Speak carefully … always

Secretary of State John Kerry is the latest victim of the urge to record everything everyone says every time they say it.

That does not for a moment excuse what he said the other day in what was supposed to be a closed-door meeting, which is that Israel may be turning into an “apartheid state” if it doesn’t hammer out a peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/john-kerrys-private-remarks-taped-by-reporter-187578.html?hp=l8

The term “apartheid” is poison in polite international policy company. South Africa implemented that disgraceful policy for many decades in which it denied the black majority living there the rights of citizenship. Whites and blacks couldn’t interact with each other. The policy ended with the release from prison in the early 1990s of the late Nelson Mandela. The rest is history.

Kerry’s use of the term at the very least was careless. It well may have damaged U.S.-Israel relations beyond repair.

Why wasn’t he smarter than to make his point another way? Didn’t he learn from recent history, such as the time Mitt Romney was caught on an audio recording at a fundraising dinner making his infamous “47 percent” remarks about how nearly half of Americans are going to vote Democratic because they depend on government subsidies and handouts? Didn’t he learn from the video recording of Congressman Vance McAllister making out with his staffer? There are countless other instances of people in high places being caught saying and doing things they regret because someone had a recording device hidden somewhere.

A Daily Beast reporter recorded Kerry’s statements the other day, getting past detection and apparently not heeding ground rules stipulating the meeting wasn’t open to the public.

In this world of instant communication where everyone has a set of electronic eyes and ears, the only response simply is: Too bad.

'Apartheid state'? Israel?

What in the name of all that is sensible was Secretary of State John Kerry thinking?

He was speaking in a closed-door event and then suggested Israel was in danger of becoming “an apartheid state” if it doesn’t work out a two-state peace treaty solution with the Palestinian Authority.

I heard it today and am shocked beyond belief at what he said. Should he resign, as some congressional and media critics have suggested? Not just yet. But he’d better have a clear explanation of what precisely he meant.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/28/kerry-under-fire-for-reported-apartheid-remarks-about-israel/?hpt=hp_t2

The term “apartheid” is as highly charged and offensive as they come. It was the long-standing racial separation policy used in South Africa to deny blacks any rights of full citizenship in a country in which they comprised the overwhelming majority. Only upon the release from prison of the late Nelson Mandela and the country’s first fully free and fair election in 1994 would bring an end to that heinous policy.

Now, to suggest Israel could become something similar if it doesn’t make peace with the Palestinians goes far beyond anything reasonable.

Kerry followed up his statement, recorded by The Daily Beast, with this: “… I have been around long enough to also know the power of words to create a misimpression, even when unintentional, and if I could rewind the tape, I would have chosen a different word to describe my firm belief that the only way in the long term to have a Jewish state and two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two state solution.”

Kerry has made a Middle East peace agreement his No. 1 priority since becoming secretary of state in 2013. He has worked hard to bring Israel and the Palestinians to the negotiating table. Then this past week, the Palestinian Authority announced a unity government agreement with Hamas, the notorious terrorist group that wants to eradicate Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, understandably angry with the PA, suspended the talks.

The secretary of state has harmed the peace process further by using such inflammatory language. If there is a model of government diversity and democracy in the Middle East, it is Israel. The nation has a significant Muslim minority; its government has installed Muslims in key positions; it remains a bastion of freedom in a region governed by tyrants.

Yes, John Kerry should have chosen his words more carefully. If he cannot make it right — and soon — with Israel, then he should consider resigning.

Kissing congressman to bow out

Vance “The Kissing Congressman” McAllister has announced he won’t seek re-election to a seat he’s held only since this past November.

Good deal. He should go home and try to restore his marriage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/28/vance-mcallister-wont-seek-reelection-but-plans-to-finish-his-term/

McAllister is the Louisiana Republican who was caught on video making out with his married female staff member, who since has resigned from his staff. Meanwhile, her husband has all but declared his marriage to be over.

What makes this story so bizarre is that McAllister sold himself to his Louisiana constituents as a God-fearing, Bible-thumping, family values-oriented congressman who loves and cherishes his wife and five children. Why, he even ran TV ads touting his love of family.

Then he got caught planting a serious wet one on his staffer … and all heck hit the fan.

What’s more, the husband of the staffer then revealed that McAllister said prior to the election that he was going to remake himself into Mr. Family Man just for the political advantage he would gain.

Well, Rep. McAllister will be gone at the end of the year. Congress will shed itself of one more hypocrite. If only the rest of them would follow suit.

Vise tightens around Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin may be an atypical world leader, coming as he does from a world of spooks.

He does, however, hang with people with lots of money — which doesn’t make him much different from other heads of state and/or government.

Thus, the increased sanctions announced today by President Obama just might persuade the Russian leader to end his effort to foment unrest in Ukraine.

http://time.com/79080/russia-ukraine-putin-obama-sanctions/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+%28TIME%3A+Swampland%29

The White House announced that it is implementing further economic hardship on individuals and companies close to Putin. Obama called it a “calibrated effort” designed to inform Putin of the folly of his continued presence in Ukraine’s sovereign affairs.

The sanctions already announced have had an impact. The Russian ruble’s value has plummeted, along with the Russian stock exchange. Russian investments have tanked.

Have the efforts persuaded Putin to back off? No. They have, however, persuaded the Russians to seek a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis, which exploded several months ago with the ouster of Ukraine’s pro-Russia president and the subsequent annexation of Crimea into Russia.

We’ve seen a lot of blustering among Russians, Americans, NATO and the European Union. No one should really believe all-out war is going to erupt, despite claims by both sides that the other guys want to start a shooting war.

“The goal here is not to go after Mr. Putin, personally,” Obama said. “The goal is to change his calculus with respect to how the current actions that he’s engaging in in Ukraine could have an adverse impact on the Russian economy over the long haul.”

Actually, Mr. President, the goal seems to be to go after Putin “personally,” which is OK with me and I am guessing a lot of other Americans.

Make him squirm.

Hillary not 'formidable'?

George Will said over the weekend that Hillary Rodham Clinton could be a damaged presidential candidate if she runs in 2016.

He said she is “not formidable.”

Interesting, don’t you think?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/27/george_will_hillary_clinton_not_a_formidable_candidate.html

Will took note of what he said was the “last time” a major party had a coronation for its presidential nominee. He mentioned Adlai Stevenson’s nomination in 1956. The Democrat then went on to suffer his second consecutive landslide loss to Republican Dwight Eisenhower, who himself was “crowned” by his own party in 1952.

My own memory provides another example of a political coronation. In 1964, the country was reeling from the death of President Kennedy. The man who succeeded him, Lyndon Johnson, began pushing through much of JFK’s unfinished legislative agenda, including the Civil Rights Act.

Democrats were in no mood to fight over that nomination, so they crowned LBJ as their nominee and he then went on to trample GOP nominee Sen. Barry Goldwater in a historic landslide.

It is highly unlikely that Hillary Clinton would win the presidency in two years in such a fashion. It will be competitive, hard-fought and — I hope — edifying for voters.

However, to say the former first lady, senator and secretary of state is “not formidable” is to suggest George Will has been listening too intently to Republican hacks who keep looking for scandals where none exists.

Sterling deserves due process, but …

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver says the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers deserves “due process” to determine whether that was him making some despicably racist statements over the phone.

However …

The voice on one end of that phone conversation has to be that of Donald Sterling.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nba-sterling-clippers-20140427,0,5276359.story#axzz308vCAjB1

How do I know that?

Because the voice has a distinctive tone. The person has a unique speech pattern. It would seem to be a sure-fire lead-pipe cinch that it belongs to Sterling, who reportedly told his girlfriend that she shouldn’t associate with African-Americans and that she shouldn’t bring them to basketball games featuring the team he’s owned for three decades.

This is an amazing, and still-developing, story.

Players throughout the NBA have expressed outrage over the racist rant overheard on that phone call. Coaches have condemned it. Owners have done so as well. The sports world is reeling over the conversation reportedly between Sterling and his girlfriend. Almost as bizarre is the fact that the girlfriend — known as V. Stiviano — is young enough to be Sterling’s granddaughter; what’s more, she’s reportedly of mixed races, half Latina and half African-American.

What has been Sterling’s response? It’s to say that he doesn’t share the view expressed by “the voice” heard on the phone. Has he denied saying them? Well, not precisely … which leads me to believe that’s him on the recording.

What, then, is to learn through “due process”? I suppose it is whether the phone conversation was spliced and edited to make it sound as though Sterling is a racist. That, too, can be determined quickly.

I don’t know what the sanctions ought to be against the owner if it turns out he said those hideous things. Can the league strip him of his ownership? Can it ban him from ever attending an NBA game in the future?

It’s incredible that the owner of a professional sports franchise with athletes comprising most African-American men would believe such things. Sadly, though, that appears to be the case.

Jeb gets conflicting advice

Jeb Bush’s mother doesn’t want him to run for president.

Jeb’s father reportedly is all in favor of his running.

Who between them has the former Florida governor’s ear? Well, Jeb Bush says he’s “thinking about” running for the Republican nomination for president in 2016.

I guess that settles it. Dad’s preference wins out.

Or does it?

Jeb Bush’s dad, of course, is the 41st president, George H.W. Bush. “Mom” is none other than the strong-willed Barbara Bush, who’s known to speak her mind with great candor.

Mrs. Bush said a few months ago that the country has seen “too many Bushes” in the White House, meaning her husband and her eldest son, George W. Bush, who served two terms as the 43rd president of the United States.

I’m a bit intrigued, however, at the thought of another Bush presidential campaign against someone named “Clinton,” who in this instance is Hillary Rodham Clinton, the wife of the man who beat George H.W. Bush in the 1992 campaign and who has served as a U.S. senator from New York and as secretary of state in the administration of Barack Obama, against whom she ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

Jeb Bush’s governorship is generally thought to have been a successful one. He’s an articulate advocate for more, shall we say, moderate views within the Republican Party.

Were he to ask my opinion, I’d encourage him to run. He seems to have the fire in his gut and he certainly has the experience.

Yes, I know that the Bush brand — even within the Republican Party — isn’t a plus for Jeb. Other possible Republican contenders aren’t exactly extolling the virtues of George W.’s presidency. That’s a problem for the younger brother.

Still, Jeb Bush must weigh the conflicting advice of two quite admirable people: his parents.

Good luck deciding this one, Gov. Bush.

Presidential election change at hand?

The passage of time tends to make me reflect on some long-held positions, reconsider them and possibly look for avenues of change.

That seems to be happening with my long-standing support of the Electoral College system of electing presidents. Momentum for a change seems to be building, according to The Hill newspaper.

Will popular vote elect president in 2020?

The Hill reports that 11 states have enacted legislation ending the winner-take-all provision for doling out electoral votes.

Proponents of the change say that the 2020 presidential election might be the first to pick a president that relies on the popular vote rather than the current method.

This is a huge deal. I’m still officially undecided on whether I want it to change, but I am ready to keep an open mind on it.

The Hill reports: “Criticism of the current Electoral College system stems from its ‘winner-take-all’ approach, which awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that particular state. Winner-take-all systems generally mean presidential candidates ignore the states they know will go red or blue and focus their campaign efforts on battleground states instead.”

If a candidate wins a state, he or she wins all of that state’s electoral votes. Texas boasts 38 such votes. It’s a big prize. However, given that the state is so reliably Republican, candidates in recent years rarely have ventured here to compete for our state’s electoral votes. They concentrate instead — almost exclusively — on the “swing states,” such as Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. As The Hill reports: “In the 2012 presidential election, for example, two-thirds of campaign funding went to four states: Colorado, Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Aside from other events in handful of states, the majority of the country was ignored.”

I can recall a trip my wife and I made to Greece in November 2000. I was attending a series of meetings sponsored by the Greek press ministry. That year’s U.S. presidential election was not yet decided. Vice President Al Gore won more votes than Texas Gov. George W. Bush and the candidates were fighting over a recount of ballots in Florida. The winner of that battle would win the presidency.

The question kept coming at me from my Greek hosts, who are quite sophisticated about these matters, given that their country gave birth to democratic government as we’ve come to know it: How is it that someone can get more votes than the other guy and still lose an election? I had difficulty explaining how the Electoral College system works. Frankly, the more I tried to explain it, the less I began to believe in it.

Well, Bush won the battle with a razor-thin Supreme Court decision over Florida’s ballots and became president despite losing the popular vote.

Now the tide to fundamentally reform the presidential election process may be turning in favor of those who want to change it.

Something tells me this discussion is just now picking up steam.

Abbas finally sees light on Holocaust

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said what most of the rest of the world already knows: The Holocaust committed against Jews in Europe was a dastardly act by the 20th century’s most despicable tyrant.

Now we’re getting somewhere.

http://news.msn.com/world/abbas-calls-holocaust-most-heinous-crime

Abbas made the statement the other day after spending a lifetime denying the Holocaust even occurred.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who’s angry with Abbas for agreeing to a “unity government” that includes the infamous Hamas terror organization, isn’t so sure Abbas’s statement is a sincere belief on his part. He thinks Abbas is trying to make nice because of the agreement with Hamas.

Whatever his motive, Abbas is right to acknowledge what he calls the “most heinous crime of modern history.”

It would be worth the Palestinian president’s time to tour the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum, near Jerusalem. There he will see exhibits depicting in graphic detail what Adolf Hitler and his Nazi murderers did to an estimated 6 million European Jews before and during World War II. He will see evidence of the death camps, the testimonies of survivors, the videos of the corpses discovered by Allied troops who liberated Europe from the Nazis.

Abbas’s statement runs counter to what many Arab leaders have said about the Holocaust. They have denied it or have downplayed its significance to those who fled to Israel after World War II.

He now ought to sit down with other Arab leaders and persuade them of what he has come to understand about the Holocaust.

Is it windier and dryer than ever?

A particular sentiment seems to be creeping into more Texas Panhandle residents’ conversation.

It is that the wind and the dirt that is blowing through the air is “the worst I’ve ever seen” in the Panhandle.

I heard it yet again this morning at church from a 60-something friend who’s lived here all her life. Others have made similar statements to me for the past several weeks as the wind just won’t relent.

Here and there folks are suggesting the wind that’s howling and the dirt that’s filling the air remind them of the bad old Dust Bowl days.

I won’t go that far. First of all, the Dust Bowl occurred 70-plus years ago. Second of all, the footage I’ve seen of events such as Black Sunday defy description.

Setting all that aside for a moment, let’s just consider that we’re likely in for a prolonged dry spell. Weather forecasters aren’t giving us much reason to believe a radical change in the weather is coming soon.

We’re in the grip of a drought that’s entering its fourth year. We had a slight break in 2012 from the lack of rainfall. So far this year, our precipitation level is about a third of what it’s supposed to be. Our winter snowfall was a good bit below normal. Lake levels are receding, streams are dry and grass used to feed our cattle is hard to find. Thus, ranchers are selling their cattle under weight because they cannot afford the high cost of grain to keep them fed.

It’s a mess out there.

What’s the lesson here? Two things come to mind.

First, we need to stop worrying about the wind, suck on some throat lozenges and perhaps say a prayer for more rain. Does prayer work? Well, someone has to prove to me it doesn’t. Absent that proof, I’ll keep asking for some divine intervention.

Second, cities need to start talking more proactively about water conservation. Amarillo is beginning such a conversation, but officials are saying mandatory restrictions aren’t yet on the table. I’m not so sure that’s necessarily a wise course to take in light of this drought. City Hall needs to start talking loudly and often about the need to conserve water and it ought to prepare immediately to enact a mandatory plan if we don’t get relief in, say, the next 30 days.

Meanwhile, batten everything down, folks.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience