Stop and frisk: let’s hold on

90

Donald J. Trump wants American police officers to institute the “stop-and-frisk” policies that a judge has ruled to be unconstitutional.

That doesn’t matter to the Republican presidential nominee.

He’s the “law and order candidate” for president … he says.

We’ve entered another difficult time. Police shot an unarmed man to death in Tulsa, Okla. Charlotte, N.C., residents are protesting tonight in the wake of another fatal incident involving police officers. And yes, the shooting victims were black; the officers are white.

We’re on edge once again.

Trump’s response is to double down on that “stop-and-frisk” idea.

A judge in New York said the practice appears to discriminate against Americans based on the color of their skin. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch weighed in, contending that the practice wasn’t an effective law enforcement tool.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/09/loretta-lynch-trump-stop-and-frisk-228533

Yes, some communities are experiencing terrible spikes in violent crime. GOP partisans not surprisingly are blaming Democratic municipal administrations for incompetence and for adhering to policies that create such an environment.

C’mon, folks. Let’s be rational and reasonable.

As Politico reports: “Lynch, who spent two stints as chief federal prosecutor in Brooklyn before being nominated as attorney general, said she wasn’t opposed to stop-and-frisk techniques under certain circumstances.

“‘As with every police procedure we want to empower law enforcement to be responsive to community needs. We want to empower them to protect the community. We want to give them the training they need in order to do it in a way that is constitutional, safe and effective and promotes trust,’ Lynch said. ‘It’s not really a yes or no answer.'”

The concern about stop and frisk is its widespread use. Trump, as is his tendency, wants to bring the policy to bear across the board.

I’m going to stick with the AG’s more reasonable and rational approach.

Clinton v. Trump: made for television

politics-word-cloud

Americans who care about the election that will choose the next president of the United States are going to tune in to what is shaping up as the perfect made-for-television event.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump — Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, respectively — are going to face off in the first of three televised joint appearances.

I don’t know about you, but I’m intending to watch every second of it.

This might be the ballgame. Or, it might throw the whole contest into yet another cocked hat.

You know my bias already. I detest Trump. I am not enamored of Clinton. It’s a grim choice we all face. One of them, though, is going to win this election on Nov. 8.

To get there they have to prove how nimble they are. They have to show us who is better equipped to deal with the myriad challenges facing the country. This isn’t a time for cheap, easy, throwaway solutions. We need some detail here, folks.

Who between them will provide the detail and depth we ought to be seeking? Well, my money will be on Clinton.

They’ll have 90 minutes to make the case.

I remain hesitant to call this a “debate.” I’m not privy to the format established. The moderator, NBC News anchor Lester Holt, will pose the questions. The candidates will answer him. They won’t debate each other in the classic sense.

Hey, let’s not quibble. These events aren’t set up to be pristine debates. They are created to allow us — the voter — to size up both candidates.

Given the enormously unconventional nature of this election cycle, it might be unwise to suggest that a major gaffe by Trump — who’s committed untold numbers of them already — will doom his campaign. This clown has demonstrated that he’s so far been virtually bullet-proof. He fires off a stream-of-consciousness riff about an opponent that causes millions of Americans to groan in disbelief; but his supporters cheer him on, demanding more of the same.

Yes, there’ll be an audience. They’ll cheer for their candidate. Maybe they’ll boo the other one. It’s TV, folks.

It’ll be a big night in what is shaping up as one of the more bizarre elections any of us can remember.

I keep hearing about the expected huge viewership expected for this event. How does it square with the lack of enthusiasm for these major-party nominees and the incredible negative ratings that burden them both?

Whatever. I’ll be watching.

And you?

Well done, ‘Smitty’ Smith

smitty_smith_cr_jpg_800x1000_q100

The headline was an attention-getter for me.

“‘Smitty,’ a Texas Lobbyist for the Small Fry, Retiring After 31 Years.” That’s how it appeared in the Texas Tribune.

Why did it grab my attention? Well, for starters, I’ve long admired Tom “Smitty” Smith’s courage in lobbying for causes that aren’t particularly popular in Texas.

He’s lobbied on behalf of environmental groups. consumers, the “little guy,” if you want to call it that.

Smith led Public Citizen of Texas for 31 years, which is nearly about as long as I’ve lived and worked in Texas. I arrived here in1984 and became acquainted almost immediately with Smith once I started standing my post on the editorial page of the Beaumont Enterprise, way down yonder in the Golden Triangle.

We hit it off right away.

To be candid, I have lost contact with Smith over the years. I don’t recall meeting with him with nearly the frequency in Amarillo that I did in Beaumont. Plus, I’ve been away from daily journalism for four years, severing that professional connection.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/21/analysis-smitty-texas-lobbyist-small-fry-hangs-it-/

Ross Ramsey’s piece in the Tribune, though, encapsulates Smith to a “t.” He is an everyman. As Ramsey notes: “He’s from that part of the Austin lobby that doesn’t wear fancy suits, doesn’t drive the latest luxury cars and doesn’t spend its time fawning over and feeding elected officials. Smitty has a beard, an omnipresent straw hat and, often, a colorful sheaf of flyers making his points on whatever cause he’s pushing at the time.”

I particularly liked Smith’s commitment to environmental issues, which in Texas can be seen as a tough sell. Texas isn’t known as a haven for tree-huggers. We remain pretty much a throw-away society. We still love our big cars and trucks. Oil refineries and petrochemical plants still pour toxins into the air.

Smith, though, has been a champion for alternative forms of energy. He likes wind and solar power. Although the sun isn’t yet a major energy producer in Texas, wind certainly has assumed its place. Texas is now the leading state in the production of wind energy. “Smitty” Smith had a big hand in that development.

Smith seemed a bit out of place in a state that, according to Ramsey, is anathema to the values that Smith promotes: Ramsey writes: “Smitty has been a leading voice for government intervention and regulation of big industries and interests in the capital of a state with conservative, business-friendly politicians from both parties who pride themselves on light regulation, low taxes and a Wild West approach to money in politics.”

I regret not keeping up with “Smitty” Smith better in recent years. I wish him well in his retirement. He has fought a good fight on behalf of everyday Texans.

Well done, Smitty.

Sessions invokes Reagan … while crowing about Trump

doanld

Jeff Sessions is arguably Donald J. Trump’s best friend in the U.S. Senate.

The Alabama Republican was on board early in Trump’s campaign for the presidency. Now he is upset that members of a big-time GOP family have turned their backs on Trump, the party’s presidential nominee.

Here’s the best part, though, of Sessions’ rant against former Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

He said, according to columnist Byron York: ” … millions of Americans, including this one, worked their hearts out for the Bushes in 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2004. And it wasn’t Bill Clinton that helped the Bushes get elected. It was the same voters, in large part, that elected Ronald Reagan and stand to elect Donald Trump.”

I am amused that Sessions would invoke Reagan’s name, suggesting that today’s Trumpkins mirror those who backed the Gipper all those years ago.

There’s another part of that calculation that needs a bit of scrutiny.

I cannot prove this, but my strong belief is that President Reagan would be aghast at Donald Trump’s ascent to the pinnacle of GOP power.

If only the president were alive today to weigh in.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-sessions-on-bushes-trump-snub-theyve-forgotten-who-elected-them/article/2602526

The former presidents Bush and Jeb Bush haven’t forgotten a thing. They are dedicated Republicans who have seen their party hijacked by a con man/entertainer/hustler/narcissist.

They, too, were loyal Reaganites. Indeed, George H.W. Bush was so loyal to the president that he tossed aside his long-standing pro-choice view on abortion to become a pro-life vice president during the Reagan administration.

Is Trump the true-blue conservative who would have earned the Gipper’s endorsement? Hardly.

He is an ignorant imposter seeking high public office for reasons that remain a mystery. He wants to “make America great again”? He has insulted the very people who continue to maintain America’s greatness in the world.

I refer, of course, to the men and women in uniform who fight every day to protect us.

Ronald Reagan would have nothing to do with this charlatan.

Searching for ‘Roadside Attractions’

sign

One of my favorite answers to the question “How are you doing?” is one I heard years ago … but it bears repeating.

“If I were any better, I’d be twins.”

There you have it. Life is good.

One of the highlights of my recent life has been the opportunity to continue writing and reporting on the community where I live. My full-time job in print journalism ended four years ago, but I’ve stayed busy.

One of the gigs has been with KFDA-TV NewsChannel 10. The folks at the Amarillo CBS affiliate gave me the title of “special projects reporter” when I started writing a feature for NewsChannel10.com. We called it “Whatever Happened  To … ?” It told stories about the status of big stories and big promises.

My bosses at News Channel 10 decided that feature had played itself out. So, together we came up with another idea.

“Roadside Attractions” is its name.

You’ve seen those historical markers scattered throughout the Texas Panhandle, yes? They tell motorists about events that happened at those sites. If not precisely at those locations, then they point you to where the event took place.

We’re going to tell the stories of historical markers. The idea is to give us all a glimpse back at our past. They’ll tell us how this region has arrived at this point. We’ll post the stories on NewsChannel10.com each Wednesday as the station airs the segment telling viewers about the markers profiled that week.

The Texas Historical Commission says the state has about 15,000 such markers. The Panhandle alone has hundreds of them posted along our farm-to-market roads, our state highways and our two interstate thoroughfares.

I’m going to search them out.

I’ll have some help in telling those stories. My friends at the Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum in Canyon have been helpful in the extreme so far. They have pointed me toward local historians and have given me plenty of background on the markers.

You won’t mistake these pieces as being a version of “On the Road” series that the late CBS correspondent Charles Kuralt made famous many years ago. I’m not nearly that good a story teller.

I’ll do my best, though, to bring you slices of local history as told through these markers. They’re everywhere, man. I’ll find as many of them as I can.

Michael Grauer, associate director for curatorial affairs at PPHM, calls himself a “stopper and reader” of these markers. Perhaps we can entice more of our viewers to become stoppers and readers, too.

I want to thank my friends at NewsChannel 10 for allowing me to keep doing what I love to do. It’s been a blast so far.

Let’s enjoy the ride together.

Don’t give in to endorsement pressure, Sen. Cruz

trump_cruz_jpg_800x1000_q100

It pains me to say something positive about U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

I don’t like the guy. He appears in my view to be far more interested in self-aggrandizement than service to Texans. He’s a loudmouth, a showboating self-promoter.

But shoot, man, I have been happy to see him stand by his principles — even if I disagree with them — in his dispute with GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Cruz hasn’t endorsed Trump’s bid for the presidency. Why? Because he believes — as I do — that Trump is a fraud, a charlatan, a con man, an unprincipled opportunist, a phony.

Now, though, I hear reports of Cruz reportedly warming up to Trump. He said some nice things about Trump recently.

Dammit, Ted! Don’t go there, young man!

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/22/the-brief/

Trump inserted some amazingly harsh innuendo into the GOP primary campaign as he sought to vanquish Cruz’s challenge. He actually implied that Cruz’s father, a Cuban immigrant, had been seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald, the guy who murdered President Kennedy. The suggestion was that the elder Cruz was somehow, in some way, complicit in that act.

Plus, let’s not forget how Trump insulted Heidi Cruz, the senator’s wife, with that unflattering Twitter photo. Sen. Cruz was rightfully outraged by that tactic and called Trump a coward.

Against that backdrop, are we now going to believe that Cruz is going to make nice with this guy? That he’s going to say “Hey, let bygones be bygones” and endorse Trump’s bid for the presidency?

I happen to share Cruz’s previously stated outrage at Trump’s behavior, which I believe firmly would carry over into a Trump presidency.

Let’s not forget, either, that Cruz urged his fellow Republicans at the party’s nominating convention to “vote your conscience” this fall.

Stay true to your own conscience, Sen. Cruz.

AEDC comes up with lucrative offer for Tech

tech-1_jpg_800x1000_q100

Amarillo voters approved an economic development corporation in 1989 for one purpose: to invest sales tax revenue in job-creation opportunities.

There have been a few misfires over the years. There also have been some spectacular successes. I hold up the Bell/Textron aircraft assembly operation as an example of success.

The AEDC has ponied up $15 million for Texas Tech University to build and operate a school of veterinary medicine in Amarillo.

Yes, this is a wise investment of sales tax revenue.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/20/amarillo-chips-15-million-texas-techs-vet-school-p/

As the Texas Tribune reports: “Not only is this a wonderful opportunity for students seeking careers in veterinary medicine, particularly in a region known as the livestock capital of the United States, it’s an investment in our community and economy,” said Mayor Paul Harpole.

Is this a done deal? No. Texas A&M University, which has the state’s only veterinary medicine school, has objected. For the life of me, I don’t understand the objection. The A&M System is going to lobby the Higher Education Coordinating Board to deny Tech’s request for a new school in Amarillo.

The Tribune also reports: “Texas has a severe shortage of rural veterinarians who are crucial to the foundations of our economy, the vibrancy of our communities and the safety of our food supply,” said Tech System Chancellor Robert Duncan. “There is no better place to transform the future of veterinary education and answer this call than in Amarillo.”

AEDC spends money it collects in its half-cent sales revenue stream. It’s a wise use of sales tax. Tech officials estimate the vet school would create about 100 well-paying jobs. It’s a bit difficult to calculate the return on investment that those jobs would bring.

The return could be huge.

The coordinating board reportedly has expressed some concern about whether another vet school for Texas is even necessary.

My question is this: When did increasing educational opportunities for students interested in pursuing a valuable profession become a bad thing?

Not everything was saved in The Netherlands

rotterdam

ROTTERDAM, The Netherlands — Our friends in The Netherlands took great pains to show us communities that were spared the ravages of world war.

Indeed, the nation is a gorgeous collection of Renaissance architecture. Its neighborhoods charm the socks of those who see them for the first time.

Amsterdam is mostly water and a canal cruise is an absolute must for any visitor. My wife and I took one on a warm sunny day in that beautiful city.

Rotterdam is a magnificent city, too. But for a different reason.

It was essentially rebuilt after World War II. Rotterdam was not spared the savage consequences of armed conflict.

The Nazi air force, the Luftwaffe, bombed central Rotterdam into oblivion as it fought to conquer The Netherlands. Adolf Hitler’s high command expected the conquest to take 24 hours; it took the Nazis five days to subdue the Dutch, who put up extraordinary resistance against the invaders.

What emerged from the rubble is a city of gleaming skyscrapers ringing one of the world’s largest and busiest harbors.

The picture attached to this brief post is of one of those modern marvels. My wife and I, along with our friend Coen, took a high-speed tour of the harbor. We saw hundreds of ships in port, anchored in the harbor waiting to dock and we saw one ship that had been hoisted out of the water, sitting in a drydock.

ship

Yes, some neighborhoods survived the aerial onslaught that devastated Rotterdam. Our journey to Europe that enabled us to see Old World charm also exposed to us a country that was able to rebuild a great city.

The Dutch did that in Rotterdam.

Trump makes weird pitch to black voters

trump

So much about Donald J. Trump’s bizarre presidential candidacy confounds me.

Let’s start with the fact that he’s making a race of it against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Republican nominee has insulted his way to this competitive situation. In other election cycles, it would be a deal-breaker.

Now comes his bizarre “outreach” to African-American voters.

He tells white audiences that black voters are living in the worst neighborhoods imaginable; he tells them blacks attend inferior schools and are getting an inferior education; he says African-American neighborhoods are more dangerous than cities and towns in Afghanistan.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/is-trump-racist-228472

But here’s the best part.

He says — again to white audiences — that President Barack Obama is the worst president in history and that race relations are at their lowest ebb “ever, ever” under the president’s leadership.

Yep, he tells a key American demographic group that holds Obama in high esteem that the man they adore is leading the nation straight to hell in a handbag.

This is how Trump seeks to win the hearts and minds of voters who — according to those pesky polls — cannot stomach the notion of this guy becoming president of the United States?

Still waiting to see guns on hips

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Texas became the latest state to allow residents to carry their guns in the open.

I’m going to make an admission that won’t surprise readers of this blog: I don’t like the new law. I dislike the idea of making loaded weapons more visible on our city streets, at the grocery store.

The law took effect on Aug. 1; the irony was rich, given that the effective date fell 50 years to the day after the gunman opened fire from the University of Texas Tower in Austin, killing 16 people.

I dislike the idea of requiring public colleges and universities to allow students to carry guns into the classroom.

No, I do not oppose the Second Amendment. I just happen to believe there are ways to restrict gun ownership while remaining faithful to the amendment.

All that said, I’m frankly surprised — and pleasantly so — that I haven’t seen anyone packing a gun on his or hip.

The open-carry law is restricted only to those who are licensed to carry weapons concealed. So, perhaps the concealed-carry licensees are still packing heat under their jackets or in their purses.

That suits me all right. What I cannot see doesn’t bother me as much as it would if I were to walk into a crowd with those who are showing off their guns.

I don’t expect this absence of guns in plain sight to continue.

I’m just grateful that, so far, I haven’t been forced to see them.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience