Welcome to Black Friday

One of the many nice aspects of my part-time job at Street Toyota/Scion is the interaction I have with interesting customers.

Two of them came to our service department this morning. They are foreign-born. I asked them, “Where do you come from?”

“The Philippines,” the wife said.

We chatted a few moments. I asked them where they live; they reside in a small town north of Amarillo. She’s a medical professional, he is a contractor.

I asked them about the service we were doing for their vehicle. The gentleman told me they brought their truck in for a recall and some other maintenance. “Oh, do you think it will take some time?” I asked. He said “Yes, I think so.”

I told them we could transport them wherever they want to go if they didn’t want to wait.

Then the conversation got rather entertaining.

Husband: “Well, we were thinking about going to the mall, but it’s closed today, correct”?

Me: “Ohhh, no! It’s open. It’s been open for some time. Probably before the sun came up this morning.”

Husband: “Really? I thought today was a holiday.”

Me: “No, no, no. Yesterday was the holiday. We celebrate Thanksgiving every year at this time. Today is the start of the Christmas shopping season. (Westgate Mall) is quite crowded today.”

Husband: “Oh, OK. Well, I didn’t remember that.”

I then sought to explain to his wife the meaning of Black Friday. I believe she understood how I explained that businesses look to make a sizable profit today from sales of items. She asked if there would be “lots of price cuts.” I said, “Quite possibly, yes.”

With that, they walked across the street to a sporting goods store to do some shopping. They returned about an hour later, informed me that “It wasn’t too crowded over there,” then said they wanted to go to the mall.

I flagged down one of our drivers, Mark, and told him where they wanted to go. “Don’t tell me the mall,” Mark said, laughing loudly.

The couple stood up, walked out with the driver and the wife turned, smiling broadly, and waved good bye.

“What’d I tell ya?” I said. “Good luck.”

Welcome to Black Friday.

 

That's the liberal caucus we have known

Well now. It appears that Democratic liberals in Congress are rising up to give their leaders as much grief as the tea party Republicans are set to do to their leaders.

Excellent! That’s the Democratic Party with which I came of age back in the 1960s.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/keystone-xl-senate-liberals-113009.html?hp=r1_3

The defeat of the Keystone XL pipeline in the Senate seems to have juiced up the lefty caucus on Capitol Hill. They’re set to do battle with the more, um, “establishment” members of the Democratic minority in both congressional houses.

It’s looking like we might have two intraparty squabbles erupting in Congress when the next body convenes in January.

The president is stuck having to deal now with two warring factions within each party. He’s bound to anger the extremists on the left, too.

As Politico reported:

“I will use whatever tools I have as a senator to protect the environment,” said Sen. (Jeff) Merkley, a liberal from Oregon. Asked if he could ever envision himself performing a Rand Paul-style talking filibuster in the Republican Senate, (Sheldon)

Whitehouse of Rhode Island replied: “Oh, of course. We will have more tools in the minority than we had in the majority.”

The liberals don’t like President Obama any more than the conservatives do, or so one might be led to think.

Which begs the question: If Obama is ticking off conservatives so much, how is it he can do the same thing to liberals?

A truism in journalism is that if you’re angering both sides of an argument, then you’re doing a good job.

Not so in politics.

Obviously.

 

 

Secede … one law at a time?

Dan Flynn appears to be one of a growing number of Texans with rocks in his noggin.

The Republican state representative wants to form a committee that decides which federal laws can be followed in Texas and which can be ignored.

It’s sort of a piecemeal secession plan.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3596488/a-texas-lawmakers-bizarre-plan-to-secede-from-the-union-one-law-at-a-time/

Rep. Flynn? We tried that once. It didn’t work out.

The speaker of the Texas House and the lieutenant governor would appoint a committee, which then could decide which laws to obey and which ones to flout. Interesting, eh? The new lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, just might be on board with this nutty notion; I’m not so sure about Speaker Joe Straus, who’s one of those reasonable Republicans who I’m quite sure knows better. I’m not so sure about Patrick.

Let’s review something here.

Texas entered the Union in 1845 and declared at the time that it would become part of the larger entity, the United States of America. It declared also that it would honor federal laws. All of them, I’m quite sure.

Are we now going to break that vow and decide which laws to follow and which ones to ignore?

It’s nutty in the extreme.

C’mon, Rep. Flynn. Eat some turkey and think about what you’re proposing.

 

A Thanksgiving to remember … in Vietnam

Thanksgiving is a day we express gratitude for all that we have.

It’s a uniquely American holiday and my friends overseas often are kind enough to extend wishes to my family and me at this time of year.

It also is a time to remember. And today I am remembering a particularly exciting Thanksgiving holiday.

I spent it far from home. I didn’t talk to my family that day. I was traveling in what once was a war zone and the site of one of the 20th century’s most infamous episodes of genocide.

Thanksgiving Day 1989 was spent traveling with fellow editorial writers and editors from Phnom Penh, Cambodia to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The day ended in grand fashion, for which we all gave thanks at the end of a harrowing overland travel experience.

The day began in Cambodia, where our group of about 20 journalists had toured several chilling locations, including killing fields, the infamous Tuol Sleng prison and where we met with survivors of the Pol Pot’s murderous reign of terror that ended nearly a decade earlier when Vietnam invaded Cambodia and ousted the dictator’s Khmer Rouge regime.

The country had been decimated. Two million Cambodians had been exterminated. The country’s infrastructure was in shambles. The people — beautiful as they are — were still in shock. The capital city of Phnom Penh was virtually empty.

We set out that day in several vans full of people and luggage along a crowded bumpy road. Ho Chi Minh City would be our destination. But first we had to travel several hundred treacherous miles.

The “highlight” of our journey occurred when we reached the Mekong River. We boarded a “ferry,” which in reality was hardly more than a motorized raft. Aboard that so-called ferry we loaded our vans, along with Cambodians traveling with carts, animals, loads of fresh fruit. The river, as I recall, was running fairly swiftly and I began to fantasize about overturning in the middle of the Mekong. I read an imaginary headline in my mind: “U.S. journalists killed in Cambodia ferry disaster.”

We made it across the river and then continued on our way.

Finally, several hours later we arrived at the Cambodia-Vietnam border. The line of traffic getting through the militarized checkpoint was quite long. We had a young guide, who we called Vibol. As with most business in Cambodia, a lot of it is transacted underground, under the table. Vibol collected some cash from all of us and then greased some palms at the gate. Suddenly, without explanation, our party was moved to the head of the line.

We slid on through to the Vietnamese side of the border, where we noticed a vision in the form of the young Vietnamese guide who had escorted us through Vietnam at an earlier portion of the trip. Her name was Mai and she was, as one might say, a sight for sore eyes — if you know what I mean.

Mai then escorted us the rest of the way to Ho Chi Minh City — which, by the way, the locals still refer to as Saigon.

We reached the city. Got to our hotel, unpacked our vehicles and were informed that the hotel staff had prepared a special dinner for us that evening.

We got cleaned up and went down to eat later. Awaiting us in a very nice dining room was a meal of what one of my colleagues called “road kill duck,” mashed potatoes, peas, rolls and a cake for dessert.

Was it the kind of Thanksgiving meal to which we were accustomed? No. But it was served with all the love and good intentions imaginable. Our Vietnamese hosts wanted to recognize our special holiday.

For that we all were thankful beyond measure.

After the experience we had endured that day, and in the previous days in a country decimated by war and untold inhumanity, we felt almost at home in a faraway land.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

No stunts with Officer Wilson, please

Congressman Peter King is prone to performing rhetorical stunts on occasion. He pops off when he would do better to remain quiet.

The New York Republican did it again this week when he suggested President Obama should invite Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren Wilson to the White House to receive, in effect, a public apology from President Obama for the “slander and smear” he has endured in the media for the past four months.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/peter-king-obama-ferguson-reaction-113168.html?hp=b1_r2

Here’s a better idea. Why not just let Darren Wilson go back to doing his job, if that’s possible now that he’s become an international celebrity/pariah?

Wilson was no-billed by that grand jury in the August shooting death of Michael Brown. Wilson is white, Brown was black. The shooting touched off riots in Ferguson. Then came the grand jury decision, which set off some more riots, not just in Ferguson but in other communities across the country.

The president does not need to engage in a publicity stunt here. He has spoken his piece about the decision. He urged calm and restraint in its aftermath; his plea fell on deaf ears.

Now comes Rep. King to insert himself into this story by suggesting something patently ludicrous on its face.

Let’s have a national discussion about the nature of police-community relations, particularly among the African-American community.

But we can have it without some kind of grandstand play by the president of the United States.

His plate is quite full already, Rep. King.

 

Government shutdown? That's the ticket!

The old saw about defining “insanity” seems appropriate.

It’s when you keep doing the same thing and hoping for a different result.

I believe some members of the congressional Republican caucus are certifiably nuts if they think shutting down the government is going to produce a positive result — for them!

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/the-anxieties-of-the-gop-majority-113113.html?hp=b3_r2

That’s the dilemma facing some GOP leaders as they ponder how to respond to President Obama’s executive order this past week on immigration.

Some of them believe shutting down the government, which could happen when the money runs out on Dec. 11, is going to produce sufficient payback for the “imperial” and “monarchial” actions of “Emperor Obama.”

Memo to the GOP: You have tried this before — and it blew up in your face!

There’s nothing to suggest that this time will produce a different result for the Republican majority that’s about to take over the Senate and will control the House of Representatives with an even stronger hold than it had prior to the Nov. 4 mid-term election.

House Speaker John Boehner doesn’t want a shutdown. Neither does incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. At least that’s what they’re saying. I believe them. They’ve both endured the agony of prior shutdowns before and they know how much Americans rely on government services to work for them. When they don’t work, then all hell breaks loose.

I’m wondering if Republicans, so split among themselves about how to govern, are wondering if this majority they’ve achieved on Capitol Hill will be worth it if they cannot figure out how to find unity among themselves.

Flash back a couple of generations to when the Democratic Party was split over how — or whether — to fight the Vietnam War. Their division cost them dearly through two presidential election cycles and gave rise to five Republican presidencies from 1969 to 1993.

There’s another axiom worth repeating.

It’s the one that warns that those who don’t learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

 

Rivalry Week coming up

College football has a name for the final week of a long season.

It’s called Rivalry Week. Traditional rival schools square off against each other on the football field. They’re usually in-state rivalries.

For those of us who grew up in Oregon, Rivalry Week takes on a particularly distasteful tag. It’s known there as the Civil War. Oregon vs. Oregon State.

Why distasteful? Well, for one thing I dislike the use the of the term “war” to describe a football game. I’ve had a ringside seat in a real war and a football game bears no resemblance to it, you know?

I even heard Tiger Woods once describe a round of golf, for crying out loud, as being “like war out there.”

You get my drift.

Well, Rivalry Week is going to present some interesting athletic matchups. The Oregon-Oregon State game, for example, will enable the Oregon Ducks to stay in the hunt for the coveted football playoff that will determine the national championship.

First things first, though. They have to beat OSU, then they have to defeat whoever wins the Pac-12 South title in the league championship game to be played at the San Francisco 49ers’ new field at Levi Stadium.

OK, I’m boring the daylights out of fans of the Big 12, the SEC, the Big 10 (or is it Big 13?) with all of this.

I’ll stick with my original premise.

I wish they wouldn’t call it “war.”

It’s just a game.

 

Why not just accept grand jury verdict?

Maybe the onset of old age is making me more circumspect about some things.

Such as when the criminal justice system renders a decision many folks find repugnant. Meanwhile, I have grown to just accept it as the system doing what it’s intended to do.

The grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., delivered a verdict this week that has many folks reeling. It found that a white police officer, Darren Wilson, did not commit a crime when he shot a young black man, Michael Brown, to death this past summer.

At one level I thought perhaps Wilson overreacted when he confronted Brown one night in the St. Louis suburban community. Brown wasn’t doing anything. Wilson wanted him to stop. Brown threw his hands in the air and the policeman shot him.

Well, that’s not what the grand jury heard in testimony. So it delivered a decision that some believe is unjust.

I won’t go there. I truly have no sure-footed opinion on who is right or wrong. Why? I wasn’t in the grand jury room. I didn’t hear the evidence. I didn’t see the faces of the people testifying before the panel. I didn’t have all the facts to ponder.

We’re all spectators.

That hasn’t stopped some folks from grandstanding.

At another level this case reminds me a bit of the outrage that followed the 1995 verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder case. My reaction then was similar to what it is now. That was nearly 20 years ago, so I cannot claim “old age creep” back then.

But my initial reaction to the acquittal was that the jury got it wrong. I still believe Simpson got away with murder.

Then I wrote a column in which I surmised that after many weeks of testimony, all the hoopla and courtroom histrionics, only the 12 people in the jury box had seen and heard all the evidence. Only they knew what none of the rest of us knew. I didn’t agree with their verdict, but I accepted it. The system did its job.

Then, as now, the rest of us were spectators.

I’m not going to wring my hands over this latest decision. However, I do hope it spurs a serious community conversation in Ferguson, where African-Americans think their government doesn’t represent their interests sufficiently.

The folks there have the tools to fix the problem. They can do so at election time.

 

War on Christmas? Who's waging it?

Conservative media are fond of saying at this time of year that there’s a “war on Christmas.”

They point to supposedly “liberal” business owners who instruct their employees to wish customers “happy holidays,” or protests by civil libertarians over Christmas decorations on public property.

So, they’ve declared there to be open war on Christmas.

It’s malarkey.

In my mind, the first shots of the real war on Christmas will be fired on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. That’s when mobs of shoppers — thousands of whom across the country have been camped out for days — will stampede into retail outlets in search of the perfect gift.

There will be violence. Fist fights will erupt. Arrests will occur. The cops will break up melees in the toy aisle.

Will any of this happen here, in Amarillo, the self-proclaimed “Buckle of the Bible Belt”? I have no clue. I cannot predict what will happen in specific communities. Nationally, though, I’m quite certain we’re going to read accounts of such mayhem as Americans rush to find the one-and-0nly gift for their loved ones.

If you’re going to pinpoint the combatants in the war on Christmas, look no further than at The Mall, or at any major department store. That’s where it’s being waged, on the ground.

And yet …

We keep hearing from those who insist that Christmas should remain an exclusively religious holiday. Christians celebrate the birth of a baby who Scripture tells us was born to save the world. The holiday, over the centuries, has morphed into something quite different from a mere birthday party.

Please, conservative media. Spare me the blathering about your perceived war on Christmas. If you have barbs to sling, aim them at those hooligans who’ll get arrested Friday morning fighting for the last Elsa doll in the store.

 

Facebook is a blast, but I prefer some decorum

I just posted this item on my Facebook timeline.

“Alert: I just ‘unfriended’ someone from my Facebook ‘friends’ list because of his liberal use of profanity. I am prone to speak with pithy tongue on occasion myself, but I do not like using it — or seeing it — on my timeline. Be forewarned. I’ll be on the lookout for gratuitous and patently nasty verbiage. A little here and there is OK, but watch it, folks.”

Now I shall explain in a bit of detail.

The “friend” I whacked from my list really isn’t a friend. I don’t know the individual. He sent a Facebook “friend request” a few months ago and I accepted. It turns out we’re of like minds politically, so I guess he read my blog posts that feed automatically to my Facebook news feed.

But this individual has a tart tongue — so to speak — when he lays his hands on a keyboard. He would lace his commentary with f-bombs, s-bombs and sexually explicit language.

I cut him off.

I enjoy using Facebook as a social medium for a couple of reasons. I use it as a platform to share my blog posts, along with several other social media sites. I also keep up with those with whom I have signed on as friends. Some of them are the real deal, actual friends I’ve known for years; the guy I’ve known the longest goes back to the seventh grade — that would be 1962. Others are acquaintances or folks I’ve known professionally over more than three decades in print journalism. And still others are individuals I do not know, but who have “mutual friends” on Facebook; when they request a spot on my “friends” roster, I’m likely to sign them up. And, of course, some family members belong to my list of friends.

A handful of my Facebook friends are young people, as in minors. They don’t need to read filth on my Facebook timeline. I have others on my friends roster who — I believe — might take offense at the foul language. So I try to honor their values as well.

Don’t misunderstand. I am not a saint. I pepper my own spoken words with some pithiness on occasion. I do so in the presence of people I know and who might be prone to the same verbal proclivity.

I just prefer at least a touch of decorum on these Facebook posts, if for no other reason than to offer some relief from the coarseness that has become the norm.