Monthly Archives: April 2017

environmental news

These bikers tend to their ‘track’

GRINDSTONE LAKE, N.M. — You meet the nicest people on occasion while trekking through the woods.

So it was when my wife, Toby the Puppy and I encountered three men raking twigs, pine straw and removing rocks from a trail in front of us.

“Oh, you must work for the park,” I asked one of the young men.

Oh, no, he answered. He is a member of Ruidoso Bike Club and trail maintenance is part of their gig, the young man added. He said the club has a sort of memorandum of understanding with the city parks department to maintain the trails’ upkeep throughout the Grindstone Lake complex of hiking-biking paths.

They do their job quite well.

We trudged about 6 miles from the trailhead near the shore of the lake that is backed up behind a dam. We spotted the young man near the end of our hike and inquired about the vertical elevation we had just endured. His answer? It’s about 800 feet, he said. “You go up and down a lot,” he said, motioning with his hand.

We were impressed with the quality of the trail we hiked. We chose to hike the easier route, given our age and understanding our limits. You won’t see us scrambling up steep grades on our hands and feet. We choose to remain upright on both feet while walking.

The quality is enhanced, I should add, by the absence of litter along the way. Indeed, we saw a good bit of that on several of the hikes we took in this part of southeastern New Mexico.

The mountainsides remain scarred by the wildfire that ravaged this region about five years ago. We learned the blazes burned nearly 50,000 acres and destroyed more than 200 homes. The young man we met earlier said the area remains quite dry and if it doesn’t get some moisture soon, the forest area might close to all visitors.

But there’s good news. Grindstone Lake is up about 100 feet from its level a year ago, according to the biker/trail maintenance man. “It was almost dry last summer,” he said.

All that said, this is a lovely place to relax and unwind from a moderately successful career.

Believe it. Retirement does agree with both of us.

And Toby the Puppy, too.

business news

Trump feathering his own nest as POTUS

1 Comment

CNN just ran one of those “crawls” across the screen that noted the following: Donald Trump is spending his 10th consecutive weekend at a property that has his name plastered all over it.

The president greeted China’s president at Mar-A-Lago in south Florida. He ventured to one of the golf resorts that has the Trump name on it.

He’s been doing this repeatedly since becoming president of the United States on Jan. 20.

I know what the emoluments clause in the U.S. Constitution says about how presidents cannot take money from foreign governments. I also know that the president hasn’t divested himself of his many business interests, such as those ritzy resorts, hotels and such.

My question rests, finally, with this: Is the president fattening his own bank account when he visits these properties while attracting potential business to them?

Public vs. private interests have this way of conflicting with each other … or so one might believe.

national news, political news

Senate sees the end of collegiality

There once was a time when the U.S. Senate could be a place where senators disagreed but remained friends.

I believe those days are over. They perhaps have been gone for a lot longer than I realize. The confirmation battle over Judge Neil Gorsuch closes the deal.

Say goodbye to Senate collegiality.

Battle changes the dynamic

Gorsuch’s confirmation came on a fairly narrow vote. All Republicans voted to seat him on the U.S. Supreme Court; all but three Democrats voted against his confirmation.

Some of us — including yours truly — used to believe the federal judiciary somehow was insulated from partisan politics. Not true. Maybe it’s never been true.

Senate Republicans tossed the filibuster rule into the crapper to get Gorsuch confirmed. The Senate used to require 60 votes to quell a filibuster. Democrats launched a filibuster to block Gorsuch’s confirmation; Republicans answered by invoking the so-called “nuclear option” and changing the rule to allow only a simple majority to end a filibuster.

Democrats are angry that Donald J. Trump got elected president in the first place. Their anger metastasized with Trump’s appointment of Gorsuch after Republicans blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to succeed the late Antonin Scalia.

I’m not at all confident that either side is going to find a way toward some common ground — on anything!

I recall a story that former Republican U.S. Rep. Larry Combest once told me about his former boss, the late U.S. Sen. John Tower; Combest served on Tower’s staff.

Tower, a Texas Republican, was a fierce partisan. One day, as Combest recalled it, he and another equally ferocious partisan debater, the late Democrat Hubert Humphrey, were arguing on the Senate floor about some legislation. They were gesturing and shouting and saying some angry things while arguing their points, Combest remembered.

After a lengthy floor debate, the presiding officer gaveled the session closed, Combest said, and Sens. Tower and Humphrey walked toward the middle of the floor, shook hands — and walked out the door with their arms around each other.

My gut tells me those moments are long gone.

education news, national news

Reunion No. 50: The dilemma deepens

1 Comment

I just got word that the planners who are organizing the 50-year reunion of my high school graduating class have set a date and a location.

It will take place this October at a hotel near Portland (Ore.) International Airport. Ironically, it also will occur not terribly far from where my classmates and I graduated from Parkrose High School.

The old building was torn down years ago and was replaced by a shiny new structure that doubles as a community center.

My dilemma is deepening about whether to attend this event.

The 30-year high school reunion sucked for me. I went back to Portland seeking to rekindle relationships I had with some of the folks with whom I graduated. Much to my surprise — and chagrin — I found that there was nothing to rekindle. You can’t ignite something that doesn’t exist.

I vowed not to go back.

No. 40 came and went. Without me. I stayed true to my personal pact.

Now it’s No. 50 looming out there.

I cannot tell if my waffling means I want to go but I’m looking for reasons to stay away; or whether it means I don’t want to go but I’m seeking a reason to go.

Maybe I need to reset my expectation if I do return to this event.

I hate these dilemmas. I think I’ll pray for some discernment.

media news, national news

Should ‘Bill O’ accept Trump endorsement?

This is not an original thought from yours truly … it comes from a friend of mine.

My longtime pal Gary wonders whether Bill O’Reilly is smart enough to reject an endorsement from Donald J. Trump, who calls him a “good person.”

You see, O’Reilly — the loudmouth Fox News talk show host — is fending off accusations of sexual harassment from several women. O’Reilly has settled many of the complaints already; so has Fox News. The women have gotten a lot of money. The accusations have triggered many advertisers to pull their ads off of O’Reilly’s nightly program.

Trump weighed in recently with a defense of O’Reilly, who he has known for many years.

My friend’s question, though, concerns Trump’s own history with women. After all, the president actually admitted to grabbing women by their private area. If you think about it, the president of the United States has admitted to committing sexual assault.

This is an endorsement that Bill O’Reilly should welcome?

I’m waiting for O’Reilly to reject the president’s overture. I figure it’ll be a long wait.

political news

End of judicial filibuster? A mixed blessing

I’ve long had a terrible conflict of emotions as it regards the filibuster, a tactic employed in the U.S. Senate designed to stall the progress of legislation … and appointments.

The Senate this week did away with its 60-vote rule to end filibusters. The rule change allowed the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But it’s the filibuster itself that gives me pause.

My own political bias clouds my view of what the Senate did as it regarded Gorsuch’s nomination. Given that the Republican-controlled Senate blocked an earlier high court nomination because a Democratic president had put a name forward to succeed the late Antonin Scalia, I saw some justification in what Senate Democrats sought to do with Gorsuch’s nomination.

But is the filibuster really an essential element of governance? I’ve long questioned it. A filibuster occurs when senators object to an issue before the body. They can filibuster in a number of ways, but the classic method is to hold the floor for hours, days, weeks — however long it takes — to talk about anything under the sun.

The Senate has had some champion filibusterers. I think of the late Wayne Morse from my home state of Oregon and the late Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Those fellows could bluster seemingly forever on anything in order to talk a bill to death.

We operate our government on the principle of “majority rule.” The word “majority” doesn’t imply “super majority,” which is what the former Senate filibuster rule required. Majority means one vote greater than half. The Senate comprises 100 members; therefore, 51 votes constitute a majority. Shouldn’t that be enough to settle a policy argument on the floor of the Senate?

We elect presidents with a simple majority of the Electoral College. All it takes is 270 electoral votes, out of 538 total, to elect a president. Is there a more important electoral decision to be made than that? We don’t require in the U.S. Constitution a super-majority of electoral votes to choose a president. So, why do senators insist on filibustering and then require 60 votes to end it.

The filibuster seems to be an obstructionist’s tool. As one who believes in “good government,” this activity appears to me to work against that principle.

national news, political news

That didn’t take long

Media are reporting possible big shakeups within the White House high command.

The White House — no surprise here — is denying it. Yet the signs seem to be unmistakable.

Senior strategist Steven Bannon has lost his job on the National Security Council. He’s fighting with Donald J. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Meanwhile, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus appears to be his way out … along with Bannon.

Trump’s White House flack machine no doubt is considering all this to be “fake news.”

But is it?

Trump’s executive machinery has been creaking along ever since the president took office. There can be no doubt about what we’ve all witnessed.

Shakeup taking shape in White House

At some level, the notion that Priebus would be placed into some kind of shakeup bubble troubles me. I’ve considered Priebus — the former Republican Party national chairman — to be one of the few grownups Trump brought in. But he might be shown the door. Why? My guess is that he cannot stop the reports of palace intrigue within the White House.

Chiefs of staff are supposed to keep a tight rein on everyone else within the West Wing. That’s how the best of them function. Jim Baker did so within the Bush 41 administration; Dick Cheney ran a tight ship during the Ford administration.

Trump, though, brings a whole new dynamic to executive branch governance. He has surrounded himself with amateurs in many posts. Yes, he has some fine men and women serving in his Cabinet.

This notion, though, of putting his son-in-law — not to mention his own daughter, Ivanka — in the middle of policy decisions creates a tension that goes far beyond the “creative” kind that can work in an executive’s favor.

The president has just encountered his first major foreign policy crisis and answered it with clarity and precision with the air strikes against Syrian targets. He’ll need strong, steady leadership and counsel within his top White House staff if he is going to move forward.

If he’s going to shake things up in the West Wing, he’d better do it quickly and tell his flacks to stop denying the increasingly obvious.

International news, military news, national news, political news

How can Trump deny Syrian refugees?

Donald J. Trump expressed appropriate outrage over the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against civilians — including children.

The president is right. Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. And I do support the decision to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles at military bases believed to be where the Syrians launched the chemical weapons against their fellow citizens.

However …

How does the president justify his decision to ban refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria because they happen to originate from a Muslim-majority nation?

His statement condemning the casualties inflicted on children seems to fly directly against his heartless decision to ban refugees.

How do you balance one against the other, Mr. President?

legal news

‘Shining moment’ carries baggage for McConnell

The Hill posted a story online with the headline “McConnell’s shining moment.”

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is shining because the body he runs has confirmed Neil Gorsuch to a spot on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pardon my anger, but the leader isn’t shining. He stands as a scoundrel, a thief who stole the seat from another judge who should have been confirmed in 2016.

McConnell is boasting that the most “consequential” decision he has made was his decision to block Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, from testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The consequence would be to block a vote on the Senate floor.

Hours after Justice Antonin Scalia died in early 2016, McConnell made clear his intention to prevent President Obama from filling the spot on the court. Some have praised McConnell for blocking the president. I choose to condemn him.

Politics takes over

Gorsuch’s confirmation today was totally expected. The Senate voted 55-44 to approve his confirmation. He earned his court seat on the basis of a rule change that McConnell orchestrated in which the Senate abandoned its 60-vote rule to end a filibuster. I get that the majority leader was within his rights to change the rule.

What happened in 2016, though, is the much more egregious transgression. McConnell played raw politics with Obama’s nominee. The U.S. Constitution gives the president the power to fill federal judgeships. Barack Obama fulfilled his duty. The Senate also has the right to reject a nominee.

The Senate, though, should have heard from Garland. It should have weighed this man’s credentials. It should have considered his qualifications. It should have received a recommendation from the Judiciary Committee.

And it should have cast an up-down vote on whether to confirm the president’s nominee.

Thanks to the majority leader’s obstruction, none of that was allowed to occur.

And to think that Mitch McConnell has the stones to accuse Democrats of playing politics with Supreme Court picks.  This man, McConnell, has set the standard for politicizing the highest court in America.

Gorsuch’s confirmation isn’t a “shining moment.” It is permanently soiled by political poison.

business news, national news, political news

Tax returns, anyone? Anyone?

Indulge me for a moment or three.

I remain stuck on an issue that has gnawed at my gut since the moment Donald John Trump rode down the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his campaign for the presidency of the United States.

That’s right. Tax returns.

We haven’t seem them. We need to see them. Trump needs to produce them. We need to know a lot about this individual’s business empire and what about it — if anything — is built on Russian interests.

It’s been nearly two years since the escalator ride. Trump has said many things about those returns. He’ll release them when the Internal Revenue Service completes its audit; then he said he won’t; then his campaign flacks said he would, then they said he wouldn’t.

The IRS says audits don’t prevent release of tax returns. Trump ignores that disclaimer. He did release some single-year returns showing that he paid a lot of money in federal taxes. They showed that, yep, he’s really rich. That’s it.

For that matter, we don’t even know with absolute certainty that the IRS is even auditing the president. The IRS doesn’t comment on individual audits. That means we’re left to take Trump at his word that the audit is ongoing.

Given the liar in chief’s penchant for prevarication, are we really and truly expected to take this man’s word as gospel? I … think … not.

This clown entered the political arena in July 2015. Presidential candidates from both parties have released complete tax returns every election cycle since 1976. Four decades later, we still don’t know about the current president’s tax returns.

It’s time, Mr. President. Come clean.