MOAB does what it’s supposed to do

It’s called the MOAB.

The acronym actually stands for Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb. Its colloquial meaning is Mother of All Bombs.

The military dropped one of these devices on an Islamic State operation in Afghanistan. And, sure, there’s debate on why the military chose to use the device.

I support its use. Donald J. Trump promised during the campaign that he would “bomb the s*** out of ISIS.” Well, there you go. The MOAB does do that.

It’s the largest conventional explosive device in the U.S. arsenal. It weighs about 25,000 pounds. It does significant damage.

ISIS has earned this kind of response

Let’s not get too namby-pamby about this device. The Islamic State has performed some heinous actions against innocent victims. It has performed hideous acts with regard to prisoners it has taken — and executed.

I get that the debate about the MOAB is important in one respect: The bomb is so powerful that the military must be certain to avoid civilian casualties, given that the United States as a matter of military policy doesn’t kill civilians knowingly.

Trump — who used to criticize the military as feckless and weak — now proclaims great faith in its ability to carry out missions such as the one involving the MOAB. His criticism while campaigning for the presidency was misplaced; the president’s endorsement of the U.S. military’s extraordinary capability now is quite appropriate.

Thus, the MOAB has been introduced into this fight.

My own view is that the military should use this devastating weapon whenever feasible against a ghastly enemy that has earned the civilized world’s rage.

No legislative remedy needed for United Airlines mistake

It took no time at all for a member of the U.S. Senate to weigh in with a legislative solution to an incident that has outraged millions of Americans.

Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., has announced plans to introduce a bill that would make it illegal for a commercial airline to remove a ticketed passenger from an airplane.

I detest these kind of legislative responses to vast public outrage.

You know the story. United Airlines the other day tried to evict a passenger after seeking volunteers to vacate the flight to make room for four UAL employees who needed to fly from Chicago to Louisville. The airline picked names of passengers at random. One of the passengers refused. So the airline called in security officials, who then manhandled the passenger badly, pulling him off the plane after knocking out a couple of his teeth and breaking his nose.

The passenger, a physician who said he needed to see patients the next day — and just couldn’t surrender his seat on the flight — has vowed to sue the airline for damages.

UAL suffers terrible PR damage

Now we hear a member of the Senate weighing in.

Congress does this kind of thing on occasion, as do state legislatures. Public outcry emerges from an event, prompting lawmakers to propose state or national laws to make something illegal.

The way I see it, Congress need not act on this matter. Why? Well, United Airlines has gotten the message from the rage the public already has expressed over this incident. Moreover, I am quite certain executives at other airlines have heard it, too, prompting them to rethink their own passenger-removal policies.

I believe in good government and I am not one to dismiss the need for government to act when the cause merits it. I just don’t think this particular matter requires congressional action.

United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz already has made a mess of his own response. He said initially that airline personnel acted according to policy; then he apologized to the man who got roughed up; then UAL announced air fare refunds for every passenger on that Chicago-Louisville flight.

United Airlines is now reviewing its policy. That’s good enough for me.

My strong hunch is that UAL won’t allow this kind of embarrassment ever to recur on one of its aircraft. I also would be willing to bet real American money that the other air carriers will follow suit.

‘My military’? No, Mr. POTUS, it’s ‘ours’

Some commentators and analysts on MSNBC are getting a bit worked up tonight over Donald J. Trump’s use of the first-person singular pronoun.

Trump was speaking today of the use of the so-called “mother of all bombs” on Islamic State targets in Afghanistan. He referred to “my military” taking charge of the mission and executing it with precision.

My military? Umm, no sir. It’s our military, the people’s military, the nation’s military.

Now, to be fair …

Other presidents have done the same thing, taking direct ownership of the office they occupy. Barack Obama was fond of referring to “my national security team,” or “my vice president,” or “my economic team,” or “my presidency.”

I once challenged the former president’s generous use of that pronoun, trying to remind him that none of it belongs to him personally. I also sought to remind him that every single government employee — and they number in the millions — belong to the taxpayers who pay the bill.

That includes the president of the United States of America.

The message I imparted then still applies to the current president.

“My military”? No, Mr. President. The men and women who defend our nation do not belong to you.

They belong to us. For that matter, Mr. President, so do you.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/07/take-ownership-not-possession/

 

Elections provide a valuable education

I listened today to a candidate for the Amarillo City Council tell his audience about the things he has learned about running for public office.

Eddy Sauer is seeking to be elected in Place 3 to succeed incumbent Councilman Randy Burkett, who isn’t seeking re-election.

Sauer gave some fairly standard remarks to the Rotary Club of Amarillo about how a lifelong Amarillo resident can have his eyes opened about the complexities of governing a city of roughly 200,000 residents. He spoke mostly about economic development, speaking intelligently about how the city should continue to seek companies willing to locate here; offer them financial incentives and then seek to ensure that they provide sufficient numbers of new jobs to make the investment worthwhile.

He also spoke of improving “transparency” on the Amarillo Economic Development Corporation.

Yes, the man is learning about the city, about its challenges. Sauer is an impressive fellow who I hope gets elected on May 6.

***

Sauer and I visited for a few minutes before he stood behind the podium. I mentioned to him how elections have been educational to me during more than 22 years living in Amarillo and, for most of that time, commenting on them as a full-time opinion journalist at the Amarillo Globe-News.

Indeed, these municipal elections have managed during every election cycle dating back to my first year here — 1995 — to tell me something about the community I didn’t know previously.

I suspect that is perhaps the most gratifying aspect of these elections. Twenty-two years after settling in at my new post at the G-N, I’m still learning about this community.

Before you ask what precisely have I learned, I must tell you that I cannot define it in tangible terms. Early on I learned about the landmark 1989 city election that resulted in a dramatic turnover of the five-member City Commission; the local economy was in deep trouble, the city had been feuding with leading business leaders; folks were angry.

By the time I arrived at my post, much of that anger had subsided. The city, though, had plenty to teach this newcomer to the Texas Panhandle.

I’ve been learning a little more every odd-numbered year when the City Council’s five members are selected by city voters.

Think, too, about this: Given that Texas elects its Legislature every even-numbered year — as do the state’s 254 counties — we residents get a chance to be “educated” every single year.

I told Sauer that even my perch in the peanut gallery — given that I no longer “work for a living” — provides me with an election-year opportunity to learn something new about Amarillo.

This, I suppose, is my way of revealing my biggest takeaway from these local elections. It happened in Beaumont, when my wife and sons and I first moved to Texas back in 1984. I can go back even to my first full-time journalism job in Oregon City, Ore., which bears little resemblance to my familiar surroundings in big-city Portland.

The upcoming election is likely to teach me more, still, about Amarillo. Indeed, elections can provide teachable moments if we all keep an open mind.

The good news is that the learning curve isn’t nearly so steep these days. Still, it never will level out. Nor should it.

Worst ever U.S.-Russia relations? Hardly

History lessons sometimes need to be delivered on the fly.

Donald John Trump said recently that U.S.-Russia relations are at their “worst” in the history of the two nations. Tensions are rising over the Russian involvement in the Syrian civil war. The president wants relations to improve. Indeed, he still cannot bring himself to say out loud that the Russians are complicit in Syria’s use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.

Are bilateral relations the worst ever?

Ohhh, no. Not even close.

Let’s flash back about, let’s see, nearly 55 years.

Russia was known as the Soviet Union back then. The communists ran the government. Vladimir Putin would become head of the commies’ spy agency, the KGB.

What did the communists do to bring U.S.-Soviet relations to their nadir? They began installing offensive missiles in Cuba, capable of hitting targets throughout the Western Hemisphere with nuclear weapons.

Thus, the Cuban Missile Crisis was born.

President Kennedy got word of the intelligence. He summoned his National Security Council to the White House. He heard suggestions from his national security brass ranging from invading Cuba, bombing the missile sites, leveling economic sanctions, none of the above, all of the above.

The president settled on a naval blockade and an ultimatum: He told Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to remove the missiles or else. He went on national TV and told the nation — and the world — that any attack from Cuba against any target in this hemisphere would be seen as an attack on the United States and would produce a “full retaliatory response” from this country against the Soviets.

The commies blinked. They took down the missiles in exchange for our taking down of missiles in Turkey.

Crisis averted — along with a nuclear holocaust.

That qualifies as the worst, Mr. Trump.

Mr. President, we already are in Syria

Donald J. Trump said the other day that the missile strike on a Syrian air force airfield doesn’t mean we are “going into Syria.”

Hold on, Mr. President!

We already are in Syria, sir. President Barack Obama ordered several hundred special forces troops onto that battlefield to assist and train and coordinate attacks launched by “free Syrian” rebels fighting the Russian-backed government of dictator Bashar al Assad.

I also would add that the missiles launched from ships off the Syrian coast suggest that a more serious involvement by the United States in that conflict.

Times and circumstances do change, Mr. President, as you now are learning. Someone will need to remind the president that he used to believe that we should leave the fighting to the rebels. He also used to suggest that Assad’s forces — along with the Russians — could be capable of taking out the Islamic State terrorists.

Let the Russians deal with ISIS, he said. Sure thing, Mr. President. That will work out just fine.

My point, though, is that we already are engaged in Syria. Our special forces put their lives on the line every moment of every day they are deployed there.

The bigger, more important, question is whether we’re going to commit thousands of troops to fight ISIS head to head.

I’m now concerned that the president hasn’t given that option the careful, thoughtful and prayerful consideration it deserves.

Eat chocolate cake; bomb Syria?

I’ll give a prize to anyone who can figure out what Donald John “Smart Person” Trump meant to suggest while talking about his decision to unleash the Tomahawk missiles on Syrian targets.

He told Fox News business correspondent Maria Bartiromo that he made the decision while visiting with the president of China at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

He said he decided to reveal his decision to the Chinese president to bomb the Syrians while eating a delicious piece of chocolate cake.

OK. Now, what in the name of culinary pleasure does one have to do with the other?

The president calls himself the king of the deal, the king of debt. For all I know perhaps he considers himself to be king of the world.

I believe he is, without a doubt, the king of the non sequitur.

Taiwan declares Fido and Tabby off limits

Taiwan is a sophisticated, technically advanced country I’ve had the pleasure of visiting five times dating back to 1989.

Its citizens, until just recently, have exhibited some, um, fascinating culinary tastes.

But good news has come from the island nation. Taiwan has become the first Asian nation to ban the consumption of — gulp! — dog and cat meat.

As United Press International reports: An amendment to an animal protection law, passed Tuesday by the Legislative Yuan, indicates a changing attitude in Taiwan from “a society in which dog meat was regularly consumed, to one in which many people treat pet cats and dogs as valued members of their families,” the state-run Central News Agency reported.

Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen was photographed during her campaign for office holding her pet cats, which well could have provided the impetus for approval of this new law.

OK. There you have it.

This new law gives me hope that dogs and cats newfound status as pets will spread to other nations in Asia.

I’ll now share with you an episode dating back to the spring of 1969. I had just arrived in Vietnam to serve a tour of duty in the U.S. Army. I ventured into downtown Da Nang, where I found an outdoor market next to the harbor.

What do you suppose I witnessed? I watched Vietnamese women inspecting caged puppies, probing them for their — um — plumpness.

That sight sickened me. I knew better, though, than to object. I understood the culture into which I had been thrust as a very young man.

Will the Taiwanese ban find its way to Vietnam — or other nations throughout Asia — where such meat remains a delicacy?

Here’s hoping for the best.

As for Taiwan’s ban, let’s also hope that the enactment of a law will be followed up with stiff punishments for those who violate it.

Smart man makes stupid point about Hitler

Sean Spicer is not a stupid man.

However, he made a stupid point this week using the time-honored reference to Adolf Hitler to make some kind of contemporary argument.

The White House press secretary said that Adolf Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons on Holocaust victims, implying that Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad’s use of such weapons is even more despicable than anything Hitler did.

Time out!

How about stop using any references to Hitler? Spicer’s careless and reckless use of the historical record illustrates one of the risks involved with referencing the dastardly deeds of the 20th century’s most heinous tyrant.

I’m not going to invoke the “both sides do it” canard, which I believe is meant to dilute the transgression of one side’s error. Spicer has acknowledged forthrightly the gravity of his blunder and has manned up appropriately.

However, many of Donald Trump’s critics have used Hitler references to express their fear of what might occur during Trump’s presidency. I dislike those references, too.

If the White House press flack has learned any lesson from this unfortunate episode, it ought to be to steer far, far away from any references to Hitler.

For that matter, the lesson I want to impart is that Hitler’s deeds shouldn’t be compared to anyone else. The memories of millions of his victims compel us to recall with singular loathing the Nazi tyrant’s heinous record.

What’s with this Texas Senate gay marriage recusal nonsense?

Why do Texas Senate Republicans insist on making ridiculous statements about gay marriage?

The state Senate has approved a measure — with all GOP members and one Democrat joining them — that allows county clerks to recuse themselves from signing off on marriage licenses for gay couples.

Senate Bill 522, authored by Sen. Brian Birdwell, R-Granbury, allows county commissioners courts to appoint someone other than the county clerk to sign such a marriage license if the county clerk objects on religious grounds.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “It ‘guarantees county clerks and every American the free exercise of religion even when they are working for the government,’ Birdwell told his colleagues on Tuesday.”

Huh? Senate Democrats are perplexed at this. Why? Because current state law already allows county clerks to deputize an employee to carry out that duty.

What about the oath of office?

County clerks are entitled to follow their religious faith. I get that. Here is what I do not understand: I do not understand how they can place their hand on a Bible or some other holy book and then pledge to follow the laws of the land and uphold the U.S. Constitution.

I now shall refer to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 ruled that the equal protection clause of the Constitution guarantees the right of gay couples to marry. That means, if I understand this correctly, that gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states, which would require county clerks to perform the duties of their public office.

SB 522 now allows county clerks and judges to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Sure, they can cite their own religious objection. Existing state law, though, already allows them to step aside and hand the marriage license issuance duty to someone else.

Which brings me back to my original question: Why is the Texas Senate enacting legislation for which there is no need?

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience