Monthly Archives: January 2022

local news, media news

What will happen to this site?

3 Comments

I lived in Amarillo, Texas, for 23 years and worked each day for nearly 18 of those years at the Globe-News, a once-good newspaper.

My daily journalism career came to an end in August 2012. The newspaper remains, but at this point it is a newspaper in name only. Yes, the paper still publishes seven days a week. It no longer publishes at the building where it operated for many decades. The printing press is in Lubbock and I don’t know how they handle business affairs, or circulation matters.

The newsroom? A formerly vibrant working environment has been all but eliminated; they’re down to maybe two or three reporters and some stringers (I guess).

The building is vacant. It is in a state of architectural decomposition. The corporate moguls vacated the building and moved what is left of the staff to an office in a downtown bank tower.

The once-proud structure is “tagged” with graffiti. They put out a fire inside the structure a few weeks ago.

The company that used to own the newspaper is still trying to sell the building, from what I hear. I do not know the state of that effort, such as whether it is being marketed aggressively. I don’t get back often to Amarillo, but my hunch is that it is just going to rot some more.

I want to lament the demise of that structure one more time.

The Globe-News used to aspire to becoming a great newspaper. It didn’t quite get there. We did a good job of reporting the news during my time there. I tried to lend some leadership via the opinion pages during my tenure as editor of those pages.

That was then. The here and now suggests to me that the newspaper itself is fading into the community’s past. It saddens me greatly.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Demagogues sicken me

Our nation’s founders were wise men in that they felt it necessary to protect all forms of political speech, no matter how repulsive it might be to many of our ears.

But … damn! At times I wish we could outlaw demagoguery. I know we cannot. We dare not tinker with the First Amendment’s free speech clause, which I happen to value beyond all measure.

When I hear things, though, from those who claim to be speaking the “truth,” I cringe. Then I grit my teeth. I also might mutter a bad word or three.

I had an exchange recently with a critic of this blog. He continues to perpetuate the notion that political progressives endorse the notion of rioters committing acts of vandalism, not to mention inflicting bodily harm on police officers or those with whom they have disagreements.

I have sought to dispel that notion. Yes, I have heard some congressional progressive, speaking in the wake of police shootings of African Americans and the like, urge protesters to “take to the streets.” Is that an endorsement of violence, of vandalism, of committing felony crimes against human beings? No. It isn’t!

And yes, there are those on the left who resort to demagoguery at times. The current crop of demagogues features those on the right. They say that President Biden favors “open borders”; they contend that the president wants to “take your guns away”; they accuse liberals of “favoring” abortion in all cases.

This is the crap that sends me into orbit.

Do we ban those who promote such idiocy? No, we cannot do that. That Constitution of ours, drafted by those smart guys in the late 18th century, tells us we all have the right to utter nonsensical rhetoric. I accept that.

I just cannot accept what some Americans say while under constitutional protection.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

local news

Christian nationalism perverts Christianity

I had not heard of the term “Christian nationalism” until I opened my copy of the Dallas Morning News this morning and read a lengthy but remarkably informative essay by Ryan Sanders.

Sanders, a member of the DMN editorial board, says essentially that Christian nationalism is bad for the country. Why? Because in his view the notion takes Christianity and its religious tenets to dangerous new levels.

The essay alludes briefly to the founders’ intent when they formed this government of ours. They wrote the constitutional articles, noting in the preamble that “We the People of the United States” sought to form a “more perfect Union.” It doesn’t mention God, unlike the Declaration of Independence, which refers to our “Creator,” which of course is a reference to a universal God.

The First Amendment to the Constitution lists freedom from several government mandates, the first of those was freedom from government-sanctioned religion; it instructs that “Congress shall make no law” that establishes a state religion.

I am fine with that. Christian nationalists, though, are not fine with it. They believe wrongly that the founders created a religious document when in fact they created a document that was as far from a religious governmental framework that one can get.

I encourage you to take a look at Sanders’s essay.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/01/09/heres-where-christian-nationalism-comes-from-and-what-it-gets-wrong/

Sanders writes, for example: Christian nationalism isn’t attracting followers because it’s far-fetched. On the contrary, like all the most dangerous errors, it is attractive because it seems good. It is darkness masquerading as light, like the Apostle Paul warned. In modern parlance, we might say it is truth-adjacent.

The rioters who stormed the Capitol Building on 1/6 exemplified the horror of Christian nationalism. They sought to persuade the rest of us that they were to do God’s work by disrupting the 2020 presidential election certification. My goodness! They were acting at the urging of a defeated president and transferring his message into some twisted form of religious doctrine.

I must rank Christian nationalism among the list of existential threats to the very principles on which this nation came into being.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Uncategorized

Can Paxton get beat?

If I had to choose one contest in this primary season coming up in Texas that interests me the most it would have to be the Republican contest for attorney general.

And for the life of me I cannot understand the notion being kicked around that the incumbent — Ken Paxton — might be in position to fend off the challenge that is coming from within his own Republican Party.

Good ever-lovin’ grief!

Paxton has been under felony indictment since the first year of his time as AG. A Collin County grand jury indicted him on a charge of securities fraud. The AG hasn’t yet stood trial.

He is facing three GOP challengers: Land Commissioner George P. Bush, former state Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman and U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert. They’re all well-known within GOP circles.

Then there’s Paxton. The man is an embarrassment. In addition to the securities fraud indictment and pending trial, seven former top legal assistants quit the AG’s office and filed a whistleblower complaint alleging that Paxton has committed illegal acts while serving as attorney general; the FBI is looking at those complaints, too.

I want Paxton to get drummed out in the primary. If he manages to hold on and win the GOP primary, then he’s a seeming cinch to win re-election — again! — this coming fall.

The whole notion of Paxton winning a third term as attorney general makes me want to pull my hair out.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Cruz: pitiful apologist

Ted Cruz once again has demonstrated a remarkably clumsy aspect of his public persona, how he can say something, get pounded for it and then try to walk it back … all the while tripping and stumbling over his own words.

The Texas Republican senator told a Senate committee this week that “terrorists” attacked the Capitol on 1/6. He then heaped high praise on law enforcement officers on duty that day for the job they did to protect members of Congress (including himself, naturally).

What happened next brought us a demonstration from the junior senator on how not to take something back.

The right wing of his party was outraged that Cruz would speak the truth about the mob that stormed Capitol Hill. So was their cult leader, the 45th president, who incited the mob to “fight like hell.”

Cruz then went on Tucker Carlson’s TV show to take it back. Carlson wasn’t buying it, saying he has known Cruz “a long time” and believes Cruz meant what he said about the terrorists attacking the Capitol.

I watched Cruz try to take back the truth-telling statement. It was a pitiful exhibition of rhetorical clumsiness. I also watched Cruz make his initial statement. It rang true!

Cruz then tried to suggest that critics of the 45th POTUS’s cult suggest they all are terrorists. No, senator! We are not saying that! For crying out loud, stop putting words in people’s mouths while you try to wash out your own pie hole.

The mob that smashed through windows, beat up police officers, shouted “Hang Mike Pence!”, sh** on the floor of the Senate, threatened the life of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and sought to block the certification of the 2020 presidential election presented a clear and present danger to our democracy.

By any definition, the insurrectionists in that mob were “terrorists.” Cruz had it right the first time. He had it wrong when he tried to walk back what he said in that hideous interview with Tucker Carlson.

I mean, yumpin’ yiminy, dude. It reminded of the time Cruz sought to blame his daughter for talking him into flying off to Cancun nearly a year ago while Texans were freezing to death in that killer ice storm.

What makes this so damn hard for me to watch is realizing that this dipsh** represents the state of my residence in the U.S. Senate. I will never, ever cast a vote for this clown. Still, he holds a powerful office and represents my interests in a branch of government designed to write laws that affect my family and me.

He embarrasses me and the state he represents.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

11th Commandment? Goner!

Donald J. Trump might be the only major Republican political figure who never invokes the principles espoused by the godfather of the current conservative movement: Ronald Wilson Reagan.

That’s no surprise, though, given that Trump has no knowledge, let alone appreciation, for what Reagan brought to the country upon his election as president in 1980 and re-election four years later.

It also explains why Trump has trashed Reagan’s cherished 11th Commandment, which he stated as “Thou shalt not speak ill of other Republicans.”

You see, Trump is harvesting a handsome bit of political cache by trashing Republican officeholders and those who seek to hold office. If they aren’t loyal to Donald Trump, then they’re “losers,” or “has beens,” or “disgraceful human beings.”

Don’t misunderstand me. I didn’t vote for The Gipper either time when he ran for president. I wasn’t much of a fan of him, although I did develop a good bit of empathy for him and his family when he told us he suffered from Alzheimer’s disease; I remember vividly that poignant letter he released to the public on Nov. 5, 1994, announcing he would recede into the shadows to fight the illness that eventually claimed him a decade later.

But real Republicans usually find something common ground with what President Reagan espoused. Plus, they have remained somewhat faithful to the 11th Commandment.

Trump, though, is not a real Republican and isn’t faithful to anything on this good Earth other than his own ego.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

Cheney seeks redemption?

Richard Bruce Cheney has done the virtually impossible; he has ingratiated himself to Democrats across the nation simply by doing something that damn few Republicans are able to do in this terrible, divided political climate.

The former vice president stood with his daughter, Rep. Liz Cheney, on the floor of the U.S. House this week and participated in a moment of silence to honor the brave men and women who fought with the 1/6 rioters.

Think for a moment about this. Dick Cheney once was considered the most loathsome politician in the nation, according to Democratic partisans. The VP in the George W. Bush administration was seen as the shadow architect of our foolish Iraq War. Indeed, he was thought by many critics to be a “shadow president” who called the shots in secret.

However, Dick Cheney today stands on the right side of history. He has condemned the disgraceful conduct of the current Republican congressional leadership and its handling of the 1/6 riot and its aftermath. He told reporters this week that Congress doesn’t “resemble the place” he knew during his service in the House before becoming defense secretary and then vice president.

I won’t forgive Cheney for what I consider to be some horrible decisions he made. However, I want to applaud the former vice president for participating with Democrats in a solemn ceremony to honor the police officers who fought to defend members of Congress and the Constitution of the United States.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

Ex-Trump aide takes ‘both sides’ argument too far

Sarah Isgur is a devoted former aide to Donald J. Trump; she also makes occasional appearances on TV news/talk shows to offer her sharp perspective on political issues of the day.

I enjoy listening to her. She makes me think about my own bias.

However, Isgur recently took a “both sides” argument many steps too far. She took it over the proverbial cliff.

“Both sides,” she said, are going to contest the result of the next presidential election in 2024. Both sides? She suggests that if a Democrat wins the White House — presuming it’s President Biden — that the GOP won’t accept the result any more than it did in 2020. She also suggested that if Republicans win the White House, Democrats are going to challenge the results, suggesting that whoever wins isn’t “legitimate.”

Isgur’s proof? She said that in 2017, defeated Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton didn’t accept Donald Trump’s election. I get it. Clinton refused to accept the legitimacy of Trump’s election, given the interference that occurred during the campaign.

Sarah Isgur: “People On Both Sides Are Not Ready To Accept The Results Of The Next Election” | Video | RealClearPolitics

However … Democrats did not storm any buildings. They didn’t invade Capitol Hill. They didn’t seek to stop the certification of the result with a violent riot. Hillary Clinton did not make a fiery speech exhorting her supporters to “fight like hell” to “take back the government.”

Do you see where the “both sides” argument breaks down? I hope so, because it’s quite obvious to me.

While both sides might think the other side’s victory doesn’t pass the smell test, only one side has demonstrated a willingness to launch a frontal assault on our democracy.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

I’m proud of you, too, Rep. Kinzinger

I saw an item on NBCNews.com that I want to share on this blog. It’s a brief item.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., said Thursday he has no regrets about how he has approached the aftermath of Jan. 6.

“How does it feel to be a pariah within your own party?” Fox News host Neil Cavuto asked Kinzinger.

“You know, I don’t like the feeling,” Kinzinger responded. “But I would not change a thing that I’ve done particularly in the last year.”

“Because I know — I’ve got a son being born imminently, that’s why I’m in Illinois — I know that he’ll be proud of me someday, and I know he’ll be able to look and say I stood up in a tough time. And if it’s just me and Liz doing it, it’s just me and Liz. That’s fine. I wish it was more people, though,” he said, referring to Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.

Kinzinger and Cheney are the only Republicans serving on the House committee investigating the Capitol riot. Both have been critical of former President Donald Trump’s role in the riot and of Republicans who have downplayed the events that unfolded on Jan. 6. Trump celebrated news earlier this year that Kinzinger will retire from his House seat at the end of his term.

Well, for the record, Kinzinger’s baby boy isn’t the only person who would be proud of him for standing up to the lies, deceit and dangerous treachery being exhibited by the former POTUS.

I am proud of him, too.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

Who’s the coward, Ted?

(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Hey, Sen. Ted Cruz, I want to give you a bit of advice. It is that you told the truth this week when you described the 1/6 mob that stormed the Capitol Building a group of “terrorists.”

Then you had to take back the truth you told and resume lying to us about what transpired on that horrible day.

What the hell is the matter with you … Ted?

I know you have to protect your backside against those supporters of yours who believe the insurrection against our government was just a bunch of “tourists” getting out of hand. Their “peaceful protest” turned into something, well, quite violent. I know you saw it. I mean, you were inside the Capitol that day, ostensibly doing your job, which was to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Oh, wait! I almost forgot. You were among Republican senators who resisted the certification of the results pending some phony “audit” of returns. You said something at the time about alleged concerns over The Big Lie (my words, not yours) that alleged “widespread voter fraud.”

Good grief, man! There wasn’t any fraud and anyone with half a brain would know the election was as secure as it could get.

As for the terrorists you described, well, you had it right when you called ’em out on Thursday. You got it wrong when you backed away the next day from the truth-telling spell and sought to soft-shoe around it on Tucker Carlson’s TV talk show.

Hey, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised at the cowardice you exhibited. I remember in 2016 when you got angry with Donald Trump over your then-GOP opponent’s tweeting that unflattering picture of your wife. You snarled at Trump, calling him a “sniveling coward” and an “amoral” individual who couldn’t tell the truth if you held a gun to his head.

Then you lost the party nomination fight and promptly began sucking up to the nominee who would become POTUS.

You know what? I believe you, senator, are the “sniveling coward.”

If only telling the truth could free you of the fear of being pilloried by the cultists who have hijacked your once-great political party.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com