Uncategorized

Grand jury no bills animal control

A Randall County grand jury has returned what could be seen as an unsatisfactory decision on Amarillo Animal Control’s controversial treatment of animals in its possession.

The grand jury decided against indicting anyone for criminal wrongdoing in what has been a major embarrassment for the city.

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=1056604#.U5kLwFJOWt8

District Attorney James Farren expressed surprise at the no-bill decision.

I guess we have to live with the grand jury decision, given the system we have of investigating these kinds of activities.

The good news for the animals under the care of the city, however, is that (a) the two people at the top of the Animal Control Department chain of command are gone and (b) changes have been implemented to stop the kind of abuse inflicted on the unwanted pets.

Former director Mike McGee and assistant director Shannon Barlow both have “retired” from the city. They should have been canned after it was revealed that animals had been euthanized improperly. They were being administered the wrong drugs and there had been reports of considerable suffering by the animals during the process.

Changes were made almost immediately, while McGee and Barlow were put on “administrative leave,” which meant they were getting paid while being ordered off the job.

The city issued a press release that stated: “Operations at Animal Control move forward under the guidance of interim director Scott McDonald, as the search for a permanent animal control director takes place. The City continues to look at areas for improvement at the animal shelter with the goal of increasing adoptions and making the shelter a sanitary, comfortable place for animals. Improvements include operational changes and improvements to facilities, animal intake and care procedures, and employee training practices. An internal management review will be undertaken immediately to determine if there have been noncriminal violations of policies or procedures and to further assist in improving shelter operations.”

The city should proceed with that “internal management review.” Meantime, look long and hard for an administrator who will take better care of these animals. After all, a “shelter” by definition is a place where unwanted animals at least can be granted temporary sanctuary for the time they have left.

Uncategorized

Sandy Hook didn't stop anything

4 Comments

Hey, wait a minute. Wasn’t that mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., supposed to be the Mother of All Wakeup Calls to end gun violence in America?

Weren’t we supposed to have been shaken to our core, energized in an unprecedented way to seek an end to this madness?

I thought so, too.

Silly me.

Check out the map here and ask yourself: Why has this violence continued?

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5797306/map-school-shooting-sandy-hook

Seventy-four.

That’s the number of school shootings that have occurred since Sandy Hook, where 20 first-graders and six teachers were killed by that single madman, who then shot himself to death.

The latest incident occurred near my hometown of Portland, Ore., where a 15-year-old Reynolds High School student walked into a locker room and killed a 14-year-old freshman instantly with a single bullet. The shooter then took his own life.

We’re outraged yet again. President Obama said after the Portland tragedy that “we’re the only industrialized nation” where this kind of violence occurs with such regularity.

I don’t have the answer. Nor do I know where to find it.

The Second Amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. I don’t believe it says everyone in America — regardless of their mental condition — has the same rights to a firearm as most of the rest of us.

There must be a way to prevent them from putting their hands on deadly weapons — and putting our children at such horrifying risk.

Uncategorized

Cantor loss leaves mixed feelings

Eric Cantor’s stunning loss Tuesday almost seems like a punch line in one of those “good news, bad news” gags.

You walk up to a Democrat and say, “Hey, I’ve got some good news and some bad news. What’s the good news? Well, the good news is that Eric Cantor was defeated in the Republican Party primary race for Congress; that means he won’t be around much longer to obstruct legislation at every turn.

“The bad news is that the guy who beat him will be even more of an obstructionist.”

That’s how I’m feeling just a few hours after Cantor got drummed out of office by a college professor, Dave Brat, who was running for political office for the very first time — and who got outspent a zillion-to-one by the well-heeled incumbent.

Cantor’s never been my favorite member of Congress. I always thought the tea party wing of the GOP loved the guy. Didn’t he boast about being one of them? Wasn’t he proud of the votes he cast to oppose initiatives proposed by his Democratic colleagues?

Well, it turned out that immigration was the deal breaker for tea party zealots. Cantor signed on to a version of the Dream Act pushed by President Obama. That did it as far as the tea party faithful went. They would have none of that.

Dave Brat seized on it and won by 11 percentage points.

I would be glad to see Cantor go except that the guy who’s now favored to win the House seat is even more extreme than the guy he beat.

And that, I submit, is really and truly saying something.

Uncategorized

Cantor loss deals blow to campaign reform

The thought occurred to me this morning after I awoke from a good night’s sleep.

U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning loss Tuesday to tea party candidate Dave Brat in the Virginia Republican Party primary Tuesday might have dealt a serious blow to the cause of campaign finance reform.

Why? Cantor outspent his Brat by something like 25 to 1 in a losing bid to keep his congressional seat.

Cantor was the well-funded superstar within the Republican Party. He had it all: looks, brains, the “right” ideology,” a gift of gab, ambition. You name it, he had it.

He also had money. Lots of it, which he spent lavishly to hold on to his House seat.

None of it worked. Brat is a college professor who’s never run for public office at any level.

Yet he beat Cantor by 11 percentage points in a shamefully low voter-turnout primary.

What happens, then, to effort to limit campaign spending? The argument always has been that money buys votes, that it buys people’s loyalty, and that it gives deep-pocketed donors more influence than Mr. and Mrs. Average Joe in setting public policy.

Dave Brat’s stunner in Virginia has just blown the daylights out of those arguments.

Let that discussion get fired up all over again.

Uncategorized

Gun violence erupts yet again

The nation mourns another tragic loss of life because of gun violence.

This incident hits me hard. I grieve for the family and friends of Emilio Hoffman, the freshman student at Reynolds High School in suburban Portland, Ore.

As of this moment, I am grieving for the community that I know quite well.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/emilio-hoffman-14-identified-victim-oregon-school-shooting-n127861

I grew up just a few miles west of where the shooting occurred. I attended Parkrose High School, which essentially is the next school district over from the Reynolds district. This one scares the daylights out of me.

Enough of that, however.

The more important issue is going to center on the gun culture and whether that culture is overwhelming the majority opinion of Americans who insist that government do more to require stricter background checks on those who seek to possess guns.

That gun culture also is arguing that the way to curb gun violence is to put more guns in the hands of, say, public school educators. National Rifle Association honcho Wayne LaPierre said (in)famously that the best defense against “bad guys with guns is to put more guns in the hands of good guys.”

Emilio is dead, as is the shooter, who hasn’t yet been identified.

The gun culture is going to dig in, of course, against those who want stricter controls. Those who adhere to that culture will assert that current laws are strict enough, that the Constitution forbids any control over firearm possession and that the best way to fight this epidemic of school shootings is to put more guns in the hands of “good guys.”

The latest shooting suggests that laws aren’t strict enough. I suggest also that the Constitution does allow for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

To the argument that we put more guns out there in good guys’ hands? No … thank … you.

First things first. Let’s learn about this latest bad guy and how — in all that is holy — he was able to get his hands on a deadly weapon.

Uncategorized

Tea party fights back, ousts (gulp!) Rep. Cantor

My bad.

I’ve been among those who’ve talked openly about the seeming demise of the tea party wing of the Republican Party everywhere but in Texas.

Oops. Something really, really weird has happened back in Ol’ Virginny. U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Reps and someone who knows the tea party playbook by heart, has been beaten for re-election by a first-time candidate for any public office.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/eric-cantor-primary-election-results-virginia-107683.html?hp=t1

Dave Brat is now the Republican nominee for Congress from the Richmond, Va., area.

Cantor was thought to be the next speaker of the House once John Boehner decided he’d had enough fun in Congress. Cantor also was known to be a staunch conservative lawmaker.

No one saw this coming. No one predicted Cantor would lose. No one even predicted even a close race. It turns out it wasn’t that close after all; the challenger won with a comfortable margin, for crying out loud.

I’m going to take some time now to catch my breath and try to understand what this means to the congressional political balance of power.

If I were Speaker Boehner, I just might start thinking even more seriously about quitting. He’s griped already about how the tea party wing of his GOP House caucus is making his life so miserable. Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s going to get really nasty.

Uncategorized

New poll: O.J. did it

Time has a way of healing wounds, they say. It also has a way of changing hearts and minds, apparently.

A new CNN poll says that most African-Americans now believe O.J. Simpson killed his former wife and her friend in that gruesome knife attack 20 years ago.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/09/majority-of-african-americans-now-say-simpson-was-guilty/?hpt=hp_t2

The poll was done by CNN/ORC International, a reputable polling outfit.

So, why the change in heart?

A couple of things come to mind.

* A new generation of Americans has come along since the so-called “trial of the century” acquitted Simpson after an eight-month circus act in that Los Angeles Superior courtroom. You’ll recall the video recorded reaction to the acquittal, which a jury reached after just four hours of deliberation.

White Americans were crushed; African-Americans were jubilant. Many white Americans sobbed; African-Americans cheered, laughed, high-fived and embraced.

The state of race relations wasn’t good in southern California at the time, you’ll also remember. A black man, Rodney King, was beaten senseless by some white police officers, who then were acquitted of wrong-doing in that beat down. The verdict enraged African-Americans, who then rioted.

Three years later came the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

O.J. went on trial and the rest is history, correct?

That brings me to the second reason for the change in attitudes.

* Despite the jubilation felt in the African-American community over Simpson’s acquittal, it became immediately clear that Simpson was not going to give back any of the love and affection he felt from his fellow African-Americans. He sought to return immediately to the life he enjoyed prior to the murder. Did he avail himself to troubled black youth, or did he work as a violence counselor with minorities? No. Was he a high-profile presence at, say United Negro College Fund events or at NAACP gatherings? Nope.

He played golf at exclusive courses and sought to ingratiate himself with gambling interests.

How do you think that looked to those who cheered his acquittal? I’m betting it didn’t look good at all.

He ended up getting sued in civil court by the Goldman family, who won a multimillion-dollar settlement after a jury determined Simpson was responsible for the deaths of Nicole and Goldman. And after that? He was arrested for assault in a case involving the recovery of some keepsake items. Another jury convicted him of that crime and sent him to prison, where he remains to this day.

And remember when Simpson said he would move heaven and Earth to find the “real killers”? He had the chance before getting tossed into the slammer. I’d bet real money he didn’t lift a finger.

Uncategorized

HRC's second-most surprising comment …

Having already declared surprise that the Benghazi flap would encourage Hillary Clinton to run for president, I’ve found perhaps the second-most interesting thing she said in that TV interview that aired Monday night.

It’s what she didn’t say.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/208757-clinton-doesnt-deny-narcissistic-looney-tune-comments

ABC News’s Diane Sawyer asked Clinton about a comment she made about Monica Lewinsky — you remember, yes? — in which she was quoted as calling “that woman” a “narcissistic loony tune.” Clinton’s response? “I am not going to comment on what I said or didn’t say in the late 1990s,” she said.

There it is. She said it.

Frankly, I have to agree with that description … not that it excuses her husband’s behavior, and that’s all I’ll say about that.

Sawyer then noted that Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has said that the Lewinsky scandal that resulted in the impeachment of President Clinton is fair game if Hillary Clinton runs for president in two years.

“You know, he can talk about what he wants to talk about. And if he decides to run, he’ll be fair game too for everybody,” she said. I’m reminded a bit of what the late U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Lufkin, once said about an opponent who kept bringing up negative aspects of Wilson’s admittedly flamboyant lifestyle. “I have never initiated a negative campaign,” Wilson told me, “but if my opponent keeps saying those things, I’ll be prepared to respond.” Brother, did he ever.

Message to Sen. Paul? Be very careful if you intend to go there.

Uncategorized

Clinton goes big league

Of all the things Hillary Rodham Clinton said tonight in her TV interview with Diane Sawyer, the most surprising statement came in response to a question about the Sept. 11, 2012 fire fight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Sawyer asked about the criticism then-Secretary of State Clinton has gotten over her handling of that tragic event and whether it might dissuade her from running for president in 2016. Her answer?

“Actually, it’s more of a reason to run, because I do not believe our great country should be playing minor league ball,” Clinton said, according to a transcript. “We ought to be in the majors.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hillary-clinton-bowe-benghazi-107626.html?hp=l3

Well. There you have it.

For an hour, Clinton sounded for all the world like a probable candidate for president of the United States in two years. She was coy when she needed to be, evasive at other times during the interview, occasionally candid.

The Benghazi statement, though, caught me by surprise. I guess I shouldn’t have been, but the strength of her answer suggests to me that she clearly is leaning toward another national campaign.

Benghazi has been kicked all over the political football field. The House of Representatives is going to convene a select committee soon to conduct more hearings on the event in which four men, including our ambassador to Libya, were killed by militants who stormed the consulate.

What have all the previous hearings accomplished, other than to suggest that there’s no “there, there” in the search for some kind of politically fatal wound that would bring down a Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy? Nothing.

Clinton’s point tonight is that Congress needs to focus on oh, job creation, infrastructure improvements, world peace and other things vastly more relevant than trying to find some way to lay blame for what everyone in the world knows was a tragedy.

The nation already has implemented changes to improve embassy security around the world. It already has mourned the deaths of those brave American diplomats and staffers. Isn’t that sufficient? I guess not.

Later this year, we’ll get to watch Congress re-plow much of the ground it’s already turned over.

What’s more, we’ll also are even more likely to see Hillary Rodham Clinton run for president of the United States.

Uncategorized

Obama, Clinton set to lock arms?

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s probable campaign for the presidency is putting the man in whose administration she once worked into a complicated bind.

President Barack Obama clearly wants a Democrat to succeed him on Jan. 20, 2017 when the new president takes the oath of office. It’s been reported repeatedly that Obama and Clinton have developed a complicated relationship.

It once was testy, such as when they campaign against each other for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Sen. Obama then said to Sen. Clinton, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” Obama then won the presidency and appointed her as secretary of state.

It was then that she swallowed the Obama Kool-Aid, so to speak, and endorsed his foreign policy initiatives.

Now she’s back in “private life,” if you want to call it that. She’s written a book and is embarking on a nationwide book-promotion tour for “Hard Choices.” One of those choices might be to put some daylight between her world view and the view shared by her former political benefactor, the president.

Obama, Clinton start ’16 dance

And … oh, yes, the president’s complications get even more so. He has this vice president, Joe Biden, who also is thought to want to run for president. Vice President Biden has been indispensable at times, helping broker budget deals with his Senate pals and offering advice on a wide range of foreign policy issues and/or crises.

Their relationship also has been up and down as well. Still, Biden is the No. 2 man in the Obama administration.

Does the president choose between two of his most high-profile associates? How does he pick one while throwing the other one over? If it’s Clinton over Biden, how does the vice president continue to serve loyally and speak out publicly for the president? If it’s Biden over Clinton, how does the president deal with Hillary’s husband, the formidable 42nd president of the United States and one of the more effective surrogates Obama has employed on occasion?

It’s getting crowded at the top of the Democratic Party political pecking order.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience