Tag Archives: New York Times

You go, Cindy Stowell!

17xp-jeopardy_web1-master768

I’ve been doing something quite unusual the past few days.

I have been planning my days around a TV game show. “Jeopardy!” airs in Amarillo on KFDA NewsChannel 10 every weekday afternoon at 4:30. I’m planning to tune in once again Monday to see how a young woman from Austin does on her fifth appearance as a contestant.

Cindy Stowell has won more than $100,000 while dispatching opponents over the course of four days. Her back story is astonishing to the max.

Stowell has died. She left this world on Dec. 5, about a week before her appearance on “Jeopardy!” was to begin airing. She competed while suffering from cancer. She knew she had little time to live. So did a few program staffers and the show’s  host, Alex Trebek.

Stowell agreed to donate her winnings to cancer-related research charities.

“Jeopardy!” producers aren’t divulging how much longer Stowell will be on the show; as the champ, she competes until someone beats her.

The New York Times reported today that this show — already immensely popular — has developed a unique following as the nation watches this amazing, brave young computer programmer compete in the amazing brain-teaser game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/cindy-stowell-jeopardy-death.html?_r=0

As the Times reported: While it’s not unusual for the show to establish back stories for the contestants, the viewers’ knowledge of Ms. Stowell’s condition ‘is to share a sad secret with her,’ Seth Rosenthal wrote at SB Nation.

“’I sit in awe of a brilliant woman earning every last dollar she can for the causes dearest to her; building a sum of infinite potential in the face of her own finality,’ he said. ‘I have never rooted harder for anyone to win anything.’”

Neither have many of us. This story breaks my heart and lifts my spirits … all at once. Amazing!

Hoping for the next true American hero

08butlandweb-master768

Dale Butland has written a truly depressing essay about the death of John Glenn.

Writing for the New York Times, Butland — who once worked for the one-time Ohio U.S. senator — seems to think Glenn is the “last American hero” … ever!

I wince at the thought. I shudder to think that there won’t be someone who can capture Americans’ hearts the way Glenn did in 1962.

The essay itself isn’t depressing. Its premise, though, surely is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/opinion/john-glenn-the-last-american-hero.html?smid=tw-share

Do I have any clue, any idea where the next hero will appear?

Of course not!

However, I am going to remain the eternal optimist that we haven’t yet traipsed through the portal that takes us all into some parallel universe where no heroes can ever exist.

Sure, Glenn was an exceptional American. A Marine Corps fighter pilot who saw combat in World War II and Korea. The astronaut who became the first American to orbit the planet. A successful business executive. A close friend of John and Robert Kennedy and their families. A four-term U.S. senator. A man who got the call once again, at age 77, to fly into space aboard the space shuttle Discovery.

He became “an American legend.”

That, dear reader, is a full life.

Is he the final legendary figure ever to walk among us?

Oh, man … I pray that someone will emerge.

‘Smart’ to avoid paying taxes? OK, how do we fix what’s wrong?

tax-return-form

Thomas Friedman asks “How could we?” elect someone who says things he says.

The New York Times columnist, naturally, is referring to Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee who keeps spouting rhetoric that’s either ridiculous, false, ludicrous … or all of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/opinion/trump-how-could-we.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Let me focus on one of the statements Trump has uttered that makes no sense at all.

Friedman writes: “How do we put in the Oval Office a man who boasts that he tries to pay zero federal taxes but then complains that our airports and roads are falling apart and there is not enough money for our veterans?”

Yes, Trump has bragged about how he uses tax laws to his benefit … even though he denies saying it. He denied saying it Monday night — when the entire nation heard him say it into a microphone that was working quite nicely.

So, does he suggest that while he works to avoid paying taxes that others are to foot the bill to fix all those infrastructure things he says are falling apart?

Veterans’ care? Who pays for that if Trump seeks to avoid shouldering the tax bill required to give veterans the health care they need?

Hmmm. Well, as a veteran myself, I believe I now shall express my personal disgust and revulsion at what Trump has said about whether he’s going to pay his fair share of taxes.

Is it smart? Well, I guess so if you’re just a rich guy. It’s pretty damn stupid, though, for someone who is running for president of the United States of America.

Covering a ‘charlatan’? Do so thoroughly

25kristof-master675

I totally understand where Nicholas Kristof is coming from as he implores the media to do a better job of covering a “charlatan” such as Donald J. Trump.

His column in the Sunday New York Times lays it out there.

The media must call the Republican nominee out in “real time” for the lies he tells about himself, his business ventures, his foes and the state of American standing in the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/how-to-cover-a-charlatan-like-trump.html?_r=0

Yes, by all means, do so with great vigor.

Tonight, though, as Trump stands for 90 minutes on that stage with Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, the moderator has one job only: to moderate the commercial-free spectacle.

NBC News’s Lester Holt is an accomplished broadcast journalist and anchor. He will ask tough and probing questions of the candidates, who’ll be forced to answer each other.

As for the fact-checking, Holt will have plenty of help from fellow journalists watching from near and far to do what they must do: set the record straight for voters who will have to decide whether to believe the charlatan masquerading as a serious candidate for president of the United States of America.

This should be a fun evening. Don’t you think?

Tax returns, Trump, tax returns … release them!

21wed1web-master768

I am taking a bit of a leap here in challenging the New York Times on an editorial … with which I happen to agree.

The Times says Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump needs to release his tax returns. He needs to do what candidates of both parties have done since 1976. There’s no law requiring him to release the returns; it’s merely been customary for candidates to do so to reveal to the public just how they conduct their personal financial business.

Here’s the editorial. Take a look. The Times raises excellent points.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/mr-trumps-stupid-excuses-on-taxes.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

What the Times missed, though, is a simple point: It didn’t challenge Trump’s assertion that he’s being audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

The audit is the lame excuse he and his campaign team — mainly his sons — have used to keep the information from public information. The IRS, though, says an audit doesn’t preclude releasing the tax returns.

More to the point, though, is that Trump hasn’t even provided evidence that the IRS even is conducting an audit. He hasn’t given us any indication of a letter, or a notice, or a note tossed in over the transom alerting him of the audit.

He is asking us to take his word for it that the IRS is conducting an audit.

All of this is a shameful, disgraceful display of hypocrisy and duplicity from someone who for years demanded proof of President Obama’s place of birth and his academic records … not that any of it matters to those who have backed his candidacy.

OK, Donald Trump. The time has long passed for you to come clean and do what you have demanded of Barack Obama.

This can’t be ‘fun’ for Reince Priebus

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD - MARCH 04:  Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus participates in a discussion during CPAC 2016 March 4, 2016 in National Harbor, Maryland. The American Conservative Union hosted its annual Conservative Political Action Conference to discuss conservative issues.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Reince Priebus very well might have the toughest, most demanding white-collar job in the United States.

He is the chairman of the Republican National Committee and he is facing the daunting task of electing someone who systematically is destroying the party’s brand.

I come to this conclusion after reading a lengthy article in The New York Times Magazine, which came to my house tucked inside my Sunday New York Times.

Here’s the article. It’s long, but it’s worth your time:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/magazine/will-trump-swallow-the-gop-whole.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fmagazine&action=click&contentCollection=magazine&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Donald J. Trump is about to be nominated by the Republicans as their next presidential candidate. How did he get to this point?

Priebus doesn’t answer the question directly, except to say repeatedly during the article that Trump has brought an entirely different dynamic to this year’s presidential contest. It’s almost immeasurable. Trump’s rise has thrust the GOP into an enormous identity crisis.

About the time Trump shows signs of wising up and “maturing” as a candidate, writes Mark Liebovich, he flies off the rails. His insults have prompted various pithy reactions from former GOP rivals. Bobby Jindal called him a “madman who must be stopped”; Marco Rubio labeled Trump a “con man,” a “fraud” and a “lunatic”; Lindsey Graham called Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot”; Rick Perry called him a “barking carnival act” and a “cancer on conservatism.”

This kinds of labels have this way of sticking to politicians’ backsides..

And to think that the chairman of the Republican Party must find a way — somehow! — to rally support for the party’s presidential nominee.

Whatever he earns as party chairman, Reince Priebus is going to have to work for it.

Trying to take Trump comments seriously

trump

Maureen Dowd is one of my all-time favorite columnists.

She writes with an inimitable flair for the New York Times. She takes on serious topics with a sometimes-unserious tone, which is all right with me. Her brilliance is shown by her ability to know the boundaries she mustn’t cross. Truly serious topics get the serious treatment they deserve in her essays.

I am having trouble, though, with one of her occasional topics. It’s Donald J. Trump, the presumed next Republican Party nominee for president of the United States. The trouble comes when I read quotes attributed to Trump in one of Dowd’s columns and question whether they’re real. Did she make this stuff up? Is he really, seriously responding in this manner?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/the-mogul-and-the-babe.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Even the headline, referencing “the Mogul and the Babe” makes me wonder. When you read the piece, you learn that “the Babe” has nothing to do with a beautiful woman.

Dowd writes about the meeting Trump had this past week with House Speaker Paul Ryan. It was just supposed to be the two men. Here’s Dowd: “They let Reince Priebus stay. ‘He’s a hard worker and a good guy,’ Trump said.”

Gee. That’s deep.

What about Trump’s infamously insensitive campaign style? More from Dowd: “So Ryan didn’t ask Trump to stop making remarks that alienate women? ‘No,’ Trump said, ‘he wants me to be me.’ So much for the showdown.

“When I asked if he had been chided by any Republicans for his Twitter feud with Elizabeth Warren, he replied, ‘You mean Pocahontas?’ So much for reining it in.”

Here’s one more example. Dowd mentioned Texas U.S. Sen. John Cornyn’s advice on how Trump should deal with Hispanic Americans: “I noted that John Cornyn said he gave Trump some tips on how to discuss illegal immigration more sensitively to woo Hispanic voters. ‘I love getting advice,’ Trump deadpanned. ‘It’s just what I need, just what I need is more advice. The 17 people I beat are still giving me advice.’”

As I read this Dowd essay this morning, I was struck by how shallow and self-serving Trump’s answers were … how they always are.

I’ll keep struggling to make sense of what Trump says and try to determine if what I read is intended to be taken at face value.

Dowd declares at the start of her column that she is decided to “dispense with satire.” Thus, she would have us assume she wrote this piece with actual answers to actual questions.

But did she? Really?

Yes, he got the Nobel Peace Prize

obama nobel

The New York Times has posted a story that bestows a dubious legacy on President Barack Obama.

He’s about to exit the presidency after serving two full terms with the country at war.

His time in office will include more time at war than FDR, Richard Nixon, LBJ or Abraham Lincoln, the Times reports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/obama-as-wartime-president-has-wrestled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

I doubt very much that President Obama is going to tout this legacy, particularly as he starts serious planning for his presidential library.

It brings to mind something I brought up in this blog a while back, which is his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize during the first year of his presidency.

He’ll never give it back. I’m not suggesting he should, although I did write a blog that said I wouldn’t be all that upset if he did.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/11/11478/

The Nobel committee honored the then-brand-new president as a rebuke, or so it has been speculated, to his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush. The Nobel panel thought little of President Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq and many analysts suggested that awarding Obama the Peace Prize was meant to stick it in Bush’s ear over the Iraq War.

The official reason was that the Nobel Prize committee felt Obama had the promise of bringing the world to a new era of peace.

It hasn’t happened.

Is it the president’s fault? Does he shoulder the burden of continuing conflict around the world? No.

We’re still killing terrorists. We’ve been fighting a virtual all-out war with the Islamic State, which emerged from the rubble of the Iraq War as that country established a Shiite Muslim government, which is anathema to the Sunni Muslims comprising the Islamic State.

It’s clear that Obama delivered on his pledge to end our active combat role in Iraq. The Afghan War rages on as well, with troops remaining in that theater well past the time the president had hoped to bring them home.

I remain a supporter of Barack Obama. I believe he did a masterful job of infusing aid to shore up an economy in free fall. I also believe he’s done well in developing alliances around the world.

This wartime presidential legacy, though, is one that shouldn’t make any of us proud … least of all the man whose time as leader of the Free World is about to end.

 

Unity? It’s not necessary, according to Trump

12TRUMPMANDATE-master768

There once was a time when political unity spelled success for candidates who traded on it.

In 1968 and again in 1972, Democrats nominated candidates for president who sought to win with their party in shambles.

In 1976, Republicans nominated an incumbent president who had to fight for his political survival against an insurgent.

In every case mentioned here, the disunited party lost the election.

Is that going to happen in 2016? Those of us who’ve been proven wrong at almost every turn about the Republican primary campaign should hold our thoughts to ourselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Donald J. Trump says unity isn’t a prerequisite for him winning the election this fall. The Republican Party is ripping itself into pieces over this individual’s pending nomination for president.

Big deal, says Trump. He has a “mandate” to keep doing what he’s been doing, Trump says. According to the New York Times:

“Mr. Trump, in a telephone interview, compared his candidacy to hit Broadway shows and championship baseball teams, saying that success begot success and that he would be foolish to change his behavior now.

“’You win the pennant and now you’re in the World Series — you gonna change?’ Mr. Trump said. ‘People like the way I’m doing.’”

Still, he’s going to meet Thursday with House Speaker Paul Ryan and some other leading Republicans to talk about, oh, unifying the party.

I’ve become more of a political traditionalist as I’ve gotten older. I once worked real hard to elect the late Sen. George McGovern in 1972. It didn’t work out for us.

I now believe unity is better for the candidate than disunity.

Trump needs virtually all Republicans — and a lot of Democrats and independents — to vote for him if he intends to take the presidential oath next January. My own sense is that he’s still got a gigantic hill ahead of him.

Far more women view him unfavorably than favorably; same with Hispanics and African-Americans. He’ll need far more of them if he has a prayer against the Democratic nominee, who likely will be Hillary Clinton.

Does he obtain majorities with those key voting blocs by leading a divided, disjointed and dysfunctional Republican Party?

For the life of me, I don’t know how he does that.

Then again, I don’t know how this clown finds himself on the doorstep of a major-party presidential nomination.

 

Well stated, Mr. Chief Justice

chief-justice-roberts

How about that John Roberts?

The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has rebuked the U.S. Senate — here it comes — for playing politics with the appointment of the next justice on the nation’s highest court.

Chief Justice Roberts did not know he was doing so when he made the remarks, as they came just a few days before the shocking and tragic death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

He noted the partisan nature of the votes for recent appointees to the court. According to the New York Times: “Look at my more recent colleagues, all extremely well qualified for the court,” Chief Justice Roberts said, “and the votes were, I think, strictly on party lines for the last three of them, or close to it, and that doesn’t make any sense. That suggests to me that the process is being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees.”

The court, of course, has a vacancy to fill. President Obama has selected D.C. Circuit Court Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat. Senate Republicans say they want the next president to make the call, denying the current president the opportunity to fulfill his constitutional responsibility.

Chief Justice Roberts, served with Garland, surely must believe his judicial colleague is as “extremely well qualified” as justices Alito, Kagan and Sotomayor — whose confirmations were approved on largely partisan votes.

Roberts is on point with his call to consider these nominations on the merits of the individual’s qualifications.

No one has heard hardly a whimper from anyone questioning whether Merrick Garland is qualified to determine the constitutionality of federal law.

The opposition is being mounted for purely political reasons.

John Roberts says such posturing should stop.

I happen to agree with him.

As the chief said in his remarks preceding Scalia’s death: “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans and I think it’s a very unfortunate impression the public might get from the confirmation process.”