national news, political news

House GOP 'survey' loaded with baloney

Nice try, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner.

You sought to ask me my views on how you and National Republican Congressional Committee are seeking to save the country from those reckless and feckless liberals in the White House. I ain’t taking the bait, Mr. Speaker.

You’ll get your State of the Nation Survey back in the mail. I even signed my name to it to validate its findings.

You see, sir, I don’t share your view that President Obama has wrecked the country. Almost every question you pose in your survey presumes that you and your party are right and the president and his party are wrong … across the board.

To be fair, I do agree with a few of the questions you pose. I believe, as you do, that the feds should work “closely with state and local officials to stop border violence and enforce federal immigration laws.” I also believe in the Second Amendment’s guarantee that we have a right “to keep and bear arms.” I agree with you that our legal system should “better protect victims and consumers while also giving manufacturers and small businesses confidence to keep jobs in America.” I even believe in “Republicans’ landmark ban on all earmarks” attached to federal legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, your survey isn’t a total loser with me.

However, I do not subscribe to your notion that liberal/progressive policies are inherently bad for the country. I happen to be a good-government liberal who thinks the Obama administration has done well to revive the economy and keep us safe from terrorists. I also believe, contrary to your view, that our standing in the world hasn’t been diminished. Furthermore, I believe that the Affordable Care Act, which likely needs more fine-tuning, should remain on the books, as it is providing millions of Americans with health insurance they didn’t have before it was enacted.

Those are my views, Mr. Speaker, and I’m sticking with them.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to vent.

God bless the United States of America.

 

Uncategorized

Thank goodness for Skype

Time for an admission.

I’ll admit to being dragged — not exactly kicking and screaming — into the 21st century of high technology gadgets, gizmos and doo-dads.

Skype is one of them and recently my wife and I had the high pleasure of reaping a critical benefit of this form of telecommunication. It involved our granddaughter, Emma Nicole, who this past week turned 2.

We went to Allen, Texas, to celebrate with Emma and her parents.

Now, about this Skype thing.

Every week — or sometimes two — Emma and her parents call us up on Skype. For the few of you who don’t know, Skype is a form of Internet connection that hooks conversing parties up with video. Our techno-savvy son hooked up our TV with a computer and added the Skype software.

So … they hit the Skype button on their end, our TV beeps loudly at us, we scramble to turn our TV from one cable hookup to another so we can open the Skype connection and then — presto! — we hook it up and there’s Emma.

We chat with her and her parents, get caught up on the latest goings-on there — and they with ours — and we talk to Emma, seeking to elicit some kind of reaction to the image of us that shows up on their TV screen.

Tonight, we visited with them via Skype and had a wonderful exchange. Emma was wearing a costume dress we bought her for her birthday.

Where am I going with this?

Well, last weekend we took Emma to breakfast. Just the three of us went out while her Mommy and Daddy got ready for a birthday party. We don’t see Emma all that often in person — remember, she lives 360 miles away. What thrilled us to no end was how comfortable Emma was to be with Grandma and Grandpa. We had a blast sharing breakfast with her at a diner in the middle of Allen.

We took her shopping later that morning for some more birthday goodies.

I credit Skype with acquainting Emma with us and with enabling us to enjoy some family time with our precious little pumpkin.

I shudder to think how that breakfast date might have gone had Emma not gotten to see us as often as she does through this modern technology that, I must admit, is still taking some time to grasp fully.

This all might not seem like a big deal to those who see their grandchildren regularly. Take it from me: It’s a big deal to us.

 

local news

School board elections matter, too

I think I’ve been scolded by a couple of followers of this blog for an apparent error of omission.

I posted a blog about the importance of municipal elections and then was reminded that, yep, school board elections matter just as much as those that elect city representatives.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/03/14/why-do-these-elections-matter/

I stand corrected.

The blog noted that local elections determine how much we pay for essential local government services. It also took note of an important public affairs program — “Live Here” — being broadcast soon on Panhandle PBS about the upcoming local elections.

School board elections, of course, allow us to choose people who set local educational policy that has a direct impact on our children’s education. Allow me to include community college board elections as well; Amarillo College also will elect regents in May and they, too, play critical roles in setting higher education policy here at home.

Lest we forget, in Texas the largest single line item in our property tax statement every year is for public education. That’s how it is in our home, where the Canyon Independent School District tax obligation is by far the largest single property tax we pay annually.

The thesis of the earlier blog post remains intact: Local elections matter the most to us and we need to pay careful attention to the people we want representing us at City Hall — and on educational boards.

media news, national news, political news

Frohnmayer: one of the 'great ones'

Sad news came recently from my home state of Oregon: One of the state’s true statesmen, Dave Frohnmayer, died of prostate cancer.

I had moved away from Oregon while he was serving as attorney general. But I surely knew of his reputation, which the editorial from The Oregonian newspaper outlines nicely:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/dave_frohnmayer_one_exceptiona.html

The paper refers to Frohnmayer’s “blinding” resume.

This moderate Republican was a giant in a state that has produced its fair share of them. He served his state and his party with dignity and honor. He wouldn’t be a party to the viciousness so common these days.

In a state that has been embarrassed by its most recent past governor, John Kitzhaber — who resigned because of an ethics scandal involving his fiancĂ©e — Frohnmayer was a model of moral turpitude.

He had his personal health struggles. His children were afflicted with rare and fatal diseases. He carried on quietly and bravely.

He led a great educational system, the University of Oregon; he served  his state as attorney general, in its legislature, and as dean of the UO law school.

Indeed, it was while he was dean that I had the pleasure of attending an Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in Eugene, where he was among the panelists instructing journalists on how to use public records and obtain information to which we were entitled.

This was in the late 1970s. I was new to journalism at the time and I was enthralled by the man’s knowledge of open records and the ease with which he presented it.

Here’s my favorite part of The Oregonian’s editorial tribute to Frohnmayer. It says it all: “Frohnmayer was exceptional in making himself and his extraordinary deeds appear ordinary – and in inspiring others along the way to rise to their best. In that sense he was arguably Oregon’s most extraordinary regular guy.”

***

Note: This is a corrected version of an earlier blog post, which initially contained an error regarding Dave Frohnmayer’s service to Oregon.

local news

Why do these elections matter?

1 Comment

Panhandle PBS, the public TV station based in Amarillo College, is going to present a couple of compelling public affairs programs in the coming weeks that require voters to pay attention.

They’re going to focus on the upcoming municipal election to take place. They’re going to try to drive home a critical point about this election. It is this: No level of government has more of a direct impact on citizens’ lives than the local level, which is why it is imperative for voters to get — and stay — in engaged in the process of selecting the people who govern us.

Full disclosure: Panhandle PBS employs me as a freelance blogger to comment on public affairs TV programming, but I’m doing this little piece independently.

I feel strongly — no, very strongly — about the importance of getting engaged in these elections.

“Live Here” is a series of public affairs broadcasts that Panhandle PBS is running. The March 26 segment will include interviews with former Amarillo mayors and council members about the job required of them and how to get residents more involved with the local electoral process.

On April 2, “Live Here” will play host to a candidate forum featuring all 16 City Council and mayoral candidates.

Both shows air at 7 p.m.

This is a big deal.

Voter turnout for these local elections is beyond poor. It’s abysmal, dismal, disgraceful, shameful, awful … name the pejorative adjective and it fits. Single-digit percentage turnouts are the norm around here. How can that be?

The turnout boosted a bit in 2011 when we elected a new mayor after Debra McCartt decided to step away. Every so often, the city puts a referendum on the ballot that boosts turnout; the most recent one involved banning smoking indoors.

I recall a stand-alone measure in 1996 that asked voters whether to allow the sale of publicly owned Northwest Texas Hospital to a private health-care provider. It drew a 22 percent turnout and the city was utterly ecstatic over that response. Ecstatic when fewer than one voter out of four actually voted. Good grief.

Municipal elections always are important. They have direct impacts on our lives. They determine how much we pay in taxes to fund the services we demand each day. The municipal candidates are vying for a chance to set that policy — and we need to be paying serious attention to what these people have to say.

Public television is going to provide a forum for residents to listen in and hear what these folks are telling us.

Let’s pay attention.

 

military news, national news, Uncategorized

Finally! A clarification of 'natural-born citizen'

Where were these fellows, say, in 2007, 2008 and for most of Barack Obama’s first term a president of the United States?

Two former solicitors general of the United States have settled — in my mind, at least — the issue that polluted the political atmosphere until the time Obama was re-elected in November 2012. They’ve defined the term “natural born citizen” as stated in the U.S. Constitution.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, writing for the Harvard Law Review, say with virtually zero reservation that “natural  born citizen” applies to anyone who becomes an American immediately upon  birth, irrespective of where that birth occurred. At issue is whether that circumstances affects the qualifications of anyone seeking to run for president. Is that constitutionally qualified yes? Katyal and Clement say “yes.”

The issue has been discussed at times. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before Arizona became a state. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. territory. George Romney was born in Mexico. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Three of those men already have run for president; Cruz is expected to run for the 2016 Republican nomination.

All four men were U.S. citizens upon birth. Goldwater’s parents were citizens, as were McCain’s and Romney’s. Cruz’s mother is an American. Therefore, that qualifies them to hold the highest office in the land.

Oh, and what about Barack Obama?

Remember all that baloney about whether he was constitutionally qualified, that he was born in Kenya and that, according to the yahoos who sought to make a big deal out of his birthplace? Katyal and Clement say none of that mattered one little bit.

Obama’s mother was an American, which meant he was bestowed full U.S. citizenship the moment he was born to her and his Kenyan father — in Honolulu, Hawaii, the 50th state to join the Union.

A cousin of mine sent me the attached link to let me know that Ted Cruz also is qualified to run for president. My cousin is likely to support Cruz’s president.

But in truth, I’ve long believed that Cruz was qualified under Article II of the Constitution to hold the office, just as I was certain that Goldwater, McCain Romney and Obama could serve in that office.

I just wish the Harvard Law Review article could have settled this issue long before now.

Better late than never, right?

Uncategorized

Bush's name no longer golden in GOP

John Ellis Bush is finding that his family name is beginning to sound tired — even among Republicans.

Will that stop the man known as Jeb from running for president next year?

Hardly.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/235638-walker-bush-is-like-other-failed-gop-candidates

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, another probable GOP candidate, said of Bush that his name is “of the past.” The party and the nation need new names, meaning new blood, to lead it.

Walker said he wouldn’t speak ill of Jeb Bush … but then he did. According to The Hill, Walker said: “You’re not going to hear me speak ill will of Jeb. He’s a friend of mine. He called me two days before (announcing) his PAC, I think highly of him. I just think voters are going to look at this and say, ‘If we’re running against Hillary Clinton, we’ll need a name from the future, not a name from the past, to win.’ ”

So, what I’m reading from that is Bush’s name will hurt him if he gets his party’s nomination.

I’ve long said you shouldn’t ever criticized anyone’s appearance or anyone’s name.

Walker has just gone mildly negative against the family name of Jeb Bush.

That is “speaking ill will” of someone.

 

International news

Allies join in criticism chorus of Gang of 47

Now it’s the allies who are weighing in with criticism of the Republican Gang of 47’s letter to Iran.

Our nation’s European allies have chimed in with a blistering critique of the Senate GOP letter that says it’s OK for Iran to ignore whatever treaty that’s negotiated to get rid of Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/european-allies-join-criticism-of-gop%e2%80%99s-iran-letter/ar-AA9HLKf

“Suddenly, Iran can say to us: ‘Are your proposals actually trustworthy if 47 senators say that no matter what the government agrees to, we can subsequently take it off the table?’ ” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said during a visit to Washington.

What’s Germany’s stake in this? The Germans, along with the United States, Great Britain, France, China and Russia are negotiating with the Iranians for a way to rid the Islamic Republic of its nuclear ambition.

A large portion of the U.S. Senate’s Republican caucus has decided to take matters into its own hands by seeking to persuade Iran to ignore whatever agreement is worked out. Without congressional approval of a treaty, the Gang said, it becomes merely an executive agreement that can be wiped out when the next president takes office in January 2017.

Technically, it’s true. But the letter constitutes an egregious interference in a high-stakes negotiation.

Welcome aboard the criticism train, allies.

 

national news

Have we seen enough from Secret Service?

Isn’t the Secret Service supposed to be the elite of the elite? The cream of our national security apparatus? The individuals charged with protecting the Most Powerful Person on the Planet?

What in the name of Homeland Security is going on with these individuals?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-agents-disrupted-bomb-investigation-at-white-house/2015/03/12/0eb74590-c8c4-11e4-aa1a-86135599fb0f_story.html

Two more agents have been accused of driving under the influence of alcohol and taking their vehicle through an active investigation scene involving a bomb.

The Secret Service has a new director who was supposed to turn the agency around after it went through a series of shameful incidents involving disgraceful behavior and serious breaches of security at the White House.

Joseph Clancy hasn’t turned anything around.

The Secret Service used to be run by the Treasury Department. Since 9/11, it’s been handed over to the Department of Homeland Security. Did we hear of these kinds of screw-ups when Treasury was in charge? Maybe once in a while, but not with this kind of chilling regularity.

Any thoughts of returning the Secret Service to the Treasury Department? Well? Are there?

 

political news

Sanders sounding like a non-candidate

It’s not a stretch to equate running for president to deciding to get married.

You’d better be all in on both counts, or else you’re doomed to fail in both endeavors.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who sounds like a left-leaning Democrat, now says he’s not so sure about running for president, which many liberals in his party want him to do.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bernie-sanders-isnt-so-sure-about-this-2016-thing-116031.html?hp=l3_3

Don’t hold your breath on this one, lefties. I don’t think Sanders is going to do it.

“If I run it has to be done well,” Sanders said in an interview with POLITICO this week. “And if it’s done well, and I run a winning campaign or a strong campaign, it is a real boon to the progressive community, because I believe that the issues I talk about are issues that millions and millions of people believe in. On the other hand, if one were to run a poor campaign, didn’t have a well-funded campaign, didn’t have a good organization, did not do well, because of your own limitations, then that would be a setback for the progressive community.”

Sanders is sounding, with those comments, as if he’s full of doubt about whether it’s worth it.

Politico noted that he hasn’t raised much money, has hired virtually zero key campaign advisers, has done next to no groundwork in any of the early crucial primary and caucus states.

Now he’s talking like someone who seems to question whether he has the fire in his gut to go all the way.

The late Sen. George McGovern once said that the first thing a presidential candidate needs is a huge ego. Sanders likely possesses the requisite ego to mount a campaign. He needs the rest of it — all of it — to make it a reality. I’m talking about commitment.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience