Uncategorized

Full-time work wears me out

This is another in an occasional series of blog posts commenting on impending retirement.

Epiphanies arrive at the strangest times.

Such as when one is in the middle of a part-time job and the realization hits: I no longer have the energy to work full time.

That one hit me at some point this afternoon. Thus, I figure I’ve taken another important step toward retirement.

I no longer want a full-time job. I busted my backside for 40-plus years, most of that time toiling in daily print journalism.

These days, my work consists of essentially two-part time gigs — or maybe one part-time job and another “job” that involves my favorite hobby, which is writing on politics, public policy and other current events. The actual job is at an auto dealership in Amarillo. The fun job is the blog I write for Panhandle PBS, the public TV station based at Amarillo College. (Look up “A Public View” at panhandlepbs.org and you’ll see how much fun I’m having.)

I already have chronicled — a little bit, at least — the circumstances of my departure from daily journalism. The event occurred almost two years ago. I was more than a little unhappy over the circumstance that brought it about.

The bad news is that I went into mourning for a time after I cleared out my office and drove home that day. The good news is that I got over my grief fairly quickly and have been looking forward to the future ever since.

I suppose now I ought to thank my former employer for telling me at the end of August 2012 that someone else would be doing the job I’d been doing at the Amarillo Globe-News for more than 17 years. Maybe I will do so one day. I might thank him for sparing me the chaos I understand has gripped the place as it transitions from what it was to whatever it’s going to become.

I might do that. Just not yet.

Retirement is looking better all the time, although I likely won’t ever give up the writing part of what’s left of my working life. Why would I want to stop receiving the kind of enjoyment I get from prattling on about this and that?

Uncategorized

Try the Benghazi suspect quickly

Welcome to America, land of the infidels, the Great Satan, Ahmed Abu Khattala.

You’ll find this to be a none-too-hospitable place, given the reason you are here.

Khattala has arrived in Washington, D.C., to be arraigned for his role in the infamous terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, the one that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others on Sept. 11, 2012.

http://news.msn.com/us/libyan-militant-in-federal-law-enforcement-custody

Khattala was captured less than two years after the event that’s become a favored political football for congressional critics of the Obama administration and those who want to deny then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a chance at becoming the nation’s first female president in a little more than two years.

The Benghazi suspect — captured by U.S. Army Delta Force commandos in Libya — is going to find out that the wheels of justice tend to turn slowly in this country.

How about changing that up a bit?

I would hope the government can put together its case quickly and put this individual on trial. Prosecutors haven’t yet decided to seek the death penalty as punishment for Khattala if he’s convicted. I’d bet some real American money they’ll go all the way and seek to execute this guy.

The very term “Benghazi” has become almost a sort of political code for congressional Republicans. It’s come to mean a lot of things to those on the right who are adamant in their hunt for dirt on those from the other side of the aisle.

I believe we have learned all we’re ever going to learn about what happened that night in Benghazi, Libya. Yet, Congress has established a select House committee to look further. We’ll see what, if anything, new that comes out of the hearing.

As for Khattala, he need not fester one moment longer than necessary in an American jail cell. By that I mean I hope he goes to trial; if he’s convicted that his lawyers will appeal soon thereafter; then the courts can determine the ultimate outcome of the verdict.

After that, carry out the sentence.

Just send this guy to wherever the Justice Department decides to send him — in this world or beyond.

Uncategorized

Take politics out of … the World Cup

It’s astounding how pervasive politics is these days.

It enters every possible discussion on every possible topic. Take soccer, or as they call it in Latin America and Spain, “futbol.”

Now it seems, according to one blogger at least, that conservatives have a problem with soccer more so than liberals or moderates. They call it boring, I guess because there’s usually so little scoring associated with it.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/27/romneycare-supporter-ann-coulter-is-100-wrong-about-soccer/

Radio talk-show gasbag Ann Coulter said something the other day about Americans’ infatuation with the World Cup is a sign of “moral decay.” Huh?

By my way of thinking, a surer sign of moral decay is taking seriously the idiotic pronouncements of Ann Coulter.

But I digress.

I’m not a soccer fan — as in fanatic, from which the word “fan” is derived. I’ve watched some of the matches from Brazil. I enjoyed watching the team from Greece — the home of my ancestors — beat Ivory Coast in a thriller and move to the round of 16. I’ve gotten a kick out of the fans’ reaction when Brazil scores a go–o-o-o-a-a-a-a-a-l-l-l-l-l!

And of course I’m enjoying how our American team finds ways to win while losing and advancing into that round of 16 “knockout” phase of the World Cup.

Is all of this a sign of moral decay? Does it matter what conservative talking heads think about soccer, or the World Cup? Not in the least.

When it ends, I’ll return to watching American-style college football and baseball.

That is, of course, unless the “U.S.A!” wins the World Cup.

Uncategorized

Oklahoma becomes quake prone

1 Comment

Imagine it. California and Oklahoma — for crying out loud — have something in common.

No, it’s not their politics. Nor the collective lifestyles of residents of both states.

It’s about earthquakes. It seems that Oklahoma has become prone to tremors at a level that is rivaling our neighbors way out west.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/25886313/earthquake-concerns-on-rise-in-oklahoma

The Sooner State averaged 1.5 earthquakes daily for the past 30 years, according to seismologists. However, since Jan. 1, the daily rate of quakes with a 3.0 Richter Scale rating or greater has zoomed to much greater frequency, those scientists suggest.

The cause has them scratching their heads.

Some of us non-experts — such as yours truly — wonder whether it’s the extensive drilling for fossil fuel that is causing these seismic shifts.

I cannot pretend to be an expert on these matters, but consider this:

I’ll leave the issue of fracking out of this. The effect of hydraulic fracturing — pumping water to break loose shale oil — has been a topic of considerable debate.

They’ve been drilling for a lot of years for oil and natural gas in Oklahoma. Have the drillers made the planet less stable?

Well, have they?

Uncategorized

New majority leader sleeps on office couch

Recently, I read where the newly elected majority leader of the House of Representatives crashes on a couch in his Washington, D.C. office.

Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., does that — he says — so he can be available to fly home frequently to stay in touch with his constituents.

Just for the record, I’ve commented before on this practice. I long have considered it more of a stunt than anything else.

I still believe that’s the case.

Many members of Congress have professed to do such a thing as a way to be, oh, more “real” to the people they represent back home. My question always is this: Who among a member of Congress’s constituents does that kind of thing?

I keep trying to figure out how living out of a proverbial suitcase in Washington, D.C. makes one more in touch with the home folks than if he or she rents a cheap apartment, hangs his clothes up in a closet, pays some rent and then flies home when it’s convenient.

I wrote a column about that once long ago. I poked a little fun at U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., for living like that. Of course, that was when he was married and was before he took off on that infamous and trumped-up “hike along the Appalachian Trail” when he in fact was in Argentina canoodling with his girlfriend.

A better example of living like your constituents is to move your family to D.C., enroll the kids in school, rent or buy a home and act like a regular family.

This business of sleeping on an office couch makes for snappy campaign-ad fodder that, I suppose, appeals to someone out there.

Me? I prefer my congressman to live like a normal human being.

Uncategorized

Who's Lauer kidding?

NBC talking head Matt Lauer is facing stout criticism for a question he asked of General Motors chief executive Mary Barra.

The question: Can you be a good parent and a good chief executive of a major company?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2014/06/26/matt-lauer-defends-interview-with-gms-mary-barra/11435373/

Lauer, host of the “Today” show, said he’d ask a male CEO the same question if given the chance.

Interesting, yes?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard that question posed to, say, Lee Iacocca, Ted Turner, Malcolm Forbes, Rupert Murdoch or, heck, even Jack Welch, the ex-General Electric boss and Lauer’s former boss.

USA Today reports: “Lauer notes on his Facebook page that Barra addressed the difficulty of balancing her work and home lives in a Forbes magazine article. He says if a man in a high-level job had publicly discussed the issue he’d have ‘asked him exactly the same thing.'”

Umm, I don’t think so, Matt.

The sad fact of today’s world is that Corporate American remains a Man’s World.

I have no doubt that Barra will do a good job as she grapples with the issues facing a leading automaker. Is it relevant that she’s also a mother?

Maybe, maybe not. It would be were it to become known that her job interfered with her parental responsibilities.

Matt Lauer’s insistence that he would have asked a male CEO the same thing is almost as insulting as the question he asked Mary Barra.

Uncategorized

Should U.S. let Americans know when attacks are due?

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wants the U.S. government to spell out the conditions that warrant fatal attacks on American citizens.

By itself, that’s not an unreasonable request.

Let’s put this request in some context, though.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/ron_wyden_says_americans_deser.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Wyden sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and is dismayed, I gather, about the drone attack in Yemen that killed American-born al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. He was blown away in a blast delivered by an unmanned aerial vehicle. The Obama administration has made no apologies for striking him down … nor should it. The man had forsaken his country, taken up with an enemy fighting force and was plotting to inflict more damage on our national security.

Here’s how the Oregonian reported it: “The senior senator from Oregon, joined by fellow Democrats Mark Udall of Colorado and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, want to learn how and when Americans can be targeted outside of declared war zones.

“‘Specific details regarding lethal counterterrorism actions will sometimes need to be kept secret to ensure that the U.S. government can act effectively against very real threats to our country, but we firmly believe that the laws and rules that govern the executive branch’s actions should always be public,’ they wrote on Thursday. ‘We believe that every American has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them.'”

This war in which we are engaged seems to be one without “declared war zones.” Yemen has long been known to be a terrorist training ground. Al-Awlaki was in the midst of such activity. Thus, he became a target of U.S. military forces whose mission is to eliminate terror threats whenever — and wherever — they find them.

In this instance, the military acted as it should. If other Americans are foolish enough to take up arms against their country, then they will deserve the fate that befell Anwar al-Awlaki.

Uncategorized

Judicial independence bites Obama

Barack Obama has just gotten a taste of what many of his presidential predecessors have had to swallow as it regards federal judicial appointments.

Their court appointments didn’t vote nearly the way their benefactor — the president — wanted them to vote.

That, I submit, speaks quite eloquently to the need to keep the federal judiciary independent.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-27/obama-goes-too-far-for-even-supreme-court-liberals

In two 9-0 rulings in recent days, the court struck down a Massachusetts law that regulated anti-abortion protesters and then it reeled in presidential appointment powers relating to recess appointments made when the Senate is not in session.

That means both of President Obama’s high court picks — Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — voted against the wishes of the man who nominated them to their dream job in the first place.

We hear yammering — mostly from the right wing of the political spectrum — that “unelected judges” wield too much power. This carping comes usually when the court rules against a cause or principle near and dear to conservatives’ hearts.

Indeed, the court has comprised many Republican appointees who’ve gone against the wishes of their presidential benefactors: Dwight Eisenhower picked Earl Warren to be chief justice and all Warren did was launch the Supreme Court on a whole range of landmark liberal court rulings, starting with the 1954 school desegregation ruling known as Brown v. the Board of Education.

Harry Blackmum (picked by Richard Nixon) wrote the Roe v. Wade abortion decision; John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford) became a staunch liberal court member; Byron White (John Kennedy) voted “no” on Roe v. Wade; John Roberts (George W. Bush) voted with the majority to uphold the Affordable Care Act.

Now two of the court’s liberal justices — Kagan and Sotomayor — have joined their fellow liberals and conservatives on the court to stick it in President Obama’s eye on a couple of key issues.

So, let’s stop the griping about the federal court system. The founders set up an independent branch of government for a reason, which was to prevent its politicization when trying to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

Uncategorized

Recalling Sawyer hatchet job

Diane Sawyer is leaving the ABC News anchor chair. Her colleague David Muir is replacing her.

That’s fine. Sawyer did a good job as anchor since taking the job in 2009. She was thorough and fair and presented the news accordingly.

However, my strongest memory of the body of Sawyer’s work involves a very high-profile trial that occurred right here in Amarillo. The defendant in this civil case was a fairly well-known personality in her own right: Oprah Winfrey. You’ve heard of her, yes?

Well, Winfrey got sued by some cattlemen over a comment she blurted out in 1997 during her TV talk show. She was interviewing this expert on “mad cow disease.” The expert made a comment about how ill-prepared beef can spread the disease, to which Winfrey exclaimed, “No more burgers!”

The cattlemen sued. The case was tried at the federal courthouse in downtown Amarillo. U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson tossed part of the case out. The rest of it was settled in Winfrey’s favor.

Shortly after that, Winfrey appeared on ABC News and was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, who tried for all she was worth to get Winfrey to paint Amarillo as a city full of gun-slinging rednecks who were bound and determined to convict her of defamation.

Amarillo is a “tough town,” Sawyer said. Winfrey didn’t take the bait. She spoke well of the hospitality shown to her here while she was in court every day.

Winfrey taped her show at the Amarillo Little Theater at night after she spent a day in court. She sold the place out every night. She brought guests in and bantered with them about the day she had spent in a federal courtroom.

I found Sawyer’s treatment of Amarillo and the Texas Panhandle offensive when I heard it. Oprah, though, was thoroughly gracious and grateful for (a) the decision that went in her favor and (b) for the treatment she got from the community that found itself in the national spotlight.

Whatever. I wish Diane Sawyer well as she goes on with the rest of her life.

I’ll wonder, though, if she’s ever watched that interview she did with Oprah and thought: You know, I kind of wish I could do that one all over.

Uncategorized

Boehner changes mind on executive orders

It still boggles my mind that John Boehner wants to sue the president of the United States for exercising his constitutional rights as the nation’s chief executive.

That is, the president has decided to issue executive orders — imagine that — to move projects forward.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/25/3453244/boehner-executive-order-suit/

Why, how dare he do that, says the speaker of the House of Representatives.

Well, as it’s been reported on the link attached to this post, it was just fine for President George W. Bush to use executive authority, but not President Barack Obama.

Obama has pulled out his executive signing pen fewer times than Bush ever did. He’s done far fewer times than many of his predecessors.

But that hasn’t dissuaded the speaker from taking the president to court in what many people think now is a stunt, a sop to the tea party wing of his Republican congressional caucus.

Wait a minute. Didn’t Boehner once declare that the tea party wing wasn’t to be taken seriously? Didn’t he incur their wrath when he said that?

The wrath must have gotten to the speaker, who’s now saying that the president has failed to carry out his duties “faithfully,” whatever that means.

Today, the Supreme Court stuck it to the president when it voted 9-0 in ruling that Obama’s recess appointments were improper. I get the court’s standing in reeling in the president’s executive authority in making these appointments while Congress is in recess.

I do not quite understand what in the world has riled the speaker enough to sue the president for doing what the Constitution says he is entitled to do.

Maybe the speaker will let us all in what he has in mind … in due course.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience