Yep, the shoe fits

September 8, 2020 kanelis2012

“I would be willing to swear on anything that I never said that about our fallen heroes. There is nobody that respects them more.”

Donald J. Trump

By JOHN KANELIS

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Do you believe the commander in chief’s denial that he denigrated and disparaged the men and women who serve in our nation’s military?

Yeah. Me neither. Nor does Chuck Hagel, the former Republican U.S. senator from Nebraska and former defense secretary in the Obama administration.

The source of this angst comes from The Atlantic magazine, which published a story by Jeffrey Goldberg citing four anonymous sources who reportedly heard Trump speak ill of those who were wounded in action, were killed in action or taken prisoner by enemy forces.

According to USA Today: Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and two-term Republican senator, told ABC News “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz that if Trump’s reported comments are “real, it’s beneath the dignity of any commander in chief. Truly they’re despicable.”

OK, Hagel is giving Trump a sliver of a benefit of the doubt on the remarks attributed to him in The Atlantic. I saw the ABC News interview and I came away from watching it that Hagel truly believes the remarks fit a pattern that Trump already has exhibited.

No, this story won’t go away any time soon. Nor should it. The reporting paints the commander in chief in the most hideous context imaginable.

I would accept Donald Trump’s denial, that he would swear on anything he could find. Except that his constant and relentless lying has destroyed all semblance of credibility.

military news

Trump exhibits ignorance

September 8, 2020 kanelis2012

By JOHN KANELIS

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Donald Trump’s ignorance of military matters is well-known, thoroughly chronicled and has become the talk of the planet.

But then the commander in chief said today that rank-and-file enlisted men and women love him, but that the generals and admirals at the top of the chain of command well … think a lot less of him.

“I’m not saying the military’s in love with me,” Trump said. “But the soldiers are.

“The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t, because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy, but we’re getting out of the endless wars, you know how we’re doing.”

That was his response to a question today at a press conference about statements attributed to him in The Atlantic article, the one in which he reportedly called injured service personnel “losers” and “suckers.”

Trump’s astonishing, jaw-dropping ignorance drew a sharp rebuke from retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a Vietnam War combat veteran who led troops into battle during the Persian Gulf War.

McCaffrey noted that the individuals at the general grade officer level themselves came up through the ranks. Many of them saw combat as junior-grade officers; they suffered injury; they suffer from PTSD. Those individuals, Gen. McCaffrey noted correctly, are adamantly opposed to going to war.

And for the commander in chief to suggest they are in bed with weapons makers is as disgraceful a statement that McCaffrey said he has ever heard come from a commander in chief.

It’s instructive, too, that Trump would say such a thing in the wake of the blowback from The Atlantic article that attributes astounding comments from Trump about those who have sacrificed so much in defense of the nation.

To my eyes and ears, what Trump said today about the general-grade officers, alleging greed is pushing them into continuing to fight “endless wars” only validates the reporting that The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg has provided.

The commander in chief’s ignorance about military matters, as Gen. McCaffrey has noted, makes him a menace to our national security.

military news

This story will stick

September 7, 2020 kanelis2012

By JOHN KANELIS

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I have no doubt about the veracity of a story that has grown more legs than a centipede.

It involves statements attributed to Donald Trump in which he denigrates the service performed by wounded servicemen and women, those who were captured by the enemy and even those who gave their lives in defense of the nation.

He called them “losers” and “suckers,” according to the article published in The Atlantic.

Of course, Trump denies it vehemently. He has gone on the attack against the author of the piece, Jeffrey Goldberg, against the owner of the publication, and against the “fake news” media for reporting what Goldberg has written.

But think about it for just a moment: The statements attributed to Trump are wholly consistent with statements he has made publicly, out loud, and for the record about service personnel who have served with honor, valor and heroism.

He disparaged the late John McCain’s time as a Vietnam War prisoner; he castigated a Gold Star couple whose son was killed in action in Iraq; he criticized Admiral William McRaven after the special operations commander coordinated the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, saying he should have killed bin Laden sooner; he ridiculed Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified in the impeachment inquiry against Trump.

He feigns admiration for our servicemen and women. He brags about all the great things he has done for our veterans and for our active-duty personnel.

Still, he finds moments to denigrate the service of those who serve their country.

He wants us to believe he didn’t say those things attributed to him in The Atlantic? He must be out of his ever-lovin’ mind to believe Americans should accept his overheated denials.

I believe this story will continue to grow even more legs as we move toward the end of the presidential campaign. As it should. It rings true to this veteran’s ears. I suspect there are others among us who will be as repulsed as I am to read the things that fly out of the mouth of the man masquerading as our commander in chief.

local news

Changing election views

September 7, 2020 kanelis2012

This blasted COVID-19 pandemic is forcing yours truly into a significant change in attitude about how to conduct elections.

I mean, I used to stand solidly behind the notion of voting exclusively on Election Day. I still like the idea. I would prefer to vote that way.

Then the pandemic struck. It has filled me with serious concern about getting sick while waiting to cast my ballot. So … I became a fan of voting by mail. It isn’t inherently corrupt, as Donald Trump alleges — with no basis for the allegation of “rampant voter fraud.”

Given that I live in Texas, a state that isn’t likely to welcome universal mail-in voting, I am now going to endorse the notion of voting early. My wife and I plan to do so on the first day we can vote in Texas.

Why the change of heart? I keep hearing from election experts that early voting is the best way to ensure that our ballot gets counted.

Therein lies the fundamental reason for any concern about Election 2020. It is imperative that our votes count. It is critical to everyone that their voices are heard.

All this yammering about potential U.S. Postal Service screw-ups and how our ballots might not arrive in time, or that they might get tossed for this and/or that reason makes me a bit nervous. I do have faith in our local election officials’ ability to conduct a free, fair and accurate election.

However, just to be sure …

We’re going to vote early. We have some time yet in Texas to cast our ballots.

Were it not for this pandemic, I would be waiting all the way to Election Day. This is a big part of the “new normal” that neither my wife and I anticipated when the pandemic swept across the United States.

We’re ready for it.

national news

Wary of transition prep

September 7, 2020 kanelis2012

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at news that Joe Biden is hiring seasoned political hands to plan a transition from one presidency to another.

We are in the midst of a competitive presidential election contest. Biden is leading Donald Trump in most of those public opinion polls. So I guess it stands to reason that Biden would start thinking, um, strategically.

I say all of this with a knot in my gut. That old trick knee of mine is throbbing. I am getting the heebie-jeebies.

Of all the elections I have watched since I was old enough to know what they mean, none has piqued my desire more than this one. I want Joe Biden to defeat Donald Trump; I want Biden to beat Trump like a drum; I want there to be no doubt over the winner. I want Trump to exit my White House and I want him to disappear from public view forever.

OK, I know that last thing is impossible. Trump won’t do anything of the sort.

However, when I read that Biden has hired former South Bend, Ind., mayor (and former Democratic Party primary presidential candidate) Pete Buttigieg, former acting U.S. attorney general Sally Yates and former national security adviser Susan Rice for his transition team, I get, um, nervous. Extremely nervous.

The backdrop of all this involves the dread I feel about the measures Trump well could employ to snap victory from the jaws of defeat down the stretch of this campaign, which is what he did in 2016. Can he do it again? Well, yeah … do ya think?

Then there’s also the threat that Trump would cheat to secure a victory. Is he capable of doing that, too? I believe he is fully capable of trying anything. Anything!

A Biden transition team is an important component to secure as early as possible. It all presumes that Joe Biden’s standing will hold up as the campaign hurtles toward the finish line.

Through it all my fear — and the prospect does frighten me — is that Trump will be able to replicate the stunner of a victory he pulled off four years ago.

Oh, how I want the next 58 days to speed by.

media news

Whether to ID sources

September 6, 2020 kanelis2012

Jeffrey Goldberg is taking a good bit of heat these days over a story he wrote for The Atlantic magazine.

You no doubt know of what I speak: the story about Donald Trump’s reported denigration of men and women in the military and the tale it tells of Trump’s profound disrespect for those who serve in defense of the country.

Goldberg is getting panned by those on the right because he granted anonymity to several individuals who he says have direct knowledge of hideous statements Trump has made.

Which brings me to the point of this brief blog post: Should he have granted them anonymity?

Well, I worked for nearly 37 years as a print journalist for small and medium-sized newspapers. I would get requests from sources to remain anonymous. My bosses always had a rule: We don’t grant anonymity unless naming the source posed a threat to that individual’s well-being. I never granted anonymity.

Goldberg’s sources, from what I understand, had to remain hidden because of severe threats they face from none other than Donald Trump himself. Goldberg has told media interviewers that he knows who they are and he knows whether their knowledge is legitimate. Thus, he remains comfortable with the decision to grant them anonymity.

I don’t know Jeffrey Goldberg, but I surely know of his work and of the work contained in the page of The Atlantic. He is a time-tested journalist who takes his work quite seriously. Yet, there are those who say categorically that Goldberg’s story is false, that it’s made up, it’s fiction.

I simply would respond with this: No journalist who has developed the reputation for meticulous reporting that Jeffrey Goldberg has acquired is going to toss a career’s worth of work aside for the sake of publishing a false story.

Journalists don’t take an oath to report the truth. They rely instead on the protection guaranteed in the Constitution against government recrimination. They cherish that protection and — take my word for it — no serious journalist is going to flout it for the sake of a “fake news” story.

I am going to stand with Jeffrey Goldberg on this one.

media news

Is POTUS protesting a tad too much?

September 6, 2020 kanelis2012

So, how angry is Donald J. Trump at reporting from The Atlantic that he has spoken boorishly about servicemen and women who serve, are injured or die in the line of duty?

He is so angry he is calling on his base of supporters to “bombard” the magazine with messages of protest over what he calls “fake news” and “another witch hunt.”

There you go. The president of the United States is engaging in one of the tactics for which he has become infamous. He is showing off his bullying skills.

And to think he is now launching this attack on an esteemed publication, led by an esteemed reporter and editor — Jeffrey Goldberg — who has checked, rechecked and rechecked again his sources for the explosive story.

Goldberg writes that Trump has called those who were injured or killed in battle “suckers” and “losers.” Goldberg has reported on a litany of examples of Trump denigrating the service of military men and women. Some of them are quite well known, such as, oh the late President George H.W. Bush and the late Sen. John McCain.

Trump, though, is firing back.

He should save his breath as far as I am concerned. I happened to believe Goldberg’s account of what Trump said. It is consistent with what we know he has said about McCain, for example.

As for his bullying of a media organization, well, I guess the First Amendment protection against government coercion of a free press doesn’t extend to presidential petulance.

military news

No ‘losers’ or ‘suckers’ here

September 6, 2020 kanelis2012 1 Comment

Hey, I want to revisit the “suckers and losers” story briefly one more time. It isn’t likely the final time, but I want to make a point.

I come from an extended family of individuals whom Donald Trump reportedly has called suckers and losers because they served in the military.

Let’s see: Dad saw combat in the Navy during World War II. Both of his brothers served in the Army; one of them served in combat during the Korean War, the other served in Germany between Korea and Vietnam. Mom’s two brothers also served; one of them served in the Army Air Force in the Pacific during World War; the other one retired as an Army Reserve colonel.

Three of my brothers-in-law served in the military. Two of them served in the Air Force, the third one served in the Navy during the Vietnam War era.

Four first cousins of mine served in our armed forces. One of them was a Navy fighter pilot; two of them served in the Army, with one of them serving multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan; the fourth served in the Navy intelligence, again during the Vietnam War era.

What’s more, I have one nephew who is currently serving in the Air Force and another nephew who served two Army tours in Iraq before separating from the military.

You know already that I served in the Army in Vietnam.

Where am I going with this? Not a single one of these family members of mine are suckers or losers. They served with honor. Many of them put themselves in harm’s way. I am immensely proud to be kin to all of them.

Donald Trump has truly pissed me off.

media news

Moving farther away from the past

September 6, 2020 kanelis2012

It pains me to say this, so it is with some anguish that I must report that my tie to the last full-time print journalism stop on my journey has been all but severed.

The Amarillo Globe-News no longer resembles the place I worked for nearly 18 years. I worked there longer than I did at any of the four newspapers where I practiced my beloved craft.

The building is vacant. What is left of the news reporting staff and the advertising department is holed up in an office suite down the street in a downtown bank tower.

Here is what really hurts: I look at the online edition and am amazed at how little actual Texas Panhandle news is being reported. I shouldn’t be surprised, given that the G-N now has precisely two general assignment reporters, or roughly about 2 percent of what it once employed. I have to subscribe to the paper to read the stories, so I all I see are the headlines.

What’s more, a real head-scratcher deals with all the Texas Tech and Lubbock-centric headlines I see on the home page. Tech and Lubbock? Yep. That’s what I see. I have looked at the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal home page, too and I have discovered that the A-J offers none of the kind of Panhandle-centric news for its readers that I see in the other direction at the Globe-News.

This is my way of admitting that I am letting go of a big part of my professional and personal journey through life.

I enjoyed some modest success along the way. My career began in Oregon; it took me to Beaumont and then to Amarillo in Texas. Indeed, the Oregonian — where I worked briefly before gravitating to Oregon City, Ore. — bears no resemblance to what it once was. The newspaper in Oregon City is gone, pfftt! The Beaumont Enterprise has shrunk dramatically, too.

Looking at the last stop on my journey, though, is one that hurts the most.

The good news? I am a happy fellow today. That was then. The here and now is quite good.

High Plains Blogger

Yep, the shoe fits

Trump exhibits ignorance

This story will stick

Changing election views

Wary of transition prep

Whether to ID sources

Is POTUS protesting a tad too much?

No ‘losers’ or ‘suckers’ here

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience