Perry to N.Y.: Learn from us

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has placed an important phone call to his colleague in New York and offered a critical piece of advice.

Don’t make the mistakes we made in Texas when handling an Ebola case, Perry reportedly told Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Good advice, governor.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/10/perry-offers-ebola-advice-to-new-york-officials/

The Texas Ebola case ended tragically for the Liberian man who brought the disease to the state. He died under the care of medical professionals in Dallas. A nurse who cared for him has just been released from medical care after she came down with the virus. Now  New York doctor who was in West Africa treating Ebola patients has been diagnosed with the disease and he apparently is responding to treatment.

Perry called Cuomo and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to offer his assistance on how to handle the disease. Gov. Perry’s prime advice? Follow all the necessary medical protocols to the letter. A breach in protocol in Dallas apparently led to the nurse getting infected, according to the governor’s office.

The good news is that the nurse, Nina Pham, is now Ebola free.

There was some more advice Perry gave to Cuomo and de Blasio, according to the San Antonio Express-News:

“Perry shared some more lessons in separate Friday phone conversations with the officials, including regarding ‘the importance of informing the public about the realities of the Ebola virus in order to reduce misconceptions about its transmissions,’ his office said.”

Ah, yes. Public information.

A lack of accurate information has helped lead to the near-hysterical response in some quarters to the arrival of this disease.

A thorough dissemination of facts always should be of prime concern.

It’s good to remember that Ebola likely wasn’t on medical professionals’ radar when the patient arrived from Liberia. It’s on everyone’s mind now.

Gov. Perry has some valuable experience to share and it’s good that he’s sharing it.

 

Shooting shatters 'profile'

When news broke of the shooting at the Marysville, Wash., high school, and it was known that the shooter was a student, one of my first thoughts became: What kind of loner/outcast would do such a horrible thing?

Then the second shock arrived. The shooter was a freshman at Pilchuck High School who was popular with his peers, an athlete and a young man who’d just been named homecoming prince.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/washington-school-gunman-was-homecoming-prince/ar-BBaYo33

Then I watched a former FBI profiler, Clint Van Zandt, tell MSNBC that this case arguably is the most “baffling” he had seen, given that Jaylen Fryberg was the quintessential non-stereotype we’ve attached to individuals who do these kinds of horrifying deeds. Van Zandt essentially said you could throw the profile book out the window.

Fryberg killed himself after shooting another student to death and injuring four others, three of them critically.

The argument will rage once again over how this young man obtain possession of the weapon he used to bring such destruction to the school just north of Seattle.

***

We’re going to hear from gun-owner advocates that no laws could have prevented this from happening. Gun-safety advocates will argue the opposite.

And look and listen for the National Rifle Association — among others — to proclaim that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment is so sacrosanct that to touch any part of it would render it utterly meaningless.

Interestingly, Washington state voters are going to decide a referendum on the state’s ballot that expands background checks to include all gun purchases.

It’s fair to ask: Would such a provision have kept the weapon out of Jaylen Fryberg’s hands? Probably not.

It also is fair to ask: Do such laws make it just a little harder for nuts to obtain guns … and do they infringe on legitimate gun ownership?

“Yes” to the first part. Absolutely “no!” to the second.

Hey, what about that lawsuit?

Politico asks an important question: Why haven’t congressional Republicans filed that lawsuit against President Obama, contending that the president has misused his executive authority regarding the Affordable Care Act?

It’s just a short distance from Capitol Hill to the federal courthouse. The House GOP could file the lawsuit and get this thing started, yes?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obama-lawsuit-house-republicans-112196.html?hp=t1

Well, I have a two-part theory: First, the lawsuit lacks merit and, second, filing the lawsuit now with the world focused on much more grave issues, such as international terrorism, makes Republicans look petulant.

Politico also points out that the employer mandate, which is what the president delayed through his executive action, is set to kick in on Jan. 1. If the mandate starts — requiring employers to offer insurance to employees — then the lawsuit becomes moot.

House Speaker John Boehner announced his intention to sue Barack Obama with great fanfare. Then the world went up in flames in Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Nigeria, Ukraine — have I missed anything?

The president has been tested time and again by real crises, not pestered by made-up problems brought to bear by political opponents at home whose sole intent is to stick it to him.

I still contend the speaker is a reasonable man. He knows how it would look for him to pursue this lawsuit now.

Almost no one in Washington believes that the ACA will be repealed. It’s working. It is providing insurance to millions of Americans.

If the Republicans were going to strike a blow against what they say is executive abuse of power, well, the time has passed.

Let’s move on to things that really matter.

Let’s try governing.

Idiocy runs rampant

The idiocy that some cable “news” networks try to pass off as punditry continues to amaze me.

Allen West is a retired Army officer, a former member of Congress and a current “contributor” to the Fox News Channel.

He said the best way to combat the activities such as the shooter who invaded the Canadian Parliament building this week in Ottawa is to close down certain mosques and “Islamic Centers” and deport imams who are “feeding Islamic terrorists.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/24/allen-west-on-ottawa-attack-shut-down-mosques-o/201303

Here’s part of what West said on a radio interview:

“We’re not saying, you know, we start shutting down mosques and Islamic Centers. But the ones who are feeding us these violent jihadists, they need to be the ones that are shut down. Like I said, the imams, the mullahs that are there running these mosques and centers, they need to be deported. Because we have to say, this is, you know, a zero-sum game. We’re not tolerating it.”

Let’s bring this issue home, to Amarillo.

A prominent Amarillo physician, who happens to be Muslim, erected such a center on the far western edge of the city some years back in honor of his mother.

I actually heard someone express fear that the center would become a “school” for terrorists, that the center would breed bad guys who then would spread their hatred in the form of violence perpetrated against “infidels.” I told this individual with whom I am acquainted that terror cells do not operate in the open like that; they operate under cover of darkness that no terrorist organization — no matter their so-called religious affiliation. They’re not going to advertise their association with a clearly marked and identified structure, such as an Islamic center.

This individual didn’t get my point.

How about we just maintain keen vigilance, stay alert at all times and hunt down the terrorists we can identify?

Civilized nations all around the globe — and that surely includes the United States of America — are doing that already.

No fan of Mama Palin, but Bristol doesn't deserve this

As a proud and vociferous non-fan of Sarah Palin, I must declare my disgust at the way some media talking heads have portrayed her daughter, Bristol, in the wake of a brawl that erupted in Anchorage that allegedly involved several members of the Palin family.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/10/cnns-costello-apologizes-for-palin-remarks-197534.html?hp=r5

The chief culprit in this disgraceful display of disrespect is CNN news anchor Carol Costello, who declared a recording of Bristol’s telling police of being attacked by someone at a party to be “quite possibly the best minute and a half of audio we’ve ever come across. Well, come across in a long time anyway.”

Costello has apologized for her on-air remark. But the damage is done.

The incident occurred in September at a party in suburban Anchorage. Several of the Palins arrived and apparently an argument ensued. It got out of hand. One of Bristol Palin’s sisters got involved in a shoving match or some form of physical contact with another party attendee. Then it got nasty.

So, what’s the issue here?

The Palins — including Bristol’s mother, Sarah — blame the “liberal media” for making fun of Bristol’s involvement in a violent altercation. Bristol wrote in a blog post that the media would react far differently if Chelsea Clinton had been attacked in a similar manner and would have proclaimed her to be a “feminist hero” had she defended herself or someone else.

Well, my strong hunch is we’ll likely never hear of such an incident involving the daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the former president and a potential future president of the United States.

Whatever. The Palins are right to be angry over Bristol’s treatment.

I’ll be brutally candid. My initial reaction to the story when it broke was one of disgust — not that Bristol was involved in a violent altercation, but that the Palins would get caught in such a ridiculous situation. Here’s what I wrote at the time:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/09/12/palins-were-punchin-em-out/

I now get why the family is angry.

Wondering about endorsements' value

Joni Ernst is stiff-arming Iowa newspaper editorial boards in her bid to become that state’s next U.S. senator.

She is following the trail blazed four years ago right here in Texas by Gov. Rick Perry, who did the very same thing, watched most of the papers around the state endorse his opponent, and then won re-election by a healthy margin.

I’ve taken note of this already in a blog post.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/10/23/ernst-follows-perry-model-who-needs-editorial-boards/

Now comes the corollary question: Do these endorsements matter any longer?

I wrestled with the question for many years before my daily journalism career came to a screeching halt in August 2012.

It’s no secret to anyone that newspapers are changing before our eyes. Their role as community leaders is changing as well. Sadly, many companies that run newspapers are giving in to this trend and are devaluing their opinion pages and retreating from their traditional role as community leaders.

So, Republicans Ernst and Perry have decided to forgo the ritual that politicians used to say they enjoyed, which was to seek newspaper endorsements in their election and/or re-election campaigns. They seem to understand that newspapers no longer carry the clout they once did. Politicians used to call on editorial boards, proclaiming that they relished the give-and-take these meetings produced.

Newspaper editors — and you can count me as one of them — also used to get much from these encounters. I worked at the Amarillo Globe-News for 17 years, and 8 months and participated in many more of these meetings that I can remember. And I always, without question, learned something new about my community or my state during every election cycle.

We would reach consensus on who to recommend for public office, craft our statement, publish it and then let the chips fall.

That process now seems to be slipping away as politicians decide they don’t need these endorsements.

Rick Perry didn’t need them in 2010. I’m betting Joni Ernst — win or lose — won’t need them now.

People are forming their opinions using other media. They scour the Internet in search of their version of the truth, which isn’t hard to find, no matter your political orientation.

It’s interesting to me that politicians most likely to blow off these endorsement interviews lean heavily to the right, such as Perry and Ernst.

We’ll know for certain that editorial board endorsements really no longer matter when progressives stop seeking them.

Sen. Patrick getting scarier all the time

The more I read about Texas’s next probable lieutenant governor, the more concerned I become over our state’s future.

Dan Patrick is likely to be elected to the No. 2 position among all Texas politicians on Nov. 4. He’s the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor. He’s a state senator from Houston who’s running against his colleague, Democratic state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio.

Mother Jones has assembled a glossary of some of the more outrageous things Patrick has said and done during his time in the Senate.

Man Who Believes God Speaks to Us Through “Duck Dynasty” Is About to Be Texas’ Second-in-Command

OK, before we go any further, I’ll concede that Mother Jones is not friendly toward Patrick or those who agree with his world view.

But some of this stuff is utterly mind-blowing.

He talks about immigrants bringing “Third World diseases” into the United States; he walked out of a Senate invocation that was being delivered by a Muslim cleric; he once joked, in 1992, that Asian-American broadcast journalist Connie Chung’s show “Eye to Eye” should be called “Slanted Eye to Eye”; he once declared “there is no such thing as separation of church and state.”

Mother Jones lists other bizarre statements that have flown out of Patrick’s mouth over the years.

He comes from a radio background, which I suppose says plenty about how a guy with a machine-gun mouth occasionally lets the rhetorical bullets fly with abandon.

Some folks find him entertaining, I suppose. I prefer someone who is more thoughtful.

If he wins — and it’s looking as though he will — he’s going to turn the Texas Senate, over which the lieutenant governor presides, into a much-less collegial body. Patrick has all but guaranteed that by vowing to do away with the two-thirds rule — which requires at least 21 senators to support a bill before it goes to a vote; the idea is to promote bipartisan support for legislation. He’s also suggested he’ll appoint only Republicans to committee chairmanships, doing away with the custom that lieutenant governors of both parties have followed of appointing members of the minority party to lead Senate committees.

Texas’s legislative branch of government — at least one half-half of it — is likely to become a hostile work environment for those who don’t like the way it’s going to be run.

Ernst follows Perry model: Who needs editorial boards?

Joni Ernst is staking out an interesting — but not unprecedented — tactic in her campaign for the U.S. Senate in Iowa.

The Republican is forgoing interviews with major Iowa newspaper editorial boards. Media observers in the Hawkeye State are wondering whether she’s afraid of being questioned by the editorial boards. She’s canceling interview appointments left and right.

Her opponent, Democrat Bruce Braley, is meeting with them, hoping — I can assume — to gather up newspaper endorsements.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/23/iowa-newspapers-speak-out-over-joni-ernst-snubb/201292

Do you remember when Gov.Rick Perry kissed off newspaper endorsements in 2010 when he was running for re-election in Texas? He stiffed newspaper editorial boards all over the state. He was quite clear: I don’t need no stinkin’ editorial endorsements; I’m going to “talk directly” to Texans.

Texas newspaper editors and publishers took the snub personally, with most of them endorsing his Democratic opponent, former Houston Mayor Bill White. The paper where I worked at the time, the Amarillo Globe-News, followed suit. We backed White and when we did, you’d have thought Planet Earth had just spun off its axis. The reaction from our deeply Republican readers in the heart of the Texas Panhandle was ferocious.

Not to fear, Perry’s handlers reckoned — correctly, I should add.

The governor was re-elected handily four years ago with a 13 percent victory over White.

I figure, though, that Perry knows Texas voters as well as any politician who’s ever held public office.

Does Joni Ernst know Iowans as well? We’ll find out in about 12 days.

Well done, Anderson Cooper

Critiquing media isn’t usually my bag, although lately I’ve been beating up on TV cable news networks over their coverage of Ebola.

That said, allow me a tip of the cap, or a nod, or salute to CNN’s Anderson Cooper for refusing to take a “selfie” with a local TV reporter who spotted Cooper near the site of the Canadian Parliament shooting in Ottawa.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/23/anderson-cooper-aghast-when-reporter-asks-him-to-take-selfie-near-ottawa-shooting-scene/

The reporter wanted to take the picture with Cooper near where one victim was killed and the shooter himself was killed by the Parliament’s sergeant-at-arms, Kevin Vickers — who I already have saluted in an earlier blog post.

The young reporter apparently was caught up in the moment and wanted to share some misplaced “glory” with an international media personality, such as Cooper.

His response? “It seems wildly inappropriate,” Cooper told the young man.

Journalists have a fairly well-defined list of things they shouldn’t do when covering a story. They don’t cheer for political candidates or athletic teams; they don’t demonstrate displeasure in either instance; they don’t act overly friendly or unfriendly with sources they might know personally when they’re covering a story; they always behave professionally and dispassionately when on assignment.

A terrorist attack on a government building that results in a fatality clearly falls into the category of an event that requires maximum professional decorum. The young reporter, a fellow named Vandon Gene, needs to brush up on his professional manner before he’s ever assigned to cover a news story.

Anderson Cooper has taught the young man a valuable lesson.

This guy's an authentic hero

The term “hero” is one of the most overused — and misused — in the English language.

We attach the word to men who can hit baseballs long distances, or run fast on a football field, or win basketball games with last-second shots from mid-court.

Kevin Vickers, though, at age 58, is the real deal.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/canada-shootings-hero/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

He is the sergeant-at-arms of the Canadian Parliament who this week took down a gunman who was terrorizing the seat of government in Ottawa, Ontario.

Vickers shot the gunman, who reportedly was launching some sort of “jihad” against the Canadian government in the wake of that country joining with other nations in the fight against the Islamic State.

The shooter entered the building and began blazing away, killing a constable.

Vickers was carrying a firearm as well and he used efficiently.

Canadian authorities haven’t yet confirmed what everyone in the building apparently saw with their own eyes, that Vickers acted heroically to stop the killer from doing even more damage.

So, today he received a standing ovation from members of Parliament who resumed their business.

And what does a hero say about his deed? Vickers said this: “Yesterday, during extraordinary circumstances, security personnel demonstrated professionalism and courage. I am grateful and proud to be part of this team.”

Heroism is alive and well.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience