Category Archives: Uncategorized

POTUS planning to take final shot at Russians

obama_putin

Donald J. Trump doesn’t believe the findings of the CIA and other intelligence officials that Russia sought to influence the 2016 presidential election.

I’ll presume, therefore, that he won’t take any action against them.

But here’s the thing, dear reader: We have a president on duty who does believe the CIA analysis, who has expressed outrage at the idea of foreign intervention in our electoral process — and who has vowed that he will act “in our own time” to retaliate against the hacking nation.

President Obama is in office until Jan. 20. It is sounding increasingly likely that he’ll do something to punish the Russians for what the CIA and others have said they’ve done. The specifics of what they did remain unclear, but the president’s longtime adversary, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, also appears complicit in what has transpired.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-says-%E2%80%98we-will%E2%80%99-retaliate-against-russia-for-election-hacking/ar-AAlCY8m?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

My guess would be that Obama will act in ways that might be difficult to undo. Trade sanctions? Diplomatic pressure? Retaliatory hacking of Russian cyber activity?

Obama said on National Public Radio this morning that some of the options being considered would be public and would be reported; other options might be done in secret. That’s the beauty — if you want to call it such — of being in charge of a vast intelligence network that can do these things undercover, out of sight.

The Russians need to know that what they did cannot be tolerated by any government, let alone by the United States of America.

If the new president is going to dismiss the fact-based information gathered by the CIA, then it falls on the current president to act while he still has the stroke to do so.

Go for it, Mr. President!

The case for un-electing Donald Trump

trump

I’m such a fence-straddler on this one.

Our nation’s presidential electors are meeting Monday to choose the next president of the United States. Do they proceed with electing Donald J. Trump, who 306 electoral votes — 36 more than he needs — or do they deny him the votes and throw the election either to candidate he defeated or to the House of Representatives?

The Albany (N.Y.) Times-Union has declared in an editorial that the electors should deny Trump the presidency.

http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Electors-reject-Mr-Trump-10796574.php

Oh, man. I’ve read the editorial twice; I’ll read it some more. The paper makes a strong argument for the electors to yank the presidency away from someone who is wholly unprepared, unqualified and unfit for the job.

Electors from most of the states, though, are bound by state rules that require them to remain faithful to the will of their states’ majority. Other state electors — such as those from Texas — aren’t bound by those rules.

The U.S. Constitution allows such a rebellion to occur. It doesn’t quite address the chaos that would ensue if electors were to deny the Electoral College winner the presidency.

It’s never happened in the history of the Republic, although the House has chosen a president: John Quincy Adams in 1824.

So help me, I cannot yet take that leap.

I agree with the Times-Union’s assessment of Trump’s ability to do the job. His campaign-style “thank you” rallies are troubling in the extreme; he should be spending his time learning about the details of governing a nation comprising more than 300 million citizens. He’s selecting a collection of individuals for his Cabinet who have limited experience dealing with the agencies they would lead and in some cases are openly hostile to the policies they are being asked to implement.

And we have this issue of alleged Russian tampering with our electoral process. Did the president-elect benefit directly from foreign interference?

It is true, as the editorial points out, that the founders set up the Electoral College to shield the nation against “foreign influence.”

The founders also set up a mechanism for Congress to act as a check against presidential overreach. It’s called impeachment. If a president crosses any one of the many boundaries set up to limit the power of the office, the House can intercede with articles of impeachment, followed by a trial in the Senate.

I’m going to give this some more thought. I might get to you later, before the Electoral College meets.

I’ve been watching the presidential electoral process closely for four decades and I’ve never seen questions like these raised prior to the transition of one presidency to another.

It’s beginning to stress me out.

This conviction tests anti-death penalty resolve

aalbwfy

We can stop calling the shooter in that horrific massacre at a Charleston, S.C., church an “alleged” perpetrator.

A jury today convicted the young man accused of killing nine parishioners on June 17, 2015.

Jurors heard the killer confess to the massacre. They heard testimony from others about how the young man prayed with the parishioners, read from Scripture with them … and then shot them to death in cold blood.

The killer, who is white, is a known racist. He’s a hater. The victims were black. He wrote in his diary that he had intended to provoke a race war.

What now?

The killer’s lawyer is known to be good at avoiding death sentences for his clients. That will be the lawyer’s task now that the killer has been convicted of this hideous hate crime.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jurors-reach-verdict-in-dylann-roof-trial/ar-AAlBGcw?ocid=spartandhp

Some of us out here oppose the death penalty. I’m one of them. This case will test my resolve, much like the Timothy McVeigh execution over his bombing of the Oklahoma City federal courthouse did.

I will remain opposed to killing someone as punishment. But I recognize it’s hard, given what this hate-filled young man has done.

***

Just so you know, I am refusing to mention the shooter’s name. I did so early on when the case broke, but then decided “nope, I won’t give him any publicity.”

You know to whom I will refer.

May he rot in hell.

Presidency full of ‘smart’ people

donald_trump_lies

Donald J. Trump said he doesn’t need daily intelligence/military briefings because, “Like, I’m a smart person.”

Uh, Mr. President-elect, the office has been held by a lot of “smart” occupants, all of whom have accepted the National Security Council’s daily briefings.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-intelligence-briefings-smart-person-82553641164c#.yz1bqyygn

Trump told Fox News’s Chris Wallace that “my generals” get daily briefings, that the vice president-elect, Mike Pence, gets them, too.

Here’s part of what he told Wallace: Trump said he gets briefings “when I need it” because “I don’t have to be told — you know, I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. Could be eight years — but eight years. I don’t need that.”

He’s going to concentrate fully on making America “great again.”

Oh … brother.

EPA has become GOP goat

epa-preview

Richard Nixon wasn’t known as a tree-hugging environmentalist who was known to eat twigs and pine cones.

Yet the 37th president of the United States, a Republican, had the good sense to do something that today’s Republicans apparently now regret. He formed the Environmental Protection Agency.

What has happened to the EPA since 1970, when President Nixon created this agency? It has become the bogeyman for Republicans. The GOP hates the agency. Republicans say the EPA has been too tough on businesses, has enacted too many regulations that businesses must follow — or else.

And to what end? To make the air and water cleaner and to protect our Earth from humankind’s more destructive impulses.

Donald J. Trump is forming his new government and has nominated Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to be the new head of the EPA.

Pruitt, to put it mildly, is no friend of the agency. He’s a “drill baby drill” kind of guy. He’s a devoted friend of the fossil fuel industry. He doesn’t accept the notion that climate change is real and that its main culprit is humankind.

Pruitt actually has sued the EPA over its insistence that climate change is manmade.

This is the guy Trump wants now to lead the agency?

This is another head-scratcher.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa/?utm_term=.a41646dbf927

Indeed, the Washington Post reports that Pruitt’s appointment follows a curious pattern set by the president-elect: “He is the third of Trump’s appointees who have key philosophical differences with the missions of the agencies they have been tapped to run. Ben Carson, named to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development, has expressed a deep aversion to the social safety net programs and fair housing initiatives that have been central to that agency’s activities. Betsy DeVos, named education secretary, has a passion for private school vouchers that critics say undercut the public school systems at the core of the government’s mission.”

Now, there’s Pruitt.

I’m still puzzled, though, at how Republicans have morphed into this anti-EPA political party, given how one of the GOP lions — Richard Nixon — breathed life into the agency.

It’s a new day. It’s a new Republican Party, although many old-time GOP hands aren’t yet sure what the new party is going to look like.

The new president, elected as a Republican, has declared war on the EPA. The agency’s new boss appears ready to start lobbing the grenades.

Still relying on time pieces

watch

This is the latest in an occasional series of blog posts commenting on upcoming retirement.

Take a good look at the watch you see in this picture.

I’ll have more to say about that in a moment.

I’ve decided that I likely will be addicted to knowing what time it is even after I enter full retirement mode. My reasons are simple and quite justifiable.

For nearly 37 years — as I toiled in daily journalism — I performed under deadline pressure. As a reporter I had to get stories turned in by a certain time — or else face the editor’s wrath. As an editor, I had to oversee other reporters’ deadline performance. As an opinion page writer and editor, I always had to get my work done by a certain time every day.

I lived by the clock. I looked at my wrist constantly. Am I late? Do I have more time?

This morning, I awoke to discover that my battery-powered Citizen watch — a nice watch, but nothing gawdy — had quit overnight. The battery croaked. Oh my goodness! What to do?

I thought about it for all of about 5 seconds. Then I went to my drawer and pulled out the watch you see in this picture. It’s a very old Bulova. It’s one of those self-winders. I set the time, strap it onto my wrist, jiggle my wrist two or three times and off she goes — the watch, that is.

Mom gave it to me in 1980 after Dad died. That was more than 36 years ago, which makes the watch old just by that measure. Except that Dad wore the thing for as long as I can remember before that. He wasn’t wearing the watch when he died suddenly in a boating accident all those years ago.

Mom wanted me to have it. I accepted it with great gratitude — and I cried like a baby, too.

It still works. It keeps perfect time. I took it to a jeweler here in Amarillo to see about having it cleaned. He removed the back of the watch, took one look at it, and put it back together. Then he said the watch’s innards are too delicate, too old to mess with. “When it stops working, that’s it,” he said. “You’ll just have to retire it.” It’s been semi-retired ever since, sort of like me.

I don’t see myself going without a watch on my wrist. It’s who I am. Sure, I could tell time by pulling my fancy-shmancy I-phone out of its holster. I’d rather not do that.

I know a lot of retired folks who no longer wear watches. What’s the point? they ask. Why do I need to be anywhere? Members of my immediate family are like that. My sons don’t wear watches, either. They rely on their big-time telecommunications devices to keep them on schedule. My granddaughter — who’s all of 3 years of age! — already is becoming tech-savvy. Will she ever wear a watch? I, um, doubt it.

I’ll stick with the old way of telling time. It’s worked well for me for more than six decades. Why change now?

Yeah, that’s fast enough, man

night%20fast%20driving

I overheard part of a conversation the other day that I have to share with you here. It’s one of those things that makes you think, or actually say, I can’t believe I just heard that.

A fellow I know was talking to someone else. They were talking during the past weekend about driving fast cars and their experiences at the wheel of said vehicles.

“I got the car up to 105 miles per hour,” this guy said, “but I figured that was fast enough, since I had my wife and kids in the car with me.”

Huh? What the … ? Fast enough? Do ya think?

Hoo, boy.

I laughed out loud. I looked another individual I know. We made eye contact. She and I were thinking precisely the same thing: Did he just say what I think I heard him say?

I’m trying to imagine what it would be like to drive that fast under any circumstances. I cannot even begin to fathom doing so with my family in the same vehicle.

I’m glad he completed the drive … safely.

But holy crap!

‘Alt-right’ becomes euphemism for something ugly

082616-alt-right

I hate euphemisms, words meant to clean up ugly images, intentions and motivations.

“Alt-right” has emerged as the euphemism du jour of the moment. It describes haters on the far right.

We hear the term used most prominently from liberal-leaning commentators, pundits, journalists … whoever. They use it when they reference, say, Donald J. Trump’s new chief political strategist, Steven Bannon, former editor of Breitbart News, a far-right propaganda vessel.

“Alt-right” movements have popped up all over the country. They are cheering Trump’s election as president of the United States.

We need to shy away from this “alt-right” nonsense. These groups promote an ugly America. They want to roll back the tide of history.

“White nationalist” is another make-nice word that means “white supremacist.” No need to define what the white supremacist seeks to do. We all know.

This use of verbiage to give these groups some semblance of legitimacy is a relatively new phenomenon. Let’s recall, for a moment, the 1960s.

The nation was roiling with protests from groups one could have said at the time comprised the “alt-left.” We didn’t get that. The “alt-left” described groups such as the Weathermen, or the Students for a Democratic Society. They acted violently to protest government policies in prosecuting the Vietnam War or at home.

Those lefty groups were a destructive force that contributed little to the nation’s political discourse.

Today’s righty groups — which we now call the “alt-right” — are just as destructive.

Childers needed to go; here’s why

childersterry%20portrait1_112015

If I had been given the opportunity to write an editorial explaining why Amarillo’s former interim city manager needed a boot in the backside, I might have written something like this:

Terry Childers overstayed his welcome in Amarillo and it was time for him to hit the road.

It wasn’t that he was doing a bad job administratively. By many lights, he had infused City Hall with a renewed can-do attitude and had made some key decisions involving key personnel. He hired a police chief, Ed Drain, who has committed his department to community policing. Good call … and Childers deserves credit for recognizing that initiative in the new police chief.

But, oh man, the city manager revealed a mouth that he at times couldn’t control.

His resignation this week came after only the latest example of Childers engaging his pie hole without thinking first. He muttered “stupid son of a b****” into an open mic in the direction of a constituent. That was the last straw.

He had earlier scolded the City Council — the very people who hired him — for creating a “dysfunctional” atmosphere at City Hall. And before that — not long after he got hired — Childers berated an emergency services dispatcher after he misplaced his briefcase at a local hotel and all but called out the National Guard to find it.

The city manager is something of an ambassador for the city he serves, for the people to whom he answers. Whether it’s the elected body that hired him or taxpayers who foot the bill with their own money, the city manager is a hired hand. He works for us, not the other way around.

In that regard, the interim manager fell short of the mark.

***

I didn’t get to write that editorial, quite obviously. So I have decided to state my piece here.

The Amarillo Globe-News didn’t say it, either. Instead of offering a high-minded editorial that took Childers to the woodshed and delivered a whuppin’ he deserved, the newspaper cleared out the Opinion page and blasted a sophomoric “Goodbye Terry” farewell message that accomplished nothing except perhaps make Childers a sympathetic character in an ongoing feud in which has been engaged with the publisher of the newspaper, Lester Simpson.

Maybe the G-N will get around — eventually — to offering some words of wisdom about what we have all just witnessed.

Childers was right about a few things during his time in Amarillo. One of them related to the “caustic” political atmosphere at City Hall, which Councilman Elisha Demerson suggested might be at the heart of the “stupid SOB” comment the other evening. The environment frustrated Childers, according to Demerson, who suggested that the manager was venting.

The events of the past few days — with all the characters involved in this soap opera — have made the city’s task of finding  a new permanent city manager even more difficult.

Amarillo is undergoing some pretty radical changes at this very moment, starting with the effort to reshape, revive and remake its downtown district. The city needs a strong, steady hand to guide the municipal ship. It also needs a City Council that acts as a team, rather than a collection of individuals each with his own agenda.

I am going to say a prayer or two that the city will find that individual — whether he or she lives elsewhere or perhaps already is on board within the current administrative staff.

I believe most of us who have been watching City Hall over the years would agree on at least one critical point: The city has a serious mess on its hands.

Election result: no ‘authoritative command’

mandate-gif

My dictionary describes “mandate” thusly: an authoritative command or instruction.

That’s pretty clear, correct?

So, it’s fair to ask: Does a presidential election in which the winner captures more electoral votes than the other candidate, but who fails to win — by an apparently growing margin — the popular vote deliver a “mandate” for the victorious candidate?

I would say categorically, “no!”

Here is what we are facing with the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the United States. He won, by a comfortable margin, the electoral votes he needed. His opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is continuing to pile up more actual votes than Trump.

The president-elect made some bold pledges while winning. He’s going to build a wall across our southern border, ban Muslims from entering the country, repeal Obamacare, revoke trade deals.

He said that “I alone” can fix what he believes is wrong with the country.

Does an election result that we’ve witnessed give him license to do what he promised to do?

I do not question the legitimacy of Trump’s election. He won this race fair and square. The system wasn’t “rigged” to ensure his election. Sure, some will argue that it was. Keep saying it. It’s not so.

However, I do not sense that voters delivered a “mandate” for him to make sweeping changes.

Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 with 43 percent of the vote. Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 also with 43 percent of the vote and was re-elected four years later with 48 percent; George W. Bush was elected in 2000 with one more electoral vote than Al Gore, who won more popular votes than Bush. Neither of those men’s victories commanded “mandates” any more than Trump’s. Their victories were equally valid.

For that matter, John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960 with slightly less than 50 percent of the vote, and by a margin of fewer than 140,000 ballots. Is that a mandate … an “authoritative command”? Hardly.

Trump’s fans are continuing to crow about the mandate that their guy captured while defeating a candidate virtually every media pundit, politician and so-called “expert” knew would become the next president.

The Trumpkins need to tone down the boasts. They need to understand that effective and constructive governance is a shared responsibility, that the winners must work with those they defeat.

In this case, more than half of those who voted ended up on the losing end of this election, which adds volume to their voice.

Trump’s mandate? He needs to proceed with great care and caution.