Monthly Archives: February 2017

entertainment news

Collusion between … Donald and Arnold?

I smell a stinky rat.

Donald J. Trump stood before the National Prayer Breakfast audience — of all places — and poked fun at the ratings of “Celebrity Apprentice,” which is now hosted by one-time muscleman/movie actor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Arnold responded with a video dig at the president, suggesting the two men should trade jobs, given that Trump is such an expert on TV ratings. Arnold said he could become president and therefore enable Americans to “sleep comfortably at night.”

Oh, wait! Donald used to host the “Apprentice.” He retains the title of executive producer, even though he’s now got a fairly full plate trying to “make America great again.”

Might there possibly be a wink-wink agreement between the men to gin up a fake controversy to, um, boost ratings — and deliver more money to the president of the United States of America?

Why, such a thing would be so very “unpresidented.”

International news

Trump not playing well Down Under

An e-mail came to me overnight from a friend in Australia.

My friend is a former journalist, an erudite man, a student of America politics. He knows far more about U.S. politics and policy than I do about Australia.

He writes this about the rant Donald J. Trump’s launched against Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull while on a long-distance phone call with his colleague Down Under:

Shocking, yes. Disappointing, certainly.

Surprising, ‘fraid not! 

This was always on the cards, and I can’t help wondering whether Obama perhaps had laid this as a trap for Trump in the event he did win the presidency.  

A good analysis from an Australian academic here:  

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/03/australia-needs-to-adapt-to-the-new-circumstances-of-trumps-america

Trump picked his target well. Australia is small enough, friendly enough and inconsequential enough to be the perfect scapegoat for Trump to demonstrate what now substitutes for diplomacy.

He wanted to make an example of someone in his typical swingdick manner, and we fit the bill perfectly. Think of the school bully singling out the smallest kid in a group of friends and beating the s*** out of him just to show the others who is boss. That the leader of the US… any leader of the US… publicly behaves like this is sad, pathetic… and dangerous. I was going to say Leader of the Free World… but Angela Merkel has assumed that mantle, while China is showing maturity and poise in its stewardship of international trade.  

Over here, we are dreading to think what favours Trump will extract from us if he’s going to honour this deal. Possibly military intervention in the South China Sea, which we cannot afford and certainly don’t need. Sadly our Prime Minister is a hostage to the hard right in his own party here, so us taking these unfairly-detained refugees is off the table for nothing more than base political reasons. Karma at work, some would say.

I thought the job of government was to bring order to chaos and protect the citizenry. I must be clearly mistaken.

Trump is scary alright … but Steve Bannon is terrifying! Him along with the cabal of crooks, vandals and liars they’ve assembled as an administration.

I know Michael Moore has suggested it’s actually a coup in all but name.

It’s a sad day when someone whose nickname is ‘Mad Dog’ stands out as the sanest person in the room.  

I’ve been reading commentary this week suggesting either impeachment or the 25th Amendment as fail safes. 

My money’s on impeachment – tax returns, business conflicts-of-interest, or eventual proof of collusion between Russian hackers, Putin and the Trump campaign on the Podesta emails.

It’s in there somewhere! The question is, how much damage will be done beforehand, and to what extent will it be irreparable. 

Take care my friend … We’re still holding our breath over here.

Hmmm. So are many of us here.

Sports news

Getting ready for the Big Game

A young colleague of mine told me today he is going to Houston this weekend. He’s going to attend a football game: the Super Bowl.

My friend is a diehard, true-blue, dedicated fan of the New England Patriots, who will face off Sunday against the Atlanta Falcons.

Our brief conversation prompts me to offer this off-kilter perspective on the game that’s about to overwhelm us. It is this:

I have no particular allegiance to a team. My preference is for the conference. The National Football League comprises two conferences: American and National.

Going back many decades, I have long been an American Football Conference fan. My reasons are weird. Perhaps there are others out there who share my loyalty to the AFC.

It goes back to the American Football League. The AFL came into being in 1960. I was intrigued that a brand new pro football league would challenge the NFL. AFL teams played an exciting brand of football. They scored a lot of points; they played initially before sparse crowds; yet they had some talented players engaging in some tackle football.

Then in 1966, the NFL and the AFL agreed to merge. It would occur at the start of the 1970 season. Before the merger took effect, the AFL played the NFL in a championship game. The Green Bay Packers won the first two of those games in 1967 and 1968. Then in 1969, the AFL’s New York Jets — led by quarterback Joe Willie Namath — surprised the sporting world by defeating the Baltimore Colts; the Kansas City Chiefs of the AFL battered the Minnesota Vikings in the following year’s championship game.

Then the leagues merged. My loyalty to the AFL was watered down somewhat when three NFL teams joined the AFC. They were: the Baltimore (now Indianapolis) Colts, the Cleveland Browns (now known as the Baltimore Ravens) and the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Thus, my AFL loyalty was watered down somewhat by the presence of these old NFL teams playing in the same conference as the new teams.

But my AFC loyalty has remained strong. It has presented a struggle for me when the Steelers, Ravens and Colts have represented the AFC in Super Bowls. I continue to this day to root for teams that are held over from the old AFL … such as, oh, the New England Patriots.

I’ll root for the Patriots on Sunday, not so much because of the guys who play for them, or the fellow who coaches them. I shall root for them chiefly because of their origin as one of the founding franchises in the American Football League.

My young friend who’ll be somewhere in that Houston stadium cheering his lungs out Sunday for the Pats wasn’t even born when the leagues merged. He’s entitled to root for his team.

I’ll cheer for the league from which they came.

Go Pats!

local news, political news

Councilman thrusts himself into spotlight yet again

Amarillo has a City Council member who appears to enjoy thrusting himself into the spotlight.

Randy Burkett, though, finds curious methods of doing so. He uses social media to sound off on this or that issue. Then, when he takes some heat from residents and even from local media, he tends to lash back at the critics.

I’ll stipulate that I do not know Burkett personally. I have ready plenty about him since he ran for the City Council in 2015 and have been following him at times during his occasionally tumultuous tenure on the council.

He has battled with other council members, namely Mayor Paul Harpole. He has been accused of leaking confidential information from executive council sessions. He has popped off in public.

This latest social media incident, though, seems a bit different. He got into a public fight on Facebook by criticizing a Muslim woman who was wearing a red-white-and-blue head band. Now he’s gone quiet and isn’t speaking to the media.

A silly aspect of this latest dust-up is the criticism leveled at Burkett by the Amarillo Globe-News, which endorsed him for election to the council in 2015. I am beginning to think the G-N might regret its decision to back the councilman’s candidacy.

The Globe-News editorialized today about Burkett’s latest social media tempest. It has scolded him for failing to provide proof that “‘law enforcement authorities’ are investigating threats related to the aforementioned social media exchange.”

I just want to offer this admonishment to Councilman Burkett.

Don’t use social media to spout off in this manner. It is unbecoming of an elected municipal official, someone who represents an entire city of nearly 200,000 residents. All five of these council members serve as de facto ambassadors for the city. Thus, the things they post on social media outlets carries a certain imprimatur that other folks — like, say, yours truly — don’t have.

I realize in this peculiar political climate — exemplified by the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States — has emboldened politicians at all levels to “tell it like it is” using social media. The president himself has used Twitter with devastating — and sometimes embarrassing — effect.

Just because POTUS can act like a buffoon at times on social media doesn’t give other politicians license to do the same thing.

legal news, national news, political news

Catfight over Gorsuch? Wait until the next justice leaves the court

“So, are you ready for the catfight that’s going to erupt over this guy Trump has picked for the Supreme Court?”

That was the question posed to me today by a colleague of mine.

The reference, of course, was to Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the highest court in the land.

“Catfight? Over this? Naw. The earth is going to open up and quake when the next justice leaves the court,” I said, referring to the possibility that either Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer or Anthony Kennedy might leave the court.

That, I said, will produce the “mother of all catfights.”

Gorsuch’s nomination doesn’t change a thing on the court. The president is seeking to place a judicial conservative on the court to replace another conservative’s seat, that of the late Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016.

Yes, Senate Democrats are enraged. Not at the selection of Gorsuch, necessarily, but over the treatment that President Obama got when he nominated Merrick Garland this past year to succeed Scalia.

My own thought is that Gorsuch is likely to be as good a choice as Democrats are going to get, given Trump’s insistence on picking a conservative judge.

No, the real donnybrook will occur when one of the liberals or swing justices decides to leave … or is unable to serve.

My own advice to Democrats would be to pick their fights carefully. Sure, they battle Gorsuch’s nomination. They’ll insist on keeping the 60-vote majority required to approve a Supreme Court nomination. Republicans might decide to invoke the “nuclear option” and allow a 51-vote majority.

I have no real clue as to which way this fight will go.

It might serve Democrats better to hold their fire for the next vacancy when — or if — it occurs during Trump’s time in office.

Given the tenuous ideological balance of the court, with its slim conservative majority, I sincerely doubt that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer — both picked by President Clinton in the 1990s — are going to resign amid the political climate that has fallen over Washington.

As for Justice Kennedy, one of President Reagan’s picks, well, that might be another matter.

Whatever happens, the serious political bloodletting is yet to occur.

entertainment news, national news, political news

If only Arnold could switch with Trump …

I do not favor amending the U.S. Constitution to allow naturalized U.S. citizens to run for president of the United States.

But a brief retort from a noted former politician/superstar actor/turned reality TV host has me pondering. What if … ?

Donald J. Trump tossed a dig at Arnold Schwarzenegger over his ratings as the new host of “Celebrity Apprentice.” He made the remark at the National Prayer Breakfast — of all places — this morning. “Pray for Arnold,” the president said.

Sheesh!

Well, Arnold — a former California governor — responded to Trump. It’s in the link below.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/schwarzenegger-responds-to-trump-why-dont-we-switch-jobs/ar-AAmyfsb?li=BBnb7Kz

Arnold said that since Trump is an “expert” at ratings, let’s switch jobs.

It has me thinking. You know I think I actually would vote for Arnold for president were he eligible to run for the office. Too bad the Austria-born muscleman can’t.

legal news

Say ‘no’ to term limits for justices

2 Comments

Donald J. Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court has spurred a discussion that needs to end.

It involves whether there should be term limits for Supreme Court justices.

The nation’s founders didn’t create a perfect government after the American Revolution. They got a few things wrong: Women didn’t have the right to vote; they allowed human beings to own other human beings.

They got a lot of things quite right. One of them was to establish an independent federal judiciary where judges are given lifetime jobs upon being confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour …”

There you go. If judges behave themselves and do the job to which they take an oath, they can stay for as long as they want. That holds true for Supreme Court justices especially.

Some progressives are alarmed that Trump has appointed a conservative judge to replace an iconic conservative justice, Antonin Scalia, who’s been dead for nearly a year. Let’s limit the terms of justices, they contend.

Hey, I’m on their side most of the time. Not here. The founders had this idea that judges should be free of political pressure. Thus, the lifetime appointment gives them a measure of independence to interpret the U.S. Constitution according to what they believe it tells them.

http://blog.independent.org/2017/02/01/term-limits-for-supreme-court-justices/

History has provided ample demonstration of that independence from judges who didn’t rule quite the way their presidential benefactors wanted. They find their own voice and serve as a check on the legislative and executive branches of government.

I see virtually nothing wrong with judges serving for the rest of their lives on the federal bench — even those with whom I disagree; and believe me, I am sure I will dislike most, if not all, of Neil Gorsuch’s rulings from the high court bench when or if he is confirmed by the Senate.

Then again, given the freedom to interpret the Constitution as broadly or narrowly as he chooses, Gorsuch could surprise us all and join the ranks of men such as Earl Warren, William Brennan, Byron White, John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun — all of whom broke with how legal experts expected them to rule.

national news

Trump on Douglass: He did an ‘amazing job’

Donald J. Trump opened the White House’s commemoration of Black History Month in a most bizarre manner.

He said this today about Frederick Douglass, the 19th-century hero of the effort to abolish slavery in the United States and some other great Americans:

“I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things, Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.”

Huh? Amazing job? Big impact? Some of those who heard the president refer to Douglass as some “who’s done an amazing job” are wondering if Trump realizes that Douglass died in 1895.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Trump-update-He-praises-amazing-job-by-10900531.php

When I hear the president refer to these historic figures as if they are contemporaries, I get this uneasy sense that Trump has no idea about whom he is speaking, that he has no clue about the struggle they endured and pain they suffered.

Am I the only American who is baffled beyond belief about the president’s seeming utter ignorance of history?

International news

So, this is how we act toward our friends?

Donald J. Trump is unchained, uninhibited … perhaps he has become unhinged.

The Washington Post reports today that the president of the United States got into a long-distance phone tiff with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and then hung up on him.

What gives here?

The Australians are among our strongest allies. They’ve been with us through thick and thin. They fought with us in Vietnam, in Korea, in World War II for crying out loud!

According to The Post: “It should have been one of the most congenial calls for the new commander in chief — a conversation with the leader of Australia, one of America’s staunchest allies, at the end of a triumphant week.

“Instead, President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refu­gee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/no-%e2%80%98g%e2%80%99day-mate%e2%80%99-on-call-with-australian-prime-minister-trump-badgers-and-brags/ar-AAmwmJc?li=BBnb7Kz

Does the president really believe Prime Minister Turnbull really cares about the size of Trump’s Electoral College victory?

I am not yet understanding how the 45th president intends to conduct himself on the world stage. Maybe that’s by design. Perhaps he is doing all this on purpose to keep our friends and foes off balance.

But, crikey, mate! This isn’t how you talk to a long-standing ally!

International news

Obama disagrees with Trump refugee ban? No kidding!

It didn’t take Barack Obama long at all to weigh in against a policy pronouncement by his presidential successor, Donald Trump.

“The President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion,” said the former president’s spokesman, Kevin Lewis.

I’m going to take another gulp of air now and say this: I wish the former president would have stayed quiet on this one … for two reasons.

First, it should surprise no one that the ex-president opposes Trump’s idiotic refugee ban targeting those coming to the United States from Muslim-majority nations. President Obama made that point abundantly clear during his two terms in office, that the United States must not discriminate against anyone because of their religion as we fight this war against international terrorism.

The second reason is that I continue to endorse the George W./George H.W. Bush view of former presidents criticizing their successors. Bush 43 was essentially quiet during the Obama presidency; Bush 41 also kept quiet during the two terms of Bill Clinton’s presidency. They both adhered to the same principle: We had our time in the arena; that time is up and the men who followed them are entitled to conduct foreign and domestic policy without being sniped at by their predecessor.

Indeed, I was critical former Vice President Dick Cheney’s continual carping about Obama’s conduct of the office.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/05/button-it-up-mr-vp/

Don’t misunderstand me. I endorse Barack Obama’s opinion of Trump’s ban on refugees. It was poorly conceived and even more poorly executed. Several state attorneys general have filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality.

However, Barack Obama need tell us what we already know about what he thinks about a particular Trump policy.