medical news, national news, political news

Palin politicizes PTSD . . . and her family’s latest crisis

January 21, 2016 kanelis2012 6 Comments

There must be no barriers that will keep Sarah Palin from politicizing an event, including those that involve her family.

Palin’s son, Track, has been charged with assault. The incident allegedly involved the young man’s girlfriend and an AR-15 rifle.

Mama Grizzly’s response? She blamed President Obama for her son’s post traumatic stress disorder and his policies regarding care for veterans.

Unbelievable!

The former half-term Alaska governor happened to be at Republican presidential campaign frontrunner Donald Trump’s side Tuesday in Iowa, shrieking about how Trump was going to “kick ISIS’s ass!” while her son was being arrested and booked into jail in Wasilla, Alaska.

So she blamed the president of the United States for her son’s bad behavior.

This isn’t the first time Track Palin’s gotten into trouble because of his behavior. Recall the brawl in which he was involved in Anchorage, the one that also involved his sister, Bristol?

It might be that Track Palin suffers PTSD from his service in Iraq with an Army combat unit in 2008. If so, then he needs — and deserves — the best medical care he can find.

However, for his mother to politicize his ailment and to suggest that it’s another politician’s fault because the young man cannot control his temper goes shamefully beyond the pale.

Meanwhile, a New York veterans group has urged Sarah Palin and others to knock off the political criticism. Focus instead on the problems associated with PTSD.

As for Sarah Palin . . . your son needs help. He doesn’t need to be kicked around as a political football.

national news, political news

What if . . . Clinton loses first two contests?

January 20, 2016 kanelis2012

All right, ladies and gentlemen, it’s time once again for a little game of “What If?”

The Iowa caucuses are coming up. They’ll be followed immediately by the New Hampshire primary.

Forget about the Republicans for a moment. Let’s ponder the Democratic contest.

What if Hillary Rodham Clinton gets thumped in Iowa? She’s leading in that state — supposedly — but the margin is diminishing. Bernie Sanders might be within the statistical margin of error.

If she loses Iowa, then what if she gets pummeled in New Hampshire? Polls in the Granite State show Sanders with a huge — and growing — lead.

OK, then comes South Carolina. What if by some chance Clinton loses there, too? Momentum has a way of dictating how these things go. The e-mail controversy is beginning to swirl once again.

Clinton once was seen as the probable next president. Now? Well, she’s less probable by a good bit than before.

Are the Democrats going to nominate a “democratic socialist” who’ll turn 75 by the time of the next inaugural? Do they really want to fritter away a chance at keeping the White House in an election when the GOP is likely to nominate either a bombastic real estate mogul/reality TV star or a junior U.S. senator from Texas who no one who works with him seems to respect, let alone like?

Oh, yes. There’s another guy. The vice president of the United States, took himself out of the running. Joe Biden said he had “run out of time,” only to declare just a few days ago that he “regrets” not running, even though he said the decision was the “right one.”

Regret making the right decision?

Hmmm. Sounds to me as though regret might override right, if the once-presumed frontrunner keeps stumbling.

This election season has been full of craziness. Who’s the say there isn’t room for a little more of it?

local news, media news

Internet proves, um, wrong!

January 20, 2016 kanelis2012

Back in the day — when I toiled at a daily newspaper — I actually had the following exchange with a reader of the paper who had submitted a letter to the editor and asked me to publish it.

Me: Are you sure about your facts here? This stuff looks kind of fishy to me.

Reader: Of course I’m sure. It’s the truth. I got it on the Internet.

Suffice to say we didn’t publish the individual’s letter.

The Internet is a lot of things. The purveyor of the whole truth all the time, though, is not one of them.

Breitbart.com posted a story that has Amarillo abuzz with concern. It describes the city as a haven for Middle East refugees and that the city is being “overrun” by them.

Not so, says Mayor Paul Harpole.

I’ve got to give Amarillo Globe-News reporter Kevin Welch huge props for exposing this nonsense.

Harpole said the city is working to control all immigrants, which include refugees. The issue isn’t limited to just those fleeing bloodshed and misery in the Middle East.

But according to the Welch’s story, Brietbart.com and some other conservative websites are disseminating bogus “information” about the state of affairs in little ol’ Amarillo, Texas.

It’s been a given for years that Amarillo has been a magnet of sorts for immigrants. Community faith-based and secular organizations have done a lot over the years to welcome immigrants, as Welch reported.

The city, though, isn’t being swarmed, swamped and swallowed up by hordes of refugees, as some Internet sites have said.

The fallacy of this kind of alleged “reporting” contains several lessons.

One of them ought to become required of all who consume news and commentary. It is that the Internet is a source for fiction far more frequently than it is a source for fact.

International news

Taliban aren’t ‘terrorists’?

January 20, 2016 kanelis2012

Let us hit the reset button for a moment.

When the United States secured the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who’d been held captive by the Taliban for five years, the rationale was that the Taliban aren’t a “terrorist organization.” That’s what the White House press flack, Josh Earnest, said about the negotiation that led to Bergdahl’s release.

Our policy has been that we don’t negotiate with terrorists, Earnest said. Since the Taliban isn’t a terrorist outfit, well, that gave our side the opportunity to secure Bergdahl’s release from captivity in Afghanistan.

Then we awake this morning to news that at least 20 people have been killed in a terrorist attack at a Pakistan university.

Who took responsibility for the tragedy? The Taliban!

Someone has some explaining to do.

Many of us out here haven’t bought the notion that the Taliban is anything but a terrorist organization. The ultraconservative extremists have been terrorizing Muslim women for longer than any of us can remember. They’ve been denying citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan access to education. How do they do that? By killing them.

Isn’t that the ultimate form of terror?

It appears to be time for President Obama’s national security team to take another look at how it defines the Taliban.

They got it wrong about this monstrous organization.

national news, political news

Loyalty? Palin throws it away

January 20, 2016 kanelis2012

Well, that was fun to watch.

Former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed Donald J. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. She is the queen mother of the TEA Party movement.

The conventional wisdom had been that she’d endorse Ted Cruz for the GOP nomination.

It didn’t happen.

So now you have to wonder: Has Palin changed her stripes?

TEA Party loyalists — the hard-core folks — call Trump a closet liberal. He’s not the real deal, they say. He used to be friends with (gulp!) Bill and Hillary Clinton, for crying out loud. He’s given money to Democrats.

But then out came Sarah Barracuda today, talking glowingly about Trump.

As for Cruz, he’s now the man left in the cold.

Cruz welcomed Palin to a conservative action conference a year ago, calling her someone who “picks winners.” He called her “principled” and “courageous.”

Is she now all of those things, in Cruz’s mind? I’d bet not.

I never thought the Republican Party primary campaign could get any more fun — or hilarious — than it has been up to this moment.

Silly me. It just did.

national news, political news, religious news

We’re all sinners . . . and need forgiveness

January 19, 2016 kanelis2012

Donald Trump’s stumbling over the name of a New Testament book Monday seems to punctuate something many of us believed already.

The candidate’s bald-face pandering to a certain Republican Party voting bloc is unseemly on its face.

Trump stood before a “record crowd” at Liberty University and proclaimed the virtues of “Two Corinthians.”

OK, I am not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know the name of the book that contains the Apostle Paul’s “second letter” to the people of Corinth. Moreover, I’ve read “Second Corinthians” many times over the years.

Trump, though, has said something else that reveals the pandering element of his pitch to Christian voters. It is that he’s never sought forgiveness because “I don’t need it.”

Trump didn’t say it overtly, but statements such as that suggest he believes he is without sin. Now, the Bible I’ve read my entire life tells me that we’re all sinners. Every single human being who’s ever been born needs forgiveness for his or her sins.

I don’t intend to pick apart every single thing Trump said at Liberty University, nor do I intend to question Trump’s personal faith journey. Maybe it’s the real thing. Then again . . . well, I just don’t know.

I do recognize pandering when I see and hear it.

Look, I know that politicians pander. It’s part of their DNA. They have to pander to persuade voters that they — the politician — understands them.

Some politicians do it better than others. Trump has said all along he’s not a “career politician.” His performance at Liberty University certainly proves the point — and not necessarily in a way that should make the candidate proud.

Check this out.

State news

Bland jail death case still not resolved

January 19, 2016 kanelis2012

One can make at least this assumption about the arrest of a young woman.

It is that she well might be alive today if the Texas state trooper who arrested her had followed proper police procedure.

Sandra Bland, though, is dead after hanging herself in her Waller County jail cell. The Department of Public Safety trooper, Brian Encinia, has been indicted by a grand jury for falsifying the circumstances of Bland’s arrest.

DPS commander Col. Steve McCraw has told the Texas Tribune that the trooper blew it and that the agency is going to terminate the officer.

Now . . . is there cause for a wrongful death lawsuit, which Bland’s parents have filed against the state? I don’t know and I hate to speculate about that matter.

Bland was pulled over this past year in a traffic stop. She and Encinia got into an argument after Bland allegedly failed to signal properly prior to making a lane change. The trooper, rather than calming the young woman down, escalated the argument. She left her vehicle and, according to the trooper, struck him while he was taking her into custody.

To think that someone is thrown into the slammer for a lane-change violation. Good grief.

Well, the grand jury doubted the allegation that Bland had struck Encinia. Hence, the indictment.

This case drew national attention after corrections officers found Bland dead in her jail cell. I don’t believe she was killed by authorities in the lockup, which some had speculated. I believe she took her own life.

But the root cause of the entire tragic situation goes back to the arresting officer and his abject failure to follow proper policy.

I hope this incident has awakened police officers and their commanders to the dangers of every-day police work.

What’s more, I also hope it drives home the point that no traffic stop is never, ever routine.

***

See the video of Col. McCraw’s interview with Texas Tribune editor in chief Evan Smith.

http://www.texastribune.org/2016/01/19/video-a-conversation-with-steve-mccraw/

national news, political news

Don’t be overly ‘audacious,’ Mr. President

January 19, 2016 kanelis2012

President Obama hardly seems like an “audacious” fellow.

Remember the “No Drama Obama” mantra during his first term in the White House? That was meant to describe a president who disliked being overly aggressive in the pursuit of foreign or domestic policy.

I guess that’s about to change now that the president is entering his final year in office.

He wants to ponder “audacious” executive actions, things he can do unilaterally without the approval of Congress.

Presidential prerogative is an important element of governing. I’ve long believed in it, given that the president is elected nationally.

Barack Obama has used the power of his office — granted by the U.S. Constitution — relatively sparingly during his seven years in the White House. However, some of the orders he’s issued — such as those on immigration and on gun control — have caused considerable consternation.

Are they illegal? Is he “lawless,” as some Republican presidential candidates keep alleging as they toss out the red meat to their supporters from the stump? No on both counts, in my view.

But the president’s “audacious” use of executive authority clearly must have its limits.

I will continue to have a large measure of faith that the legal eagles in the Justice Department and in the White House’s West Wing know the limits set forth in the Constitution. What’s more, the president keeps reminding us that he taught constitutional law once.

So, if Congress isn’t going to help govern the country along with the White House, proceed, Mr. President.

But please, young man, be careful.

business news, national news, Uncategorized

Landline = lifeline . . . still

January 19, 2016 kanelis2012 1 Comment

Another friend of mine has announced he’s cutting himself loose.

He’s my age. A peer. A former colleague. A friend to this day.

He and his wife are cutting the cord, so to speak, by ending their landline telephone service. I guess they’re going to be a cell phone family.

My wife and I have wrestled with that issue for nearly as long as we’ve owned cell phones, which isn’t as long as most of our peers. We’ve waffled and wavered. We just cannot cut the cord ourselves.

Our sons are cell phone-only telecommunications consumers. They like it that way. They take their phones with them wherever they happen to be.

Us? We remain tethered to the landline.

We’ve had them our entire lives. They have become part of who we are, I reckon.

Do we intend to stay tied to the home phone, the landline for the rest of our lives? I doubt it, strongly.

I’ve noted on this blog about our upcoming retirement plans. They include significant amounts of time on the road. We’ll, quite obviously, be spending less time “at home” and more time in our “home away from home,” our fifth wheel.

Thus, it makes little sense for us to keep the landline. Correct?

I get it. My wife gets it. Our sons no doubt snicker at us for being so, oh, wedded to the old way.

Too bad.

For now and for the foreseeable future, we’re going to stay hooked to the landline. I cannot explain precisely why we want it that way. We just do.

When the moment presents itself, when it’s time to cut ourselves free of the telephone line, we’ll know it when it arrives.

International news, national news, political news

UK leaders want to ban Trump?

January 18, 2016 kanelis2012

Donald Trump has insulted his way to the top of the Republican Party presidential heap.

Suffice to say that if British Parliament members had a vote in this country, why, they would do all they could to keep anyone from endorsing Trump.

The House of Commons today debated whether to ban Trump from entering the United Kingdom. It’s all in the wake of Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the United States, as well as plenty of other things Trump has said along the presidential campaign trail.

To be honest, I don’t think that Parliament needs to debate this issue. Indeed, the decision rests ultimately with the British home secretary.

Still, we’ve heard a snootful from the Brits about Trump.

It ain’t pretty.

Trump doesn’t care who he insults. He should, at least in this case.

Great Britain is arguably our most loyal ally on the planet. Sure, we shook off the bonds of the British Empire in the 18th century and then fought them again in the early 19th century. Since then? We have been side by side through two world wars, the Cold War and now in the war against international terrorism.

What on Earth could be transpiring here if the Brits were to actually ban someone from entering their country if that certain someone happened to be elected president of the United States of America?

I’m not predicting either event will occur: Trump’s election and the home secretary’s decision to ban him from entering his country.

But members of the British Parliament have delivered a stunning rebuke of a guy who wants to become the next “leader of the Free World.”

Does he care? Again . . . he’d better.

High Plains Blogger

Palin politicizes PTSD . . . and her family’s latest crisis

What if . . . Clinton loses first two contests?

Internet proves, um, wrong!

Taliban aren’t ‘terrorists’?

Loyalty? Palin throws it away

We’re all sinners . . . and need forgiveness

Bland jail death case still not resolved

Don’t be overly ‘audacious,’ Mr. President

Landline = lifeline . . . still

UK leaders want to ban Trump?

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience