Such wealth is mind-boggling

The late golfing great Bobby Jones once said of a young golfer who would become the greatest in his sport’s history that Jack Nicklaus “plays a game with which I am not familiar.”

Accordingly, an Oklahoma divorce settlement dispute is dealing with money with which I — nor most normal Americans — are unfamiliar.

I cannot get over what the former wife of an Oklahoma business tycoon is asking.

Harold Hamm offered to write his former wife, Sue Ann Arnall, a check worth $975 million to settle everything. It would be over. The two of them would part company and never have a word to say each other … ever again!

She refused the money.

Why? The bottom line is that it’s not enough.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/harold-hamm-offers-dollar975-million-divorce-check-ex-wife-rejects-it/ar-BBhBvJS

Wow! And double, maybe triple, wow!

Arnall is appealing the initial divorce settlement of $1 billion. Her ex-husband has been accruing interest and penalty charges of $93,000 per bleeping day.

The guy wants out. His wife is arguing that she deserves more than the amount ordered by the court.

Now she’s refusing a one-time payment of nearly a billion bucks.

What in the name of the deepest of pockets am I missing here?

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/11/15/1-billion-settlement-just-isnt-fair/

Someone help me out. Please.

 

Not exactly a 'bucket list' item, but …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgdb6r0MQ4

I’ve kept this link filed away ever since I got it about a year ago.

It’s of Israel. It’s a promotional video, about 5 minutes in length that shows the best of one of the world’s most fascinating, complex, enduring and loveliest countries.

I spent five weeks there in May-JuneĀ 2009. Most of that time was as part of a Rotary International professional exchange. Four young professionals came with me and we interacted for with others as part of Rotary’s effort to build bridges among cultures. Five folks from West Texas got an education that they will keep forever. And all of these wonderful young Texans have become four of my very best friends.

What’s more, together we forged friendships with our Israeli hosts — and a Rotary team with whom we traveled from The Netherlands — that will last our entire lives.

The final week was spent as a tourist, with my wife who had come to join me once the Rotary portion of the trip had concluded. We stayed at a bed and breakfast in Jerusalem. We took tours to Masada and the Dead Sea and walked all through Jerusalem, visiting holy sites and then booked a tour to neighboring Bethlehem in the West Bank.

As I look repeatedly at this video it occurs to me how vibrant that country is in a region riven with strife, bloodshed, hatred and suspicion. But watch the video and you notice it’s a land of intense religious diversity, with Christians, Jews and Muslims literally praying next to each other.

We visited a site, for example, in the old section of Tel Aviv where a mosque and an Orthodox church share a common wall, which we were told is a huge sign of unity in a region known for religious violence.

My wife and I intend to return there. We have many more holy sites we want to visit.

Call it a variation of the “bucket list.” We’ve been there once already. But there’s so much more to see and experience. Check out the video. You’ll see what I mean.

Random selection for grand juries?

 

Grand juries have been in the news of late.

A Travis County grand jury indicted Texas Gov. Rick Perry on charges of abuse of power and coercion; another grand jury declined to indict a Ferguson, Mo., police officer in the shooting death of a young black man; and still another grand jury no-billed a Staten Island, N.Y., cop in the choking death of a black man.

All those decisions provoked controversy.

I bring this up as an introduction to a chanceĀ encounter I hadĀ Tuesday with a state district judge whom I’ve known for nearly 20 years. Judge John Board and I were visiting for a time and our discussion turned to grand jury selection in Texas. Board mentioned he’s been using a random selection method for some time, rather than relying on a jury commissioner system that remains the selection-method of choice for most trial judges in Texas.

We talked about an editorialĀ campaign of which I was part in Beaumont many years ago. We argued vehemently at the Beaumont Enterprise for a change in the way grand jurors are selected in the two criminal courts in Jefferson County. We didn’t like the commissioner system, as it relied on jury commissioners’ discretion in picking grand jurors. Jury commissioners — who are appointed by judges — could pick friends, or friends of friends to serve on the grand jury; they could pick judges’ friends.

The theory is that the jury commissioner system enablesĀ courts to pick the “best and the brightest” of a community to decide whether criminal complaints warrant prosecution. But the system is exposed to the possibility of manipulation. It could be used to settle scores. A jury commissioner with a bone to pick with someone — for whatever reason — could find grand jurors who would side with him in getting revenge.

I’m not saying such a thing happens frequently, nor do I even have first-hand knowledge of it ever happening. But it could.

I am a strong believer in the random selection method. I was heartened to hear my friend, Judge Board, say that he usesĀ the randomĀ system in his court, which has jurisdiction in Potter and Randall counties.

Our newspaper in Beaumont finally won out, by the way. The two courts in question in Jefferson County eventually switched to a random selection method — with grand jurors selected off the voter registration rolls — and to my knowledge it’s been working fine ever since.

So, why not require it across the state?

Amarillo is represented in the Legislature by two fine lawyers — Republicans John Smithee and Four Price. Might there be an opportunity for one or both of them to pitch legislation calling for mandatory random selection of grand juries?

If a trial jury chosen at random can be charged with sentencing someone to death, surely the state canĀ put its trust inĀ a random selection method to pick a grand jury to decide whether to prosecute someone for a crime.

 

 

Keystone Pipeline to get a veto

President Obama’s press spokesman said today the president is set to veto a bill authorizing the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast.

I’ve waffled and wavered a bit on this, but I remain (more or less) convinced that the pipeline is a positive thing to do.

Thus, the president’s veto pen should go back into the drawer. But it won’t.

It’s going to mark the first big confrontation between the Democratic president and the Republican-led Congress that just took its seat on Capitol Hill. Republicans control both legislative houses, but they don’t have enough votes to override and Obama veto.

So, what’s the problem with the pipeline?

Foes say it’s environmentally hazardous; they say the oil won’t benefit North American consumers; they’re dubious about the number of jobs it will produce.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the president doesn’t want Congress to “circumvent” the studies that’s ongoing regarding the pipeline. That’s one reason for the veto.

I recall hearing from the State Department that the environmental impact of the pipeline would be minimal. Is that an invalid assessment?

As for the impact of the oil on prices that are still in free fall, I happen to believe that any production of oil that continues to flood the market and enables worldwide supply to outpace demand is ultimately good for consumers — such as me and you.

So what if it won’t end up in North American gasoline tanks? It’s going to add billions of gallons of fuel to the world market. Is that not a net plus for consumers?

Let’s watch this confrontation unfold. It’s going to be the first of many nasty fights set to ensue between the White House and the 114th Congress.

 

A lesson on Public Service 101, Mr. Councilor

Kirby Delauter needs to be taught a lesson.

I will try to teach him one right here.

Delauter serves on the Frederick County, Md. County Council. He’s an elected public official, whose statements made in a public forum become grist for the media at any time. He makes statements on the record, for the record. They become part of the public domain.

And yet …

This individual is threatening to sue the Frederick News-Post if it uses his name in any fashion “without permission.”

Without permission? That means, if I’ve read the news story correctly about this tidbit, that the News-Post must get his permission to quote him by name even if he says something in the course of performing his duties as an elected public official. You know, such as saying something during a public meeting.

According to a News-Post account: “In a Facebook status posted Saturday, Delauter said he was upset with reporter Bethany Rodgers for ‘an unauthorized use of my name and my reference in her article’ published Jan. 3 about his and Councilman Billy Shreve’s concerns over County Council parking spaces.”

Therefore, the councilor says, he’s going to sue if a reporter uses his name without his authorization.

Um, Kirby, that’s how it works.

http://m.fredericknewspost.com/news/politics_and_government/delauter-to-the-news-post-don-t-use-my-name/article_e965025f-6c48-5a02-b162-600dfd2b5495.html?mode=jqm

I’m pretty sure no one in Frederick County elected this guy King of the World, or Commissar of Information, or Guru of Gab.

He’s elected to represent his constituents. The News-Post’s role is to report on what he says in public. The newspaper doesn’t need his permission to use his name.

I don’t know Maryland open meetings law, but it probably looks something similar to what Texas has on its books, or what other states allow to be kept from public scrutiny. The issues usually involving pending litigation, real estate transactions or personnel discussions. That’s it. The rest of it is fair game.

Here’s a bit of advice to the young man: Ask yourĀ county’s legal counselĀ if you have anyĀ standing to sue anyone who uses your name without “authorization.” My hunch is that your counsel will laugh in your face.

The paper’s managing editor, Terry Headlee,Ā said it best: “Kirby Delauter can certainly decline to comment on any story.Ā But to threaten to sue a reporter for publishing his name is so ridiculously stupid that I’m speechless. It’s just a pointless, misguided attempt to intimidate and bully the press and shows an astonishing lack of understanding of the role of a public servant.ā€

Higher gas price = safer highways

Here’s a thought that perhaps didn’t cross your mind; I didn’t think of it.

It’s the idea that skyrocketing gasoline prices slow drivers down, make them think about quick starts and stops and keep them more alert on our streets and highways. Yes, they conserve fuel by driving more slowly while starting and stopping with more care — but they also make the streets and highways safer for everyone else.

A discussion on this topic occurred this morning on National Public Radio.

The interview discussed the plummeting gasoline prices and what it might do to drivers’ awareness of the need to conserve fuel. Accordingly, if drivers no longer are as concerned about fuel economy, they likely might drive more quickly and revert to relatively hazardous driving habits — which, therefore, make our public thoroughfares more dangerous.

Wow! None of this ever occurred to me.

Gasoline in Amarillo as of this morning is down to $1.87 per gallon of unleaded regular; diesel is down to around $2.85 per gallon. None of this really means I’m about to go speeding around the city with nary a care in the world. I trust it won’t do the same to others, although still others might throw caution to the wind and push the pedal to the metal.

Energy analysts tell us the price of oil is continuing to fall and will keep falling for the foreseeable future. It’s below 50 bucks a barrel as of this morning.

I’m not one to want to pay more for a product I consider essential to my existence.

Therefore, I’ll settle for paying less for gas — and hope that my fellow motorists will continue to observe safer driving habits.

 

Gay marriage on its way … to Texas?

Do you ever feel as though you’re swimming against a tide that keeps getting stronger while it sucks the energy out of your efforts to fight it?

That’s how I’m feeling with this gay marriage issue.

I’m still grappling with the notion that it’s all right for people of the same sex to marry each other. I’m a traditionalist and my own values make it hard for me to embrace the idea of same-sex marriage as beingĀ the same as the marriage I have enjoyed for the past 43-plus years.

OK, I’ve laid down that marker.

I also understand what the law says, what’s in the U.S. Constitution and how all Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Thus, it appears that states’ bans on gay marriage appear doomed.

That notion I will accept.

Florida has just begun allowing same-sex couples to marry. Federal judges — those damn “unelected judges,” in the eyes of conservatives — keep overturning state bans on same-sex marriage. A federal judge in Texas has ruled that our state’s ban — written into the Texas Constitution — violates the federal Constitution’s equal protection clause stated in the 14th Amendment. It grants full rights of citizenship to anyone born in the United States with zero regard to that people’s sexual orientation.

All of this makes perfect sense to me. If the states are governed by a federal framework — the Constitution — then the states are obligated to obey the rules set down within that framework.

Does any of this mean that all Americans must embrace the idea of same-sex partners getting married? Honestly, no.

All it means to me is that the law is the law and that states cannot impose their own laws that supersede the Constitution of the United States of America.

That includes bans on same-sex marriage.

I can feel that tide of political and cultural change getting stronger all the time.

 

Boehner will keep speaker's gavel, however …

John Boehner is going to be re-elected speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Ohio Republican, though, is going to pay a price. Or, more to the point, rank-and-file Americans are going to pay the price.

It will be because the challenge to Boehner’s speakership is coming from the far right wing of the speaker’s Republican Party caucus in the House. And those clowns are going to pressure Boehner to keep tacking to the rightist fringe of the GOP.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/john-boehner-speaker-vote-2015-113984.html?hp=l2_3

Bank on it.

The question for some of us — including me — is whether Boehner will rediscover the backbone he has shown in resisting TEA party pressure to do foolish and destructive things, such as shut down the government over disputes with President Obama.

Reps. Louie Gohmert of Texas and Ted Yoho of Florida have decided to run for speaker. The vote will occur Tuesday. Gohmert is a goofball. I can’t speak to Yoho, other than I know he’s a TEA party guy, just like Gohmert.

Boehner has said categorically that impeachment of the president is off the table as long as he’s speaker. Gohmert says quite the opposite. Is Yoho on board with the Gohmert view? Yeah, probably.

This dynamic reminds me of what might happen here in Texas, with a new governor about to take office. He’ll have a lieutenant governor who’ll push him to the right with the threat of a challenge from within the GOP when the governor’s office is up for election in 2018. I hope Gov. Greg Abbott can fend off the pressure that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is going to apply.

I wish the same for Boehner once he is re-elected speaker in a House that will be even more Republican than the previous one.

And as the GOP takes command of the Senate, we’ll all get to see if the new brand of Republican lawmakers can actually govern, as in can they present legislation to the president that he actually can sign into law.

I am not feeling good about the prospects.

 

Let the trial begin for Tsarnaev

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s trial has begun.

In Boston.

Where it needs to occur.

The man accused of setting off the bomb at the end of the 2013 Boston Marathon had sought a change of venue. His lawyers contended he couldn’t get a fair trail in Boston, where everyone it seems knows something or someone associated with the horrific attack that killed three people and injured dozens more.

Look at the Timothy McVeigh bombing case, they said, noting that McVeigh — who blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 —Ā was tried in Denver, Colo. The Justice Department moved the case out of OKC because everyone there had an opinion on the tragedy.

Well, the Denver jury convicted McVeigh and then the federal government executed him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/boston-marathon-bombing-trial-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-jury-selection.html?

There would be zero point in moving the trial out of Boston to some other location. The entire world knew of the bombing. Indeed, the Boston Marathon is an international event that draws competitors — and their entourages — from throughout the world.

The other point has been the plea-bargain deal. There had been negotiations for Tsarnaev to plead guilty to the crime and avoiding the death penalty. Although I oppose capital punishment on principle, I want this trial to proceed. I want to hear the evidence. I want to hear testimony.

Most of all I want Tsarnaev to explain precisely who was pictured in those security videos leaving a bag carrying a bomb near the finish line of the big race. If it wasn’t him and his brother — who died trying to escape — then who in the hell was it?

Tsarnaev innocence is presumed. His guilt will need to be determined. I feel comfortable in knowing that the federal judicial system will convict this individual.

Let it be in Boston, where he can look his victims — allegedly — in the eye.

 

A 'remarkable' little girl, indeed

They might write books, perhaps make a film, about Sailor Gutzler.

One day they might. Not now. Not for a long time yet.

She’s just 7 years old and is going through an ordeal no one should ever endure at any age, at any time of their life.

Sailor survived a plane crash in rural Kentucky. The crash killed her parents, her older sister and a cousin. Her entire immediately family was gone. Just like that.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/divine-intervention-how-a-young-plane-crash-survivor-found-safety/ar-BBhwy8U

The remarkable aspect of the story deals with (a) how Sailor survived the deadly crash of a small, twin-engine plane and (b) how she found safe haven in cold, dark, damp woods.

Sailor reportedly was sitting in the rear of theĀ Piper piloted by her dad, 48-year-old Marty Gutzler. He was an experienced pilot who apparently earned his pilot’s license before being licensed to drive a motor vehicle. It’s said often that the rear of these aircraft are safer than anyplace nearer to the front.

She crawled out of the aircraft that had landed upside-down. Sailor apparently knew her family had perished. Off she went, clothed in Florida summer vacation clothing, from where she and her family were returning to their home in Illinois.

It was cold that night. She trudged some distance through thickets, through a deep ditch. She spotted a light and walked toward it.

The light turned out to be the home of Larry Wilkins. She knocked on the man’s door. He opened it and she told him her parents had died in the crash. She was bleeding, in pain, confused and terribly frightened. Wilkins called 9-1-1.

This story is as heartbreaking as it gets.

How this little girl will cope with the memory of what happened on that dark Kentucky night well could become grist for literature and film.

Not for a long time. She must heal. Thoroughly heal.

“She is one remarkable young lady,”Ā National Transportation Safety BoardĀ investigator Heidi Moats said at a Sunday news conference.

Boy, howdy!