All posts by kanelis2012

Tired of the Ferguson story

Let’s discuss this one a little.

OK, I’ll start. I am tired of the Ferguson, Mo., story. Does anyone else out there share that thought?

We know many of the facts already. A young African-American man, Michael Brown, was shot to death by a white police officer in the St. Louis suburb. Residents protested. The protests got violent. The Ferguson police responded with a very heavy hand. The state police took over. The governor declared a curfew and called out the National Guard to keep the peace.

The cable news networks have been all over this story. They’re covering it like a blanket. 24/7, or so it seems.

I’m weary of it.

The Ferguson story, I think, gets to the heart of what sometimes ails TV journalism. Reporters get fixated on stories and then beat them into the ground.

I grew tired of the Trayvon Martin story, which had a similar context. I grew sick and tired of the Natalie Holloway story — remember her? She was the Alabama teenager who disappeared in Aruba. The networks were all over that one for seemingly forever. I got sick of the Malaysia Airlines jetliner disappearance story. CNN was the worst, reporting “breaking news” when none existed. One news anchor asked someone if it was possible if the plane flew into a black hole; he was then reminded by the guest that a black hole would swallow the entire solar system.

What am I missing in this Ferguson story?

It’s not that that my heart isn’t broken over the death of the teenager. Or that the police made a mess of their response to the protests. Or that the state police captain who’s taken charge of things hasn’t acted with nobility and courage. I get all of that. I’d like answers to questions surrounding the militarization of the police department and whether minorities are being targeted unfairly by police. How about the Ferguson political structure? It needs to change. A majority black community needs more African-Americans in positions of authority.

I just cannot watch it at length any longer. I’ve grown tired of the media saturation, just as I tired of one cable network’s obsession with the Benghazi tragedy in Libya and its coverage of the IRS non-scandal.

Is there something wrong with me?

I’m all ears.

This killer must never walk free

Mark David Chapman has been denied parole yet again.

For the life of me, some elements of the criminal justice system seem unsolvable. Such as why someone like this ever would be considered for parole.

Chapman shot John Lennon to death on Dec. 8, 1980. As the parole hearing today noted, the officers interviewing Chapman denied him parole because “the victim,” Lennon, showed kindness to his killer before the bullet started flying that night in New York City.

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/parole-denied-yet-again-for-lennons-killer

The former Beatle had signed Chapman’s copy of Lennon’s new album, chatted briefly with him, boarded his limo and then returned later in the evening — to meet his bloody death at Chapman’s hand.

“This victim had displayed kindness to you earlier in the day, and your actions have devastated a family and those who loved the victim,” the parole board wrote. Among those who “loved” John Lennon was, well, me and millions of others around the world.

Chapman is among the world’s most notorious murderers who go through this parole ritual every couple of years, only to be denied. Two other stand out:

* Sirhan Sirhan, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy’s killer, gets the same treatment. As he should. Sirhan’s gunning down of RFK, it’s been argued, changed the course of political history in this country as Kennedy died while campaigning in June 1968 for the presidency of the United States.

* Charles Manson, who ordered the murders of actress Sharon Tate and several others in 1969, is a raving bleeping lunatic. If you’ve ever listened to this man talk — today — about what happened 45 years ago, then you understand that he needs to stay locked up forever.

Chapman has exhibited all the signs of a sociopath, someone with no conscience. OK, so John Lennon wasn’t a world leader. He was a musician and a songwriter whose work still stands as an anthem for several generations of people all around the world.

Good night, Mark David Chapman. May you rot in that cell.

Social media offer some barometer of public mood

Judging the mood of the country through social media posts is a bit like relying on those instant Internet polls. Neither is very accurate and could be slanted depending on who you associate with on social media and who is answering the Internet “surveys.”

I get into exchanges with my network of Facebook “friends” about the state of things in the United States. I at times feel a bit lonely, as so many of those who read my Facebook posts — usually fed from this blog — have swilled the conservative Kool-Aid that makes them think the country has gone straight to hell under the leadership of the “socialist, Muslim-sympathizing, empty-suit fraud,” aka, the president of the United States, Barack Obama.

Others with whom I’m acquainted through this medium tilt the other way and they, too, weigh in with their own thoughts on the state of affairs in America.

I keep getting the feeling, though, that they — and I — are getting out-shouted. My friends on the other side have taken command of the public megaphone and are winning the argument.

One individual today said the nation has gone to pot. She’s given up on things, or so it appears.

This sorrowful attitude makes me wonder about just what has been accomplished since Barack Obama became president. Let me count them, as best I can remember:

* The annual federal budget deficit has been cut by more than half.

* Job growth is accelerating, although not at a rate fast enough to suit many people.

* Domestic energy production is at an all-time high; yes, many have credited private industry, not government, for that fact.

* Home foreclosures have slowed dramatically; meanwhile, new home construction has accelerated. Has anyone taken a look at all the houses being framed in Amarillo lately?

* Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden.

* We’re deporting illegal immigrants at record rates. Our southern border remains too accessible to illegal entrants, but we’re catching them and sending them back to their country of origin.

OK, have we had a run of perfection? Of course not. Then again, no presidential administration in my lifetime has been run perfectly.

International hot spots are burning hotter than ever in Iraq and Syria. Ukraine and Russia are going nose to nose. Israel is defending itself against Hamas terrorists who keep launching missiles into Israeli neighborhoods. Terror groups are kidnapping women and girls in Nigeria, beheading captives in the Middle East and persecuting Christians and other religious minorities throughout the Third World.

Amid all those international crises, critics keep yammering about the United States doing too little. What are the options? Send in ground troops to settle these disputes? Clamp economic embargoes? Do we ship more armaments to our friends, and if so, at what cost? What about those who say we should cut off “all foreign aid” and concentrate solely on the needs of Americans here at home?

It’s fair to ask: Has this country over the past two decades taken on too large an international role in a time when our adversaries have become more diverse, more elusive and pose greater and more varied existential threats than our former, easily identifiable enemy, the Soviet Union?

I am not a Pollyanna. I understand full well the challenges that await us. I also appreciate the challenges we’ve met over the years.

Has the United States of America gone to pot, as so many of my social media acquaintances have suggested? We’re just as strong as ever.

Pentagon sucked into partisan battle

Of all the federal agencies charged with looking after our national interests, one would think the Pentagon — the military arm of our massive federal bureaucracy — would be immune from partisan political bickering.

Guess again.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, no doubt seeking to change the subject from his indictment back home over abuse of power and coercion, says Islamic terrorists might have slipped into the United States across our southern border.

How did that play in the Pentagon? Not well.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215761-pentagon-no-evidence-of-isis-at-southern-border

“I’ve seen no indication that they are coming across the border with Mexico. We have no information that leads us to believe that,” Admiral John Kirby, press secretary for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on CNN’s “New Day.”

Kirby said the governor has no basis for making that suggestion, which he did in a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Perry is considering a run for president in 2016. He’ll have to dispose of the indictment handed down the other day in Travis County. Good luck with that, governor.

He’s going to be making more of these statements in the weeks and months to come, especially after he leaves the governor’s office in January.

It is troubling that politicians are able to make assertions without providing a scintilla of evidence.

ISIL — or ISIS, as it is also known — is a despicable terrorist organization that has taken credit for the beheading of American journalist James Foley in Syria. Have the monsters infiltrated our southern border? Kirby says the Pentagon has no evidence of that happening.

That won’t stop the Texas governor from making potentially reckless statements. He’s got a proven record of it already.

What if DA was a Republican?

Politicians will tell you every time they dislike hypothetical questions or scenarios, especially when they present potential threats.

With that in mind, let’s pose this hypothetical question: Would the governor of Texas call for the Travis County district attorney to resign after her drunk driving conviction if she were a Republican?

I doubt seriously that would have happened.

You know the story, yes?

DA Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, was caught driving drunk. She was booked into the jail and made quite a scene during her processing. She runs the public integrity unit out of her office, which has been investigating some high-profile Republicans, such as attorney general candidate Ken Paxton. Republican Gov. Rick Perry got wind of her drunk driving arrest and threatened to veto money appropriated for her office if she didn’t quit her job. He made quite show of it that threat, in fact.

I happen to agree with the governor on one point: Lehmberg should have resigned, as she lost her credibility as a prosecutor because she had done the very thing for which she sends others to jail. I said so at the time of her arrest.

A grand jury took up the case and indicted the governor on two felony counts of abuse of power and coercion.

Perry has responded defiantly, accusing the grand jury of gross politicization.

OK, then. Back to the question. Would the governor have said a word about the DA had she been a member of his own party?

My trick knee is throbbing as I ponder that and it’s telling me Gov. Perry would have kept quiet.

Has the governor, then, fallen victim to the white-hot politics of the moment?

Judge to Perry: Nix that threat talk, governor

The Rick Perry Story has taken another strange twist.

A judge has warned that the Texas governor might be violating the law by threatening grand jurors who indicted him this past week on charges of abuse of power and coercion.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/judge-warns-against-perry-grand-jury-threats/ng6zb/

Judge Julie Kocurek of the 309th District Court, admonished the governor for saying this: “I am confident we will ultimately prevail, that this farce of a prosecution will be revealed for what it is, and that those responsible will be held to account.”

The grand jury indicted Perry on felony charges involving his veto of money for the public integrity unit run by Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg, who had been convicted of drunk driving. Perry demanded her resignation; she refused to quit; she served her time in jail; Perry vetoed the funds.

The Austin American-Statesman reports that the only people Perry could be threatening would be the grand jury, the judge and the prosecutor. Kocurek, a Democrat, says Perry’s statement could be construed as a violation of state law.

As the American-Statesman reports: “The Texas Penal Code that outlaws obstruction and retaliation says that anyone who ‘intentionally or knowingly harms or threatens to harm’ a grand juror faces a second degree felony, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.”

I once served on a grand jury in Randall County. We all took an oath to do our job with due diligence and we promised to be faithful to state law and the state Constitution. Of course, we didn’t have any case that approached the level of interest and controversy as this one in Travis County.

Still, if I were a grand juror who did my job faithfully and diligently, I would take extreme exception to what the governor has threatened.

The grand jury would be “held to account”? For what, doing its job?

The governor ought to heed the judge’s warning … and keep his mouth shut.

Iraq terrorists 'beyond anything we've seen'

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has laid it out there.

The monsters who killed journalist James Foley comprise a group that surpasses any terror organization Americans have seen since the war on terror began.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/chuck-hagel-isil-defense-james-foley-110241.html?hp=t1

We’re in for yet another fight for our lives. We’d better get ready.

This, I submit, is what we got when we declared war on international terrorism in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

“They’re beyond just a terrorist group,” Hagel said. “They marry ideology, sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess, they are tremendously well funded. This is beyond anything that we’ve seen. So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is take a cold, steely, hard look at it and get ready.”

Hagel is referring to ISIL. They’re fighting in Syria against an enemy government and in Iraq against a friendly government. They’re vowing to bring the fight to the United States, which prompted Texas Gov. Rick Perry to suggest this week that the terror organization might already be lurking in this country.

I’m not going to suggest that we shouldn’t have declared war on terrorists after 9/11. They struck hard at us on that Tuesday morning in New York and Washington and we responded as we should have done.

Matters worsened when we invaded Iraq in March 2003 on the false premise that Iraqis possessed weapons of mass destruction that they would use against us and Israel.

What now? Do we re-enter the fight in Iraq with ground troops? Absolutely not. Do we invade Syria? Again, no.

President Barack Obama is deploying significant air power against the terror organization in Iraq. Reports indicate the strikes are working. Yes, the war must continue for as long as monsters keep killing innocent people.

Critics of the current strategy should recall the lessons of Vietnam. We fought tooth and nail there for nearly a decade. We left eventually and the communists took control of the country we fought to defend. We can commit ground troops in Iraq until hell freezes over, leave that country and the chaos we’re witnessing today will erupt.

What’s the solution?

Intense vigilance here at home against forces that seek to harm us. Yes, keep up the attacks on the Sunni extremists whom Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey describes as “an organization (that) has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision, and which will eventually have to be defeated.”

The question remains: How will we know — in this new age of open warfare — when our enemy is beaten?

Perry dips into campaign coffer

This might be the only positive — or semi-positive — thing I’ll say about Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s effort to defend himself against prosecutors who’ve charged him with coercion and abuse of power.

He’s going to use campaign contributors’ money to pay for his defense.

Good going, Gov. Goodhair.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/20/questions-mount-about-perrys-legal-fees/

There. I’ve said it.

Perry says he doesn’t want to saddle taxpayers with the cost of mounting a defense. I’ll agree to that. I don’t want to pay for his defense. I’m guessing a few million other Texans don’t want to pay for it, either.

Texas campaign finance law allows candidates — or former candidates — to use surplus campaign cash any way they wish. Some of them actually pocket the dough when they leave office. Perry is going to use contributions from supporters for what he thinks is a righteous cause.

It’s fair to ask, though, whether someone who contributes to an officeholder’s campaign does so knowing the money could be spent for some reason other than helping the candidate get elected or re-elected. Then again, if you support that candidate, then it’s reasonable to believe one would support that candidate’s effort to mount a defense against charges brought against him or her.

Perry’s got a fight on his hands. A Travis County grand jury has indicted him on two felony charges relating to his veto of funds for the public integrity unit run by Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg, who pleaded guilty to drunk driving, served her time and then refused to resign after Perry demanded her to do so. The grand jury accused Perry of abusing the power of office by coercing Lehmberg to quit.

We’ll see how it plays out.

The good news for Texas taxpayers — such as yours truly — is that we aren’t paying for the governor’s hefty legal bill.

Lawsuit to be put on hold … perhaps?

The thought occurs to me: If the speaker of the House of Representatives wants the president to concentrate on his job, might he and his Republican congressional colleagues want to delay their goofy lawsuit over Barack Obama’s alleged misuse of executive authority?

Let’s think about this.

The United States is up to its armpits in a variety of international crises: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Hamas vs. Israel. They are taking up a lot of the president’s time, attention and energy.

The speaker has been critical of the president because, he says, the president has abused his executive authority by changing parts of the Affordable Care Act without congressional approval.

Obama has countered Boehner’s contention by encouraging him to “sue me.”

But now the nation is trying to resolve these crises. Does the president need to be “distracted” by the lawsuit? I don’t think so.

Indeed, with beheadings, rocket attacks, air strikes, Americans in physical danger in hostile places, the idea of going to court over domestic policy differences seems, well, rather irrelevant.

Don’t you think?

Obama must stand strong against monsters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXQ-D7GD92o

Barack Obama likely never envisioned dealing with the monstrous behavior he and the rest of America have witnessed in recent days.

No, he took office as the nation was mired in a financial meltdown. The nation was at war with terrorists and had made progress in that effort. Osama bin Laden was still on the loose, but that crack SEAL team killed him in May 2011.

The president made another statement today about the death of a journalist in Syria at the hands of ISIL, the terrorists seeking to overthrow the Iraqi government while also fighting the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. Can there be any more complicated relationship here, with the United States despises the terrorists fighting a government we support in Iraq while fighting a government we oppose in Syria?

These monsters took the life of an American journalist, James Foley. They’re demanding we stop the air strikes against them, or else they’ll kill others held hostage.

Plus, the world learned today that this summer, the United States launched an attempt to rescue Foley and others from ISIL, but couldn’t locate him or his captors.

The president today vowed to keep up the fight against the killers. He held Foley up as a courageous journalist, while calling ISIL a band of cowards.

He used strong language, as the video attached to this post will attest. Words, though, fail to persuade terrorists bent on destroying their enemies.

The president’s response to the terrorists’ demands was to step up the air attacks against targets in Iraq.

They must continue. Let us take caution, though, to avoid that slippery slope. This nation has plenty of air power assets to deploy against the monsters. Let us use them with maximum force and prejudice.