Category Archives: national news

Media get undeserved 'blame' in Baltimore

Blame the media for covering it.

That’s a line being tossed out by the president of the Baltimore City Council in response to the rioting that has erupted in the city in the wake of the Freddie Gray death and funeral.

Gray died of a severed spine while he was being arrested by police. Rioters exploded in a violence reaction to the death of another African-American man at the hands of police.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/28/anderson_cooper_baltimore_mayor_has_worrying_lack_of_control_yet_she_blames_the_media_for_filming_it.html

CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked a pertinent question: What are the media supposed to do when police cars are burned, when police officers are injured and when people’s property is destroyed by rioters?

The media are not to blame for the violence in Baltimore. The blame rests squarely — and exclusively — on the shoulders of the thugs who fomented the rioting and who have taken zero responsibility to behave as responsible citizens.

News, by definition, are those events that run counter to what’s considered normal. By my way of thinking, torching buildings and injuring innocent people in response to a man’s death qualifies as “news.”

The media must cover these events.

Do not blame media outlets for doing their job.

Baltimore becomes new face of urban insanity

Now it’s Baltimore’s turn in infamy’s spotlight.

A young man, Freddie Gray, died in police custody after suffering a severed spine. He was African-American.

Two weeks later, while the young man was saying good bye to him at his funeral, Baltimore erupted.

Thugs tore into innocent bystanders. Police were assaulted, some of them were injured seriously. Property has been damaged and destroyed.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/baltimore-devolves-into-chaos-violence-looting/ar-BBiKXpR

This is how one responds to tragedy? This is how you seek to make political allies to whatever cause you seek to promote?

The nation is witnessing a shameful act of willful destruction.

The violence and destruction defies my understanding of what goes through people’s minds at times like this.

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said this: “Too many people have spent generations building up this city for it to be destroyed by thugs who, in a very senseless way, are trying to tear down what so many have fought for, tearing down businesses, tearing down or destroying property. It’s idiotic to think that by destroying your city, you’re going to make life better for anybody.”

How, then, do you deal with idiocy?

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 tide appears to be pulling in the opposite direction.

Rain offers new appreciation

I awoke this morning to the sound of rain beating on the front of my house.

It was music to my ears.

The sound used to be like fingernails on the chalkboard. It annoyed me. I was a lot younger then, growing up in a community known for its incessant rain.

Portland, Ore., is a lovely city. It’s full of tall timber and lots of flowers. It’s called the City of Roses and every June, it stages a festival honoring the roses that are in full bloom. The highlight of the festival, for me, was the Grand Floral Parade through downtown Portland. Mom and Dad would take us every year. We’d get there early, find a nice spot on the parade route and wait for the sounds of the drums.

It seemed to rain every year on our parade, though.

Which brings me to my point.

I hated the rain as a kid. I griped about it constantly. My parents tired of me always complaining.

Then I grew up, went away for a couple of years to serve in the Army, came home, got married and eventually my bride and I moved to Texas.

We gravitated to Amarillo more than 20 years ago.

It doesn’t rain nearly as much here as it does in Portland, or in Beaumont, where my family and I lived for the first 11 years of our Texas residency. It’s not that Portland gets a lot of rain each year, it’s that it seems to drizzle constantly. We could more rain in Beaumont in an hour than would fall in Portland in a month.

I’ve come to appreciate the rain much more now. The Panhandle drought has awakened me to the value that rainwater brings to everything. To the economy, to our ability to function as a society, to the fulfillment of our basic needs — such as quenching our thirst and, you know, bathing.

I won’t complain ever again about too much rain.

Growing up teaches us the value of things that used to annoy us.

Today, I intend to enjoy the sight and smell of the rain.

Afflicting the comfortable no longer in vogue?

There’s a saying that a free press’s key mission is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

At the risk of sounding like a whiny baby who never got invited to one of these gigs, allow me now to say that the Washington Correspondents Dinner is a disgrace to the high-minded mission that the D.C. press corps is supposed to fulfill.

Check out this essay about what’s become of this annual event:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/white-house-correspondents-dinner-117287.html?ml=po#.VT2bCFJ0yt8

There’s something more than mildly offensive about seeing reporters and their dates parading along a red carpet, a la the Oscars, Tonys, Emmys and the ESPYs.

Those of us who toiled out here in the Heartland — aka Flyover Country — always have thought there ought to be a natural tension between the power brokers and those who cover them, reporting on their dealings to the “unwashed masses” who depend on journalists to tell them the truth.

Here’s how Patrick Gavin describes the event that occurred over the weekend: “What started off decades ago as a stately formal celebration of the best of presidential reporting has morphed into a four-day orgy of everything people outside the Beltway hate about life inside the Beltway—now it’s not just one night of clubby backslapping, carousing and drinking between the press and the powerful, it’s four full days of signature cocktails and inside jokes that just underscore how out of step the Washington elite is with the rest of the country. It’s not us (journalists) versus them (government officials); it’s us (Washington) versus them (the rest of America).”

Boy, howdy. I couldn’t have said it better.

The D.C. press corps has become something of an echo chamber, where journalists parrot each other’s views and simply cannot wait to be seen in the company of the famous and the powerful. In their own minds, that seems to fit the description of the people who cover government.

I loved Gavin’s note that unlike some of the other dinners — such as the Gridiron — where presidents occasionally are absent, POTUS’s attendance at the correspondents dinner seems to be required. Gavin writes:  “The last president to skip it was Ronald Reagan in 1981 and — let’s cut him some slack — he bailed because he had just been shot.”

The press’s mission to afflict the comfortable now seems almost quaint. How can it do so when the comfortable include the very journalists who keep slapping the backs and yukking it up with the folks they are sent to cover?

I much prefer the tension that is supposed to exist between the media and the government. It keeps everyone — reporters and their sources — a little more honest.

 

Yes, Brady should have been at the White House

Tom Brady is taking some heat for missing a ceremony honoring the pro football team of which he is a member.

You’ve heard of Brady? Sure. He’s the quarterback of the New England Patriots, who won this year’s Super Bowl in stunning fashion against the Seattle Seahawks. He’s also the face of the team. He’s its field leader. He’s the Main Man of the offense.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/stephen-a-smith-blasts-brady-for-missing-white-house-visit/ar-BBiFBgr

Stephen A. Smith, an ESPN commentator, has taken serious umbrage over Brady’s absence from the ceremony, which is a tradition at the White House. Presidents long have honored NFL champs, World Series champs, NBA champs and even occasionally NHL champions, if the franchise that wins the hockey title is based in the United States.

I don’t buy Smith’s tirade that Brady “disrespected” the president, or that he skipped out because of political reasons. Then again, Smith is a blowhard and a grandstander who often says things that have little basis in reality.

I do agree, though, that Brady should have been there.

He’s a member of a team comprising 53 men that won the Big Game — as a team.

The writer of the essay attached to this blog notes that in previous post-Super Bowl ceremonies at the White House, Brady was single and that now he’s married, with children — and that maybe he couldn’t fit the event into his busy schedule.

C’mon.

Brady knew for many weeks the event was coming up. Brady had ample time to schedule this appearance. Heck, he’s got a secretary who could have taken care of the details. Brady could have taken some time away from his kids’ activities and his super-model wife to attend a light-hearted event at the White House.

My sense is that Brady’s absence from this event suggests he thinks of himself as bigger than the game and more important than his team.

The young man would be sadly mistaken on both counts.

 

Bush loses weight, gains momentum

Jeb Bush has lost weight.

It’s reportedly 20 to 30 pounds. The former Republican governor of Florida is considering a run for the presidency next year.

Does one have anything to do with the other?

Sure it does.

http://www.examiner.com/article/jeb-bush-weight-loss-will-bush-s-weight-loss-help-his-run-for-president

We’ve become obsessed with how candidates look. OK, maybe not obsessed, but its important in the minds of voters who want their national leaders to present themselves well.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another possible — if not probable — GOP presidential candidate, had some surgery to help him control his weight. He said at the time he was doing it for health reasons and because his wife and children were concerned about his health. I am certain of their concern.

But he said nothing about the cosmetic aspect of the weight loss surgery and whether his own ambitions for higher office had anything to do with his decision.

The last truly obese president we elected was probably William Howard Taft, who weighed in at 300-plus pounds. But that was in 1908. Enough said about that, yes?

These days, candidates have to look the role they seek to assume.

Thus, Jeb Bush’s weight loss serves as a precursor to what almost every political pundit/commentator/observer has been saying for months. He intends to run for president of the United States.

If nothing else, Gov. Bush’s weight loss is a testament to the stamina he’ll need to endure the grind he’s about to undertake.

 

Lynch gets key GOP ally

Politics occasionally produces peculiar alliances that develop at key moments.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked Attorney General-designate Loretta Lynch’s confirmation vote over an unrelated bill dealing with human trafficking. Then the Senate approved the trafficking bill. What did McConnell do then? He rounded up enough votes to get Lynch confirmed.

McConnell whipped for Lynch, avoiding nuclear fallout

His work to end a filibuster that had stopped Lynch’s confirmation apparently has angered the likes of Sen. Ted Cruz and other members of the Senate’s TEA party caucus.

My reaction? Live with it.

This seeming reversal gets to a key element of McConnell’s leadership. He can be a fierce partisan when the opportunity presents itself, but he knows how the Senate is supposed to work and he knows how to deal with the “other side,” namely Democrats, when that opportunity presents itself.

Compromise, therefore, isn’t a bad thing when a failure to compromise gums up the legislative works — as it did while Loretta Lynch waited an interminable length of time to be confirmed as the nation’s next attorney general.

So, now let’s move on to the next congressional crisis.

 

Drone takes out ex-American

Adam Pearlman was born to Jewish parents and raised on a California goat farm.

Then he changed his religion. He became a Muslim. Then he changed his name, to Adam Gadahn.

After all that, he joined a terrorist cult.

And in January, he was killed by an American drone strike. It apparently wasn’t planned, but he’s dead nonetheless. Americans — other than his family — shouldn’t be shedding a tear over this man’s death.

Count me as one American who scores his death as a victory in our war against international terrorism.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/al-qaeda-adam-gadahn-isis-rebirth-americans-recruited-to-isil-117285.html?hp=t1_r#.VTmsfFJ0yt8

Gadahn was killed in a drone strike that reportedly also killed two hostages, and American and an Italian. For those two men’s deaths, President Obama rightly apologized “on behalf of the U.S. government.”

Gadahn, though, is a different matter. As some Texans might say, “He needed killin’.”

And yet, civil libertarians — and I count myself as one of them — keep arguing that the United States shouldn’t kill Americans without giving them due process.

I am prepared to argue that these terrorists no longer qualify as deserving equal protection under the laws of the land. They forgo those protections the moment they take up arms with an enemy forces hell bent on killing Americans or any other innocent victims.

Gadahn had forsaken his rights as a citizen when he decided to join al-Qaeda. He had turned his back on his country by becoming a spokesman for the late Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization, the monsters who plotted the 9/11 attacks and, thus, fired the first shot in what’s become known as the “global war on terrorism.”

Yes, we should mourn the deaths of innocent victims. I join those in grieving for the loss of the American and Italian hostages who were held captive by al-Qaeda.

But for the man formerly known as Adam Pearlman? I won’t grieve for a single moment.

 

Goodness lives in the 'next generation'

The next time you hear someone complain about “kids today,” remind them of the young man shown in the video attached to this blog.

He’s an Oklahoma youngster who sought to write a wrong committed by one of his parents.

The young man sought out an elderly woman and offered what only can be called an apology to end all apologies.

Your heart will soar when you see this.

Trust me. It will.