Landmark birthday venue still going strong

I was visiting with my son today and I blurted out that I spent my 21st birthday playing pool and drinking beer with my father and grandfather at a popular watering hole in downtown Portland, Ore., my hometown.

That was in December 1970. Then my son made a discovery. He wondered if it had survived all those years. He Googled “Kelly’s Olympian” on his phone and discovered that it’s still in business.

Not only that, it appears to be thriving. It’s lively. It’s trendy. It apparently serves good food and a wide assortment of adult beverages. It doesn’t look much as it did back when Dad and I were playing pool and swilling cold ones; my grandfather walked in later and joined us.

Kelly’s Olympian isn’t the only longtime business that has survived the ups and downs of any city’s economic cycle. Portland, though, has turned its once moribund downtown district into the gold standard for how to make the central district a destination for those who live within that city or those who are just visiting.

*****

This thought occurs to me.

Amarillo,Texas, where my wife and I lived until just about six weeks ago, is undergoing quite an urban makeover in its own downtown district. Polk Street is rumbling back to life. Work is proceeding briskly on that ballpark on Buchanan Street. Longstanding iconic structures have been repurposed into downtown lofts.

When I take the long view and think of what future generations might recall about Amarillo’s downtown district, I wonder — and certainly hope — that they can recall a place that flourishes today. If we flash forward another 47 years, to 2165, my expectation would be that Amarillo’s downtown will continue to evolve into something brighter and more vibrant than anyone ever imagined.

Those Amarillo residents who today are enjoying the fruits of their downtown’s rebirth will look back and be as astonished as I was today to learn that Kelly’s Olympian is still packing ’em in.

‘When they go low, we go high’

Michelle Obama’s wisdom has been lost on many of her fellow Democrats.

The former first lady offered the perfect antidote to the negativity, the insults and innuendo that became Donald Trump’s mantra while campaigning for the presidency in 2016.

“When they go low, we go high,” she said.

It isn’t happening. Trump continues to go low. Democrats, such as U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters of California, are going low right with him. So, too, is the film icon Robert DeNiro, who yelled “f*** Trump!” at the Tony Awards.

Waters says it’s OK to harass and hassle Trump administration officials when they’re off the clock. Actually, it isn’t OK.

Michelle Obama’s formula is the correct one. Go high when the other side goes low.

Mr. POTUS, we must ‘have judges’

Donald J. Trump wants to change U.S. immigration policy by diminishing the role of — get a load of this — the federal judiciary.

Trump wants to toss all illegal immigrants out of the country without the benefit of having their cases heard by judges.

The president of the United States today yet again took dead aim at our immigration policy. He called it the worst policy “in the history of the world.” He then said something quite remarkable in a brief give-and-take with reporters gathered at the White House.

Trump noted that when immigrants cross our border, “they have judges.” Yes, judges. These are the men and women who take an oath to administer the law in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, to ensure that federal law doesn’t violate the Constitution.

Federal immigration law — indeed, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution — grants “any person” the right to “due process” and “equal protection” under the law. It doesn’t limit those guarantees to U.S. citizens, let alone to those who come here legally from another nation.

The president’s desire to toss out the Constitution, to ignore existing federal statutes crosses the line into a desire to create an autocracy. He wants to throw into the crapper a fundamental tenet that the nation’s founders insisted on when they created this government. That tenet established a judicial system that is ostensibly free of political pressure and coercion.

Yes, we need more federal judges — not fewer of them — to deal specifically with this issue of immigration. Yet the president now disparages the role these judges play? He disrespects their vital contribution to the administering of justice?

Reprehensible.

Trying to imagine how the Trumps talk to each other

This blog post borders on the gossipy. But … I’ll post it anyway.

I cannot yet wrap my noodle around how Donald and Melania Trump spend their off hours together in the White House residence. I can imagine easily, for example, how preceding presidential couples might talk to each other at the dinner table at the end of the day.

Barack and Michelle Obama, George W. and Laura Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, George H.W. and Barbara Bush, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, Gerald and Betty Ford?

They all seemed so, um, normal. The men in those tandems — the presidents — all appeared to many Americans to be so very much like the rest of us. They all seemingly suffered the usual pains of compassion, or empathy over those who bear the burden of the decisions that come from the Oval Office.

I cannot yet figure out what drives the current president. I cannot yet grasp how he tells of his day to his wife. Or, for that matter, whether he even gives a crap about how the first lady’s day had gone.

Am I the only American who has trouble painting this picture in my mind’s eye?

Puppy Tales, Part 52

Toby the Puppy joined our family not quite four years ago.

You know how smart he is. You know how sweet he is and you know that my wife and I fell in love with him quite nearly at very first sight.

He also is a comic. He’s a comedian.

Every single day since he became a member of our family has brought laughter to my wife and me. Toby the Puppy has made us laugh every day.

He gives us a look. When he wants either of us to throw one of his toys, he stands there shooting glances at me, then my wife, then back at me, then back at my wife. Back and forth he goes. We howl in laughter.

When he wants us to toss a toy, he brings it to our feet. He then stands there, crouched low on his front legs. It’s almost as if he’s toeing the starting line at a sprint. I grab the toy, toss it and off he goes. Again … we laugh.

He is relentless. His energy is unending. His ability to make us laugh knows no bounds.

We love to laugh with him. If laughter is the best medicine, then I don’t mind overdosing with Toby the Puppy.

Give pols and their families some space

I have noted many times in this blog that presidents of the United States are “never off the clock.” They become presidents, meaning they have the awesome power of the office at their fingertips even when they’re not sitting in the Oval Office or in the Situation Room.

That said, presidents deserve some time to spend with their families. That courtesy most certainly extends to their staff. To their Cabinet officers. To other politicians. To those who make or administer public policy.

The issue has risen to the level of public discourse in recent days. I maintain that as much as I might criticize a politician’s public policy decisions, I find it offensive to accost them while they are spending time with their family or other loved ones.

Obstructionism pays off for Sen. McConnell

Who says obstructionism doesn’t pay dividends … bigly?

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in Texas in 2016. Within hours of his death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that President Obama would not be allowed to fill the seat left vacant by the conservative icon’s death.

Obama nominated U.S. District Judge Merrick Garland to the court. McConnell didn’t even allow Garland a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The nomination didn’t go anywhere.

Donald John Trump defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 election. Trump then selected Neil Gorsuch for the high court. The Senate confirmed him.

Today, the court upheld Trump’s travel ban. The vote was 5 to 4. Gorsuch voted with the majority.

Obstructionism doesn’t pay? Oh, you bet it does.

Yep, elections do have serious consequences

Oh, brother. Is there any more proof needed about the impact of presidential elections than the decision today handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court?

The high court ruled 5-4 today to uphold Donald J. Trump’s travel ban involving countries from a handful of mostly Muslim countries.

The conservative majority voted with the president; the liberal minority voted against him.

There you have it. Trump’s travel ban will stand. He will crow about it. He’ll proclaim that the court is a body comprising men of wisdom; bear in mind that the three women who sit on the court today voted against the travel ban. Had the decision gone the other way, he would declare the court to be “too political,” he would chastise the justices’ knowledge of the U.S. Constitution (if you can believe it).

The court decision today has reaffirmed the president’s decision to discriminate against people based on their religious faith. Nice.

The partisan vote on the court today also has brought a smile to another leading politician: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose obstructionism in the final year of the Barack Obama presidency denied Trump’s predecessor the right to fill a seat created by the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Constitution gives the president the right to nominate judges; it also grants the Senate the right to “advise and consent” on those nominations. The Senate majority leader decided to obstruct the president’s ability to do his job.

President Obama nominated a solid moderate, Merrick Garland, to succeed Scalia. McConnell put the kibosh on it, declaring almost immediately after Scalia’s death that the president would not be able to fill the seat. McConnell would block it. And he did.

A new president was elected and it turned out to be Donald Trump, who then nominated Neil Gorsuch, who was approved narrowly by the Senate. Gorsuch proved to be the deciding vote in today’s ruling that upholds the Trump travel ban.

Do elections have consequences? You bet they do.

Frightening, yes? In my humble view — given the stakes involved at the Supreme Court — most assuredly.

Here we go again with the insults

Donald J. Trump is at it again. A lawmaker criticizes him and his followers and he responds with … insults.

The target is a familiar one: U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, a Democrat from California.

Waters flew off the rails over the weekend with a rant that called for harassing Trump administration officials, even when they are trying to enjoy an outing with their families. White House press aide Sarah Huckabee Sanders, for instance, was asked to leave a Lexington, Va., restaurant by the owner who polled her employees.

Trump’s response was to refer to Waters as “low IQ Maxine.” He warned her to “be careful what you wish for, Max.”

Hey, Waters was wrong to blurt out that ridiculous rant. Trump, though, cannot find it within himself to keep the discussion civil and dignified. He has returned to the insult gambit that plays oh, so well with his political base.

Donald Trump isn’t acting very “presidented.”

Empower Texans: Are you out there?

Some of us who watch Texas politics are acutely aware of the state’s right-wing activism, particularly embodied by a group called Empower Texans.

These folks got seriously involved earlier this year in Texas Panhandle Republican Party primary politics. They sought to oust state Sen. Kel Seliger of Amarillo from the GOP primary. They came up short, as Seliger was able to win his party’s nomination without a runoff against two fringe challengers. They also drew a bead on state Rep. Four Price, another Amarillo Republican, in his race for re-election. Price thumped his challenger.

OK. What’s next for Empower Texans, an Austin-based political action committee that sought to Republicans in disparate regions around the state how to vote?

Are these zealots going to get involved in some of these statewide races? Are they going to pump big money into the candidates of their choice?

I’m wondering at this moment if Empower Texans is more interested in “purifying” the Texas Republican Party than in advancing the party’s long-standing death grip on the state’s political infrastructure.

Empower Texans didn’t do too well in the GOP primary. Part of me wouldn’t mind if Empower Texans decides to lay low during the general election.

Another part of me wishes it gets involved and exposes to Texas voters yet again in the same year how narrow-minded they want their party to remain.