Media get undeserved 'blame' in Baltimore

Blame the media for covering it.

That’s a line being tossed out by the president of the Baltimore City Council in response to the rioting that has erupted in the city in the wake of the Freddie Gray death and funeral.

Gray died of a severed spine while he was being arrested by police. Rioters exploded in a violence reaction to the death of another African-American man at the hands of police.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/28/anderson_cooper_baltimore_mayor_has_worrying_lack_of_control_yet_she_blames_the_media_for_filming_it.html

CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked a pertinent question: What are the media supposed to do when police cars are burned, when police officers are injured and when people’s property is destroyed by rioters?

The media are not to blame for the violence in Baltimore. The blame rests squarely — and exclusively — on the shoulders of the thugs who fomented the rioting and who have taken zero responsibility to behave as responsible citizens.

News, by definition, are those events that run counter to what’s considered normal. By my way of thinking, torching buildings and injuring innocent people in response to a man’s death qualifies as “news.”

The media must cover these events.

Do not blame media outlets for doing their job.

Baltimore becomes new face of urban insanity

Now it’s Baltimore’s turn in infamy’s spotlight.

A young man, Freddie Gray, died in police custody after suffering a severed spine. He was African-American.

Two weeks later, while the young man was saying good bye to him at his funeral, Baltimore erupted.

Thugs tore into innocent bystanders. Police were assaulted, some of them were injured seriously. Property has been damaged and destroyed.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/baltimore-devolves-into-chaos-violence-looting/ar-BBiKXpR

This is how one responds to tragedy? This is how you seek to make political allies to whatever cause you seek to promote?

The nation is witnessing a shameful act of willful destruction.

The violence and destruction defies my understanding of what goes through people’s minds at times like this.

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said this: “Too many people have spent generations building up this city for it to be destroyed by thugs who, in a very senseless way, are trying to tear down what so many have fought for, tearing down businesses, tearing down or destroying property. It’s idiotic to think that by destroying your city, you’re going to make life better for anybody.”

How, then, do you deal with idiocy?

Huck needs to cool the rhetoric

“We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity.”

That was the Rev. Mike Huckabee in a conference call to conservative activists. The one-time Baptist preacher and former Arkansas governor is going to announce soon his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination and this is going to be a theme of his second White House campaign.

Honestly, he needs to settle down.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/27/republican-candidates-evangelicals_n_7148310.html?ir=Politics&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Huckabee and a host of other GOP candidates are roiling the party’s base by using scary rhetoric, declaring that there’s a phony war against Christians in the United States. Rick Santorum says it. So does Bobby Jindal. Same for Scott Walker. They all oppose same-sex marriage and suggest that this issue is pretext for the war against Christian belief in this country.

I once considered Huck to be a fairly reasonable man. He ran for president in 2008 and acquitted himself fairly well during much of the GOP primary. He’s gotten a bit overheated in recent years. His statement now about the threat of “criminalizing” Christianity goes beyond what’s reasonable discourse.

He knows that’s not going to happen. Ever.

In this supercharged political climate, it plays well among the party’s base, which seems to believe anything that its political leaders say out loud.

 

Conservatives show quick trigger fingers

You have to hand it to conservative political leaders, who demonstrate time and again how quick they are to seize an initiative and outflank their liberal foes.

Take the call by religious leaders for liberal U.S. Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from an upcoming hearing on same-sex marriage.

http://thehill.com/regulation/240163-religious-leaders-want-justices-restrained-from-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage

They contend that Kagan and Ginsburg have put their personal views on the subject above the U.S. Constitution and thus have surrendered their moral authority to decide on this issue.

Is there a more impractical demand than this?

It wouldn’t fly any more than some liberal political interest — say, the American Civil Liberties Union — demanding that conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas recuse themselves because of their often-stated bias against same-sex marriage.

The court is going to hear a case, Obergefell v. Hodges, involving same-sex marriage bans in four states — Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky. The justices might rule that states cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution that guarantees citizens the right to equal protection under the law; or, they might rule that states have that authority.

It should be decided, quite naturally, by the full court comprising liberals, conservatives and swing justices, such as Anthony Kennedy and, possibly, Chief Justice John Roberts.

Still, the hair-trigger response by faith leaders demanding the recusal by liberal justices offers a lesson in how to make a quick-strike political demand.

They’ve honed the strategy almost to an art form.

 

Bush needs refresher on his own blunders

George W. Bush had followed his father’s doctrine upon leaving the presidency in January 2009.

Do not criticize the man in the office now. Be quiet and go about the business of doing other pertinent activities.

Then the 43rd president spoke to a group of Republican donors over the weekend and proceeded to rip into Barack Obama’s handling of crises in the Middle East.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/27/the_swaggering_idiot_returns_george_w_bush_emerges_from_artistic_exile_to_rehab_his_disastrous_legacy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

From what is known about President Bush’s remarks — they weren’t recorded visually or audibly — he apparently spoke without a hint of understanding about his own foreign policy blunders in the region and the mess he created and left for his successor.

Iraq? The war he started against Saddam Hussein because he was “certain” that the dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction? The former president made no mention, of course, of the fierce resistance our forces encountered in a country that his defense secretary and vice president said would greet us as “liberators.”

Instead, the ex-president chose to criticize the current president for seeking to negotiate a deal that rids Iran of its capability to develop a nuclear weapon. He talked about the chaos that has developed since the United States went to war against the Islamic State.

Think about this for a moment. The Islamic State has risen in Iraq because it wants to restore a Sunni government that U.S. forces evicted from power. Yes, ISIL is an evil organization, but the ex-president is showing no inclination for taking a shred of responsibility for what has developed because of what this country did on his watch in the White House.

Chaos? President Bush created enough chaos to go around when he launched the Iraq War in March 2003.

I much prefer the George W. Bush who once understood what his father still understands: He’s had his time in the hot seat, which now is occupied by someone who’s doing the best he can to protect the nation all presidents profess to love.

 

Repeal 'Obamacare'? Are conservatives nuts?

Congressional conservatives have rocks in their heads. They’ve gone ’round the bend. They need some smelling salts.

They’re angry with House Speaker John Boehner who they believe is stalling their effort to get a bill that repeals the Affordable Care Act to the desk of the president of the United States — who hails the ACA as his signature domestic legislative achievement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/conservatives-obamacare-repeal-republicans-117364.html?hp=t1_r

Gosh, what do you suppose President Obama is going to do when he receives a bill repealing the ACA?

Sign it into law? Guess again.

Put it on ice? Hardly.

Veto it outright? Yes.

The ACA happens to be working. It’s gaining popularity among millions of rank-and-file Americans — particularly those who now can afford health insurance whereas before they couldn’t.

Their effort is doomed to fail. As Politico reports: “House Republicans have already voted more than 50 times to try to defund, alter or overturn the health care law that conservatives despise. The latest effort, if it happens, would no doubt fail, too — and there are some indications that GOP leaders are ready to move on. But getting a bill to President Barack Obama’s desk and forcing him to veto it would send a powerful symbolic message to the Republican base that House conservatives haven’t given up on scuttling the law.”

That’s the point, I guess: make the base happy.

They want the law repealed, no matter what. The rest of the country? Well, the tide appears to be pulling in the opposite direction.

Teachers: an underappreciated profession

Public school teachers — especially the good ones — need our appreciation and an expression of thanks for all they do to help our children find their way into the world.

One of them today received a high honor, indeed, from her peers. She happens to teach English right here in Amarillo. Many of her students are refugees, whose families have fled repression and deprivation.

Take a bow, Shanna Peeples.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-english-teacher-named-national-teacher-year-30609349

The Council of Chief State School Officers today named Peeples — who teaches at Palo Duro High School — its National Teacher of the Year. She was one of four finalists competing for the job. She’s the first Texan so honored since the late 1950s.

Shanna is a former colleague of mine who’s gone on to enrich many lives along the way. It’s an amazing story, when you consider that becoming an educator was not her first choice of professions. She’s done a lot of things in her life — and working as a journalist was one of them.

She gave up that career several years ago to pursue her real calling, which is to make a serious difference in young people’s lives.

Shanna was asked this morning why she loves teaching and she replied because teaching gives her the chance to “write the last chapter” in young people’s stories.

Public school teachers receive criticism all the time. Too little effort is made to offer high praise to the great work that many teachers do in our communities.

One of them stands as a symbol of educational excellence. She has brought great honor to her state and to her profession.

We’re all proud of Shanna Peeples.

Rain offers new appreciation

I awoke this morning to the sound of rain beating on the front of my house.

It was music to my ears.

The sound used to be like fingernails on the chalkboard. It annoyed me. I was a lot younger then, growing up in a community known for its incessant rain.

Portland, Ore., is a lovely city. It’s full of tall timber and lots of flowers. It’s called the City of Roses and every June, it stages a festival honoring the roses that are in full bloom. The highlight of the festival, for me, was the Grand Floral Parade through downtown Portland. Mom and Dad would take us every year. We’d get there early, find a nice spot on the parade route and wait for the sounds of the drums.

It seemed to rain every year on our parade, though.

Which brings me to my point.

I hated the rain as a kid. I griped about it constantly. My parents tired of me always complaining.

Then I grew up, went away for a couple of years to serve in the Army, came home, got married and eventually my bride and I moved to Texas.

We gravitated to Amarillo more than 20 years ago.

It doesn’t rain nearly as much here as it does in Portland, or in Beaumont, where my family and I lived for the first 11 years of our Texas residency. It’s not that Portland gets a lot of rain each year, it’s that it seems to drizzle constantly. We could more rain in Beaumont in an hour than would fall in Portland in a month.

I’ve come to appreciate the rain much more now. The Panhandle drought has awakened me to the value that rainwater brings to everything. To the economy, to our ability to function as a society, to the fulfillment of our basic needs — such as quenching our thirst and, you know, bathing.

I won’t complain ever again about too much rain.

Growing up teaches us the value of things that used to annoy us.

Today, I intend to enjoy the sight and smell of the rain.

Afflicting the comfortable no longer in vogue?

There’s a saying that a free press’s key mission is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

At the risk of sounding like a whiny baby who never got invited to one of these gigs, allow me now to say that the Washington Correspondents Dinner is a disgrace to the high-minded mission that the D.C. press corps is supposed to fulfill.

Check out this essay about what’s become of this annual event:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/white-house-correspondents-dinner-117287.html?ml=po#.VT2bCFJ0yt8

There’s something more than mildly offensive about seeing reporters and their dates parading along a red carpet, a la the Oscars, Tonys, Emmys and the ESPYs.

Those of us who toiled out here in the Heartland — aka Flyover Country — always have thought there ought to be a natural tension between the power brokers and those who cover them, reporting on their dealings to the “unwashed masses” who depend on journalists to tell them the truth.

Here’s how Patrick Gavin describes the event that occurred over the weekend: “What started off decades ago as a stately formal celebration of the best of presidential reporting has morphed into a four-day orgy of everything people outside the Beltway hate about life inside the Beltway—now it’s not just one night of clubby backslapping, carousing and drinking between the press and the powerful, it’s four full days of signature cocktails and inside jokes that just underscore how out of step the Washington elite is with the rest of the country. It’s not us (journalists) versus them (government officials); it’s us (Washington) versus them (the rest of America).”

Boy, howdy. I couldn’t have said it better.

The D.C. press corps has become something of an echo chamber, where journalists parrot each other’s views and simply cannot wait to be seen in the company of the famous and the powerful. In their own minds, that seems to fit the description of the people who cover government.

I loved Gavin’s note that unlike some of the other dinners — such as the Gridiron — where presidents occasionally are absent, POTUS’s attendance at the correspondents dinner seems to be required. Gavin writes:  “The last president to skip it was Ronald Reagan in 1981 and — let’s cut him some slack — he bailed because he had just been shot.”

The press’s mission to afflict the comfortable now seems almost quaint. How can it do so when the comfortable include the very journalists who keep slapping the backs and yukking it up with the folks they are sent to cover?

I much prefer the tension that is supposed to exist between the media and the government. It keeps everyone — reporters and their sources — a little more honest.

 

Non-endorsement sends dubious message

Let’s talk about newspaper endorsements and what they intend to accomplish.

Editors and publishers will tell you they aren’t intended to make voters cast ballots in accordance with what the newspaper management wants. The folks who run these media outlets seek to stay on the moral high ground. “We just want to be a voice in the community,” they say. “It’s enough just to make people think. We know we cannot make people vote a certain way and that’s not our intention.”

It’s all high-minded stuff. I used to say such things myself when I was editing editorial pages for two newspapers in Texas — one in Beaumont and one in Amarillo — and at a paper in my home state of Oregon.

But the reality, though, is that newspaper executives — publishers and editors — never would complain if elections turn out the way they recommend.

Is there a dichotomy here? I think so.

Which brings me to the Amarillo Globe-News’s non-endorsement today in the upcoming election for mayor. The paper chose to remain silent. It wouldn’t endorse Paul Harpole’s re-election to a third term as mayor, nor would it recommend voters elect Roy McDowell as mayor.

The paper did express a couple of things about Harpole. It said it is disappointed in the missteps and mistakes that have occurred on Harpole’s watch and it also predicted that Harpole would be re-elected on May 9.

Newspapers fairly routinely encourage community residents to get out and vote. They encourage them to make the tough choices. Pick a candidate, the newspaper might suggest. Hey, none of them might not be statesmen or women, but they’re committing themselves to public service.

Suppose for a moment that Amarillo voters — all of them — took the Globe-News’s non-recommendation to heart. What if no one voted for mayor? What if no voter decided that one of the two men seeking the office deserved their vote? Would the paper declare that a victory? Or would it lament the chaos that would ensue?

This is why I disliked non-endorsements back when I toiled for daily newspapers. I’ve always believed voters expect the newspaper to recommend someone in a race, even if no candidate deserved a ringing endorsement. If nothing else, some voters do rely on newspapers to provide some guidance to voters who might not have sufficient knowledge of all the issues that decide these important elections.

Recommending no one? That’s their call. However, it’s fair to wonder whether a newspaper should ask voters to do something its management wouldn’t do, which is make a choice on whom to support at the ballot box.