I am quite uneasy about writing a remembrance of someone who’s still with us.

But when Nelson Mandela’s daughter describes her father as being “at peace,” I translate that to mean the end is near.

A sad day for the world lies just ahead.

The former South African president and one-time political prisoner ranks at the top of the 20th century’s greatest figures. He withstood 27 years of prison, locked up by a government that accused him of treason merely for demanding equal rights for the country’s black population; I won’t call them “citizens” because until apartheid fell in 1990, they didn’t enjoy the rights of citizenship.

Mandela walked out of prison in 1990 free, proud and remarkably lacking in outward bitterness. Why be bitter? he asked rhetorically. To harbor anger and hatred toward his captors would be to deny the victory he had just won, Mandela said.

He went on to become the country’s first black president in 1994 and became arguably the world’s most overpowering presence.

Apartheid – the doctrine of separate and unequal societies in South Africa – became the bane of that country’s existence and Mandela became its most famous foe.

***

At the risk of sounding like a name-dropper, I’m going to tell of a brief moment I enjoyed being in Mandela’s presence. We didn’t speak. We didn’t shake hands. He didn’t even know I was in the same room with him.

It occurred in 2004 at the International Conference on AIDS, which took place in Bangkok, Thailand. Mandela was there to take up the cause for research into tuberculosis and other communicable diseases; Mandela contracted TB while in prison. I was in Bangkok as part of a delegation of editorial writers and editors on a three-nation tour examining the impact of AIDS in Asia. Our journey also would take us to Cambodia and India.

Conference organizers scheduled a brief public appearance by the great man in a meeting room. He would enter the room, speak for a few moments and then would leave. There would be no questions. What’s more, we were told, there should be no flashbulbs, as Mandela’s eyes were extremely sensitive to the light, given all the years he lived in total darkness while in prison. Of course, the nimrods in the room didn’t hear the no-flashbulb warning.

He entered the room. I stood in a crowd of other journalists about 40 feet away from him. I’ve had trouble over the years trying to describe the what it’s like to see someone who embodies such strength and character in the flesh. Words really do fail me. Suffice to say that Nelson Mandela, who isn’t a physically imposing man, simply took command of the entire room. I suspect he could have walked into a packed football stadium and had precisely the same impact on that crowd as he did on the gaggle of reporters packed into the meeting space.

Mandela spoke for about 10 minutes. Then he left. I stood there utterly mesmerized by what I had just witnessed. I cannot remember if others in the room felt the same way, as my mind was too busy trying to take it all in.

This great man was frail then. He needed assistance walking to and from the podium. His power, though, transcended any physical infirmity.

I am thinking that power will live well past Nelson Mandela’s time on Earth.

The momentum to approve immigration reform is taking on the characteristics of a runaway train.

U.S. Senate Democrats believe they have more than 60 votes to approve it, saying in fact that it might get 70 votes. That would mean fairly sweeping bipartisan support in the upper congressional chamber. It also would put enormous pressure on the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to follow suit, or else face the wrath of millions of people, U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307223-schumer-predicts-mass-demonstrations-if-house-blocks-path-to-citizenship

Immigration reform’s time has come.

The bill being discussed represents a classic case of compromise, the kind that makes government work. Liberals got their “path to citizenship” provision for those non-citizens who are here illegally; conservatives got their beefed-up border security with the addition of 20,000 border agents and construction of the wall across our nation’s southern border.

Still, some congressional Republicans are sticking to their opposition. They detest the so-called “amnesty” provision. To their credit, some key Republicans are backing the reform package – if only as a way to preserve the viability of their party. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., says the GOP is heading into a “demographic death spiral” if it keeps resisting immigration reform. The 2012 presidential election proves his point, with only 27 percent of Latinos voting for GOP nominee Mitt Romney, compared to 71 percent who voted for President Obama.

This is a wakeup call for national Republicans, and someone ought set the alarm for the likes of Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, among others, who continue to toe the hard line on immigration.

We can’t get rid of all those who are here illegally, folks. So let’s work with them, give those who have been here, worked hard, and sought to make a better life for themselves and their families some kind of a path toward U.S. citizenship.

Those who want it can obtain citizenship. Those who don’t can work toward becoming legal immigrants or … they know the way back home.

Barack Obama is acting very much these days like a president with no more campaigns to wage.

He intends this week to announce sweeping strategies to combat climate change, which he apparently believes is manmade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-take-sweeping-action-on-climate/2013/06/22/d28de366-db77-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html

This debate is sure to fuel even more heated rhetoric from the climate-change-denial crowd. In a way, I understand – even if I disagree with – their argument. They suggest that climate change is some kind of grand political hoax, a conspiracy designed to wreck the fossil fuel industry. Never mind the mountains of scientific evidence that suggest that the planet is warming up. To my mind, the debate should not center on whether Earth is warming, but merely why.

President Obama plans to institute some executive orders soon, starting with plans to require reductions in emissions. Given that he cannot get much done in a Congress dominated in one legislative chamber by Republicans who oppose every single initiative Obama favors, he is left to exercise his considerable executive authority. Since the Constitution grants him the authority, he ought to use it.

The political realities for a first-term president are quite different from those of a second-term president who’s just been re-elected by a fairly comfortable margin.

I totally get that climate change is one of those divisive issues that drives a wedge between big blocs of Americans. A president seeking to win a second term must consider the fierce opposition that would come his way were he tackle climate change in any kind of dramatic fashion. Now, though, that President Obama is officially a lame duck with only his legacy to worry about, he’s looking and sounding like someone who suddenly has found himself unafraid of potential political consequences.

Climate change is a big deal, even if it isn’t caused by human beings spewing too much carbon dioxide into the air. It’s a big deal because if the oceans keep rising, we keep wiping out forests, we exacerbate circumstances that melt the polar ice caps, then the very planet all 7 billion of us inhabit is in deep peril.

The leader of the world’s pre-eminent nation is seeking to throw that trend into reverse.

You go, Mr. President.

I’m often intrigued by squabbles within a political party, particularly among those in the dominant party.

Take the Republicans who rule everything in Texas.

With so few Democrats in power to kick around, Republicans are turning on each other. Look at state Sens. Tommy Williams and Dan Patrick, both of whom hail from the Houston area.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/21/feud-between-patrick-and-williams-escalates/

Williams chairs the Senate Finance Committee and Patrick runs the Education Committee. They’re powerful in their respective rights. Patrick voted against the state budget, which angered Williams. Patrick supposedly voted against the budget because it lacked money for public education programs. Williams wrote in a column that Patrick’s no vote is intended to position himself in a possible run against Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.

Patrick said Williams’s attacks have been “personal in nature” and he takes great offense at them.

Poor guys.

This kind of in-fighting mirrors in a way the fight that’s under way at the national level in the U.S. House of Representatives. Tea party Republicans dislike the “establishment” wing of their party, and the feeling appears to be quite mutual. Since the Republicans control the House, many of them are turning on their speaker, John Boehner of Ohio, who has lost control of his caucus.

I’m trying to imagine such a thing happening under the leadership of legendary Democratic U.S. House Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas. I kind of think Mr. Sam would take any rogue Democrat to the proverbial woodshed for an old-fashioned political whuppin’.

The Texas Senate is run by Republicans, along with the Texas House and every statewide office in Texas. Meanwhile, Texas Democrats who’ve had good reason to be demoralized at their loss of power, now have something to smile about as they watch two powerful Texas Senate committee chairs beat each other senseless.

Keep fighting, boys.

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has lined up right alongside the likes of former Vice President Dick Cheney in convicting someone who hasn’t even been tried – yet – for committing a crime against the state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/22/nancy-pelosi-booed_n_3484062.html?show_comment_id=263057168#comment_263057168sb=1147791b=facebook

Pelosi, a California Democrat, drew boos and heckling when she said Edward Snowden, the man behind the leaking of National Security Agency secrets, has broken the law. Pelosi’s comments came not many days after Cheney called Snowden a “traitor” because, the ex-VP said, he has spilled the beans on vital national security secrets.

I haven’t yet fully grasped the entire story here, but were I come from, every human being on the planet – in the eyes of U.S. law and our very own Constitution – enjoys a presumption of innocence before any court hands down a conviction. That doesn’t seem to apply to Snowden, who’s apparently hiding in Hong Kong to avoid the long arm of U.S. law.

Snowden has been charged by the feds with espionage. He faces a very lengthy prison term if he’s convicted. But he’s not yet been tried, let alone sent up the river for any crime.

The law is supposed to provide a suspect a bit of protection against those willing to tighten the noose.

I’m happy to report that some travel nightmares can – and do – end well.

Mine came to a satisfactory conclusion overnight. I discovered it in my email inbox this morning.

It came in the form of a note from United Airlines customer service department and informed me that I would be getting a $250 travel voucher in three to five days as a token of the airline’s regret over what happened to me on a flight I took on June 6 from Amarillo, with a connecting flight in Houston en route to Portland.

I wrote about it in some detail the other day.

http://www.johnkanelis.com/2013/06/travel-nightmare-continues.html

The message I received said, in part:

“Please understand that we do work hard to minimize flight problems. Of course the safety and well being of our passengers must always be our first priority so some delays or cancellations are unavoidable. Flight irregularities of any kind do cause major inconveniences for our customers, we realize, and we certainly don’t question the feelings of frustration that can arise as a result. Unfortunately, our industry is vulnerable to a number of challenges that can, and do, affect our operation on a daily basis. Inclement weather, mechanical problems, industry regulations and air traffic situations issues all affect our ability to meet our on-time performance goals each day. From what you describe, on this occasion we failed to meet your expectations for providing good service and for that I am truly sorry.”

It’s going to be some time before either my wife and I take United up on the offer. Still, $250 shaves a good bit off any domestic trip we might have in mind.

I am gratified, though, that United Airlines sought fit to make good on my request for some financial payback for the misery that occurred the evening of June 6 and well into the next day. Was it as much of a payback as I would have liked? Oh, probably not. Nevertheless, it was a nice way to start my weekend.

This saga has come to a happy conclusion.

I was utterly amazed when I saw the story published in the Texas Tribune about the late Audie Murphy.

It said that Murphy, a native of Hunt County in Northeast Texas, has yet to receive the state’s highest military honor, the Texas Legislative Medal of Honor.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/21/audie-murphy-hero-still-missing-one-medal/

What an outrage!

Murphy died in 1971 at the age of 45 in a plane crash. But some 26 years before that he distinguished himself on the battlefield in a way that almost defies one’s imagination. He held off an entire Germany company – about 200 soldiers – in January 1945. Those who witnessed the action said Murphy killed about 50 enemy soldiers while manning a machine gun atop an armored vehicle.

Those heroics resulted in his receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. All told, he received more than 20 medals and citations for valor in combat during World War II.

He went on to make some movies, including one film – “To Hell and Back” – that depicted his own heroism. Murphy died much too young, of course.

But back to this Texas Legislative Medal of Honor. Gov. Rick Perry was supposed to have it delivered to his desk this legislative session, but according to the Tribune, there was some kind of mixup. Perry didn’t get it in time.

My question, though, is this: Why wasn’t Murphy the first honoree when the Legislature began awarding the medal in 1997?

It’s an absolute travesty that someone who arguably is Texas’s most decorated warrior hasn’t been honored by his home state. The Legislature has gone through nine cycles since the Legislative Medal of Honor was created. I think it ought to get it right when No. 10 rolls around in January 2015.

Audie Murphy, of all those from Texas who was a member of the Greatest Generation, deserves this honor.

Howard Kurtz is joining the Fox News Channel as its latest on-air star after working for several years at CNN, the flagship news network of the hated “mainstream media” that Fox news hounds love to bash.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/howard-kurtz-leaves-cnn-for-fox-93109.html?hp=r14

This is an interesting development.

Kurtz wrote for years as media critic for the Washington Post, also while serving as host of CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” which covered media issues for the news network.

I’ll actually watch Fox when Kurtz joins the network and I’ll listen for any hint that Kurtz joins the pack of “mainstream media” bashers who routinely stick it in the eye of Fox’s more “liberal” competitors.

As Politico reports, Kurtz wasn’t a member of the anti-Fox pack of journalists that have blasted Fox for the rightward slant in its news coverage. He would ding Fox occasionally, but he also took shots at the other networks and media organizations. I’ve always found Kurtz to be a fair critic.

Now he’ll become a part of network that keeps touting its “fair and balanced” approach to reporting, which actually is a ruse. The network isn’t fair or balanced, so I just wish it would stop making the false claim. And no, it’s no more unbalanced than, say, MSNBC, which tilts leftward in its reporting and commentary. The difference is that MSNBC makes no claims of fairness and “balance.”

I’m anxious to see what kind of conversion Kurtz makes when he joins Fox. I hope he stays true to his record as an equal-opportunity critic.

A group aiming to turn Texas into a “battleground state” in future presidential elections is planning a fundraiser next month.

Good luck with that, folks.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/battleground-texas-plans-dc-fundraiser-93132.html?hp=l6

Battleground Texas believes the Lone Star State’s changing demographic makeup is going to turn the state from a reliably Republican stronghold into a more competitive state with the influx of Latino voters who normally vote Democratic.

My advice the Battleground Texas brass? Be patient … be very patient.

The upcoming 2014 midterm election suggests – to me, at least – that the Texas Democratic Party has yet to find its footing.

All the pre-election attention so far has been on the Republican side of the aisle. Imagine that. The most recent Democrat to win a statewide office in Texas was John Sharp, who was re-elected state comptroller in … 1994! It’s been all Republican all the time ever since.

The 2014 circumstance doesn’t look any brighter.

Battleground Texas does tout some shining lights among its ranks. San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro perhaps shines the most brightly at the moment. His Honor gave the keynote address at the 2012 Democratic National Convention and hit it out of the park with his stirring story of growing up poor and, along with his identical twin brother, Joaquin – who’s now serving in Congress – obtaining a college education and a law degree.

The Castro brothers are young. They have time to build the coalitions they seek. Many old-line Texas Democrats who are a bit longer in the tooth may not live long enough to see the transformation take place.

I’m hoping to see it happen, if only to witness Texas take its place among those states – such as Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvania – where presidential candidates every four years fight tooth and nail for votes.

I’ve always maintained that one-party rule – be it Democratic or Republican – breeds arrogance. In Texas, Republicans have run roughshod over the system just as Democrats used to do when they ran the place.

Good luck, Battleground Texas. Just remember to be patient.

News out of my hometown of Portland, Ore. punched me in the gut.

The Oregonian, once considered one of the nation’s great newspapers, is going to publish three print editions a week. It’s going to lay off scores of newsroom staffers, move from its iconic downtown building and promote its digital presence to the hilt.

Some folks call it “progress.” I call it pitiful.

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-30341-oregonian_publisher_says_paper_is_reducing_home_de.html

I almost don’t know where to begin sorting this out.

Advance Publications owns the Oregonian. Advance has done similar things to newspapers it owns across the nation. The most notable scaling back occurred in New Orleans, where the Times-Picayune – another great publication – went to a thrice-weekly print cycle, only to return to a seven-day cycle when it realized its readers and advertisers were abandoning the Picayune in favor of the Baton Rouge Advocate.

The Oregonian experienced a tremendous resurgence in the 1980s and 1990s. A new executive editor took over a newsroom that had gotten flabby. She retooled beats, reorganized the operation from stem to stern. The result was Pulitzer Prize-winning journalism that the paper hadn’t seen since the 1950s.

What’s more, the paper was a cash cow for Newhouse Corp., which owned the paper. Then the bottom fell out of the newspaper business around, oh, 2006, thanks largely to the Internet. Newspapers didn’t know how to handle the new wave of information transmission. I’m guessing the Oregonian is like a lot of big media companies that struggled to find its way.

The three-day print edition idea is going to upset a lot of folks who once considered the Oregonian to be the premier news source in Oregon and a good chunk of Washington state.

I once had a grand dream of working for my hometown paper. I actually did work for a time at the late Oregon Journal, the afternoon paper that Newhouse also owned. The Journal shared the same building as the Oregonian, but it had a separate newsroom staff that competed intently against the bigger morning paper. Newhouse eventually gave up on the Journal and closed it in the early 1980s. That was a sad day for everyone who loved newspapers.

The news out of Portland today, though, is downright tragic.

I will need more time to process this news. I might have more to say on it later. Right now, I’m going to sip on my beer at home here in Texas and wonder what the future holds for what we used to know as daily print journalism.