Monotone commentary?

We’re going to publish another letter in a couple of days from someone who doesn’t like one of the columnists who appears on our Opinion page. The target of the latest letter once again is Leonard Pitts Jr.

Pitts is a noted liberal columnist; he won a Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for commentary. His essays appear on our page because it’s important to present a wide range of opinion to our readership. But some of our readers don’t like reading his views. Why? Well, the crux of their argument is that he offends the sensibilities of the Panhandle’s conservative majority.

Hmmm.

So, it would be better for these fine folks to read only those opinions with which they agree. What a boring world that would be.

We seek on our Opinion pages to present conservative and liberal views — and opinions that fall somewhere in the vast middle ground. Pitts occasionally gets people’s dander up. Good for him. I guess the fire that flares off the keyboard of some of our more conservative contributors — Michelle Malkin comes to mind — doesn’t offend them. That’s all right with me.

As for me, I actually like reading opinions with which I disagree. I seek out good writing and good thinking wherever I can find it, even if it makes me angry.

I look at these essays as being good for my heart health. My blood gets oxygenated whenever I hyperventilate after reading something that I find truly outrageous.

Indeed, it does irritate me mildly when I read complaints from readers who want us to toss aside a columnist because he or she thinks differently from the vast majority.

But we’re happy to publish them.

Et tu, Billy?

I’ve been stewing about this all day.

Billy Payne, the chairman of the Augusta National golf club board, chewed the daylights out of Tiger Woods. I admit he’s entitled to his opinion about the misbehavior of the world’s greatest golfer.

But the tongue lashing he delivered the day before Woods teed it up to start his 2010 golf season after all the scandal that has engulfed him for the past five months baffled me.

What did Payne say that hasn’t been said by thousands of pundits already? What new insight did he provide? What was the point of the lecture?

Woods’ problems are among the most documented of any athlete/celebrity in the past decade, or longer. The whole world, it seems, has an opinion of Woods’ behavior, his dalliances, his infidelity, his incredible arrogance. None of it is favorable to Woods.

So here comes Billy Payne to weigh in at the last minute. Why?

Payne has taken some grief from those who contend that he has no moral standing to lecture Woods about anything, given that Augusta National includes zero women among its members and only recently desegregated its ranks. That criticism has merit.

But my concern is that he said nothing that hasn’t been said already. He regurgitated the litany of well-deserved condemnation that has been heaped on Woods already. Had the chairman remained silent, he wouldn’t have exposed himself and his organization to the criticism they’re getting now.

There. I feel better.

Now, back to golf.

Recycling gets boost

Good news for those of us who think green.

Allied Waste is installing additional recycling bins at a new drop off site on Plains Boulevard, near the Hastings Distribution Center.

The new bins make it easier for residents in central Amarillo to take waste products for recycling, rather than tossing them into the Dumpster, and eventually ending up in the landfill.

I like to recycle. I grew up in Oregon, the founding capital of the U.S. environmental movement. I haven’t been as recycling conscious since moving to Texas more than 25 years ago. But my family and I adapted nicely to a curbside recycling program that Beaumont instituted some years ago. Much less garbage ended up in the landfill while the program was in effect.

To that end, it still baffles me that Amarillo hasn’t instituted a curbside program. I know it’s costly, but the energy savings accrued from using recycled products — rather than making them from scratch — is significant over the long term.

The addition of the bins at Plains Boulevard is a welcome addition to the city’s recycling infrastructure.

Do as the RNC says, not does

I’ve been watching the trouble brewing with the Republican National Committee with a bit of amusement.

The party that blasts the daylights out of those big-spending Democrats — with good reason — now has been caught spending a bit lavishly as well. RNC Chairman Michael Steele likes to live large. He travels in pricey limos, rakes in big money with speaking fees, sleeps in posh hotels and lavishes donors with lots of perks and goodies.

And all the while, his party preaches moral rectitude as part of its political platform.

And then comes the latest: It seems that a staffer arranged for some donors to visit a strip club in Los Angeles that features lesbians and “bondage.” Hoo boy.

I’m not concerned much with how the Republican political leadership spends its donors’ money. None of it comes from my pocket. (Full disclosure: I don’t give to the Democrats, either.)

What does pique my interest is how one major party can portray itself as the protector of family values and fiscal responsibility while behaving in a manner that is quite contrary to the message it is delivering to the masses.

We toss the word “hypocrite” around a lot these days. Many politicians of both parties have been branded with the word: John Edwards, John Ensign, David Vitter and Newt Gingrich are four who come immediately to mind. Gingrich is my favorite hypocrite, having blasted President Clinton for his dalliances while at the same time cavorting with a much-younger House staffer behind his own wife’s back.

The RNC has some serious housecleaning ahead of it, starting with what to do about a chairman on whose watch all this nonsense has occurred.

A real leader would accept responsibility — and then quit.

Missing the point on threats

The threats of violence against those members of Congress who voted in favor of President Obama’s health care reform law have been beyond disgusting. They’re downright scary if you believe that in the civility that is supposed to be a hallmark of political discourse in this country.

But some of the response to critics of those who were lobbing the threats has been, well, a bit strange.

Consider this nugget from U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry, the Panhandle’s senior member of Congress. Yes, he has condemned the the threats of violence and the racial slurs. Good for him.

Then he said this: “I do get somewhat of a feel that some Democrats are trying to use these incidents to smear everybody who opposed health care and that’s not fair.”

He is right, but he’s also missing the point.

So what if Democrats are using the slurs and threats of violence against the health care foes, who happen to be mainly Republicans? That’s what happens in this rough-and-tumble political world.

And surely the congressman, a decent and intelligent lawmaker, doesn’t believe that Democrats somehow possess a monopoly on boorishness. If the tables were turned and Democrats were leveling this kind of hateful speech at their foes, Republicans would be all over them in precisely the same manner and most likely would try to lump all Democrats together. The parties may differ on matters of policy, but their humanity — and human fallibility — bind people of all political stripes together.

So, let’s just stick to the relevant issue. The racial slurs and homophobic epithets thrown at health reform supporters never should have occurred in the first place.

Taking back a promise

I don’t begrudge Kay Bailey Hutchison one bit for taking back her promise to leave office.

Why should she leave now? The senior Texas Republican senator got thumped in the March GOP primary for governor. Yes, she had said she would leave office “win or lose” in March. But she has gone back on it, saying today she will stay in office until the end of her term, which expires in 2012. What are Texans going to do — fire her?

It does stall the ambitions of some high-powered contenders for the Senate seat she has occupied since 1993. Two of them are coming from the Texas Railroad Commission — Republicans Elizabeth Ames Jones and Michael Williams. Another candidate, who also once served on the RRC (as well as the state Senate and as state comptroller), Democrat John Sharp, also wants to serve in the U.S. Senate. Those are the three big hitters, and there likely will be many more stepping forward at the appropriate time and place; I keep hearing the name “David Dewhurst.”

I’ll give Hutchison credit for this: She at least made up her mind quickly and declared her intentions publicly in rapid succession, unlike earlier when she dithered and dawdled over whether to resign her seat prior to the primary — which might have contributed somewhat to her defeat at the hands of Gov. Rick Perry.

Here’s a final word of advice: Don’t change your mind, senator, about leaving the Senate when your term is up. You’ve made yourself quite clear on that point. Taking back that pledge might be more than Texans can handle.

We all pay for helmet-less riders

A report today of a motorcyclist injured critically in an accident in north Amarillo has me wondering — yet again — why the state repealed its law requiring helmets for people operating a motorcycle.

The man wasn’t wearing a helmet. Amarillo police say speed may have played a part in the wreck. His head injuries reportedly are quite severe. No one knows yet whether he’ll recover.

But I have to ask: What if he doesn’t recover fully? What happens if he has suffered permanent brain damage, meaning he cannot work? He then falls under the care of the state for the rest of his life. Suppose he lives a long time. How much money will the state spend on his care? Will it run into the millions of dollars over a long period of time?

It’s this possibility that has me wondering why the state decided in the 1990s to allow motorcyclists to ride without a helmet. Yes, the state requires casualty insurance. I believe the amount is $10,000. Anyone who’s spent more than 48 hours in an acute-care hospital knows that the 10 grand is eaten up almost the moment you check in.

But applying the time-honored — but nevertheless odd — Texas logic about independence and freedom of choice, the Legislature determined that it should not interfere with motorists’ desire to expose themselves to the kind of injuries apparently suffered this morning by that unfortunate motorist in Amarillo.

I pray for the man’s complete recovery.

Spending money we don’t have

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is a good guy, a fine lawyer and a dedicated public servant.

And that makes me wonder why he is wasting his time, and Texans’ money, on a lawsuit aimed at overturning the just-passed health care reform.

Abbott is one of about a dozen state attorneys general who have joined in this action. They don’t want the federal law foisted on the states. So they’re seeking to have it thrown out on the basis that it’s unconstitutional. The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate health insurance for Americans, the attorneys general contend. I guess they skipped over the part of the Constitution, its preamble, that empowers the government to “promote the general Welfare.” I kind of believe that health care falls into that broad category of federal responsibility.

Well, there’s much about the health care reform that makes me nervous. It’s costly; it’s punitive; it’s an overreach; it’s likely to drive up many costs across the board, such as insurance premiums.

But the state of Texas is facing a significant budget shortfall in the next biennium. Estimates place it as much as $17 billion. Why is the state spending money it doesn’t have on a lawsuit that could turn drag on for years? If the AGs win, the feds will appeal; if the feds win, the AGs will appeal. It could find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court — eventually.

The only apparent positive element I can find in this is that Texas is in better fiscal shape than many other states. But that doesn’t mean we’re not about to feel some pain once the Legislature convenes next January.

AG Abbott can find other, more constructive cases to litigate.

Davis deserves no special attention

 

I’m not sure how much more of this kind of news I can take.

 

The Texas State Board of Education, intent on revising our state’s public school curriculum to fit a certain political profile, has — among many things — mandated the studying of a Civil War president’s inaugural address. It’s not President Lincoln’s speech.

 

No sir. The speech the SBOE wants our children to study was delivered by Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederate States of America.

 

Say what you will about the merits of the Confederacy’s cause, Davis was a traitor to the nation. The cause of the war is being debated to this day, nearly 150 years later, by those who argue over whether it was about “states’ rights” or slavery.
This point is beyond dispute: Davis led a band of states in an armed insurrection against the federal government. That, by definition, characterizes him as a traitor.
His words need not be studied by Texas students. It’s OK to study the armed conflict that the nation fought against itself. That’s an important event that must be examined — and we must allow our students access to all the well-documented reasons that the war erupted in the first place.

 

But Jefferson Davis doesn’t belong in the same league with the man who served as president of the United States while he (Davis) sought to destroy the Union.

Let’s cool off

I guess the folks who oppose health care reform are taking their defeat seriously.

Some of them are saying some hateful things to members of Congress who voted for the legislation promoted heavily by President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders. Oh, but it gets worse.

Some anti-reformists are actually threatening members of the House and Senate with physical harm.

Yep, it’s getting personal.

Democrats are blaming Republicans for failing to speak out against the threats. Republicans, meanwhile, are blaming Democrats for fomenting the outrage and using it as a campaign tool.

Meanwhile, back here at home, our congressman, Republican Mac Thornberry of Clarendon, hasn’t said much publicly about the anger being expressed. He ought to speak out — sooner rather than later.

Thornberry, to his great credit, hasn’t been a bomb-thrower since being elected to Congress in 1994. He’s a thoughtful guy who speaks intelligently about his opposition to the health reform legislation that has become law. But he has allied himself with others who aren’t so circumspect.

If congressional leaders of Thornberry’s ilk — including the veteran Panhandle lawmaker himself — were to speak out against the rage being expressed, then perhaps we can return to some semblance of civility.

Yes, I know. That’s a stretch. But it’s worth a try.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience