No apology needed, Gabby

gabby

Gabby Douglas, one of the U.S.’s five gold medal-winning Olympic gymnasts, has apologized for “offending” those who were critical of her because she didn’t place her hand over heart during the playing of the National Anthem.

No apology is needed, young lady.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/08/10/ease-up-america-gabby-douglas-wasnt-dissing-you-during-the-olympics-medal-ceremony/?tid=sm_fb

We are now witnessing one of the aspects of social media that infuriates me. People get on Twitter and fire off half-baked critiques and insults.

The U.S. Code of Conduct governing proper etiquette during the playing of the National Anthem added a provision in 2008 that suggests placing the hand over your heart. But the rule isn’t written into law, for crying out loud!

Gabby didn’t do a single thing wrong by standing simply at attention while her teammates place their hands over their hearts.

For the record, I don’t place my hand over my heart, either, while the National Anthem is being played. Am I disrespecting the flag, my country, or am I showing that I am less of a patriot than those who do? Hardly.

Neither is Gabby Douglas.

Presidents should speak precisely … and with clarity

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I am not going to ascribe some nefarious motive behind what Donald J. Trump said about the Second Amendment and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I do not know what he meant when he said “Second Amendment people” might take care of Clinton if she’s elected president and appoints judges who might be unfriendly to gun owners’ rights.

The Republican presidential nominee has come under withering criticism for seemingly — according to some folks — suggesting someone should actually harm the Democratic presidential nominee.

The troubling aspect up front for me is the lack of clarity and precision that keeps pouring out of Trump’s pie hole when he makes statements such as his latest stumble-bum utterance.

He wants to be president of the United States, allegedly.

That means he must follow a number of rules associated with being head of state and government.

One of them has to be to speak with absolute clarity all the time.

I’m trying to imagine Trump letting slip some ridiculous assertion about a world leader or an international trouble spot that gets lost in the translation. These things do happen, you know.

What if, for example, he repeats his belief that Japan and South Korea should be able to develop nukes as a defense against North Korea? How is that tinhorn despot Kim Jong Un going to interpret it? Would he then, on a whim, decide to attack South Korea believing that his peninsula neighbors are about to explode a nuclear device?

The kind of loose and careless talk — which is what he exhibited with his Second Amendment remarks in North Carolina — cannot be tolerated in someone who presents himself as a serious candidate for the U.S. presidency.

Trump steps in it … again

BBvrUog

Donald J. Trump has shown a remarkable ability to say things that those who hear them can interpret in ways that he may not have intended.

He did it again today at a North Carolina campaign rally.

The Republican presidential nominee fired up his crowd by declaring that Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton “essentially” intends to dismantle the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

He said: “By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pence-defends-trump-he-was-rallying-gun-owners-to-vote/ar-BBvrMFw?li=BBnb7Kz

Unlike many folks who blog or pontificate on politics, I am not a mind-reader. Therefore, I am not going to presume what Trump meant to say.

Some suggest he meant that “Second Amendment people” could do serious harm to Clinton if she appoints judges to the federal judiciary who will gut gun owners’ rights.

Others, such as GOP vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence, said that he meant only to encourage those “Second Amendment people” to vote for president this fall.

Hmmm.

Trump, to no one’s surprise, hasn’t yet clarified his own remarks. He has chosen, I suppose, to leave it to others to parse his statement.

There is a pattern here. Trump says things with little appreciation for the consequences of what he utters.

It’s interesting to me that at the moment he spoke about the “Second Amendment people,” he never offered any detail, such as, oh: “There’s nothing you can do, folks, although the Second Amendment people can be sure to get out and vote for me, because I will protect the rights of gun owners.”

He didn’t do that.

Now we’re left to wonder what this guy actually means.

Mr. Trump, allow me to be among the many who’ve warned you already: Words have consequences.

Stop the gay love-incest connection

incest

Here it comes, folks.

Those who oppose same-sex marriage are beginning to lick their chops over the story of a New Mexico mother and son who’ve entered into a love affair.

Monica Mares is 36; her son Caleb Peterson is 19. She gave her son up for adoption when he was a baby. Now they’ve reconnected, only the love they express for each other is, um, a different kind of love.

It’s not a mother-son love. It’s of the extremely intimate variety.

The law calls it incest. It’s also illegal under New Mexico statutes.

http://q13fox.com/2016/08/09/mother-and-son-in-love-face-jail-time-for-incestuous-relationship/

There’s actually a new name for it now: genetic sexual attraction. Mom and son, though, both face potential prison time if they’re convicted of incest, given that her son is now an adult and is supposedly capable of making his own decisions.

Well, folks, Caleb Peterson has made a really bad one here. So has his mother.

Is there any symmetry between what’s happening in Clovis, N.M., with this “odd couple” and what happens all over the world when people of the same gender are attracted to each other?

Not one bit.

The only possible link would be if a father had a sexual relationship with his son, or a mother with her daughter.

Just as love is love — as the mantra goes in the LGBT community — then incest is incest.

The first relationship is legal under the law. The other one is not.

Enough with the highway weeds … already!

2868819905_b94eb61851_z

I have just traveled through much of southern and western Amarillo along the city’s two interstate highways.

I want to scream at the top of my lungs.

The rights-of-way in both directions — north-south and east-west — are in hideous condition!

It’s the weeds, man! They’re everywhere!

Along the shoulder of the Canyon E-Way. Throughout the interchange with Intestate 40. Head west along I-40, you see more of them. Weeds are standing tall along the expanse of supposedly “landscaped” areas adjacent to the highway.

I keep hearing rumors and whispers about Amarillo working out arrangements with the Texas Department of Transportation to clean up, dress up and improve the appearance of the interstate highways that course through the city.

That’s all they are. Rumors and whispers. Nothing gets done. Ever!

TxDOT sends mowing crews out now and then. They whack the weeds down, but then they’re left to grow back. Which they’ve done quite nicely, thank you very much.

The issue is money. TxDOT doesn’t have it to spend on aesthetics. Neither, apparently, does the city — which long has passed the buck on highway upkeep to the state, given that it’s within the state’s purview to do that job.

I know I need not remind y’all that thousands of people travel through Amarillo every day. Many thousands of those travelers are seeing the city for the first — and likely only — time.

Many of their impressions are drawn by what they see while zipping along the highway at 60 mph. I understand fully you cannot judge a community completely by the appearance of its public rights-of-way.

But holy crap! Can’t we get the powers that be even moderately interested in getting off their duffs to do something about the appearance of our highways?

‘Talk show’ becomes ‘scream show’

hardball-with-chris-matthews

Chris Matthews is a loud, sometimes-abrasive TV commentator who opines for MSNBC.

He often, though, has learned guests on his nightly cable TV talk show “Hardball,” in which individuals are invited to make their cases with knowledge and a healthy dose of respect for others’ points of view.

Matthews invited Donald Trump economic adviser Peter Navarro and Hillary Clinton economic guru Jared Bernstein to discuss Trump’s economic plan for the nation.

It didn’t go well.

I now will let the video speak — or scream — for itself.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/08/hardball_fireworks_jared_bernstein_vs_trump_economist_peter_navarro_on_trumps_tax_plan.html

 

‘Celebrating’ the Klan’s birthday?

Hooded and robed members of the Ku Klux Klan hold their hands apart as they rally around a 15 foot high burning cross in Ephrata, Pennsylvania Saturday, Oct. 3, 1987. (AP Photo/Bill Cramer)

Some things simply defy one’s ability to comprehend.

Such as whether you should in any way, shape or form honor the existence of a certifiable hate group.

An East Texas newspaper, the Longview News-Journal, did what I — and many others — consider to be the unthinkable when it published a front-page story commemorating the 150th year since the founding of the Ku Klux Klan.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/readers-revolt-over-longview-newspapers-coverage-of-the-klans-birthday-8573838

The paper had a big front-page picture of a cross-burning with hooded Klansmen standing around.

The outrage in the community has been profound. It also was expected. Residents in the town tucked in the Piney Woods of Deep East Texas are calling for a boycott of the paper.

Indeed, this is a remarkable thing to witness in the second decade of the 21st century.

The Klan deserves only to be condemned for the violence it has brought to Americans over the past century and a half.

I once lived and worked not too far from Longview. The southeast corner of Texas has a community or two perceived by many to be havens for Klan-type activity. You mention the name of the town Vidor to anyone near Beaumont — where I lived and worked for more than a decade — and you often get a sort of knowing glance and wince.

The town, about 10 miles east of Beaumont on Interstate 10, is full of fine folks. But they all live with the knowledge of what their town symbolizes to many people.

Indeed, East Texas has been scarred — as have many regions throughout the South — by the Klan.

As the Dallas Observer reported: “After the story — which was adapted from an Associated Press wire story — ran on Saturday, reader Hillary Sandlin laid out the case against the paper on Facebook. ‘This makes us look like a bunch of backwoods racists and only further reinforces incorrect stereotypes about most of the people in this area. These ‘chapters’ could be six guys who made a group, but the map makes it appear like it’s a thriving organization,’ she says.”

For the newspaper of record in Longview to single out a hate group has opened up some deep and festering wounds.

Simply unbelievable!

Gen. McCaffrey lines up … against Trump!

khan

One more critique of a leading American who’s abandoned Donald J. Trump … and then I’m out for the rest of the day.

This one comes from retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey.

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/donald-trump-is-an-abusive-braggart-unfit-to-lead-our-armed-forces/

McCaffrey wrote an essay in the Seattle Times in which he said the following: Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, is “unfit” to become president of the United States.

The “final straw” was Trump’s attack on a Gold Star Mother. McCaffrey writes: “Trump’s cruel cultural jab at Ghazala Kahn as a grieving Gold Star mother is simply the final straw. In my judgment, Trump, if elected, would provoke a political and constitutional crisis within a year.”

Khan’s son, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004 trying to protect the men under his command. The Khan family is of Muslim faith. Mom and Dad Khan criticized Trump at the Democratic National Convention. Trump’s response was to say they had “no right” to criticize him and then he speculated out loud that Mrs. Khan’s silence was mandated by her Muslim faith.

It was a disgraceful display by someone who is seeking to become our head of state.

It also was too much for Gen. McCaffrey.

Something tells me the general’s rebuke won’t be the last.

Another GOP leader abandons Trump

Campaign_2016_The_Latest-4179c.wdp

I’m trying to remember the last time a major party presidential nominee suffered the embarrassments that have fallen all over Donald J. Trump.

They’re coming in the form of leaders within his own party who are saying the same thing: They cannot support his presidential candidacy.

I guess you have to go back to, say, 1972, when Democrats abandoned the candidacy of anti-Vietnam War insurgent Sen. George McGovern.

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has joined the growing ranks of Republicans who are tossing Trump aside.

She writes of her opposition to Trump in a Washington Post essay:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gop-senator-why-i-cannot-support-trump/2016/08/08/821095be-5d7e-11e6-9d2f-b1a3564181a1_story.html

Collins writes: “My conclusion about Mr. Trump’s unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities. Three incidents in particular have led me to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Trump lacks the temperament, self-discipline and judgment required to be president. ”

The incidents were Trump’s mocking of a New York Times reporter’s physical disability, his suggestion that a judge couldn’t preside over a case involving Trump University because of his ethnic heritage and his ridiculous feud with the parents of a slain U.S. Army soldier.

Collins has concluded, along with others within the party, that Trump is not fit for the office he seeks.

Will she support Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton? Collins calls herself a “lifelong Republican,” which makes me believe she won’t cast her ballot for Clinton.

Still, she is denying her own party’s nominee her ultimate endorsement.

If I were a betting man, I’d bet we’ll see more of the same in the weeks to come.

Character takes center stage in campaign

here-are-the-top-vice-president-picks-for-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton_1

Michael Dukakis once declared during the 1988 presidential campaign that the issue that year was about “competence.”

Pure and simple, the Democratic nominee said. The voters would judge whether he or Vice President George H.W. Bush was competent enough to run the country.

Voters went for Bush.

This year, according to a Politico report, the issue is “character.”

It’s also about trustworthiness, which is an element of character.

Republican nominee Donald J. Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton are busy trading barrages over who between them is fit — or unfit — to become commander in chief.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/does-anyone-care-about-issues-anymore-or-only-whether-trump-is-crazy-214150

So far it’s clear to me that the GOP nominee’s fitness poses the greater concern.

He fluffs a response to a question about the “nuclear triad.” He says he won’t rule out the use of nuclear weapons. He gives his tacit blessing for other nations to acquire nukes.

Then we have his litany of insults, put-downs and mocking of others. A reporter with a physical disability. His various nicknames and childish rejoinders. His statements about women, a distinguished U.S. senator/war hero. His assertion that a judge cannot adjudicate a case involving Trump University simply because of his ethnic heritage. His ridiculous and gratuitous attack against a Gold Star family.

Character? Does this suggest a candidate with character?

Sure, Hillary Clinton is hardly the paragon of virtue. She has her own character issues with which to deal. Again, though, to my eyes they pale in comparison to the astonishing demonstrations that Trump has put forth.

Character will become the signature issue of this campaign.

As Politico reports: “To be clear: The candidates’ brands of invective are not equivalent. Nothing can quite compare with Trump’s endless—and seemingly spontaneous—flow of crude characterizations of anyone who would cross him. For better or worse, Clinton’s attacks are much subtler, and probably more strategic, since her own high negative poll ratings make it imperative that she portray Trump as so unpredictable, and even unstable, as to be an unacceptable choice for president.”

This campaign is getting uglier by the day.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience