‘Sniper’ family excluded from ceremony?

chris_kyle_-_h_-_2015

A curious development has popped up regarding a ceremony that honored the memory of the “American sniper,” the late Chris Kyle.

Kyle’s brother and father have stated on social media they weren’t invited to the ceremony in which Texas Gov. Greg Abbott awarded Kyle the Legislative Medal of Honor.

Kyle was the Navy SEAL who has been credited with more kills in battle than anyone on U.S. military history. He returned from four tours of duty in Iraq, but was murdered at a gun range here in Texas. His story became the subject of the film “American Sniper.”

The governor bestowed the state’s highest military honor to Chris Kyle … and it is richly deserved. But the hero’s father and brother are not invited? Huh?

According to the Texas Tribune: “We as the Kyle family (my parents, my wife and our kids) knew nothing about this and were not invited to the ceremony,” Jeff Kyle, Chris Kyle’s brother, wrote on Facebook. “It’s kinda funny how the family isn’t asked to be involved!”

Chris Kyle’ widow, Taya, accepted the award from Gov. Abbott.

The governor’s office hasn’t yet responded to the report.

I hope the governor’s staff has an explanation for it. Is there an estrangement between Chris Kyle’s widow and the hero’s brother and father? Is it an honest oversight? Is it a deliberate snub … which I rather doubt?

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/28/kyle-family-says-it-wasnt-invited-abbott-ceremony/

Let’s get to the bottom of this curious story, shall we?

 

Name-calling becomes a hit

insult

Republicans are becoming the party of name-callers.

Let’s run a little tabulation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham called Donald Trump a “jackass.”

Trump has called Graham, former Govs. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney “losers.”

Trump also has said that every official in the U.S. government is “stupid.”

House Speaker John Boehner has chimed in with a “jackass” epithet hurled at Sen. Ted Cruz.

I know I’ve missed some, maybe a lot. But these come to mind immediately.

What’s up here? Are the candidates for the presidency getting under each other’s skin?

I’ve lost count of the bad names Sen. John McCain has tossed at folks who disagree with him. Then again, he’s not running for president this time around.

I’ll give the current GOP bunch this much credit: At least they aren’t tossing out f-bombs, at least not publicly.

It was then-Vice President Dick Cheney’s dubious honor to reveal his potty mouth when, during a Senate floor debate years ago, he told Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy to go f*** himself.

Hey, just think: The presidential campaign is just getting warmed up.

 

Read your oath of office, Mme. Clerk

same-sex-marriage

Kim Davis took an oath when she became a county clerk in Kentucky to uphold the constitutions of her state and her nation.

The oath, I’m quite willing to suggest, didn’t include any exemptions for her religious faith.

Thus, it becomes imperative that she fulfill all the terms of the oath she took.

But she’s refusing to do that.

Instead, she’s refusing to grant marriage certificates to gay couples. She cites her religious belief opposing gay marriage and the U.S. Constitution’s protection of religious liberty.

I get that Kim Davis’s Christian faith is important to her. Mine is important to me as well.

But she took an oath to uphold the law. What’s more, the U.S. Supreme Court this year has ruled that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. That includes Kentucky.

To their credit, Potter County Clerk Julie Smith and Randall County Clerk Renee Calhoun declared they would issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples who request them. I also would have applauded either or both of them had they resigned if their religious faith interfered with their public oath.

Davis should resign from her office, as some county clerks have done around the country. She cannot serve in an elected public office without carrying out all the duties that the office requires.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-again-denies-license?utm_content=buffercaf60&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

 

Stop the presses! Cantor endorses Bush

cantor

I feel like dealing with two unrelated subjects in this blog post.

Except that they both deal with Jeb Bush.

First, the former Republican Florida governor today earned the endorsement of Eric Cantor.

You remember Eric Cantor. He is the former U.S. House of Representatives majority leader who, in the Republican primary of 2014, lost to TEA Party favorite David Brat.

What was the knock on Cantor in Virginia, which he represented in the House? It was that he was too wedded to being part of the GOP congressional power structure and that he cared too little about the home folks’ concerns. He was an out-of-touch Washington pol.

So, his congressional district primary voters turned on him, tossed him out of office.

I believe his endorsement of Gov. Bush will mean, well, not a thing.

***

Second, I am considering referring to Jeb Bush in the future by putting his first name in all capital leaders, just as I have done with the TEA Party.

Why? Well, “TEA” as in TEA Party is an acronym, meaning “Taxed Enough Already.” So, I’ve declared it appropriate to refer to this wing of the GOP with an all-cap reference.

The same principle applies to Jeb Bush. His first name also is an acronym. “Jeb” stands for “John Ellis Bush.”

Should I refer to him as “JEB” Bush, the way Confederate Gen. James Ewell Brown (aka J.E.B.) Stuart is identified?

Build it and they will come … yes?

Amarillo MPEV

I keep hearing critics of Amarillo’s proposed multipurpose event venue — which includes a ballpark design — argue that the city isn’t a baseball town.

They point to the sparse “crowds” that often populate that certifiable trash heap called Potter County Memorial Stadium for the Amarillo Thunderheads games.

There’s your baseball interest, some of them have proclaimed.

I prefer to look at it differently.

The MPEV is up for a vote Nov. 3. City voters will get to decide whether they want to proceed with the MPEV as it’s currently designed. A “yes” vote means it moves forward; a “no” vote means the city should look for another design.

The dump where the Thunderheads play their home games isn’t a suitable venue for anyone.

The MPEV, estimated to cost around $32 million, will present a golden opportunity for the city to attract a major league franchise to hook up with a farm team based in Amarillo.

It’s always been my experience that sports fans prefer to sit in a modern venue with nice amenities to watch athletes perform on the field. The place formerly known as the Dilla Villa is not that place.

I continue to believe the downtown project as presented is worth supporting. The MPEV — whether it contains a ball field or becomes something else eventually — should be a part of the city’s effort to spruce up its downtown district.

They’ve started work on the new Xcel Energy office complex. They’ve cleared the old Coca-Cola distribution center site, relocating it at a new business park. The old jail site has been cleared.

A developer is set to begin work on a downtown convention hotel. And a parking garage is planned for the property next to it.

Will the MPEV be a part of this work? I happen to hope it is.

As for whether Panhandle residents — whether they live in Amarillo or in surrounding communities — will support minor-league baseball if it’s able to move into the new venue, well, time will tell.

It must depend on whether some marketing geniuses can develop a strategy to attract a major league franchise’s attention.

A gleaming new site — if it’s promoted properly — can be enough of a lure.

 

Confiscate guns? Not going to happen

gunviolence

The conversation has begun.

The shooting deaths this week of two TV journalists in Roanoke, Va., has prompted the call for greater gun regulation in America.

I do not oppose that idea.

But some folks are now looking Down Under, at Australia, where officials years ago confiscated guns throughout the country. The result was a plummeting of violent crimes committed by people using firearms.

OK, will that happen here? Are the feds going into every home in America and start taking guns away from Americans? Not in a gazillion years.

The Constitution says gun ownership shall not be abridged. There will be no amendment to the Constitution that repeals the Second Amendment. Period. End of that discussion.

However, I am not going to accept the argument that stricter laws that keep guns out of the hands of the people who should have them are somehow violating the rights of “law-abiding citizens” to “keep and bear arms.”

Alison Parker and Adam Ward died at the hands of someone who purchased a gun legally in Virginia. He put down his money and walked out with a firearm that he then used to cause untold grief to two people’s families.

I am not certain how a background check on this guy would have detected some mental or emotional distress that could have kept him from owning that firearm. It’s not altogether fitting to look at just one crime and then say, “Well, all we have to do is just enforce existing laws.”

But if we step back and examine all the incidents of gun violence and the backgrounds of all the individuals who have committed these crimes, then it’s fair to ask whether there is some mechanism that could be used to detect the potential for violence if they decide to purchase a firearm.

I don’t want my two rifles taken from me. They’re heirlooms. I’ve had ’em since I was a boy. My dad gave me a .22 when I was about 11; he then gave me a 30.06 — that he had owned for many years previously — when I was in my late teens. They rarely come out of the place where I store them.

A nationwide confiscation isn’t going to happen.

But why can’t we consider some measures that (a) honor the Second Amendment and (b) make it harder for fruitcakes to get their hands on deadly weapons?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/australia-confiscated-650000-guns-murders-and-suicides-plummeted/ar-BBm9eak

 

Isn’t America still ‘great’?

ballcap trump

Tod Robberson, writing a blog for the Dallas Morning News, poses a question that’s been nagging at me since I first heard Donald Trump make a certain proclamation.

Trump has promised to “make America great again.” He’s been wearing a gimme cap at campaign rally with the words written across the front of it.

My thought always has been that the United States is a great nation. It’s a superpower with unprecedented military capability. It’s economy remains — for now, at least — No. 1 in the world.

And people from other nations are flocking here — yes, even legally — to start new lives. As Robberson pointed out: “In fact, the very immigration issue that Trump has made the focal point of his campaign belies the assertion that America isn’t great. Why would millions of people risk their lives to come to this country, legally or illegally, if there weren’t something of overwhelming value drawing them specifically here? It’s actually a lot easier to migrate to Canada, Europe, Costa Rica or Brazil. But for some reason, people want to come to America. That’s because we are still the greatest nation on earth.”

Trump, though, is suggesting that the United States no longer is “exceptional,” to borrow a popular Republican mantra of past campaigns against the current Democratic president.

Robberson also shoots down the notion that during the Ronald Reagan years in the White House that the United States stood as the model for greatness that today’s GOP seeks to emulate.

It’s worth a look: http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/make-america-great-again-trump-needs-to-rethink-his-rhetoric.html/

I’m just wondering how Trump gets away with asserting the United States of America isn’t still the greatest nation on the planet.

 

 

Jorge Ramos: advocate or journalist?

Illegal-immigrants-2

Jorge Ramos sought to call Donald Trump to account for the Republican presidential candidate’s controversial views on illegal immigration.

He stood during a press conference and peppered the candidate with questions about his plan to build a wall along the nation’s southern border. Trump then called a bodyguard over to escort Ramos from the room.

It was an unattractive scene, to be sure.

Then Ramos, a noted news anchor for Univision — a leading Spanish-language TV network — went on ABC’s “Good Morning America” the next morning to discuss the incident. He said a curious thing, in my humble view.

GMA host George Stephanopoulos asked Ramos if he was acting more as an advocate than a journalist. Ramos responded by saying “journalists must stand for something.”

His answer had me scratching my noggin.

Journalists, as I understand the meaning of the term, basically fall into two categories: reporters and editorialists. I spent most of my nearly 37 years as a full-time print journalist on the opinion side, writing editorials and commentaries for publications in two states.

But on occasion, when the opportunity presented itself, I was able and willing to write news copy for those publications. I was able to set personal bias aside and deliver information for readers to consume — and for them to make up their own minds about the topic about which I was writing.

I don’t know if at the press conference, in which Trump was fielding questions from reporters, whether Ramos was representing himself as a reporter or an editorialist.

His answer to the question, then, on GMA was incomplete.

A journalist, if he is writing or broadcasting opinion, is certainly entitled to “stand for something.” If the journalist is there to report on a story, well, then he or she should stand for nothing.

Jorge Ramos doesn’t think a 1,900-mile-long wall along our border is practical or even feasible. He doesn’t think Trump’s idea of rounding up 11 million undocumented immigrants is possible without breaking up families and causing considerable heartache and grief.

If that is what he believes, then he should simply state it.

If, however, he is asking a serious question on the issue, I believe he should do so without inserting his personal views on the matter.

Perhaps his effort to “stand for something” ought to include fulfilling his entire obligation as a journalist — which includes reporting the story and leaving his own bias out of it.

 

‘Like members of the family’

alison and adam

A USA Today article spells out a grim truth about the latest tragedy that has gripped the American public.

Alison Parker and Adam Ward, two broadcast journalists who were slain on live TV this week, were like “members of the family.”

That is why their deaths in Roanoke, Va., has body-slammed the community they served.

Think about that.

Television news viewers invite the people who deliver it into their homes. The reporters and camera people who provide the information are in viewers’ homes because the viewers want them there.

Thus, when they’re taken from viewers — particularly in such a graphic fashion — the public reacts perhaps a bit more viscerally than it does to reports of other tragic events.

Do no misunderstand my point. I am not downplaying other tragedies as being less worthy of public grief. The Sandy Hood Elementary School shooting in Connecticut — in which 20 precious children and six educators were gunned down — drove millions of us to tears … and one American in particular, President Barack Obama, couldn’t restrain his own personal grief while commenting on it to the nation.

Yes, there are many other events that affect us deeply.

The deaths of two journalists who were just doing their job on what was supposed to be a “routine story” and who were transmitting their story into people’s homes at the very moment of their death just hits us so very hard.

They hurt us so very deeply.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/journalist-killings-like-deaths-in-the-family-for-viewers/ar-BBm980G

 

Hunt for Katrina survivor comes up empty

hurricane katrina

Emma appears to have moved on.

I hope she’s happy and healthy.

Word came from City Hall earlier this week that my search for a woman I met 10 years ago here in Amarillo after Hurricane Katrina devastated her home town of New Orleans has come up empty.

She and more than 100 other refugees from the devastation of the storm fled to the High Plains. Several communities welcomed them. They lived for a time in makeshift quarters assembled at the Amarillo Civic Center, which had been turned into a refugee center.

The Amarillo Public Health Department and the city’s Emergency Services Department had mobilized quite efficiently to accept the individuals — and the families — that sought to escape the devastation brought to the Gulf Coast in August 2005.

They set up health clinics, providing medicine and immunization. Counselors were available to talk to the refugees who were coping with the enormous emotional shock of what they were enduring.

From my recollection of the events as they were unfolding, the city response represented one of its finer moments.

None of those storm refugees remained.

The city reportedly had 48 clients registered through it Community Development office, but all of them, according to the city, appear to be “inactive.”

Perhaps it was her heart that was talking when Emma agreed to meet with me shortly upon arriving in Amarillo. She said she had intended to stay here. She was going to give up her life in the Big Easy and settle, perhaps, for a quieter existence way up yonder here on the Caprock.

She had plenty to say a decade ago about the incompetence of the emergency response in New Orleans. She blamed everyone — local, state and federal authorities — for the confusion and mayhem that ensued as residents struggled to cope with the loss of homes, not to mention the loss of loved ones.

Emma was fortunate in one important aspect: No one in her family died from the storm.

My hope was to find her and to visit with her yet again, to assess how she’s coped.

I’ll put my faith in the belief that she’s doing fine and that the city she called home, if only for a brief time — Amarillo — helped Emma find her way to a new life.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience