Category Archives: Uncategorized

Pleasant surprise surfaces in closet

Surprises, by definition, come unexpectedly.

So it was when my wife and I had our master bathroom remodeled recently.

The contractor installed a new shower stall, a new vanity, bathtub fixtures, tore off the wallpaper and painted the walls. We had to empty our closets and we slept for several nights in our guest bedroom.

The surprise?

Well, buried deep in my closet — yes, I still have a closet all to myself — was a raincoat that I received in August 1968. The U.S. Army gave me the “gift” upon my induction and arrival at Fort Lewis, Wash., for basic training.

I’ve kept it for nearly 47 years.

Well, this morning I put the coat on as I got ready to venture into the downpour that was flooding our streets and alleys and continuing to fill our playas.

The best surprise of all is that raincoat still fits!

It’s not the mostĀ stylish article of clothing you’ll ever see. After all, it isĀ “OD in color,” olive drab. But the material is still water-resistant. It’s functional. Besides, my wife never has accused me of being a fashion-conscious clothes horse.

My next surprise will be to fit into some of those “skinny slacks” that have been hanging in there.

Wish me luck. I’ll need it.

 

Contact form

[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]

Reaching out into the blogosphere

My “new” life as a blogger really isn’t so new these days, as I’ve been doing it now pretty much full time for a couple of years.

But I do learn some things about the blog I created every so often.

For example, Saturday I looked at the network of sources of the page views and visitors I’ve acquired. I discovered something so interesting that I thought I’d share it here.

High Plains Blogger has been viewed by readers in 121 countries.

Why is that interesting? Well, the World Almanac and Book of Facts tells me the United Nations has 193 member nations. That means — depending on how you want to interpret it — this blog of mine reaches 62 percent of the nations of the world, give or take.

I’ve received page views from readers in Taiwan, which isn’t a member of the United Nations. So, the percentage might be skewed just a smidgen.

Still, 121 out of 193 isn’t bad.

Of the continents, Africa remains the least-penetrated. All I’m lacking in South America are Suriname, Guyana and French Guiana. Europe is almost covered. North America? All that’s left is Nicaragua. Asia? A few former Soviet republics haven’t been logged yet on the blog; also haven’t gotten anyone from Iran to read the blog.

Traffic continues to improve. I had set monthly page view/unique visitors record for seven months in a row. Traffic fell off a bit in April, but it’s coming back strong in May. I might set another record by the end of this month. Here’s hoping, anyway.

I just want to thank everyone for reading this blog.

I know I don’t please everyone with the political stuff. That’s not my intention. Actually, I like it better when I draw disagreement, as it makes me think. The disagreements keep me humble, too.

But hey, justĀ keep reading. Comment when the spirit moves you. Share these musings with others.

Many thanks, as always.

Was that thunder, lightning and rain that kept me up?

It’s been a good while since we had a night like the one we just experienced.

We were up and down like Yo-Yos all night. The lightning would flash. The thunder would roar. The rain would pound the house.

We awoke this morning and found another half-inch of rain in the gauge.

And it was still raining!

OK. The weather forecasters are all a-flutter over the rain. Amarillo’s year-to-date rainfall — I think — is about double the normal amount. It’s about eight times more than we had a year ago at this time.

Is the drought over? Have we turned the corner? Is it time now to start running our residential irrigation systems flat-out, full bore, with not a worry in the world?

Guess again.

The TV weathermen and women aren’t saying anything of the sort. They’re careful to avoid sending the wrong message, although they do seem to get a big carried away with their joy at the rain that’s come our way. El Nino, that Pacific Ocean current phenomenon, has returned, according to Dave Oliver, KFDA-TV NewsChannel 10’s chief meteorologist, and he thinks it’s going to persist through the summer.

El Nino’s effect is to drive moisture from the coast inland, bringing all that rain we’ve been praying for our way.

Let’s not get too excited about the drought. We’ve got that underground aquifer that doesn’t recharge at nearly the rate we’re drawing it down. It’s still going to take centuries for it to fill back up.

Still, let us be thankful and grateful for what we’re getting.

Do you think those prayers we’ve all sent up have been answered?

Step aside, George Stephanopoulos

I hope it doesn’t come to this, that the Republican National Committee forces George Stephanopoulos to do the right thing.

My hope is that he does it himself.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/14/the-rnc-should-ban-george-stephanopoulos-from-participating-in-2016-debates/

Stephanopoulos, host of the ABC-TV weekend news-talk show “This Week,” has revealed that he gave $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Rodham Clinton, of course, is running for president of the United States. Stephanopoulos’s credibility as an impartial journalist has been compromised beyond repair and he must not cover any aspect of the political campaign that’s beginning to unfold.

