Category Archives: national news

national news, political news

Wait for it: Obama to get blame for oil prices

A recent blog I posted wondered how President Obama could get so much blame when oil prices were skyrocketing and so little credit now that they’re plummeting.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/12/11/presidents-get-the-blame-not-the-credit/

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 300 points today, reportedly over concerns about those falling oil prices that are producing dramatic declines in the price of gasoline at the pump.

A USA Today headline suggested this week that the oil price decline threatens the U.S. economic recovery that’s now under way.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/dow-drops-more-than-300-as-oil-continues-to-plunge/ar-BBgGViU

Then it came to me.

Obama’s critics now have a hook on which to hang blame on the president.

They just might start harping about those declining prices, which are a result of too much supply and too little demand. They can gripe that the price decline is harming the recovery, which of course had nothing at all to do — in the minds of the critics — with Obama’s economic stimulus package enacted shortly after he became president.

So if they’re going to insist on blaming the president for every single bad thing that happens in the world, they can turn to the declining oil prices as one more sign of a “failed presidency.”

 

national news

Race relations worsen during Obama era

4 Comments

Relations between white and black Americans have worsened — arguably — during the time Barack Obama has been president of the United States.

That’s the view expressed by many in an essay written by Anita Kumur for Tribune Media Services.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/race-relations-arguably-worse-in-age-of-obama/ar-BBgFqdF

We’re more polarized. Blacks are more distrustful of white authority figures.

Obama’s election in 2008 has resulted in deeper fissures between the races. “We are more racially fractured and fragmented,” said James Peterson, director of Africana Studies at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. “It has exposed more wounds than it has healed,” he said of Obama’s election. “It has exposed how racist our society still is.”

So, who’s to blame for that? Is it the president? His family? His closest advisers?

Or is it many of the rest of us — some of whom just cannot stand the idea of this nation being led and governed by an African-American president?

Barack Obama’s election in 2008 was supposed to signal the transition into a post-racial society. It hasn’t happened. There have been some terribly personal and inappropriate things said to and about the president and his family since they moved into the White House. The president has received more threats against his life than any of his predecessors.

Indeed, the Tribune essay suggests a deepening divide. “The number of people who think blacks and whites do not get along has increased throughout Obama’s presidency, from 19 percent in late 2009 to 28 percent in 2014, according to polls conducted by the Pew Research Center and USA Today,” the essay notes.

This is an uncomfortable subject to address. The president’s harshest critics insist with great passion that their opposition to his policies has nothing to do with race. Many of the president’s supporters counter that the level of disdain and the volume of the criticism suggests something more visceral is at work here.

Personally, I’ve always been dubious of those who start their criticism of Obama by saying, “I am not a racist, but … ” I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard that qualifier since the man’s election in 2008.

I wish it were different. I wish we could get past race. I wish with all my energy that we really could just look at each other without regard to the color of their skin.

It hasn’t happened — yet.

The president, however, doesn’t deserve blame for this sad reality.

national news, political news

End of ticket-splitting? Perish the thought

Mary Landrieu’s loss of her U.S. Senate seat in Louisiana might be the least surprising part of the 2014 mid-term election.

She was the last statewide Democratic officeholder in Dixie.

What does surprise me — and unpleasantly so, I should add — is that according to one veteran political observer, the ’14 mid-terms have ushered in the end of ticket-splitting.

http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/stu-rothenberg-mary-landrieu-runoff-bill-cassidy/

More and more Americans are voting for the party rather than the candidate.

Stuart Rothenberg, writing for Roll Call, says voters are just hitting the straight-ticket spot on their ballot and that voting for individual candidates’ is becoming a rare occurrence.

What a shame.

Rothenberg attributes this to the growing ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans. The parties have become branded as standing for certain things and voters aren’t wasting their time studying candidates’ stands on key issues of the day.

Democrats are being identified as the party of liberals such as Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Al Franken of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The Republican brand includes the likes of Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas, two favorites of the TEA party movement within the GOP.

The casualty, therefore, becomes the practice of examining what the candidates say about issues, relying instead on the party’s message.

I would prefer we did away with the straight-ticket voting option. If someone wants to vote straight Republican or straight Democratic, then make them go through the ballot race by race, candidate by candidate and make them think — if only for an instant — about the candidate they’re about to endorse.

Why can’t we require voters to at least go through the motions of thinking about their vote?

 

national news, political news

Playing chicken once again with budget

Once more our distinguished Congress is playing chicken with citizens’ interests in the federal government.

They’ve cobbled together an “omnibus spending bill” that contains a lot of items tucked deeply inside.

Progressives are asking for a “no” vote on the $1 trillion budget because it has guts campaign finance reform efforts. Conservatives don’t like certain environmental protection elements of the budget.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/2015-gop-budget-back-up-plan-113498.html?hp=t1_r

But it’s all rolled into one big ol’ item everyone must accept as a whole — or nothing at all.

Rejecting the budget means the government shuts down — more or less — at midnight. Then members of Congress will spend the next few hours blaming each other for the mess.

Congressional leaders from both parties reportedly worked out the deal to prevent the shutdown. No leader on either side of the aisle wants the government to cease operating at full capacity. The only folks willing to take that leap appear to be liberals and those TEA party zealots on the other extreme end of the spectrum.

To be honest, I don’t know how much more of this gamesmanship I can take. For the life of me I cannot understand how we keep sending this clowns back into office even after they have taken us to the brink so many times in the recent past.

Pass the damn spending bill!

 

national news, political news, State news

No 'oops' for Perry next time around

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is soon to be a “former” governor — and a likely current candidate for the president of the United States.

He vows there will be no repeat of the infamous “oops” moment in late 2011 when he couldn’t name all three of the federal agencies he said he would cut from the federal government.

In an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, Perry said he’ll be better prepared if he decides to run again for the White House.

He’s also got that felony indictment alleging abuse of power to get worked out one way or the other.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/rick-perry-oops-wont-be-my-obituary/ar-BBgD52T

The most interesting element in the story attached to this blog post is how Harwood sizes up the potential 2016 GOP field with the 2012 cast of characters. The next Republican field is likely to include some serious politicians with serious ideas about how to solve serious problems.

That clearly wasn’t the case in 2012. The GOP field included a cabal of clowns: Herman “9-9-9” Cain? Michelle “Democrats are Communists” Bachmann? Rick “Say ‘No’ to Contraception” Santorum? Newt “I Impeached an Unfaithful President While I was Cheating On My Wife” Gingrich?

The next field, which might include Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, is much more credible than the previous field of candidates.

Perry will have to do battle with a much more serious band of GOP brothers (and maybe) sisters.

Oh, but he says he’ll be ready.

We’ll see about that.

 

national news

University students should listen to George Will

Here we go once again: Liberal educators, politicians and students don’t want to hear a voice from the other end of the political spectrum, so they’re launching an effort to ban that voice from their campus.

Please. Stop this nonsense.

Conservative columnist George Will has been invited to deliver the commencement speech at Michigan State University. Alumni, students and some administrators have decided Will’s world view isn’t welcome there. Specifically they object to his recent statements about sexual assault among female college students.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/10/us-senator-denounces-michigan-states-decision-t/201841

I’ll stipulate that I disagree with Will’s view that “victimhood” has become some sort of badge of honor. The threat of sexual assault is real and it needs to be dealt with in a serious manner.

Indeed, I generally disagree with just about everything Will says in his column or in his role as a Fox News “contributor.”

There. I’ve declared my bias.

But universities — institutions of higher learning — do themselves a terrible injustice when they prohibit all points of view from being heard on the issues of the day.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, an MSU alumna, has weighed in with her objections to Will’s appearance at her alma mater. She said Will’s “statements on sexual assault are inaccurate, offensive, and don’t represent the values of our state or MSU.”

So … what?

Let the man speak and then challenge his assumptions. Debate them. In the open. Intelligently. Let’s have a full airing of competing ideas on sexual assault.

Universities are supposed to be open to wide ranges of thought, ideology and philosophy. Isn’t there some inscription on some wall at the East Lansing campus that suggests that the university is a place where everyone’s views are welcome?

How about fulfilling the university’s mission and letting a noted conservative commentator speak his mind to students who are able to draw their own conclusions about whether he is right … or wrong?

 

International news, national news

Bush tossed under the bus?

This likely is a minority opinion, but I’ll suggest it anyway: It’s sounding to me as though former President Bush’s inner circle is trying to toss the commander in chief under the bus on this Senate report dealing with how the CIA treated suspected terrorists.

The Senate Intelligence Committee summary report issued by the Democratic members blames the CIA for misleading the president and the public over the “enhanced interrogation techniques” being employed to glean intelligence from terror suspects immediately after 9/11.

The implication is that President Bush was kept in the dark. It’s the CIA’s fault that this went on.

Then here comes former Vice President Cheney and former CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden to say, “Oh, no. The president was made aware of what the CIA was doing.” Cheney talked to Fox News about it; Hayden spoke to MSNBC. They both said the president was kept in the loop during all of it.

Interesting, yes?

I haven’t read the entire summary. I have seen excerpts. Some of it is quite grotesque, detailing how interrogators injected suspects with pureed food through what was described as “rectal feeding.”

Did the president know that was occurring?

This debate will continue likely well past the foreseeable future. It’s the next top story du jour.

If the president was unaware of what the CIA was doing, then the former VP and the ex-CIA boss haven’t done him any favors by blabbing about what he knew and when he knew it.

Might there be some backside-covering going on here? I’m just asking.

 

legal news, national news, political news, Uncategorized

A presidential pardon may be in order

The beans are spilled. The cat’s out of the bag. The CIA just might have broken some laws when it detained suspected terrorists and subjected them to torture techniques immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

The spy agency says otherwise, that it broke no laws.

U.S. Senate Democrats on the Intelligence Committee insist that the torture techniques were real and allege that they broke U.S. law.

The New York Times editorial board refers to the findings in the just-released Senate summary of the “enhanced interrogation” as a sign of “depravity” that defies comprehension.

The thought has occurred to me. Perhaps it’s not an original thought, but I’ll toss it out there anyway.

Given that there’s really no serious need to prosecute anyone for alleged criminal activity, perhaps a presidential pardon would be in order.

Go ahead and snicker. This is a serious suggestion, even absent any formal criminal charges being filed against the principals involved — namely President Bush, then-CIA director George Tenet, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Hey, President Ford pardoned his immediate predecessor in the White House, Richard Nixon, for crimes he may have committed while covering up the Watergate burglary. That was the right call in 1974. A similar pardon just might be the right call now.

Let’s have the debate over whether the suspected terrorists were tortured illegally. Both sides will vent. Both will have their say.

There well might be an inclination in some circles to prosecute those in charge at the time. Others will be declare that there’s no need now to punish those who might have committed a crime.

That’s where President Obama can step in.

He’s got the power to issue summary pardons. This well could be the time to act.

 

International news, national news

You mean the CIA might have fibbed?

The Senate report is out: The CIA reportedly lied to President Bush about how it was using “enhanced interrogation techniques” against suspected terrorists.

And to no one’s surprise — certainly not mine — former CIA director Michael Hayden has fired back. He’s defending his agency’s handling of the interrogation techniques.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/cia-torture-report-113420.html?hp=c1_3

My tendency is to believe the Senate, that the CIA was less than truthful. After all, the CIA is a spy agency and its agents are, shall we say, trained to mislead.

The threshold question that will need to answered and then examined for its veracity is whether these techniques — which some call “torture” — produced actionable intelligence that helped the good guys fight the bad guys.

It’s becoming something of a liar’s contest. The CIA and the Bush administration say they did; others say the techniques didn’t provide any information that more normal techniques could have obtained.

The key element is whether torturing the al-Qaeda suspects helped our spooks find Osama bin Laden and whether that information led to the May 2011 SEAL team raid that killed the world’s most wanted terrorist.

The debate has been joined.

Meanwhile, U.S. embassies around the world have been put on heightened alert in case terrorists become so angry at the report that they strike at Americans abroad.

I am one American who does not want to see our forces torture captive combatants. We keep saying we’re above that kind of thing, that we don’t want to reduce our standards to the level of the terrorists we are trying to destroy.

I’m fine with that.

Our intelligence agencies are packed with well-trained professional interrogators who are fully capable of obtaining information through serious questioning and, yes, perhaps some threatening techniques. To inflict actual pain and suffering on those suspects, though, is no better than what they do to captives under their control.

Exceptional nations are able to employ exceptional tactics — even in wartime.

 

national news

Garner case is not about taxation

Conservative talking heads keep trying to change the subject while discussing the case involving Eric Garner, the black man choked to death in New York by a white police officer.

It’s reprehensible for them to try to turn the argument to something as ridiculous as taxation.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/12/08/hannity-to-tavis-smiley-about-the-role-of-race/201804

The video link attached here is difficult to watch. It features Fox News commentator Sean Hannity arguing with PBS commentator Tavis Smiley over the grand jury’s decision not to indict the New York police officer who choked Garner to death. It’s difficult because the two of them keep arguing over each other, each trying to outshout the other. Perhaps the funniest part is when Hannity (a white guy) tells Smiley (a black guy) that he needs “to be educated” about how African-Americans should react to the Garner case and the one involving Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.

But in the midst of the verbal melee, Hannity — quite predictably — tries to suggest the real villain here is a government that insists on taxing cigarettes in an effort to get as much money as it can.

What the … ?

Garner had been approached by the police for selling “loose cigarettes.” He was selling them individually, I guess to make a few bucks on the side. I presume that’s an illegal act, which is why the cops were hassling Garner in the first place.

Well, he argued back, telling the police he wasn’t doing anything wrong. One of them grabbed Garner in a chokehold, wrestled him to the ground, ignoring Garner’s “I can’t breathe” pleas.

Garner passed out and then died.

And Hannity — along with other right-wingers — wants to say the real villain is a tax policy that prohibits people from selling cigarettes in the manner that Eric Garner sought to sell them?

I cannot believe the crassness of such an argument.