Sir Paul coming to West Texas

My pal Chip Chandler explores an issue with an obvious answer.

Writing in the Amarillo Globe-News, Chip takes note of an appearance set for June 14 of one of the greatest popular music icons of the past century. Sir Paul McCartney will appear at Lubbock’s United Spirit Arena.

“Why don’t we get big concerts like that?” Chandler asks, knowing the answer fully.

http://amarillo.com/entertainment/get-out/2014-04-16/paul-mccartney-plays-lubbock-june

Amarillo doesn’t have a venue nearly suitable for the likes of Sir Paul. You remember the band in which he was a member, yes? The Beatles? The little band that included John Lennon, George Harrison and Ringo Starr.

Well, The Beatles gave it up as a group 40-plus years ago and McCartney has forged a pretty nice career on his own. His albums have been so-so of late, but he still puts on one hell of a concert.

A point of personal privilege: My wife and I saw Sir Paul at the Houston Astrodome one summer night in 1993 where we sang “Hey Jude” among other classics with Paul — along with 55,000 other fans crammed into the one-time Eighth Wonder of the World.

I rather envy Lubbock for having the United Spirit Arena. It was built in the late 1990s and opened with another pretty good act: Elton John, who sold out the place in a matter of minutes. I suspect Paul McCartney will do the same the moment the tickets go on sale.

The Cal Farley Coliseum ain’t nearly big enough, or stylish enough to play host to someone of McCartney’s stature, as Chandler notes.

Sigh. We’ll have to make do with reunion concerts, the occasional country star and over-the-hill pop bands that show up from time to time — although we did catch a pretty rockin’ Doobie Brothers concert at the Coliseum in 1997.

Sir Paul McCartney will get a wild welcome to West Texas when his band starts kickin’ it.

I, too, wish he’d come here.

Is Seliger going to endorse?

The thought occurred to me recently that the Texas lieutenant governor Republican runoff has a direct impact on every one of the 31 men and women serving in the Texas Senate.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is running against state Sen. Dan Patrick in the GOP runoff set for May 27. The winner will face state Democratic state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte this fall.

So, here’s the question: Who will Sen. Kel Seliger of Amarillo endorse in the Republican runoff? Maybe there’s another question: Should the Republican endorse anyone?

Here’s what I know — or think I know — about the principals involved.

Dewhurst and Seliger work well together. Dewhurst, as the presiding officer of the Senate, has given Seliger a key committee chairmanship, Higher Education. Seliger would like to chair the Education Committee when the 2015 Legislature convenes. Dewhurst would seem willing to grant Seliger his wish — if he is re-elected this fall.

Seliger and Patrick have a so-so relationship. I don’t think they’re enemies, although I believe Patrick is being pushed along and counseled by individuals and groups who aren’t particularly friendly to Seliger. Patrick would do away with the two-thirds rule in the Senate that requires two-thirds of senators to support a bill before it goes to a full vote; Seliger has told me he supports the two-thirds rule as it helps build a semblance of bipartisanship in the Senate.

The situation gets sticky, though.

Patrick is now considered a near-prohibitive favorite to win the runoff. A lot of pols and political watchers are writing Dewhurst off. He’s toast, they say. Key staffers have left his office, many of whom have returned to the private sector. It’s getting harder to remember that Dewhurst once was considered a shoo-in to be elected to the U.S. Senate seat when Kay Bailey Hutchison announced her retirement; then along came Ted Cruz to burst that bubble.

To whom should Seliger throw his support? Does he back the guy with whom he’s worked in the Senate, but who now looks like the loser in this runoff? Does he swallow hard and back the other guy with whom he’s had an OK relationship?

Or does he just remain silent until the smoke clears on May 27 and endorse whoever finishes first?

I’m thinking Seliger is going to wait this one out.

Treat Klan as terrorists

A Northeastern University professor has put forward a provocative notion: Perhaps the U.S. government should include the Ku Klux Klan as an enemy in its war against terrorism.

Why not, indeed.

Max Abrahms, a political science professor and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, took on the KKK-terrorist issue in a column on Politico.com. He writes:

“There is still no consensus over the definition, but terrorism usually denotes a nonstate actor attacking civilian targets to spread fear for some putative political goal. And here we had a 73-year-old lone wolf opening fire on a Jewish community center and retirement home on Passover eve yelling ‘Heil Hitler.’”

The “here” involved the killing of three people on Passover eve in Overland Park, Kan. Police arrested a known Klan leader and virulent anti-Semite. Granted, the suspect hasn’t been convicted of anything — at least not yet — but he seems to many observers to be acting like someone who is guilty of killing those three innocent victims.

Let’s suppose, though, the Klan leader-suspect had nothing to do with it, does the Klan’s violent history make it any less of a candidate as a terrorist organization? Hardly.

Back to Abrahms’s point …

“But what does it take for a hateful act to become a full-fledged terrorist attack? You might think the distinction hinges on lethality. A year ago this week, though, the Boston Marathon bombings killed the same number of bystanders, and Americans had little trouble fingering the incident as terrorism. And over the years, the Klan has killed many more Americans than has Al Qaeda, and the group has certainly fanned its share of fear,” he writes.

Do we launch drone strikes in the back woods of some remote region in the country where KKK members are known to plot their dirty deeds? Of course not. The Klan and other domestic hate groups, though, do “terrorize” citizens with their threats and their actions.

Why not call them what they are and then act as if we’re at war with them?

Abrahms’s full essay is here. Take a look.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-kkk-is-a-terrorist-organization-105717.html?hp=r2#.U05gB1JOWt8

Terror group won't die

Al-Qaida is “stronger than ever,” says the Republican chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee.

Interesting, eh?

The infamous terrorist group has been seen in a large gathering in Yemen, apparently getting past U.S. intelligence officials whose job is to ensure that these gatherings don’t occur.

Chairman Mike Rogers is alarmed, as he and all of us should be.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/mike-rogers-al-qaeda-105722.html?hp=r4

It never has been assumed that al-Qaida would wither and die the moment those U.S. Navy SEALs gunned down 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May 2011. You kill one leader, and others would surface to succeed him. That’s been the thought all along.

The troubling part of this is that al-Qaida seemingly is strong enough to appear to be plotting major attacks against the United States. The video of the Yemen meeting shows terrorist group leaders meeting in the open in plain view. Others’ faces are blurred, but the meeting is large and is occurring right under the nose of U.S. drone aircraft supposedly on the hunt for these very types of terror group gatherings.

The fight will go on, regardless of whether our troops are fighting in Afghanistan; that military engagement is scheduled to conclude at the end of the year.

However, our “war on terror” must continue vigorously — and with vengeance and extreme prejudice.

ACA costs reduced? Maybe

The Affordable Care Act will cost the federal government less money than originally thought.

Good news, yes? Maybe.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/cbo-cuts-costs-obamacare-billions

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has reduced the estimated cost of the ACA to the government, which ought to bring cheer to those of us who support the ACA in principle. It also ought to be grim news to those who hate the law they refer to derisively as Obamacare.

I plan to wait to hear what the ACA haters have to say before I take this bit of news to the bank.

The 2014 costs were reduced by about $5 billion from the estimated $41 billion projected initially, according to the CBO. Longer-term costs, to 2024, have been cut by $104 billion, says the CBO.

I’ll conceded that $104 billion over the course of the next decade isn’t a lot of money in the grand scheme of things as it relates to the federal budget. It’s tough to call 104 bil mere “chump change,” but it kinda/sorta is, if you get my drift.

It’s still less money out of the public coffer, which ought to cheer the skeptics — given that CBO reports usually toe the non-partisan line.

No one should expect anyone who’s disposed to detest the law to cheer anything that resembles positive news relating to the ACA.

I’ll be waiting to hear how both sides spin this bit of information.

A 'higher standard,' indeed

The kissing congressman, Vance McAllister, R-La., needs to follow a “higher standard” than what he’s exhibited so far, says the chairman of the U.S. House Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.

Greg Walden, R-Ore., whose job is to ensure the election of Republicans to the House of Representatives, stopped short of saying McAllister should quit his House seat over the makeout video that was released showing him planting a wet kiss on a female staffer.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/04/walden-declines-to-say-whether-mcallister-should-resign-186791.html?hp=r15

I kind of believe McAllister also needs to answer another tough question: Is he — or is he not — the devoted Christian family man he portrayed in his campaign ads prior to winning election to the House seat in 2013?

There are several victims in this escapade. One is McAllister’s wife, the mother of the couple’s five children. Another is Heath Peacock, the husband of the staffer with whom McAllister was seen making out.

The husband said something quite interesting the other day in response to the blowback from the video. He said his marriage is essentially destroyed and then questioned whether McAllister actually was as devoted to faith as he presented himself in his campaign ads. Mr. Peacock said the McAllister he knew prior to the campaign was a “non-religious” individual and that McAllister told him he had found religion as a way to win votes.

So … which is it, congressman? Just what kind of individual did your constituents elect to represent their interests in Congress, to enact federal laws that apply to all Americans — even those of us far away from your congressional district?

Therein lies the reason the rest of the country should take an interest in what’s happening down on the bayou.

Hate crime brings emotion to full boil

A known Ku Klux Klan leader stands accused of killing three people in Overland Park, Kan.

The term “hate crime” has returned to the national discussion.

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=1030997#.U0yg8lJOWt8

Frazier Glenn Cross is now 73 years of age. Police arrested him after a gunman shot a teenager and his grandfather to death at the Jewish Community Center. The gunman shot a woman later at a retirement community a few blocks away.

Police took Cross into custody and while he was being driven away, the suspect shouted “Heil Hitler!”

Let’s see. Do you think police have the gunman in custody?

I don’t want to prejudge this case, but Cross’s outburst suggests guilt far more than innocence.

One cruel aspect of this case is that none of the victims is Jewish, even though Cross is know to hold deep anti-Semitic views. That’s really beside the point.

Police and prosecutors have decided to file hate-crime charges against Cross. The crime to be prosecuted is going to receive attention that it might not get had it not been labeled a hate crime.

Well, it should receive the nation’s attention. The suspect who’s charged with this hideous act is an unrepentant hater. If he’s convicted of this hideous act, how can a court show mercy for someone like that?

Enough of the plane coverage already!

Gosh, this is hard to admit, but Leonard Pitts Jr.’s column is on target: CNN is overdosing on the plight of the missing Malaysia Airlines jetliner.

http://amarillo.com/opinion/opinion-columnist/weekly-opinion-columnist/2014-04-13/pitts-cnns-credibility-goes-down-plane

I tune in to CNN to catch on the latest headlines and breaking news. The problem with the news network, though, is that it has redefined “breaking news” to include any tiny tidbit about an on-going story that doesn’t break any new ground.

CNN’s commentators have been among the worst in trying to determine the fate of the Boeing 777 that disappeared March 8 en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. It now appears to have crashed into the Indian Ocean somewhere off the western Australia coast. An international search team has deployed an unmanned submersible vehicle to look for the wreckage on the ocean floor.

But for the past month, CNN has been speculating out loud about the plane’s fate. “Experts” have actually suggested it was hijacked by someone and landed safely, or that it crashed on the Asian mainland in a forest so dense that no one can spot it.

The all-time best question, though, came from CNN anchor Don Lemon, who wondered out loud whether the plane might have flown into a black hole. Someone reminded him that a black hole would have swallowed the entire solar system … so that theory is out.

My heart breaks for the families of those who wonder about the fate of the 239 people on board the still-missing jetliner.

This incessant reporting — and repeating, actually — of what we already know, however, is getting to be too much for me to handle.

As Leonard Pitts writes in an open letter to CNN: “Granted, the missing jetliner is not an unimportant story. But neither is it a story deserving of the kind of round-the-clock-man-on-the-moon-war-is-over-presidential-assassination coverage you have given it.”

Tell us when you have something new to report.

Burwell a lock for HHS boss, but first …

Sylvia Mathews Burwell should be able to skate easily from her job as head of the Office of Management and Budget into her new post as health and human services secretary.

She’ll likely get there, but it will be far from an smooth ride from one high-powered government job to another.

You see, the U.S. Senate — which already has confirmed her to the OMB job — will have this other issue to continue litigating. It’s called the Affordable Care Act. Burwell is now the newest woman on the hot seat in that matter, given that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has resigned and is likely headed back to Kansas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/sylvia-mathews-burwell-democrats-obamacare-affordable-care-act-105641.html?hp=l4

Sebelius came under intense fire for the handling of the ACA rollout and the collapse of the Healthcare.gov website when the enrollment opened up in January. It all happened on her watch at HHS and she deserved a lot of the pounding she received.

Now she’s on her way out, apparently with few expressions of regret from the White House at her departure.

Burwell is known to be a cool customer who will be able to handle Republican senators’ expected tough grilling during her confirmation hearing. She’ll need all the coolness she can muster, as GOP senators likely are going to beat the daylights out of her over how she intends to implement an established law that Republicans still hate with a passion.

So, as with everything political these days, what’s supposed to be an easy transition will resemble something quite different. Hold on tightly, Ms. Burwell.

Ingraham joins ABC … so what?

Media Matters is a left-wing journalism watchdog group that takes great delight in exposing Fox News Channel’s big lie that it is the “fair and balanced” cable news network.

I agree — usually — with Media Matters’s take on Fox.

However, I think the group if off base in attacking ABC News for hiring conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham as its newest “contributor.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/13/meet-abc-news-newest-contributor-laura-ingraham/198871

Why go after Media Matters on this one?

Well, I am one who likes to see news/commentary outlets offer wide-ranging points of view. Do I agree with Ingraham’s world view? No. However, she isn’t the first conservative voice to be heard on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday news talk show. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol is a regular on the show, as was syndicated conservative columnist George Will before he left ABC to join the Fox News Channel’s Sunday talk show as a contributor.

ABC, as does NBC’s “Meet the Press,” quite often invites conservatives and liberals to sit at the same round table to discuss issues of the day. They debate. They even argue.

What is so wrong with that?

CNN, arguably the pioneer news network, does much the same thing on any of its myriad political talk shows. Newt Gingrich and Van Jones — a rightie and a leftie, respectively — are regulars on CNN’s revamped “Crossfire” program.

I don’t see why ABC is getting so worked up over Ingraham. Yes, she’s provocative and she occasionally crosses — what I consider, at least — the line of good taste and decency in making her points.

You’ve heard the old term about the “marketplace of ideas.” It’s broad, wide, deep and varied. Let all voices be heard. We’ll be the judges of who’s right or wrong.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience