I’m now officially in New Year mode, looking ahead to 2013 with hope that the coming year will mark a turn toward better days.

Being the eternal optimist, I have faith that it will. But before we plunge head first into the new year, it’s good to cast our gaze at what transpired in the year that’s about to conclude.

The Texas Tribune did so. It’s on this link:

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-elections/year-review-politics/

The editors at the Trib noted Rick Perry’s stunning presidential campaign collapse at the beginning of the year as perhaps the biggest political surprise of 2012. I’d have to agree. Gov. Goodhair (with apologies to the late great Molly Ivins) figured to be the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination the moment he jumped into the race. And he was the frontrunner … for a moment, actually.

Then he started opening his mouth.

Whatever political trait he possesses that Texans find so attractive just didn’t play out there in the rest of the US of A. He came off as a rube, a Haskell County hick.

He ended his presidential primary campaign on Jan. 19, came back to Texas, disappeared for a few weeks and then returned to the spotlight here at home not really humbled by what happened  beyond our state’s borders.

The Texas Legislature convenes in a few days. Perry will be back in charge of whatever it is the Texas Constitution allows him to operate. He’ll probably run for re-election in 2014 for his umpteenth term as governor.

And do not ever, not ever, bet against him winning again … in Texas.

As for any presidential bid in 2016? Don’t go there, governor.

Piers Morgan is a Brit with lots of opinions on lots of issues.

Let’s take guns, for example.

Morgan is appalled at the gun violence that keeps erupting in this country and is unafraid to say so. He doesn’t understand Americans’ love affair with guns and doesn’t quite grasp fully, I reckon, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to own firearms to American citizens. He’s been ranting and raving about gun violence lately on his cable news TV talk show.

In fact, he has ranted and raved so much that some proud Americans want him deported, shipped out, sent packing back to Britain. They’ve signed petitions demanding the government do what they wish.

These folks are misguided.

The Second Amendment follows the First Amendment, which says this: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The beef with Morgan is that he isn’t one of us and that he should keep his trap shut when talking about the Constitution. But having just typed the First Amendment word for word, I cannot find a single reference to freedom of speech being reserved for Americans only.

A friend and former colleague of mine posted this message recently on a social media outlet as it regards this loony notion of deporting Piers Morgan:

“Democracy is founded on Milton’s ‘marketplace of ideas.’ We weigh as many viewpoints and ideas as we have access to, continually testing our own views — and perhaps modifying them based on the new information. The viewpoints of people whose backgrounds are not similar to our own can be the most effective in broadening our spectrum.”

I think I’ll let her view stand on its own. I can’t improve on it, other than to say, let the man speak and add his perspective to an important national debate.

Kay Bailey Hutchison is leaving the U.S. Senate and with her departure, the spirit of bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill has taken another punch in the gut.

Hutchison is a Texas Republican who counts among her better Senate friends any number of those dreaded Democratic Senate liberals. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland comes to mind. She worked with Hutchison to craft women-friendly legislation during the time they served together in the Senate.

Hutchison’s bipartisan chops go back even prior to when she was first elected to the Senate in 1993, when she succeeded the late great Lloyd Bentsen, a Democrat who was selected to become Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration.

Hutchison ran for Texas treasurer in 1990 when the late Democrat Ann Richards vacated the office to run for governor that year. I asked Hutchison during that election year what she would do differently in the treasurer’s office. Her answer surprised me. Richards ran the office so well, Kay said, that she didn’t want to change a thing.

I’m trying to imagine one of today’s Republicans – those who are influenced by the tea party wing of their outfit – saying something like that. I can’t get there.

Capitol Hill’s bipartisan spirit has been broken with each departure, particularly among the Republicans who used to run things in DC. Olympia Snowe of Maine? Gone, citing the bitterness that has infected Washington. Dick Lugar of Indiana? Also gone, the victim of a GOP primary loss to tea party favorite Richard Mourdock, who then lost the general election after declaring it is “God’s will” when a women becomes pregnant as a result of a rape.

And now, Kay Bailey Hutchison is leaving. Hutchison announced her intention to leave the Senate only to lose her Texas governor’s primary challenge of incumbent Rick Perry, who did a masterful job of demonizing her as a creature of Washington.

Sen.-elect Ted Cruz, the state’s former solicitor general, is taking Hutchison’s place in the Senate. He’s another one who’s unlikely to reach often across the aisle to Democrats. I hope he proves me wrong.

Hutchison, though, leaves a legacy of cooperation that used to result in important business getting done on behalf of the people who elected her.

Well done, Sen. Hutchison. This constituent – yours truly – appreciates your service to Texas and the country.

I hate writing this grouchy blog on the eve of Christmas Eve, but something caught my eye the other day that I cannot let pass.

A neighbor of mine has a pickup truck with three interesting bumper stickers on its back end.

One of them says “Served Proudly” and it has a U.S. Army unit insignia next to the phrase; another is of Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes, the national flag; a third sticker says, simply, “SECEDE.”

OK, so here’s what confuses me.

This individual was proud to serve his country, the United States of America. He is so proud, in fact, that he drives around in his truck with the national symbol on its tailgate. I’m with him so far.

Then that bumper sticker jumps out at me with the word “SECEDE,” which, by the way, is in all capital letters; I guess he really wants to pull out of the nation he served “proudly.”

What is it with these secessionists? Do they love the country or what? If they love the US of A, why do they now want to leave it, presumably, to form another country?

I’m betting this person calls himself an American patriot. If so, then perhaps my neighbor needs to examine what the word “secede” means.

OK. I’ve seen enough of this now that I no longer can remain silent.

Amarillo utility officials have to do something – please – about those who water the pavement in freezing temperatures.

Some of my neighbors are doing it. They run their lawn-irrigation systems when it’s, oh, 15 degrees out there. The water freezes. It ices the sidewalks over, forcing us to walk in the street to avoid slipping, falling and breaking our necks. The good news, though, is that our street is a quiet place that is two blocks long, with dead ends on both ends.

The bad news is that I keep seeing this activity all over the city, on busy thoroughfares. The worst location of all might be at the corner of Bell Street and Arden Road, where one business’s system sprays water not only onto the sidewalk, but onto the street – making both the pedestrian and motor vehicle rights of way hazardous.

I understand there are other places in the city that are equally hazardous, but that’s the one I see regularly.

The city did launch a pretty effective PR campaign during the summer about ways to curb water use. I think one of the public service announcements said something about how the pavement doesn’t grow.

The PSAs have stopped airing because we aren’t using as much water now that winter is upon us.

But I did check the city’s precipitation levels recently and discovered we are about to finish the year with roughly half the normal precipitation; “normal” is about 20 inches annually, but we’ve gotten only about 11 inches with slightly more than a week left in 2012. We’re still in a drought and it’s returning to the hideous levels of 2011, when Amarillo set an all-time precipitation record low for the year.

No one at City Hall is sounding any alarms, at least not publicly.

Perhaps it’s time, though, to launch another PR campaign advising residents and business owners of the folly – not to mention the hazard – of watering excessively when the temperatures turn sidewalks and streets into sheets of ice.

One week ago, a madman opened fire in a Connecticut elementary school. He killed 20 children, six teachers, his own mother and then himself.

The National Rifle Association, the nation’s leading pro-gun rights interest group, was silent for that entire week. Its spokesmen said something about wanting to respect the grief of those who were affected by the tragedy before speaking out.

Then, today, the NRA came out with what it said would be a significant statement on how curb the violence that pervades our culture. The nation awaited with bated breath what the NRA would recommend.

What did the NRA propose? It thinks now is the time to put armed guards in every school in America. “The best defense against a bad guy with a gun,” said NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre, “is a good guy with a gun.”

That’s the plan, according to NRA. Put more guns onto school campuses.

I … am … speechless.

The Newtown, Conn., massacre has launched a national conversation covering many topics.

“Guns” is one of them.

But as this discussion progresses, I’m struck once more by the dynamic that drives it. The extremists on both sides are out-shouting those – such as yours truly – who believe there can be a compromise solution that accomplishes two key aims: preserving the Second Amendment right to own firearms while restricting the flow of assault weapons onto our streets.

President Obama has launched a task force, headed by Vice President Biden, to examine legislation that produces what the president termed “meaningful action” in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre of Dec. 14.

I hope we can restore the ban on assault weapons as a start toward restoring our national sanity.

The founders crafted the Second Amendment without ever imagining a world with the types of weapons used in Newtown, or Columbine, or Aurora, or Fort Hood. And those are just the recent tragedies that have shocked the nation.

Can’t there be some accommodation found that results in a ban on these weapons? Does that mean ordinary folks like me can’t own a gun? No. I have no intention of ever purchasing an assault weapon that can blast off dozens of bullets in the blink of an eye. Indeed, the only logical reason for these weapons is for our warriors to use them on the battlefield.

The discussion, though, is focusing – as it always does – on the positions of both extremes. Gun-rights groups warn lawmakers not to do anything to limit the purchase and/or use of these weapons. Meanwhile, those at the other extreme shout with equal vigor that all guns should be confiscated.

The gun-rights extremist wing is winning the argument so far, given that they see any law regulating assault weapons as an infringement on their constitutional right to own firearms. That is utter nonsense.

Surely we can find a way to resolve this single matter. Then we can turn our attention to the vast array of other issues that has contributed to this violent madness.

I’m going to throw something out there for readers of this blog to ponder. And I want to hear back from them.

The question is this: Why should anyone care one bit about anything that flies out of Sarah Palin’s mouth?

The 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee has just criticized Time magazine’s choice of President Obama as its Person of the Year. She made some remarks the other day, in response to the Sandy Hook school massacre, that the nation lacks “moral leadership.” She keeps yapping about socialism, loss of freedom and even “death panels.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/sarah-palin-slams-time-on-person-of-the-year-85351.html?hp=l7

Palin’s public service record is, at best, spotty. She served half a term as Alaska governor before quitting not long after the 2008 election. Before that she was mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla, Alaska. Palin has been a superstar on the Fox News Channel, fielding softball questions from the network’s talking heads. She and members of her family have been featured on “reality” TV shows. Palin has developed a virtual cult following on the political right.

And yet the “lamestream media” – the term she hung on commentators with whom she disagrees – keep giving her air time and space in print … as if she has anything important to say.

She doesn’t.

Could someone explain to me why this individual still matters? You can comment at the bottom of this blog post. I’m all eyes and ears.

I’ve just spent about an hour in a major retail outlet in Amarillo staffed by individuals ranging in age from, oh, 18 to about 30.

I think I said “thank you” a dozen times to them as they helped my wife and me with our shopping needs. Their response? “No problem.”

That impolite response to an expression of thanks brought something to mind. My congressman, Republican Mac Thornberry of Clarendon, told me once years ago that he lays down a set of rules for young interns who work in his D.C. office. They are: Call your mother; remember that what’s said in the office stays in the office; use good manners all the time.

“Good manners” as I remember it included using proper responses, such as when someone says “thank you.” Mac’s rules mean that you respond with “you’re welcome.” Responding with “no problem” doesn’t cut it with Rep. Thornberry. I happen to agree with him.

I know the kids running around this retail outlet today didn’t intend to be disrespectful or rude. They smiled when they said “no problem” as I thanked them. I appreciate the grins and the good cheer.

It’s a simple thing, or so it would seem, to say “you’re welcome,” which is the proper way to answer someone who takes the time to thank you. “No problem” implies vaguely that you think there is a problem. Indeed, today there were no problems at all with the service we received, even in this place full of customers scurrying around in search of the perfect Christmas gift.

So, in the Christmas spirit, I would like to offer this gentle admonition to those who fall continually into the “no problem” verbal trap when someone offers them a word of thanks: Don’t do it, please.

You’re welcome.

Former federal judge Robert Bork has died at age 85. He became something of a symbol back in 1987 when the U.S. Senate denied him a place on the U.S. Supreme Court. Here’s how it went down, as I recall it.

President Reagan nominated Bork to the court. He was a brilliant legal scholar. On paper, he seemed eminently qualified to sit on the High Court. One little problem emerged, though. It seems that Bork’s writings on a whole array of social issues caused big-time grief with many senators, who were empowered by the Constitution to “advise and consent” to any federal judicial nomination. Many liberals – led by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy – expressed intense loathing, for example, of Bork’s views on abortion. They fought Bork tooth and nail.

In the end, Bork’s nomination was voted down. Indeed, the treatment he received from the Senate turned his name into a verb. To be “Borked,” according to conservatives, was to be treated unfairly by one’s critics. What’s more, the bitter tone of that fight has set the stage for many similar battles in subsequent Supreme Court nominations.

Bork’s nomination came to symbolize something about presidential appointments.

I tend to endorse presidential picks on a single principle: the prerogative that goes with holding the highest office in the land.

Reagan had been re-elected in 1984. He ran then as he did four years earlier, by pledging – among many things – to appoint conservative judges. And oh brother, he picked a doozy of a conservative in Bork.

Would this judge have been my choice? No. But it wasn’t my call to make.

He was qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, but he didn’t get the nod because the same Constitution that gives appointment power to the president also gives the Senate the authority to reject an appointment whenever it sees fit.

A Justice Bork could have turned out to be quite different than the federal judge whose lengthy paper trail became such an inviting target for critics. It’s happened before, with presidents picking justices who built legacies no one would have expected.

Robert Bork’s nomination and its result has provided a graphic lesson on the complexities of our system of government. Somehow, it works.