U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., predicts that Chuck Hagel will take office as defense secretary from a position of weakness.

Hagel’s been hammered hard by his former Senate colleagues, who’ve challenged him on all manner of questions – some of them specious and outright defamatory. But he’ll likely be confirmed this week in a full Senate vote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284555-coburn-weakened-hagel-will-make-poor-secretary-of-defense

But my concern about Coburn’s prediction rests with whatever role Coburn and his Capitol Hill colleagues play in weakening the new defense secretary’s position. Will they stand behind the Pentagon boss – a former Republican senator from Nebraska – or will they undermine him?

Coburn’s no dummy. He’s a physician when he isn’t making federal law. Thus, he’s certainly aware that governing is a shared responsibility. The Constitution lays it out in establishing “co-equal” branches of government: the White House, Congress and the federal courts all have a hand in running this country.

So, if Coburn’s prediction of weakness at the Pentagon comes true, he should share some of the blame in hindering the Pentagon chief’s ability to carry out national defense policy effectively.

As I’ve noted in this blog already, partisan concerns should stop “at the water’s edge.” The defense secretary is in charge of the world’s greatest military apparatus.

But he doesn’t operate in a vacuum. The president must have his back. So must the Congress.

The age-old game of blaming the other guy is in full swing in Washington as the nation lurches toward its latest fiscal crisis.

Republicans say Democrats are at fault for failing to come with sufficient spending cuts to avoid the sequestering of funds set to commence this coming Friday. Democrats blame Republicans for not seeking sufficient revenue to produce a “balanced” approach to reducing the budget deficit.

The New York Times today published a story that establishes this clear fact: Both sides should share equally in the blame.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/politics/fault-finding-grows-intense-as-cuts-near.html?ref=politics&_r=0

But let’s also stipulate that sequestration is a very bad thing for the nation’s economic health.

Why are the two sides unwilling to reach a deal? Is it pride? Loathing of the other side? Fear of what their respective party bases will do to them if they compromise too much? All of these things – or something I cannot even yet fathom?

Here’s what I understand will happen. The cuts will kick in equally on all government agencies, except for Social Security and Medicare. That means defense spending will suffer. Transportation cuts will mean reductions in air traffic control staff. Local agencies that depend on federal money to pay for first responders – police and firefighters – will see their resources cut. Our federal parks will have to reduce their hours, meaning will deny Little Johnny and Little Suzie their fun.

And oh yes. A lot of people, estimated at something like 750,000, will lose their jobs.

How is that a good thing for the economy?

And yet … there actually are people who think sequestration won’t hurt so much. The pain will be fleeting at worst. A lot of that righteousness is coming from the tea party types who believe they were elected to cut spending – no matter the consequence.

I am not so serene. Being a good-government kind of guy, my hope is that congressional Republicans can find a way to bend just a bit on their resistance to tax increases on rich folks and that Democrats in the White House – starting with President Obama – can look a little more carefully for places to actually reduce spending.

Never mind the blame game. Pointing fingers at the other guy solves nothing.

I learned the new use of a word while perusing my copy of the Sunday New York Times this morning.

The word is “Dewhursted,” referring to what happened to the Texas lieutenant governor in his losing effort in 2012 to be elected to the U.S. Senate. David Dewhurst – who was thought to be a shoo-in for the seat that Kay Bailey Hutchison vacated this past year – got outflanked on his right by tea party golden boy Ted Cruz in the state Republican primary.

Cruz then, um, cruised to a general election victory over former Democratic state Rep. Paul Sadler.

Thus, “Dewhurst” has become a verb, which is a form of praise in some circles. Those circles include those on the far right of the Republican Party, who now apparently are drawing a bead on the state’s other GOP senator, John Cornyn of San Antonio.

Emily Ramshaw of the Texas Tribune used the term “Dewhursted” today in an article published in the “Texas” section of the Times to describe what could happen to Cornyn if the tea party challenge to his candidacy next year succeeds. Ramshaw actually credits the term to some Republican observers, but I read it first in her story.

To avoid being Dewhursted, Cornyn is tacking to the right – or the far right – according to Ramshaw. Cornyn is trying to protect himself against what happened to Dewhurst, along with GOP Senate statesman Richard Lugar of Indiana in 2012. Dewhurst’s loss ended up with Texas electing a tea party flamethrower, while Lugar’s loss in Indiana produced a Democratic victory against the guy who beat Lugar in that state’s GOP primary.

What does this mean for Texas? It means Sen. Cornyn is going to take the bait that has lured other Republicans to the extreme right wing of their party. He’ll campaign for re-election by standing firm against virtually any idea that comes from the Democratic side of the aisle. Cornyn will promise he won’t compromise or negotiate if it means sacrificing his “conservative principles.”

The party’s harsh wing likely has gained another member who’s been spooked by the fear of being “Dewhursted.”

Good politics usually results in good public relations, and vice versa – which is what congressional Republicans are learning the hard way in their ongoing battle with the White House over sequestration.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/284495-congressional-republicans-struggle-in-sequester-public-relations-battle

Whether all of this will result in good policy remains to be seen. But for the moment, as we hurtle toward the March 1 deadline when sequestration of the federal budget kicks in, it looks as though the Democratic president, Barack Obama, is cleaning his GOP foes’ clocks once again.

Republicans aren’t learning the lessons of the November 2012 election, which is that voters rejected their ideas in favor of the president’s. As the distinguished columnist Roger Simon noted the other day, the GOP has fallen into the classic insanity trap of doing the same thing repeatedly while hoping for a different result.

Ain’t gonna happen, folks.

If sequestration occurs – resulting in massive across-the-board budget cuts in virtually federal programs – a lot of folks are going to lose their jobs and a lot more Americans are going to suffer the loss of government services they want and on which they depend. Who’ll get the blame? Congressional Republicans who are being led by their noses by the extreme elements of their party who care little about what government can do for people. Their aim is to cut government spending no matter what.

It’ll happen all right if sequestration kicks in. But the cost could be catastrophic to rank-and-file Americans – such as yours truly – who are going to see their retirement investments take a dive when the stock market reacts badly to the sequestration. No one will be happy about that result.

Meanwhile, the president continues to stick it to his adversaries by blaming them for the lack of a deal to prevent the budget cuts from occurring. Congress enacted the sequestration law in 2011 as a way to deter this kind of brinksmanship from recurring. Instead, it’s becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And why is that? Because Capitol Hill has been overrun by political lunatics.

Texas public school textbooks are more than likely full of factual errors.

OK, I am acutely aware that teachers and parents all across the state are aware of it. But what’s interesting to me, and why I’m commenting on it today, was the speed with which I detected two errors in an Amarillo Independent School District high school textbook. I found them within minutes during a casual browse through a particular book.

I was pulling a shift today as a substitute teacher and had a break from classroom work, as students had gone to a pep rally at Caprock High School. The text, published by a British publishing company, chronicled some of the most influential speeches in world history.

Two errors jumped out at me.

One speech noted in the textbook was the last entry, remarks delivered on Sept. 11, 2001 by President George W. Bush to a nation reeling from the shock of the terrorist attacks earlier that day. The background information contained a reference to Bush being “nominated” for president by the Republican Party in June 1999. Wrong date and month. The GOP convention nominated the Texas governor in August 2000. Bush did announce his candidacy for president in June 1999, which I guess the British publisher thought was tantamount to nomination. Someone needed to do their homework on that one.

The second error was a bit more nuanced, but only slightly so. And it’s also more egregious.

Another historical figure highlighted was Vaclav Havel, the former president of Czechoslovakia. Havel was a playwright and dissident before being elected president in February 1993, after the fall of the communists who had ruled the country since the end of World War II. But the textbook made an erroneous reference to when the Soviet Union took control of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Wrong. The summer of 1968 marked a bloody uprising by dissidents in that country against the communist hardline leaders and the Soviet Union sent tanks and troops into the country to quell the rebellion, just as it had done a dozen years earlier in Hungary.

I mention these two errors only to illustrate the ease with which little ol’ me found these mistakes and to wonder aloud how many other textbooks fill public school libraries all across Amarillo – and Texas – with such mistakes. This is part of what we’re using to educate our children.

Can’t we do better?

I’ve always detested obstructionism in government.

But watching some U.S. senators try to flex their flaccid muscles while fighting against the next defense secretary, my feelings are incher closer to pure hatred … not of the people who do it, mind you, just the act itself.

Although I hold the obstructionists in very low regard as well.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla,, has emerged as the latest obstructionist in chief. He is lobbying his colleagues to vote against a procedure that would bring the nomination of Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel to a vote of the full Senate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/284301-inhofe-lobbies-gop-colleagues-to-block-hagel-again

President Obama reached across the aisle to pick Hagel, a former GOP senator from Nebraska – and a decorated Vietnam War combat veteran – as the new Pentagon boss. But he’s drawn not-so-friendly fire from – get this – Republican senators. I guess that’s not surprising, given that the president is a dreaded Democrat and Hagel is, well, apparently a turncoat in the eyes of his former colleagues and friends.

Inhofe is sending a “Dear Colleague” letter to his colleagues asking them to vote “no” on cloture, the procedure that would end the so-called filibuster against Hagel. Inhofe is bucking at least two key Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsay Graham, who argued fiercely against Hagel in committee confirmation hearings only to relent and say they’ll vote to move the nomination forward.

But Inhofe is hanging tough, apparently joining with other obstructionists – among them being Texas’ newly minted loudmouth, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz – in opposing Hagel to the bitter end.

There once was a time when the term “loyal opposition” carried a kind of positive aura. Not these days. And it’s especially unbecoming when we see the politicization of an office – secretary of defense – that should stand far above this brand of cheap partisan petulance.

Maybe it’s a function of my age.

The older I get, the more old-fashioned I become. And that perhaps explains why I favor the Amarillo City Commission re-upping its teen curfew ordinance for another three years. The reinstatement appears to be a fait accompli, and commissioners will conduct a second public hearing on the ordinance before enacting it.

Curfews are a time-honored way of helping parents police their children’s behavior. The Amarillo ordinance prohibits kids younger than 17 years of age from being out between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. – with exceptions, of course. Those exceptions include whether the kid is going to or from work, or they have to be in the company of a responsible adult.

Back in the “olden days” we had curfews in my hometown. My parents knew what the city required and made sure I didn’t break the law. The same principle applies today, correct?

The major difference between then and now is the growing absence of strong two-parent families. And that gives the city more authority to act because parents can’t – or won’t – force their children to stay home in wee hours of the night.

It’s interesting to me as well that the city heard no comments from anyone on the ordinance during its first public hearing on the matter.

And as has been said so many times, nothing good rarely – if ever – happens on city streets after midnight.

It’s become almost a truism that those who are against something are more fervent in their opposition than those who support something.

I present you Exhibit A: the petition to get Amarillo City Hall to rescind its red-light camera ordinance. I’ll reiterate something I’ve stated already, which is that I do not believe the “aginners” comprise a majority of the city’s 200,000 residents. But here they are, traipsing around the city trying to get enough signatures to persuade the City Commission to take back its decision to deploy the cameras at dangerous intersections.

And this prompts the question: Why aren’t there petitioners mustering signatures from those who support the cameras? I think I know the answer. It’s because those who support the cameras aren’t motivated enough to get off their duffs and make their case as publicly as those who oppose them.

It’s human nature. It’s the way we’re wired. There must be some genetic disposition at work here.

I truly hope the city stands by its principles on this one. The cameras were installed during the Debra McCartt mayoral era at City Hall. McCartt was adamant that the cameras would protect motorists by snapping pictures of violators running through red lights. The city writes up a ticket, sends the owner of the offending vehicle a citation in the mail and orders the owner to pay up or else. McCartt left office in 2011 and her successor, Paul Harpole, to his great credit has kept the momentum going forward. The commission recently decided to expand its deployment to three more intersections.

I know that somewhere are motivated individuals – such as those who live near where the cameras are working – who feel strongly enough about them to launch a counter-offensive against those who want them removed.

Time to get busy, folks.

Amarillo city commissioners are getting pressure from petitioners seeking repeal of an important city ordinance.

They should resist this call.

At issue is whether to keep the ordinance that enabled the city to install cameras at intersections to catch those who run through red lights. The city deployed cameras at six intersections initially, then voted to expand the deployment to three more. The concept is a simple one: The cameras photograph the license plates of the offending vehicles and the city then sends citations to the owners of the vehicles, who then can pay the fine or appeal the citation to the municipal court. If they win, they don’t pay; if they lose they pay up.

I’m still struggling with the logic behind the complaints, which I think are overstated, meaning I don’t believe a majority of Amarillo motorists object to the cameras – and honestly, I question whether the complainers comprise even a significant minority of Amarillo residents.

The petitioners are saying the city should hire more traffic police rather than relying on machinery to catch offending motorists. Are those petitioners then willing to pay more tax money for the cops? Do they have any idea how expensive it would be to station enough traffic police around the city stem this tide of red-light running?

Of course the complaints have run the full range of ridiculousness: the cameras invade motorists’ privacy; the cameras are just to make money for the city; offenders want to face a human accuser instead of a camera.

The cameras have worked. They have generated revenue for the city to spend on traffic improvements, which state law requires. They also have helped deter red-light runners who are aware of the presence of the cameras, given that the city must post warning signs at every intersection where it has deployed the cameras. They have prevented potentially serious auto accidents.

The best answer to the complaints is one that’s been given already by city commissioners and traffic officials, but it deserves to be repeated here: If you don’t like the cameras, then obey the law, don’t run the red lights and you have nothing to worry about.

Amarillo-area public school officials are taking the reasoned approach to dealing with gun violence.

They don’t plan to arm school personnel with firearms. I applaud them.

Gun violence has taken center stage in recent weeks. The heartache in Newtown, Conn., has become the nation’s heartache. Twenty first-graders died in a massacre brought to them by a deranged teenager, who also killed six teachers who tried to protect the kids against the madman.

The reaction to that terrible event from public institutions and individuals has been varied and at times a bit overheated. But I’m glad that Amarillo metro-area school officials are taking a measured approach to protecting our children.

Their response is quite different from what Childress school officials’ decision to arm certain personnel and keep firearms locked up in “secure locations” on school campuses. I wish them the very best luck in ensuring that they train their personnel adequately so that they don’t make a tragic mistake in the event they need to unlock the weaponry.

Amarillo Independent School District Superintendent Rod Schroder said this week the district is “actively reviewing our security procedures.” That active review must be comprehensive, but it need not include putting more firearms in school buildings.

One option might be what’s been done for years in Dumas: creation of a school district police department.

I won’t pretend to have the answers to the gun violence problem. One proposed “solution” that does concern me is the notion of putting more guns in school.