Tragedy hands Amarillo PD a PR gem

The Amarillo Police Department has been handed a solid-gold public relations opportunity that has been born out of a tragic incident on a city street.

James Sutton was killed Friday night near Caprock High School, apparently while drag-racing along 34th Avenue. He lost control of his vehicle and flipped it several times. The 24-year-old motorist was pronounced dead on the scene. Police say he was racing two other vehicle when his SUV struck a curb and flipped. APD is looking for the drivers of the other vehicles.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/28896242/one-dead-after-wreck-near-school

A young man’s family is grieving over this senseless loss.

Senseless because the young man was doing something that has killed many other drivers over many years — perhaps since the invention of the automobile.

Street-racing is among any American city or town’s dirty little secrets. It’s underreported, yet it goes on virtually every night in cities across the country. Young drivers think they’re invincible to begin with, so they test their invincibility by challenging other young drivers to do something that is quite illegal, which is drive way past the posted speed limit recklessly, putting themselves and others in extreme danger.

Can there be a better tool to use in a campaign to dissuade young drivers from engaging in this kind of fearful behavior?

There now exists at Amarillo City Hall and in the city’s police department an opportunity to send a message throughout this city — and perhaps even far beyond the city — about the dangers of street racing.

Man, oh, man. It kills!

 

Yes, Brady should have been at the White House

Tom Brady is taking some heat for missing a ceremony honoring the pro football team of which he is a member.

You’ve heard of Brady? Sure. He’s the quarterback of the New England Patriots, who won this year’s Super Bowl in stunning fashion against the Seattle Seahawks. He’s also the face of the team. He’s its field leader. He’s the Main Man of the offense.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/stephen-a-smith-blasts-brady-for-missing-white-house-visit/ar-BBiFBgr

Stephen A. Smith, an ESPN commentator, has taken serious umbrage over Brady’s absence from the ceremony, which is a tradition at the White House. Presidents long have honored NFL champs, World Series champs, NBA champs and even occasionally NHL champions, if the franchise that wins the hockey title is based in the United States.

I don’t buy Smith’s tirade that Brady “disrespected” the president, or that he skipped out because of political reasons. Then again, Smith is a blowhard and a grandstander who often says things that have little basis in reality.

I do agree, though, that Brady should have been there.

He’s a member of a team comprising 53 men that won the Big Game — as a team.

The writer of the essay attached to this blog notes that in previous post-Super Bowl ceremonies at the White House, Brady was single and that now he’s married, with children — and that maybe he couldn’t fit the event into his busy schedule.

C’mon.

Brady knew for many weeks the event was coming up. Brady had ample time to schedule this appearance. Heck, he’s got a secretary who could have taken care of the details. Brady could have taken some time away from his kids’ activities and his super-model wife to attend a light-hearted event at the White House.

My sense is that Brady’s absence from this event suggests he thinks of himself as bigger than the game and more important than his team.

The young man would be sadly mistaken on both counts.

 

Biden: U.S., Israel 'love each other'

Vice President Joe Biden wants to set the record straight.

The United States and Israel are like “family.” The nations argue with each other, he said, but when the chips are down they “protect each other.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/joe-biden-israel-relationship-117313.html?hp=b1_r2

The vice president sought to tamp down the heated rhetoric of recent months over differences between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His remarks came at a ceremony marking the 67th anniversary of Israel’s independence.

Has the U.S.-Israel partnership been spat free over those six-plus decades? Hardly. Indeed, the differences pre-date the Obama administration. President Carter had difficulty negotiating the Israeli-Egypt peace agreement when he visited played host in 1978 to Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat at Camp David. Carter’s nemesis was Begin. But the deal got done.

Israelis know that the United States stands with them in critical moments. They know their principal ally will not forsake them when they face a direct threat from the neighbors.

“Sometimes we drive each other crazy, but we love each other — and we protect each other,” Biden said.

Isn’t that enough?

Call it what it was: genocide

My friend Butler Cain has posted a blog about a recent visit he made to Armenia, where citizens are marking the 100th anniversary of what historians have determined to be genocide.

Turkey fought on the losing side of World War I, along with Germany. In the process of losing that war, it engaged in the brutal slaughter of more than 1 million Armenians.

The Turks have refused in the century since to call what they did an act of genocide.

http://butlercain.com/2015/04/25/armenians-in-singapore/

Others have used that language to describe the systematic extermination of people of a certain ethnic background, which by definition is what you call genocide.

One of the voices that so far has been silent on this matter has been the United States, which also hasn’t called it genocide. Again, by my way of looking at it, the Turks did that very thing.

Why the U.S. reluctance? Turkey is an ally of ours. It’s standing with us — more or less — in the fight against the Islamic State. Do we want to offend our allies by suggesting that its forebears did something so unconscionable that they might withdraw their support for our effort to eradicate the Islamic State?

That well might be the calculation.

Let’s call it what it was. Genocide.

Hitler tried it in World War II in search of his “final solution,” which meant the extermination of Jews; Pol Pot sought to eliminate his fellow Cambodians during the Khmer Rouge’s reign of terror in the 1970s; Rwandans engaged in genocide in the 1990s against their own people as well.

History knows what happened in those instances. We have put the proper name on these evil acts.

It’s time to do the same thing while describing what happened to Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.

 

Bush loses weight, gains momentum

Jeb Bush has lost weight.

It’s reportedly 20 to 30 pounds. The former Republican governor of Florida is considering a run for the presidency next year.

Does one have anything to do with the other?

Sure it does.

http://www.examiner.com/article/jeb-bush-weight-loss-will-bush-s-weight-loss-help-his-run-for-president

We’ve become obsessed with how candidates look. OK, maybe not obsessed, but its important in the minds of voters who want their national leaders to present themselves well.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another possible — if not probable — GOP presidential candidate, had some surgery to help him control his weight. He said at the time he was doing it for health reasons and because his wife and children were concerned about his health. I am certain of their concern.

But he said nothing about the cosmetic aspect of the weight loss surgery and whether his own ambitions for higher office had anything to do with his decision.

The last truly obese president we elected was probably William Howard Taft, who weighed in at 300-plus pounds. But that was in 1908. Enough said about that, yes?

These days, candidates have to look the role they seek to assume.

Thus, Jeb Bush’s weight loss serves as a precursor to what almost every political pundit/commentator/observer has been saying for months. He intends to run for president of the United States.

If nothing else, Gov. Bush’s weight loss is a testament to the stamina he’ll need to endure the grind he’s about to undertake.

 

Jenner's announcement: Let's move on

Well, I had a decent night’s sleep after Bruce Jenner’s big announcement Friday.

He’s a woman … he said.

I looked outside this morning and I discovered that the leaves were still on the trees, the grass is still green, the sky is blue and the sun rose in the east just as it does every single day.

And yet some of us no doubt are tittering and wondering about the individual formerly known as The World’s Greatest Athlete and his decision to “transition” to womanhood.

Do I want to honor his privacy? I believe Jenner surrendered his privacy when he married his third wife and got involved in that reality TV shtick involving her daughters. Plus, he did the two-hour interview last night. No, privacy isn’t it.

The story bores me.

Therefore, I made a key decision this morning upon awakening.

It is that I won’t use this blog to get involved in the international discussion.

I might discuss the issue of transgenderhood in general down the road, sometime and in some other context. There might even be a mention of Jenner in the distant future.

Today? I’m going to take care of business — and wait for the sun to rise in the morning.

Worst-kept secret is out: Jenner's a woman

This story has been off my radar. I believe it’s still off the screen, except that tonight the principal player in this story is making international news.

Bruce Jenner, the former Olympic decathlon champion, Wheaties box icon, three-time husband and a father has declared he’s becoming a woman.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/bruce-jenner-reveals-to-diane-sawyer-%e2%80%98yes-i-am-a-woman%e2%80%99/ar-BBiEgXM

He went on the air for two prime-time hours to tell Diane Sawyer that he’s changing his sexual identity.

Honestly, I don’t know how to respond to this.

Do I respond to the news that an individual has decided to change his gender? That’s his call exclusively and it doesn’t matter to me one single bit. Thus, that part of the story remains off my radar — although it’s likely on everyone else’s.

Or does one respond to the fact that a major broadcast network chose to devote two hours to this story?

ABC Television is run by smart individuals who know their audience. The audience wants to hear it. I guess it’s a big deal to many millions of folks. It’s not to me.

I’m left, therefore, to ponder the direction that popular culture has taken us.

For now, I’m going to try to get a good night’s sleep. I’ll awaken tomorrow and likely will read a lot of commentary throughout the infinite Internet universe about what’s transpired tonight with Jenner’s revelation.

At the moment, I’m left merely to shake my head and try to comprehend the significance of Jenner’s declaration that “I’m not gay.”

Be careful with war references, politicians

Listen up, politicians.

Whether you’re running for president of the United States, any seat in Congress, the statehouse or a seat at City Hall, take care when referencing any military experience.

There will be folks out here who are listening to your every word.

Roy McDowell is running for mayor of Amarillo. He’d been referring in public statements to his military service “in Vietnam.” Turns out McDowell didn’t serve in-country, but served during the Vietnam War era.

Why bring this up? Because some of us who actually did serve in Vietnam are keenly aware of these things and want to be sure that all vets — whose service is honorable — portray their service honestly.

Is this a deal-breaker? Probably not, but McDowell and other politicians need to be acutely aware that the world is watching and listening.

He’s not the first politician to fudge a little. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., did a doozy of a job mischaracterizing his own military service before being elected to the Senate. He, too, said he’d served in Vietnam when he hadn’t. Bad call, senator.

This also reminds me of a young man whose acquaintance I made some years ago. He told my wife and me he “flew helicopters” in Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid-1990s. When he said he “flew,” I assumed immediately he piloted them. We would talk about his experience “flying” Apache choppers for the Army. I assumed, of course, that he either was a warrant officer or was commissioned. He well might have flown aboard the choppers, but perhaps as a crew member.

Why make that leap? Well, years later, I happened to be browsing through his office and discovered his discharge certificate on a wall. It listed his rank as private, E-1. What? How could he have “flown” helicopters if he’s a mere enlisted man — and a buck private to boot?

Take great care, politicians. If you fudge on your service record, you can be caught.

 

Gay marriage to get big test

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to decide soon whether Americans have a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex.

My guess is that if the conservative court majority is as “strict constructionist” as its members claim to be, the issue could be a slam dunk.

They’ll declare a ban on same-sex marriage to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

State courts and lower federal courts have been striking down state bans left and right. Texas’s own ban is among those that the courts have ruled violated someone’s constitutional rights.

The issue, as I see it, rests within the 14th Amendment, which guarantees Americans the right to “equal protection” under the law. It doesn’t specify that citizens need to be of a certain sexual orientation.

State bans have flouted, in my view, that constitutional guarantee. That is why the federal courts have stepped in.

So, the highest court in the land is set to decide this issue.

I remain perplexed by the notion of calling same-sex unions “marriage.” But that’s just me. I do not question the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

Neither should the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lynch gets key GOP ally

Politics occasionally produces peculiar alliances that develop at key moments.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked Attorney General-designate Loretta Lynch’s confirmation vote over an unrelated bill dealing with human trafficking. Then the Senate approved the trafficking bill. What did McConnell do then? He rounded up enough votes to get Lynch confirmed.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/239938-mcconnell-whipped-for-lynch-avoiding-nuclear-fallout

His work to end a filibuster that had stopped Lynch’s confirmation apparently has angered the likes of Sen. Ted Cruz and other members of the Senate’s TEA party caucus.

My reaction? Live with it.

This seeming reversal gets to a key element of McConnell’s leadership. He can be a fierce partisan when the opportunity presents itself, but he knows how the Senate is supposed to work and he knows how to deal with the “other side,” namely Democrats, when that opportunity presents itself.

Compromise, therefore, isn’t a bad thing when a failure to compromise gums up the legislative works — as it did while Loretta Lynch waited an interminable length of time to be confirmed as the nation’s next attorney general.

So, now let’s move on to the next congressional crisis.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience