A return to some old haunts brings stunning discoveries

69-portland-oregon-adventure-towns_25185_600x450

PORTLAND, Ore. — I come back to the city of my birth on occasion and every time I do I see things that continue to surprise me.

This trip was no exception. Indeed, I saw and learned some things about my hometown that I found rather shocking . . . in a good sort of way.

I learned that the part of the city once known as the “ghetto” is less so these days. It’s being “gentrified” with condos, apartment complexes, coffee houses, micro-breweries. The area known as the Albina District is undergoing a transition the likes of which I never thought possible when I was growing up here in the 1950s and 1960s. Other neighborhoods have gone through similar changes over the years: Hawthorne, the Pearl, Foster Road, Parkrose.

Sitting in the back seat of my sister and brother-in-law’s car Saturday en route to visiting our uncle, we buzzed along the southern and western edges of the downtown district. I noticed construction — lots of it — involving at least three new high-rise complexes. I was told later by friends that the downtown construction is because of additions being built for the Oregon Health Sciences University, which is the reason that a tram runs from the west bank of the Willamette River to a bluff overlooking the waterway.

I learned that the city’s real estate market is booming. My friends’ home in northeast Portland possibly could sell for a half-million dollars when they get ready to put it on the market; they bought it two decades ago for about a fourth of that amount.

We gripe in Amarillo about the road construction occurring all over the city. Come here, my Texas friends, and see what real transition looks like.

I went by some old haunts over the course of the past couple of days. Two houses where I grew up — one in northeast Portland and the other in what once was the “burbs,” but has since been annexed into the city — still look well-kept. My grandparents’ old house in that former ghetto neighborhood also has been maintained nicely.

Driving along the busy streets produced interesting sights, such as many people riding bicycles, pedestrians walking their dogs, groups of young people sitting outdoors during this balmy and sunny weekend; and oh yes, the sun did come out today — in the middle of winter, in the Pacific Northwest!

Finally, as some friends and I were looking for a place to have lunch and get caught up, I learned that in Portland, it’s a municipal law that motorists must stop when they see pedestrians waiting to cross the street at clearly marked pedestrian crossings.

I laughed when they said that. “It’s true,” they answered. My response? “In Amarillo, you take your life into your hands whenever you cross the street.”

Yes, Amarillo is home now. I’ll be returning very soon to resume the great life I enjoy there.

However, it’s good to return here and see my hometown grow up to become something I truly would not have deemed possible.

 

A moonwalk can produce the strangest reactions

mitchell_moon_080725_mn

I learned something just a few moments ago about a member of one of the world’s most exclusive clubs.

Edgar Mitchell was one of 12 men in the entire world who have walked on the surface of the moon. He died over the weekend at the age of 85.

What I did not know about him was the was born in little ol’ Hereford, Texas, a Panhandle town known more for the “smell of money” that wafts from the cattle feedlots in and around the community.

Mitchell walked on the moon during the Apollo 14 mission commanded by the late Alan Shepard, the first American to fly into space. Shepard’s first flight occurred a decade earlier, in 1961, when he was launched aboard a small rocket, flew into a sub-orbit and then splashed down into the ocean about 15 minutes later. He would command the Apollo mission in 1971 and then, as many of usremember, hit that golf shot that traveled “miles and miles” in the light gravity on the moon’s surface.

Mitchell apparently had a totally different experience on the moon, which to my way of thinking is understandable — even one doesn’t quite understand the experience in and of itself.

He came to Earth and then spoke out over many years about extraterrestrials, and his belief that they have visited our planet. Mitchell had some form of spiritual awakening on the moon.

Think about that for a moment, though.

Where else that has been visited by human beings could produce such an experience?

I don’t believe what Mitchell has preached, that we’ve been visited by beings from outer space. I do, though, believe that one can experience something beyond our ability to comprehend simply by walking on the surface of another celestial body and looking into the sky to see Earth in the sky — 250,000 miles away.

The dozen men who’ve walked on the moon all came back with different experiences and differing points of view. Many of them coped well with the experience. I think, though, of moonwalker No. 2, Buzz Aldrin, who went into serious depression, suffering alcohol abuse.

And if you consider, too, that traveling to the moon — which is no small task to be sure — is just the first hopeful step in humankind’s exploratory evolution, what will be the reactions when we finally travel far more deeply into our solar system?

I’d pay real money to look at the psychological profiles of the individuals who are selected for the first mission, say, to Mars.

If one astronaut can return from a relative hop-and-skip into space believing the things discussed publicly by Edgar Mitchell, well, the next corps of deep-space pioneers will return with some seriously wild tales.

 

Now it’s Marco Rubio in the bulls-eye

christie-vs-rubio-rivalry-23620

It’s interesting to me how the center of attention among the Republican presidential candidates keeps changing.

Donald J. Trump? Step aside for now. Ted Cruz? Take a seat. Ben Carson? Well, your time might be up anyway.

Today’s target appears to be Marco Rubio, the young senator from Florida who this evening took some heavy incoming fire from Chris Christie . . . among others.

It’s a moving target.

Perhaps eventually the center of attention will settle on one individual. My guess is that it’ll be either Trump or Cruz. With GOP candidates dropping out after poor finishes, the field of candidates will narrow and the “targets of opportunity” will be reduced accordingly.

I was particularly amused by Christie’s attack line this evening when he chided Rubio for his canned-sounding responses to questions. He’s too rehearsed, too polished, too scripted, Christie seemed to say. The young senator — who’s not seeking re-election this year — needs to have an executive job, Christie said, like being a governor, a job Christie holds in New Jersey.

Indeed, some media are reporting this evening that the remaining governors and former governors in the GOP field — Christie, John Kasich of Ohio and Jeb Bush of Florida — took particular delight in unloading on the others who don’t have that kind of government “executive experience.”

Frankly, I cannot blame the governors for taking umbrage at the success some of these others are enjoying in this campaign — at the expense of the governors. I mean after all, we’ve seen several governors and ex-governors already drop out: Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker all have tossed in the towel.

Now, though, the target du jour is Sen. Marco Rubio, the latest poster boy for the so-called “establishment wing” of the Republican Party.

New Hampshire’s primary is set for Tuesday. Voters in both parties will be casting actual secret ballots in secure polling places for the individuals they believe should become the next president.

After this first round of voting, the question is likely to become: Who will be the next candidate to take the heavy fire?

 

Debate produces a memorable sound bite

Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont,, left, and Hillary Rodham Clinton laugh during the CNN Democratic presidential debate, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)

Hillary Clinton can take ownership now of perhaps the second of three memorable sound bites that have stuck with some us over many years.

Last night the Democratic presidential candidate referred to the attacks leveled against her by primary opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders as an “artful smear.”

Bingo, Madame Secretary.

That will go down in history right along with another one of her gems, when she referred to the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that concocted the sex-related scandals that enveloped her husband during his time as president of the United States.

The third memorable sound bite comes from a federal judge who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to join the U.S. Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas famously referred during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing to allegations of sexual harassment as a “high-tech lynching.”

There you have it. There well could be more, but those jump out at me.

Those, in my mind, are the Big Three of sound bites relating to scandals and/or controversies.

The debate between Clinton and Sanders, though, did prove edifying, educational and at times entertaining.

It also was memorable now for what is certain to become a sound bite that will live forever.

 

 

 

Comparative politics: alive and well

Negative

A euphemism for negative campaigning can be termed as “making comparisons” among opposing candidates.

OK, so the campaigns for president in both political primaries are getting negative.

The two Democrats still standing for their party’s nomination — Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — are demonstrating the differences between them in terms of experience and philosophy.

The same can certainly be said of the remaining Republicans. They, too, are going after each other with ferocity. No one not named “Trump” wants Donald Trump to be the nominee. Ted Cruz isn’t getting much love, either. Now we have a third front-tier candidate, Marco Rubio, who is taking opponents’ fire.

Honestly, I am intrigued by it all.

I normally dislike intense negativity in these political campaigns. I prefer to hear what candidates will do for me, not necessarily how they differ with someone else.

This election cycle, though, is providing some fascinating discussion among the candidates.

It’s revealing the type of men and women who are seeking this great office. It is telling us about their psyche, their personalities, what makes them tick; it’s revealing where their “hot buttons” are located.

Clinton and Sanders are showing us tonight how different they are from each other. I am glad that their party’s nomination fight has been reduced to just two of them.

I remain hopeful that the Republican primary will continue to cull the weaker candidates from the still-large herd of hopefuls. It’s hard for me to keep up with all the stones being tossed in so many directions from so many sources.

Still, it’s educational to watch.

It’s also rather entertaining.

 

Stay in the debate game, Megyn Kelly

kelly

I am not one generally to speak well of the Fox News Channel.

The cable news network that keeps boasting about its “fair and balanced” approach to news reporting is neither fair or balanced, in my view. Then again, that’s likely my own bias revealing itself . . . for which I will not apologize.

I do applaud Fox, though, for standing behind its superstar news anchor/debate moderator Megyn Kelly.

Fox announced that Kelly will be co-moderator — along with fellow news anchors Chris Wallace and Bret Baier — in a Republican presidential debate scheduled for March.

Big deal? Sure. Donald J. Trump is angry with Kelly because she had the utter gall to ask him a pointed question in the network’s first debate about Trump’s comments regarding women.

He said Kelly disrespected him. I guess he wasn’t paying attention to the heavy lumber she was tossing at the other candidates as well.

Trump was so angry that he didn’t participate in the final GOP debate, also sponsored by Fox, before the Iowa caucuses. His absence from that debate might have played a role in his losing the caucus fight to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Kelly’s  role as moderator should not rest on the pique of a particular candidate who demonstrates a remarkably thin skin as he seeks to become the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation.

This Kelly-Trump feud has become the No. 1 sideshow of this Republican presidential primary campaign.

I happen to be glad that Fox is treating it that way by refusing to knuckle under to a political candidate’s demands.

 

Muslims are killing Muslims in Middle East

untitled

The U.S. presidential campaigners keep bringing up the threat that Islamic terrorists pose to Americans, mainly Christians and Jews.

What none of them seems able or willing to acknowledge publicly — very much — is what those terrorists are doing to fellow Muslims.

Did you see the story the other day about the mosque in Damascus, Syria, that was attacked by Islamic State ghouls? Dozens of Muslims, mainly Shiites, were killed in the attack.

It was only the latest in a long and miserable string of such attacks that have been occurring throughout the Middle East — and in other primarily Muslim countries — since, oh, forever.

The Islamic State’s campaign against anyone who disagrees with their perverted philosophy has been aimed primarily against those within the Islamic faith. How many Muslims do you suppose have died at the hands of the ISIL monsters? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

And that brings me to my point.

The world war against ISIL must include a broad range of military action launched and coordinated by the people who (a) face the most direct threat from these terrorists and (b) have been the terrorists’ most frequent victims.

I saw the other day that Saudi Arabia is inching toward committing ground troops to the fight against ISIL in Syria. Do you know what’s so fascinating about that development, were it to come to fruition?

Saudi Arabia is a mainly Sunni Muslim nation, made up of people ISIL claims to represent.

I do not have the answer for how any world leader — whether it’s the president of the United States, the head of the European Union or a potentate in some tiny sheikdom — can muster the forces needed to fight these hideous religious perverts.

The Damascus mosque attack, though, does drive home the point that some U.S. politicians have recognized already.

It is that this country has shed enough blood already. Yes, we should continue our air campaign along with our allies who’ve also been wounded by terrorist attacks — and we should prosecute that campaign with all the vigor possible. The real fight on the ground must include those who are closest to the enemy and who stand most directly in harm’s way.

There can be no doubt ISIL has designs on spreading its terror far beyond the Middle East. That is why the countries in the region need to step up even more aggressively to take on the terrorists.

It is their fight to win.

 

A shout out to an ethical businessman

business-ethics

This is no surprise at all, but I’ll share it with you anyway.

I’ve found one of the more ethical businessmen anywhere. I won’t give you his name, because I don’t know it.

This fellow could have charged me an arm and both legs — or maybe both arms and a leg — for a piece of plumbing equipment I sought. He didn’t. Instead, he chose to refer to me to someone who would give it to me — for free!

Here’s how it went.

I was looking for a replacement faucet nozzle for my kitchen sink. I walked into a plumbing parts store on 15th Avenue here in Amarillo. I greeted the sales rep at the counter.

“How can I help you?” he asked. I told him what I needed. “I’ll see if I have one in stock,” he said. He looked. He didn’t have one. He looked up the part in a catalog.

“It says here it’ll cost $86 . . . but you don’t need or want to pay that much,” he said. “Tell you what I’ll do. I’ll get you the name and number of the manufacturer. You can call ’em and see if they’ll replace it for you under warranty,” he said.

He gave me the number. I called it. I spoke to a nice lady on the other end who took down my information and then informed me that, by golly, I could replace it or free.

We finished our business over the phone. I hung up and thanked the gentleman for his service, his patience and for saving me 80-plus bucks.

It struck me that he could have told me anything. He could have just asked me to order the part, pay him the money and then wait for it to arrive.

He didn’t.

What he did was guarantee that when I need another plumbing fixture, I’m going to return to this fellow’s store.

I’m fond of saying when things go my way that “I must be living right.”

Yesterday, that was certainly the case.

 

Sanders’ ‘revolution’ might be overstated

revolution

Sen. Bernie Sanders is now using the word “revolution” to describe the nature of his bid to become president of the United States.

He’s leading Hillary Clinton in every poll there is in New Hampshire, which I think is filling the Vermont senator’s head with visions of overinflated grandeur.

It’s not that his Democratic support is fake. It’s real. But let’s cool the “revolution” talk for a bit.

Three presidential campaigns of the late 20th century also were labeled “revolutions” in some quarters. How did they do?

1964: Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona took the Republican Party presidential nomination by storm, defeating “establishment” candidates, such as New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in a wild primary fight. He went on to lose the general election that year to President Lyndon Baines Johnson in a historic landslide. LBJ, of course, traded a good bit on the legacy of his slain predecessor, John Kennedy, and vowed to continue pursuing JFK’s unfinished agenda.

1968: Just four years later, the Vietnam War caused another revolution. LBJ’s popularity had gone south. Democrats looked for an alternative. They turned to one in Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, who stunned LBJ with a stronger-than-expected showing in the New Hampshire primary. In came another anti-war candidate, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York, brother of the murdered president and a political hero to many Americans — including yours truly. Vice President Hubert Humphrey, another “establishment” candidate, won the nomination, but then lost to Republican Richard Nixon by a narrow margin that fall.

1972: Let’s call this one the Anti-Vietnam War Revolution 2.0. The flag bearer this time would be U.S. Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota, who beat the party “establishment” led by Sen. Ed Muskie of Maine to win the nomination. McGovern drew big crowds to rallies, too, just like Sanders. Did they equate to votes that November? Ummm, no. President Nixon won 49 out of 50 states and buried McGovern’s “revolution” under the landslide.

Yes, some “revolutions” succeed. Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory in 1980 is one. Barack Obama’s election in 2008 could be considered another one. But they required extraordinary circumstances. The Iranian hostage crisis hurt President Carter grievously in voters’ minds in ’80 and the economic free-fall of 2008 helped lift Sen. Obama into the White House eight years ago.

Sanders might think he’s carrying the torch for another revolution. Then again, Republicans such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and perhaps even Marco Rubio might want to say the same thing . . . for entirely different reasons.

I just want to remind the revolutionaries out there that the political establishment doesn’t get to be so entrenched and powerful by being made up of pushovers or patsies.

 

 

Perry to Texas: don’t panic over oil prices

IMG_8989_jpg_800x1000_q100

Rick Perry is mighty proud of the economic record he takes credit for building in the state he governed longer than anyone else in Texas history.

The former governor says Texans shouldn’t panic over the plummeting price of oil. West Texas crude now sits at about $32 per barrel.

The state’s diversification will help the state weather this economic storm, Perry said, citing what he called the “Texas miracle.”

I get that Perry wants to assure Texans that we’re going to be all right, unlike an earlier oil price crash that all but killed the state in the late 1980s.

Let’s get real here. The state still relies heavily on oil and natural gas to help fund state government at many levels.

Comptroller Glenn Hegar has been accused of offering what used to be called a “rosy scenario” with regard to the revenue the next Legislature will have when it convenes in January 2017. Perry is on the comptroller’s side.

Yes, the state has diversified significantly over the past 30 years. Amarillo and the Panhandle suffered grievously back then when the bottom fell out of the oil market. I was in Beaumont when it happened and witnessed the wholesale shutdown of petrochemical plants. That crash hurt. A lot.

Will this crash bring as much pain as the previous one? Probably not.

Amarillo’s burgeoning medical community will head off some of the misery. So will its growing service-sector economy. Pantex remains a top job provider.

Let’s not dismiss the pain and suffering that will befall public school systems — as well as public colleges and universities — that rely on funds generated by oil and natural gas royalties.

Gov. Perry says he knows what an economic downturn looks like.

The one that might be coming to Texas won’t look exactly like the previous one, but it’ll bring its share of hurt to Texans.