He didn’t reveal the donation until he was forced to do so by conservative media organizations.

This doesn’t look good for someone I’ve always trusted to be impartial — and bipartisan — in his questioning of political figures.

His contribution to the Clinton Foundation ties him directly — and monetarily — to the Democrats’ leading presidential candidate. He cannot possibly be seen as a neutral participant in any debate involving Hillary Clinton.

Surely he knows that. Just as surely he knows what he has to do.

 

Should we set John Hinckley free?

Allow me to answer the question posed in the headline.

Yes, sort of.

John Hinckley has been housed in a psych ward since a jury found him innocent by reason of insanity after he shot President Ronald Reagan, White House press secretary James Brady and two law enforcement officersĀ in March 1981.

Brady — nicknamed The Bear by the press corps — died a year ago from the grievous head wound he suffered at Hinckley’s hand.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/12/406175445/reagan-shooter-john-hinckleys-lawyers-say-hes-ready-to-be-free

Hinckley’s lawyer says he’s ready to be set free. And even the government prosecutors suggest he is able to be released from the hospital. The feds, though, say he needs constant supervision and must be monitored closely.

I concur with the feds’ assessment, although if I were King of the World, I’d be reluctant to let him out.

Why? Well, the man sought to murder the president of the United States. He wounded him with a gunshot wound in the chest and as we would learn after the chaotic day the president could have died from the wound had the bullet lodged an inch or so toward the president’s heart.

What’s more, a jury ruled that Hinckley was insane when he committed the crime. How many people usually go from being insane to, well, sane?

I am one who doesn’t trust John Hinckley to never do something so crazed again.

That’s why if he gets out of the psych ward he needs careful and never-ending scrutiny.

 

V-E Day still resonates 70 years later

v-e-day-snapshot2

Seventy years ago a huge chapter in the world’s greatest armed conflict came to a close.

The Red Army reached Berlin on its march from what was then known as the Soviet Union. It had beaten back the Third Reich and in a race to the German capital city with the force led by American and British troops advancing from the west, they crossed the “finish line.”

They accepted the Germans’ surrender and the war in Europe came to a close.

It’s called Victory in Europe Day. V-E Day.

The millions of men from allied nations performed acts of heroism against the Nazi war machine that cannot be forgotten.

Those men are all old now. They’re in their late 80s and 90s. They’re dying by the thousands daily. Those who remain — be they American, British, French, Russian or from any of the nations allied in the fight against tyranny — deserve our eternal gratitude.

It’s been said in the seven decades since the surrender that our side — the Americans and Brits — should have gotten to Berlin first.

But the Red Army got the jump on the American-led forces advancing from Normandy. They turned back the Nazis at Stalingrad in winter of 1942-43. Our forces wouldn’t land on the French coast until June 6, 1944. By the time our men slogged ashore, the Red Army had begun its advance on Germany.

As it turned out, the Soviets were able to claim Berlin as their captured capital and the carving up of Germany into western and eastern regions — independent of each other, with the east being controlled by the communists in Moscow — would become a source of tension that helped trigger a Cold War that lasted until 1991.

But the struggle that engulfed Europe had come to an end. There would be smaller conflicts that flared immediately after World War II. Greece fought a civil war between royalists and communists. Hungary would erupt in rebellion against the Soviets in 1956. Czechoslovakia would do the same in 1968.

But on May 7, 1945 — with Adolf Hitler dead in his bunker under the ruins of his city — the good guys defeated the 20th century’s most evil tyranny.

World War II wouldn’t end until September 1945. We still had another enemy to fight in the Pacific. The European fight, though, was over.

The task of rebuilding a shattered continent would begin.

 

 

We 'lost' the war … 40 years ago

In a couple of days, many Americans are going to look back four decades at the end of a chapter that turned terribly tragic, not just for the United States, but also for an ally with whom we fought side by side for seemingly forever.

Saigon fell to North Vietnamese Army troops on April 30, 1975. They rolled into the capital city of South Vietnam, took down the defeated nation’s flag at the presidential palace and raised the flag of North Vietnam.

Twenty-five years ago, I had the pleasure of meeting Bui Tin in Hanoi, the man who accepted the surrender of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. He was in the tank that had smashed through the gate at the presidential palace and accepted the surrender of South Vietnamese president Duong Van “Big” Minh.

I was among a group of journalists touring the country and Bui Tin was among the dignitaries we got to meet. He told us his memories of the end of the Vietnam War.

Bui Tin, of course, was on the winning side.

His memory is different from that of some of the journalists who questioned him that day. A handful of us had served in Vietnam during the war. But what a marvelous encounter it was to talk candidly with a key player in that long and tragic struggle.

I wrote a blog for Panhandle PBS, which tonight broadcast a special, “The Last Days in Vietnam.” It tells the story of the end of that war. It was inglorious for our side.

http://www.panhandlepbs.org/blogs/public-view-john-kanelis/last-days-in-vietnam-recalls-true-heroism/

For our former enemy, well, it meant something quite different. The “American war” had ended. The enemy outlasted us, even though military historians have noted for decades that we actually prevailed on the battlefield. We inflicted far more casualties on them than they did on us. We scored military victory after military victory against the NVA and the Viet Cong.

Talk about losing the battles but winning the war.

They had the patience we didn’t have.

I ran across this quote, from North Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Van Dong, who in December 1966 said this to New York Times reporter Harrison E. Salisbury:

“How long do you Americans want to fight? … One year? Two years? Three years? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? We will be glad to accommodate you.”

Yes, they were glad.

It was being fought on their ground, in their homes … and on their terms.

And we haven’t gotten over it yet.

Repeal 'Obamacare'? Are conservatives nuts?

Congressional conservatives have rocks in their heads. They’ve gone ’round the bend. They need some smelling salts.

They’re angry with House Speaker John Boehner who they believe is stalling their effort to get a bill that repeals the Affordable Care Act to the desk of the president of the United States — who hails the ACA as his signature domestic legislative achievement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/conservatives-obamacare-repeal-republicans-117364.html?hp=t1_r

Gosh, what do you suppose President Obama is going to do when he receives a bill repealing the ACA?

Sign it into law? Guess again.

Put it on ice? Hardly.

Veto it outright? Yes.

The ACA happens to be working. It’s gaining popularity among millions of rank-and-file Americans — particularly those who now can afford health insurance whereas before they couldn’t.

Their effort is doomed to fail. As Politico reports: “House Republicans have already voted more than 50 times to try to defund, alter or overturn the health care law that conservatives despise. The latest effort, if it happens, would no doubt fail, too — and there are some indications that GOP leaders are ready to move on. But getting a bill to President Barack Obama’s desk and forcing him to veto it would send a powerful symbolic message to the Republican base that House conservatives haven’t given up on scuttling the law.”

That’s the point, I guess: make the base happy.

They want the law repealed, no matter what. The rest of the country? Well, the tideĀ appears to beĀ pulling in the opposite direction.

Non-endorsement sends dubious message

Let’s talk about newspaper endorsements and what they intend to accomplish.

Editors and publishers will tell you they aren’t intended to make voters cast ballots in accordance with what the newspaper management wants. The folks who run these media outlets seek to stay on the moral high ground. “We just want to be a voice in the community,” they say. “It’s enough just to make people think. We know we cannot make people vote a certain way and that’s not our intention.”

It’s all high-minded stuff. I used to say such things myself when I was editing editorial pages for two newspapers in Texas — one in Beaumont and one in Amarillo — and at a paper in my home state of Oregon.

But the reality, though, is that newspaper executives — publishers and editors — never would complain if elections turn out the way they recommend.

Is there a dichotomy here? I think so.

Which brings me to the Amarillo Globe-News’s non-endorsement today in the upcoming election for mayor. The paper chose to remain silent. It wouldn’t endorse Paul Harpole’s re-election to a third term as mayor, nor would it recommend voters elect Roy McDowell as mayor.

The paper did express a couple of things about Harpole. It said it is disappointed in the missteps and mistakes that have occurred on Harpole’s watch and it also predicted that Harpole would be re-elected on May 9.

Newspapers fairly routinely encourage community residents to get out and vote. They encourage them to make the tough choices. Pick a candidate, the newspaper might suggest. Hey, none of them might not be statesmen or women, but they’re committing themselves to public service.

Suppose for a moment that Amarillo voters — all of them — took the Globe-News’s non-recommendation to heart. What if no one voted for mayor? What if no voter decided that one of the two men seeking the office deserved their vote? Would the paper declare that a victory? Or would it lament the chaos that would ensue?

This is why I disliked non-endorsements back when I toiled for daily newspapers. I’ve always believed voters expect the newspaper to recommend someone in a race, even if no candidate deserved a ringing endorsement. If nothing else, some voters do rely on newspapers to provide some guidance to voters who might not have sufficient knowledge of all the issues that decide these important elections.

Recommending no one? That’s their call. However, it’s fair to wonder whether a newspaper should ask voters to do something its management wouldn’t do, which is make a choice on whom to support at the ballot box.