Monthly Archives: December 2018

local news

Happy Trails, Part 134: Yep, grandkids change everything

I’ve heard it said more times than I can count that “grandchildren change everything.”

My wife and I are living testaments to the truth of that notion. I think of it whenever someone says it.

You see, the primary reason my wife and I uprooted ourselves from the home we owned outright in Amarillo, Texas, and moved to the Metroplex was the birth of a little girl in March 2013.

She came along and, yes, changed everything for us. Little Emma became the focus of our lives.

She is why we moved everything, all of ur remaining possessions, to a new community. We are getting ourselves acclimated to our new digs, our new surroundings.

I feel the need to stipulate that we are immensely proud of the sons we brought into this world more than four decades ago. They both have grown into fine men. They are successful in their respective careers. They are respectful, polite, socially gracious, funny, articulate and they both know how to communicate well through the written word.

To suggest or imply, though, that they aren’t the reason we chose to relocate ourselves to a new community is not to denigrate or disparage them. One of them is Emma’s father. The other one still lives in Amarillo.

To say that we would have stayed put without a grandchild is not to disrespect our son who lives in a Dallas suburb. To say that we have moved because of our grandchild does not mean we disrespect our son who lives in the Texas Panhandle.

All it means is that we are intent on being a part of our granddaughter’s life. Emma’s arrival into this world of ours changed everything. 

She has injected an entirely new meaning into the world of retirement. It’s life, man . . . and it’s a good life, indeed.

Intgernational news, national news

Where’s your Christmas spirit, Mr. POTUS?

Uh, Mr. President . . . you need to rediscover the Christmas spirit you say you possess.

I certainly remember during your winning presidential campaign how you pledged to bring “Merry Christmas” back into style. No more “Happy Holidays” for you. I believe you said that business employees would be required to wish their customers a Merry Christmas if you are elected president  — as if you have the authority to make ’em do such a thing.

Well, here we are. Christmas is practically upon us and your Christmas spirit has morphed into a prideful pledge to shut part of the federal government down by Friday if Congress doesn’t give you the money you want to build that “big, beautiful wall” along our southern border. Your right-wing hatchet man, Stephen Miller, has all but guaranteed you’re intent on following through with it.

I cannot believe you want to shut down the government on the eve of this holy holiday to make some kind of goofy political point. You keep telling us the wall will make us safer, more secure. You don’t seem to care that a wall flies in the face of our American values, that we longer would be a nation that opens its arms to those who seek to “breathe free.”

Don’t take this the wrong way, Mr. President. I do not favor unsecured borders. I do not favor “open borders,” which is your demagogic way of describing how your opponents feel about border security. Good grief, Mr. President, we have plenty of ways to make our border more secure without building that damn wall along the 2,000-mile boundary we share with Mexico.

This nutty notion, though, of shutting down the government at this time of year suggests to me that you didn’t really mean it in 2016 when  you declared your intention to restore “Merry Christmas” as the preferred holiday greeting. That ridiculous notion sought to convey a Christmas-centric idea that you and others declared falsely had been pushed aside in the name of some phony political correctness.

Which is it, Mr. President? Do you really intend to take exclusive ownership at Christmas time, throwing thousands of federal employees out of work when they are wrapping up their holiday shopping? Do you really mean to douse their Christmas spirit with the Grinch-like initiative of shutting down the government that puts beans on their table?

Mr. President, forgive me for saying this, but you, sir, are a phony advocate for Christmas. If you get your way, you’ll still be able to celebrate the holiday with your customary glitz and glitter down yonder in Mar-a-Lago. What about those who are out of work because of your tantrum over building that ridiculous wall?

Happy holidays, Mr. President.

media news

Fox media analyst needs a reality check . . . seriously!

I get that Howard Kurtz, who once worked for the Washington Post, now is a media analyst for a pro-Donald Trump cable news outlet, the Fox News Channel. Thus, he is inclined to speak more kindly of the president and those close to him than others who tend to look more critically at the Trump Era.

But, c’mon, Howard! Get a grip!

He told Laura Ingraham, another Fox News “contributor,” that first lady Melania Trump has gotten the worst media treatment of any first lady in modern times. He said: “Melania is subjected to a particularly brutal kind of treatment and mockery . . . No other modern first lady has been treated like this.” 

Kurtz cannot be serious. Can he? I guess he can — in his own mind.

Let me offer a couple of examples that I submit would contradict his view of Melania Trump’s media treatment: Michelle Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I’ll stipulate that first ladies as a rule deserve some cushion from the pounding that the media deliver to their husbands. To that extent, Melania Trump is no different from any of her predecessors.

However, do I really need to remind Kurtz of the hideous racially tinged, defamatory insults that those on the right hurled at Michelle Obama during her eight years as first lady? And, yes, the media reported it. I do not want to restate some of the monstrous epithets she endured. You know what they are. Michelle Obama damn sure does.

As for Hillary Clinton, has Kurtz forgotten how the media reported on the far right’s accusations that Hillary and Bill Clinton were actually living as husband and wife, or that the two of them actually ordered the murder of their political opponents in the years prior to President Clinton’s election in 1992?

Have the media gone that far in their treatment of Melania Trump?

I do not believe that is the case. Thus, Howard Kurtz needs to re-calibrate his media-analyst antennae. Dial it back, Howie, on your criticism of the media as it relates to Donald and Melania Trump.

media news

Actually, Mr. POTUS, it’s all ‘legal’

Donald J. Trump continues to fly off the rails with his ongoing assault on the media.

Here is what he posted this morning on Twitter: A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion?

If you can past the mangled syntax of this tweet, I’ll provide a simple explanation of why the president — as usual — is dead wrong.

Mr. President, it’s all “legal.” It’s protected by the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment says the government cannot interfere with what a “free press” reports. It says media freedom shall not be “abridged.”

How in the world do the courts rule on the accuracy of media reports? There is no defamation here. There is no slander. No libel.

I get that the president is uncomfortable with the tone of much of the media coverage.

One more time — but most certainly not the final time: It goes with the territory, Mr. President. The media are on duty to do precisely what they are doing at this moment. They are seeking to hold you and your administration accountable for your actions, your rhetoric and the myriad promises you make.

national news

Who in the world would want this job?

1 Comment

John Kelly is out as White House chief of staff. He apparently has been forced out, making him the second individual to lose that post involuntarily during the Donald Trump administration.

Reince Priebus was the first chief of staff to get the boot from Trump.

This all begs the question: If you’re watching these developments up close and you are on some sort of presidential short list for chief of staff, would you want the job?

If it were me, I would head for the hills, hide in the tall grass, plunge into a cave. I wouldn’t want the president to know where to find me.

Office and Management Budget Director Mick Mulvaney is the current acting chief of staff, which in itself is a bizarre development. Trump is looking for a permanent chief. Where he’ll find it is a mystery to most, perhaps even to the president himself.

I had high hopes for John Kelly. He’s a retired Marine Corps general, a Gold Star dad whose son died in action in Afghanistan. He was Homeland Security secretary when he got the call to run the White House staff after Trump fired Priebus. Kelly is a take-charge guy. I had hope he would calm the White House chaos.

He didn’t do it, but it’s not entirely his fault. He works for a guy — Donald Trump — who cannot be managed. The president has no understanding of the limitations of his office and so he tries to do things that are impossible. He relies on his “gut” more than he relies on “other people’s brains.”

The president’s gut is betraying him — and the country — every single day.

I have no clue how he’s going to find a chief of staff who is willing to tolerate the idiocy that flows out of the Oval Office. Reince Priebus couldn’t hit his rear end with both hands; Gen. Kelly brought a much greater level of competence to the job, but he couldn’t work with a president who is wired the way Donald Trump is wired.

Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, Nick Ayers, bailed on Trump. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie did, too.

It well might be that it won’t matter one damn bit who Trump selects as chief of staff. He tells us he is the smartest man on Earth. I am partly of a mind to let this bozo try to prove it.

military news

Well done, Mr. President; thanks for honoring fallen vets

Something unexpected happened today that surprised many Americans.

Donald J. Trump paid an unannounced visit today to Arlington National Cemetery to help lay wreaths on graves of those who are buried there. He did so — get this! — in the rain. He was photographed carrying an umbrella while visiting the gravesites throughout the cemetery, which is just across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C.

You’ll recall while the president was in France to commemorate the 100th year since the end of World War I that he skipped a ceremony because of inclement weather. He said the Secret Service had advised him against flying aboard Marine One to the ceremony. It was raining that day and, not surprisingly, social media jumped all over the president’s declining to stand in the rain.

He stood in the rain today at Arlington National Cemetery.

What’s more, Trump took a lot of public grief for refusing to go to Arlington on Veterans Day. He said at the time that he had a busy time at the White House and couldn’t break away to honor the fallen veterans. He broke with many decades of presidential tradition; presidents usually attend Veterans Day ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery. Trump chose to stay inside on that day.

Trump did acknowledge that he erred in declining to go to Arlington on Veterans Day; he expressed “regret” for his no-show.

Well, today he sought to atone for what was a mistake a little more than a month ago. Today is National Wreaths Across America Day. Donald Trump thought he should take part. He was so very correct to do so.

Well done, sir. This veteran thanks you.

medical news

ACA ruling puts GOP in a bit of a pickle

Donald Trump, obviously, is happy that a Texas-based federal judge has declared the Affordable Care Act to be unconstitutional.

However, are his fellow Republicans thrilled with Judge Reed O’Connor’s wide-ranging ruling? Not . . . exactly.

Many GOP congressional candidates campaigned for election and re-election in this year’s midterm election promising to protect one of the ACA’s key provisions: to cover “pre-existing” medical conditions for those who have purchased insurance under the landmark legislation.

But the judge said the ACA violates the Constitution because of legislation that stripped out the individual mandate provision, which requires Americans to have insurance or else face civil penalties. You can’t do that, Judge O’Connor said.

U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, two Texas Republicans, have remained quiet about the ruling. So has Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. You’d think they would join the president in extolling the decision.

Here’s the deal, though: The ACA remains popular among Americans. National Public Radio reports that a Kaiser Family Foundation poll declares that 53 percent of Americans like the ACA. What’s more, the U.S. Supreme Court already upheld the legislation enacted in 2010 during President Obama’s first term and stands as the former president’s landmark domestic legislative triumph.

So, what are GOP politicians going to do? Will they buy into the judge’s ruling and then try to explain to voters why they campaigned in favor of key ACA provisions?

This matter surely is headed for an appeal that well could end up in front of the nation’s highest court eventually. A single judge’s ruling isn’t likely to pull the plug on the ACA; it will remain in effect until a higher court makes the definitive decision.

The nation’s Republican politicians, though, now find themselves squirming and wiggling for ways to justify what they said on the campaign trail while praising a judge’s decision to scrap the Affordable Care Act.

 

media news

Farewell, Weekly Standard

As he is prone to do, Donald Trump gave a raspberry to a mainstream publication that announced it is shutting down its operation.

The Weekly Standard, a mainstream conservative media outlet, is buttoning itself up and is going away. Why did Trump trash the publication? Because it has been an unfriendly outlet toward the president. He doesn’t like that its co-founder and editor at large, William Kristol, is a “never Trump” advocate.

However, Kristol is a known political conservative, who stands behind his conservative principles, which happens to be at the heart of why he opposes Trump.

What did the president say? He said this via Twitter: The pathetic and dishonest Weekly Standard, run by failed prognosticator Bill Kristol (who like many others, never had a clue), is flat broke and out of business. Too bad. May it rest in peace!

What class. What grace. What, um, whatever . . .

Kristol once served as chief of staff for Vice President Dan Quayle. He founded the Weekly Standard in 1995, becoming one of conservative mainstream media’s leading voices. The publication dogged the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. It praised President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Afghanistan and later, in Iraq. One can argue with the Weekly Standard’s editorial policy, its philosophy. One cannot question the publication’s commitment to a principle.

That’s no longer viable in this Age of Trump, where opinions are formed by insult and innuendo. Kristol saw it coming when Trump entered the political world with that showy escalator ride in Trump Tower, when he announced his decision to seek the presidency.

I haven’t agreed much over the years with Kristol. However, I happen to be on his side in his view of the presidency of Donald Trump.

His publication is now gone. Yet its record contains a rich history of crisp writing, incisive and often insightful analysis.

It’s now a victim of the changing media climate, one that relies too little on smart reporting and too much on gut-level opinion.

I’m sorry to see it disappear.

national news

How in the world do you wish success for Trump?

I have grappled with this since the moment I learned that Donald John Trump had been elected president of the United States.

It is how do I wish success for someone who I believe is unfit for the office of president?

Yes, I have heard how previous presidents wished their successors well, even if they are from different political parties. The late President George H.W. Bush famously wished good things in that letter he wrote to the man who defeated him for re-election in 1992, President Bill Clinton. President George W. Bush wished the same for the man who succeeded him in 2009, President Barack Obama.

I am just a shmuck blogger out here in Flyover Country. I cannot bring myself to wish Donald Trump success. Why? Because his definition of “success” is at odds fundamentally with what I believe is best for the country.

He wants to isolate the nation from the rest of the world. He wants to roll back environmental regulations, giving polluters greater freedom to, um, pollute our air. He wants to build a wall along our southern border. He favors tax cuts for the wealthy and to hell with anyone else. Trump believes trade wars are good for the country. He wants to take “credit” for shutting down the government if he doesn’t get what he wants. Trump is populating his administration with know-nothings and novices. Trump wants to trash the Affordable Care Act and replace it with an unknown policy. He curries favor with international despots.

How in the name of good government does one wish success for someone who wants those things? How does one believe any of it is good for the nation?

I am at a complete loss at understanding any of it.

To be fair, Trump’s agenda does have a couple of winners. I want him to succeed in enacting federal sentencing reform. I favor an infrastructure improvement plan, although likely scaled down a bit from the $1 trillion pipe dream he’s put out there to repair roads, bridges and airports; furthermore, we need to find a way to pay for it without exploding the national deficit and debt.

Those are just two aspects. The rest of his larger “vision,” if you want to call it that, is anathema to everything I believe.

Trump’s definition of success, in my humble view, is a prescription for national catastrophe. As such, I cannot possibly wish him well.

national news

Why the rapid turnover of ‘best people’?

Donald Trump made a plethora of promises while seeking the presidency. One of them was to surround himself with “the people best people” to run the executive branch of government.

How has that worked out? Not too well.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is “leaving” the administration at the end of the month, according to the president. Trump hasn’t told us whether he was fired or whether he quit to “pursue other interests” — which in reality means the same thing as getting canned.

When the president nominated Rex Tillerson to be secretary of state, he hailed the man he had never met as a brilliant business executive and the best dealmaker on Planet Earth. Then he fired him. Just the other day, Tillerson spoke out against Trump, criticizing his management style. The president’s response? Tillerson lacks “mental capacity” and is “dumb as a rock.”

Tillerson is just one of many individuals who have gone from hero to zero during their time working in the Trump administration.

He has burned through multiple chiefs of staff, communications directors, and various Cabinet officials . . . all in the span of less than two years! Just think, Trump has two more years to go to finish out his term in office!

Best people? They aren’t on board. His campaign promise was nothing but an empty platitude.

Trump hasn’t yet appointed a White House chief of staff, turning instead to an “acting” chief, Mick Mulvaney, who also has a full-time day job as director of the Office of Management and Budget. Think about that for a second: an “acting” White House chief of staff. Trump keeps telling us that applicants are lining up out the door and around the block to work in the White House. I would submit that the president is lying about that matter, too, just as he lies about everything continuously.

The “best people” aren’t going to be found inside the White House, let alone in the West Wing. They’re running like hell away from the madhouse on Pennsylvania Avenue.