Butt out of couples’ lives, Texas Legislature

A bill being pitched for consideration in the 2017 Texas Legislature is getting a hit from a newspaper editorial page where I used to work.

The Beaumont Enterprise calls state Rep. Matt Krause’s bill the “early favorite” for worst legislation of the session.

Krause, a Fort Worth Republican, wants the state to force couples to live apart for three years before they divorce; he stipulates, though, that the state would exempt couples separating on the basis of domestic violence or adultery.

Ugghh! He wants to make no-fault divorce illegal.

Hold on here. What about the couples who discover after they get married that they just cannot live together? They are incompatible on one or more levels. They don’t like each other’s eating habits. Maybe one of them snores too loudly.

C’mon, Rep. Krause. Get real. As the Enterprise notes in its editorial, a three-year waiting period punishes the couples needlessly.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/opinions/editorials/article/EDITORIAL-Proposed-bill-is-divorced-from-reality-10841203.php

Yes, society should fight for the sanctity of marriage. I’m all for it. I’ve been a married guy for 45 years. I get it.

Legislating this kind of solution, though — shall we say — is ridiculous on its face.

Besides, I always thought conservatives fought against government intrusion into our lives.

Why keep bashing Trump? Here’s why

A fellow with whom I’m acquainted via Facebook posed an interesting question to me today: Why do I insist on using High Plains Blogger to bash Donald J. Trump continually and why don’t I look at a particular story regarding Barack Obama’s treatment of veterans while he has been president?

Well, the story he mentioned turned out to be false.

To the other point about bashing the president-elect, I am going to answer it right here. Donald Trump deserves it!

I do not intend to look the other way when the next president does something with which I agree. Unfortunately — for him and for the rest of the country — he keeps stepping in it as he prepares to become president.

Furthermore, and this is probably more directly to the point, the level of criticism that Trump leveled at his foes entitles him to some equal measure of it in return.

Do you recall the countless incidents during the Republican Party primary and during the general election campaign when Trump said some remarkably ghastly things about his foes.

The mocking nicknames. The innuendo. The outright lies. The demonstrably false accusations.

Dare I also mention the continued years-long lie he promulgated about President Obama’s place of birth? D’oh! I just did.

Trump is about to become president. Part of the presidency’s  unwritten job description means that he’s going to get pounded by critics. It goes with the territory. Surely he knows that. If he doesn’t, then he knows far less about politics and government — not to mention the unique American character — than many of us ever thought.

I intend fully to provide my share of criticism toward Trump as we all move forward.

And, no, I do not want him to fail. Were that to happen, the entire country would suffer. I intend to remain a U.S. citizen and a resident of this great country — which entitles me to use this blog as a venue to criticize the president whenever I damn well feel like it.

I’m just waiting for him to do something worthy of praise.

Yes, Donald, you ‘mocked’ the NY Times reporter

I awoke this morning to news that the great actor Meryl Streep tore Donald J. Trump a new one at the Golden Globes awards ceremony.

She called him a bully and some other fitting epithets. I don’t want to comment specifically on the totality of her comments, but I do want to offer a brief critique of part of the president-elect’s tweet-storm response.

He said “for the 100th time” he didn’t mock a New York Times reporter’s physical disability while delivering a campaign-rally speech en route to his election as president.

Actually, Mr. President-elect, you did mock Serge Kovaleski, who suffers from a debilitating muscular disease that inhibits his arm movements. It was a disgusting and disgraceful exhibition of childish petulance the likes of which many of us never have seen coming from a major-party presidential nominee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/movies/trump-meryl-streep-golden-globes-speech.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

For Trump to suggest — as if we’re all a bunch of rubes — that he merely was showing how the reporter was ” … ‘groveling’ when he totally changed a 16 year old story that he had written in order to make me look bad. Just more very dishonest media!”

Trump said he “would never do that,” meaning mock someone in such a hideous manner.

Actually, I believe he would. And I also believe he did!

 

What? Now he dumps inaugural parade announcer?

You can’t see me doing it, but I am shaking my head at this very moment.

The president-elect has decided to toss aside a man who’s announced the inaugural parade for the past 60 years.

He goes back to President Eisenhower’s second inaugural in 1957. He’s called them all for Democrats and Republicans alike.

Charles Brotman won’t be announcing this year’s inaugural parade because Donald J. Trump has thrown him over in favor of a freelance announcer named Steve Ray.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/313240-trump-dumps-inaugural-parade-announcer-who-has-done-them-for-60

Brotman said he was “heartbroken” and “destroyed” when he heard the news. Gentleman that he is, he says he wishes Ray well — but isn’t sure if he’ll attend the inaugural.

To be fair, the Trump team has paid tribute to Brotman, calling him “the voice” of the inaugural.

But this seems — to me, at least — to be one of those changes that is being made just for the sake of change.

Go figure, man.

 

Trump brings his campaign promise to where it started

Donald J. Trump has brought it all home.

The next president of the United States is still insisting that Mexico is going to pay for that big wall he plans to build across our southern border. He pitched the wall during his first day campaigning for the presidency.

It’ll be a repayment, he says. U.S. taxpayers are going to foot the bill initially, but Trump insists that Mexico will pay us back for the billions of dollars we’ll spend. He wants Americans to pay for sealing off the southern border “for the sake of speed.”

Good bleeping luck with that, Mr. President-elect.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-on-border-wall-mexico-will-pay-us-back/ar-BBxXkeO?li=BBnb7Kz

As with virtually all of his proposals, Trump doesn’t specify just how he intends to make Mexico pay. He doesn’t deliver any details on how he will force a sovereign government to fork over the money to this government. Nor does he explain how he is going to persuade Mexican government officials to change their minds after saying quite loudly that in no way would Mexico pay for the wall.

No, the president-elect doesn’t operate that way. He functions with bluster and bravado. He issues threats — even to trusted allies and, in this case, a nation that shares a 2,000-mile-long border with the United States.

It is my belief, too, that Trump has misstated grossly the current U.S. government’s performance as it seeks to stem the tide of illegal immigration. President Obama might go down as the deporter in chief, having overseen record numbers of deportations of undocumented immigrants coming into this country during his eight years as president.

Our borders traditionally have been unguarded. Our immigration enforcement, though, has continued. Have we been able to secure every foot of our borders — both northern and southern? No. That has never — not in the history of our republic — been possible.

Does a wall provide the ultimate solution? No. Desperate people will find a way to sneak through any barrier we erect. Walls don’t necessarily deter the most determined individuals.

As for saddling U.S. taxpayers with the initial bill to pay the wall, Trump will have to explain where he’ll get the money. He’s going to cut taxes, remember? He’s going to spend a trillion bucks on improving our bridges and highways, too. He’s going to shore up our military.

Build a wall? With what, Mr. President-elect.

Be sure, also, to tell us precisely how you intend to force Mexico to foot the bill.

Don’t delay confirmation hearings

Senate Democrats want to delay the confirmation hearings for several of Donald J. Trump’s Cabinet nominees.

Interesting, yes? Sure. Democrats say they need more time to “vet” the nominees, meaning they need more time to find dirt on them.

Do they need that time? I don’t think so.

Trump has had ample opportunity to vet these folks, to learn about possible conflicts of interests or to determine whether they are truly qualified to hold the positions he is seeking for them.

So, let the president-elect submit his nominees to the appropriate Senate committees for the roughing up they can expect to get, particularly from Senate Democrats who are pretty miffed that Trump got elected president over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ethics-official-warns-against-confirmations-before-reviews-are-complete/ar-BBy1eW9?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Ethics officials are issuing warnings about proceeding without conducting thorough reviews of the nominees. Indeed, some of them are serious eyebrow-raisers.

Rex Tillerson at State is a friend of Russian president Vladimir Putin, who has been accused by the CIA and other intelligence agencies of trying to influence the U.S. presidential election.

Betsy DeVos is an ardent critic of public education, but she’s now being asked to serve as the secretary of (public) education.

Ben Carson once declared himself “not qualified” to run a federal agency, but Trump picked him as secretary of housing and urban development; go figure.

Rick “Oops” Perry, the former Texas governor, once declared his intention to get rid of the energy department. But wait! He’s been picked as the next energy secretary.

Jeff Sessions was rejected for a federal judgeship because of alleged racist remarks he made; he has been asked to become attorney general. Sheesh!

Hey, let’s proceed with these nomination hearings and see what happens next.

ISIS or ISIL … pick which one you want to hate

Defense Secretary Ash Carter invoked a term that I find puzzling.

It’s not in a negative way, just a puzzling way.

Appearing this morning on “Meet the Press,” Carter was responding to a question from moderator Chuck Todd, who used the term “ISIS.” Carter answered him using the term “ISIL.”

ISIS, ISIL. Tomato, tom-ah-to.

President Obama for some time has been calling the terrorist monsters ISIL, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The more, um, colloquial term has been ISIS, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

The Levant describes a geographical region that covers roughly the nations bordering the eastern Mediterranean Sea. They comprise the site of the ongoing struggle against Islamic terrorists.

I suppose that, given the reach of the Islamic State, that “ISIL” seems a bit more appropriate, as it has done its murderous deeds throughout the eastern Med — and beyond.

Secretary of State John Kerry has been using the term “Daesh” when discussing ISIS/ISIL. Daesh is seen in the Islamic world as an epithet, a slur against the terrorists who comprise this monstrous group.

We all know, of course, how the Islamic State has elevated its profile from something President Obama once called the “JV team” of international terrorists. They’re the first-stringers these days, the varsity, Public Enemy No. 1 worldwide.

It really matters not one damn bit whether we call them “ISIS, ISIL” or “Daesh.” I’d prefer to call them all “dead.” We have killed many thousands of them since 9/11, but there no doubt remain many more to hunt down and, in the parlance so often used, “remove from the battlefield.”

I continue to have faith we’ll be able to do that — one day. I hope to be alive to welcome that event.

Now, let’s pray diplomatic crises don’t erupt

Donald J. Trump’s unconventional approach to virtually everything presidential has taken yet another bizarre turn.

The president-elect has issued an order for all U.S. diplomats — ambassadors, if you will — turn in their letters of resignation and vacate their posts on Inauguration Day.

All of ’em, I tell ya. They will have to leave diplomacy to the pros on their staffs; all political appointees have to go. Pronto! Immediately!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-break-with-past-obama-ambassadors-are-told-to-quit-posts-by-inauguration-day/ar-BBxWVBm?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

It’s way too early to tell what this means, other than the obvious, which is that Trump is breaking with decades of diplomatic tradition.

But, hey — tradition, shmadition. Who needs it when you’ve got such a successful businessman and dealmaker at the helm?

My concern is this: We’d better not have a diplomatic crisis develop in, say, one of the nuclear-power nations where we now have embassies in the days immediately after Trump takes office as president.

Think it can’t happen? It surely can.

What’s more, the directive has put many of our senior diplomats in a world of major inconvenience. As the New York Times reports: “In Costa Rica, Ambassador Stafford Fitzgerald Haney is hunting for a house or an apartment as his family — which includes four school-age children and his wife, who has been battling breast cancer — struggles to figure out how to avoid a move back to the United States with five months left in the school year, according to the diplomats.”

I know that’s of little direct concern to most Americans. My bigger worry is that in countries on the front lines of, say, open warfare — places such as Jordan, Israel, Turkey — there well could be a crisis explode while we have no one at his or her post standing ready to speak for the United States of America.

Do our allies around the world have reason to be a bit jittery at this news? I believe they do.

City did well in casting its manager search net

Amarillo City Council members will have a difficult choice to make soon.

It’s a difficulty made possible for the correct reasons.

Amarillo council members looked across the nation for someone to become its city manager and has come up with a strong field of finalists. One of them, interim City Manager Bob Cowell, is among the five men the council will consider for the job.

I want to offer a brief analysis on a couple of fronts.

The first is that I’ve long believed that local governments shouldn’t restrict their search options, particularly when the search involves finding someone to do as critical a job as administer the operations of a government that serves 200,000 residents and spends about $300 million annually to serve those constituents.

Back when I worked for the Amarillo Globe-News as editorial page editor, we urged the city to cast a wide net as it looked for a successor to former City Manager John Ward. The city instead looked inward and promoted Alan Taylor to the top job. The paper was critical of the choice … but the paper’s criticism had nothing to do with Taylor’s ability. The G-N merely thought that the city would have served itself better by collecting a large field of qualified candidates and then have Taylor compete against them for the job he would get.

Taylor took the criticism personally and I regret that to this day;  I told him repeatedly that it was never about him or his skill set. He did well in the job.

The city looked inward again when it promoted Jarrett Atkinson to the manager’s post after Taylor retired. The G-N argued again for a national search. You know my feelings already about Atkinson and the job he did. I am sorry he couldn’t work with the new City Council majority, but I also am delighted that he has scored a new gig as Lubbock city manager.

Here we are again. All the finalists have municipal and/or county government experience. Some of them are Texans, which bodes well for someone who must be familiar with our state’s own municipal codes.

If the council chooses Cowell — who knows the city’s unique political landscape — that would be fine, too. He will have been asked to rise to the challenge of competing against four other qualified men for the top job.

The second point is the timing of this appointment. The Globe-News believes the current council should give way to the next one, which will take office after the May 6 election. I disagree with that notion, just as I disagreed with U.S. Senate Republicans’ insistence that President Obama’s pick for the U.S. Supreme Court be denied a hearing and a vote because the president also was a lame duck.

In the case of the city, all five of these individuals stand for election every two years. At what point — given that brief time span — are these council members not facing potential lame-duck status?

The city charter gives the council the authority to act in its own time to deliver the only hiring decision it is empowered to make. If there is a concern that the council could change hands — as it did in May 2015 — then council members need to ask all the finalists how they would handle a potential change of political philosophy on the governing body. That seems like a direct question and it requires candor and honesty from the city manager candidates.

The city has gone too long already without a permanent city manager. Let these individuals make the call.

Good luck, council members. Study hard and be damn certain you get this one right.

Parties suffer/enjoy results of presidential election

Is it me or are the media missing one of the critical backstories of the 2016 presidential election?

It goes like this … I believe.

Right up until Election Day, the media were reporting the pending demise of the once-great Republican Party. The GOP, media types reported, was in need of an extreme makeover. Their presidential candidate was about to get creamed by Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Batten down the hatches! A storm was a brewin’ within the Republican Party ranks, they said.

Then a funny thing happened on Nov. 8. The GOP presidential nominee won. Donald J. Trump collected enough Electoral College votes to be elected president of the United States of America.

What the … ?

Now it’s the Democratic Party that’s in need of that makeover.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/07/what-went-wrong-dem-party-contestants-face-tough-questions/96284286/

The candidates for Democratic National Committee chair are facing searing, probing questions about how they intend to lead a party in near-panic.

Clinton lost the election. Democrats failed to win the U.S. Senate majority they anticipated getting; nor did they make any substantial gains in trimming the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

This remarkable turnaround occurred within a span of, oh, about seven or eight hours the night they were counting the ballots for president.

Polling now suggests that the next Democratic Party presidential nominee should be someone few of us have heard about … another candidate as unknown as, say, Jimmy Carter needs to take the stage.

It well might turn out that Republicans might regret lining up behind a candidate such as Trump, who seems to lack any fundamental core principles that guide him. He once was pro-choice on abortion; now he’s pro-life. He believes gay marriage is now the law of the land; many within the GOP believe quite differently. He thinks free trade is a scam; Republicans embrace free-trade policies. And, oh yes, we have some conflict-of-interest matters to slog through.

I’ll stop there. You get the point.

But, hey. The guy won! Elections have consequences, eh? Oh, brother, do they ever!

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience