City Council to get the job done.

This crime utterly defies every sense in our body

Violence is one thing. The cold-blooded, often-sociopathic nature of it is quite another.

So it was when Steve Stephens reportedly lost a relationship with a woman, then sought out a victim at random. He found a 74-year-old retired foundry worker, Robert Godwin Sr., who he shot to death on a Cleveland, Ohio street.

There’s more. Stephens decided to record this senseless act and he posted it on Facebook.

He then fled to Erie, Pa., where he sought to order a fast-food hamburger. An alert McDonald’s employee recognized the customer as the killer and called 9-1-1. A police chase ensued. Stephens then killed himself with a gunshot to the head.

One question that has come up is whether Facebook bears any “responsibility” for this dastardly deed. The way I see it, the answer is “no.”

For the life of me I don’t know how Facebook could be expected to prevent the posting of something as hideous as what Stephens did.

The case, though, ended the moment Stephens put a bullet in his skull. No loss there.

For the family of Mr. Godwin, their misery is just beginning. Our hearts break for this innocent victim and his loved ones.

Then we are left to wonder about how human beings can do such things.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience