Category Archives: national news

Knock off the vulgarity, talking heads

sav

I’ll give Fox News credit for exhibiting a low tolerance for what poured out of the mouths of two of its contributors.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and Stacey Dash decided to get downright filthy when referring to President Obama. I won’t repeat what they said here, but let’s just say that Peters’s comment included a profane reference to a certain private body part, while Dash referred to fecal matter when describing what the president thinks about the war on terrorism.

Fox suspended both of them.

This is important to note for a simple reason. Other notable Americans have used hideous language when discussing public figures and politicians. Yet no sanctions were leveled against them.

The most notable example involves comedian Bill Maher, who fancies himself as a political commentator, who once used an equally disgusting term to describe former Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. He’s still on the air, to the lasting shame of the network — HBO — that carries his show.

The political debate is overheated enough already. The tone has been set by at least one of the Republicans running for the presidency.

As for the comments of the likes of Dash and Peters, well, suffice to say that their employer — the Fox News Channel — is known as a magnet for conservative television news viewers. Perhaps their vile commentary comports with the views held — if not expressed — by many of those viewers.

The issues are serious and they deserve equally serious analysis. Dropping vulgar bombs on the air only distracts us from the importance of the matters under discussion.

I’m just glad to see that the network has established that such language isn’t appropriate when referencing candidates for the presidency, let alone the man who’s already holding the most important office in the land.

A once-respected comedian — Bill Cosby — once decried fellow comedians’ use of filthy language. He would say that those comics who resort to f-bombs and other profane terms do so because they don’t have anything clever or interesting to say.

The same can be said for political commentary.

 

Willpower is enduring tremendous stress

donald

Donald Trump is making it very hard for me to keep my pledge to create a “no politics zone” in this blog.

He keeps coming up with outrageous and disgraceful pronouncements, the latest of which is the notion that he would ban all Muslims coming into the United States of America.

I’m not going to comment on it here. I’ll save my comments to Twitter.

You know how I feel about this particular notion and about Donald Trump in general.

***

But let me offer this brief perspective on something not related directly to his idiotic declarations.

Time magazine reportedly has Trump on its short list of candidates for Person of the Year.

Trump’s influence in 2015 on the upcoming presidential campaign has been profound. Of that there can be zero doubt. For that reason, I can understand if Time decides to declare him as its Person of the Year.

There can be little, if anything, positive to say about the substance of what he’s brought to this debate.

But his influence on its tone and tenor is beyond dispute.

Look at this way: He ain’t Hitler, Stalin or the Ayatollah. They all got the magazine’s nod for their influence on the world — for better or worse.

Jeannette Rankin: ideological purist to the core

Rankin-2673195x

I started thinking about how I might describe ideological purity and then I came up with the name of someone who embodied it in spades.

Jeannette Rankin was a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Montana. She served during two eras in the House and they coincided with our nation’s entry into the two world wars that dominated the 20th century.

What sets Rankin apart is that she voted against declarations of war in both instances.

While we lament politicians’ lack of ideological core and their willingness to bend in whichever direction the winds are blowing, we have this individual who stands tall as the purest of the pure.

Rankin was elected to the House in 1916, four years before women even had the right to vote! President Wilson came to Congress seek a war declaration in 1917 for entry into the Great War. He got it, but Rankin was among 56 House members to vote “no” on the request.

She left the House, but then was elected again in 1940.

Then came the “date which will live infamy,” Dec. 7, 1941. President Roosevelt came to Congress to ask once again for a declaration of war against the Empire of Japan. Every House member — except one — voted to declare war.

The lone holdout? Rep. Rankin.

She was a lifelong pacifist. When given a chance to vote for war, she opted twice to stick to her principles.

It wasn’t popular, particularly in the hours and days immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack, to stand on a belief against war. Rep. Rankin did.

When I hear of individuals such as that, I become torn between conflicting emotions.

My dark side tells me to condemn these people for failing to heed their constituents’ wishes. My strong sense was that her Montana constituency favored going to war in both instance.

My kinder side wants to give her credit for standing foursquare on a principle she held dear to her heart.

I believe that today, as we remember Pearl Harbor and the war we declared against Japan and later, against Germany and Italy, I’ll give more credence to the part of me that salutes Jeannette Rankin.

 

President restates anti-terror policy, and then …

barack

President Obama has asked something of Congress that the legislative branch of government isn’t likely to do.

He wants Congress to authorize the commander in chief to keep up the fight against the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations abroad.

The president’s speech from the Oval Office tonight didn’t break much new ground. He restated what he’s already done in the effort to destroy ISIL.

The bombing campaign will continue; we’ll deploy special forces to work with local ground forces in Iraq and Syria; we’ll keep hunting down terrorist leaders; we will work with allies such as France, the U.K. and Germany to pound terrorist targets; and we will seek to negotiate a ceasefire in Syria so that our allies and “other countries, such as Russia” can concentrate on eliminating international terrorists.

Then came the challenge to the other branch of government that needs to buy into this struggle.

Congress must vote to authorize continued action. The British Parliament enacted a similar authorization this past week and within minutes of the vote, British jets took off to hit ISIL targets in Syria.

The president has asked Congress, in effect, to issue a declaration of war against ISIL. Will it happen? I’m not holding my breath.

Republicans who control both legislative chambers seem to believe we need to commit ground troops to this fight. They want to return American service personnel to the battlefield. Air strikes aren’t enough, they say. So, let’s put “boots on the ground.”

The president won’t do that. He reiterated that view again tonight.

However, he has tendered a reasonable challenge to Congress. Let’s put forward a united front to our enemies, authorize the president to continue the fight and demonstrate that the United States is fully committed to winning this war.

My own view is that we’re at war with the Islamic State, then the president needs to ask Congress to issue the declaration of war … and that Congress needs to act.

What we have now on the table is the next-best thing.

Members of Congress, give the president the authorization he seeks to fight this war.

 

President Carter has more work to do

**FILE**Former President Jimmy Carter takes a question during a conference at The Carter Center in Atlanta, Tuesday, June 7, 2005. An independent panel Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2005 reversed a Pentagon recommendation that the New London submarine base in Connecticut, base be closed. One of the panel members even said a letter from Carter _ the only president to ever serve as a submariner _ pleading the panel to keep the base open was one of the reasons he voted against closure. (AP Photo/Ric Feld, File)

Count me as one American who was thinking dark thoughts when President Carter announced some months ago that his doctors had found cancer in his brain.

There was a certain sound of resignation in the former president’s voice as he told the nation of the diagnosis, while announcing he would proceed with radiation treatment.

Then came news today. It was much better news … at a time when we Americans are looking for a glimmer of hope somewhere in light of recent events in California and the still-simmering aftermath.

President Carter told his Sunday school class he is cancer-free. The cancer is gone. The treatment worked, did its job.

This is an admirable man. He spent four years in the White House and has spent the longest post-presidential period in the nation’s history doing good work around the world. He’s been building houses for poor people; he developed the Carter Center in Atlanta; he has been monitoring elections in countries that never had free and fair elections before; he’s been speaking out on issues of the day.

I was delighted to hear this good news about the former president’s  health.

Yes, he’s an old man. He’s past 90 and he’s lived a full and fabulous life. When it’s his time to leave this world, the president — a deeply devout Christian — will be ready.

I’m glad to know his time among us isn’t up just yet.

 

More guns to ‘end those Muslims’ … yeah, that’s it

falwell

Jerry Falwell Jr. sounds a good bit like the late Jerry Falwell Sr.

The elder Falwell founded Liberty University, a leading Christian-based institution of higher learning. His son now runs it.

Falwell Sr. once produced a video that alleged Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved in the murder of their close friend Vincent Foster. You remember “The Clinton Chronicles.”

Falwell Jr. now says, and this takes my breath away, that more students on the Liberty U. campus in Lynchburg, Va., should be carrying firearms so they could “end those Muslims before they walked in.”

All … right.

Did he really mean that? Does he really mean that “more good people” should be carrying weapons to kill Muslims?

Jerry Jr. says he didn’t mean that. He says he was referring to radical Islamic terrorists. OK, but he didn’t say that. According to the Washington Post: “I just wanted to take this opportunity to encourage all of you to get your permit. We offer a free course,” he said. “Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here.”

By “they,” does he mean Muslims, or just those who commit acts of terror?

It’s not entirely clear to me.

Falwell’s language defies understanding.

I get that he’s angry and frightened over what has just occurred in San Bernardino. But I have trouble grasping that a leader of a prominent Christian university would actually use such inflammatory language to whip up a crowd in the manner that he reportedly did in his speech at Liberty U.

Virginia’s governor, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, said this in a statement: “My administration is committed to making Virginia an open and welcoming Commonwealth, while also ensuring the safety of all of our citizens. Mr. Falwell’s rash and repugnant comments detract from both of those crucial goals. Those of us in leadership positions, whether in government or education, must take care to remember the tremendous harm that can result from reckless words.”

Yes, I know that Falwell’s message will resonate with many other Americans.

Such a message, however, simply saddens me at a time when millions of Americans are filled with overwhelming sadness over our nation’s latest mass-shooting tragedy.

Killers victimized their infant daughter, too

farook and malik

Of all the victims of the latest mass shooting, in San Bernardino, Calif., the most troubling of all well might be a six-month-old girl.

She’s still alive. But she is the daughter of the two people suspected of carrying out the terrorist attack that killed 14 people and injured many more.

How does one comprehend the act of taking an infant to her grandparents’ home, leaving her there, and then launching a mission of terror against innocent victims at a social services agency?

What happens now to this little girl? Sure, she’ll be reared by her grandparents. I get that. What is more difficult to get is what will become of her as she comes of age.

Will she ever know of the tragedy that her parents, Tafsheen Malik and Syed Farook, inflicted on the world? Should she know what her parents did?

I’ll let others debate that one. I’m not going there.

A little girl now is left to grow up without a set of parents who presumably loved her, but who felt compelled to commit this horrific act.

Who’s the villain in this tragedy? It’s looking as though Malik was the “radicalized” one, that she persuaded her husband to join her in this jihad against those at the agency who were celebrating at a Christmas party.

But, of course, that does not absolve Farook of anything. They both abandoned their baby girl to take up for some demented cause.

She’s now left to grow up and enter a world that’s been made decidedly less safe and comforting by the two people who broke their solemn pledge to protect her.

This is a singular tragedy that defies logic at every level imaginable.

 

Merry Christmas … and lock ‘n load!

dvydb58athsqyakzf2g8

You may believe this if you wish, or you may disbelieve it. Doesn’t matter much to me.

But, optics matter.

I saw this picture of a Nevada state legislator who had her picture taken with her family … all of whom are armed to the teeth with guns.

Assemblywoman Michele Fiore, a Republican, thought it would be nice to show her support for the Second Amendment by putting this image on Christmas cards.

Honest to goodness, I really don’t have much to add to this, except to invite you to look at the picture and decide whether you believe this is in keeping with the Christmas spirit.

Would Jesus be packing? If they had these kinds of weapons 2,000-plus years ago, my strong hunch is that the Lord himself — the Prince of Peace — wouldn’t be seen with a gun.

But, you know, I’m just speculating.

As a friend of mine back in Beaumont was fond of saying: “My three-word answer is … W. O. W.”

 

Yes … it was a terrorist act

terrorism1

Let’s stop pussyfooting around a certain word regarding the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre.

It was an act of terrorism. There can be no doubt, zero, of that — in my view.

Whether it was “workplace violence,” the culmination of a terrible argument gone tragically  wrong, or the doings of a young couple persuaded to follow the rhetoric preached by religious fanatics, what the suspects did was terrorize the nation.

They gunned down more than 30 people. Fourteen of them died.

The nation is now asking: Did this young couple represent the Islamic State or some other ruthless cabal of terror?

Whatever the motive turns out to be, they have managed to accomplish a singular goal. They have frightened a community out of its wits and have terrorized a nation looking for answers on how to stop this spasm of brutality.

It’s what terrorists — be they domestic or foreign-born — always do.

 

Gun death toll keeps mounting

barack

I totally understand that President Barack Obama has his share of critics.

Moreover, I respect and honor Americans’ right to criticize him, even though I remain generally a supporter of his policies, his vision for the country and the manner in which he has led us.

It’s hard for me to watch this brief compilation of the number of times the president has had to go before the nation in the wake of mass shootings.

San Bernardino, Calif., was just the latest. I am frightfully certain there will be more of those kinds of massacres before the president and his family check out of the White House on Jan. 20, 2017.

And, yes, there will be more of them for the next president to confront.

I am not going to make any partisan statement here about how we should end it. I’m not going to enter the fray that’s erupting already about whether to clamp more gun control laws, or whether the latest shooters were jihadists.

This is a terribly complex and hear-wrenching problem that has gripped the nation by the throat. It won’t let go.

I’m just one American who’s grown weary of watching these events unfold. I try, with no success at all, to imagine how a president musters the will to corral his emotions with every violent spasm that grips the country he governs.