Monthly Archives: September 2014

political news, State news

Watch for the response to Davis memoir

Texas is full of armchair political experts. You can call me one of them, as I’m liable to offer an opinion or two on occasion on how I see the state of play across the state’s enormous landscape.

A friend of mine is another one. He tilts the other direction. I lean left, he leans right.

A recent blog post I published wondered aloud about the possible political impact that Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis’s revelation that she ended a pregnancy would have on her bid to become the state’s next governor. My friend responded that it wouldn’t budge her “dismal” poll numbers. She’ll still lose to Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, my friend believes.

I agree that the news by itself isn’t likely to budge the numbers in Davis’s favor. Abbott remains a solid favorite to win the gubernatorial election in November.

What could influence this race, however, is the response to her memoir, “Forgetting to Be Afraid,” and the item in it in which she reveals she aborted a pregnancy in the second trimester because she and her then-husband learned that their unborn daughter had a rare and potentially fatal brain disease.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/wendy-davis-ended-pregnancy-110659.html?hp=l17

Will her GOP opponent make hay over it? Probably not.

However, he has some zealous supporters across the state who just might try to make something of it. They just might seek to rub Davis’s face in the tragedy that darkened her life. They very well might want to resurrect the “Abortion Barbie” epithet that was attached to her after she led that legislative filibuster in 2013 that derailed temporarily a restrictive anti-abortion bill in the Texas Senate.

A lack of discretion on their part well might rouse some anger among those who otherwise would be inclined to vote for Abbott but who take issue with those who are beating up a political opponent over a decision that transcends politics. Indeed, that kind of personal tragedy ought to be out of bounds.

The more zealous among us — on both ends of the political spectrum — too often think everything is on the table. In the case involving Wendy Davis, acting on that instinct could blow up in their face.

 

national news, political news

Raw politics? Are you kidding, Mr. Speaker?

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has exhibited a stunning lack of self-awareness.

He calls President Barack Obama’s decision to delay any action on immigration reform until after the mid-term election an exercise in “raw politics.” You see, the president wants to give some cover to Senate Democrats who might be in trouble if the president went ahead with his planned use of executive authority to move some immigration changes forward without congressional approval.

So that brings this criticism from the speaker that the president is playing a political game.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/john-boehner-barack-obama-immigration-delay-110665.html?hp=f2

Wow! Boehner takes my breath away.

Has anyone reminded him lately why he is suing the president over his alleged misuse of executive authority regarding the Affordable Care Act?

I do believe that, ladies and gents, is an exercise in “raw politics.”

The only reason Boehner is planning to sue is to appease his GOP base, which wants Obama to drawn and quartered — politically, of course — over changes he’s instituted through the use of constitutional executive authority.

For the speaker to say now that Obama is playing politics with the immigration delay is downright laughable.

Yes, he’s playing politics with this delay. It’s disappointing that the president is not going forward as he pledged to do. But he also understands the importance — as he sees it — in protecting the Democrats’ slim majority in the Senate.

I guess it would be better if someone other than Mr. Frivolous Lawsuit would have shot off his mouth.

 

 

International news, political news

What's this? Ted Cruz is right about something?

2 Comments

Imagine my shock and horror when I read something that came out of Sen. Ted Cruz’s mouth that I found agreeable.

The Texas Republican says the United States should revoke the citizenship of any American known to have taken up arms with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Being a fair-minded guy, I want to stipulate that not every loathsome politician is utterly devoid of a good idea once in a while.

Cruz’s notion, as I understand it, is perfectly OK with me.

“There can be no clearer renunciation of their citizenship in the United States, and we need to do everything we can to preempt any attempt … to re-enter our country and carry further attacks on American civilians,” Cruz said.

Amen to that.

I’d like to take that point a step or two further.

First, we should revoke the citizenship of any American known to associate with any terrorist organization. Let’s not limit it to ISIL membership. Al-Qaeda has done terrible things to Americans, as we all know; it, too, has boasted of American-born members, some of whom have been killed by U.S. forces in the on-going war against international terror.

Second, revoking U.S. citizenship of known terrorists removes them from any effort to exempt them from becoming victims of military strikes. I’ve said already that I have no difficulty with American forces killing Americans who’ve taken up arms against their country. Others have questioned the correctness of killing U.S. citizens without giving them “due process.” By my way of thinking, those citizens gave up their rights to due process the moment they suited up in enemy colors.

These so-called Americans have all but renounced their citizenship. Ted Cruz’s idea takes that renunciation a key step further.

Now that I’ve said something in agreement with Ted Cruz, I’ll need some smelling salts.

Still, his idea is on point.

 

Uncategorized

Abortion is personal for Wendy Davis

Wendy Davis has come clean on the issue that to date has defined her campaign for Texas governor.

The Democratic nominee for governor reveals in a memoir that she terminated a pregnancy. Why? Her unborn child had a potentially fatal brain disease so she and her then-husband made the heart-wrenching decision, during the second trimester of her pregnancy, to end it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/wendy-davis-ended-pregnancy-110659.html?hp=f2

Her memoir, “Forgetting to be Afraid,” goes on sale next week.

It’s fair to wonder: What does this revelation to do her prospects for winning the Texas governorship?

She won’t win any Republican votes, to be sure. Her GOP opponent, Greg Abbott, already is a strong favorite to win the election in November. Will her acknowledging of this abortion galvanize pro-choice supporters to vote? Will her declaration be a testament to the courage it took for her to say it? I don’t know.

This kind of intensely personal crisis, though, does put Abbott in a bit of a bind.

The reasons Davis gives for aborting the pregnancy falls precisely into the circumstance that many anti-abortion activists and lawmakers are willing to exempt from laws that criminalize the act of receiving an abortion.

Did Davis and her husband seek this recourse with no regard to its consequence? Hardly. She writes that she felt a “deep, dark despair and grief, a heavy wave that crushed me, that made me wonder if I ever would surface.” She writes that she did recover emotionally and emerged someone who was changed forever.

Is this the kind of thing Abbott and/or his campaign team wants to exploit? No. I am certain the state’s attorney general will stay away from this issue. His supporters, though, might not be so circumspect.

This is the kind of intensely personal decision that only a woman can make with those who she loves and with God Almighty — and any effort to demonize Wendy Davis could carry some serious political risk for those who start throwing stones.

 

 

local news

Puppy tales, Part 5

Toby went to the doctor today.

We got a surprise when the doc looked him over.

I went there with some questions, the first of which was: How old is this dog?

The veterinarian opened his mouth, peered at his teeth and said he doesn’t yet have his incisors. “He’s 5 months old,” she said without a hint of doubt.

I let out something akin to a gasp-howl. I couldn’t believe he is that young.

“Are you sure about that?” I asked … stupidly.

“Oh, yes,” said the doctor.

OK, I’ll take her word for it.

“Has he had any shots?” the doctor asked.

“I don’t know the first thing about this dog,” I responded. Well, actually, I had just found out the first thing — which is his age. I explained to her the quick version of how we acquired little Toby only a few days ago: Niece found him in the alley, he followed her home, she returned him to owners the next day, who then said they didn’t want him, she went out again the day after that, found him and his owners, told the owners, “My aunt and uncle want him,” took him back. Now he’s ours.

Toby’s now been vaccinated maybe for the second time. The doctor said it wouldn’t hurt him to get another round of vaccinations.

It’s the age thing that surprised me the most.

He’s a young’n.

Looks as though we’re in this one for the long haul.

 

 

national news, political news

Clinton's going to run, period

One of my many pet peeves is when folks try to read the mind of public figures.

Therefore, I am going to get angry at myself for what I’m about to write: I believe Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to run for president in 2016 and that the only decision left is to decide the best time to announce her intentions.

http://news.msn.com/us/clinton-2016-decision-likely-by-early-next-year

Clinton is in Mexico City, as is Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., another possible candidate for president.

The former U.S. senator/secretary of state/first lady said she’ll decide by early next year whether she’ll seek the Democratic nomination for president.

Sure thing, senator/Mme. Secretary. My trick knee is throbbing a good bit right about now and it’s telling me she’s told her husband, former President Bill Clinton, that she wants to run for the office he once held. She has sworn him to secrecy and if the 42nd president has a brain in his head — and I believe he does — he’ll keep quiet about it.

If I were a bettor, I’d bet all HRC has to decide now is when to announce it. Indeed, you can parse her language just a little bit to conclude that’s the decision left to make. She’s spoken hypothetically about a presidential run; she’s been mildly critical of President Obama’s foreign policy doctrine; she said in Mexico City that her background gives her “unique” qualifications to be president.

I’m still baffled, of course, over why she’d want to run for the White House, given the intensely harsh, personal and in some case unfair criticism she’s received over many years. You can bet the mortgage the critics will be out in force when she makes her intentions known.

Is it blind ambition or a sense of public obligation that drives her? Perhaps it’s both. We’ll be able to make that determination for ourselves in due time.

 

Uncategorized

Back to 'destroying' ISIL? Yes!

President Obama used a press conference to reintroduce the use of the “D” word in referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

It’s no longer simply “degrading” the terrorist cabal. We’re back to “destroying” it. The president did say the intent is to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIL. I’ll accept the “degrade” comment in that context only.

The president was clear this morning at a press conference at the conclusion of the NATO summit in Wales. The United States plans to lead a coalition of nations to combat ISIL and destroy it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/president-obama-us-and-allies-united-to-defeat-isil-110635.html?hp=r4

The nations are allied against the terrorist threat, he said.

And just who is Barack Obama enlisting to join in this fight? He wants Arab nations to take up arms against ISIL. He specifically mentioned Sunni-dominated Arab nations that he believes should battle the Sunni extremists who comprise ISIL.

We’re already pounding ISIL strongholds with air power in Iraq. It appears that there is a likelihood of air strikes against ISIL in Syria, where the monsters have killed two American journalists in recent days, provoking horror and revulsion among civilized people around the world.

This fight is going to be a long one. It might never end, given the nature of the enemy.

I hope Americans no longer hear terms such as “degrading” and seeking to “manage” these threats. They need to be eliminated, destroyed and eradicated.

 

entertainment news, national news

Rivers was funny, but …

Heresy alert: I’m about to say something that isn’t gushing with praise for the late comedian Joan Rivers.

Rivers could be funny at times. She made fun of herself and her obsession with plastic surgery. She lampooned people mercilessly, a la Don Rickles. She was known to be generous with her time and her show biz wisdom, which she reportedly shared with up-and-coming performers.

But for the life of me I am having difficulty understanding all the adulation that’s being heaped on her in the wake of her death.

She was 81. Rivers had some throat surgery performed and went into cardiac arrest, or so I understand. She was put on life support, then sent home from ICU. And then she died.

I’m said she’s gone. I’m sorry for her daughter and I am sorry for those who idolized her.

But I’m not going to lament the passing of a “comedic legend” or a “genius.” I don’t consider her a particularly innovative comic talent.

Robin Williams? Now there was a genius of the first order.

Well, I’ll get through all these tributes that the broadcast and cable networks are going to air on television. They’ll be heartfelt, I’m sure.

For my money, though, show business still has many more comic geniuses who are still among us.

As for Rivers’s standing among female comedic geniuses, well I’ll just say she will remain a distant second to Carol Burnett.

Rest in peace, Joan Rivers.

local news

Media landscape changing all around us

No matter how you slice it, dice it, puree it — whatever — the media landscape is a-changin’.

Even here in the relatively staid Texas Panhandle, where the announcement came out today that the one-time newspaper of record for the region, the Amarillo Globe-News, no longer will print its editions here. It will outsource that task to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, another property owned by the parent company that owns both newspapers.

None of this is unique to the Panhandle. The question of the day is: What’s coming next?

I remain concerned about the deadlines for late-breaking news. The printed newspaper won’t contain news that breaks shortly after suppertime. But, hey, readers can catch up with the news on the paper’s online edition — if they subscribe to the printed newspaper.

Print journalism is trying to make the transition from its old form to something new. The Digital Age has arrived. Some papers are doing a better job of making that switch from one form of delivery to another. Others are struggling with it.

The biggest hang-up is making money on the digital edition. I’m not privy to ad sales techniques, so I cannot comment intelligently on how newspapers in general — and the Globe-News in particular — sell the online edition to advertisers.

I’ve heard some anecdotal evidence, though, that suggests the printed newspaper continues to outpace the digital version by a huge margin in terms of revenue generated.

So, good luck with the transition.

I don’t have any particular loyalty any longer to the people who run my local newspaper. I left daily print journalism under unhappy circumstances. My loyalty remains, though, with my friends who continue to work there.

I hope they’re strong and they can persevere through this trauma. Take my word for it, many of them are being traumatized by what they cannot predict will happen in the near or distant future.

 

national news, political news

The harder they fall

Move over, John Edwards. You’ve just gotten some company in the Recent Political Star Hall of Shame.

Edwards, the one-time Democratic nominee for vice president and U.S. senator from North Carolina, once was thought to be a can’t-miss presidential aspirant. Then he messed around with a woman who was not his wife, fathered a daughter with his paramour, and promptly faded from public view.

Now it’s the former Republican governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, who’s been shamed, along with his wife, Maureen. The two of them now are convicted felons, guilty of political corruption for accepting gifts in exchange for political favors.

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/ex-virginia-gov-wife-guilty-of-public-corruption

If this isn’t one of the weirder political trials of the past 40 or 50 years …

The McDonnells ended up being shamed for their bizarre marriage, not to mention Maureen’s supposed infatuation with the guy who was giving them gifts.

Their marriage now appears broken. They were convicted of most of the counts brought against them.

Bob McDonnell was thought to be a near-certain candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. He is “telegenic,” articulate, supposedly on the right side of the issues to suit the GOP base. He had it all.

A jury now has decided he wanted more in the form of gifts, payola, the kind of stuff that constitutes official corruption.

It’s a sickening case.

Some commentators were saying today that the former first couple of Virginia thought they could rely on the state’s fairly genteel political atmosphere to escape conviction. Turns out the jurors were repulsed.

Another political career has just been tossed into the trash bin.

I expect there’ll be others along the way.