Dustin Johnson: one cool customer

HOYLAKE, ENGLAND - JULY 20:  Dustin Johnson of the United States reaches for a golf ball on the practice ground during the final round of The 143rd Open Championship at Royal Liverpool on July 20, 2014 in Hoylake, England.  (Photo by Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images)

I hereby decree Dustin Johnson to be the coolest cat in professional golf.

By “cool,” I mean unruffible — yeah, that’s a made-up word. I’m about to define it for you.

It’s the word that describes how a pro golfer could get, um, ruffled with the knowledge that — while he’s leading a major golf event — he might be assessed a one-stroke penalty at the end of the final round.

Yesterday, Johnson stood over a putt on the fifth hole of the U.S. Open championship in Oakmont, Pa. He moved his club and the ball moved, as in ever so slightly away from the hole. The U.S. Golf Association — which governs the U.S. Open event — decided to delay determining whether Johnson created the movement.

It would wait until the round ended. Then it would decide whether to levy the penalty. The delayed decision caused the Fox Sports announcers to wonder aloud why the USGA had to wait. It was, they noted, a most unusual circumstance facing the golfers in or near the lead.

Indeed, much of the commentary this morning has centered on the farcical nature of the bumblers among the USGA brass.

http://espn.go.com/golf/usopen16/story/_/id/16314954/when-dustin-johnson-won-us-open-did-more-claim-major-reclaimed-narrative-usga

Johnson played most of the back nine holes of the championship a shot in the lead. Which meant that if he won the event by a single shot, he could be given the penalty and then would have to play another round of golf the next day with the second-place finishers — three of them tied for second — to determine the winner.

How would you like to play for a major professional golf championship knowing that you could lose it all because some golf gurus decided at the end of the round that you deserved to penalized?

Johnson was — yes, that’s right — unruffled by it all.

He then went out and played the final three holes like a champ. He ended up with a four-stroke lead at the end of it.

Oh, yeah. The USGA did levy the penalty, meaning that Johnson would win his first major title by three strokes.

Dude, you are one cool customer.

Now it’s breastfeeding …

WT

West Texas A&M University officials say they’re going to “review” their policy on mothers who are nursing their infant children.

Why? Because a young mother who was visiting the Canyon campus decided to breastfeed her child in the Virgil Henson Activities Center swimming pool.

It sparked a bit of a tussle at WT over the school policy.

From where I sit, I do not believe the school needs to tweak its policy, which appears to be quite reasonable, logical and appropriate. It fits with community standards.

The young mother in question, Alicia Pino, most interestingly, acknowledged that feeding her child in the pool was inappropriate. She left the pool and went to a private room to continue feeding her baby.

As NewsChannel 10 reported: “They said no you don’t have to leave, but we prefer you be covered and if you’re not covered, then you need to go into a room,” says Pino. “And I told them you are walking on very thin ice telling me that I need to be covered or that I need to be in the room. I said it’s my civil right to feed my baby wherever I want to.”

Thin ice? Really?

WT officials say the school policy, which provides private rooms if the mother requests it. If not, then the school asks young mommies to cover themselves.

I must ask: Is that so unreasonable?

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/32250652/wt-reviewing-breastfeeding-policy-after-pool-incident

Let’s all be clear about something. We live in an urban society that over many, many years has imbued in us a sense of modesty. Women generally don’t expose themselves — even to feed their children. And yes,  I understand fully why women have breasts in the first place.

WT, though, isn’t being overly prudish with its requirements on women who have to feed their children. Any parent — mother or father — knows that when a child is hungry, then it’s time for the child to receive nourishment.

Should the school revamp or retool its policy?

No. If it complies with state law and guidelines, that’s good enough.

Profiling Muslims a possibility … seriously?

don trump

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, thinks profiling Muslims is something that U.S. law enforcement should consider.

Yes, that’s right. The nation that proclaims itself to be the champion of religious freedom, where the government doesn’t care which faith you worship … or even whether you worship at all, should consider singling out Muslims, according to Trump.

But wait a second! Hasn’t Trump proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States? Who, then, is he suggesting we profile?

Oh, I get it. That would be Americans!

I’ll set aside the obvious — in my view — un-American aspect of such a proposal.

How does one identify a Muslim? Would it be the scarves that women often wear? Would it be the names of the individuals being profiled? How does law enforcement discern who deserves profiling and who doesn’t?

I ask these questions because Muslims come from all ethnic backgrounds. What about the red-headed and freckle-faced Irish man or woman who converts to Islam? Or the blue-eyed blond from Scandinavia?

Oh, and then you have, say, the Palestinian who happens to be Christian. I have a bit of experience with meeting someone of that ilk. In 2009, my wife and I toured Bethlehem on the West Bank. Our tour guide? A young Palestinian who proclaimed his love of Jesus Christ as “our Lord and Savior.”

Trump told CBS’s “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson this morning that we ought to follow the model set by Israel, which he said profiles Muslims.

I’ll just add one more bit of personal privilege here. Having traveled to Israel and endured the grilling by security officers at David Ben-Gurion International Airport, I can state without reservation that the Israelis profile everyone who leaves the country through the Tel Aviv airport.

Take my word for it, you haven’t lived until you’ve been interrogated by an Israeli airport security guard.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-muslims-profiling-224529

Trump told Dickerson he hates “the concept of profiling.”

Fine. So do I. So should all Americans.

So much grist on which to comment this election year

trump

I ran into a former colleague of mine at the grocery store in southwest Amarillo this afternoon.

We exchanged pleasantries, talked a little about how he’s doing at the Amarillo Globe-News, where I toiled along with him for a number of years; he offered me a glimpse of the pressure he’s feeling in this new era of daily print journalism, as he’s wearing multiple hats these days.

My friend then paid me what I took as a compliment when he said, “I enjoy reading your blog … especially the stuff you’re writing about the election.”

Ah, yes. I took a breath. “God bless Donald Trump,” I told him. “He’s giving me so much material.”

Indeed, it never seems to end with Trump as he marches toward the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.

I told my friend that my confidence in an early prediction I made about a Hillary Clinton landslide was shaken a bit as Trump closed in on the magic number of delegates he needed to secure the GOP nomination. He seemed to pick up some momentum.

However, as I mentioned to my young friend, that confidence is being restored a bit by the unrest and unease being expressed by Republicans about the man they are about to nominate. Their angst is brought forward by the manner in which Trump has responded to recent crises and the continuing barrage of insults and innuendo he’s leveling at his critics.

Just so you know, I pay hardly zero attention to what the Democrats are saying about the prospect of running against Trump. I’ll just remind my Democratic friends out there what the Democratic moguls were saying back in 1980 when that cowboy former California governor/movie actor, Ronald Reagan, decided to run for president. Why, they couldn’t wait to run against The Gipper.

Bring him on! they crowed. We’ll make mincemeat of him.

It didn’t work out too well for President Carter, as he won a grand total of six states and lost by 10 percentage points in a serious landslide.

Republicans that year were brimming with confidence. This year it’s a different story, with Trump set to mount his steed while carrying the GOP banner into battle against Clinton and the Democrats.

My trouble with this blog that I write is that I’m having trouble focusing on things other than the myriad negatives that Trump is bringing to this campaign. I feel almost as though I need an intervention.

I’m going to try to do a better job from this point forward in finding some positive policy topics on which to comment. I can project with decent certainty that Trump won’t provide them.

I’ll have to look elsewhere.

When I find those topics, you’ll be the first to know.

Bad options await GOP convention delegates

Donald-Trump-Bad-Hair-Photo-1

If you’re a Republican intending to take part in your party’s presidential nominating convention, you are facing at least two seriously grim options.

The Dump/Never/Anyone But Trump movement has resurfaced — more or less — in the wake of presumptive presidential nominee Donald J. Trump’s latest volley of outrageous rhetoric.

It goes like this: Convention delegates might be given a chance to opt out of voting for the candidate to whom they are pledged. Thus, the belief lingers that enough of Trump’s delegates might decide to abstain on the first ballot and then free themselves to vote for someone else on a subsequent round of balloting.

All hell would break loose.

This bodes poorly for the GOP as it prepares to face the Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So does the alternative, which is to nominate Trump.

Why the grim outlook?

Option No. 1: Nominate Trump and let him go down in flames.

Trump’s campaign is in a state of disarray. He made an empty pledge to become “more presidential,” only to revert to his insults, name-calling and innuendo. The Orlando massacre brought out the latest from Trump, when he boasted about “being right” about the threat of Islamic terrorism — while the nation was mourning the loss of 49 lives in that nightclub.

He is likely to continue railing, ranting and raving. He suggested the president of the United States might have some nefarious motive in refusing to identify the threat as coming from “radical Islamic terrorists.”

Trump’s hideous innuendo has managed to anger many within his party. Some key officeholders have pulled their endorsements. House Speaker Paul Ryan has told members of Congress they are welcome to “vote their conscience.”

Some of then actually might let their conscience support someone else, which might also carry over to their constituents out here in Voterland.

Option No. 2: Let the delegates pick someone else.

This is highly unlikely to happen. The reason might be the reality that Trump won more delegates than anyone else, by a mile, during the primary season. He collected a record number of GOP-primary votes. He won 38 states fairly and squarely.

To deny him the nomination after he won the war of attrition against 16 primary foes would be seen as a serious slap against those who voted for him.

If the delegates mount their coup and deny Trump his nomination, well, then you’re talking about a serious revolt occurring with the Republican Party.

The first option look bad for Republicans, given the nature of Trump’s temperament.

The second option looks even worse, given the reaction that would occur from those who have backed him to the hilt.

Good luck, GOP convention delegates. You’ll need it.

As nation grieves, Trump boasts

90

“Temperamentally unfit … ”

We’re likely to hear that a lot during the next few months as Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigns for president of the United States against Donald J. Trump.

Examples? We’ve got plenty of them.

The latest example of temperamental unfitness presented itself in the hours after this past weekend’s slaughter of 49 people at the Pulse, an Orlando, Fla., nightclub.

The nation went into shock at the most gruesome mass murder in U.S. history. Trump’s response was to send out a tweet that boasted about how he predicted that Islamic terrorists were going to strike.

Trump said he called it. He was right. The president of the United States has been “weak” in the fight against terrorism, he said.

Republican insiders now are saying that Trump blew it badly by bragging during this time of national bereavement. “Only an a**hole says ‘I told you so’ the same day 49 people are killed on American soil by a terrorist,” said a New Hampshire Republican, who, like all respondents, completed the survey anonymously, according to Politico.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-orlando-response-224479

The massacre in Orlando has been generally categorized as an act of terror. The killer — an American — seems to have been radicalized by his fealty to the Islamic State.

It’s also been called the “worst act of terror on U.S. soil since 9/11.” That’s now a given.

I now shall remind us all of what national security officials said in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Almost to a person they predicted then that we’d get hit again. That the terrorists had smelled our blood and they wanted more of it.

It’s also been a given that we would feel this kind of pain.

Trump’s braggadocio was so profoundly inappropriate that it only feeds the narrative that Hillary Clinton is going to recite time and again as she campaigns for the presidency.

Clinton, Trump: party unifiers

donald

Texas Democrats are meeting in San Antonio this weekend.

They appear to be downright giddy about their chances in this election year. Then again, they proclaim their giddiness at every election cycle, only to be disappointed when the ballots are counted.

Do you remember when former state Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth ran for governor in 2014 and how Democrats said that was the year? It wasn’t. Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott thumped Davis by more than 20 percentage points.

That was then, Democrats are saying now.

They’re squaring off against a Republican Party being led by one Donald J. Trump as their party’s presidential nominee.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis of Houston asked convention attendees: “Can you really believe that they nominated Donald Trump?” Why, the delegates couldn’t get enough of the “good news.”

Trump is going to be the unifier the Democrats need to help them carry Texas this fall with Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their ticket.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/18/analysis-republican-whos-keeping-texas-democrats-t/

But here comes the wet blanket.

Hillary Clinton is going to unify the Republicans, too.

There are differing dynamics, as I see it, working against both parties’ presumed nominees.

Democrats cannot believe that Trump — the huckster, reality TV celebrity, hotel and real estate mogul, thrice-married media star — is actually running for president of the United States of America. They dare not take him too lightly, and delegates are being warned of the risks inherent if they do.

Republicans, meanwhile, detest Clinton. They’ve been looking high and low for something that rises to the level of an indictment. They can’t find anything. They’ve hated her since her husband was president from 1993 to 2001.

I’m not going to project which emotion — the Democrats’ perverse joy or the Republicans’ loathing — is going to be the greater partisan unifying effect.

The major concern facing Republicans in Texas might not be the Democrats. It might be that their own party is showing signs of splitting apart because of their nominee’s own trouble within the party he wants to lead.

That, all by itself, might be enough to put Texas in play for Democrats, giving them a real honest-to-goodness reason for optimism.

Trump having trouble with key GOP bloc

trump mormons

They’re calling it a “Mormon wall.”

The term describes a critically important Republican bloc of voters who normally stand firm behind the party’s presidential nominee … who doesn’t have to share the faith of those voters to win their hearts and minds.

Donald J. Trump is seeking to court Mormon voters in Nevada, which is emerging as one of those battleground states where he and Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton will pay careful attention.

Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, isn’t winning them over.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-mormons-nevada-224504

The 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney is a devout Mormon. He won big in neighboring Utah, which was settled in the 19th century by Mormon missionaries. President Barack Obama, however, captured Nevada in 2008 and 2012.

This is worth noting because of Trump’s claim to be a social conservative who now believes in the Republican Party platform that opposes issues such as abortion and marriage equality.

Mormon voters who comprise such a solid Republican bloc aren’t too keen on the guy who’s about to become the party’s next presidential nominee.

According to Politico: “Usually our people are very involved in being engaged, trying to get other people engaged,” said Cory Christensen, a GOP operative active in the LDS community, who hasn’t decided yet whether to support Trump. “Some very significant, key people that are seen as political leaders—that aren’t elected officials but everybody knows they are involved, and look to them for advice—those people are not making the calls, doing the work, selling people on the fact that they need to be with him. That’s where the big impact would be felt.”

Politico also reports that Mormons comprise only about 4 percent of Nevada’s population, but they do make up a large concentration in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, the rapidly growing largest city in Nevada.

I believe Trump’s difficulty with the Mormon bloc of GOP voters bodes poorly for how he intends to fare with other staunchly conservatives within the Republican Party. Will they cast their votes for Hillary Clinton to “protest” Trump’s bizarre behavior? Hardly. They’re likely to vote for someone else, or not vote at all for president.

This puts the GOP ticket led by Donald J. Trump potentially in some seriously deep doo-doo.

No Muslim, no terrorist

crime-scene-tape

Crises have this way of turning normally rational people into jittery jive talkers.

Americans were reeling this past weekend from the news out of Orlando, Fla., where someone opened fire in a nightclub and killed 49 people in the worst mass murder in U.S. history.

The police killed the gunman.

It turns out the monster who did this deed was an American, born in New York state. He was a Muslim. His parents were Afghan immigrants. He supposedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State before committing his horrendous act.

Two days later, a guy walks into an Amarillo Walmart store, takes a couple of hostages, fires a gun into the ceiling and then is shot to death by Amarillo Police Department SWAT officers.

How did the hair-trigger rumor mill handle this? It went wild.

The gunman was “identified” — by whom remains unclear, I guess — as a Somali Muslim immigrant. I would bet anyone some real American money that a lot of Amarillo residents suspected the guy had terrorist leanings.

He didn’t. It turns out he wasn’t from Somalia. He was from Iran. He wasn’t even a Muslim. He was a Baha’i, which is one of the most peaceful religions on the planet.

Mohammad Sadegh Moghaddam left Iran in 2003. He came to the United States to start a new life. He fled the repression and terror of his homeland. He was married; he had children. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

This man worked at Walmart. But he got into a dispute with a store manager. Something snapped.

http://m.amarillo.com/obituaries/2016-06-17/walmart-hostage-taker-neither-muslim-nor-terrorist#gsc.tab=0

The tragedy in Orlando won’t wash away anytime soon. Americans are fearful of what might happen in their communities, no matter where they live.

Amarillo is not immune from that fear, as we learned from the incident at Walmart and the reaction in its immediate aftermath.

That fear, though, mustn’t consume us and lead us toward erroneous conclusions about those who react badly to circumstances that lead to violence.

 

‘Thin skin’ label gets under Trump’s thin skin

donald-trump

Elizabeth Warren calls it as she sees it.

Donald J. Trump, says the senior U.S. senator from Massachusetts, is a “thin-skinned racist bully.”

So the attack continues. It will continue through the rest of this political campaign as Trump runs for the presidency against his certain Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Trump’s camp needs to worry about their guy.

The presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee has demonstrated time and again an inability to answer criticism of his statements and what passes for “policy” without resorting to name-calling and insults.

Take his standard-fare response to Warren’s criticism. He keeps referring to her as “Pocahontas.” Why? It’s because Warren claims to have some Native American ancestry in her background.

When the criticism comes from Clinton, Trump responds with “Crooked Hillary” barbs. Former GOP foes Ted Cruz became “Lyin’ Ted,” Marco Rubio became “Little Marco,” and Jeb Bush became “Low Energy Jeb.”

Trump has labeled the media as “sleazy,” “dishonest,” “pathetic,” and “phony.” Why? Because the media have shown the temerity to report on negative elements of Trump’s past.

I’m sure someone within Trump’s inner circle — if he’s actually got one — will need to inform him of this truth.

“Donald, it’s not going to get any easier from this day forward. In fact, dude, it’s going to get even rougher. The more insults and pejorative labels you sling at your critics, the more they’re going to come back at you.

“It’s long past time, Donald, for you to start arguing policy differences with Hillary.

“However, first things first. You’ve got to come with a set of policies you can call your own.”

Will he heed that advice?

I’d wager — if I were a betting man — he’ll ignore it … at enormous political peril.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience