Obama still went to a ballgame …

NC_obama_baseball_07_mm_160322_12x5_1600

President Barack Obama has been second-guessed — big surprise there, right? — about his decision to attend a baseball game in Havana in the aftermath of the terror attacks in Brussels.

Republican presidential candidate John Kasich said if he was president, he would have packed up his gear and returned to D.C. immediately to take charge of the U.S. response.

That’s fine, governor. Except that you aren’t the president. The man who’s in the hot seat now says quite clearly that the terrorists’ aim is to disrupt the lives of everyone in the world — and he would have none of it. As he told ESPN: “The whole premise of terrorism is to try to disrupt people’s ordinary lives … it’s always a challenge when you have a terrorist attack anywhere in the world.”

Indeed, let’s look back at what President Bush said in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Didn’t he say quite the same thing, that we should go about our daily lives without fear? Didn’t say something like, “Go shopping”?

Barack Obama offered the nation’s support to the Belgians who are reeling in the wake of this horrific attack. He has dispatched military and intelligence officials to assist and help coordinate the pursuit of the monsters who did this deed.

As has been noted here and elsewhere, the president of the United States is never disconnected from the world.

So what if he went to a ballgame?

I’m pretty sure the state-of-the-art intelligence apparatus we all pay for is on the job.

 

‘Dr.’ Jerry Jones issues his diagnosis on CTE

jones

Jerry Jones engenders fairly strong emotions among those who follow professional football in the United States of America.

He bought a team in 1989 and then fired the only coach the team ever had, the iconic Tom Landry. Then he decided to forgo hiring a general manager and he took over the job himself. He made some comment at the time about getting involved in “everything, including washing jock straps.” (I know it’s not a precise quote, but it’s close enough.)

How have the Dallas Cowboys done since then? Well, they’ve won some and lost some. Yes, they have won three Super Bowls since Jones took over as owner. Still, the team, it’s safe to say, has fallen far short of the expectations its brash new owner set for it.

The word on Jones ever since he bought the team, though, is that he’s not necessarily a good “football guy.” Brilliant businessman, sure.

Now he’s popping off about the effect of the sport in which he participates on a brain disorder called chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

The good “doctor” says there’s no connection between gigantic men colliding full-force into other men, knocking them senseless and then being afflicted with CTE. He calls assertions linking football to CTE “absurd.”

Jerry Jones needs to have his own head examined.

He said the National Football League lacks sufficient data to suggest the existence between CTE and the collisions that occur on the football field.

I do believe Jones is seriously — and tragically — mistaken.

Thus, I should recommend that Jones watch a brilliant PBS documentary that got the nation’s attention a couple of years ago. “Frontline” broadcast “League of Denial” that chronicles a gripping series of cases involving men whose lives were shattered by CTE.

What did these men have in common? Every one of them played competitive American football.

“Frontline” peeled the skin off a disorder that has shattered many lives. Insufficient data? It’s out there, Jerry. Really.

The NFL acknowledges it. So should the owner of the Dallas Cowboys.

 

Now the spouses have become targets

90

When did Melania Trump and  Heidi Cruz become candidates for president of the United States?

Oh, wait! They merely are married to men who are running for the office. Now, though, they’ve become subjects of social media messages fired by one of the Republican presidential candidates.

Let’s hold on for a wild ride, shall we?

A super PAC not associated with U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign apparently posted an ad that contained a picture of Melania in the nude. Donald J. Trump responded that “Lyin’ Ted” needs to be careful or else Trump would reveal something about Cruz’s wife.

These attacks are getting tiresome, not to mention way, way off topic.

Trump took down the tweet he put out there about Mrs. Cruz. However, as we know, social media’s impact is immediate, as in instantaneous. It’s like trying to unhonk a horn; it cannot be done.

As for the British GQ article and the picture about Mrs. Trump, well, that’s apparently been out there a good while, having been published in 2000.

I’m just one individual living out here in Flyover Country.

I’d like to offer a suggestion to these two men — neither of whom ever would get my vote for president.

How about avoid talking about your wives? You guys — not the women you married — are running for the presidency. It is your views on the issues that interest me and, I presume, millions of other Americans who are paying attention to this campaign.

The rest of this baloney is tawdry and unbecoming of the office you are seeking.

Then again, so are some of the things the actual candidates for president have said about each other.

 

Define whose ‘awful legacy,’ Mr. President

Bubba and The Worst President Evah

Former President Bill Clinton is paying the price for speaking without maximum precision.

So is the presidential campaign of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The 42nd president, while speaking on his wife’s behalf, asserted it is imperative that voters erase what he called the “awful legacy” of the past eight years.

That’s it. Awful legacy. He didn’t identify whose legacy to which he was referring.

Pundits, politicians and just plain folks were left, therefore, to presume he meant the president’s “awful legacy.”

The borrow a term: Oops!

The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately sought to clarify what he meant, which was the legacy of the Republican-controlled Congress that, according to the campaign, has obstructed President Obama at every turn along the way.

OK, but he didn’t say it. He didn’t say “Congress’s awful legacy.” Then again, neither did he say “Barack Obama’s awful legacy.”

However, since the president is the Main Man in any political discussion, we are left to presume the former president was talking about his successor.

Right?

President Clinton, of course, has gotten into this kind of word-parsing mess before.

Recall his grand jury testimony during the Lewinsky Scandal when he sought to tell the panel, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” That verbal miscue has become embedded in U.S. political lexicon.

I doubt this one will endure quite as long.

Still, for a seasoned politician — which Bill Clinton certainly is — to speak so imprecisely in the heat of a critical campaign really does make some of us wonder: What in the world did he really say — or mean?

Perhaps he can blame it on jet lag.

 

Let’s get real, Sen. Cruz … patrol Muslim neighborhoods?

cruz

Ted Cruz is reacting just like a politician seeking any advantage he can find.

The Texas Republican U.S. senator and a leading candidate for president, responding to the terrorist attacks that killed dozens of people in Brussels, Belgium, has called for law enforcement to “patrol Muslim neighborhoods” in the United States.

He believes “political correctness” and “fear” are preventing U.S. officials from doing enough to prevent terror attacks in this country. It’s time to “utterly destroy” the Islamic State and other terror cells.

No argument on the destruction of ISIS, senator.

But tell us, please: How are we going to define “Muslim neighborhoods”? Are there such enclaves in major American cities? Houston, which it Cruz’s hometown, has the largest Muslim population of any city in Texas. Where are those Muslim neighborhoods?

How about we concentrate fully on another course?

Let’s instead redouble our intelligence and military efforts to destroy ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and other terror cells abroad. Hasn’t the federal government already declared its intention to “destroy” these murderous cults? Hasn’t the president vowed to protect Americans? Aren’t we killing bad guys each day with air strikes, using manned and unmanned aircraft?

And aren’t we intercepting efforts to bring terror to this country?

We should vow to stand with our allies who are grieving at this moment over the senseless and brutal loss of life in Belgium, just as we have done for allies in Paris and in all places where the terrorists have struck.

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, denounced Cruz’s statement.

“It’s really beyond belief that you have one of the leading presidential candidates calling for law enforcement to target religious communities totally based on the fact that they are of a particular faith,” Hooper told the Washington Post. “In normal times, this would be the sort of thing that would disqualify someone from running for dogcatcher, much less president of the United States.”

Well, Mr. Hooper, here’s a flash. These aren’t “normal times.” We have this presidential campaign going on in the midst of a fearful climate — and candidates for the highest office in the land are likely to say just about anything to get their names in front of the public.

There’s a lot of fear being spread — not just by the terrorists, but also by politicians who think they stand to benefit from it.

 

Now it’s Brussels …

brussels

Good morning, my fellow Americans.

We awoke today to more horror across The Pond. Terrorists have struck again, this time in Brussels, Belgium. At least 34 people are dead. All of them are innocent civilians. All of them presumably leave behind loved ones who are grieving.

Who did this dastardly deed? It’s a good bet the act has the signature of the Islamic State or some other monstrous organization.

It’s no coincidence, certainly that the attacks came just days after Belgian police apprehended the last surviving suspect in the Paris attacks of a few months ago.

The nature of our enemy cannot be condemned enough.

They attack so-called “soft targets,” which is another way of saying they go for the most vulnerable victims. They people just like the rest of us doing what they do normally.

Then their lives are shattered. Gone in a spasm of violence.

Yes, this fight must continue for as long as it takes.

The 9/11 attacks of nearly 15 years ago opened our eyes to the threat that’s always been there.

We went to war against the terrorists. How in the world do we declare victory against this evil that lurks among us?

Our hearts are broken yet again this morning as we ponder what’s happened abroad. Yet we must remain as vigilant as ever.

 

About those human rights abuses …

BBqKETv

U.S. foreign policy abounds with hypocrisy.

We support some nations while opposing others, citing issues in those nations we oppose that are commonplace in the nations with which we are friendly.

I bring to you … Cuba.

President Barack Obama is visiting the island nation, becoming the first U.S. president to set foot in Cuba since Calvin Coolidge.

His foes back home keep yammering about the human rights abuses that the communists in Havana are guilty of committing. Why, we can’t allow Americans to travel freely there; we can’t commence trade with Cuba; we can’t let our guard down.

What’s the deal, then, with other nations with which we have reasonably healthy relationships?

The People’s Republic of China? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Vietnam?

Sure, we have differences with many nations around he world, including those I’ve just mentioned.

But the communists who run governments in China and Vietnam treat their citizens badly whenever they speak out against their leaders. The Saudis refuse to grant full rights of citizenship to roughly half of their citizenry; I refer, of course, to women. What’s more, the Saudis are known to execute criminals in public.

My point is simply this: Let’s stop the griping about Cuba’s human rights record, suggesting that it’s a disqualifier for U.S.-Cuba relations. Yes, let’s keep the pressure on Cuba to do better.

We can bring the change we want there by engaging them fully.

 

Hey we may be friends, but we’re not that close

arm raising

Talk about an awkward moment.

It happened today at the end of a joint press conference with President Barack Obama and Cuban leader Raul Castro.

The picture attached here tells it all.

Castro sought to raise President Obama’s hand in some sort of show of bilateral solidarity.

Obama would have none of it. He managed to avoid grasping Castro’s hand and when the Cuban president raised the U.S. president’s hand, he ended up grabbing his wrist.

President Obama’s hand went limp.

It was really a strange sight. Don’t you think?

I suppose President Obama might have taken offense at the scolding Castro delivered to American reporters who had the temerity to ask him about human rights abuses in Cuba. Or maybe it was Castro’s insistence that the United States give back the land it owns at Guantanamo Bay.

Or … maybe it was that it’s just a bit too early in this rebuilt relationship to grasp hands and lift them jointly in a show of unity.

The nations have some distance yet to travel before they get to that point.

Thus, I believe President Obama — without saying a word — delivered a message of his own to his Cuban hosts.

 

Anti-Cuba lobby still flexes its muscle

26editorial-cuban-american-videoSixteenByNine1050

The anti-Castro/Cuba lobby in the United States has been outsized for as long as I can remember.

Perhaps we are witnessing this week the latest manifestation of that muscle-flexing as President Obama tours the tiny island nation and gets skewered by those on the right for doing what many others of us think is the right thing.

Which is to normalize relations  with the communist regime.

It’s a curious thing to watch the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the leader of a dirt-poor Third World state. Then to have that tinhorn lecture the leader of the Free World about whether the United States should keep possession of its naval base at Guantanamo Bay gives the Cubans a dubious and overstated standing — and then to have critics pounce on Obama for taking it!

To what do we owe this strange juxtaposition?

I believe it’s the power of that Cuban-American community that resides mostly in Florida.

The community had its birth in the late 1950s when Cubans fled their nation that had been taken over by Fidel Castro and his gang of communists. They took up residence in Florida and began immediately pressuring the U.S. government to do more to destroy Castro.

President Eisenhower heard them. He formulated plans to invade Cuba and then handed the keys to the Oval Office over to President Kennedy in January 1961, who then launched the Bay of Pigs invasion.

It didn’t turn out well for our side. The Cubans squashed the small force, took prisoners and then crowed about how the big, bad U.S. government was intent on destroying them.

Then we had that missile crisis in 1962. JFK took care of it by blockading the island, forcing the Soviet Union to “blink” and remove the offensive missiles.

By 1991, the Evil Empire had vaporized. Cuba was left without its major benefactor.

Still, five decades after the revolution, Cuba has remained a communist dictatorship. Fidel Castro handed the power over to his brother, Raul, who welcomed President Barack Obama to his nation.

Is Cuba a nation to be feared? Do we tremble at the thought of normalizing relations with this tiny nation? No. Why should we? We’re the big kids on the block. Heck, we’re the biggest kids on the planet!

Our politicians, though, have been told to fear Cubans by that overblown Cuban-American community.

So here we are. The president of the United States is making history simply by visiting an island nation that sits within spittin’ distance of our southeastern-most state.

Sure, the Cubans must do more to improve human rights on their island. The president should tell them so.

I don’t know why we should sweat so much over whether Raul Castro listens to us. He and that backwater government he runs can’t do us any harm.

My own sense is that normalization of relations with Cuba by itself is going to do more to bring reform to a nation that needs it in the worst way. Soon enough, the Cubans will see what the rest of the world really looks like.

They also are likely to see how their giant neighbor just over the horizon relishes the fruits of liberty.

Then they might start demanding it from their leaders.

 

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.”

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience