national news

Government shutdown? That's the ticket!

1 Comment

The old saw about defining “insanity” seems appropriate.

It’s when you keep doing the same thing and hoping for a different result.

I believe some members of the congressional Republican caucus are certifiably nuts if they think shutting down the government is going to produce a positive result — for them!

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/the-anxieties-of-the-gop-majority-113113.html?hp=b3_r2

That’s the dilemma facing some GOP leaders as they ponder how to respond to President Obama’s executive order this past week on immigration.

Some of them believe shutting down the government, which could happen when the money runs out on Dec. 11, is going to produce sufficient payback for the “imperial” and “monarchial” actions of “Emperor Obama.”

Memo to the GOP: You have tried this before — and it blew up in your face!

There’s nothing to suggest that this time will produce a different result for the Republican majority that’s about to take over the Senate and will control the House of Representatives with an even stronger hold than it had prior to the Nov. 4 mid-term election.

House Speaker John Boehner doesn’t want a shutdown. Neither does incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. At least that’s what they’re saying. I believe them. They’ve both endured the agony of prior shutdowns before and they know how much Americans rely on government services to work for them. When they don’t work, then all hell breaks loose.

I’m wondering if Republicans, so split among themselves about how to govern, are wondering if this majority they’ve achieved on Capitol Hill will be worth it if they cannot figure out how to find unity among themselves.

Flash back a couple of generations to when the Democratic Party was split over how — or whether — to fight the Vietnam War. Their division cost them dearly through two presidential election cycles and gave rise to five Republican presidencies from 1969 to 1993.

There’s another axiom worth repeating.

It’s the one that warns that those who don’t learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

 

Sports news

Rivalry Week coming up

College football has a name for the final week of a long season.

It’s called Rivalry Week. Traditional rival schools square off against each other on the football field. They’re usually in-state rivalries.

For those of us who grew up in Oregon, Rivalry Week takes on a particularly distasteful tag. It’s known there as the Civil War. Oregon vs. Oregon State.

Why distasteful? Well, for one thing I dislike the use the of the term “war” to describe a football game. I’ve had a ringside seat in a real war and a football game bears no resemblance to it, you know?

I even heard Tiger Woods once describe a round of golf, for crying out loud, as being “like war out there.”

You get my drift.

Well, Rivalry Week is going to present some interesting athletic matchups. The Oregon-Oregon State game, for example, will enable the Oregon Ducks to stay in the hunt for the coveted football playoff that will determine the national championship.

First things first, though. They have to beat OSU, then they have to defeat whoever wins the Pac-12 South title in the league championship game to be played at the San Francisco 49ers’ new field at Levi Stadium.

OK, I’m boring the daylights out of fans of the Big 12, the SEC, the Big 10 (or is it Big 13?) with all of this.

I’ll stick with my original premise.

I wish they wouldn’t call it “war.”

It’s just a game.

 

political news

Why not just accept grand jury verdict?

Maybe the onset of old age is making me more circumspect about some things.

Such as when the criminal justice system renders a decision many folks find repugnant. Meanwhile, I have grown to just accept it as the system doing what it’s intended to do.

The grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., delivered a verdict this week that has many folks reeling. It found that a white police officer, Darren Wilson, did not commit a crime when he shot a young black man, Michael Brown, to death this past summer.

At one level I thought perhaps Wilson overreacted when he confronted Brown one night in the St. Louis suburban community. Brown wasn’t doing anything. Wilson wanted him to stop. Brown threw his hands in the air and the policeman shot him.

Well, that’s not what the grand jury heard in testimony. So it delivered a decision that some believe is unjust.

I won’t go there. I truly have no sure-footed opinion on who is right or wrong. Why? I wasn’t in the grand jury room. I didn’t hear the evidence. I didn’t see the faces of the people testifying before the panel. I didn’t have all the facts to ponder.

We’re all spectators.

That hasn’t stopped some folks from grandstanding.

At another level this case reminds me a bit of the outrage that followed the 1995 verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder case. My reaction then was similar to what it is now. That was nearly 20 years ago, so I cannot claim “old age creep” back then.

But my initial reaction to the acquittal was that the jury got it wrong. I still believe Simpson got away with murder.

Then I wrote a column in which I surmised that after many weeks of testimony, all the hoopla and courtroom histrionics, only the 12 people in the jury box had seen and heard all the evidence. Only they knew what none of the rest of us knew. I didn’t agree with their verdict, but I accepted it. The system did its job.

Then, as now, the rest of us were spectators.

I’m not going to wring my hands over this latest decision. However, I do hope it spurs a serious community conversation in Ferguson, where African-Americans think their government doesn’t represent their interests sufficiently.

The folks there have the tools to fix the problem. They can do so at election time.

 

business news, local news, national news

War on Christmas? Who's waging it?

1 Comment

Conservative media are fond of saying at this time of year that there’s a “war on Christmas.”

They point to supposedly “liberal” business owners who instruct their employees to wish customers “happy holidays,” or protests by civil libertarians over Christmas decorations on public property.

So, they’ve declared there to be open war on Christmas.

It’s malarkey.

In my mind, the first shots of the real war on Christmas will be fired on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. That’s when mobs of shoppers — thousands of whom across the country have been camped out for days — will stampede into retail outlets in search of the perfect gift.

There will be violence. Fist fights will erupt. Arrests will occur. The cops will break up melees in the toy aisle.

Will any of this happen here, in Amarillo, the self-proclaimed “Buckle of the Bible Belt”? I have no clue. I cannot predict what will happen in specific communities. Nationally, though, I’m quite certain we’re going to read accounts of such mayhem as Americans rush to find the one-and-0nly gift for their loved ones.

If you’re going to pinpoint the combatants in the war on Christmas, look no further than at The Mall, or at any major department store. That’s where it’s being waged, on the ground.

And yet …

We keep hearing from those who insist that Christmas should remain an exclusively religious holiday. Christians celebrate the birth of a baby who Scripture tells us was born to save the world. The holiday, over the centuries, has morphed into something quite different from a mere birthday party.

Please, conservative media. Spare me the blathering about your perceived war on Christmas. If you have barbs to sling, aim them at those hooligans who’ll get arrested Friday morning fighting for the last Elsa doll in the store.

 

Uncategorized

Facebook is a blast, but I prefer some decorum

I just posted this item on my Facebook timeline.

“Alert: I just ‘unfriended’ someone from my Facebook ‘friends’ list because of his liberal use of profanity. I am prone to speak with pithy tongue on occasion myself, but I do not like using it — or seeing it — on my timeline. Be forewarned. I’ll be on the lookout for gratuitous and patently nasty verbiage. A little here and there is OK, but watch it, folks.”

Now I shall explain in a bit of detail.

The “friend” I whacked from my list really isn’t a friend. I don’t know the individual. He sent a Facebook “friend request” a few months ago and I accepted. It turns out we’re of like minds politically, so I guess he read my blog posts that feed automatically to my Facebook news feed.

But this individual has a tart tongue — so to speak — when he lays his hands on a keyboard. He would lace his commentary with f-bombs, s-bombs and sexually explicit language.

I cut him off.

I enjoy using Facebook as a social medium for a couple of reasons. I use it as a platform to share my blog posts, along with several other social media sites. I also keep up with those with whom I have signed on as friends. Some of them are the real deal, actual friends I’ve known for years; the guy I’ve known the longest goes back to the seventh grade — that would be 1962. Others are acquaintances or folks I’ve known professionally over more than three decades in print journalism. And still others are individuals I do not know, but who have “mutual friends” on Facebook; when they request a spot on my “friends” roster, I’m likely to sign them up. And, of course, some family members belong to my list of friends.

A handful of my Facebook friends are young people, as in minors. They don’t need to read filth on my Facebook timeline. I have others on my friends roster who — I believe — might take offense at the foul language. So I try to honor their values as well.

Don’t misunderstand. I am not a saint. I pepper my own spoken words with some pithiness on occasion. I do so in the presence of people I know and who might be prone to the same verbal proclivity.

I just prefer at least a touch of decorum on these Facebook posts, if for no other reason than to offer some relief from the coarseness that has become the norm.

 

 

national news

Timing of Ferguson decision is more than curious

This isn’t an original thought; it comes from a friend of mine who posted it on Facebook … but I’ll share it here.

He wonders why the prosecutor in Ferguson, Mo., waited until 8 p.m. — well after dark — to tell the nation that the grand jury decided against prosecuting the white police officer in the death of the black youth this past summer.

Why the question? Well, my friend said that “night time is riot time.”

Officer Darren Wilson still might face federal prosecution in the death of Michael Brown. We’ll wait for that drama to play out.

But the town of Ferguson erupted last night in violence after the prosecutor’s announcement.

It makes me wonder: Couldn’t he have announced that he would wait until morning to reveal the grand jury’s decision? Would an announcement made in broad daylight have perhaps calmed tensions just a little?

As the late great slugger Ted Williams used to say about hitting a baseball: Timing is everything.

So, too, it might be in delivering emotionally charged news to an anxious public.

 

military news, national news, political news

Lieberman for defense chief? Fat chance, Ted

Leave it to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz to provide a laugh amid a serious discussion about national defense policy.

The freshman Republican from Texas thinks former Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., would make a wonderful choice to become the next secretary of defense, replacing Chuck Hagel, who announced his (forced?) resignation Monday.

President Obama might make his pick later today, so I have to get this thought out quickly.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/11/cruz-proposes-lieberman-to-replace-hagel-at-pentagon/

Lieberman might make a good choice except for one little thing.

In 2008, Lieberman — who campaigned as Al Gore’s vice-presidential running mate on the 2000 Democratic ticket — bolted from the party in 2008 when he backed Sen. John McCain for president against, yes, Sen. Barack Obama.

I guess Lieberman is still a Democrat, but I hardly think the president would select someone who’s on record as backing one of the president’s most vocal foreign-policy critics to lead the Pentagon.

Does a president of either party deserve to have folks loyal to him and his policies? Would a President Cruz — perish the thought!) — demand loyalty were he to sit in the Oval Office? “Yes” to the first question. “You bet he would” to the second question.

So, I’ll creep just a tiny bit out on the limb here and predict that Barack Obama will ignore Ted Cruz’s advice and go with someone with whom he feels most comfortable in helping shape American defense policy in this difficult and trying time.

 

 

national news

About that calm response in Ferguson …

Well, so much for calmness and reason in the wake of a grand jury’s decision.

A panel returned a no-bill in the case involving Police Officer Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown to death in Ferguson, Mo. Wilson is white, Brown was black. The incident touched off a series of protests, often violent. The cops made a mess of putting down the initial unrest. Questions have arisen about whether the African-American community gets a fair shake in Ferguson.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/with-no-indictment-chaos-fills-ferguson-streets/ar-BBfJTrf

The case went to the grand jury, which Monday night returned its non-indictment. Wilson won’t be prosecuted for any crime.

The most tragic part of the response has been the damage done to innocent people. Their businesses have been looted, destroyed by stones and fire. People have been physically injured. The rage goes on. And for what purpose?

Michael Brown’s father pleaded for calm, asking residents to resist the temptation to strike back. Don’t like Michael die “in vain,” he said. President Obama echoed the sentiment late Monday after the decision came down, but noted that the nation can have a rational conversation about police-community relations.

Where has the reason and the calmness gone?

 

national news

Grand jury no-bill is in; let calm prevail

This might be too much to ask, but I’ll ask it anyway.

Can the good folks of Ferguson, Mo., resist the urge to damage people’s property and injure fellow human beings in the wake of the grand jury’s decision to decline prosecution of a white police officer who shot a black youth to death this past summer?

The grand jury returned the no-bill decision this evening in the case of Officer Darren Wilson; the dead teen is Michael Brown.

The town has been the subject of intense media scrutiny ever since the shooting. There’s been a lot of anxiety, anger and tension in the town ever since. The media have contributed to much of the tension, in my view, with its incessant coverage of the event, the aftermath, and the potential for violence if the grand jury made the decision it did today.

Yes, there have been some key questions asked about the state of police relations with the African-American community — in Ferguson and in cities and towns across the country. They are valid questions that ask whether African-American youth are treated the same as other youth by the police.

Let’s examine those questions.

As for the reaction to the no-bill, let’s also understand that the shop owner, the restaurant proprietor or the average Joe aren’t culpable. They’re all innocent victims of random violence that has erupted as a result of past perceived injustices.

We need not create more of them.

 

 

military news, national news, political news

Hagel was 'up to the job'

Chuck Hagel’s departure today as secretary of defense has the look of a forced resignation.

It now appears, at least to me, that Hagel was the one who forced the issue. That’s too bad. The Pentagon and the Obama administration have lost a good man who knows and understands the needs of the men and women who do all the heavy lifting … in the field.

How Obama and Chuck Hagel reached the end of the line

President Obama talked today about how then-Sen. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, took the young Sen. Obama under his wing and showed him the ropes in a body prone to cliques. He heaped praise on the defense boss and wished him well, which is what one would expect.

Now comes word that Hagel tried to crack the president’s tight inner circle, but couldn’t get in. He had difficulty making his defense policy opinions heard by the commander in chief and those who form that tight-knit circle around him.

If Sen. Hagel was such a trusted ally to the man who would be president, how is it that he was left on the outside looking in when key policy decisions and critical shifts in defense policy were occurring?

Sen. John McCain, one of Hagel’s best friends in the Senate, is set to lead the Senate Armed Services Committee next January. He will chair the panel that will decide whether to confirm the next defense boss. I hope McCain can set aside his personal animus toward Obama — who beat him in the 2008 presidential election — and conduct a thorough but fair hearing of the next nominee.

One of the questions that needs answering, though, is whether the new person will have the access to the commander in chief he or she will need to operate at maximum efficiency. The nominee won’t know that with certainty. The president will and he should make that clear when he announces his next defense secretary nominee.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience