International news, national news, political news

Obama deserves unified nation

The late great Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan had it right.

Partisanship, he said, should “stop at the water’s edge.”

Put another way: When a president takes a nation to war then it becomes imperative for a nation to rally behind the effort.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/obama-un-address-111287.html?hp=l1

President Barack Obama went before the United Nations today to tell the world body that it’s time for the world to step up in the fight against the Islamic State. He didn’t sugar-coat it. He said the fight well could take years. He said ISIL is a tough and resilient foe. He also said that dozens of nations have lined up as part of a growing coalition to fight the terrorists.

But can the commander in chief perform his duty to protect Americans without much of the partisan carping that has plagued him to date? If his Republican foes choose to heed the words of one of their predecessors — the late Sen. Vandenberg — then there might be a unified nation rallying to fight a determined enemy.

Unity, of course, isn’t always the norm.

President Bush was able to rally the nation initially when he took us to war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Much of the support evaporated when he expanded that fight into Iraq in March 2003.

President Clinton had his critics when he started bombing fighters in Bosnia and Kosovo.

President Truman heard the critics when the Korean War dragged on.

And Vietnam? Well, we know what happened there.

Barack Obama received congressional authorization to arm and train Syrian rebels. He’s consulted with political friends and foes in advance of launching the air strikes. Some critics will continue to say the strikes are too little too late.

Let us not undermine this necessary effort to destroy the Islamic State, however, with partisan carping.

business news, local news

Cell phone courtesy course is in order

Cell phones. I love ’em and hate ’em at the same time.

What do I love about cell phones? A few things come to mind: I love being able to call my wife when I forget something I’m supposed to get while running errands; I love the Bluetooth feature in my Prius that allows me to talk and drive at the same time while not fiddling with the gadget; I love being able to place — or receive — an emergency phone call, which has happened in both instances.

OK, what do I hate about them? Watching individuals talk and drive at the same time. The No. 1 thing I hate about them is being forced to listen to someone’s conversation.

It’s that aspect of cell phones that brings to mind an idea I hadn’t thought of until just today. Cell phone merchants ought to conduct cell phone courtesy courses, teaching first-time users (if there are any of them left on Planet Earth) the do’s and don’ts of cell phone usage.

Here’s an example.

I was at work Tuesday at the car dealership that employs me part time. The waiting area in our service department was full of customers; maybe about 10 or 12 folks were sitting there waiting on vehicles they’d brought in for service.

About four of them were talking on cell phones. But one of them — a gentleman about 70 years of age — could be heard above everyone else. In fact, his was the only voice I heard for nearly an hour. He was talking loudly on his cell phone.

The woman sitting right next to him was talking on her cell phone. I didn’t hear a thing she said. She was being discreet.

Mr. Loudmouth? He was anything but discreet. He was bellowing into his phone for no apparent reason. He wasn’t hard of hearing. How do I know that? Because he and I spoke briefly and he had no difficulty hearing what I was saying to him in my normal conversational voice — which isn’t particularly loud.

But he just had to talk loudly into that gizmo.

I didn’t mean to eavesdrop. But, hey, I couldn’t help it. Neither could any of the other customers who had to listen to this guy’s constant blathering.

Cell phones have become a part of our society. However, I think I have an idea that would make it a less-intrusive element in our way of life. I am going to pitch it to one of the sales folks working at the cell phone store where I do business.

national news, Sports news

Jeter deserves the accolades

Let’s talk a little baseball.

Specifically, let’s talk for a bit about Derek Jeter, the New York Yankees shortstop whose baseball career is about to end in a few days.

Jeter is retiring after 20 seasons with the Yankees and he’s been the subject of two interesting — and opposing — observations.

ESPN blowhard Keith Olbermann went on the air last night and talked about how tired he is of all the adulation Jeter has been getting. Well, whatever, Keith. You are not credible — to me, at least — to talk about anything. I will set your rant aside.

Then I read an Associated Press story this morning that suggests Jeter might be the first unanimous pick for baseball’s Hall of Fame when he becomes eligible in 2020.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jeterde01.shtml?redir

I’m not going to jump on that bandwagon, either. Why? It has little to do with Jeter, who has had a stellar career and has behaved magnificently off the field as well.

It’s just that in the history of Hall of Fame voting, no one ever has gotten into the hall unanimously. Tom Seaver, the great pitcher, came closest. All the inductees have voters keeping them off their Hall of Fame ballots.

Looking back on all the years of baseball I’ve followed, I think the perfect candidate for unanimous induction would have been Henry Aaron, the great Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves slugger who chased down Babe Ruth’s all-time home run record. Hank Aaron remains — in my mind at least — the home run king, given that he didn’t banned substances that enabled him to break the record.

More than that, he faced down horrific racism from those who just couldn’t stand the thought of a white guy’s record falling to a black guy. Aaron conducted himself with great courage and grace in the face of that hatred and to this very day remains the model of gentlemanly decorum.

If anyone should have been elected with nary a “no” vote, it’s Hammering Hank Aaron.

He didn’t get there unanimously.

Jeter is one of the greatest Yankees ever. He stands next to the Babe, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle — four men who personified what it means to be a Yankee great. We can place Derek Jeter next to them.

Will he get to the Hall of Fame with a unanimous vote? Well, if Henry Aaron couldn’t do it, I cannot fathom how Derek Jeter gets it done.

political news, State news

Texas: reddest of the Red States

Texas is Ground Zero — pardon the reference — of the conservative movement.

That’s the assessment of Dan Balz, a veteran Washington Post political reporter, who uses land commissioner candidate George P. Bush as his example of the state’s rightward shift.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-has-become-epicenter-of-conservative-movement/2014/09/20/71678e12-410f-11e4-a430-b82a3e67b762_story.html

Bush is the grandson and nephew of two former presidents and the son of a former Florida governor. All three of his ancestors, Balz said, used to personify the “kinder, gentler” wing of the Republican Party. Bush thinks GOP firebrand Sen. Ted Cruz is the future of his party and he said so at a gathering of pols and pundits at a Texas Tribune talk-fest held in Austin.

Indeed, the view that Texas is leading the conservative charge probably isn’t that much of a surprise. Even when it leaned heavily Democratic, its officeholders weren’t usually considered — at that time, at least — to be squishy liberals. The most successful Democrats in the state were folks like John Connally, Lloyd Bentsen, Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson. Yes, you had your occasional lefty in there, such as Ralph Yarborough and then Ann Richards.

The last Democrat elected to statewide office in 1994 was John Sharp, hardly a lefty, who’s now chancellor of the Texas A&M University System.

So, Texas has leaned right for longer than the GOP has been in control of everything.

As for the model of today’s modern conservatism in Texas, look at Dan Patrick, the GOP candidate for lieutenant governor. He’s just recently declared his intention to rid the state of the DREAM Act, which allows Texans brought here illegally by their parents to enroll in state public colleges and universities as “in-state” students, paying in-state tuition rates.

Gov. Rick Perry, a fiery conservative if there ever was one, endorses the DREAM Act. Not Patrick. If he’s elected, he’ll get rid of it.

Yep, the state is No. 1 all right.

national news, political news

DREAM on, Sen. Patrick

Texas Republicans have this problem with Hispanics, who see them as hard-hearted and uncaring about the needs of the state’s fastest-growing demographic group.

The state GOP is trying some outreach to the Hispanic community. Then along comes the party’s nominee for lieutenant governor to say that if he’s elected he’ll work to repeal the DREAM Act for young Texans seeking to enroll at public universities.

Well done, state Sen. Dan Patrick. You just might have shot yourself — and your party — in both feet.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/22/patricks-push-repeal-dream-act-could-face-criticis/

Current state law, the DREAM Act, allows undocumented immigrants to enroll at Texas colleges and universities and pay in-state tuition. This law applies to those who were brought here illegally as children by their parents. They are here because their parents decided to come to Texas to seek a better life.

So the state has allowed them to enroll in public colleges and universities as if they are Texans, which they are, given that they’ve grown up here, come of age here, known only life in Texas.

Dan Patrick says he’ll do away with that, toeing the conservative line so popular among Texas Republicans.

Let’s back up, though, for just a second. Two other prominent Texas conservatives support the DREAM Act. One of them is Gov. Rick Perry, who’s leaving office at the end of the year. The other one is Perry’s predecessor as governor, George W. Bush, who then went on to be elected to two terms as president of the United States.

Perry and Bush get it. They understand what the DREAM Act does for young Texans who want to get an education at a price they can afford.

Patrick doesn’t get it. All he gets is what his party’s “base” keeps shouting in his ear.

The most interesting push back to Patrick’s vow to kill the law comes from a group that has endorsed him, the Texas Association of Business. Its executive director, Bill Hammond, a former legislator from Dallas said this: “We think in-state tuition is a very appropriate response to the fact that we need more Texans going to college and completing college. We choose to disagree with him respectfully on this issue.”

Bill Hammond and the TAB get it, too.

International news

Not the U.S. fight alone

President Obama said it correctly.

The fight against the Islamic State does not mean the United States wages this battle alone. ISIL presents a worldwide threat and therefore the world — or at least those nations closest to the threat — must step up.

Five of them have done so as air strikes have begun in Syria.

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-says-arab-support-shows-this-is-not-americas-fight-alone

It is to the great credit of Secretary of State John Kerry that he was able to cobble together a coalition of Arab states to take part in this fight alongside American service personnel. French fighter aircraft already have joined U.S. pilots in hitting ISIL targets in neighboring Iraq.

Obama said, “America is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with these nations. This is not America’s fight alone.”

So the fight has been joined with the Islamic State in Syria. Does this mean we’re now cozying up to Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator who remains an enemy of the United States? Not in the least, although U.S. commanders did alert Assad in advance that the air strikes against ISIL targets would commence.

The pressure must remain on the Arab states to stay in the fight for as long as it takes to put down these terrorist monsters, who have made it clear they intend to target Americans for future heinous acts.

Yes, the fight will take some time to complete. It must be done.

national news, political news, State news

Sen. Cruz denies the obvious

Someone will have to pass the smelling salts to me. I must have been in a stupor the past year or so.

Either that or U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is utterly delusional.

I’ll go with the latter for now.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/09/cruz-denies-playing-role-in-congressional-gridlock/

Cruz is a Texas Republican who has denied playing a role in shutting the government down over a fight about the Affordable Care Act. He said at Texas Tribune Fest that the “blame” belongs to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Cruz’s role in that debacle? He says he didn’t have any role to play.

Huh? Cruz’s Republican colleague in the Senate, fellow Texan John Cornyn, said otherwise.

So has every observer of Capitol Hill — Democrat, Republican, independent, media observers — said that Cruz was a key player in the shutdown.

He filibustered against the ACA trying to repeal it. Didn’t he do that?

Of course, Cruz blamed the media — which he said sides with Democrats — for the characterizations attached to the junior senator. According to a blog posted by the San Antonio Express-News: “Remarking that Republicans are usually criticized as either crazy or evil, Cruz said he took it as ‘somewhat of a back-handed compliment that the press has invented a third caricature of me, which is crazy.’”

Well, he’s not crazy. Almost everything he’s done publicly since joining the Senate in January 2013, though, reveals a burning ambition. He’s been out front on high-profile issues almost from Day One of his still-young Senate tenure. He ignores Senate decorum. He’s drawn the ire of fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.

Now he says he had nothing to do with the government shutdown.

The young man possesses some serious hubris.

International news, national news, political news

Air strikes in Syria begin … with help

American pilots are now doing what the commander in chief said was likely: launching air strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria.

With that news, the war against the terrorists has expanded.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/world/meast/u-s-airstrikes-isis-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

My view from many thousands of miles away is this: We’d better hit them hard and keep hitting them hard for as long as it takes to render them “degraded” significantly.

I do not want U.S. “boots on the ground.” Those “boots” would be carrying Americans, which is why I have grown weary of that cliché. I remain cautiously optimistic that air strikes can do what President Obama wants them to do, which is to degrade and ultimately defeat the Islamic State.

No, we cannot do this alone. The Pentagon has said that partner nations are involved in the air strikes, which began with Tomahawk missiles and fighter aircraft launched from the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush.

There can be no doubt that any military operation requires friendly nations to take part. The Pentagon hasn’t been very specific on which nations are contributing to this cause, but reports indicate that Sunni Arab states have been involved. That’s an encouraging sign.

What’s the biggest worry, other than ISIL responding with some hideous execution? My guess is that it would Syria reacting badly to U.S. aircraft entering Syrian airspace. If the Syrians are smart — and I believe they are — they’ll be quietly applauding the air strikes, as the ISIL targets represent the biggest threat to that government’s survival.

Oh, boy. This fight has just gotten a whole lot more complicated.

national news, political news

Citizenship test for voters?

An aspect of modern media today is that with so many platforms out there, it’s easy for talking heads — people with lots of opinions about this or that issue — to speak their peace before plenty of people.

The size of their platform grants them some sort of “expert” status.

In fairness, I could add myself to that list of so-called “experts.” I write this blog and offer my opinions to those who care to read them. What they do with these thoughts, well, depends on whether they agree.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck is a Fox News Channel host who, I guess, has a forum to say things that are patently ridiculous. However, because she’s on a network “news” channel, her statements carry some extra weight.

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/22/elisabeth_hasselbeck_it_is_more_meaningful_if_citizens_have_to_take_a_test_before_voting/

Her latest ridiculous rant suggested that citizens should have to pass a citizenship test before they vote or before they graduate from high school.

Hasselbeck endorsed the idea of a citizenship test in a morning discussion on the “Fox and Friends” show she co-hosts. But according to Salon.com, Hasselbeck missed a history lesson of her own.

According to Salon.com: “The problem is one that Fox completely omitted, an argumentative tactic that has served the network well. There actually has been such a test, a so-called literacy test, which was eventually banned by the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The test was theoretically to be given to people of all races, but was disproportionately given to black potential voters in order to disenfranchise them. A few of the tests are available, and the wording of the questions are deliberately confusing and obtuse in such a way that even highly educated people would not necessarily do well.”

As a former colleague of mine is fond of saying — usually in support of right-wingers’ view of constitutional issues — the Constitution doesn’t say a word about requiring such tests as a condition for voting.

Therefore, Hasselbeck has just flunked her own test of civic knowledge.

national news, political news, State news

ACA is hardly an 'abject failure'

Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott declared something the other day during his debate with Democratic opponent Wendy Davis that I cannot let stand.

“Obamacare,” he said, “is an abject failure.”

That’s it, then. The verdict is in. The Affordable Care Act isn’t working. It isn’t providing health insurance to Americans who couldn’t afford it. It isn’t saving lives. It isn’t saving people’s livelihoods.

How does he come to that conclusion?

Oh, wait. I think I know. He’s running for governor in a state that detests the ACA’s author, President Barack Obama. So it makes political sense for Abbott to declare the ACA a complete failure. It makes as much sense for the state’s attorney general to promise, as he did the other night, to bring “more health care to Texans.” The question, however, is this: How — precisely — does the governor do that?

I’ve noted already that the ACA rollout was full if fits and starts, hiccups, mistakes and all manner of “technical difficulties” with the healthcare.gov website that was supposed to be up and running.

However, Americans are enrolling in the ACA. They’re getting coverage now after being unable to get it prior to enactment of the law.

Will this process now proceed hitch-free? Probably not.

The ACA is just a few months old. It’s going to be fine-tuned, tinkered, tightened as we move along.

That’s the case — without exception — with all landmark laws.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience