Taiwan creates interesting back story in Ebola fight

A fascinating back story has emerged in the worldwide campaign against the deadly Ebola virus.

It involves Taiwan, a country I’ve visited five times since 1989. It’s a highly developed, modern, technologically advanced country of some 25 million people packed onto an island of less than 14,000 square miles.

Taiwan is now playing a key role in combating the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. It is sending medical teams into the infected regions, lending aid and expertise. It’s also planning a stepped-up effort to protect its own population against any possible outbreak.

According to an essay written by Kent Wang, a Taiwanese foreign policy official: “Relevant agencies have been directed to remain on high alert as Taiwan needs to prepare for the worst. While no cases have been reported to date, Taipei is taking every precaution. This includes strengthened entry inspections, health education, international collaboration and quarantine exercises. Taiwan CDC had set up an emergency response team August 8 and organized three expert consultation meetings and 1,212 training sessions for more than 100,000 medical professionals and individuals.”

Role for Taiwan in the fight against Ebola

So, what’s the back story?

Taiwan doesn’t belong to the World Health Organization. It does have “observer status,” meaning that it can peer over WHO’s shoulder, but doesn’t reap any of the real benefit of actual membership. It’s been blackballed from joining the WHO by the People’s Republic of China, which still claims Taiwan as a “renegade province.” You see, Taiwan broke away from China in 1949 after the communists took control of the mainland government. Taiwan’s government set up shop on the island, made Taipei its capital, then set about building a first-rate economy.

The nations co-existed in a virtual state of war for decades. Taiwan was expelled from the United Nations after the U.N. recognized China in the early 1970s. The United States broke off diplomatic ties with Taipei when it set up its embassy in Beijing during the Carter administration.

There’s a certain irony today with Taiwan emerging as a key Asian player in the Ebola struggle. A nation that has been expelled from relevant worldwide health organizations is being seen as a leader in fighting an emerging health menace.

 

Trying to figure out why they're called 'truthers'

Andrew Napolitano is a so-called “truther.”

He believes the 9/11 attacks were somehow concocted by the federal government.

According to Media Matters, a left-wing journalism watchdog organization, Napolitano — a Fox New contributor and former judge — said this: “Napolitano has made numerous appearances on (radio talk show host Alex) Jones’ show. During a 2010 interview, Napolitano told Jones, ‘It’s hard for me to believe that [World Trade Center building 7] came down by itself,’ adding, ‘I think twenty years from now, people will look at 9-11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.’ After his appearance, families of 9-11 victims criticized Napolitano for being “willfully ignorant of the facts surrounding the collapse of WTC 7.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/10/rand-paul-writes-foreword-for-confederate-apolo/201516

Why bring this up?

A potential candidate for president in 2016 has written a foreword in Napolitano’s new book, “Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Assault on Civil Liberties.” The possible candidate is U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who now is associated with someone who has some truly nutty ideas.

His new book also chastises President Lincoln for provoking the Civil War when, according to Napolitano, slavery was dying a natural death anyway.

Let’s not forget as well that he believes President Obama is usurping our liberties and freedom.

But this post is about truthers and the idiocy surrounding the notion that the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington were an inside job.

Andrew Napolitano is one of them. And for the life of me I cannot understand a sitting member of the Senate contributing to this guy’s literary career. To think we call these people “truthers.”

Be sure to keep this bit of intelligence in mind the moment Sen. Paul declares his presidential candidacy.

 

AG should knife the boss in the back?

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah are making an impossible demand of the woman selected by President Obama to become the nation’s next attorney general.

They want Loretta Lynch to state up front whether a presidential executive order regarding U.S. immigration policy is constitutional and legal. More to the point, they are demanding that she declare such an action unconstitutional and illegal.

Let’s think about this for a moment.

What they’re demanding is that the woman who wants to be attorney general stick a dagger in the back of the individual who has nominated her to that high office.

Cruz and Lee do not appear interested in simply hearing her out. Both men already have declared that they believe such a move — which the president has all but telegraphed will occur — doesn’t pass constitutional muster.

They are among congressional Republicans who already are angry over Obama’s use of executive authority to tweak and tinker with the Affordable Care Act. These men both are dead set against reforming immigration policy at least during the current congressional session.

So now they’re threatening to hold the attorney general nomination hostage to their own agenda.

What’s more, they’re asking the AG-designate to betray the president who’s nominated her.

Good luck with that, senators.

Dad was my favorite veteran

This blog entry was posted originally one year ago.

On this Veterans Day, I thought I’d pay tribute to someone who served his country with honor during its darkest moment.

I got the idea from a local radio station which on Monday is going to field phone calls from listeners talking about their “favorite veteran.” I’ll forgo that call and just write it here.

His name was Peter John Kanelis. He was my father. Dad was a proud World War II veteran.

He told me the story about how he found his way into the U.S. Navy.

Dad was anxious to get into the fight shortly after the Japanese navy and air force attacked our military installations at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. That attack occurred on Dec. 7, 1941. Dad was enrolled at the University of Portland in Oregon, where he lived with my grandparents and his six siblings — two brothers and four sisters.

It was in February 1942 that he decided to enlist. He went downtown — to the Marine Corps office. The door was locked. He walked across the hall and enlisted in the Navy on the spot.

As I recall the way Dad told the story, he didn’t have to wait long before shipping out. He went to San Diego, Calif., for three weeks of basic training. The Navy then put him on a ship and he steamed for England. He would learn seamanship skills along the way.

Dad ended up serving in three combat campaigns in the Mediterranean theater: North Africa, Sicily and the Italian mainland. He fought hard. An Italian dive bomber blew up Dad’s ship during the battle for Sicily. He was picked up fairly quickly by a British ship.

It was during the Italian mainland invasion that Dad endured 105 consecutive days of aerial bombardment from the German Luftwaffe. He told me he lost a considerable amount of weight during that time, eating mainly fruit.

Dad continued his service for the next several weeks as the Allies fought to secure Italy. Then he came back to the United States for a time. He enrolled in an officer training program at Dartmouth College, but didn’t make the cut.

He then was shipped to the Philippines, where he was staging for a likely invasion of Japan.

President Harry Truman then ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The war ended. Dad came home, married my mother and I came along three years later. My sisters would round out our family eventually.

Dad died much too early in his life. He was just 59 when he perished 33 years ago in a boating accident. Mom fell victim to Alzheimer’s disease; she was just 61 when she died four years later.

Dad’s service during World War II was not uniquely heroic. He merely did what millions of other Americans did. He answered the call to service when his country needed him. Those of us who came along owe everything to the 16 million young men and women who served during that horrible time.

My father was one of them. That’s why he is my favorite veteran.

Have a great day, fellow veterans

Younger readers of this blog might not remember this little tidbit.

There once was a time in this country when being a veteran wasn’t something to be honored or celebrated. Oh sure, many millions of Americans did honor veterans. Many millions of others, though, chose to scorn those who wore the uniform.

It happened during the turbulent decade of the 1960s. The Vietnam War was being fought. It split this country apart. Hawks vs. doves. War mongers vs. peaceniks. Conservatives vs. Liberals.

Some of us found ourselves caught in the middle of all this.

It wasn’t a pretty time. It was ugly.

Veterans Day parades drew protests from those who opposed the Vietnam War. Some of these protests turned ugly, even violent.

Perhaps the most reprehensible element of all was that Americans threw their greatest scorn at the service personnel who simply were doing their duty. They were ordered to go to war and they followed those orders, did what they were told to do and returned home to a nation that didn’t salute them. Their fellow Americans turned their backs on them.

Full disclosure. I was one of those veterans who spent some time serving my country. A little bit of that time was spent in Vietnam. I didn’t get spit on or cursed at when I returned home, as happened to some veterans. I returned and resumed a quiet life.

The good news would come later.

Americans realized the error of their ways. It happened about the time of the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91. We went to war yet again to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait after the dictator Saddam Hussein invaded that country and captured its immense oil wealth. President Bush said the invasion “will not stand.” We bombed the daylights out of the Iraqis and then sent in in 500,000 or so mostly American forces to kick the Iraqis out.

The job was over in a few days.

Those returning vets came home to parades, music, banners, “Welcome Home” signs. They returned to a nation that had restored its pride in those who don the uniform.

That pride continues to this day. Even though some of us have criticized the policies that took us to war in Iraq yet again in 2003, Americans never again — I hope — will blame the warrior for doing his or her lawful duty.

This veteran is grateful that our country has learned once again to express its thanks.

Americans may be targets, too

Word out of Iraq is that an air strike likely has wounded a key Islamic State leader.

To whatever extent Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is injured remains unclear. I hope he dies a painful death.

http://time.com/3574879/isis-leader-airstrike-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi/

Indeed, the question now ought to surface about whether Americans or other foreign nationals who’ve joined ISIL are being targeted by the air strikes led by the United States of America.

My answer? Big bleeping deal. Anyone from another country who joins this monstrous terrorist outfit and then takes some kind of secret oath to kill “infidels” from the land of their birth forfeits immediately — in my mind — their rights of citizenship.

That surely includes Americans.

The air strikes are having their desired effect on slowing ISIL. U.S. air power has accounted for most of the damage — and the casualties.

If Americans who’ve joined the fight against their own country get caught in the barrage, well, that’s the price they will pay for going to war.

Democrats backing embattled GOP Gov. Perry

A most interesting turn of events has occurred in the case involving whether Texas Gov. Rick Perry abused the powers of his office when he bullied a Travis County prosecutor who got arrested for drunken driving.

Several prominent Democratic lawyers and politicians have signed an amicus brief asking that the indictments against the Republican governor be tossed. They contend the indictments don’t hold up under the state’s separation of powers doctrine spelled out in the state constitution.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/10/bipartisan-group-lawyers-want-perry-case-dismissed/

The Texas Tribune reported the brief today and lays out the issue as presented by this high-powered team of legal eagles.

The Democrats include former Texas Supreme Court Justice Raul Gonzalez, former state Sen. (and former Texas Tech Chancellor) John Montford and the founder of the Innocence Project, one Jeff Blackburn of Amarillo.

The big hitters also include a couple of well-known former U.S. solicitors general, Ted Olson and Kenneth Starr, who served Republican presidents George W. and George H.W. Bush.

My own take is that the second indictment, the lesser felony, is the one that holds up.

At issue are the twin indictments by the Travis County grand jury. They allege that the governor abused his power by threatening to veto money appropriated for the Public Integrity Unit run by the Travis County district attorney’s office. The DA, Rosemary Lehmberg, pleaded guilty to DUI, served her jail time, but didn’t quit her office, as Perry had demanded. Thus, the veto threat. Lehmberg, a Democrat, is still in office.

Perry vetoed the money.

The second indictment accuses the governor of coercion, which by my reckoning is the stronger count. He bullied the DA, using his influence to seek her resignation. She was elected by the voters of Travis County and one has to wonder why the governor took such an interest in this particular DUI case.

Well, the answer is pure politics; Lehmberg is a Democrat, Perry is a Republican.

The governor can take heart in the bipartisan support he’s acquired in fighting this case.

I look forward to seeing how the court rules on this amicus brief.

Stay tuned. The fur is going to fly.

Worst of the worst

The Hill newspaper has listed its Top 10 worst candidates for the U.S. Senate in 2014.

It’s an impressive gathering covering both political parties.

Top 10 worst candidates of 2014

I have two clear favorites. They’re both Democrats.

* The worst of the bunch has to be Bruce Braley, the Iowa congressman who ran to succeed fellow Democrat Tom Harkin. His foe was Republican Joni Ernst, the hog-castrating tea party golden gal. Braley should have won the seat in a walk. Then he stepped in it big time, by calling Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley “just a farmer from Iowa.”

Whoops! You don’t say “just a farmer” in a state full of farmers. I’ve been to Iowa a couple of times and I’ll tell you I’ve never seen so much corn in my entire life.

Really bad form, congressman.

* Alison Lundergan Grimes finished a close second. She should have won in Kentucky against incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell, who isn’t your garden-variety retail politician. He’s stiff, unfriendly and quite wedded to the Washington, D.C., power structure — the one that has broken down and created so much of the anger and angst among voters. So what did Grimes do to win a spot on this list? She refused on several occasions to say whether she voted for President Obama.

The refusal was as clumsy as it gets. She tripped over her own tongue in trying to explain it all away, giving out an air of phoniness. She seemed to be terribly lacking in authenticity.

That’s my short list. The rest of them noted by The Hill all had their moments of “glory.”

Bring on the next set of winners and losers in 2016. First, let us catch our breath.

Lame-duck status might produce some courage

There’s something to be said for being a lame-duck officeholder.

No more elections to face means no more pressure from political action groups. Thus, officeholders are free to do what their gut tells them to do.

President Obama’s gut has been rumbling over this immigration reform matter. Does he or does he not invoke executive action to initiate changes in federal immigration policy which politicians in both major parties say needs repair?

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/07/after-election-texas-waits-executive-action/

The Texas Tribune reports that an executive order or three is bound to help the Texas economy. Hey, wouldn’t that be an ironic touch, with a president who is opposed by so many Texans actually doing something to aid this state’s economy?

The Tribune reports: “’For the Texas economy, executive action could be a boon,’ said Ali Noorani, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington-based policy research group. ‘The agricultural and construction industries disproportionately depend on undocumented workers. And I think there are a lot of growers and builders out there who would rest a lot easier if their work force was stable and legal.’”

Imagine that.

House Speaker John Boehner has warned Obama not to do anything by himself, saying it would “poison the well.” Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Mitch McConnell echoes the speaker, preferring to let the next Congress take up the matter.

The president spoke about working with Congress in the wake of the mid-term election that saw the Senate flip from Democratic to Republican control.

Then again, he is a lame duck. His presidency ends in a little more than two years. No more elections need to be run.

Congress has dilly-dallied over this immigration matter. The president wants something done and should he have any trust that the next Congress is going help bring some of these illegal immigrants out of the shadows? I’m betting he doesn’t.

According to the Tribune: “The president is expected to expand and modify his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative. That initiative provides certain younger undocumented immigrants a two-year reprieve from deportation proceedings and gives them renewable work permits. Applicants must have been in the United States continuously since June 2007, must have arrived in the country before they were 16 and must have been 30 or younger in June 2012.”

Being a lame duck has its advantages.

The enemy of my enemy …

To the president of the United States, I offer this cautionary word.

Be very careful, Mr. President, in your attempt to enlist the aid of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/06/politics/obama-iran-isis-letter/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Yes, I know the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Mr. President, do not consider Iran our “friend” by any definition of the word, no matter how loosely one might apply it.

The president recently sent a letter through back channels to the Iranian leadership seeking some advice and help in fighting ISIL. Indeed, Iran has some skin in this game. ISIL is a Sunni Muslim cult bent on restoring the Sunnis to power in Iraq and in toppling the dictatorial government of Bashar al Assad in Syria.

What’s the Iranian stake here? The Iranian government is run by Shiite Muslims, the arch-enemy of the Sunnis; what’s more, the Iranians have been propping up Assad’s regime with weapons and intelligence to use against the rebels seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Predictably, Republicans in the United States have been blasting the daylights out of President Obama for even talking to the Iranians. Their government hates the Great Satan and, yes, we detest their intentions as well, particularly their reported desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran, though, can play a role in helping the United States rid the world of ISIL. It has substantial intelligence capabilities; it certainly has the motive to destroy ISIL.

However, does it have the will to make peace with the United States and, even more critically, with Israel if it means the end of ISIL?

Therein lies the multibillion-dollar question.

I don’t have a particular problem with an outreach such as what has taken place — but only if it is devoid of language that promises peace with a nation that first and foremost must renounce virtually its entire foreign-policy doctrine.

Tread carefully, Mr. President.