50 years since Fight of Century? Wow!

(AP Photo/John Lindsay)

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Someone once said that to be called “Heavyweight Champion of the World” was tantamount to being labeled the “baddest dude on Earth.

Everyone used to know the name of the heavyweight champion. These days? I cannot tell you unless I look it up in my World Almanac and Book of Facts.

I mention this because some of the sports networks this weekend have commemorated the 50th year since the Fight of the Century.

Yep, on March 8, 1971 two men fought for the heavyweight title. One guy was the champion, Joe Frazier. The challenger? A fellow named Muhammad Ali.

I’ll set the table briefly. I was a huge Muhammad Ali fan. I considered him “the champ,” since he was stripped of his title in 1967 because he refused induction into the Army during the Vietnam War. Boxing authorities stripped him of his license to fight. He became an iconic figure. He would win reinstatement and then the Supreme Court would rule unanimously that he should be allowed to fight again.

Ali returned to the gym and whipped his body into shape. He fought twice against quality contenders before squaring off against Joe Frazier.

The fight lived up to the hype. It was a brutal affair. Frazier won by decision. He floored Ali in the final round. They both were great champions. Although, I surely must acknowledge that Muhammad Ali was The Greatest.

Both men are gone now. Frazier died in 2011 of cancer; Ali died in 2016 of Parkinson’s disease. The fight game isn’t the same without them.

The Fight of the Century turned out to be all that it was trumpeted to be. There likely will never be a man-to-man competition that ever will measure up to what we witnessed a half-century ago.

Democrats stake out defensible COVID relief position

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

You’re a political consultant aligned with Democratic congressional candidates, maybe even incumbent members of the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives.

Your candidate has just voted to send his or her constituents a payment to help them cope with the economic impact of the COVID 19 pandemic and voted to extend unemployment benefits until September and voted for money to pay for millions more vaccines aimed at protecting Americans against the killer virus.

Is that a defensible position? Is it more defensible than, say, a Republican politician vote against all those things?

I think so. Yeah, I know it is a more defensible position.

The Senate has just cast a partisan vote that has approved a $1.9 trillion COVID relief package pushed hard by President Biden and his fellow Democrats. All GOP senators voted “no.” The measure has gone to the House, where the same thing will happen, with all Democrats probably voting “yes” and all Republicans likely turning thumbs down.

The 2022 midterm election looms just a bit down the road.

So, who’s in the better position? The Democrats who want the government to lend a hand? Or the Republicans who oppose that notion, citing its expense?

Were I an American who has suffered grievous economic misery from the pandemic, I would be far less concerned about the expense of the measure than whether my government — which I finance with my money — is ready to step up and deliver for me when I need the help.

Thus, the Democrats in Congress appear to be listening more intently to American public that favors the COVID relief package. Indeed, polling data suggest it isn’t even close, with more than 60 percent of Americans wanting Congress to come to the people’s aid.

So, President Biden is now poised to achieve his first major legislative victory. More to the point, though, is that congressional Democrats will have more on which to run as they prepare to run for their next election.

It’s coming up. Quickly.

Don’t use his name? Sure thing!

REUTERS/Octavio Jones

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

If I were a self-respecting Republican Party politician, I would welcome this bit of news from the thoroughly disgraced ex-president of the United States.

Donald Trump doesn’t want any GOP pol using his name to promote their candidacy. Imagine that, eh?

Trump demands three Republican groups stop raising money off his name (yahoo.com)

He doesn’t want anyone else to trade on his name. He wants to keep that privilege only for himself and his businesses.

Well …

An actual Republican politician should feel fine with disassociating himself or herself from a twice-impeached, twice-tried, possibly soon-to-be indicted individual who disgraced the high office he occupied for four years.

Why not ‘open up’ but keep masks on?

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott isn’t likely to take this bit of advice, but I am going to offer it nonetheless.

Abbott has declared that Texas businesses will open “100 percent” even though Texans are still getting infected by the COVID virus. Hey, no problem, said the governor.

He also has rescinded the statewide mask mandate he ordered in early 2020, the one that asks Texans to wear masks when they venture into public places, such as grocery stores, sporting events, churches, libraries … you know, anywhere.

Here’s my advice: Why not go ahead with the business reopening but maintain the mask-wearing order?

I know it’s too late now for the governor to rethink this nutty notion. He’s going to plow ahead with it, even though he made the call without consulting with his medical team of advisers on the best wa to proceed — allegedly.

Abbott has said over the weekend that “Texans know what they need to do” to protect themselves from the virus and they don’t need the state to tell them. Oh, really? Then how does he explain earlier efforts to pull back from these restrictions resulting in infection rate, hospitalization and death rate spikes?

I’ll explain it here. It happened because too many Texans ignored the best advice of medical professionals that masks and social distancing are the best ways to prevent infection and potential death from the COVID virus.

Yeah, Texans know what to do. The question of the day is: Will we follow that advice and do what we must to prevent infection from this disease?

I am not at all confident that we can … or will.

Rename that bridge!

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Marchers today marked the 56th anniversary of what has become known as “Bloody Sunday,” when civil rights activists marched across a bridge in Selma, Ala., demanding equal rights for all Americans.

What absolutely, categorically boggles my noggin is why this span continues to carry the name “Edmund Pettus,” and why it hasn’t been changed to honor the heroism of those who marched for civil rights and for an end to the oppression of many Americans.

Edmund Pettus was a Confederate military officer, a lawyer, a senator from Alabama — and a staunch advocate of slavery.

Today’s march across the bridge marked the first such event without the presence of the late U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who suffered a terrible beating on that day in 1965. Lewis went on to serve a distinguished career in Congress, where he became known as the “soul” and the “conscience” of that legislative body.

I know I am far from alone in advocating this, but the Edmund Pettus Bridge needs to be renamed after John Lewis, who admittedly didn’t favor changing the name of the bridge. He said, “Keeping the name of the Bridge is not an endorsement of the man who bears its name but rather an acknowledgement that the name of the Bridge today is synonymous with the Voting Rights Movement which changed the face of this nation and the world.”

Rep. Lewis is no longer around to object. Perhaps others will object in his honor. I happen to believe that the Edmund Pettus Bridge is a historical landmark that pays tribute to someone who symbolized a disgraced political philosophy.

John Lewis likely wouldn’t say so himself, but putting his name on that bridge also would be “synonymous with the Voting Rights Movement which changed the face of this nation and the world.” 

Cruz still pi**ing me off

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Ted Cruz might one day run out of ways to make me angry.

I don’t know when that will happen with the junior U.S. senator from Texas. For all I know, his reservoir of contemptible behavior is bottomless. The good news for me is that he likely will keep this blog loaded for bear. The bad news is that he might wear me out.

Almost from the day he took office, Cruz has become a major league a**hole. He defeated defeated then-Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the 2012 Republican primary and then cruised to an easy general election victory that year.

It took him no time to begin prancing and preening on the Senate floor, setting up a run for the presidency in 2016. His bald and blind ambition managed to anger his fellow Republican colleagues, not to mention the Democrats who serve with him.

The late Sen. John McCain once scolded Cruz for questioning the integrity of two senators, both of whom were — like McCain — Vietnam War veterans; Cruz, of course, never has worn this country’s uniform. But there he was, wondering whether John Kerry and Chuck Hagel were sufficiently loyal to this country.

Cruz puts on shameful sideshow | High Plains Blogger

The nadir of Cruz’s behavior, though, has to be the manner in which he questioned the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, alleging vote fraud that doesn’t exist. Donald Trump then incited the rioters who stormed Capitol Hill on Jan. 6 and still questioned whether the election was fair and legal.

The man just sickens me. I get sicker every time I see his face and hear his voice. Given his penchant for bloviating in front of TV cameras, I need to steel myself for years of nausea.

Relief on its way

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

President Biden appears to be set to receive his first legislative triumph in the form of the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill that the U.S. Senate has just approved.

It has gone back to the House of Representatives, which will approve it once again, given its slim Democratic Party majority.

I want to stipulate a couple of points.

One is that the bill isn’t perfect. It contains some expenditures within the massive amount of money that really do not belong in legislation aimed at providing relief for Americans afflicted by the pandemic. It has killed more than 500,000 Americans and causing millions of others to lose their jobs.

Americans are hurting from this killer virus and the federal government needs to respond, given that every member of Congress as well as the president and vice president swear oaths to protect the citizens of this country.

As the saying goes and has been repeated all too often, it does no good to “let the perfect get in the way of the good.”

So, the legislation ain’t perfect, but it does do plenty of good.

It provides $300 a week in unemployment insurance for those who have lost their jobs; it provides $1,400 payments to individuals who earn less than a certain amount of money.

The bill that President Biden will sign — perhaps next week — lacks a $15 hourly minimum wage component, which is something congressional progressives insisted it contain. I figure the minimum range boost will end up eventually on Biden’s desk contained in another stack of legislation.

The most regrettable aspect of this legislation is that it is squeaking through Congress with just Democrats voting for it. The Senate vote was 50-49; Vice President Kamala Harris was poised to cast the tie-breaking vote, but one GOP senator, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, was absent from the roll call tally.

My own center-left philosophy hopes that Congress no longer will need to enact more measures to provide this kind of relief. I acknowledge that $1.9 trillion is a mighty hefty price tag and it gives me the nervous jerks to realize we are spending this kind of money that the government just doesn’t have in the bank.

But the president and most of Congress have answered the call. Those in Congress who have refused to lend aid to those who need it will have to deal with their consciences.

I am glad the COVID relief bill is heading toward the president’s desk. It isn’t perfect, but it does what it should be doing, which is to assist Americans who have fallen victim to the pandemic and the damage it has done.

Beto in the hunt … again?

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Texas Democrats’ hearts are fluttering again, thanks to reports of Beto O’Rourke’s latest barnstorming tour of the state.

You see, O’Rourke — a former congressman from El Paso who came within whisker stubble of beating Ted Cruz in 2018 — might be running for Texas governor in 2022.

Except that he says he isn’t “thinking about it.” Sure, Beto … whatever you say.

Actually, my gut and my trick knee tell me he is thinking about it.

Is the state’s current governor, Republican Greg Abbott, vulnerable to a challenge from a credible Democrat? I think so. I hope so. I am not sure I expect a serious challenge to emerge from the tall grass, even if it happens to be Beto O’Rourke.

O’Rourke ran for president in 2020, but didn’t make the grade — quite obviously. His 2018 near miss against Sen. Cruz, though, still has whetted the appetites of Texas Democrats who believe that O’Rourke can mount a serious challenge against Abbott.

Beto O’Rourke is criss-crossing Texas again, igniting Democratic hopes he’ll run for governor – CNNPolitics

Abbott’s recent decision to rescind his mask-wearing order has angered me. I am quite certain it has angered other Texans, too.

Does that act alone make him vulnerable? Not really. Unless, we see a serious spike in COVID cases arising from Abbott’s foolhardy (in my view) decision to lift the order.

Beto O’Rourke might not have played well on the national stage, but here in Texas it might be another matter altogether.

Or … he might flame out once he starts “thinking about” running for governor.

Weird free-speech fight?

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Maybe it’s just me, but I believe a Texas Senate bill that takes aim at social media platforms is really bizarre, weird and goofy defense of the First Amendment.

Senate Bill 12 seeks to ban social media companies — such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube — from blocking points of view expressed by those that come from within the Texas borders.

Which makes me wonder … huh?

Gov. Greg Abbott has endorsed the bill, saying that social media companies led by West Coast billionaires are taking unfair aim at conservative thoughts and thinkers.

The Texas Tribune reports: “They are controlling the flow of information — and sometimes denying the flow of information,” the Republican governor said at a press conference in Tyler. “And they are being in the position where they’re choosing which viewpoints are going to be allowed to be presented. Texas is taking a stand against big tech political censorship. We’re not going to allow it in the Lone Star State.”

Gov. Greg Abbott touts bill to stop Twitter, Facebook from banning Texans | The Texas Tribune

What gives this legislation its weird quality is that it seeks to protect conservative thoughts that come from this state. I am trying to figure out how you control or patrol the airwaves to limit thoughts that originate from a particular state. How does it affect conservatives who happen to live, say, in California, or New York, or New England?

I don’t get this one. Not at all.

Someone has to explain to me the selective enforcement aspect of this goofy legislation.

Saddened by Abbott’s posture

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Something has happened to the individual who was most recently elected as Texas governor. I refer to Greg Abbott, a Republican who is set to run for re-election in 2022 to his third term.

His behavior has disappointed me greatly. I now will explain why.

I have met Greg Abbott on numerous occasions. I was a journalist working at the Amarillo Globe-News in the Texas Panhandle. Abbott would visit the newspaper while he was running for election or re-election as a Texas Supreme Court justice and then as Texas attorney general.

I resigned from the newspaper in August 2012, so I did not know him while he ran for governor the first time in 2014.

The Greg Abbott that I got to know over the years did not display the kind of petulance I have been seeing in the man who became our state’s governor. He was gracious, a gentleman, a consummate professional. I knew him to be a man of good humor who delivered direct answers to direct questions, which is a trait I valued then as a journalist. He didn’t flimflam me with double-talk.

So I am now left to ask: What the hell has become of this guy?

His recent decision to rescind a mask-wearing order he issued as the state began battling the COVID virus brought a fairly harsh reaction from President Biden, who called it a form of “Neanderthal thinking.” Abbott’s response was to go on Fox News and say that Biden’s immigration policies have contributed to any surge in COVID virus cases along our southern border.

It took Abbott next to forever to even acknowledge that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Perhaps I should have noticed this mean streak when Abbott served as Texas AG, as he was continually suing the Barack Obama administration over immigration matters and over implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

It has gotten worse, from my perspective, since he became governor.

To be candid, Gov. Abbott is sounding more like some right-wing crackpot than the reasonable, circumspect man I thought I knew when he held less-visible political offices.