Bibi wins; now, make up with Barack

Barack Obama’s candidate didn’t win the election to become Israel’s next prime minister.

The winner is the current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose right-leaning Likus Party will continue to control the governing Knesset.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bibi-bounces-back-116167.html?hp=t1_r

President Obama’s critics call this a sharp rebuke of the U.S. president, with whom Bibi has a difficult relationship.

But let’s understand something right off the top: If the bullets and rockets ever start flying in Israel, the United States will be at the side of its most dependable Middle East ally. Of that there can be no question. Netanyahu has acknowledged as much, as has Obama.

So, what’s the big deal with this strained relationship?

It goes most recently to the speech Netanyahu made to Congress without first consulting with the White House. It is centered on Israel’s desire to see greater U.S. sanctions on Iran, with whom we are negotiating a deal to end Iran’s nuclear development program. Obama objected to Netanyahu’s speech, didn’t meet with him when he was in-country — and the Obama foes are raising all kinds of hackles over the frayed relationship.

I don’t buy it.

Here’s what ought to happen: The two men have secured phone lines to each other’s office. One of them — it doesn’t matter who — needs to pick up the phone and start working toward a way to end the public rift.

It’s in both leaders’ best interest. They both know it and my hunch is that they well might already have had that chat.

 

Rep. Schock calls it a career

Aaron Schock was thought to be a Republican superstar in the making.

The Illinois congressman, though, has become a GOP goat. He’s quitting Congress at the end of the month because of a mountain of reports that he spent money lavishly, inappropriately and perhaps in violation of federal law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/17/illinois_rep_aaron_schock_announces_resignation_125960.html

I will not join the Democratic Party chorus that is blasting House Speaker John Boehner to smithereens over Schock’s sudden departure. In reality, none of this is the speaker’s fault. The entire mess falls squarely on Schock’s shoulders.

He said the usual thing politicians say when they are forced to quit because of ethical trouble. The stories of his spending and his alleged failure to report it correctly have become a “distraction,” Schock said in a statement.

He had served in Congress for six years and was thought to be one of his party’s shooting stars.

No more. He’s about to vanish from Capitol Hill.

In truth, the story was more than a distraction. It besmirched the entire House of Representatives, which comprises members who represent all Americans and which enacts laws that affect all of us.

Aaron Schock was one of them and he needed to go.

Later, young man.

In defense of police work

Police officers are taking a beating these days.

Not by everyone, mind you, but by some who at times seem to imply that they believeĀ police officers generally are a trigger-happy bunch too willing to pull their guns out and shoot someone.

I feel compelled to revisit a course I once took courtesy of the Amarillo Police Department.

A few years ago, APD officials invited some media folks toĀ its simulated training center for a little practical training on how and when to fire a pistol at someone committing a crime.

Do you shoot or not shoot? That was the question we had to answer to ourselves in a split second while undergoing a simulated criminal act. In the dark. With little warning of what was about to happen.

We were armed with guns that shot paint balls. If you got hit with one of these pellets, well, it smarted some.

We were dressed with some protective gear, given the scenario we were about to visit, then turned loose into a room, or a hallway to confront someone — portrayed by an Amarillo police officer — who is committing a simulated “crime.”

Shoot or don’t shoot?

I have to admit something right here: I didn’t do well on all the scenarios with which I was presented. In once instance, I “shot” someone who was running away from me. I wasn’t supposed to shoot in that case. The training officers all laughed out loud at me; I laughed back … with considerable embarrassment.

One of the things I learned from the training exercise, though, was how one’s adrenalin rushes through one’s body. My own body was trembling with anticipation as I enteredĀ each scenario — and I knew I was shooting paint balls, not real bullets.

When it was over, I tried to imagine how my adrenal glands would have reacted had I been an on-duty cop, packing a 9-mm pistol, confronting a bad guy and then having to decide in a split second whether to shoot him or let him go.

My sweat-soaked body betrayed the nerves that got the better of me.

Law enforcement does have bad police officers who make poor decisions. They usually are called out by witnesses, the media and even at times fellow officers. The rest of them — most of them — do their jobs well.

Those are the men and women who deserve our thanks.

 

Wyatt Earp: Now there was a gun control freak

Texas is inching closer toward a law that would allow residents to carry guns openly, where everyone can see them.

The state Senate has approved a bill allowing it, prompting the debate yet again about what the Second Amendment says and what its authors intended. Are all citizens given the right to “keep and bear arms,” or is it referring to the “well-regulated militia” having that right?

Let’s save that one for another day.

But a friend of mine, Benny Hill, reminded me today that Wyatt Earp perhaps was one of the earliest advocates of gun control.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123

Good ol’ Marshal Earp used to keep the peace in Tombstone, Ariz. How did he do it? One way was to require everyone entering his town to check their firearms as the proverbial front gate. No guns allowed, said Earp. He just kept ’em locked up until the folks left town.

Would anyone dare consider Earp to be a soft progressive, a flaming left-wing liberal intent on taking everyone’s gun away from them? I doubt it sincerely.

Yes, he had good reason to confiscate temporarily people’s guns. Crime was running rampant in the Old West town. It was worse in Tombstone, apparently, than in most places.

As the Los Angeles Times reported in January 2011: “You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff’s office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn’t pick it up again until you were leaving town,” said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. “It was an effort to control the violence.”

Imagine someone trying that tactic today. Imagine as well the reaction from, say, any gun-owner-rights advocacy group — no need name names here — to the notion of surrendering your sidearm while you entered any city in America.

Gun laws were a lot tougher than they are now. And to think so many Americans keep wishing for the good old days.

 

Cell phone becomes an addiction

Someone help me! I need an intervention!

This morning I drove the store to pick up a few items, and while I was walking across the parking lot for the front door, I reached for the place where I keep my cell phone on my belt.

It wasn’t there!

I froze for an instant. Then I remembered: “D’oh! It’s on the charger at my desk at home.”

So help me, I breathed an ever-so-imperceptible sigh of relief realizing that I knew where the gadget was at that moment.

Does this mean I’m officially a 21st-century guy? Does this mean I’ve become officially addicted to the damn device that drives me insane, but which I might be unable to function without?

I’ve written of this device before. I won’t plow old ground here.

My sons needle me constantly about my aversion to this technology. One of them posted something on Facebook recently posing a rhetorical question about whether his mother and I use still use a VCR recorder at home; he knew the answer — which is “yes.”

I’m not totally frightened of technology. Indeed, I’ve been through a lot of technological changes throughout my professional life. I started writing for newspapers in the mid-1970s using a manual typewriter and marking up text with blue pencils and Scotch-taping pieces of paper together. It’s a whole lot different now, but I managed to learn to adapt along the way.

Cell phone technology also is growing rapidly.

My first such phone was a tiny flip-top thing that drove me nuts. My wife had the same issue. We cursed the things constantly.

We’ve “graduated” to smart phones. I’ll concede that I don’t use all the “apps” that come with it — but I’m getting a bit more acquainted with them a little at a time.

I still detest cell phones. However, I realized today I cannot live without it.

Heaven help me!

Open-carry in Texas? Let's talk about this one

Gun-packing in Texas took another step toward something that makes me quite uncomfortable with passage by the state Senate of a bill allowing licensed concealed-carry permit holders to pack heat in the open.

Man, this one give me the heeby-jeebies.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/16/texas-senate-considers-key-gun-bill/

Senate Bill 17 passed 20-11 in the Senate. Republicans supported it, Democrats opposed it.

It allows those who already have a concealed carry permit to strap a gun on their holster and display it in the open, kind of the way they did in the Old West days — which made the Old West a much safer place than it we have today, correct?

A four-hour debate ensued before the Senate voted for it. One of the more interesting comments came from the “dean” of the Senate, Democrat John Whitmire of Houston, who’s hardly a squishy liberal. He argued in vain for an amendment that would ban carrying openly in the State Capitol. Why? Well, he said theĀ Criminal JusticeĀ Committee he chairs often gets unstable witnesses testifying before it and he fears someone might pull out a gun and start blazing away.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/senate-open-carry-debate-lacked-firepower

The Texas Tribune reported Whitmire’s comments this way: “Relating his experiences dealing with angry or mentally ill individuals before his committee, Whitmire said it would now be easy for such a person to grab handgun out of a holster to use it to attack bystanders.

ā€œ’Itā€™s dead wrong ā€¦ to say thereā€™s not disturbed people in this building,’ said Whitmire, who chairs the Criminal Justice committee. ‘Itā€™s not if itā€™s going to happen itā€™s when itā€™s going to happen, and you know it and I know it.’ā€

Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, called Whitmire’s scenario “far-fetched.”

Interesting. OK, assume it’s far-fetched. Does that somehow justify allowing just one individual to twist off in a rage that results in gunfire?

What am I missing here?

 

Talk nicely to babies, Sen. Cruz

It appears likely that U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is about to embark on the second political campaign of his career, but it also appears obvious that the young man needs some instruction on how to talk to children.

The first-term Texas Republican, who was elected to the Senate in his first political campaign in 2012, was talking to a crowd of supporters in New Hampshire — where the first presidential primary of 2016 will take place — when he said the “world is on fire.”

Cruz’s comment apparently startled a 3-year-old who heard him. The little girl asked him if he meant the “whole world” was on fire. He said, by golly, yes it is. His warning frightened the toddler.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-to-3-year-old-your-world-is-on-fire/ar-AA9Q0bT

Cruz then sought to assure the little girl that her mother would seek to make the world a better place.

Cruz is going to meet a lot of youngsters between now and when his campaign for the presidency ends — whenever that occurs. He’ll have to perform his share of baby-kissing, mugging for cameras … those kinds of things. He needs to tone the rhetoric down for the little ones out there.

His pitch startles a lot of grownups as well. Count me as one who gets a little alarmed at some of the things that fly out ofĀ the Cruz Missile’s mouth.

But you don’t tell kids their “world is on fire,” any more than you should yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater.

 

Motor voter law takes effect

Leave it to a state known to be among the first to try new ideas.

That would be Oregon, the state of my birth, which has just become the first state in America to automatically register citizens to vote using data taken from motor vehicle department registration.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signed the bill into law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/oregon-voter-registration_n_6880598.html

It’s a fascinating concept. The state is dipping into DMV records to find citizens who aren’t registered to vote. It registers them, but those newly registered voters have 21 days to decide whether they want to remain registered to vote.

In Oregon, that voter registration rolls are expected to swell by 300,000 residents.

What would be the effect in Texas? Let’s see, Oregon’s population is just a shade less than 4 million; Texas’s is 26 million. Would the Texas voter registration rolls increase by, say, 1.8 million to 2 million citizens?

Let’s not get too giddy over this law, though.

Every Republican in the Oregon Legislature opposed the bill, citing concerns about “invasion of privacy.” Oregon’s political balance is fairly equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. If the GOP opposes this kind of voter registration reform nationally, it would seem to have zero chance in a state like Texas, where Republicans command super-majorities in both legislative chambers.

In an era where pols are trying to make voter registration more difficult, it is refreshing to see such a bold new initiative inaugurated in a place where innovation often is the norm.

“I challenge every other state in this nation to examine their policies and to find ways to ensure there are as few barriers as possible for citizens’ right to vote,” Brown said.

Don’t hold your breath, governor, about Texas examining its voter registration policies.

Still, I’m glad to see at least one state taking a proactive approach toĀ working to putĀ more, not fewer, of its residents on its voter registration rolls.

And what if Hillary doesn't run?

This notion of a congressional investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email accounts while she was secretary of state is beginning to sound laughable.

Some of us out here will break out into hysterical howls if Clinton does the improbable — and doesn’t run for president of the United States next year.

Why the guffaws?

Congress will drop the story like a bad habit.

House Speaker John Boehner is considering a congressional probe. House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy is going to peek into whether Clinton’s personal account email use somehow is related to the Benghazi mess of September 2012, the fire fight that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

This has all the apparent earmarks of a political hatchet job.

Clinton is likely to run for president. Her Republican critics in Congress and elsewhere don’t want her in the White House. She’d be a formidable candidate and as it stands right at this moment she remains a strong favorite to defeat almost any GOP challenger.

But what if she doesn’t run? What if she decides, “You know, I just don’t think I have the stomach for this. I’ve taken enough of a battering over this Benghazi thing, during my time in the U.S. Senate and, oh yeah, when I was first lady and trying to push through my husband’s health care overhaul — which went nowhere.”

My hunch is that all these probes, these searches for the truth, these quests to find an email scandal where none exists will disappear.

The opposition willĀ pat itself on the back, say “so long” to Hillary Clinton and go about looking for demons behind other closet doors.

 

 

Al Gore for president?

Ezra Klein is a bright young man. He’s a frequent TV news talk show guest and once contributed essays to the Washington Post.

He now writes for Vox — and he’s put forward a patently absurd, but still interesting idea: Al Gore should run for president of the United States.

Yeah, that Al Gore. TheĀ former two-term vice presidentĀ who collected more popular votes than Texas Gov. George W. Bush in 2000, only to lose the presidency when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to stop counting the ballots in Florida, which went to Bush and gave him the presidency.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/16/8220537/al-gore-president-2016

What commends Gore to make the race? According to Klein, he has more unique ideas on how to govern than any of the other so-called alternatives to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Klein agrees with Gore that climate change is an international concern. He thinks Gore is credible on the issue and can make the case eloquently using the White House as his bully pulpit.

Does he have drawbacks? Oh sure.

Klein writes: “The problem with a Gore candidacy, to be blunt, is Gore. He can be a wooden candidate. His relationship with the press is challenging, to say the least. He is an aging politician in a country that loves new faces. His finances are complicated, and he made an insane sum of money by selling his cable network to Al Jazeera. His divorce from Tipper Gore means his personal life isn’t the storybook it once was. He is loathed by conservatives, who find his environmentalism to be rank hypocrisy from a jet-setting, Davos-attending mansion dweller ā€” as politically polarized as concern over climate change already is, Gore could polarize it yet further.”

Klein’s essay attached to this blog post is worth your time.

I’m hoping Al Gore reads it and gives the notion Klein putsĀ forth some thought.