Praying for Israeli friends

aakiuts

I know I’m not the only person on Earth to whom this happens.

You hear of disaster striking a far-off land — and it happens to be somewhere you’ve visited, where you have developed a lot of friends; you have a certain familiarity with this place and you worry yourself to near sickness about your friends’ well-being.

Fires have exploded in Israel. Flames are torching communities where I was able to spend a good bit of time in the late spring of 2009.

Haifa, Zichron Ya’achov, Karmiel, Modi’in. I know all those places. I now am in an official state of worry over friends who opened their homes to me and to my traveling companions.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/israel-evacuates-thousands-as-fire-spreads-in-northern-city/ar-AAkHye5

I was there in May-June 2009 as part of a Rotary International Group Study Exchange team. We toured the country from stem to stern; from Nahariyah in the north to Eilat in the south. From the Med to the Golan Heights. We peered into Gaza and saw bomb damage in places like Sderot and Ashkelon.

And, oh yes, we saw the holy sites in Jerusalem, Nazareth, Galilee, Caesarea, Masada and Tel Aviv.

Now I am worrying about Miri, Lennie and Selma, Oded … you name them. They all became part of my life for four weeks. They well might be in danger now as fire whips through these communities.

The Israelis are good at a lot of things. I am hoping they know how to fight these wildfires. Rest assured, they’re getting help from Russia, Greece, Italy, Turkey and Cyprus.

All I can do from this place far away is to wish them Godspeed and pray that my friends remain safe.

Puppy Tales, Part 29

puppy

My wife and I might live forever.

OK. No. We won’t. Not really. The thought occurs to me that if laughter is what they say it is — that it helps with emotional, psychological, even physical health — then we’re likely in store for many more years on this good Earth.

Why? It’s Toby the Puppy.

He joined our family on Labor Day Weekend 2014. You’ve read the abridged story of how that event occurred already on this blog. In case you haven’t, here it is once more:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/09/puppy-tales-part-3/

My point, though, is simply this: We’ve been in stitches every single day since he came into our lives.

Toby makes my wife and me laugh damn near every hour.

We take him for walks through the neighborhood almost daily. Every time we take his leash off the doorknob in our entry way, he spins in circles; he can’t wait to get going. When we set out, he pulls on the leash, ready for action and his rear end wiggles and waggles as he tries to get to somewhere straight ahead in the briefest amount of time possible.

He goes straight to a bed we have positioned in our dining room. That’s his place while my wife and I have our meals. He looks at us just waiting for something from the dinner table. We don’t give him table food, but we do allow him to clean our plates. He cannot wait for us to finish eating.

Toby likes to play “fetch” with any number of toys we have scattered around the house. We toss the toy. He grabs it, shakes it viciously and then brings it to us. Often, it’s too far for us to reach. “Bring it here, Puppy,” we tell him. He nudges it closer, and closer, and closer. Then he paws one of our feet to let us know, “OK, it’s close enough. Now … will you throw it again — please?”

He cracks us up. We howl. We laugh at times until it hurts. I’ve given you just a small sampling of the things Toby does that brings smiles to our faces and joy to our hearts.

http://www.helpguide.org/articles/emotional-health/laughter-is-the-best-medicine.htm

Laughter can cure a lot of ills. That’s what we are told. Doctors have said as much. Other pet parents have as well.

Man, I believe ’em.

Taking a one-day break from politics and public policy

cornucopiathanksgiving

I am going to join some of my fellow social media pals and refrain from talking politics today.

There. That’s the extent of my mention of the p-word.

Instead, I’m going to concentrate my energy on other matters.

I might watch a football game or two … but don’t hold me to that.

Dinner awaits. It won’t be a huge affair for my wife, son and me. It’s just the three of us, so we have decided to go easy on ourselves.

I’m going to scroll through the Internet throughout the day to catch up on the news. I won’t mention any of it here today. Tomorrow is another day.

I might even brush up on social media-speak. For example, I don’t yet know how to use the word “meme” properly. I’ll take a minute to look it up. My trusty American Heritage desk dictionary likely doesn’t even have it listed. I guess I’ll go online to find the meaning of the word. Wish me luck there.

I believe, though, I’ll spend the bulk of my day giving thanks quietly.

Thanks go to the fact that we live in such a wonderful and, yes, a great nation. I always give thanks to my family, who I cherish more than life itself. I am thankful for the good health I continue to enjoy.

I will give thanks, finally, for the opportunity I am granting myself to forgo commenting on the many things that have caused me great anxiety over the past few months. (See? I didn’t mention the p-word.)

That, too, can wait for another day.

Until then, let’s all enjoy this uniquely American holiday. Happy Thanksgiving!

Obama getting some belated love from citizenry

obama-veto

Among the many conventional-wisdom notions that Donald J. Trump blew to smithereens while winning the presidency involves whether Hillary Clinton’s fortunes depended on President Obama’s poll standing.

The better the president’s approval rating stands, the better Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency … or so the theory went. Historians predicted as much. Political scientists, too. Pollsters said it as well.

Wrong!

Barack Obama is now enjoying the highest approval rating since the earliest days of his presidency. He stands at 53.9 percent of citizens approving of the job he’s doing, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. His percentage of approval-over-disapproval rating stands at 11 percent.

That’s a pretty strong standing, right? Right!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

It’s just a percentage point or so greater than where he stood on Election Day, meaning that Clinton was supposed to win the election.

Wrong again!

Trump insulted just about every voting bloc one can imagine, except perhaps white, rural voters who flocked to him by the millions.

African-Americans? Hispanics? Prisoners of war? Handicapped Americans? Muslims? Women? Gold Star families? They all got the treatment from the man who would become president-elect.

It didn’t matter. That was another supposed truth that Trump turned into a myth.

So it is, then, with this idea that Clinton’s fortunes rested with Barack Obama’s polling.

None of it mattered.

Go bleeping figure, will ya?

Trump gets ahead of himself over Clinton inquiry

prosecutor-800x300

Donald J. Trump perhaps thought he was being magnanimous in declaring he wouldn’t seek a special prosecutor to examine whether Hillary Rodham Clinton broke any laws while she served as secretary of state.

Except for one thing … or so I understand.

The president-elect has no actual authority to make such a ruling.

That process starts and stops with the Justice Department and the FBI. Moreover, I am pretty sure the feds have determined already that Clinton didn’t commit any crimes while she used a personal e-mail server.

The FBI actually has made that declaration twice.

FBI Director James Comey said in July that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against Clinton. Eleven days before the election, Comey then said he was examining some newly discovered e-mails to see if they contained any new information. Nine days after that, Comey said his initial conclusion stood.

Of course, that didn’t stop the future president-elect from convicting Clinton of crimes she didn’t commit. He vowed to pick a special prosecutor.

Now he says he won’t.

That’s not his call to make.

When do the results undermine the winner?

clintonhillary_110716getty

Believe me, I’m not going to belabor this point.

The thought just popped into my noggin, though, about the popular vote lead that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running up on the next president, Donald J. Trump.

It has passed 2 million votes. They’re still counting ’em. The lead might grow even more.

The thought is this: At what point does this circumstance begin to undermine the effectiveness of the “winner” of a presidential election?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307326-cook-clinton-passes-2m-in-popular-vote-lead

Trump won the votes that matter, in the Electoral College. Clinton won the actual balloting. Two million votes comprises a substantial margin … even for the “loser.”

I don’t necessarily want to see a change in the way we elect presidents. Nor do I think Clinton should challenge formally the results in three key swing states.

The issue, though, of this widening popular vote margin between the president-elect and the candidate he defeated seems to be inching closer to some critical mass that could undermine seriously the next president’s legislative agenda.

JFK murder recalls a curious interview

brooks-at-lbj-swearing-in

Take a good look at this picture. You know the moment it has recorded.

Standing behind the grieving Jacqueline Kennedy, just over her right shoulder is a fellow I used to know pretty well. He is U.S. Rep. Jack Brooks, a Democrat from Beaumont, Texas, and arguably the crustiest, most partisan member of the Texas congressional delegation at that time … or perhaps any time.

Brooks died just a few years ago. He was one of the Democrats who lost his re-election bid in that historic Republican “Contract With America” tide that swept over Congress in 1994.

The previous year, I sat down with Brooks to interview him about the events that occurred in Dallas 30 years earlier. I sought to get into the man’s soul, into his heart. I wanted him to share with his constituents — through this interview to be published in the Beaumont Enterprise — what he felt that day.

Jack was riding in the motorcade that beautiful day in Dallas. It was Nov. 22, 1963. He was riding several vehicles behind the presidential limo that was carrying the Kennedys and Texas Gov. John Connally and his wife, Nellie.

Rifle shots exploded from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, hitting the president and Gov. Connally. Their car took off at full speed for Parkland Hospital. The world held its breath when news broke that “shots were fired” at the motorcade.

Then the terrible result flashed around the globe: The president was dead.

I sought to plumb deep into Rep. Brooks’ heart and soul that day.

But I learned something that day about Brooks that I knew intuitively all along. He wasn’t prone to thinking like that. I recall being disappointed at the seeming lack of pathos this man.

Brooks wasn’t the most gracious fellow I’ve ever met. He could be as mean as they come. Perhaps he wasn’t comfortable talking to a media representative about that terrible day.

Surely he knew, I speculated to him out loud, about the immense burden that his mentor and friend — President Lyndon Johnson — was carrying at that moment. Did he sense it? Did he grasp in the moment that the world was watching everyone’s move that day? Brooks didn’t confide much to me during our visit that day.

That interview stands perhaps as the most glaring missed opportunity I experienced during nearly four decades in daily journalism.

Oh, how I sought far more than I got from a veteran Texas politician.

Hillary need not heed activists’ plea to challenge election

aakd1s4

Activists, by definition, I suppose are those who cannot let certain things go.

Their belief in their correctness makes them a bit frenzied in their desire to achieve a desired result.

Thus, we hear that some political activists are encouraging defeated presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton to challenge the election results in three key battleground states in an effort to overturn Donald J. Trump’s Electoral College victory.

Don’t do it, Mme. Secretary.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/activists-urge-clinton-campaign-to-challenge-election-results-in-3-swing-states/ar-AAkD4w7?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

The three states in question are Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clinton lost all three of them to Trump — although Michigan hasn’t yet been called officially for the president-elect, as it’s still determined to be too close to call.

According to the Daily Intelligencer: “Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.”

This would be a futile exercise. It also would be virtually unprecedented. Moreover, how long would it take to prove such an event occurred and how much damage could such a probe do our political system if the plaintiffs fail to make the case?

I feel the need to remind these activists of other close elections in which the loser chose to let the results stand. The most fascinating example occurred in 1960. Vice President Richard Nixon lost the presidential election to Sen. John F. Kennedy by fewer than 150,000 votes nationally, out of more than 60 million ballots cast. Questions arose about the vote totals in Cook County, Ill., which Kennedy won handily and which helped tip Illinois into the Democrat’s column.

Nixon didn’t challenge the result. He chose instead to let it stand. Kennedy went on to take the oath of office, over the expressed anger of the GOP activists who wanted Nixon to make an issue of an outcome that didn’t square with their desire.

Hillary lost the election under the rules set forth by the Founding Fathers. Even those of us who dislike the outcome ought to be able to accept it.

Just as many of us said in dismissing Trump’s assertion of a “rigged” election, I don’t believe that is what produced the stunning result.

‘Alt-right’ becomes euphemism for something ugly

082616-alt-right

I hate euphemisms, words meant to clean up ugly images, intentions and motivations.

“Alt-right” has emerged as the euphemism du jour of the moment. It describes haters on the far right.

We hear the term used most prominently from liberal-leaning commentators, pundits, journalists … whoever. They use it when they reference, say, Donald J. Trump’s new chief political strategist, Steven Bannon, former editor of Breitbart News, a far-right propaganda vessel.

“Alt-right” movements have popped up all over the country. They are cheering Trump’s election as president of the United States.

We need to shy away from this “alt-right” nonsense. These groups promote an ugly America. They want to roll back the tide of history.

“White nationalist” is another make-nice word that means “white supremacist.” No need to define what the white supremacist seeks to do. We all know.

This use of verbiage to give these groups some semblance of legitimacy is a relatively new phenomenon. Let’s recall, for a moment, the 1960s.

The nation was roiling with protests from groups one could have said at the time comprised the “alt-left.” We didn’t get that. The “alt-left” described groups such as the Weathermen, or the Students for a Democratic Society. They acted violently to protest government policies in prosecuting the Vietnam War or at home.

Those lefty groups were a destructive force that contributed little to the nation’s political discourse.

Today’s righty groups — which we now call the “alt-right” — are just as destructive.

Trump ‘mandate’ keeps slipping away

ballot-box

I don’t intend to beat this issue to death, but I do intend to drive home what I believe is an important point about the 2016 presidential election.

It’s this issue of Donald J. Trump’s supposed “mandate” from the election result.

You see, the president-elect is trailing Hillary Rodham Clinton in the popular vote total by an increasing margin.

As of this very moment — at 8:32 p.m. CST on Nov. 22 — Clinton’s vote lead over Trump totals 1,737,744 ballots. They’re still counting ballots in Clinton-friendly states out west. Hillary’s vote lead will approach, perhaps even exceed, 2 million ballots when they’re all done with the counting.

I am not challenging that Trump won the election. He has 306 electoral votes; Clinton’s electoral vote totals 232. Trump needed just 270 of those votes to be elected. He’s going to become our 45th president in January.

He won it under the rules.

Nor am I advocating an end to the Electoral College.

However, Trump needs to be careful when he talks about “mandate,” and whether his victory awards him sufficient political capital to do all the things he vowed to do.

Build a wall? Ban Muslims from entering the country? Revoke trade deals? Appoint arch-conservative ideologues to the federal bench?

Yes, the president-elect won the Electoral College by a comfortable margin, but he’s falling farther and farther behind in the actual votes for president. More than half of those who voted for president cast their ballots for someone other than the guy who won. Hillary won’t achieve a majority of all the votes, but her plurality is looking healthier every day.

That vote deficit must give even a brash braggart like Donald J. Trump pause … or one might think.

Then again, we’re dealing with someone who broke virtually every conventional rule in the book while winning the presidency. Still, he ought to take great care when declaring a “mandate” to do anything once he takes his oath of office.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience