local news

Anger finds its way to Amarillo

5 Comments

Anger is not my thing.

Those who know me — I’m quite certain — would say I’m not an angry person. I see life as an adventure. The glass is half full. All that positive stuff.

I’m a bit dismayed, though, at the apparent anger among residents of the city my wife and I have called home for more than 20 years.

It manifested itself in the election this past weekend in which two incumbents were tossed off the City Council and the mayor was re-elected by a much smaller margin than he has in the past; some observers have told me that had Paul Harpole faced a serious opponent, he’d have been beaten, too.

Why the anger?

* Our municipal tax rate is among the lowest in the state, so we aren’t pay “too much” for city services.

* City officials are moving forward with a plan to rejuvenate its downtown district. Show me a lively city and I’ll show you one with a downtown district that’s bustling.

* We have an economic development corporation that is using sales tax revenue to lure business to the city. People gripe about the EDC using “our tax money” to bring in those “out of towners.” They fail to recognize that 60 percent of all sales tax revenue comes from folks who don’t live here.

* One City Council candidate said it’s time to “run the city like a business.” Successful local governments and successful businesses are mutually exclusive concepts. The most successful businesses are run, more or less, by tyrants. Is that what we want at City Hall? I don’t think so.

The anger is palpable. Who feeds it? Has it splashed against us from the hysteria we hear in places like Washington, D.C., and Austin?

This new City Council is going to take office soon. It will have three new guys on board — with the third one being chosen from a runoff that’s occurring next month to fill a seat occupied by an appointment incumbent who didn’t seek election.

Let’s all settle down, fellas, and get to work for the common good.

 

national news

Obama a sexist? That's a good one

Barack Obama has been called a lot of things during his time as president of the United States.

Socialist. Islamic terrorist sympathizer. Kenyan. Weak-kneed liberal. Un-American.

What else? I guess those are some of the worst epithets hurled at him … mostly from politicians and talking heads associated with Republicans.

Now comes this. From a Democratic U.S. senator, Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

The president is a sexist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/sherrod-brown-barack-obama-gender-role-elizabeth-warren-spat-117866.html?hp=b1_l1

Brown didn’t like the way Obama lectured Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., over her opposition to the fast-track trade deal the president favors with a dozen Asian nations.

The president was being “disrespectful” of Warren, Brown said.

Here’s how Politico reports it: When asked how Obama was being disrespectful of the Massachusetts Democrat, Brown replied: “I think by just calling her ‘another politician.’” He continued, “I’m not going to get into more details. I think referring to her as first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps? I’ve said enough.”

The dreaded “first name” reference is a sure sign of “disrespect,” according to Brown.

He needs to listen to audio conversations the president has had with many members of both legislative branches, members of both genders. He routinely calls people by their first name. There was that notable exchange during a White House budget negotiation early in his presidency when Obama lectured “John” on his concerns about how to come to a budget deal. “John” was none other than Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., who kept referring to Obama as “Mr. President.”

I agree that Barack Obama perhaps ought to reciprocate in these public exchanges with fellow politicians who adhere to using the courtesy title of “Mr. President” when addressing him. Use of the word “senator” or “congressman” or “congresswoman” would return the respect they show him.

However, it’s foolish to suggest that Sen. Warren’s gender makes it easier for this president to be “disrespectful” in the way he scolds those with whom he disagrees.

I’m waiting now for Sen. Brown to tell us what happened when his office phone rang. “Senator, the president is on the line for you. Hello, Sherrod … ?”

 

national news, political news

'Mistakes were made' in Iraq … do you think?

There goes Jeb Bush, using that maddening passive-voice cliché that declares “mistakes were made.”

The mistakes occurred in Iraq after his brother, former President George W. Bush, invaded that country on a bogus premise that the Iraqis possessed weapons of mass destruction.

He told Fox News’s Megyn Kelly that he’d invade Iraq also, even he knew there were no WMD.

Now he’s backing away from the statement, telling conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity that predicting what he’d do is a “hypothetical” situation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jeb-bush-backs-off-support-of-iraq-invasion/ar-BBjH0wT

The former Florida governor is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination next year. He’s almost certain to join a growing GOP field.

He’d better get his Iraq War spiel lined out.

He told Hannity that President Bush learned from the “faulty intelligence” on which he relied to launch the March 2003 invasion. I guess that’s his view. As for the former president, he hasn’t yet revealed what precisely he “learned” from the mistaken intelligence-gathering.

I’m actually hoping Bush gets his act together. His party needs someone with a reputation for moderation running for president. The TEA party wing of the GOP has a lot of champions in the hunt already for the White House — and I expect fully that Gov. Bush will try to sound like one of them as he launches his own presidential bid.

His record, though, tells a different story.

Jeb Bush’s first major obstacle, though, is to persuade the country he is no carbon copy of his brother.

 

national news

Trouble finds Zimmerman once more

What is it with George Zimmerman?

He’s acquitted of murder after he shoots Trayvon Martin to death. He walks away a free man.

Then his wife divorces him. He then gets into a dispute with his girlfriend; the dispute involves a gun. The girlfriend doesn’t press charges. He’s free once again.

Now he gets into a road-rage incident with another motorist, who reportedly shoots at him.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/partial-911-call-released-guns-recovered-in-george-zimmerman-shooting-incident/ar-BBjGZ3R

Does trouble just find this guy? Or does this guy find trouble?

Which is it?

The only reason anyone even cares about Zimmerman is because of his involvement in the Trayvon Martin death. He was a neighborhood cop-for-hire when he encountered the 17-year-old Martin. The two of them got into a scuffle after Zimmerman began stalking Martin in the Sanford, Fla., neighborhood where Martin lived and where Zimmerman was on patrol.

The shooting, trial and the acquittal launched a serious national discussion about how young African-American men are treated by police officers or, in Zimmerman’s case, a private security officer.

My fondest wish now is that Zimmerman would just disappear. The guy really cannot escape the public eye, given his previous role as a principal in a controversial shooting.

Perhaps, though, he can work a little harder to lie low and not be seen or heard from — ever again!

 

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-fiancée — 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.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience