Category Archives: national news

Why not endorse in this GOP contest?

untitled

Rosemary Goudreau O’Hara is a first-class journalist working for a first-class newspaper, the Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

She and I also are acquainted. I got to know Rosemary while traveling with her and several other journalists in 2004 through Thailand, Cambodia and India on a trip that explored the impact of HIV/AIDS in Asia.

So, I say this with great trepidation: O’Hara and the paper where she works erred in declining to make an endorsement in the Republican Party presidential primary election coming up next week in Florida.

The Sun-Sentinel has backed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. It has declined to make a call in the GOP primary — even though O’Hara has said that one of the Republicans, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, is actually qualified to be the next president of the United States.

The other three aren’t, O’Hara — the Sun-Sentinel’s editorial page editor — has said in numerous interviews with TV cable news networks. She’s made the rounds on CNN, Fox and MSNBC. I’ve listened to what she’s said. Frankly, I’m baffled.

O’Hara says quite emphatically that Donald J. Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio all lack the temperament, judgment, record and the experience to become president. I happen to agree with her wholeheartedly … and then some!

Why not back Kasich? O’Hara says the Ohio governor — and a former member of Congress — is the longest of the long shots; he hasn’t built a significant campaign presence in Florida; he is not going to be the nominee. If I heard her correctly, she’s saying, in effect, that Floridians shouldn’t waste their vote on someone who’s not going to win.

Man, I disagree with that outlook.

The way I see it, if you have a field of candidates and one of them is at least marginally qualified — and Kasich is more than marginal — then you go with the individual who is the best of the bunch.

I suppose you could couch an endorsement with some language that acknowledges the individual’s slim chance of winning. But then you offer your reason for why the individual has earned your nod and why you think your constituents — your readers — should heed your recommendation.

I hope if Rosemary sees this post she won’t think ill of me. I hope we’ll still be friends. I make this comment with great respect for her.

It’s just that a major Florida newspaper has seen all four of these fellows up close. The editors there know them well. They’ve determined one of them — John Kasich — is qualified to be president.

From where I sit way out yonder, he’s earned the paper’s nod.

 

 

 

Wounded warriors deserve much better than this

160311-wwp-nardizzi-giordano-composite-2_a43fcc97b08f4c1c7a40243264827e7f.nbcnews-ux-600-480

You hear about scandals occasionally involving high-profile charities.

They usually involve extravagance. Such is the case with the Wounded Warriors Project.

For the life of me I’m having trouble mustering the right words to convey the outrage I’m feeling at what’s been reported.

CEO Steven Nardizzi and chief operating officer Al Giordano have been fired by the WWP board, which said an “independent study” confirmed some grotesque “irregularities” in the way the organization was spending money donated to help care for heroes wounded in battle.

The outrage should sweep the nation. Politicians keep telling us how we must treat our wounded veterans with all the care and compassion we can deliver. People give to organizations expecting their money to go toward that care. Sure, there are “administrative costs” to be paid.

The WWP, though, reportedly was funneling roughly half of the money it gets to far more than paying salaries and buying stationery.

There were reports of extravagant parties at posh resorts. Nardizzi reportedly rappelled down the side of a hotel to make a grand entrance.

One report revealed that in 2014 alone, the organization spent $26 million on parties. Twenty-six million dollars!

I don’t know if there will be any criminal prosecutions involved with the two individuals who’ve been canned by the board. A part of me wishes they would just vanish from the face of the planet. Another part of me thinks there ought to be an examination into possible criminal malfeasance.

The Wounded Warriors Project is supposed to help the 50,000 or so vets who’ve been injured in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. People give money to this group expecting the money to do good for those who need the help.

We’ve come a huge distance from the Vietnam War era when our veterans were virtually scorned by the country that sent them into battle.

This hideous story must not dampen our resolve to continue to help our wounded veterans.

Indeed, it should cause us to redouble that effort.

 

Hey, these guys got along, too!

newt

The politics of the moment has this way of inflicting a case of selective amnesia among politicians.

Take last night’s 12th — and possibly final — Republican Party presidential debate with Donald J. Trump, Rafael Edward Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich as providing an example of that peculiar malady.

One of them (I can’t remember who) brought up President Reagan’s famous buddy-buddy relationship with House Speaker Tip O’Neill. The two men — one Republican, one Democrat — worked well together.

Sure they did. I honor them for that cooperation.

So did a couple of other well-known pols. Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich also managed to find common ground when the need arose. And it did, particularly as it regarded the need to balance the federal budget.

None of these current GOP candidates, though, mentions that political partnership.

We all know why that is the case, of course.

It’s because the president’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, wants to ascend to the office her husband once occupied.

Why, we just can’t give Bill Clinton any props for doing what the current president and the current congressional leadership seem unable — or perhaps unwilling — to do.

I’m the first to acknowledge that the Clinton-Gingrich relationship never evolved into the personal public friendship that Reagan and O’Neill developed.

The Gipper and the Tipper would share some spirits once they were off the clock, setting politics aside; it’s been reported widely how they would swap stories between them and laugh at the foolishness of the day.

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of similar moments of non-political fellowship involving Bill and Newtie.

However, they certainly did form a valuable political partnership during the time Gingrich was speaker. It’s understandable, I suppose, that the Republicans running for president would choose to ignore it.

I’ll just have to rely on Hillary Clinton to remind the rest of us how bipartisan cooperation can work.

She was there, too.

 

 

No, Mr. Trump, ‘Islam’ doesn’t hate us

islam-at-war

Islam hates America?

That’s what Republican Party presidential campaign frontrunner Donald J. Trump has asserted in his latest broadside against nearly 2 billion of the world’s residents.

No sir. You are wrong!

Trump’s assertion goes far afield from what we know.

It is that a radical portion of the Islamic religion has perverted the doctrine espoused by a great religion. They are not true Muslims. They are cultists. They are murderers. They are religious perverts.

The men who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon on 9/11 were not God-fearing Muslims. They were murderers, pure and simple.

Sure, these individuals hate Americans. They also hate Europeans. Moreover, they also hate fellow Muslims.

Let us realize that the largest number of casualties who’ve been injured and killed by terror attacks around the world are Muslims.

Trump’s false assertion became a brief talking point tonight at the Republican debate in Miami. Sen. Marco Rubio challenged Trump by suggesting that the reality TV celebrity is wrong to suggest that hatred for America is somehow codified in the Quran.

It’s not.

Donald Trump cannot be allowed to get away with this continued fear- and hate-mongering along the presidential campaign trail.

 

How about switching DST to Friday?

daylight-savings-time

I once thought of Daylight Savings Time as a modern invention.

It really isn’t, although it became all the rage in the 1970s as government officials sought ways to conserve energy during the first Arab oil embargo. Remember when gasoline “zoomed” to the unheard of price of, oh, 75 cents a gallon?

The ancient Romans set water clocks to different times depending on the time of the year. Ben Franklin, certainly a smart fellow, once published a satirical letter urging Paris residents to conserve candle use by rising earlier in the morning.

Daylight Savings Time has its critics and its supporters. Critics say it’s unhealthy, leading to increases in heart attacks as people seek to do more later in the day. Supporters note the energy savings created by burning less electricity.

Back and forth …

DST is about to return. We’re going to lose that hour’s sleep over the weekend. Sunday morning will arrive an hour earlier. Set your clocks ahead before you turn in, OK?

Ranchers will gripe, saying things like, “My cattle don’t know anything about Daylight Savings Time. They’re hungry when they’re hungry.”

Parents might complain, too, because the kids have lost some precious sleep time.

Others will grouse about the perceived difficulty of getting to where they’re supposed to be on time.

I’ve never had a particular problem with switching back and forth — Standard to Daylight time and back again. We’ll get that hour back in the fall when we return to Standard Time.

I like the idea of keeping the sun in our h-u-u-u-u-u-ge sky until later in the day. Take my word for it, sometimes these Texas Tundra sunsets can take one’s breath away and they seem even more spectacular later in the day.

Then again, maybe I’m imagining it. Whatever.

However, I do like to read church marquees. They often offer clever clips and words of wisdom — some of them divinely inspired, I’m sure.

One in particular — on South 45th Avenue here in Amarillo — asks: “Why can’t Daylight Savings Time start on Friday afternoon?”

Good question … don’t you think?

 

Stalkers getting their rear ends kicked

hulk-hogan-2015-640x360

Sportscaster Erin Andrews has just won a $55 million award from a jury that ruled her privacy was invaded while she stayed in a hotel.

Someone recorded her in the nude while she was in her hotel room and then sent the video into cyberspace.

I can’t think of anyone who isn’t cheering that verdict. I hope she gets every penny, although it’s not likely she will.

There’s more.

Former pro wrestler Hulk Hogan was recorded having sex with his best friend’s wife. That video was sent out, too.

The Hulkster is suing a publication for invading his privacy.

I have much less sympathy for Hogan — who’s real name is Terry Bollea — simply because of the nature of the video in question. I need not elaborate.

However, I do believe his privacy is as protected as Erin Andrews’ privacy. I hope he wins his suit.

And get a load of what the former editor of Gawker.com, which sent the video of Hogan/Bollea into cyberspace, told a jury today. He said the only people whose privacy should be honored in such a manner are children. At what age? He said 4 years of age. Five-year-olds? Hey, no sweat. They’re fair game.

Here’s how the New York Times reported the testimony:

“Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” asked the lawyer, Douglas E. Mirell.

“If they were a child,” Mr. (Albert) Daulerio replied.

“Under what age?” the lawyer pressed.

“Four.”

Holy smokes, dude!

The Times reported that there was an audible gasp in the courtroom. Gee, do you think?

The testimony almost turns Hulk Hogan into a truly sympathetic character.

Almost.

Should POTUS attend ex-FLOTUS’s funeral?

obama

I’m beginning to hear some faint rumbles out there in Social Media Land about President Obama’s decision to forgo attending the funeral of Nancy Reagan.

Someone please tell me this is just “normal” cyberworld chatter. That it’s par for the Internet course. That the twitter-verse is full of too many people with too much time on their hands.

The former first lady died the other day at age 94. President Obama joined other dignitaries around the world in expressing their sympathy to Mrs. Reagan’s family. He said some nice things that paid tribute to her service to the country.

He ordered flags lowered to half-staff at the White House and other federal government buildings.

That should be sufficient, yes?

Ohhhh, no.

Some have said the president should attend the funeral. I have heard reports of some critics poking sticks at Obama because he’s going to a SXSW event in Texas that had been planned for weeks.

The president is sending his wife to Mrs. Reagan’s funeral. Indeed, it’s customary for sitting first ladies to pay their respects at funerals of their predecessors.

Some former presidents might attend the service at the Reagan Library later this week. Then again, perhaps it’ll just be their wives. We’ve got several first ladies still among us: Rosalyn Carter, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush all might attend the funeral.

Then again, Hillary Clinton also has a pretty full plate these days as she runs for president of the United States.

I’m sure the right-wing mainstream media would pounce on her absence if she spends that day campaigning for the office that Mrs. Reagan’s husband once occupied.

This is such a nasty, contentious time.

 

Who are you callin’ ‘antique’?

AAgyrHD

Man, I’m feeling old today.

My body isn’t aching. I’ve got most of my marbles. My memory’s still pretty keen.

I just read a headline about “antique” weapons of war being used against the Islamic State.

The picture attached to the story is of an OV-10 Bronco, a twin-engine airplane used during the Vietnam War.

I remember the Bronco. I saw them take off almost hourly from an airfield in a place called Marble Mountain, just a few miles south of Da Nang.

I was assigned to an Army aviation battalion on the western side of the airfield. The OV-10s were piloted by Marines assigned on the other side of the strip. The Marines were stationed with a group called MAG 16, which is shorthand for the 16th Marine Air Group. They flew Broncos, Cobras, Hueys and the Marines’ version of Chinook twin-rotor helicopters.

OK, so I didn’t work on the Broncos, which look vaguely like the old P-38s of World War II; both planes had the twin-fuselage design.

They were effective weapons back then. I guess they’re doing the job now against the Islamic State.

According to the Daily Beast, the Broncos’ mission is somewhat hush-hush. They’ve been used to test updated equipment installed on the birds.

I recall the Broncos being fairly fast and agile aircraft. They would provide firepower to aid ground troops working in the I Corps region of South Vietnam. Today, they’re being used in a similar capacity against Islamic State terrorist fighters.

As the Daily Beast reports: “There are plenty of clues as to what exactly the Broncos were doing. For one, the Pentagon’s reluctance to provide many details about the OV-10s’ overseas missions implies that the planes were working in close conjunction with Special Operations Forces. In all likelihood, the tiny attackers acted as a kind of quick-reacting 9-1-1 force for special operators, taking off quickly at the commandos’ request and flying low to hit elusive militants with guns and rockets, all before the fleet-flooted jihadis could slip away.”

It’s interesting — and somewhat gratifying — to me that tried-and-tested equipment still has its place in this new world of high-tech warfare.

However, to call them “antique” makes those of us who watched these birds fly in their prime feel, well, a bit older than our years.

I can do without the reminder.

In other news, U.S. kills another ISIL leader

AAekCUC

Americans went to the polls today in a couple more states to vote on the next president of the United States.

Meanwhile, the guy who still holds the office — Barack H. Obama — can claim another victory in the nation’s fight against the Islamic State.

Another ISIL leader has been smoked.

Abu Omar al-Shishani, aka Omar the Chechen, reportedly has been killed in a U.S. air strike, giving the United States another notch in its belt as it seeks to seek out and destroy ISIL leaders.

The strike occurred in Syria, which is where Russian, Jordanian, French and British air forces have joined the Americans in the air campaigns against the monstrous terror organization.

Omar the Chechen was the minister of war for the Islamic State, which I guess means he helped plan the strategies that ISIL is carrying out against those who oppose the organization’s effort to bring misery to anyone on Earth.

According to reports, the strike involved waves of manned and unmanned aircraft targeting Shishani, who reportedly had been sent to Syria to shore up terrorist troops that had suffered setbacks on the battlefield.

Against the backdrop of the presidential campaign, it’s interesting to note what one of the Republican challengers has suggested. Donald J. Trump has actually proposed letting ISIL overthrow the Syrian regime. Yes, let the terrorists take over a sovereign nation. That’s what Trump has suggested.

That, I dare say, is an utterly insane idea.

I’d rather continue doing the course on which we’ve embarked, which is to keep bombing the daylights out of ISIL troops and their key leaders.

We possess the firepower to bring extreme misery to the enemy.

We’ve done so yet again. Would it be the final ISIL leader to be killed if Omar the Chechen’s death is confirmed? No.

Still, it still looks like a victory in our war against the Islamic State.

 

Government is not a vacuum-sealed profession

IMG_0631_JPG_312x1000_q100

Ted Cruz knows as well as any of the 100 men and women who work in the U.S. Senate that politicians don’t operate in a vacuum.

The freshman Republican from Texas wants to become president. Were he to stroll into the Oval Office next January, he’ll have a serious issue to resolve.

How is he going to work with the individuals who seem to despise him?

Cruz stands alone in the Senate among those who think highly of him. Or so it appears.

As they say: The president proposes but Congress disposes. The Senate comprises half of the Capitol Building. The overwhelming consensus so far in this presidential campaign has been that Cruz — elected to the Senate in 2012 — has precious few friends and political allies in that body.

So the question persists on my mind: How does this guy expect to get a single thing done while working with a legislative body comprising individuals who can’t stand him?

Presidents don’t work in a vacuum. The most successful of them know how to legislate, know that to get anything done requires them to compromise.

Cruz keeps yapping about never yielding to the other side, never cutting deals, never forsaking his strong conservative principles.

I take that to mean that it’s going to be his way or the highway.

Strange. Isn’t that what Republicans have been saying about President Barack Obama?