Monthly Archives: August 2013

Uncategorized

Concealed carry’s perverted logic making sense now

I’m beginning to grasp the perverted logic behind Texas’s concealed-carry handgun law.

This morning, just before 11, knowledge of the law prevented me — I’m guessing — from making a potentially grievous mistake.

My wife and I were traveling west on 45th Avenue after running our weekly breakfast date and an appointment with our chiropractor. I was feeling all “adjusted” and ready for the day when we approached the intersection of 45th and Teckla.

Then it happened. Some moron — with a passenger riding shotgun in a large pickup — burst through the red light signal and came into the intersection right in front of us. I swerved suddenly into the right-hand lane of traffic, realizing after I’d done so that there was no one in that lane. Good thing, too.

I was so angry, I blurted out — inside the closed cab of our pickup — an exclamation followed by a very bad word. Kathy didn’t flinch. She didn’t say it, but I know she agreed with me.

I entertained briefly the idea of pulling up beside this guy and shouting some more bad words at him. Kathy talked me out of it.

She didn’t need to say a thing. The thought began running immediately through my mind that this brain-dead fruitcake could be packing a pistol in his truck. Thus, we have a lesson in the perverted logic of the concealed carry law, which the Texas Legislature enacted in 1995 — over my strenuous objections, I should add.

I was just a lonely voice in the wilderness, I guess. I did fear the thought of traffic-intersections shootouts when the Legislature was considering the law. Turns out my fears were overblown.

In fact, as today’s incident proves, it seems the opposite may be a consequence of the law.

Let there be no misunderstanding. I’m still not crazy about the law. However, I’ve come to accept the argument that the law — and the knowledge that we don’t know who’s carrying weapons — does foster better manners and some restraint among drivers when they’re nearly killed by moronic motorists.

Uncategorized

Syria attack seems more likely

Today’s question is this: Should the United States launch airstrikes against Syria in retaliation for dictator Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons on civilians?

Yes, but only after crossing every “T” and dotting every “I.”

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says U.S. airstrikes will be done only with broad international support. He should add that the Obama administration would be wise to get congressional authorization.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/318703-hagel-us-will-only-take-action-in-syria-with-international-support

President Obama laid down a serious marker earlier this year when he said Assad’s use of chemical weapons would be a “bright line” that Syrian officials must not cross. It’s now all but certain they’ve crossed it, killing many civilians, including children.

Russian President Vladimir Putin says his country stands behind Syria and threatens serious consequences if the United States and/or its allies launches airstrikes.

Let’s be clear: He isn’t going to attack the United States if we order the airstrikes. As for consequences, well, our relations with the Russians already are in the Dumpster.

I would hope congressional Republicans can see their way clear to back the commander in chief if he commits air power to punishing the Syrians. I am like many millions of Americans, though, who do not want to see American troops on the ground in Damascus fighting beside the rebels — who may or may not be our friends.

Syrian military leaders need to pay a hefty price for crossing that bright line. If the United States can rally its allies behind an effort to hit them hard from the air — and if Congress goes along with it — I think it’s an act worth taking.

However, it has to be effective and it must be able to cripple the Syrians’ ability to commit such atrocities in the future.

Uncategorized

‘Birther’ issue won’t go away

Try as they will, my Republican friends cannot seem to shake themselves loose from the “birther” nonsense that dogged President Obama during his first term and disappeared the moment he was re-elected in November 2012.

Why do they want to get rid of this issue? Because one of their own is facing some of the same questions that hounded President Obama.

The Texas Tribune is reporting that Canada native Ted Cruz, the junior U.S. Republican senator from Texas, is fielding questions about his own eligibility to run for president — were he to decide to make the race in 2016. Cruz has been staging meetings back home in Texas during the congressional recess.

Cruz says — and his GOP faithful agree — that even though he isn’t a “natural born” U.S. citizen, he would qualify because his mother is an American. Thus, he is qualified automatically because of his parentage.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/23/cruzs-supporters-dont-question-eligibility/

That’s good enough for those who want him to run.

But given that political memories at times can be everlasting, it’s not necessarily good enough for those on the left who remember the torment their guy endured during his first presidential term.

Let me add that there is an important difference between Barack Obama and Ted Cruz: Obama actually was born in the United States of America; Cruz was born north of our border. Obama produced a birth certificate that proved his place of birth, while Cruz also has produced a document that shows he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father.

Obama’s birth certificate hasn’t been accepted fully by every American with an interest in government. Some right-wing nut cases with loud voices (e.g., “The Donald” Trump) still question the document’s authenticity. No sense arguing with them about that.

Personally, I accept the notion that Cruz is eligible to run. I welcome his candidacy. I am on the verge of begging him to run for the presidency in ’16. I don’t want him to become the 45th president of the United States, but he would be bring some serious sizzle to a campaign that’s already shaping up to be a barn-burner.

Cruz would have to battle the lingering birther baloney. Maybe he can ask the 44th president for some tips on how to survive the onslaught.

Uncategorized

Destination set; timetable to be determined

This is another in an occasional series of blog posts concerning the onset of retirement.

OK, we’ve set a destination for our first “real” trip with our shiny new fifth wheel, which we’ll be towing behind our shiny new 3/4-ton pickup. It’s not far, but far enough for us to get the feel of actually taking our rig out for a serious test.

We’re planning a four-, maybe five-hour drive to Albuquerque. I won’t divulge when that will occur. Suffice to say it’s in the near future.

We’ve seen the site where we’re going to take our trip.

My sister and brother-in-law came for a visit in March. They had been on the road for several weeks, traveling from their home just north of Portland, to Arizona, to San Antonio, the Houston area, then to New Orleans. Then they started the return trip, with a stop in Allen, Texas, to meet their great-niece — ahem, our brand new granddaughter, I should add — and see our son, daughter-in-law and their two sons.

Then they came to Amarillo. We visited for a few days and when it was time to go, we decided to follow them to Albuquerque, where they camped at an RV park on the west side of the city; we stayed at a hotel nearby.

We got a good look at this location. We liked it. It’s a full-hookup place, with water, sewer, electricity and shower facilities.

We’ve already taken our fifth wheel for one test run, to an RV park in Amarillo. We spent three nights and learned a lot about how to hook up and unhook the plumbing, how to hitch and unhitch our truck from our travel vehicle and how to enjoy our fifth wheel quietly.

Our RV park hosts said we were “smart” to acquaint ourselves with our new vehicle while staying close to home. If we ran into trouble, we could call the dealer who sold us our RV. If we couldn’t get someone there, though, our neighbors would be more than glad to help. We’re told that’s how it works in the RV community: Everyone’s your friend when you’re in need.

We will learn even more as we head west soon. We’ll test our truck’s pulling capacity as we move into the mountains between here and Albuquerque — although we’re quite certain our pickup is sufficiently muscled to do the job.

Another adventure awaits as we prepare to venture farther from our nest.

Uncategorized

GOP sets new impeachment standard

I have concluded something sad about today’s Republican Party: It has reset the standard for impeaching the president of the United States.

Some GOP members of Congress are so intent on impeaching President Obama that at least one of them admits to having dreams about it. For what reason? What precisely are the “high crimes and misdemeanors” the president committed that warrant such a drastic act? They aren’t saying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/us/politics/ignoring-qualms-some-republicans-nurture-dreams-of-impeaching-obama.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Suffice to say that it appears — to me, at least — that Republicans, led by the tea party wing of their party, have decided impeachment is one way to get rid of a guy they dislike, whose policies they detest.

It has gotten me to thinking about whether this new standard would have come into play during previous recent administrations. Was it plausible, therefore, to impeach:

* President Ford, for issuing a summary pardon to his predecessor, Richard Nixon, for any crimes he might have committed against the nation?

* President Carter, on whose watch the Iranian hostage rescue mission went so horribly wrong, causing the president and his national security team tremendous heartache?

* President Reagan, who misled the nation during the Iran-Contra crisis, which resulted in arms sales to the Contras in Central America while negotiations were underway with the rogue Iranian government that was holding seven American hostages?

* President George H.W. Bush, who promised never to raise taxes as long as he was president, and who then reneged on that solemn pledge?

* President George W. Bush, whose national security team — along with much of the rest of the world — sold Americans a bill of goods that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had a huge cache of chemical weapons? Turns out, after we invaded Iraq in March 2003, there were no such weapons — anywhere.

The answer to all of those, of course, is “no.”

You’ll notice, naturally, that I didn’t include President Clinton in that roster of past leaders. The House did impeach Clinton … for having an affair with a White House intern and then lying to a federal grand jury about it. In my view, the GOP set a pretty low standard for impeachment then as well. The Senate then tried Clinton, but acquitted him.

Are we heading back down that path now, with Republicans simply drooling over the possibility of impeaching a president?

They’re going to have to come up with a whole lot more than they’ve presented to date as reasons to do such a thing. And to date, they’ve produced nothing.

Uncategorized

10 percent off for all vets … what a deal!

I have just had a nice experience at a home-supply retailer here in Amarillo that I must share here.

My wife and I walked into Lowe’s, picked up a couple of small items and went to pay for them. I noticed a sign at the door that said: All active or former military receive 10 percent off their purchase … all day every day.

Well, I thought, I guess we’ll get a few cents off. I had the ID with me. I asked the young woman who was running the checkout counter, “How do I prove I was in the military?” She said all I needed was a Veterans Administration card and a photo identification.

Good deal. I pulled both of them out of my wallet and we got a 63-cent discount on our “big-time” purchase.

Why mention this? It’s just my way of noting how far this country has come in the manner in treats its military veterans.

A couple of generations ago, America wasn’t nearly as appreciative of those — such as yours truly — who went to war in service to their country. But we wised up around the time of the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, with parades, bunting and salutes to those who answered the call.

Who were the loudest cheerleaders of them all? They were the Vietnam War vets who got the back of the nation’s hand when they came home.

Man, we’ve come a long way.

Uncategorized

Sports journalism takes a big hit

ESPN prides itself, we’re led to believe, on its courageous reporting on sports-related issues.

Which brings up the question: Why did the nation’s No. 1 sports network bail on a PBS project that examines the outbreak of concussion-related trauma being suffered by professional football players?

Was it pressure from the NFL, with which ESPN has a long-standing — and highly lucrative — financial partnership? It smells like it.

Frontline is an award-winning documentary series broadcast by PBS. The program, based out of WBGH-TV in Boston, is set to air a two-part series called “League of Denial,” in which it looks at the concussion rate among NFL players and examines whether playing professional football has become hazardous to the health of its participants.

The early indicators are that the concussions are becoming a grave concern.

ESPN was supposed to be a partner in the project. It backed out this past week. ESPN said the NFL applied zero pressure to the network, even though there have been reports of a extremely testy meeting between ESPN and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.

Two plus two still equals four, correct?

OK, the news isn’t all bad.

Frontline will present the broadcast, even without ESPN’s participation. It airs on Oct. 8 and 15, and will be shown in the Texas Panhandle on KACV-TV, the region’s public television station operating on the Amarillo College campus.

ESPN does its share of in-depth sports journalism, particularly with its “Outside the Lines” specials. They produce occasionally riveting and, if you’ll pardon the pun, hard-hitting examinations of the lives of prominent athletes.

As the network has shown, though, in cratering on the Frontline project, it is capable of missing a tackle or two.

Uncategorized

Carthel kinda/sorta had it coming at WT

I’ve returned from the proverbial “temple,” where I’ve been pondering the stunning firing this week of West Texas A&M University head football coach Don Carthel.

I have concluded — for the time being — that Carthel had it coming.

He went to a Lone Star Media Day event in the Dallas area earlier this summer. He attended tickets to a Texas Rangers baseball game. He took two of his players with him. Carthel and his team returned home to the Panhandle after the event and the players reimbursed their coach for the tickets. Carthel then reported he’d been repaid before the game, not after, and asked his players to back him up.

No can do, said the WT athletic department high command. That’s a violation of an NCAA ethics tenet.

You’re fired, coach, for “pressuring” players to lie.

I get that WT cannot condone lying among its student-athletes, or anyone for that matter. I also get that if the coach had broken a rule knowingly that could result in his termination, then that adds even more ammo to the WT athletic director’s arsenal of evidence against the coach.

Furthermore, if Carthel didn’t know he had committed a firing offense, why didn’t he crack the books more diligently back in 2005 when WT hired him to resuscitate a near-dead football program?

This is a tough time for WT’s football program. My hope now is that the boosters who’ve given so much support — i.e. money — won’t give up on the athletes and the coaches who now are entering what most folks believe is supposed to be a highly successful season.

I’m hoping for the best at West Texas A&M. Go Buffs!

Uncategorized

Smithee for Texas House speaker?

Et tu, John Smithee?

Paul Burka, the blogger/columnist for Texas Monthly, thinks state Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo, might be thinking about challenging Speaker Joe Straus as the Man of the House.

That would be a most interesting turn of events.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/brewing-speakers-race

It’s not that Smithee isn’t worthy of consideration. He’s been in the House since 1985 and is by far the senior member of the Texas Panhandle legislative delegation; I think he’s got something like 18 years on the second-ranking Panhandle legislator, Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, who was elected in 2003.

Burka thinks Smithee could be among a group of legislators looking to oust Straus, who I guess they believe has become too, um, “mainstream” for their liking. Smithee is set to emcee a fundraiser for an East Texas representative, Republican Kent Schaefer of Tyler.

I’m trying to figure out Smithee’s end game, if he has one, regarding the speakership.

I remember asking Smithee about the speaker’s office back when former Speaker Tom Craddick was being ousted from that high post. Smithee considered a run for it, but backed out. He said he disliked the political nature of the office. He preferred to be more of a legislative workhouse, staying in the background. He’s been known to walk across the aisle to work with Democrats, which I’ve become accustomed to believing is a big strike against any Republican serving in the state House of Reps.

I got the strong sense from Smithee — who I’ve known and admired since arriving in the Panhandle back in early 1995 — that he didn’t like the power brokering the speaker occasionally has to do. I’ve long thought of Smithee as a straight shooter who never was afraid to answer a direct question with a direct answer.

Smithee for speaker? Seems like a stretch to me. Then again, I haven’t been close to Smithee for some time. Maybe he’s been infected by the right-wing virus that’s been going around.

Uncategorized

Impeachment is near? He must be delusional

What in the name of all that is holy is U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., talking about?

Coburn said this week that the U.S. House of Representatives may be close to impeaching President Obama. The president’s policies, said Coburn, have moved him close to the legal requirements needed for impeachment.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/22/coburn-obama-a-friend-but-his-actions-nearing-grounds-for-impeachment/

As has been the case with some of the lunacy spouted by Republican members of Congress on this subject, Coburn offered no specific allegation — let alone evidence — of any “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the Obama administration has committed.

Perhaps just as strange as the impeachment talk has become is the source of the latest mutterings, from Tom Coburn, who calls himself a “personal friend” of the president. Indeed, I recall learning once that when Barack Obama entered the Senate in 2005, the grizzled veteran of the place — Sen. Coburn — took him under his wing and showed him the ropes.

Now this kind of talk?

Impeachment never — not ever — should become a political blood sport. And yet the open talk of this activity is emanating from the fruitcake wing of the Republican majority in the House of Reps. One GOP lawmaker, Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, recently declared that a House vote to impeach the president of the United States would be a “dream come true.”

What utter crap.