national news, Uncategorized

Should we set John Hinckley free?

Allow me to answer the question posed in the headline.

Yes, sort of.

John Hinckley has been housed in a psych ward since a jury found him innocent by reason of insanity after he shot President Ronald Reagan, White House press secretary James Brady and two law enforcement officers in March 1981.

Brady — nicknamed The Bear by the press corps — died a year ago from the grievous head wound he suffered at Hinckley’s hand.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/12/406175445/reagan-shooter-john-hinckleys-lawyers-say-hes-ready-to-be-free

Hinckley’s lawyer says he’s ready to be set free. And even the government prosecutors suggest he is able to be released from the hospital. The feds, though, say he needs constant supervision and must be monitored closely.

I concur with the feds’ assessment, although if I were King of the World, I’d be reluctant to let him out.

Why? Well, the man sought to murder the president of the United States. He wounded him with a gunshot wound in the chest and as we would learn after the chaotic day the president could have died from the wound had the bullet lodged an inch or so toward the president’s heart.

What’s more, a jury ruled that Hinckley was insane when he committed the crime. How many people usually go from being insane to, well, sane?

I am one who doesn’t trust John Hinckley to never do something so crazed again.

That’s why if he gets out of the psych ward he needs careful and never-ending scrutiny.

 

military news

SEAL turns into POTUS defender

Rob O’Neill angered me some months ago when he stepped forward to take credit for killing Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

Why? Because as a member of an elite Navy SEAL team that killed the notorious terrorist, he violated what I’ve always understood was an unwritten code: that the team came first and the men involved with the team didn’t seek publicity.

He broke the code.

Now he’s standing up for the commander in chief’s version of what happened on that dark night in Pakistan, refuting the claims made by journalist Seymour Hersh, who says President Obama “lied” to Americans when he announced bin Laden’s death.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/navy-seal-who-says-he-killed-bin-laden-refutes-118783904096.html

Yahoo News reports: “O’Neill took particular issue with Hersh’s allegation that there was no firefight during the nighttime raid on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

“’Well I’m sure that my friends who got shot at and almost took a few bullets in the face through the doors would disagree,’ O’Neill said. ‘I saw Osama bin Laden standing on two feet, there were no [Inter-Services Intelligence] up there. I shot him in the head twice, and then I shot him again in the face while he was on the ground.’”

Who do you believe? Someone who took the word of a single, unnamed source or someone who actually was there, drawing down on Osama bin Laden?

Hersh’s account has been roundly criticized. He said Pakistan’s ISI spy network had been tipped off prior to the raid. The White House says it acted without notifying Pakistani officials.

I am inclined to take the White House account over Hersh’s version.

One of the SEALs who was there backs up the White House.

Until proven otherwise, that’s good enough for me.

national news, political news

Jeb 'misheard' question about Iraq War?

Mind-reading isn’t my thing.

Therefore, I cannot pretend to know what Jeb Bush heard or “misheard” when Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked him whether he would have gone to war in Iraq “knowing what we now know” about the absence of any weapons of mass destruction.

The former Florida governor and presumed Republican Party candidate for president said he would have gone to war.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ex-aide-says-jeb-bush-misheard-iraq-question/ar-BBjFW9y

Then he said, “And so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everyone. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got.”

Well.

Let’s just review for a moment. Then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton did vote to authorize war in Iraq. President Bush ordered the invasion in 2003, our troops toppled Saddam Hussein’s government then looked high and low for the WMD. They didn’t find any. They captured Saddam, pulling him out of that spider hole. He was tried and convicted of crimes against humanity and was hanged.

Clinton then said while running for president in 2008 that she was wrong to vote for the war authorization, based on what we now know.

Gov. Bush said he misheard Kelly’s question. I won’t quibble with that point.

I will quibble, though, with his characterization of what Hillary Clinton would do. She’s said she made a mistake.

His bungled answer has angered those on the right, who don’t like him too much anyway.

Time to hit the reset button, Jeb.

 

media news

Rolling Stone gets sued … good!

I spent my professional life in journalism. I’m a fierce advocate for publications’ rights to print the truth and more often than not I have looked skeptically at individuals or institutions that have sued publications for libel or defamation.

Not this time.

A University of Virginia administrator has sued Rolling Stone magazine for $7.5 million, contending the magazine defamed her in a bogus story about a gang rape on the campus.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/university-of-virginia-associate-dean-sues-rolling-stone-over-gang-rape-story/ar-BBjG6jp

I hope Nicole Eramo wins.

She is UVa’s top administrator who deals with sexual assaults. The magazine portrayed her as someone more interested in protecting the school’s reputation than in protecting a woman named “Jackie,” who alleged she was raped by students at a frat house party. Well, the party never occurred, “Jackie” wasn’t raped, Rolling Stone retracted the story — and the reporter and her editors responsible for publishing the false account still have their jobs!

“I am filing this defamation lawsuit to set the record straight — and to hold the magazine and the author of the article accountable for their actions in a way they have refused to do themselves,” Eramo said in a statement.

The retraction gives this lawsuit some traction. Publications rarely retract a story, taking back what they published and in effect admitting that it was wrong. Rolling Stone admitted the story was phony, but still haven’t disciplined the principals involved in publishing it.

Nicole Eramo’s lawsuit needs to make a statement that the magazine did something grievously wrong in its so-called “reporting” of a crime that didn’t occur.

 

national news, political news

Santorum goes to the well once again

Rick Santorum is a puzzle to me.

The former Republican senator from Pennsylvania flamed out in his 2012 bid to become president of the United States, as his party nominated Mitt Romney.

That came after he had lost his U.S. Senate seat to Democrat Bob Casey.

Now he wants to run for president a second time. As the link attached here observes, he’s starting from scratch all over again.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/rick-santorum-2016-uphill-climb-117832.html?hp=r1_4

Is it hubris? Is it some desire to hold a public office? Is it a need for acceptance?

Do any or all of those things drive this man to do the seemingly impossible, which is get elected to the world’s most powerful and influential office?

I don’t get it. Nor do I get Sen. Santorum.

The conservative base of his party is being pulled in a number of directions, with Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio already running; former Texas Gov. Rick Perry is set to go; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has the Duggar family made famous by the “19 Kids” reality show on his team; Ben Carson has attracted other conservative hired hands, as has Sen. Rand Paul; Carly Fiorina is veering way right, as are Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, both of whom are waiting in the wings.

There seems to be nothing left for Santorum to mine for support.

What drives a politician to get beaten down so many times?

 

Sports news

Rice got two-game suspension; Brady gets four?

Let’s see if we can sort this out for just a moment.

The National Football League suspended former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice for two games after a video showed him punching his then-fiancĂ©e — and now his wife — in the face, knocking her out cold in an Atlantic City, N.J. elevator. It then elevated the suspension to “indefinite” status, meaning he would be unable to play pro football in the NFL probably forever.

Rice then appealed his suspension and had it overturned by a federal court. The NFL sought to send a message that it wouldn’t tolerate domestic violence.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/how-will-the-patriots-fare-without-tom-brady/ar-BBjFpZS

It’s the two-game initial suspension that got everyone up in arms. It wasn’t enough, they said.

Now we have New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady getting a four-game suspension. For what? An NFL report says he probably knew something about the deflating of footballs prior to last season’s AFC championship game, which the Pats won by 38 points. There’s been no proof that he did anything wrong. Just a lot of circumstantial stuff.

He’s out four games. Without pay.

The message here? I’m betting the NFL wants to say that it won’t tolerate cheating, so they’re going to make an example of an All-Universe athlete.

But have you noticed Brady’s public demeanor during all of this? He’s looked a bit smug, as if he’s not taking this very seriously.

As my late mother used to say when she scolded me, “Wipe that smirk off your face or I’ll wipe it off for you!”

My hunch is that the NFL is seeking to wipe Brady’s smug look off his face.

Mission accomplished? I think so.

 

local news

Change has come to Amarillo City Hall

I’m going to wait before passing any judgment on the new Amarillo City Council lineup.

A couple of obvious changes are worth noting, so I’ll do so here.

Two women were voted off the council: Ellen Robertson Green and Lilia Escajeda. They lost to men. So an all-male council will be making decisions affecting Amarillo taxpayers’ lives.

There’s something a bit unsettling about that prospect.

As a red-blooded American male myself, it’s not that I think the five men set to serve are all bad. But I do trust women’s judgment.

Ellen Green, for example, offered up my favorite retort to those who were yapping their discontent about the red-light cameras the city has deployed at various intersections. Her answer? Don’t run the red lights and you won’t have anything to worry about. Who in the world can argue with that?

The fellow who defeated Green in Place 1, Elisha Demerson, made history by becoming the city’s first African-American council member. He once served on the Potter County Commissioners Court, as a commissioner and later for a single term as county judge. His record as county judge came under scrutiny during the municipal campaign. It didn’t gain any traction with voters who elected him anyway.

It’s worth keeping our eye, though, on his relationship with the guy who won in Place 3, Randy Burkett, who defeated Escajeda. Burkett, it turns out, has some pretty caustic views about issues involving race relations, as was revealed late in the campaign on his Facebook page.

Will these men be able to work together? They appear to have widely differing world views. City policy, though, would seem to require them to set those differences aside. The City Council, after all, is a non-partisan body.

Demerson and Burkett both talked about accountability and transparency. Mayor Paul Harpole was re-elected and he, too, has talked openly about the need for transparency. Returning Place 2 Councilman Brian Eades brings some continuity to the new council. Mark Nair and Steve Rogers are running off against each other for the Place 4 seat.

It’s a new council, all right. Time will tell whether voters have made a good investment or purchased the proverbial pig in a poke.

 

Sports news

Non-story about footballs becomes … a story

Man, oh man. I’ve been all over the pea patch on this “Deflate-gate” story.

I’m still believing the story has been overblown, overhyped and oversold as a “scandal.” Now the National Football League has suspended superstar New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady for four games next season, fined the Pats a million bucks and taken away two draft choices as punishment …

… for something that “probably” happened.

The “probably” is that Brady might have known something was going on when someone deflated those footballs prior to the AFC championship game the Patriots won by 38 points against the Indianapolis Colts. The deflated footballs were easier to throw and catch, supposedly, as if it mattered in a game that the Patriots won in such convincing fashion.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12867594/punishments-handed-tom-brady-new-england-patriots-deflategate

I could see fining Brady a lot of money. He can afford to pay whatever the league would levy against him. I can see the team paying a fine. Suspension? Loss of draft picks? I don’t know.

I get that the league is trying to dissuade future cheaters from doing something improper. It’s sending a message of some sort around the NFL.

The NFL report alleging Brady’s “likely” complicity in the deflating matter is full of qualifiers that make it seem at best circumstantial. If only the league could prove what it has alleged, then I could accept the punishment as delivered.

Then again, if only Tom Brady had been more forceful in his previous denials about the matter, then I could believe fully that he did nothing wrong.

Still, I’m left wondering how this story got so huge in the first place.

 

national news, political news

Perry IDs critical '16 campaign issue

It’s always a cold day in hell when former Texas Gov. Rick Perry draws praise from anyone on the left end of the political spectrum.

He’s done it, though, with an observation about what he believes is the most critical issue of the 2016 campaign for the presidency.

It involves the Supreme Court.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/perry-identifies-the-top-issue-the-2016-race

Steve Benen, writing a blog for lefty commentator Rachel Maddow’s blog, notes:

“But over at Bloomberg Politics, Sahil Kapur reported over the weekend on a South Carolina event, where former Gov. Rick Perry (R) highlighted a central national issue that doesn’t generally get as much attention.
 
“Something I want you all to think about is that the next president of the United States, whoever that individual may be, could choose up to three, maybe even four members of the Supreme Court,” he said. “Now this isn’t about who’s going to be the president of the United States for just the next four years. This could be about individuals who have an impact on you, your children, and even our grandchildren. That’s the weight of what this election is really about.”
 
“That, I will suggest to you, is the real question we need to be asking ourselves,” he continued. “What would those justices look like if, let’s be theoretical here and say, if it were Hillary Clinton versus Rick Perry? And if that won’t make you go work, if I do decide to get into the race, then I don’t know what will.”
The next president likely is going to get a chance to appoint several justices to the highest court in the land. And those appointments always seem to outlast the presidencies of those who select them.
Perry knows a thing or two about these kinds of legacies. He built one himself as the longest-serving governor in Texas history. He appointed several justices to the state Supreme Court and judges to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
As Benen states: “Purely on institutional grounds, Perry is absolutely right – the makeup of the high court will likely give the next president a unique opportunity to shape much of American public life for a generation.”
International news

Did the president really lie about bin Laden raid?

Are we now going to believe more than four years after the fact that President Obama lied to us about the details of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden?

Famed journalist Seymour Hersh says “yes.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/report-obama-lied-about-bin-laden-raid/ar-BBjyIEa

Pardon me, sir. I think I’ll stick with what was reported at the time of the raid.

Hersh asserts — citing a single unnamed source — that Obama didn’t tell the truth about what happened the night of May 2, 2011 when Navy SEALs killed bin Laden, hauled his body out of Pakistan, deposited it aboard the USS Carl Vinson, where sailors then “buried” bin Laden’s remains at sea.

The Pakistanis had a much greater role in the raid than the president said at the time, according to Hersh; the White House wanted to announce a drone strike took out bin Laden, Hersh writes; Obama had no way to explain to Americans what happened had the raid failed, Hersh asserts.

Of all the purported inconsistencies, the one I find least believable is the one about what the Pakistanis knew and how much they assisted in killing bin Laden.

If you’re a Pakistani intelligence official, or a leader of the Pakistani government, you would want the world to know you had a hand in taking out the world’s No. 1 terrorist. The White House said at the time that the SEALs killed bin Laden without Pakistan knowing about it. I continue to believe the SEAL team performed the act as it was announced by the president that evening.

And it takes four years to dig out the so-called “truth” about this raid?

I remain skeptical of these latest revelations.

Here’s the link to the report: Take a look.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience