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.

 

Jenner's announcement: Let's move on

Well, I had a decent night’s sleep after Bruce Jenner’s big announcement Friday.

He’s a woman … he said.

I looked outside this morning and I discovered that the leaves were still on the trees, the grass is still green, the sky is blue and the sun rose in the east just as it does every single day.

And yet some of us no doubt are tittering and wondering about the individual formerly known as The World’s Greatest Athlete and his decision to “transition” to womanhood.

Do I want to honor his privacy? I believe Jenner surrendered his privacy when he married his third wife and got involved in that reality TV shtick involving her daughters. Plus, he did the two-hour interview last night. No, privacy isn’t it.

The story bores me.

Therefore, I made a key decision this morning upon awakening.

It is that I won’t use this blog to get involved in the international discussion.

I might discuss the issue of transgenderhood in general down the road, sometime and in some other context. There might even be a mention of Jenner in the distant future.

Today? I’m going to take care of business — and wait for the sun to rise in the morning.

Worst-kept secret is out: Jenner's a woman

This story has been off my radar. I believe it’s still off the screen, except that tonight the principal player in this story is making international news.

Bruce Jenner, the former Olympic decathlon champion, Wheaties box icon, three-time husband and a father has declared he’s becoming a woman.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/bruce-jenner-reveals-to-diane-sawyer-%e2%80%98yes-i-am-a-woman%e2%80%99/ar-BBiEgXM

He went on the air for two prime-time hours to tell Diane Sawyer that he’s changing his sexual identity.

Honestly, I don’t know how to respond to this.

Do I respond to the news that an individual has decided to change his gender? That’s his call exclusively and it doesn’t matter to me one single bit. Thus, that part of the story remains off my radar — although it’s likely on everyone else’s.

Or does one respond to the fact that a major broadcast network chose to devote two hours to this story?

ABC Television is run by smart individuals who know their audience. The audience wants to hear it. I guess it’s a big deal to many millions of folks. It’s not to me.

I’m left, therefore, to ponder the direction that popular culture has taken us.

For now, I’m going to try to get a good night’s sleep. I’ll awaken tomorrow and likely will read a lot of commentary throughout the infinite Internet universe about what’s transpired tonight with Jenner’s revelation.

At the moment, I’m left merely to shake my head and try to comprehend the significance of Jenner’s declaration that “I’m not gay.”

Be careful with war references, politicians

Listen up, politicians.

Whether you’re running for president of the United States, any seat in Congress, the statehouse or a seat at City Hall, take care when referencing any military experience.

There will be folks out here who are listening to your every word.

Roy McDowell is running for mayor of Amarillo. He’d been referring in public statements to his military service “in Vietnam.” Turns out McDowell didn’t serve in-country, but served during the Vietnam War era.

Why bring this up? Because some of us who actually did serve in Vietnam are keenly aware of these things and want to be sure that all vets — whose service is honorable — portray their service honestly.

Is this a deal-breaker? Probably not, but McDowell and other politicians need to be acutely aware that the world is watching and listening.

He’s not the first politician to fudge a little. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., did a doozy of a job mischaracterizing his own military service before being elected to the Senate. He, too, said he’d served in Vietnam when he hadn’t. Bad call, senator.

This also reminds me of a young man whose acquaintance I made some years ago. He told my wife and me he “flew helicopters” in Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid-1990s. When he said he “flew,” I assumed immediately he piloted them. We would talk about his experience “flying” Apache choppers for the Army. I assumed, of course, that he either was a warrant officer or was commissioned. He well might have flown aboard the choppers, but perhaps as a crew member.

Why make that leap? Well, years later, I happened to be browsing through his office and discovered his discharge certificate on a wall. It listed his rank as private, E-1. What? How could he have “flown” helicopters if he’s a mere enlisted man — and a buck private to boot?

Take great care, politicians. If you fudge on your service record, you can be caught.

 

Gay marriage to get big test

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to decide soon whether Americans have a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex.

My guess is that if the conservative court majority is as “strict constructionist” as its members claim to be, the issue could be a slam dunk.

They’ll declare a ban on same-sex marriage to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

State courts and lower federal courts have been striking down state bans left and right. Texas’s own ban is among those that the courts have ruled violated someone’s constitutional rights.

The issue, as I see it, rests within the 14th Amendment, which guarantees Americans the right to “equal protection” under the law. It doesn’t specify that citizens need to be of a certain sexual orientation.

State bans have flouted, in my view, that constitutional guarantee. That is why the federal courts have stepped in.

So, the highest court in the land is set to decide this issue.

I remain perplexed by the notion of calling same-sex unions “marriage.” But that’s just me. I do not question the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

Neither should the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

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.

 

Texas power honeymoon is over

Is the honeymoon over among the Big Three of Texas’s state government?

Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Joe Straus sat down this week for some breakfast. It reportedly didn’t go too well.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/big-three-breakfast-blows

Patrick purportedly complained that Abbott and Straus were “picking on me” and said he wanted it to stop.

Abbott, Straus and Patrick all issued statements later, with the governor saying he had a “strong working relationship” with the lieutenant governor.

I daresay this might be a precursor of things to come in Austin, with Patrick marching to his own cadence as he runs the state Senate. Meanwhile, Abbott and Straus might be more inclined to operate on a mainstream conservative level.

R.G. Ratliffe, writing for Texas Monthly, reports that Patrick and Straus argued over Patrick’s assertion that the House isn’t moving quickly enough on Senate-passed legislation. Patrick declared a “new day” in Austin when he was inaugurated, got the Senate to pass some tough legislation — open-carry of firearms, tax cuts and moving the Public Integrity Unit to the control of the Department of Public Safety. The Man of the House, Straus, has let the legislation simmer far longer than Patrick wants.

Patrick, being the take-charge guy he is, now is trying to pressure Abbott to act on his behalf. Abbott apparently isn’t having any of it.

Thus, the three of them are at each other’s throats.

I believe some Texas pundits might have foreseen this kind of friction when Abbott and Patrick were campaigning for their respective offices.

Patrick is a tiger. Abbott is more, um, reserved. Straus? He’s more like Abbott than Patrick.

Might there be a feud building between Patrick and Abbott — that might lead to a primary challenge for governor, say, in 2018?

Let’s all stay tuned, shall we?

 

'Home rule' on red-light cameras? Apparently not

You live in a Texas city and your elected officials — the folks who represent you and your neighbors — have decided to install cameras at dangerous intersections to deter motorists from running red lights.

Your city has the authority to do such a thing under Texas law. Not as it relates to red-light cameras.

The Texas Senate has sent to the House a bill that would ban cities from deploying the cameras, as Amarillo and dozens of other cities have done.

Well, there goes home rule.

Sen. Bob Hall has declared the cameras to be a failure across the state.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article19246596.html

The bill would allow the cameras on toll roads. Therefore, given that there isn’t a toll road within hundreds of miles of the Panhandle, we won’t have the cameras.

I believe it is a mistake for the Legislature to seek to read the minds of mayors, council members, city managers and traffic engineers on this issue.

Are the cameras popular among Amarillo motorists? No. It’s because they catch them doing something they aren’t supposed to do, which is try to sneak past street signals that have turned red or, in some drastic cases, race through the lights from a dead stop.

Then again, I remain unconvinced that most motorists detest the cameras enough to merit their removal. Some of them do and they have protested loudly.

Their voices have been heard — way down yonder in Austin.

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.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience