‘Numbers don’t lie’

I’ve known Walter Riggs for a number of years. We served in the same service club together. He’s a banker and a smart fellow devoted to Amarillo.

He’s been on a tear lately, bemoaning the negativity surrounding the campaign relating to downtown redevelopment efforts in Amarillo. He posted this item the other day on Facebook:

“These metrics demonstrate why your city achieved a Triple A Bond Rating, one of only two municipalities in Texas to boast this. And what’s more amazing is it happened in 2009, in the depths of the 2nd worst recession in the history of the U.S. So to those that spread chicken little, sky is falling propaganda our city is poorly run, including political candidates trying to scare voters into voting for them, numbers don’t lie.”

He seeks to make a critical point about Amarillo’s current standing and its future.

Riggs notes that the city has acquired a AAA bond rating, which is about as good as it gets. I remember former City Manager Alan Taylor telling me with great pride that the city had achieved that rating. Taylor took a lot of credit for it, and deservedly so.

Yet we keep hearing from a faction — and I don’t think it’s much greater than that — that gripes about the city being “poorly run.” How can that be?

I ran into lame-duck City Councilman Ron Boyd today and railed to him about the complainers. Obviously, I was “preaching to the choir,” as the saying goes. The city can boast of its excellent bond rating; it can be proud of its low tax rate; it can take pride in the huge new infrastructure improvements planned for the western corridor of Loop 335.

The city, moreover, has laid the groundwork for a downtown renovation strategy that, to my way of thinking, makes sense. It is doable. It can be done without burdening property taxpayers. It will rely on revenue generated by people visiting here from elsewhere who pay hotel-motel taxes.

And yet there are those who contend the city is run poorly?

What in the name of civic pride is going on here?

 

War of attrition under way against ISIL

Let’s call it a war of attrition.

A deputy defense secretary says the air strikes against the Islamic State have killed an estimated 10,000 ISIL fighters. Or, if the numbers calculating the actual strength of the terrorist outfit, about one-third of the fighting force has been killed.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-official-airstrikes-killed-10000-islamic-state-fighters/ar-BBkDogm

Does this mean we’re winning the war?

Let me remind us all of what happened in Vietnam. American forces killed many times more enemy fighters than were lost on our side. The Vietnam War claimed about 58,000 American lives and as many as 10 times that number of Vietnamese.

Who won the war?

Well, we vacated the battlefield in 1973 and two years later, the North Vietnamese stormed into Saigon, renamed the city after Ho Chi Minh … and declared victory.

What the body count signifies in the war against the Islamic State, though, is the importance of keeping the pressure on the terrorists. We cannot let up. We cannot stop bombing them — with drones, manned aircraft … whatever it takes.

Yes, ISIL continues to recruit fighters worldwide. Also, ISIL is making advances here and there in Iraq.

However, I happen to believe that a concentrated, focused air campaign can defeat this monstrous enemy.

Will that signal the end of the worldwide terrorist threat? Hardly. As long as there are zealots living and breathing anywhere on Earth, there will be a terrorist threat.

There’s been some debate in the Pentagon about whether the body count number is relevant, given what happened to that formula during the Vietnam War.

I’ll continue to hold out hope that the more of these guys our side kills, the fewer of them will be available for recruitment.

Bombs away!

Stadium returns to full use

alleneagles_1-web

They play football at this place. It’s a stadium. A high school stadium.

It’s in the middle of Allen, Texas — just north of Dallas — where our grandson is about to graduate from high school.

Students and loved ones will gather there and they’ll cheer when their graduate’s name is called out and the young man or woman walks across the stage.

Why is this such a big deal?

Look at the place. It’s magnificent. It also cost $60 million to build. A high school football stadium cost that much money. My own high school football team played football a zillion years ago in front of a few hundred fans gathered in some bleachers. This place seats nearly 20,000 fans who cheer the state’s reigning Class 6A football champions.

Oh, and then they had to shut the place down. Why? Stress fractures appeared throughout the structure. The Allen Independent School District took on the contractor responsible for the mess. Then the school district had to persuade the contractor to foot the entire bill for fixing the structure, to make is useable for athletic events and, oh yes, commencement ceremonies.

I don’t begrudge the construction of the stadium. Allen ISD voters approved a bond issue that paid for it by a healthy majority. That’s their call. Would I have voted for it? Maybe I would. Then again, at my age (65) it would have affected my property taxes, as the state froze my school-related property taxes.

But hey, the stadium has been fixed. It’ll hold up. The crowd will roar.

And our grandson, Dylan? He’ll take his diploma and march off to begin the rest of what we’re quite confident will be a productive and fruitful life. We’re so very proud of him.

We also are glad this stadium got fixed.

Make sure it’s fixed for good.

 

 

Bergdahl may prove to be biggest mistake

Bowe Bergdahl is accused of deserting his post and his comrades when he was captured by the Taliban.

The Army sergeant then was released in a five-for-one swap: five Taliban senior officials for one American soldier.

Bergdahl came home, went to the White House and was hailed as a “hero” by President Obama.

No matter how this matter plays out — if Bergdahl is acquitted or convicted — the episode might stand as one of the president’s most embarrassing moments.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/jason-amerine-army-whistleblower-testimony-bowe-bergdahl-118588.html?hp=l2_4

It is my fervent hope that one day the president — even if it’s after he leaves office in less than two years — will explain to Americans whether he harbors any regret regarding the now-overblown reaction to Bergdah’s release.

This matter is troubling on at least two levels.

One is that we gave up five known terrorists — and I will refer to the Taliban as “terrorists,” even though the White House won’t go there — for one soldier.

The other is that we negotiated with the terrorists, despite our stated policy of “never negotiating” with terrorist organizations.

Bergdah’s future remains undecided. I hope we learn that he didn’t actually commit an act of desertion. I hope we can learn that it was some sort of terrible error on his part, and that he left his post and that he blundered his way into Taliban captivity.

No matter how it turns out, the young man appears to be far less heroic than when he was set free.

And the president of the United States should feel embarrassed.

 

Hastert scandal drips with irony

If you think for a moment about the scandal involving former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, you come away scratching your head at the incredible irony.

A grand jury has indicted Hastert on charges that he spent money illegally to keep someone quiet about an alleged sexual encounter between Hastert and the then-student at the high school where Hastert was a teacher and a coach.

That part of it is weird enough.

But consider the context of the time he was selected to become speaker of the House of Representatives.

* The House had impeached President Clinton for lying to a federal grand jury about an extramarital dalliance he was having with a White House intern.

* The then-speaker, Newt Gingrich, who railed incessantly against the president for his moral failings, resigned from public office after it was revealed that he, too, was fooling around with a woman who wasn’t his wife.

* Up stepped Rep. Bob Livingston, who was set to become speaker. But oops! He dropped the effort because he also was involved in an extramarital affair.

Man, sex was in the air.

Then came the Boy Scout, Denny Hastert. He was chosen to become speaker — and the first person, after the vice president, in line of succession to the presidency of the United States of America.

I guess they didn’t vet him at all, let alone thoroughly.

Thus, the irony.

Feeling badly about scolding Obama

Let’s assume for a moment that my prediction that Donald Trump won’t run for president next year turns out to be wrong.

If he does declare his candidacy, I might be forced to eat some crow regarding my recent scolding of President Obama for using the first-person singular pronoun too liberally while accepting credit for the good things he’s done as president.

Barack Obama is a piker compared to The Donald.

Trump told the Des Moines Register that he’s the “most successful candidate ever to run” for president. He declared “the American dream is dead,” and then said he’d bring it back all my himself. He said he’d wipe out the Islamic State quickly and its elimination would be a “beautiful thing.”

Sheesh!

Can this guy really and truly be serious? Is he really, honestly going to run for president and use his immense personal wealth as a reason to elect him?

Mr. President, I don’t want to take back what I said, but I will if Donald Trump declares his intention to succeed you in the White House.

My head is about to explode.

 

A more relevant question regarding Hastert

A blog that I follow, Bell Book Candle, has offered an interesting question regarding the growing scandal involving former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Hastert has been indicted on felony accusations involving sexual abuse of a student back when Hastert was a wrestling coach at an Illinois high school.

The media need to focus not on the sex, but on the money. According to the blog:

“The media will focus on Dennis Hastert’s past indiscretions if they are of a sexual nature. However, the real question that they should be asking is how a relatively obscure public servant can afford to pay $3,500,000 to buy the silence of one person. Our politics and our politicians are being corrupted by the huge amounts of cash available to them. We must rid our democracy of the ability of some to buy favoritism for themselves, be they corporations or be they the 1%.”

The media won’t trouble themselves quite so much with the money part of this matter.

As the saying goes: Sex sells.

However, money does have a corrupting influence at many levels involving those who make public policy.

This is one of the stranger stories I’ve heard in many years.

A big part of me hopes that it doesn’t pan out. A bigger part, though, fears that it will.

 

Take this vow from Patrick with much salt

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says he’ll never run for governor against Greg Abbott.

Not only that, he says he’s not going to run for governor ever.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/01/patrick-im-not-running-against-abbott-2018/

Do I believe him? Is this the final word on the subject?

I remain a bit dubious about this disavowal of any further political ambition. As for the finality, do not bet anything, not a nickel, that we’ve heard the last of it.

As lieutenant governor, Patrick presides over the Texas Senate. As governor, Abbott is the state’s chief executive. Patrick’s conservative agenda is well-known. So is his rather meteoric temperament. Abbott’s conservative credentials also are beyond question. However, there are times when he doesn’t seem as fervently conservative as Patrick.

I hear what Patrick says today about his political ambition. However, these things can and do change.

There’s just something about Patrick that makes me wonder whether he’s telling us the whole truth.

The late U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen once told me he wouldn’t accept a vice-presidential spot on the Democratic Party ticket in 1988. Then he did.

The late U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy said he wouldn’t seek the presidency in 1968. Then he did.

I believe Dan Patrick is capable of changing his mind.

 

Welcome back, High Noon on Square

Downtown Amarillo’s future is getting a bit cloudier as we start looking a little farther out.

Back to the present day, though. High Noon on the Square begins Wednesday in front of the Potter County Courthouse. It’s a fine event, bringing folks out of their offices during lunch time to get something to eat and listen to some entertainment for an hour before heading back to whatever grind awaits them.

My friend Beth Duke, who runs the Center City program, is proud of it and I am proud of her for the work she’s done to make this a bustling event over the course of several weeks.

It’s fair to ask, however: Is this the best we can do?

I do intend to disparage High Noon. I do, though, intend to express the hope out loud that downtown Amarillo’s future includes far more than just a brief weekly interlude on the courthouse lawn.

I’m referring to that proposed multipurpose event venue that’s becoming part of the city dialogue relating to downtown’s revival. There might be an election in our future to determine whether to proceed with its construction. Money to pay for it will come from individuals who visit here from far away: I refer to hotel-motel tax revenue. The plan is to welcome them downtown as they attend conventions and other events.

The MPEV well might be a venue that could play host to a number of outdoor events.

Planners envision a minor-league baseball playing games at the MPEV. They also envision other events occurring at the place. A baseball club could have a modern park in which to play ball, rather than at that rat hole that serves as a ballpark at the Tri-State Fairgrounds east of the downtown district.

I try to envision more for downtown. The proposed MPEV, plus a convention hotel can be serve as twin catalysts for whatever future awaits the central business district.

That is, of course, unless the newly constituted City Council — and its three new members — decide to torpedo the whole thing. The election result suggests that’s a definite possibility — but I believe it would be a tragic mistake.

Meantime, we’ve got High Noon on the Square.

That’s it.

Hey, go out there and enjoy yourself. Then ask yourself: Is this the best it’s ever going to get in Amarillo?

 

JFK would be a Republican … and Ike would be a Democrat

Ted Cruz says John F. Kennedy would be a Republican.

The U.S. senator from Texas, and a GOP candidate for president, said there’s “no room” in today’s Democratic Party for a tax-cutter like JFK.

Really? And in my view Dwight Eisenhower would be laughed out of the Republican Party today. It was Ike, you’ll recall, who warned us during his farewell message as president in 1960 of the “military-industrial complex” and the danger of making it too powerful.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ted-cruz-believes-jfk-would-be-republican-today?cid=sm_tw_msnbc

How would that fly today in the world of the neocons who relish the idea of going to war rather than solving problem through diplomacy?

Cruz, though, I believe offers an incorrect attribution to a famous political quote from the 1960s — which was before Cruz was born.

According to Cruz: “I would point out that in the 1960s, one of the most powerful, eloquent defenders of tax cuts was John F. Kennedy. As JFK said, ‘Some men see things as they are and ask why; I see things that never were and ask why not.’”

Actually, senator, that observation came from another famous Democrat, U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, who recited that mantra as he campaigned for the presidency in 1968.

Yes, the parties have changed since those days.

Let’s not single out one politician and one political party. If you look at the bigger picture, you’ll also find that today’s Republican Party isn’t very welcoming either to those who saw the world differently than many see it today.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience