George Zimmerman should have gone away quietly

I’ve been thinking for the past little while about George Zimmerman, the guy who was acquitted of murdering Florida teenager Trayvon Martin in that terrible case, which drew international attention.

My thoughts have been this: If I had been found not guilty of a crime that had drawn such intense scrutiny, I just might find a way to go quietly into the night, never to be heard from again.

Zimmerman has chosen quite a different path since his acquittal.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/26/21627985-george-zimmerman-had-five-guns-when-arrested-police?lite

He and his wife have separated and are headed for divorce.

And now we have this case involving his alleged threatening of his girlfriend with some kind of firearm, a shotgun, a high-powered rifle, a pistol … something.

The latest involving Zimmerman reveals that he possesses a number of weapons, including an AR-15 assault rifle. If you’ve never seen an AR-15, they look and operate very much like an M-16 — the kind of rifle soldiers were issued when they went to Vietnam way back when.

AR-15s, as well as M-16s, are extremely deadly weapons. They fire a bullet that is barely bigger than a .22-caliber round, but they inflict maximum damage with these high-velocity projectiles.

I guess it’s not illegal to own these kinds of weapons in Florida. A judge ordered him to surrender them after Zimmerman pleaded not guilty to the charges of endangerment leveled against him.

This matters to me only because of Zimmerman’s standing as someone who was in the news — a lot — because he was accused of killing that teenager in a confrontation that occurred on a dark street one night in Sanford, Fla. He became the poster boy for — depending on your point of view — for vigilante justice or for citizens’ rights to self-protection.

I would have thought Zimmerman had gone through enough public scrutiny. He avoided punishment for a high-profile crime. He should have left town, sneaking away without being detected.

Oh, but no. He’s back in the news once again.

And he’s still packing heat.

Hasn’t this guy had enough of the limelight? Apparently not.

Two senators: same ideology, different styles

Ross Ramsey’s analysis of Texas’s two Republican U.S. senators reminded me of a political truism authored by none other than the late President Richard Nixon.

Nixon, who essentially wrote the modern political playbook, used to say that candidates run to their extremes during the primary and tack toward the center in the general election. The president’s theory applied to Democrats and Republicans.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/11/25/senate-matter-style/

That might work in most eras and in most states. Not in Texas. Not now.

Ramsey, the editor of the Texas Tribune, says Sen. John Cornyn has stepped right out of “central casting” to be a U.S. senator. White hair, former judge, former state attorney general, handsome features. “Soft face.” He says Sen. Ted Cruz presents a different image. Black hair. Fiery temperament. He’s a TV camera hustler.

Cornyn is running for re-election this year. He might face a serious challenge from his right, from the tea party — aka the wacko — wing of his party. Why? Mainly because he opposed Cruz’s tactic of tying Affordable Care Act funding with the government shutdown earlier this year.

Cornyn is a virtual shoo-in for re-election. To secure his party’s nomination in the spring, he’ll have to say all the right things. He might even have to harden that soft face of his while saying them. He’ll blast the ACA to smithereens. He’ll say mean things about Democrats in general. He might even accuse the president of being something other than a true-blue American.

In another time, though, Cornyn then would veer toward the middle, saying more reasonable things. He would talk about his desire to reach across the aisle to work his “friends on the other side.” He might even mention that he is pals with a few of those Democrats.

But these days, in Texas, the Nixon Axiom no longer seems to matter. Cornyn likely will stay focused on the far right. He might even get more inflammatory as the campaign progresses into the summer and fall of 2014. That’s because so many Texas votes seem comfortable with their senators tossing bombs.

Look at Cruz’s popularity among Texas Republican at this moment. If you’re a Texas politician, all that seems to matter is whether the GOP faithful will stand with you.

All of this could play out as described here, except for one possible factor: whether Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis’s campaign for governor gins up enough support among women angry at the GOP’s stance on abortion rights. I’m not predicting that will happen.

However, if it does, then President Nixon’s general election strategy is back in play.

Headlight repaired … hooray!

Allow me this brief post script to a blog posted on Monday.

I griped about the frustrations of dealing with a motor vehicle repair that I thought would be a simple, do-it-myself procedure.

It wasn’t.

I’d mentioned that I purchased a headlight bulb that I had hoped to install with a simple removal of installation. Then I learned that I had to remove the entire headlight assembly. I threw in the towel Monday morning and made an appointment with the service department at the dealership where we purchased our 3/4-ton pickup, which we’ve named Big Jake.

My wife took the truck in, as I had to work this afternoon. She was in and out of there in 30 minutes.

The bulb we bought from the auto parts store? It was the wrong bulb. The service tech who sold us the bogus bulb had it all wrong.

I’ll return the bulb to the store … and hope the tech is there for me to, um, set the record straight.

Iran must pay huge price for non-compliance

Congress is going to step into the Iranian nuclear program dismantling discussion if the need arises.

Go for it, lawmakers.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-eastnorth-africa/191416-congress-prepares-to-punish-tehran

The deal hammered out over the weekend between several of the great powers and Iran calls for the mullahs to take down its nuclear program over time. They must not develop a nuclear weapon. In return Iran will see a partial lifting of economic sanctions that have punished that country’s economy — and which, in my view, have helped bring the Iranians to the negotiating table after years of refusing to discuss their nuclear development program.

Iran has six months to make good on its promises. If it doesn’t, or if it reneges on any element of the agreement, then Congress is going to take action to clamp down even tighter on the Islamic Republic.

The decision to take action if Iran doesn’t comply forestalls any effort to derail the agreement brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry and the Iranian foreign minister. Yes, the agreement has drawn heavy fire from congressional Republicans and Democrats, not to mention from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who calls the agreement a “historic mistake.”

Israel remains prepared to take unilateral military action against Iran if it feels threatened. Who can blame the Israelis, given the constant battles they fight with many of their neighbors who are intent on destroying Israel?

The agreement might not be perfect, but Iran has paid a heavy price already for its refusal to talk — until now — with the rest of the world about its nuclear intentions. As for Israel’s security, Kerry says our nation’s key Middle East ally will remain secure and that the United States will continue to stand foursquare behind it.

Meanwhile, Congress is right to prepare a punishment option to have ready in the event Iran doesn’t comply with the agreement.

The task now is to persuade the Iranians that additional suffering makes it necessary for them to follow through.

Life with vehicles is never simple

I’m frustrated.

It’s not the political world about which I comment on this blog that frustrates me today. It happens to be the day-to-day life of someone with a motor vehicle that has me pulling out my hair.

I discovered this morning the headlight in my 2011 3/4-ton pickup was out. Easy fix, right? Go to the auto parts store, pick up the replacement bulb, lift up the hood, find the fitting, pull it out and insert the new bulb. Close everything up, turn on the lights and all the beams would come on.

That’s how it’s supposed to work. Right?

Wrong!

The auto parts store clerk informed us of how easy it would be. We bought the bulb for 16 bucks and change. We came home. I lifted the hood. Then I looked and looked some more for the place where the clerk said I could access the headlight. Couldn’t find it. I looked everywhere. I even looked on the other side of the massive engine compartment, thinking it might be in a special place, connected by long wires.

No luck.

So … I went to another auto parts store — same company, different location — and asked one of the sales reps there about how I access the headlight. He came out, took one look at the headlight and informed me I had to remove the entire headlight assembly to get to the bulb.

There you have it.

I’ll admit right up front that the Almighty did not bless me with automotive maintenance skills. I have learned to rely on others’ expertise for such things.

I had hoped, however, that I could repair what appeared to be a simple problem all by ownself. Alas, it’s not meant to be.

We’ll take the beastly truck this afternoon to the dealer who sold us the vehicle. The service department will spend, oh, maybe 10 minutes to replace the bulb.

I just hope they don’t charge me for the whole hour.

There. I feel better already.

‘Court-packing scheme’ is specious argument

The National Review Online is supposed to be a respected publication.

The editorial attached to this post, however, suggests that the folks who run the publication fail to understand a key component of the U.S. Constitution. It’s the part that gives the president of the United States the authority to make critical executive and judicial branch appointments.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364556/nuclear-fallout-editors

The NRO is upset with Senate Democrats’ decision to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” as it relates to the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took the highly risky step as a way to allow President Obama to have his appointments cleared from a Senate that had obstructed them through the use of the filibuster. It once took 60 votes out of 100 to break a filibuster. It now takes just 51 votes. The rule change involves all appointments except those involving the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Senate has nuked itself.

The NRO, though, says that the filibuster is secondary to what it says is the real reason for the action. “The filibuster is a minor issue; the major issue is that President Obama is engaged in a court-packing scheme to protect his dubious agenda, and Harry Reid’s Senate is conspiring with him to do so,” the NRO writes.

A number of judicial appointments have been blocked by Senate Republicans that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the men and women selected. Obama seeks to fill them because, well, he is the president and the Constitution gives the person in that office the authority to act. Yes, the Constitution also gives the Senate the right to “advise and consent” to the nominations. That role, though, should be on the basis of whether someone is qualified for the job.

I’ve long believed strongly in presidential prerogative. I’ve also believed that presidents who win elections have earned the right to pick whomever they wish to key positions. This might surprise some readers of this blog, but I supported the nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991 of one Clarence Thomas, despite the uproar that arose from his selection when a woman accused him of sexual harassment.

The complaint was never proved. Thomas was qualified to serve on the highest court. Was he the kind of judge I would have picked? No. That job, though, fell to the man who was elected president in 1988, George H.W. Bush. Therefore, the president had earned the right to seat someone of his choosing on the court.

Barack Obama has precisely the same right as any of the men who’ve served before him. The Senate shouldn’t serve as a place where these nominations are stopped because of some trumped-up scheme manufactured by his political opponents.

Court-packing? Give me a break. President Obama’s job involves making appointments. Let him do that job and let the people he selects be examined on the basis of their qualifications.

Women hold key to Democrats’ future?

Leticia Van de Putte has become the latest candidate for Texas lieutenant governor.

The biggest news of all simply might be that she isn’t a Republican. She’s a Democratic state senator from South Texas who now stands as the prohibitive favorite to win her party’s nomination in next spring’s primary.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/11/24/women-led-ticket-shows-where-democrats-pin-hopes/

Van de Putte will face a tough challenge if she hopes to break the GOP’s vise-grip on statewide offices. She joins another prominent Democrat, state Sen. Wendy Davis, at the top of the ballot; Davis is an equally prohibitive favorite to be the Democratic nominee for governor.

As the Texas Tribune points out in the link attached to this blog post, Democrats may be targeting suburban women as their essential voting demographic group. Women, Democrats hope, just might be upset enough at Republicans’ view of abortion that they’ll turn out in sufficient numbers next year to elect fellow women to high office.

It’s a big risk. Texas Republicans have good reason to be confident as election year approaches.

Their candidates — namely Attorney General Greg Abbott — are flush with money. Abbott is the clear favorite to win the GOP governor’s primary and he is in strong position to win the big prize next November. Davis presents Democrats with their strongest gubernatorial candidate in many election cycles. Van de Putte joined Davis this past spring in battling legislative Republicans over a restrictive GOP-sponsored abortion laws.

Will these two candidates be able to parlay that notoriety into votes this coming fall?

Democrats hope so. In a state that remains solidly in Republican hands, their hope might resemble a pipe dream.

I do know this: A most interesting lieutenant governor’s race just got even more so with Leticia Van de Putte’s entry.

Iran nuke deal: mistake or triumph?

Here is what I understand about the deal brokered in the wee hours today to persuade Iran to stop its nuclear development program.

* For the next six months, United States and other nations will be allowed daily access to Iran’s agreement to dismantle some of its nuclear enrichment program.

* There will be a lifting of a tiny fraction of the sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

* The six-month interim agreement will enable the great powers and Iran to continue negotiating toward a comprehensive long-term agreement aimed at eliminating the threat that Iran would develop a nuclear weapon.

* If the Iranians do not comply with all the elements of this agreement, the sanctions will be restored and Iran will continue to pay a huge price as a rogue nation.

And this, according to Republicans in Congress and our friends in Israel is a “historic mistake”?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/24/21591860-historic-mistake-israelis-republicans-condemn-iran-nuclear-deal?lite

I happen to have great sympathy for the Israeli point of view here. I got to spend five weeks in Israel in 2009 and saw first hand the damage that has been inflicted on that country by forces dedicated to Israel’s elimination. Iran is one of Israel’s sworn enemies.

However, let’s look at a bigger picture here.

Iran has returned to the negotiating table with much of the rest of the civilized world. That, by itself, must be considered a positive development. Iranians say their nuke program is intended for peaceful purposes. No one believes that contention. I surely don’t.

However, the Iranians understand the price they are paying — through the sanctions imposed by the world — is too great a burden for their people. It is surely plausible for them to want to restore some semblance of normalcy in their dealings with the rest of the world, and agreeing to work toward the end of its nuclear development program is one avenue toward that restoration.

The newly elected Iranian president has declared his intention to change Iran’s relationship with the rest of the world. Is he to be believed? Well, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls Iranian President Hassan Rouhani a “wolf in wolf’s clothing.”

Netanyahu’s view of this agreement is stained by the blood that has been shed already in his country. I get that. However, from my perch many thousands of miles away, I am interested to see how stern the United States and our allies will be in holding Iran accountable for following through on this huge agreement.

Secretary of State John Kerry says there is “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israeli positions regarding the end of Iran’s nuclear program. Kerry says the United States stands foursquare with Israel.

Let us now move forward on this agreement — and make damn sure Iran complies.

Share the credit over good energy news

Politics by definition is a competitive sport of sorts, with folks on one side trying to get the advantage over those on the other side.

So it is with the news about U.S. energy production.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/191163-white-house-gop-battle-over-energy-production-surge

Republicans say they deserve credit for their hands-off policies that have allowed energy producers to explore for fossil fuels on private lands. Democrats hail their policies that have promoted more renewable energy resources, decreasing the demand on fossil fuels.

Who gets the credit for some good energy news?

Both sides deserve a share of it. Why not spread the good cheer around?

Oh, I forgot. Politics gets in the way.

My Republican friends here in the Texas Panhandle aren’t willing to give those blasted Democrats any credit for anything. They contend that Democrats have worked to stifle energy production by seeking to ban exploration on public lands and by creating a tax environment that makes it cost prohibitive for energy producers to, well, produce energy.

Some of that criticism is fair. Some of it isn’t.

Democrats, led by the president of the United States, have sought to incentivize exploration and production of alternative energy. Wind, solar and hydro power are replacing fossil fuel-driven energy plants.

Automakers are getting smarter about building more fuel-efficient motor vehicles.

It’s not that we’re no longer drilling for oil and natural gas. The Energy Information Administration reports that the U.S. energy producers developed 7.7 million barrels per day in October, which means that the country produced more oil than it imported for the first time since 1995.

All of this news, taken together, gives all the principals a hand in this relatively good news.

The Obama administration has helped it along with its push toward greater use of alternative energy sources. Republicans have done their part by pursuing greater exploration for domestic fossil fuel.

There. Share the credit.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience