Category Archives: national news

Teacher emerges as hero

Megan Silberberger likely didn’t ever envision her job requiring this kind of heroism.

When a young freshman high school student began shooting at classmates this past week in Marysville, Wash., Silberberger did a profoundly heroic deed. She confronted the shooter and ordered him to stop.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/26/us/washington-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Witnesses have said Silberberger grabbed the shooter’s arm and, in effect, neutralized him, if only for a moment.

The boy, Jaylen Fryberg, would then turn the gun on himself and end his life.

One other student by then had been shot dead and four others had been wounded.

The tragedy had come to a sudden end.

Details of the confrontation haven’t yet been released through official channels, but enough eyewitness accounts of what people saw cast Megan Silberberger as the hero in this tragic event.

CNN.com reported: “Police have not yet said how many shots in total were fired, but there was at least one bullet left in the cartridge before the confrontation with Silberberger — because the final shot was the one that ended Fryberg’s life. A Beretta .40-caliber handgun believed used in the shooting has been traced to Fryberg’s father, according to the source.”

How does one explain such a tragedy?

Fryberg was known to be a popular student. He’d been named homecoming prince at Marysville Pilchuck High School. He was popular — quite obviously — among his peers at the suburban Seattle school. He also was described as a “happy” boy. What set off this rampage is now Question No. 1 for school and law enforcement authorities.

But these tragedies occasionally have ways of producing characters worthy of high praise.

I hope we’ll know more in due course about what is believed to be known about Megan Silberberger’s actions that day in the high school cafeteria.

I also hope she’ll recover emotionally from the extreme danger she faced down, likely never expecting such mind-blowing trauma when she went to work that day.

 

Jeb's running? So says 'P,' the son

That settles it.

Jeb Bush is “more than likely” going to run for president of the United States in 2016.

That’s according to George P. Bush, the son of the former Florida governor.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/10/george-p-bush-more-than-likely-jeb-will-run-197647.html?hp=r3

I’m not yet sure about that, although I likely shouldn’t challenge what “P” knows about his dad’s intentions.

Perhaps I should presume that Jeb told “P” it’s OK to say he’s “more than likely” to run if the question came up — as it did — on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday news talk show.

“P” himself is a candidate for Texas land commissioner and figures to win the race in 10 days. After all, he’s a Republican and in Texas these days that’s all the credential he needs to win public office. Put an “R” next to your name and you’re in.

I’m still kinda/sorta pulling for Mitt Romney to make one more run for the White House. He’s made two stabs at it already, winning the Republican nomination in 2012 only to lose by 5 million popular votes to the president of the United States.

Jeb Bush, though, also intrigues me, given that I’m quite certain Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to seek the Democratic nomination. Imagine yet another Clinton-Bush campaign for the White House. Would Jeb seek to atone for his dad’s dismal campaign against Bill Clinton back in 1992?

More than that, though, is the idea that Jeb could run as a moderate Republican, which is where I believe the family pedigree guides him — despite brother George W’s rightward shift when he was elected president in 2000.

The final say on whether Jeb runs, of course, will come from Mom. That would be Barbara, who’s already suggested the nation is tired of the Bush name in national politics.

A “more than likely” candidacy doesn’t make it a certainty.

 

 

Are we really a second-rate power?

You hear it frequently these days from right-wing talking heads, politicians and a few “expert observers” that the United States is in danger of becoming a second-rate military power.

They express grave concern that the commander in chief, Barack Obama, seeks to “deliberately” reduce America’s standing in the world because of some trumped-up “anti-American bias” they’ve attached to the man.

I heard U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry express those concerns recently, although he did so with a good measure of class and decorum. He isn’t pounding on the same drum that many lunatics on the right are beating.

Thornberry — who’s set to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee next year — did suggest that China is growing its defense budge at a far greater rate than the United States and is concerned that the communist dictatorship may be about to surpass us as the pre-eminent military power on Earth.

He’s not alone in saying these things.

I dug into my World Almanac and Book of Facts and found a few interesting numbers. They relate to defense spending.

In 2012, China spent just a shade less than $90 billion on its defense establishment; Russia — which 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said is our “No. 1 geopolitical adversary” — spent $52 billion. That’s around $142 billion spent between these two fearsome foes.

The U.S. defense budget for 2012? $739 billion.

Are the Russians and Chinese getting so much more bang for the buck — pardon the pun — that we should worry that either of them is going to surpass us in military strength? I hardly think that’s the case.

I totally get, however, that in this new world of vaguely defined enemies and an international war against terror, that it is next to meaningless to measure military strength vis a vis our “traditional” foes.

Let’s cool our jets just a bit, though, when suggesting that the United States of America is no longer capable of defending itself against any foe.

We’re still pouring lots of money into our national defense and we’re still getting a damn good return on that investment.

 

If GOP takes Senate, it'll need to govern

The stars apparently are lining up for a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate, or so the experts are saying.

Let’s assume they’re right. A RealClearPolitics average of all the major polls show a six-seat shift, precisely the number that the GOP needs to become the majority in the Senate.

I’m not clear about the House of Representatives, where Republicans have ruled since 2011. Perhaps their control will tighten.

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-poised-snatch-us-senate-mid-terms-015415687.html

This much is becoming clearer as the mid-term elections approach: If Republicans are destined to control the entire legislative branch of government, then they need to prepare to actually govern, as in enact legislation that President Obama can actually sign into law.

So far since January 2009, when Barack Obama took office, Republicans have done their level best to block just about every major initiative the president has put forward. It started with the financial bailout package which the GOP opposed, but which got enacted over its objections.

Then came the 2010 mid-term election. The House switched to Republican control. Then the fun really began.

Republicans opposed the Affordable Care Act; they’ve conducted an ongoing series of show hearings on Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service’s vetting of conservative political action groups’ request for tax exempt status; they’ve opposed immigration reform; increasing the minimum wage and a host of other White House initiatives.

If the Senate flips, then we’re going to see donnybrooks develop over confirmation of, say, the next attorney general and a series of lower-level appointments the president will seek.

I’ll buy the notion that the legislative branch of government is going to turn Republican.

Will legislators keep trying to stick it in the president’s eye or will they actually compromise when possible on key bills and send them to the White House in good faith? And will the president follow suit and sign these bills into law?

Republicans have mastered the art of obstruction since Democrat Barack Obama became president. Let’s see if they can learn the art of governing.

 

Perry to N.Y.: Learn from us

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has placed an important phone call to his colleague in New York and offered a critical piece of advice.

Don’t make the mistakes we made in Texas when handling an Ebola case, Perry reportedly told Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Good advice, governor.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/10/perry-offers-ebola-advice-to-new-york-officials/

The Texas Ebola case ended tragically for the Liberian man who brought the disease to the state. He died under the care of medical professionals in Dallas. A nurse who cared for him has just been released from medical care after she came down with the virus. Now  New York doctor who was in West Africa treating Ebola patients has been diagnosed with the disease and he apparently is responding to treatment.

Perry called Cuomo and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to offer his assistance on how to handle the disease. Gov. Perry’s prime advice? Follow all the necessary medical protocols to the letter. A breach in protocol in Dallas apparently led to the nurse getting infected, according to the governor’s office.

The good news is that the nurse, Nina Pham, is now Ebola free.

There was some more advice Perry gave to Cuomo and de Blasio, according to the San Antonio Express-News:

“Perry shared some more lessons in separate Friday phone conversations with the officials, including regarding ‘the importance of informing the public about the realities of the Ebola virus in order to reduce misconceptions about its transmissions,’ his office said.”

Ah, yes. Public information.

A lack of accurate information has helped lead to the near-hysterical response in some quarters to the arrival of this disease.

A thorough dissemination of facts always should be of prime concern.

It’s good to remember that Ebola likely wasn’t on medical professionals’ radar when the patient arrived from Liberia. It’s on everyone’s mind now.

Gov. Perry has some valuable experience to share and it’s good that he’s sharing it.

 

Shooting shatters 'profile'

When news broke of the shooting at the Marysville, Wash., high school, and it was known that the shooter was a student, one of my first thoughts became: What kind of loner/outcast would do such a horrible thing?

Then the second shock arrived. The shooter was a freshman at Pilchuck High School who was popular with his peers, an athlete and a young man who’d just been named homecoming prince.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/washington-school-gunman-was-homecoming-prince/ar-BBaYo33

Then I watched a former FBI profiler, Clint Van Zandt, tell MSNBC that this case arguably is the most “baffling” he had seen, given that Jaylen Fryberg was the quintessential non-stereotype we’ve attached to individuals who do these kinds of horrifying deeds. Van Zandt essentially said you could throw the profile book out the window.

Fryberg killed himself after shooting another student to death and injuring four others, three of them critically.

The argument will rage once again over how this young man obtain possession of the weapon he used to bring such destruction to the school just north of Seattle.

***

We’re going to hear from gun-owner advocates that no laws could have prevented this from happening. Gun-safety advocates will argue the opposite.

And look and listen for the National Rifle Association — among others — to proclaim that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment is so sacrosanct that to touch any part of it would render it utterly meaningless.

Interestingly, Washington state voters are going to decide a referendum on the state’s ballot that expands background checks to include all gun purchases.

It’s fair to ask: Would such a provision have kept the weapon out of Jaylen Fryberg’s hands? Probably not.

It also is fair to ask: Do such laws make it just a little harder for nuts to obtain guns … and do they infringe on legitimate gun ownership?

“Yes” to the first part. Absolutely “no!” to the second.

Hey, what about that lawsuit?

Politico asks an important question: Why haven’t congressional Republicans filed that lawsuit against President Obama, contending that the president has misused his executive authority regarding the Affordable Care Act?

It’s just a short distance from Capitol Hill to the federal courthouse. The House GOP could file the lawsuit and get this thing started, yes?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obama-lawsuit-house-republicans-112196.html?hp=t1

Well, I have a two-part theory: First, the lawsuit lacks merit and, second, filing the lawsuit now with the world focused on much more grave issues, such as international terrorism, makes Republicans look petulant.

Politico also points out that the employer mandate, which is what the president delayed through his executive action, is set to kick in on Jan. 1. If the mandate starts — requiring employers to offer insurance to employees — then the lawsuit becomes moot.

House Speaker John Boehner announced his intention to sue Barack Obama with great fanfare. Then the world went up in flames in Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Nigeria, Ukraine — have I missed anything?

The president has been tested time and again by real crises, not pestered by made-up problems brought to bear by political opponents at home whose sole intent is to stick it to him.

I still contend the speaker is a reasonable man. He knows how it would look for him to pursue this lawsuit now.

Almost no one in Washington believes that the ACA will be repealed. It’s working. It is providing insurance to millions of Americans.

If the Republicans were going to strike a blow against what they say is executive abuse of power, well, the time has passed.

Let’s move on to things that really matter.

Let’s try governing.

Idiocy runs rampant

The idiocy that some cable “news” networks try to pass off as punditry continues to amaze me.

Allen West is a retired Army officer, a former member of Congress and a current “contributor” to the Fox News Channel.

He said the best way to combat the activities such as the shooter who invaded the Canadian Parliament building this week in Ottawa is to close down certain mosques and “Islamic Centers” and deport imams who are “feeding Islamic terrorists.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/24/allen-west-on-ottawa-attack-shut-down-mosques-o/201303

Here’s part of what West said on a radio interview:

“We’re not saying, you know, we start shutting down mosques and Islamic Centers. But the ones who are feeding us these violent jihadists, they need to be the ones that are shut down. Like I said, the imams, the mullahs that are there running these mosques and centers, they need to be deported. Because we have to say, this is, you know, a zero-sum game. We’re not tolerating it.”

Let’s bring this issue home, to Amarillo.

A prominent Amarillo physician, who happens to be Muslim, erected such a center on the far western edge of the city some years back in honor of his mother.

I actually heard someone express fear that the center would become a “school” for terrorists, that the center would breed bad guys who then would spread their hatred in the form of violence perpetrated against “infidels.” I told this individual with whom I am acquainted that terror cells do not operate in the open like that; they operate under cover of darkness that no terrorist organization — no matter their so-called religious affiliation. They’re not going to advertise their association with a clearly marked and identified structure, such as an Islamic center.

This individual didn’t get my point.

How about we just maintain keen vigilance, stay alert at all times and hunt down the terrorists we can identify?

Civilized nations all around the globe — and that surely includes the United States of America — are doing that already.

No fan of Mama Palin, but Bristol doesn't deserve this

As a proud and vociferous non-fan of Sarah Palin, I must declare my disgust at the way some media talking heads have portrayed her daughter, Bristol, in the wake of a brawl that erupted in Anchorage that allegedly involved several members of the Palin family.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/10/cnns-costello-apologizes-for-palin-remarks-197534.html?hp=r5

The chief culprit in this disgraceful display of disrespect is CNN news anchor Carol Costello, who declared a recording of Bristol’s telling police of being attacked by someone at a party to be “quite possibly the best minute and a half of audio we’ve ever come across. Well, come across in a long time anyway.”

Costello has apologized for her on-air remark. But the damage is done.

The incident occurred in September at a party in suburban Anchorage. Several of the Palins arrived and apparently an argument ensued. It got out of hand. One of Bristol Palin’s sisters got involved in a shoving match or some form of physical contact with another party attendee. Then it got nasty.

So, what’s the issue here?

The Palins — including Bristol’s mother, Sarah — blame the “liberal media” for making fun of Bristol’s involvement in a violent altercation. Bristol wrote in a blog post that the media would react far differently if Chelsea Clinton had been attacked in a similar manner and would have proclaimed her to be a “feminist hero” had she defended herself or someone else.

Well, my strong hunch is we’ll likely never hear of such an incident involving the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the former president and a potential future president of the United States.

Whatever. The Palins are right to be angry over Bristol’s treatment.

I’ll be brutally candid. My initial reaction to the story when it broke was one of disgust — not that Bristol was involved in a violent altercation, but that the Palins would get caught in such a ridiculous situation. Here’s what I wrote at the time:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/09/12/palins-were-punchin-em-out/

I now get why the family is angry.

Wondering about endorsements' value

Joni Ernst is stiff-arming Iowa newspaper editorial boards in her bid to become that state’s next U.S. senator.

She is following the trail blazed four years ago right here in Texas by Gov. Rick Perry, who did the very same thing, watched most of the papers around the state endorse his opponent, and then won re-election by a healthy margin.

I’ve taken note of this already in a blog post.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/10/23/ernst-follows-perry-model-who-needs-editorial-boards/

Now comes the corollary question: Do these endorsements matter any longer?

I wrestled with the question for many years before my daily journalism career came to a screeching halt in August 2012.

It’s no secret to anyone that newspapers are changing before our eyes. Their role as community leaders is changing as well. Sadly, many companies that run newspapers are giving in to this trend and are devaluing their opinion pages and retreating from their traditional role as community leaders.

So, Republicans Ernst and Perry have decided to forgo the ritual that politicians used to say they enjoyed, which was to seek newspaper endorsements in their election and/or re-election campaigns. They seem to understand that newspapers no longer carry the clout they once did. Politicians used to call on editorial boards, proclaiming that they relished the give-and-take these meetings produced.

Newspaper editors — and you can count me as one of them — also used to get much from these encounters. I worked at the Amarillo Globe-News for 17 years, and 8 months and participated in many more of these meetings that I can remember. And I always, without question, learned something new about my community or my state during every election cycle.

We would reach consensus on who to recommend for public office, craft our statement, publish it and then let the chips fall.

That process now seems to be slipping away as politicians decide they don’t need these endorsements.

Rick Perry didn’t need them in 2010. I’m betting Joni Ernst — win or lose — won’t need them now.

People are forming their opinions using other media. They scour the Internet in search of their version of the truth, which isn’t hard to find, no matter your political orientation.

It’s interesting to me that politicians most likely to blow off these endorsement interviews lean heavily to the right, such as Perry and Ernst.

We’ll know for certain that editorial board endorsements really no longer matter when progressives stop seeking them.