All posts by kanelis2012

local news

School board elections matter, too

I think I’ve been scolded by a couple of followers of this blog for an apparent error of omission.

I posted a blog about the importance of municipal elections and then was reminded that, yep, school board elections matter just as much as those that elect city representatives.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/03/14/why-do-these-elections-matter/

I stand corrected.

The blog noted that local elections determine how much we pay for essential local government services. It also took note of an important public affairs program — “Live Here” — being broadcast soon on Panhandle PBS about the upcoming local elections.

School board elections, of course, allow us to choose people who set local educational policy that has a direct impact on our children’s education. Allow me to include community college board elections as well; Amarillo College also will elect regents in May and they, too, play critical roles in setting higher education policy here at home.

Lest we forget, in Texas the largest single line item in our property tax statement every year is for public education. That’s how it is in our home, where the Canyon Independent School District tax obligation is by far the largest single property tax we pay annually.

The thesis of the earlier blog post remains intact: Local elections matter the most to us and we need to pay careful attention to the people we want representing us at City Hall — and on educational boards.

media news, national news, political news

Frohnmayer: one of the 'great ones'

Sad news came recently from my home state of Oregon: One of the state’s true statesmen, Dave Frohnmayer, died of prostate cancer.

I had moved away from Oregon while he was serving as attorney general. But I surely knew of his reputation, which the editorial from The Oregonian newspaper outlines nicely:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/dave_frohnmayer_one_exceptiona.html

The paper refers to Frohnmayer’s “blinding” resume.

This moderate Republican was a giant in a state that has produced its fair share of them. He served his state and his party with dignity and honor. He wouldn’t be a party to the viciousness so common these days.

In a state that has been embarrassed by its most recent past governor, John Kitzhaber — who resigned because of an ethics scandal involving his fiancĂ©e — Frohnmayer was a model of moral turpitude.

He had his personal health struggles. His children were afflicted with rare and fatal diseases. He carried on quietly and bravely.

He led a great educational system, the University of Oregon; he served  his state as attorney general, in its legislature, and as dean of the UO law school.

Indeed, it was while he was dean that I had the pleasure of attending an Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in Eugene, where he was among the panelists instructing journalists on how to use public records and obtain information to which we were entitled.

This was in the late 1970s. I was new to journalism at the time and I was enthralled by the man’s knowledge of open records and the ease with which he presented it.

Here’s my favorite part of The Oregonian’s editorial tribute to Frohnmayer. It says it all: “Frohnmayer was exceptional in making himself and his extraordinary deeds appear ordinary – and in inspiring others along the way to rise to their best. In that sense he was arguably Oregon’s most extraordinary regular guy.”

***

Note: This is a corrected version of an earlier blog post, which initially contained an error regarding Dave Frohnmayer’s service to Oregon.

local news

Why do these elections matter?

1 Comment

Panhandle PBS, the public TV station based in Amarillo College, is going to present a couple of compelling public affairs programs in the coming weeks that require voters to pay attention.

They’re going to focus on the upcoming municipal election to take place. They’re going to try to drive home a critical point about this election. It is this: No level of government has more of a direct impact on citizens’ lives than the local level, which is why it is imperative for voters to get — and stay — in engaged in the process of selecting the people who govern us.

Full disclosure: Panhandle PBS employs me as a freelance blogger to comment on public affairs TV programming, but I’m doing this little piece independently.

I feel strongly — no, very strongly — about the importance of getting engaged in these elections.

“Live Here” is a series of public affairs broadcasts that Panhandle PBS is running. The March 26 segment will include interviews with former Amarillo mayors and council members about the job required of them and how to get residents more involved with the local electoral process.

On April 2, “Live Here” will play host to a candidate forum featuring all 16 City Council and mayoral candidates.

Both shows air at 7 p.m.

This is a big deal.

Voter turnout for these local elections is beyond poor. It’s abysmal, dismal, disgraceful, shameful, awful … name the pejorative adjective and it fits. Single-digit percentage turnouts are the norm around here. How can that be?

The turnout boosted a bit in 2011 when we elected a new mayor after Debra McCartt decided to step away. Every so often, the city puts a referendum on the ballot that boosts turnout; the most recent one involved banning smoking indoors.

I recall a stand-alone measure in 1996 that asked voters whether to allow the sale of publicly owned Northwest Texas Hospital to a private health-care provider. It drew a 22 percent turnout and the city was utterly ecstatic over that response. Ecstatic when fewer than one voter out of four actually voted. Good grief.

Municipal elections always are important. They have direct impacts on our lives. They determine how much we pay in taxes to fund the services we demand each day. The municipal candidates are vying for a chance to set that policy — and we need to be paying serious attention to what these people have to say.

Public television is going to provide a forum for residents to listen in and hear what these folks are telling us.

Let’s pay attention.

 

military news, national news, Uncategorized

Finally! A clarification of 'natural-born citizen'

Where were these fellows, say, in 2007, 2008 and for most of Barack Obama’s first term a president of the United States?

Two former solicitors general of the United States have settled — in my mind, at least — the issue that polluted the political atmosphere until the time Obama was re-elected in November 2012. They’ve defined the term “natural born citizen” as stated in the U.S. Constitution.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, writing for the Harvard Law Review, say with virtually zero reservation that “natural  born citizen” applies to anyone who becomes an American immediately upon  birth, irrespective of where that birth occurred. At issue is whether that circumstances affects the qualifications of anyone seeking to run for president. Is that constitutionally qualified yes? Katyal and Clement say “yes.”

The issue has been discussed at times. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before Arizona became a state. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. territory. George Romney was born in Mexico. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Three of those men already have run for president; Cruz is expected to run for the 2016 Republican nomination.

All four men were U.S. citizens upon birth. Goldwater’s parents were citizens, as were McCain’s and Romney’s. Cruz’s mother is an American. Therefore, that qualifies them to hold the highest office in the land.

Oh, and what about Barack Obama?

Remember all that baloney about whether he was constitutionally qualified, that he was born in Kenya and that, according to the yahoos who sought to make a big deal out of his birthplace? Katyal and Clement say none of that mattered one little bit.

Obama’s mother was an American, which meant he was bestowed full U.S. citizenship the moment he was born to her and his Kenyan father — in Honolulu, Hawaii, the 50th state to join the Union.

A cousin of mine sent me the attached link to let me know that Ted Cruz also is qualified to run for president. My cousin is likely to support Cruz’s president.

But in truth, I’ve long believed that Cruz was qualified under Article II of the Constitution to hold the office, just as I was certain that Goldwater, McCain Romney and Obama could serve in that office.

I just wish the Harvard Law Review article could have settled this issue long before now.

Better late than never, right?

Uncategorized

Bush's name no longer golden in GOP

John Ellis Bush is finding that his family name is beginning to sound tired — even among Republicans.

Will that stop the man known as Jeb from running for president next year?

Hardly.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/235638-walker-bush-is-like-other-failed-gop-candidates

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, another probable GOP candidate, said of Bush that his name is “of the past.” The party and the nation need new names, meaning new blood, to lead it.

Walker said he wouldn’t speak ill of Jeb Bush … but then he did. According to The Hill, Walker said: “You’re not going to hear me speak ill will of Jeb. He’s a friend of mine. He called me two days before (announcing) his PAC, I think highly of him. I just think voters are going to look at this and say, ‘If we’re running against Hillary Clinton, we’ll need a name from the future, not a name from the past, to win.’ ”

So, what I’m reading from that is Bush’s name will hurt him if he gets his party’s nomination.

I’ve long said you shouldn’t ever criticized anyone’s appearance or anyone’s name.

Walker has just gone mildly negative against the family name of Jeb Bush.

That is “speaking ill will” of someone.

 

International news

Allies join in criticism chorus of Gang of 47

Now it’s the allies who are weighing in with criticism of the Republican Gang of 47’s letter to Iran.

Our nation’s European allies have chimed in with a blistering critique of the Senate GOP letter that says it’s OK for Iran to ignore whatever treaty that’s negotiated to get rid of Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/european-allies-join-criticism-of-gop%e2%80%99s-iran-letter/ar-AA9HLKf

“Suddenly, Iran can say to us: ‘Are your proposals actually trustworthy if 47 senators say that no matter what the government agrees to, we can subsequently take it off the table?’ ” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said during a visit to Washington.

What’s Germany’s stake in this? The Germans, along with the United States, Great Britain, France, China and Russia are negotiating with the Iranians for a way to rid the Islamic Republic of its nuclear ambition.

A large portion of the U.S. Senate’s Republican caucus has decided to take matters into its own hands by seeking to persuade Iran to ignore whatever agreement is worked out. Without congressional approval of a treaty, the Gang said, it becomes merely an executive agreement that can be wiped out when the next president takes office in January 2017.

Technically, it’s true. But the letter constitutes an egregious interference in a high-stakes negotiation.

Welcome aboard the criticism train, allies.

 

national news

Have we seen enough from Secret Service?

Isn’t the Secret Service supposed to be the elite of the elite? The cream of our national security apparatus? The individuals charged with protecting the Most Powerful Person on the Planet?

What in the name of Homeland Security is going on with these individuals?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-agents-disrupted-bomb-investigation-at-white-house/2015/03/12/0eb74590-c8c4-11e4-aa1a-86135599fb0f_story.html

Two more agents have been accused of driving under the influence of alcohol and taking their vehicle through an active investigation scene involving a bomb.

The Secret Service has a new director who was supposed to turn the agency around after it went through a series of shameful incidents involving disgraceful behavior and serious breaches of security at the White House.

Joseph Clancy hasn’t turned anything around.

The Secret Service used to be run by the Treasury Department. Since 9/11, it’s been handed over to the Department of Homeland Security. Did we hear of these kinds of screw-ups when Treasury was in charge? Maybe once in a while, but not with this kind of chilling regularity.

Any thoughts of returning the Secret Service to the Treasury Department? Well? Are there?

 

political news

Sanders sounding like a non-candidate

It’s not a stretch to equate running for president to deciding to get married.

You’d better be all in on both counts, or else you’re doomed to fail in both endeavors.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who sounds like a left-leaning Democrat, now says he’s not so sure about running for president, which many liberals in his party want him to do.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bernie-sanders-isnt-so-sure-about-this-2016-thing-116031.html?hp=l3_3

Don’t hold your breath on this one, lefties. I don’t think Sanders is going to do it.

“If I run it has to be done well,” Sanders said in an interview with POLITICO this week. “And if it’s done well, and I run a winning campaign or a strong campaign, it is a real boon to the progressive community, because I believe that the issues I talk about are issues that millions and millions of people believe in. On the other hand, if one were to run a poor campaign, didn’t have a well-funded campaign, didn’t have a good organization, did not do well, because of your own limitations, then that would be a setback for the progressive community.”

Sanders is sounding, with those comments, as if he’s full of doubt about whether it’s worth it.

Politico noted that he hasn’t raised much money, has hired virtually zero key campaign advisers, has done next to no groundwork in any of the early crucial primary and caucus states.

Now he’s talking like someone who seems to question whether he has the fire in his gut to go all the way.

The late Sen. George McGovern once said that the first thing a presidential candidate needs is a huge ego. Sanders likely possesses the requisite ego to mount a campaign. He needs the rest of it — all of it — to make it a reality. I’m talking about commitment.

 

national news, political news

No charges against Gang of 47

An interesting petition is being circulated by those who think, as I do, that the 47 Senate Republicans who sent The Letter to the Iranian mullahs asking them to reject a nuclear deal worked out by the president of the United States.

The petition calls for charges to be filed against the senators.

I don’t sign petitions. I didn’t sign this one. Indeed, even if I did sign petitions, I wouldn’t sign this one. Why? The Gang of 47 needs only to suffer political embarrassment for stepping into territory where it didn’t belong. The gang doesn’t need to be brought up on charges.

Here’s how former Labor Secretary Robert Reich discusses it in his Facebook post: “A petition calling for charges to be filed against 47 U.S. Senators who sent an open letter to the leaders of Iran, in alleged violation of the Logan Act (a law that forbids unauthorized citizens to negotiate with foreign governments) has already collected over 165,000 signatures. I can’t imagine the Justice Department actually going after the 47, or the constitutional and political crisis that would ensue if it did. Yet I think it important that our voices be heard on this matter. Allowing a political party to conduct its own foreign policy undermines the authority of the President and poses a threat to the peace and security of all Americans. I urge you to add your name, and send a clear signal that this behavior is unacceptable.”

Reich is correct to assert that it’s important for Americans’ voices to be heard on this matter.

The Gang of 47 has committed a serious political miscalculation. Let them stew in the embarrassment they’ve brought onto themselves.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Lynch nomination a cliffhanger? Why?

Sometimes I can be a bit slow on the uptake. I get that. I concede it’s a weakness.

But for the life of me, I do not understand why Loretta Lynch’s nomination to become the next U.S. attorney general is hanging by a thread. Someone will have to explain this one to me.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/loretta-lynch-nomination-close-116032.html?hp=t2_r

Lynch is supposed to replace Eric Holder as AG. She was thought to be set for a relatively easy confirmation. Then the man who appointed her, President Obama, decided to issue an executive order that delayed deportation of some 5 million illegal immigrants; the order allows them to seek work permits while they stay in the United States.

The order enraged Senate Republicans. So what did they do? They began questioning Lynch about whether she supported the president’s executive decision.

What on God’s Earth did they expect her to say?

“Well, senator, since you asked, I think that’s the dumbest damn idea I’ve ever heard. It’s illegal. It violates the Constitution. The president has rocks in his head and he should be impeached just for being stupid enough to issue the order.”

Is that what they want her to say? I’m beginning to think that’s the case.

Instead, she has declared her support of the president’s decision. As if that’s some big surprise to the senators, some of whom said they’d support her initially, but then changed their mind because — gasp! — she’s endorsing a key policy of the man who wants her to become the next attorney general.

Who’da thunk such a thing?

Loretta Lynch is eminently qualified to assume this important post. Republicans have made no secret of their intense dislike of Holder, who said he’d stay on the job until the next AG is confirmed.

I believe Holder has done just fine as attorney general, but he wants to move on, spend time with his family, pursue other interests … all those clichĂ©s. So, let him do it.

First, though, confirm Loretta Lynch.