Monthly Archives: November 2014

national news, political news

Huckabee to get boot from Fox?

What might conservative media talking heads say if former Vice President Al Gore had an on-air contract with MSNBC and then began talking out loud about a possible run for the presidency of the United States?

They would demand the network get Gore off the air. And they would be correct.

Well, a leading conservative voice on the Fox News Channel is considering yet another presidential campaign bid.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is the Fox talking head. To its credit, Fox is considering yanking its contract with Huckabee.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/223921-fox-takes-serious-look-at-huckabees-political-activity

The network should move quickly. Get the ex-governor off the air and let him proceed with his pre-presidential campaign planning without benefiting from the exposure he gets from his cable news network talk show.

Fox has had this dance with other politicians-turned-contributors. Former U.S. Rep. and House Speaker Newt Gingrich once had a Fox gig. Then he ran for president in 2012 and Fox let him go. Same for ex-U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, another contributor who ran for president two years ago.

It’s one thing to have has-been pols, such as former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, on the payroll. She won’t seek national political office again — I hope.

But these returning politicians present another problem for a network seeking to maintain its so-called and highly debatable “fair and balanced” reputation.

Let’s quit the charade, Fox execs. Cut the governor loose. Surely you can persuade Sarah “Barracuda” Palin to fill the void.

 

 

political news, State news

Davis's campaign in shambles?

Now we know what happened to Wendy Davis’s campaign for Texas governor.

She veered too far to the left, as if there’s really a “middle ground” among Texas voters.

The Texas Tribune is reporting that some internal memos within the Democratic nominee’s campaign for governor reveal a campaign in disarray. It was disorganized, not unified on the message it intended for the candidate to give. In general, it was doomed almost from the get-go.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/12/internal-memos-detail-davis-campaign-dysfunction/

This is news?

Gov.-elect Greg Abbott was the prohibitive favorite the moment he won the Republican primary in March.

Davis actually needed for Abbott to either drool on his shirt during a televised debate or launch into an f-bomb tirade against something his opponent said.

Well, none of that happened.

Davis’s campaign had the misfortune of running under the Democratic banner in a strong Republican year across the nation, let alone in GOP-heavy Texas. As the Tribune’s Jay Root reports: “Given the national wave that swamped Democrats around the country, including in governor races that Republicans won in traditionally blue states such as Maryland and Massachusetts, it’s highly unlikely that any political strategy would have ushered Davis into the Texas Governor’s Mansion.”

Still, the memos reveal some serious dysfunction among the Davis campaign’s brass. As Root reports: “The warnings are contained in two internal communications obtained by The Texas Tribune and written at the beginning of the year by longtime Democratic operatives Peter Cari and Maura Dougherty.

“’The campaign is in disarray and is in danger of being embarrassed,’ Cari and Dougherty wrote in a lengthy memorandum on Jan. 6. ‘The level of dysfunction was understandable in July and August, when we had no infrastructure in place — but it doesn’t seem to be getting better.’”

Meanwhile, the Abbott-Republican “ground game” kicked into high gear.

The lesson for future Democratic candidates? Try like the dickens to stake out some middle ground, plant yourself firmly on it and stick with a structured plan of attack.

 

Sports news

Another poll determines playoff

I’m trying to clear my head over this college football playoff poll business.

The NCAA decided to create a four-team playoff at the end of the regular season. Check. I got that part.

The governing agency I guess had grown weary of polls determining the top two teams in the country and the criticism the final pairing drew — usually from loyalists of other college teams left out of the Big Game.

So the NCAA came up with the playoff system.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/college-football-playoff-rankings-oregon-over-fsu-sends-message/ar-AA7G4Is

But then had to wrestle with determining how to find the top four teams. Who picks them? It’s not a poll exactly. The selection comes from a committee of experts.

OK, now for full disclosure.

I kind of have a dog in this hunt. I’m a native of Oregon and the University of Oregon Ducks currently are rated the No. 2 team in the playoff hunt. They moved ahead of Florida State this week on the basis of their overall play against other ranked teams and the fact that the Ducks beat a very good Utah Utes team in Salt Lake City.

This playoff business, though, has me biting my fingernails each week.

Who’ll get the top nod? Who will the panel think did the best over the previous week? Can the panel of experts actually get it wrong and overlook a team that no one is seeing?

What happens from now until the end of the season? Well, your favorite team — whichever it is — has to win the rest of the way. That includes the Oregon Ducks.

Then comes the subjective analysis from the panel of experts — coaches, ex-coaches, ex-players, athletic directors, etc. — on who should be seeded in what order.

I’ll say it right now: Fans, alumni and boosters of whichever team finishes the regular season rated No. 5 in this poll of experts are going to raise a ruckus royale.

Some things, therefore, never change.

International news

No, Mr. President, we aren't safer

I’d like to take issue with former President George W. Bush about whether we’re safer because we invaded Iraq in 2003.

He says we are. I contend we are not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/12/george-bush-saddam-hussein-iraq-war_n_6146280.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

The ex-president told National Public Radio that the world might have had a nuclear Iraq had Saddam Hussein been allowed to stay in power. Is that to be believed in its entirety? It stands as the Mother of All Hypotheticals.

One of the pretexts for going to war was that Saddam was building a nuclear arsenal. When we arrived, we found zero evidence of it, just as we found none of the weapons of mass destruction that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted were there.

We weren’t greeted as “liberators,” as Cheney had predicted. The nation erupted into violence — against Americans and against the government we helped install.

More than a decade later, and after nearly 5,000 Americans died in battle, the nation is now falling apart because of the sectarian violence that never really was extinguished.

And the former president now blames his successor, Barack Obama, for the rise of the Islamic State because we didn’t leave enough troops in the field to tamp down the terrorist threat.

I contend once again that the world isn’t safer because we invaded a sovereign country, overthrew a sovereign leader — yes, he was a very bad man — and built a nation essentially from scratch.

U.S. policy instead created a breeding ground for the kind of violence we’re now seeing because we believed a society with no history of democratic rule was able to understand fully the immensely difficult task of creating and maintaining freedom.

Are we safer because of this monumental blunder? Hardly.

 

 

environmental news, International news, political news

Shocking! GOP opposes U.S.-China climate deal

Does it surprise anyone at all that congressional Republicans would be highly critical of a deal struck this week between the United States and China to cut carbon gases over the next couple of decades?

I didn’t think so.

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, wasted little time in calling the pact a “non-binding charade.”

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/223823-inhofe-us-china-climate-pact-a-non-binding-charade

And the deal is … ?

President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed the nations should cut carbon emissions by as much as 30 percent by 2030. Inhofe — one of the Senate’s premier climate change deniers — said China will continue to build coal-fired power plants and has “no known reserves” of natural gas on which to rely.

He calls the deal a fraud.

Inhofe also says the results of the mid-term elections repudiated the president’s policy agenda on such issues as climate change and that, by golly, he’s going to roll those policies back once he becomes chairman of the Senate environment panel.

I’ll add as an aside that there’s a certain irony in handing over the chairmanship of a key congressional environmental committee to someone who keeps dismissing the notion that Earth’s climate is changing and that there just might be a human cause to much of the warming that’s occurring — the current bitter cold snap that’s gripped much of the nation notwithstanding.

Obama said this in announcing the agreement in Beijing: “As the world’s two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change.”

And we have this, then, from House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy: “The president appears to be undeterred by the American people’s clear repudiation of his policies of more regulations and higher energy costs.”

Higher energy costs? McCarthy needs to ponder the ongoing trend in fossil fuel prices. They’ve gone down, Mr. Majority Leader.

I get that China doesn’t engender a lot of trust among many Americans. Count me as one who is skeptical of Beijing’s commitment to do what it promises to do.

At least we’ve got them on the record to cut carbon gases. Let’s hold them to that pledge.

 

local news

City embarks on new hiring course

Sometimes it takes an embarrassment to shame a public entity into making improvements in the way it hires key administrative personnel.

Amarillo has been embarrassed by controversy surrounding its Animal Control Shelter.

Its top two administrators — director Mike McGee and assistant director Shannon Barlow — “retired” from the city after allegations surfaced about the manner in which unwanted pets were being euthanized. The city launched a top-to-bottom review of those procedures, enacted some changes and then set out looking for a new administrator to lead the newly named department.

This week two finalists met city staff and, more importantly, were introduced to the public. They are Paul O’Neill of Midland and Richard Havens of Hutchinson, Kan.

The hiring process more or less mirrors the way West Texas A&M University hires its campus presidents. It’s a healthy process that enables the public to size up applicants for a key publicly funded position. It gives the public a chance to buy in to the individuals being considered.

So it is with Amarillo’s new animal control director.

You know, it sounds almost like the kind of vetting process the city could employ when hiring all its department heads.

The city conducted a national search and will choose one of two individuals. The hire will be made by City Manager Jarrett Atkinson.

Let’s hope everyone who gets face time with the candidates is allowed to express his or her opinion of them, so that the city manager can make an informed choice.

The city needs no more embarrassment.

 

military news, national news

What a difference two generations make

2 Comments

Al Sharpton’s TV show is rumbling in the background in my home office.

Then he introduced an upcoming segment about ensuring how to find jobs for “our troops.”

Something curious occurs to me. Sharpton is a noted progressive/liberal. I’ve spoken already to the way America has changed its attitude toward veterans and military personnel during the past two generations.

Given that I don’t know Sharpton, nor can I read his mind or peer into his soul, I’ll ask the question with some caution: Would this particular progressive talk-show host have this discussion during the Vietnam War, when many Americans were (a) turning their backs on returning veterans or (b) spitting in their faces?

He would say that he never did those things back in the old days. A lot of liberals did, however.

They’ve changed. I hear many liberal and progressive commentators on the air say much the same thing that Sharpton said today. They want to honor our veterans and those who are fighting for our freedom.

I’m glad the country has changed its attitude. I also am happy to hear progressives talk about jobs programs for veterans, calling on Americans to honor them by employing them when they return from the battlefield.

It wasn’t always this way.

 

business news, national news

'Net neutrality' becomes latest political football

Who would have thought that something called “net neutrality” would become subject for a fierce political debate?

Not me.

I’ll stipulate that I’m not well-versed in the technicalities involving the Internet and control over access to broadband services.

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=1121041#.VGKa8lJ0yt8

So, when President Obama lined up in favor of net neutrality, I could not have anticipated the fearsome response from Republicans in Congress and throughout the country.

Here’s how The Associated Press describes the issue: “‘Net neutrality’ is the idea that Internet service providers shouldn’t block, slow or manipulate data moving across its networks. As long as content isn’t against the law, such as child pornography or pirated music, a file or video posted on one site will load generally at the same speed as a similarly sized file or video on another site.”

Netflix has backed the president’s call for net neutrality. Yet cable providers are far from thrilled. AP reported: “‘We are stunned the president would abandon the longstanding, bipartisan policy of lightly regulating the Internet and calling for extreme’ regulation, said Michael Powell, president and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the primary lobbying arm of the cable industry, which supplies much of the nation’s Internet access.”

If the issue is to prevent Internet providers from blocking data, then I’m for it. Part of the president’s stance is for the Federal Communications Commission to regulate Internet providers, and would prevent so-called “data hogs” such as Netflix from being charged more to move their content.

Obama has come down on the side of consumers who want more information as quickly as they can get it.

This has created a firestorm? I’m still trying to figure it out.

 

 

International news, military news

This SEAL is making me angry

Forgive me for the mild case of potty mouth language I’m about to inject into the blog post, but …

Robert O’Neill is starting to piss me off.

O’Neill is the former Navy SEAL who shot Osama bin Laden to death on May 2, 2011 — allegedly.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/seal-claims-killed-osama-bin-laden-expected-die/story?id=26830046

He’s now speaking to Fox News about the dangerous mission he and the rest of SEAL Team Six executed in the middle of a moonless night in Pakistan. The order given by the commander in chief was as straightforward as it gets: Kill the world’s most notorious terrorist.

They did it with cool precision.

Now comes O’Neill and at least one other SEAL who offer supposedly conflicting accounts of who — precisely — pulled the trigger on bin Laden.

O’Neill told Fox News that, by golly, he “expected” to be killed on the mission.

He said this in an interview set to air this evening, according to ABCNews.com: “‘We’re going to die when the house blows up. We’re going to die when he blows up. Or we’re going to be there too long and we get arrested by the Pakistanis, and we’re going to spend the rest of our short lives in Pakistani prison,’ O’Neill said in an interview for a Fox News Channel special set to air tonight. ”

Well, duh?

Of course the mission was fraught with maximum peril. That’s supposed to be a serious news flash?

What’s so maddening about all of this, of course, is that O’Neill is breaking a long-standing code among SEALs and, for that matter, special operations forces of all the military branches — and that includes Army Green Berets, Joint Delta Force units, and Air Force commandos. It is that you do not speak openly about these highly classified missions. More to the point, you do not take credit for the successes accomplished by the entire team.

Here goes one of those SEALs, a highly trained warrior who helped execute  a mission of intense personal danger to all the men who took part. He’s doing precisely what the code says he shouldn’t do: basking in the glory of a mission that captivated the world.

It was a team effort, correct?

 

 

 

national news, political news

'Majority rule' is a major misnomer

1 Comment

Majorities determine how government should be run.

That’s how it’s supposed to go. A study just released, though, suggests that the United States of America has a “majority of a minority” rule when it comes to electing people to high office, at least during these mid-term election cycles.

Turnout for the 2014 mid-terms reached a near-historic low, according to political analyst Michael McDonald, a University of Florida expert on voter turnout.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/voter-turnout-drops-historic-low

The turnout was 36.4 percent of eligible voters.

What did most of the nation’s eligible voters miss? They missed the chance to determine who should represent them in Congress, in governor’s offices and in state legislatures. These folks determine a lot of serious public policy issues that affect us all.

Most of us sat this one out.

Too bad for those who didn’t take the time to vote.

According to MSNBC.com: “Most observers attribute the low turnout to frustration among voters at the gridlock that has enveloped Washington, after Republicans made stymieing President Obama their top priority. That has left many voters—especially Democrats—feeling skeptical about the system’s ability to deliver change. Eighteen percent of voters said they feel they can never trust the government in Washington to do the right thing, according to the NBC News national exit poll.”

That’s so very interesting and so self-defeating. If frustration in government has gotten voters down, then it becomes voters’ responsibility to step up to change whatever ails the system, which cannot change itself.

We hold the key. You and me. Citizens who have the right afforded to us by the very government we supposedly detest to actually change it.