'Terror is alive'

Bob Schieffer is one wise Texan whose wisdom needs to be heard inside the White House.

The link attached here is of a commentary Schieffer made on the CBS News talk show he hosts each Sunday, “Face the Nation.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/08/17/schieffer_i_dont_care_how_many_times_you_say_bin_laden_is_dead_terrorism_is_alive.html

He took issue with his fellow pundits’ assertion that Hillary Rodham Clinton stumbled when she criticized President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. “Of course she did,” Schieffer noted.

Schieffer took note of the implied contention within the White House that the May 2011 commando mission that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was sufficient somehow to defeat terrorism. It surely wasn’t.

Many of us noted that although bin Laden’s death was a big victory in the war against terror, other terrorists would emerge to take his place.

They have done exactly that.

Schieffer says the United States needs a comprehensive strategy to continue the fight for as long as it takes in order to protect Americans from those who vow to do us harm.

The veteran journalist knows of which he speaks.

'Bipartisan foreign policy' must return

Holy cow! Texas Gov. Rick Perry is making some sense as it regards U.S. foreign policy.

Perry has penned an essay for Politico Magazine in which he says the following about the growing conflict in Iraq between the Iraqi government and the ISIS terrorists seeking to take control of the country: “The danger for the United States and other Western nations may still seem remote. And for many Americans, understandably, just about the last thing we want to think about is more conflict in Iraq and what it might require of our country. But we cannot ignore reality. We have come to a seminal moment when America’s action or inaction could be equally consequential. If anything is left of the old bipartisan tradition in American foreign policy – that basic willingness to unite in fundamental matters of security – we need to draw on that spirit now in a big way.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/rick-perry-op-ed-iraq-110088.html#ixzz3Ahd3u8t8

I’ll repeat part of it. “If anything is left of the old bipartisan tradition in American foreign policy … we need to draw on that spirit now in a big way.”

Amen to that, Gov. Perry.

I’ve long lamented the sniping and bickering regarding foreign policy that in its way gives aid and comfort to our enemies. Democrats did it to Republican presidents, and Republicans are now doing it to a Democratic president. The great Republican U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan used to say that partisanship “stops at the water’s edge.” It now splashes into the water and the waves ripple far and wide.

Perry, of course, said much more in his Politico essay. He argues that U.S. air strikes must save Irbil from ISIS terrorists, as it is home to a U.S. consulate in Iraq.

The governor argues against “rehashing the causes of today’s crisis” and says it’s now time to look forward to what we can do to bring it to an end. The targeted air strikes against military targets in parts of Iraq appear to be working. I am concerned about the so-called “slippery slope,” and whether we’re going to re-engage in a ground war — something that Gov. Perry actually called for as he ran for president briefly in 2012.

He seems to have backed away from that notion and is preaching a more bipartisan approach to solving a foreign-policy crisis.

Yes, this took an act of courage

Jon Mark Beilue is a longtime friend and a former colleague.

He has become — in my view, and in the view of thousands of other readers of his work — the pre-eminent wordsmith in West Texas. Maybe the entire state. Who knows? His bounds might be beyond limits.

Jon Mark acknowledged something the other day that few of us knew about him. He has been battling depression.

He made the acknowledgment in a column published in the Amarillo Globe-News. Here is the link to the column:

http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2014-08-12/beilue-trust-me-depression-can-strike-anyone#comment-205141

It’s worth your time to read it. I’ve already shared it with my Facebook friends. It’s going out to them once more under this blog headline, along with those who follow my Twitter postings — and blatherings.

This one, though, presents quite a special message.

Jon Mark wrote this in the wake of Robin Williams’s shocking death this past week. Williams took his own life. He, too, suffered from acute depression and, the world has learned, also from early onset of Parkinson’s disease.

Jon Mark’s column, I reckon, is intended to inform us that depression is an insidious disease that can strike anyone. It has afflicted my friend and I am so proud of him for revealing it in the manner that he did.

His courageous message is worth sharing again and again.

'Harvested' instead of 'killed'?

Maybe my idle mind is a little too, uh, idle this lovely Sunday afternoon.

With that, I’ll get something off my chest. It’s piddly and not too terribly significant, but it has to do — I think — with what I perceive to be a tilt toward political correctness.

Looking through my local newspaper — the Amarillo Globe-News — today, I noticed two captions under pictures on the Outdoor page of the Sports section. The pictures showed two hunters who had shot wild game. One was a water buck in South Africa; the other was a feral hog. The text under the pictures said the hunters “harvested” the animals.

This is not a new use of a common term. When I think of something being “harvested,” though, I think of cotton being stripped, of wheat being cut, of kids picking raspberries off the thorny bushes (which is what I used to do in the summer growing up in the Pacific Northwest).

Perhaps I should ask a newspaper copy editor, but short of that, I’ll pose the question here: When did the terms “shot” and “killed” become unacceptable for use in a daily newspaper in describing the act of hunting wild animals?

The animals shown today, as are the critters displayed all the time on that particular page, are pretty darn dead. Does the text below the pictures need to somehow soften for readers what they already can see with their own eyes?

Some folks — particularly those on the right — just love to criticize those who tend to use politically correct terminology rather than dealing straight up with whatever they’re trying to describe.

Is that what’s happening to our region’s hunting community, for crying out loud? Please tell me it ain’t so.

Mexico is responsible, too

I’m trying to imagine this conversation occurring at the White House, or perhaps at Los Pinos, Mexico’s official presidential residence.

It would involve U.S. President Barack Obama and Mexican President Enrique Pena.

Obama: I’m glad we’re meeting today. Let’s talk about that refugee crisis on our common border, shall we?

Pena: Certainly, Mr. President.

Obama: OK, then. What are you going to do to stop the flow of young people from your southern border, all the way through your country and into my country?

Pena: Well, we’re doing our best. But we have about 1,500 miles of territory from our southern frontier to our border with the U.S. Do you want us to stop these children en route?

Obama: Yes, I do. Look, Mr. President, I’m getting pounded by critics at home because — they contend — we’re not doing enough to protect our borders. But the way I see it, protection also must depend on our neighbors doing the best they can to protect their own territory against trespassers. Oh, and by the way, we are rounding up these children and young adults by the thousands, holding them in detention, and trying to figure out what to do with them. You said it yourself: Those refugees are traveling several hundred miles through your country to get to ours.

Pena: Well, you know what? You make a good point. From this moment forward, I’m going to mobilize our military, notify our local police authorities to ensure that they search out, locate and intercept busloads crammed with young people heading north. I would suppose they’d be easy to detect.

Obama: Good to know, Mr. President. That’s what hemispheric neighborliness is all about.

***

Has this conversation occurred? I don’t know. Should it? Absolutely.

'Perry vs. Cruz' enters new phase

Whether the governor of Texas actually serves any jail time if he’s convicted of anything illegal remains an open question.

I doubt he’ll be eating jail food. I’m not even sure he’ll be convicted.

Rick Perry’s indictment for allegedly abusing the power of his office, however, does bring into question whether he’ll be able to challenge for the White House in 2016. Why, he’s not even the most popular Texas conservative thinking about running for the presidency.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/16/while-flirting-2016-perry-cruz-woo-same-groups/

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is the darling of the conservative movement these days, although Perry’s been making inroads with the Republican Party base. He deployed 1,000 National Guard troops to protect us against those children fleeing repression in Central America, which of course has the GOP faithful all fired up.

Texas GOP voters, though, seem to like Cruz’s fiery rhetoric. “As the Texas Tribune reports: Even before his recent legal troubles, Perry was already operating in Cruz’s shadow, as most conservative activists in attendance made clear they would rather see the freshman senator vie for the White House in two years than the three-term governor.”

The indictment issued in Travis County is resonating far beyond the Texas capital city. It gives the governor one more potential embarrassment that he must put behind him. His brief run for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination ended badly in a series of missteps, misstatements, forgetfulness and downright weird behavior.

Now this.

Say this, though, for Cruz. He’s coming to his friend’s defense, issuing this statement: “Unfortunately, there has been a sad history of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office engaging in politically-motivated prosecutions, and this latest indictment of the governor is extremely questionable. Rick Perry is a friend, he’s a man of integrity – I am proud to stand with Rick Perry. The Texas Constitution gives the governor the power to veto legislation, and a criminal indictment predicated on the exercise of his constitutional authority is, on its face, highly suspect.”

That statement isn’t likely to improve Perry’s possible presidential campaign chances. Look for Cruz to ramp up the conservative rhetoric, hitting every GOP base hot button he can find, even at his “friend’s” expense.

That 'coercion' thing might stick to Perry

“It appears to those on the prosecutor’s side that his funding veto and the threat that preceded it were an attempt to intimidate and coerce the office that has the job of policing corruption and ethics cases in state government.

“The threat is the thing. Had the governor simply cut the funding without saying anything — especially in public, but even in private — this would just be a strange veto. That is not unprecedented.”

So writes Ross Ramsey, in an excellent analysis for the Texas Tribune.

The more I think about it, the more I’m beginning to believe that the coercion allegation might be the one that sticks to Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/15/analysis-its-not-crime-its-politics/

A Travis County grand jury indictment of Perry issued this past week accuses the governor of coercion and of abuse of power. He threatened to veto funds for the Travis County District Attorney’s Office if DA Rosemary Lehmberg didn’t resign after she pleaded guilty to a drunk-driving charge. Lehmberg served her time in the slammer, but didn’t quit. Perry cut the money for the public integrity unit run out of Lehmberg’s office.

The grand jury thinks Perry abused his power.

I’m wondering, though, if the coercion matter isn’t the more damaging part of the indictment.

As Ramsey notes, Perry made a pretty big stink about all this stuff regarding Lehmberg. I agree with Perry that the DA should have quit. I also believe the grand jury may have something on the governor regarding the manner in which he sought to pressure the prosecutor to quit.

Perry vows to fight the indictment. He calls it a political farce. He even calls the indictment itself an “abuse of power.”

We’ll see about that.

I like Ramsey’s metaphor describing the indictment: “Meanwhile, the governor and others are already haunting Iowa, the home of the first presidential primaries almost two years from now. This indictment could be to the Perry presidential campaign what a sewer leak is to the opening of a new restaurant: The food might not be the diners’ strongest memory of the meal.”

An actual debating point emerges in state race

What’s this? An actual issue has been raised in the campaign for Texas lieutenant governor that gives the opponents something on which to debate — and no doubt disagree.

The issue has been broached by Democratic nominee state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, who says the state ought to amend its constitution to allow use of the Rainy Day Fund to pay for public community college or technical college education for student.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/14/van-de-putte-calls-free-community-college-texans/

It is an interesting idea worth a full-throated discussion between Van de Putte and Republican nominee, fellow state Sen. Dan Patrick.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “Under the scholarship requirements under her proposal, students would have to graduate from a Texas high school and qualify for in-state tuition. They would also be required to apply for federal or state financial assistance and apply those funds toward tuition and fees before receiving money from the Texas Promise program.”

Patrick’s campaign opposes it on the grounds that it spends too much money.

The way I figure it, the Rainy Day Fund is set aside to help pay for state programs. It’s money in the bank, drawing interest, earning income for the state. It’s money the state has on hand. Isn’t funding scholarships for public community college-bound students a worthy investment the state can make in its future?

I think it is. As the Tribune reports on Van de Putte’s response to Patrick’s opposition: “Van de Putte’s campaign emphasized that the program would not require imposing new taxes because it would be funded using interest from the $2 billion worth of existing funds that would be allocated to the Texas Promise fund if voters approve the constitutional amendment.”

Van de Putte has opened up a serious discussion topic that she and Patrick can debate openly, frankly, thoroughly and intelligently. The debate should give Texans a serious look at how these candidates line up on a key issue — higher education funding.

Partisan divide develops in Perry case

It took barely an instant for the partisan divide to present itself in the indictment of Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

A Travis County grand jury has indicted Perry on two felony counts involving abuse of power regarding the drunk-driving arrest of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. As Ross Ramsey of the Texas Tribune reports, the politics of this matter plays more heavily perhaps than the actual alleged crime.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/15/analysis-its-not-crime-its-politics/

What’s fascinating to me, though, is how Perry supporters are linking what Perry is accused of doing to what Lehmberg actually did, and served time for doing it.

Perry is accused of coercing Lehmberg to quit after her DWI conviction. He threatened publicly to veto an appropriation for the public integrity unit she runs out of her office in Austin. He blustered and sought to bully the DA, which Ramsey notes is likely what got him into trouble with the grand jury.

Lehmberg did her time, 45 days in jail. She didn’t quit, although she should have left office. By my way of thinking, a prosecutor who sends drunk drivers to jail loses his or her moral authority when he or she is convicted of the very same crime. Lehmberg, though, isn’t running for re-election, so she’ll be gone too.

The two incidents, though, are not related. One relates to bad behavior off the clock; the other involves alleged criminal behavior in the performance of his public duties.

Will this indictment have an impact on Perry’s reported interest in running for president in 2016? Yeah, it will. No doubt about it. Take a gander at Ramsey’s analysis. My hunch is that Perry’s going to give serious thought to ending his political career when he leaves office at the end of the year.

Meanwhile, let’s not confuse the issue by suggesting that the DA’s decision to stay on the job has anything to do with what Perry is accused of doing.

Who's in charge at AMA?

A brief follow up is in order for a blog I posted about the deplorable condition of the grounds surrounding Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport.

I wrote that weeds are taking over the place. The parking lot, and the grounds next to the parking garage, look terrible. Seedy. Unkempt.

AMA going to seed

Then I heard from a member of the Amarillo City Council who told me that the city might not be responsible for the appearance of the place. The Texas Department of Transportation might be the offending public agency, I was told.

The council member reportedly spoke with City Manager Jarrett Atkinson about it. Atkinson said he would research the matter.

Here’s my take. City Hall, take care of the place.

Passengers who are flying in and out of AMA believe they are using a municipally-owned airport. That should include the grounds on which the airport sits. Someone walking from a jetliner into AMA understands implicitly they are entering the city of Amarillo. Thus, the city has its face on the air terminal.

Crappy-looking grounds is a blight on the city, not the state transportation agency.

Therefore, the city needs to step up, get rid of the weeds, manicure the place, and make our international airport look presentable.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience