Monthly Archives: March 2015

Uncategorized

Hoping this ocean existed … on Mars

1 Comment

Oh, how I want this report to be proven true.

NASA has reported finding compelling evidence that Mars once contained an ocean the size of the Atlantic Ocean, which makes it a body of water that covers more than half of the Martian surface.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/us/mars-ocean-water-study/index.html

The rover Curiosity has been boring into the Martian surface and has returned data to NASA that suggests the presence of water — lots of it — on the Red Planet.

Look, I grew up in a time when astronomers were taking picture of Mars from Earth showing those lines running across the planet’s surface. They called the “canals,” or some such thing that suggested that they were put there by Martian beings.

I’ve never really believed in the presence of life as understand the earthly term on Mars.

But the water finding, if its true, suggests something quite exciting about further exploration of Mars.

Here’s the deal, though: I haven’t a clue what that finding will produce.

That is why we need to send human beings to Mars. Let ’em take a look around.

 

national news, political news

DOJ to go after Democratic senator

Lets hand it to the U.S. Department of Justice.

It’s an equal-opportunity pursuer of corruption in government.

DOJ’s target is a Democratic senator from New Jersey, Bob Menendez, who’s been accuse of using his public office to enrich private donors.

Ouch … and double ouch!

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bob-menendez-federal-corruption-charges-115834.html?hp=t1_r

The DOJ has been accused of being too partisan, whether it’s run by a Democrat or a Republican. The current Justice Department is under the purview of a Democratic administration, so it stands to reason that it would let allegations of misdeeds against a fellow Democrat to pass, right? Wrong!

As Politico reported: “A federal grand jury in New Jersey has for months been investigating Menendez’s interactions with Salomon Melgen, a close friend and financial backer of the senator, prompting Menendez to rack up hundreds of thousands in legal bills as the probe intensified. A New Jersey newspaper reported this week that several Menendez aides declined to answer questions before the grand jury, citing a constitutional privilege that covers the New Jersey Democrat and other lawmakers and staff.”

I’ve got to hand it to the Justice Department, not that I think necessarily that Menendez is guilty of anything. Heck, I live way out here in Flyover Country and I haven’t been following the Menendez case carefully.

My salute is to DOJ for going ahead with an investigation it could have swept away, citing “insufficient evidence” as a reason not to pursue a criminal probe.

Make no mistake, justice departments of both parties have used that dodge with particular effectiveness.

Not this one. Not this time.

“Let me be very clear, very clear. I have always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with the law,” Menendez said. “I am not going anywhere.”

We’ll see about that.

Uncategorized

Land line may go when retirement arrives

This is the latest in an occasional series of blog posts about impending retirement.

Having spewed already about the difficulty of cutting ourselves loose from our home telephone, some friends have reminded me of what I’ve noted already.

Retirement is going to bring a whole new lifestyle for my wife and me that more than likely will require us to cut the tie that binds us to our safety line.

Gosh. I didn’t even think of it.

Our retirement hopefully will feature travel. Lots of it, in fact. We’ll be on the road for extended periods of time in our fifth wheel. We intend to visit most of North America. We hope to take our fifth wheel to Mexico as well, but first things first: Our southerly neighbors will need to get control of the drug thugs who are running rampant, terrorizing tourists and other innocent victims.

But I digress.

The land line that has been such a staple in our lives isn’t going away any time soon, at least not immediately.

Eventually? Yes. That will be determined at a later date. For now, I’m having a lot of fun working my three part-time jobs. The RV awaits. When we climb aboard in our retirement years, I’m expecting to be fully mobile.

 

national news, political news

How about confirming new AG … now?

The delay over a confirmation vote on the new U.S. attorney general is beginning to confound me.

Loretta Lynch is an eminently qualified U.S. attorney from New York. She was nominated by President Obama to succeed Eric Holder at the Justice Department. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-8 to recommend her confirmation, with three Republicans joining all nine Democrats on the panel to approve her confirmation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/05/democrats_call_for_nomination_vote_on_loretta_lynch_125837.html

But the full Senate has yet to schedule a confirmation vote.

All 45 Senate Democrats signed a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asking him to schedule a vote so that Lynch presumably can get started on her new job.

The confounding part is the consequence of the delay.

Eric Holder remains on the job. It’s not that I think he’s done a poor job as attorney general. Senate Republicans cannot stand the guy. He’s angered them time and again over policy disagreements. The GOP caucus doesn’t want him on the job any longer.

So, why not schedule a vote for Lynch — who still enjoys some Republican support — so she can replace the despised Eric Holder?

Is it because getting Holder out of office robs Republicans of a target at whom they can take potshots?

Hey, I’m just askin’.

Schedule a Senate vote, Mr. Majority Leader.

 

local news, Uncategorized

Tough to sever the land line

This conversation was overheard today at my part-time job.

Customer: Yes. I still have a home phone.

Cashier: Oh, really?

Customer: That’s right. My kids and grandkids don’t have a home phone, but I still have mine. I cannot get rid of it.

I related instantly with the lady and her seemingly mild embarrassment at “admitting” she actually still had a land line, a telephone that she plugged into the wall, a home telephone.

My wife and I have struggled for years with whether to cut our land line since cell phones became, well, such standard equipment for most folks.

We’ve decided to keep it.

Friends of mine have cut their land lines. Our sons operate exclusively with cell phones. They had no trouble cutting the line. They’re liberated 21st-century American males; one of them is married to an equally liberated modern female. Good for all of ’em.

For us, we’ll retain our land line for the foreseeable future.

Some of you might ask: Why?

The answer is complicated.

It’s kind of a life line of sorts. I keep hearing TV and radio commercials telling us cell phones make lousy communication devices for 9-1-1 emergency phone calls. Perhaps it’s because that message comes from a land line provider, yes? Still, I get the logic in persuading someone that a land line is a more efficient method of reporting a medical or law enforcement emergency.

Also, the land line and the phone book listing gives me a certain sense of belonging. That’s weird, I know. I am not entirely comfortable with people not knowing where to find us if they need to see us. I often hear friends say something like, “I’ve been thinking about you folks and wondering how you’re doing.” My answer? Well, we’re in the phone book; you still have a phone book, right? The older friends usually say “yes.” The younger ones? I know better than to ask, because I assume they don’t.

We don’t know when, or even if, we’ll surrender the land line.

The lady at work today spoke volumes to me — without ever knowing it — in that brief moment I eavesdropped on her conversation with the young cashier.

Yes, my wife and I do have cell phones. We use them regularly. I’m getting better — although not yet good — at using the various features on my hot-shot phone. Same with my wife.

But get rid of the land line? Not yet. Maybe not ever.

 

national news, political news

Nothing is secret, Mme. Secretary

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a public figure for more than three decades, going back to when she was first lady of Arkansas.

She ought to know a fundamental truth about public notoriety: Almost nothing is secret.

Hillary’s penchant for secrecy rattles Dems

But as The Hill notes in the attached report, Clinton has a penchant for secrecy that is driving her supporters to the point of insanity.

The recent email flap is a case in point.

She used her private email account to conduct affairs of the State Department, which she led during the first term of the Obama administration. She likely didn’t break the law. Previous secretaries of state have done the same thing. So have governors, senators, county commissioners — you name it — of both major parties.

The rules have changed since Clinton left the State Department.

Still, Clinton and her team seem to have mishandled the uproar over the revelation about the use of the private account. It’s causing grief among those who want her to run for president in 2016. An announcement is expected within the next month or so.

I happen to dislike the idea of public officials using personal email or other personal media accounts to do public business. Politicians of all stripes talk about the need for “transparency.” Only the most sensitive national security matters should be kept from public view.

Clinton now has asked the State Department to release her emails to an inquiring public, which by the way includes members of the House Select Benghazi Committee that no doubt is looking for that “smoking gun” to shoot holes in her probable presidential campaign.

Whatever. The former secretary/U.S. senator/U.S. first lady knows better than most the price people for seeking to serve the public.

As the cliché reminds us: No good deed goes unpunished.

 

national news, political news

Good doctor snaps out of it

No one ever should question Ben Carson’s smarts as a neurosurgeon.

He’s one of the best ever, in the world. But the good doctor stepped in it big time during a CNN interview and has actually apologized for some remarks he made about homosexuality and how he thought people “become” gay.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/234695-carson-apologizes-for-comments-on-sexuality

Dr. Carson told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that one needs to look at the prison population to understand that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. He said prisoners have begun their sentences as straight but come out as gay.

Sexual orientation? The doctor called it a “choice.”

He’s taken it back. Carson, a possible 2016 Republican presidential candidate, still doesn’t believe marriage equality, preferring to support civil unions for gay couples. But he’s said he’s sorry for the offense he caused by using the prisoners-choose-to-be-gay example.

“I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation,” he said on Facebook. “I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive. For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended.”

Apology accepted, Dr. Carson. Now, let’s stick to the issues that we can control. Sexual orientation isn’t one of them.

 

legal news, political news, State news

Oops, Perry has own email trail

Doggone it anyhow, former Gov. Rick Perry.

Why did you have to be so quick on the trigger in criticizing Hillary Rodham Clinton over this brewing email controversy, in which it is alleged that Clinton used a private email account to conduct federal government business.

It turns out the former Texas governor has done the same thing while working for our state.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/04/perry-faces-transparency-questions-after-clinton-r/

Perry piled on Clinton quickly, accusing her of lacking “transparency” in the way she conducted the public’s business while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Now, though, two legislators — both Democrats — say they believe Perry is just as non-transparent as Secretary Clinton. The questions come from state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer of San Antonio and former state Rep. Naomi Gonzalez of El Paso.

As the Texas Tribune reported: “Martinez Fischer and Gonzalez both sat on the House Committee on Transparency in State Agency Operations as it looked into turmoil on the University of Texas System Board of Regents. At a meeting of the panel in 2013, Martinez Fischer brought up the emails in question, some of which were then obtained by The Texas Tribune. The emails, in which Perry is identified as only “RP,” show him corresponding with a number of UT regents as well as Jeff Sandefer, a prominent Republican donor and informal adviser to Perry.”

The Tribune also reported that Perry’s office has responded to the allegations: “’The Governor’s Office complied with state law regarding email correspondence,’ Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed said. ‘While serving as governor of Texas, Gov. Perry’s emails were requested and released through public information requests.'”

Isn’t that what Clinton’s team has said, that she complied with the “spirit and letter” of federal law?

Is this yet another hurdle the ex-Republican governor will have to clear — along with that felony indictment alleging abuse of power — if he intends to seek the presidency once more?

 

entertainment news, legal news

Great work, judge, if you can get it

This thought didn’t originate with me. It comes from my friend Jon Mark Beilue, a columnist for the Amarillo Globe-News, who took note of something he saw.

I’m passing it along here.

It is that Judy Scheindlin, aka Judge Judy, I going to rake in tens of millions of dollars annually dispensing “justice” on television.

http://www.tvguide.com/news/judge-judy-contract-2020/

Judge Judy has been given a contract extension that will pay her an undisclosed amount of money through 2020. If history is a guide, it’s going to be for lots and lots of money.

Her Honor earned $47 million in 2014.

As Jon Mark noted in his social media post, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, earns about $225,000 annually. All he and his eight colleagues on the highest court in the land do for a living is determine whether federal laws comport with the U.S. Constitution. They get to decide things like, oh, the fate of the Affordable Care Act, whether someone deserves to be executed for crimes they commit or whether abortion remains legal.

Judge Judy? She gets to scold people for not making good on fender-bender accident claims, or shaving their neighbor’s pet dog or cat, or absconding with a refrigerator load of food. It’s that kind of thing that Judge Judy gets to hear.

For that she earns millions.

As Jon Mark noted: Only in America …