This book will be worth reading and re-reading

This idea should have been put forth years ago.

Then again, the product it would produce wouldn’t be nearly as rich as it figures to be.

My good friend and former colleague Jon Mark Beilue has been a columnist for the Amarillo Globe-News for about seven, maybe eight years. Prior to that he was sports editor.

He is asking readers for some help selecting his “best of” columns to be included in a book the paper will publish soon.

http://amarillo.com/blog-post/jon-mark-beilue/2014-09-09/have-suggestion-lets-hear-it

Jon Mark is a community treasure. He tells a story as no one else does or can. He says the book will be 200-plus pages in length.

The brief blog item he wrote is typically self-deprecating. He doesn’t take himself too seriously, which is a sure sign of a good and talented man.

Jon Mark, though, does take his craft seriously.

Do I have a favorite? I cannot even begin to select one, or a dozen, or a truckload of columns he’s written over the years.

I’ll trust others to compile the “best of Jon Mark Beilue.” I am certain beyond any doubt it will be a keepsake volume.

Puppy tales, Part 7

It is my duty to report that Toby the Dog has committed his first act of vandalism in our home.

You’ll remember that we acquired Toby just a few weeks ago. His former “owners” said they didn’t want him. We were mortified that they reportedly had turned him loose in our neighborhood hoping someone would claim him.

We did precisely that. We’ve taken him in. Toby is part of our family.

However, this addition has not been totally hitch-free.

We put him in one of our bathrooms the other day while we left to run some errands. We’ve decided to do that rather than let him run around the house. We leave him with a bowl of water, a little bed we purchased for him. He’s good to go.

Well, we’re learning now how we need to puppy-proof our house, much as we’ve learned how to child-proof it.

How do we puppy-proof our humble abode? My making sure he cannot chew things he shouldn’t chew on.

Such as yours truly’s sandals.

Toby found my sandals and promptly removed the insole from one of them and chewed it pieces. All over the bathroom floor the material had been scattered.

We came home, found the wounded shoe, put 2 and 2 together.

OK, is Toby in trouble? No. It’s our fault that we didn’t think strategically to prevent this kind of damage from being done.

Hey, we still feel fortunate. He remains very well-behaved. He doesn’t bark unless he has something to say, such as when he tries to urge his new brother and sister — our 12-yer-old cats Socks and Mittens — that he wants to play. They both hiss at him and both have clocked him at least once. No harm, no foul. He’s starting to get the message. Toby doesn’t gnaw on our furniture. He doesn’t dig holes in our yard.

We’ll be sure to guard against further vandalism, however. We just need to outsmart him.

BHO 'ignores' military advice at some risk

Lawrence Korb is far more qualified than I am to discuss the ins and outs of military advice given to presidents of the United States.

He did so during the Reagan administration and he’s now suggesting something quite interesting to the current commander in chief, Barack Obama.

It’s that it’s all right to “ignore” the advice of military leaders at times of international crisis.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/09/why-its-ok-obama-ignore-military-advice/94649/

Korb understands a fundamental truth about U.S. government. Civilians run the military. It’s written into the Constitution and that’s the way it should be.

It’s interesting to me, though, that Korb cites several examples of presidents ignoring the advice of top military leaders:

* Harry Truman dismissed Gen. Douglas MacArthur after the U.S. military commander popped off and said U.N. forces should take the fight to China.

* Dwight Eisenhower ignored the advice of commanders who wanted the United States to get involved in Vietnam while the French were fighting for their lives at Dien Bien Phu.

* John F. Kennedy said “no” to calls to strike at Cuba during the missile crisis.

What do these presidents have in common? They all were combat veterans.

Barack Obama doesn’t have that kind of background on which to rely. I’m not saying it’s a requirement for the office, but it serves as a cautionary tale for a president who chooses to ignore the advice of individuals who’ve worn their country’s uniform, let alone been to battle.

Sometimes presidents ignore advice at their own risk. Korb writes: “Certainly, there have been instances where presidents had overruled the advice of military leaders, with dire consequences. The most recent examples occurred under President George W. Bush. He not only ignored Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s advice that several hundred thousand ground troops would be needed to remove Saddam Hussein and restore order in Iraq after his removal. Not only was Gen. Shinseki ignored, he was publicly derided and undermined by the president and the secretary of defense when they appointed his successor early, even though Shineski still had a year left in his term. Ironically some of the same people now calling on Obama to listen to his generals and keep the door open to having combat ground troops in Iraq did not speak up for Shinseki. Bush also ignored the advice of his military commanders by diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, before the mission of restoring stability in Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden and destroying al-Qaeda was completed.”

The Constitution grants the president the final say in all military matters. That’s as it should be.

Still, the commander in chief should listen carefully to what the brass has to say. They’ve been there. They understand the consequences of war better than most.

'Role model' definition needs some work

There once was a time when I disagreed completely with Charles Barkley’s assertion that “I am not a role model.”

The events of the past few weeks involving some high-profile professional athletes are making me put that comment in an entirely new perspective. Role models? Probably not. Ambassadors? Yes.

The pro football players who have been caught up in cases involving domestic violence and child abuse are facing criminal charges. Barkley, to the best of my recollection, never got ensnared in criminal activity while he was playing professional basketball. He said some strange things and behaved a bit boorishly at times. He could play a great game of basketball, for which he was compensated handsomely.

The activity under scrutiny these days is quite different. It involves the law and whether highly paid professional athletes have broken certain laws that prohibit the abuse of children or committing acts of violence on another human being.

As I re-watched Barkley’s video, he said something that rings so true. The real “role models” in children’s lives are their parents. “Just because I can dunk a basketball,” Barkley said, “doesn’t mean I can raise your kids.”

I cannot pretend to know what kind of childhood the men involved in these recent cases of alleged criminal activity had. One of the pro football players, Ray Rice, apologized for hitting his then-fiancée by saying he was raised by his single mother and that his behavior wasn’t the kind of thing his mom taught him to do.

I’ll accept that.

However, what about the role that these athletes play as ambassadors for the organizations that pay them these huge sums of money? Or the communities they represent when they wear the athletic uniforms that carry the names of the teams?

The role of ambassador should mean something to these guys, their employers and the governing body — in this case the National Football League — that oversees everyone’s conduct.

Revoke NFL's 'non-profit' status

If Congress is going to get involved in anything involving the National Football League, it should be quite specific and it should deal exclusively with matters of taxation.

Take the league’s status as a “non-profit” entity, which exempts it from paying federal taxes.

Yank that status. Now.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/218301-reid-joins-bill-aiming-to-revoke-nfl-nonprofit-status

We’ve heard some clamoring from lawmakers about the House and Senate convening hearings over the issue of domestic violence. Accordingly, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., has proposed a bill that would remove the non-profit status and dedicate revenue received toward paying for programs dealing with this tragic issue.

The hearings are a waste of time. All they would do is give senators and House members a platform to pontificate in public about their indignation over domestic violence.

Other senators, such as Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., are targeting the non-profit issue as a way to punish the league for its support of the Washington Redskins team nickname, which many Americans believe denigrates Native Americans.

Whatever the cause, the tax issue is the only way Congress should get involved in the affairs of a private enterprise.

Frankly, I’m astonished that the NFL enjoys the tax-exempt status at all. To suggest the league is a “non-profit” organization is laughable on its face.

Congress has a role to play in fixing what’s wrong with the NFL. That role, though, should focus solely on taxation.

'Roosevelts' has curious relevance to today's reality

Public television is by definition supposed to be educational.

Thus, PBS’s series titled “The Roosevelts” is educating a nation about the 32nd president of the United States, his wife and his fifth cousin, the 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt.

As for “32,” Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Ken Burns-produced documentary offers and interesting insight into the norms of the time FDR was coming of age politically. Moreover, it tells me how times have changed per one of those norms.

FDR took great pains to conceal from the public that he was stricken by polio, that he was wheelchair-bound and that he had great difficulty standing and walking. Photographers were not allowed to take pictures of him being helped in and out of automobiles; Secret Service agents would confiscate the cameras and film of the offending photographer.

Image was everything and FDR believed in projecting an image of a vibrant man.

Now, let’s flash forward — about 80 years.

Texas is about to elect a man who also is wheelchair bound. Greg Abbott has been confined to a wheelchair since his mid-20s, when he was struck by a falling tree in Houston, suffering a broken back.

It fascinates me to no end to watch “The Roosevelts,” learn of how certain secrets were kept out of public view and then realize just how virtually everything has changed in the decades since.

There would be no way a high-profile public figure today could keep secret a physical condition such as what afflicted Franklin Roosevelt.

It’s been said by many historians and pundits over the years that FDR likely couldn’t be elected president today, given his peculiar marriage to Eleanor and the myriad relationships both them had outside of their marriage. They also have noted his physical condition as a deal-breaker back then with voters.

It’s a better, more enlightened time now. A political figure’s physical ailment has nothing to do with his or her mental or emotional state. In FDR’s case, his own disability perhaps made him stronger, more empathetic to others’ suffering.

As for the Texas attorney general seeking to be elected governor, he too has been strengthened by his own struggle. It’s good that he has no reason to keep it a secret.

Perry to be 'better prepared' next time

So, lame-duck Texas Gov. Rick Perry vows to be “better prepared” to run for president of the United States — if he decides to do so.

My gut tells me he’s made up his mind, just as Hillary Rodham Clinton has made up her mind to run for president in 2016.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/09/eyeing-white-house-again-perry-knows-to-be-prepared-this-time/

The only decision left for either of them is when to make the announcement.

We’ll get back to Clinton another day.

I am hopeful Gov. Perry will be prepared for this next run. No more “oops” moments; no more tantrums; no more strange soliloquies that have people asking, “Is this guy drunk, stoned or what?”

If he keeps his wits about him, I am hopeful the national media will probe one important thing about Perry’s interminable time as Texas governor: his governing style.

I’m referring specifically to the way he would mass-veto legislation after the Legislature ended its session. I believe he set some kind of record for vetoes after the 2009 or 2011 sessions. What was most astonishing about the vetoes is that they included legislation that had passed both legislative chambers by unanimous or near-unanimous votes.

With Republicans in Congress upset that the Democrat in the White House is allegedly misusing his executive authority, I’ll be waiting to hear how some GOP lawmakers will react to the knowledge that as governor, Rick Perry has used his own executive authority as governor with more than a touch of zeal.

Then again, Republicans won’t mind that one little bit. Perhaps the Democrats in Congress can raise the issue.

I’ll await the governor’s well-prepared answer.

POTUS has more power than he thought

I don’t usually listen to talk radio. All of it around here is of the right-wing variety, so I’m going to tune it out.

But this little item showed up on my Facebook feed today. It’s a snippet of an item from Mark Levin’s show.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/09/19/mark-levin-theres-more-enslaving-of-women-rapin/200819

OK, I trust you’ve listened to it and gleaned from it what I did.

It is that abuse of women — including rape and enslavement — is more prevalent during the Obama administration than at any time in history.

Wow, dude!

And to think that the president of the United States, who cannot get Congress to enact any of his legislative agenda, has all that power.

I’ll concede I listened only to that clip. I didn’t hear the entire tirade. Maybe there is more “context” out there that would cast it in a more reasonable light.

However, I doubt I needed to hear all of it to get the gist of the garbage that Levin is tossing out there.

Scots show the way

Well done, Scotland! 85-percent turnout, 10-percentage points won the voting question, a solid, unquestionable majority. Scotland won either way. It will now wield more sway in the UK. Democracy works. I hope we would take a lesson from it and regard ours as lovingly.

The above message comes from my friend Dan Wallach, who posted it on Facebook today.

His comment comes in the wake of Scotland’s landmark election in which the Scots decided to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

Dan isn’t making any judgment here on the correctness of the Scots’ vote, but he is saying something profound about Americans’ own lack of civic involvement in matters of vital national importance.

Eighty-five percent of Scotland’s eligible voters turned out. Americans are facing a mid-term election in a few weeks that likely will draw less than 40 percent of those who are eligible to vote.

What’s at stake in the U.S. of A.? Oh, just the control of Congress, one-third of that thing we call “co-equal government.” We elect our presidents usually with less than 60 percent of eligible voters taking part. That’s a big deal, too, given that presidents get to select judges to sit on our federal court benches, giving them lifetime jobs in which they interpret whether laws are constitutional.

The Nov. 4 election turnout in Texas, I’m sorry to predict, will be less than the national average. I fear it’s going to be significantly less.

Americans don’t quite care enough to vote for lawmakers or for their president. At least they don’t care the way the Scots showed they cared about whether to declare their independence or stay attached to England as part of the UK.

Dan is right. “Democracy works.” It always works better the more people get involved in that exercise we call voting.

Bipartisanship returns … for a time at least

President Obama got what he asked for from Congress: authorization to train and arm Syrian rebels.

The vote in both congressional chambers crossed party lines, with a majority of Democrats and Republicans supporting his request.

Does this mean Congress is going to set aside its partisan differences among its members and with the president and start actually governing? I’m not holding my breath.

But I was struck by a comment I heard in the wake of the Senate vote from a lawmaker who said that the fact that Congress actually passed something with a bipartisan vote ought to send chills up the spines of the bad guys we’re trying to destroy in Syria and Iraq.

Indeed, the vote is a tricky one.

U.S. national security officials say they’ve identified “moderate” foes of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Those are the people who’ll get the arms and the training to use them. The Islamic State will be isolated and wiped out eventually, they contend.

Obama also said that he’s lined up a coalition of about 40 nations. France is going to start flying sorties over targets in Iraq and aiding in our bombing campaign against the Islamic State.

Great. But what about the Sunni Arab states that have pledged to aid in this effort?

They need to get in the game — quickly.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience