Category Archives: national news

Private prisons remain a detestable idea

Oh, how I hate the principle of letting private firms incarcerate prisoners.

Yet, according to USA Today, the private-prison industry thinks it’s about to score big if Donald J. Trump goes ahead with his plan to round up millions of people who are in the United States illegally.

These outfits have given big money to Trump and now see a potential payoff if the president follows through with his pledge to put all the illegal immigrants behind bars before deporting them.

Let me offer this notion about private prisons.

First of all, the public already pays police officers, prosecutors, judges and juries to arrest, detain and prosecute criminals. The public, therefore, ought to be responsible for their incarceration when they are convicted of crimes.

It’s a social responsibility thing, the way I see it.

Second of all, if the president believes illegal immigration presents a dire threat to our national security, our way of life and our national identity, doesn’t that mean that the public should step up and foot the bill for these alleged threats?

Here is how USA Today reports the issue: “Earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security issued sweeping new instructions to carry out Trump’s executive orders on immigration. They require all federal agents — including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — to identify, capture and quickly deport undocumented immigrants.

“Significantly for private-prison operators, the orders also require that undocumented people caught entering the country be detained until their cases are resolved, ending the ‘catch and release’ program in which undocumented immigrants were processed by immigration agents, released into the USA and ordered to reappear for court hearings.”

So now the Trump administration wants to farm out this responsibility to for-profit prison companies? I’m trying to understand where the nation derives the cost savings if it is going to pay these companies to do what state and local authorities should be doing.

And I haven’t even mentioned the public oversight of the manner in which these private lockups are managed.

The idea of private prisons is loony, in my view. If we’re going spend public money to send criminals to prison, we need to spend public money to ensure they are treated humanely.

And that includes illegal immigrants.

‘Bosses’ demand answers from ’employees’

Representative democracy is a messy business.

Members of Congress are finding out just how messy it can become. Many of them have gone “home” during the congressional break. Moreover, many of them have had town hall meetings in which they’ve been shouted down by voters angry over any plan to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.

Many others of them have decided against having town hall meetings. They need not hear from their bosses, they say.

I have to express some admiration for congressmen and women who are willing to stand up, take the heat, and then absorb the comments.

Many citizens have been chanting at their employees — these members of Congress — with a simple message: We’re the boss!

Indeed, they are.

And they deserve to be heard. They deserve all they time they desire to make themselves heard. The people whose salary they pay must take it. They must listen.

This recent development brings to mind a local government body that used to operate in a more “employer-friendly” manner.

Randall County, Texas, voters elected a county judge, Ted Wood, who took office in 1995 and restructured the way county Commissioners Court meetings would take place. Wood did so to give county constituents a greater voice; he intended to give them a broad forum to speak their peace.

Wood’s thought was a simple one: We work for the county’s residents and we owe it to them to give them all the time they need to tell us what’s on their mind.

He would open the floor at the end of county commissioners meetings to residents. He would let them speak for as long as they wanted. Wood’s policy drew the ire of some of his fellow county commissioners. His constituency, though, encompassed the entire county, while each commissioner represented only a section of the county, a single county precinct.

Therefore, Wood threw his weight around.

Was he wrong? Did he allow county residents to take control of these meetings? My recollection was that the meetings didn’t go on forever. They did have end points.

However, the county judge had his heart in the right place. He knew who were the bosses in this form of government we call “representative democracy.” Ted Wood understood that he worked for the taxpayers who pay the bills, not the other way around.

Members of Congress who aren’t listening to complaints from their bosses need to understand that truth, too.

Obama and Trump: they walk on common ground

Illinois state Sen. Barack Hussein Obama told us during the 2004 Democratic National Convention while he delivered the keynote speech that “only in this country is my story possible.”

He was a self-proclaimed “skinny kid with a funny name.”

Indeed, his story was a remarkable one: a black father who was born in Kenya; a white mother from Kansas; Mom and Dad split when young Barack was a boy; Barack barely knew his father; Mom and her young son moved from Hawaii to Indonesia; Barack got a first-class education, went into public service — as a community organizer, a state senator and a U.S. senator — then got elected president of the United States.

This was not a silver-spoon existence. His election as president was a most unlikely event, given the many circumstances of his early life.

He demonstrated that “anyone” can be elected to the highest office in the nation.

Hmmm. How about that.

Donald Trump, I submit, has some commonality with his immediate predecessor. It’s not that Trump was born into a similar family situation, or that his parents struggled financially.

But think about this: In his way, Trump, too, has shown that “anyone” can be elected president of the United States.

Where’s the symmetry? It’s kind of weird, but consider some aspects of this man’s life.

He grew up the son of wealthy parents. He went to a military high school; he then graduated from an Ivy League university; he went into business when Daddy Trump staked him a few million bucks to get started; he built the business into an empire.

OK, here’s some more strange circumstance. Trump would get married three times; he would cheat on his first two wives and then would brag about it; he was host of a reality TV show; he owned a beauty pageant; he behaved like a boor at times.

Trump never ran for public office. He didn’t serve on a school board, or a city council, or a county commission. He never served in a legislative assembly.

The very first public office he ever sought was the presidency of the United States of America.

Does the president’s history suggest to you that he was well-prepared to become head of state of the greatest nation on Earth?

Me, neither.

Thus, Donald John Trump — just as Barack Hussein Obama before him — demonstrates to me that, by golly, anyone can be elected president of the United States.

Retirement won’t mean disengagement

This is the latest in an occasional series of blog posts commenting on upcoming retirement.

As I listen daily — and nightly — to news about the state of our national government under Donald J. Trump, I might be tempted to shuck it all when my bride and I hit the road during our retirement years.

Full-time retirement, I caution you, won’t mean full-time disengagement from the world that continues to swirl around us.

The former — full-time retirement — is approaching at a quickening pace. The latter, well, won’t change once we cross that threshold.

The only difference might lie in that as we travel a good bit more in our RV, we’ll be visiting portions of North America that don’t share the groupthink that is so prevalent in the Texas Panhandle. As such, my intention will be to talk to those we meet as pass through their communities. I hope to glean from them their view of the world.

We’ve had the joy of traveling some already in our RV, which we’ve owned for a couple of years. This past autumn, we took our longest trip — distance-wise — to southwestern South Dakota. It gave us a hint of the adventure that awaits us as we tool our way across two massive nations: the United States and Canada.

Along the way, I intend to be connected fully to the world.

Tempting as it might be — such as it is at this moment as the “news” is broadcast in the background of my home office — I won’t toss it all aside. I suppose you could say I am not wired simply to toss it all aside while we simply travel, kick off our shoes and not have a care in the world.

Modern technology has advanced to where we expect to be connected every mile of our journey. I intend fully to use that technology to keep this blog blazing away with praise where it’s warranted and, oh, criticism where that, too, is deserved.

I hope you’ll join us on our ride throughout North America.

Trump’s Cabinet: at best, a mixed bag

Donald J. Trump hasn’t picked a gang of losers for his Cabinet.

He’s got some winners in the bunch. I am not equipped just yet to assess all of the president’s team members. Some have yet to take office, such as Energy Secretary-designate Rick Perry.

But I do feel driven to offer a word or two on a few of the more visible selections Trump has made.

First, the good picks.

James “Mad Dog” Mattis at Defense might be the best of the bunch. The retired Marine Corps general has turned out to be a seriously mature and thoughtful fellow. Imagine someone with the “Mad Dog” nickname earning that designation.

Gen. Mattis has declared that the United States won’t “torture” enemy combatants, nor will it seize Iraqi oil. He has managed to contradict the president directly on those two key elements. Semper fi, Gen. Mattis.

John Kelly, another Marine general, is a plus at Homeland Security. He’s kept a low profile so far, but has toured the southern border to take a first-hand look at the so-called “porous” border.

Rex Tillerson might be the big surprise at State. The former ExxonMobil CEO brought some serious baggage to his job. I remained worried about whether Tillerson’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to skew the U.S. policy toward Russia.

But he is talking reasonably and thoughtfully about U.S. foreign policy so far. His political foes have been quieted somewhat now that he’s on the job.

Let’s look at three Cabinet clunkers.

Betsy DeVos at Education shouldn’t be there. She has no experience — let alone understanding — of public education; she never attended public schools; nor did her children. She favors voucher programs that peel away public funds to pay for private education for parents and their children.

My friend, 2015 National Teacher of the Year Shanna Peeples, has invited DeVos to visit public schools here in Amarillo, hoping she can collect some level of understanding about the hard work that’s going on in public classrooms. I do hope the secretary accepts Shanna’s invitation so she can learn something about the agency she is now leading.

Ben Carson at Housing and Urban Development is another loser who has no business running an agency about which he knows not a single thing. The retired — and famed — neurosurgeon said so himself, through a spokesman; he isn’t qualified to run a federal agency. Trump picked him anyway. Enough said there.

Scott Pruitt, the new director of the Environmental Protection Agency, might be the worst of the bunch. How does the president justify selecting a sworn enemy of the agency he now is leading. Pruitt hates the EPA and sued the agency 14 times while serving as Oklahoma attorney general. He’s a friend of big oil and he detests EPA’s efforts at developing alternative energy sources for the purpose of, that’s right, protecting the environment.

Sheesh, man!

I am hoping for the best. My fear, though, falls short of that. As for the Trump Cabinet winners, I hope their strength rubs off on their weaker colleagues.

Wedding plans prove to be, um, breathtaking

I am trying to catch my breath as I write these next few words.

Richard Ware, the high-powered Amarillo banker, is getting married this weekend. That isn’t news all by itself, except perhaps for Ware’s family and closest friends.

His fiancée, though, deserves special attention. Her name is Katherine Harris, whose name is quite familiar to the most avid political junkies.

Harris served as Florida secretary of state in 2000, when that year’s presidential election hung in the balance over the counting of ballots in the Sunshine State. Harris was the chief elections officer in Florida and she finally certified — after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s favor — that Bush would win Florida’s electoral votes.

The wedding will occur in Texas. I hear that Mr. and Mrs. Ware will live some of the time in the Lone Star State.

I’m not quite sure what to say about this. I am left to offer only that during her 15 minutes at the center of the political stage, Katherine Harris became one of the more polarizing figures in recent U.S. political history. Suffice to say she made plenty of foes as well as friends as she operated in the middle of a tremendous national political swirl.

I’m still breathless.

‘Mad Dog’ emerges as reasonable, sane adviser

Let me see a show of hands. Who among you ever thought that a man with a nickname “Mad Dog” would emerge as a reasoned, thoughtful and nuanced secretary of defense?

Well, me neither.

Retired Marine Corps Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis has emerged as just that person. I want to sing the praises of the defense secretary, who over the weekend had the courage to speak reasonably — and in direct contradiction — to a reckless declaration that the president of the United States had made.

Mattis made a quick trip to Iraq and proclaimed that the United States will not seize Iraqi oil. Donald J. Trump famously said he intended to do that very thing if he were elected president. The idea, Trump said, was to deprive the Islamic State of the revenue it gleans from oil to fund its terrorist activities.

Gen. Mattis said, um, no … we aren’t going to do that.

Mattis is becoming arguably my favorite Cabinet official in the Trump administration. Heaven knows that there aren’t many of them for which I would express such admiration.

It is reasonable to wonder if Mattis is going to last for the duration of Trump’s term. Trump is known to be an impulsive, not terribly thoughtful individual. He says things that pop into his noggin without ever considering the consequences of what he says.

Seizing the Iraqi oil fields was one of those ill-considered statements. Ain’t no way we can do that cleanly and without shedding a lot of American blood.

Mattis, career military man that he is, understands a lot more about such matters than the commander in chief. I am delighted, too, that he is expressing himself with the confidence that those general’s stars have given him.

Thank you for your service, Gen. Mad Dog. Keep up the good work … if the president will allow it.

Let’s hope the new security adviser stands test of time

I am more than likely able to stipulate that H.R. McMaster wasn’t privy to any conversations between Donald J. Trump’s campaign and Russian government officials prior to the president taking office.

That is one of many positive aspects of the president’s choice today of McMaster to become the new national security adviser.

McMaster is the second Army lieutenant general to take this post, succeeding retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who Trump dismissed a week ago for a whole host of reasons — some of which are likely to be fodder for ongoing investigations.

McMaster’s appointment is drawing high praise from Republicans interested in national security and defense. At first blush, Gen. McMaster looks like a great choice.

Even Trump critics are pleased. One of them, Sen. John McCain, lavished praise on the president and his national security adviser. “He is a man of genuine intellect, character and ability. I give President Trump great credit for this decision,” said McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, of McMaster.

As with all of Trump’s selections, though, one must ask: Will the president rely on this man’s experience, intelligence and savvy as he presents reports on threats to our national security?

McMaster has been tested in combat, leading a cavalry regiment during the Iraq War. He was a critic of U.S. policy in the Vietnam War. His credentials as a national security expert are unquestioned.

Many of us, though, have questioned whether the president has politicized the National Security Council by placing senior political strategist Steve Bannon on the principals committee.

The national security adviser must have unfettered access to the president and must be able to deliver the truth to the commander in chief when it’s required. My hope is that Gen. McMaster will have the access he needs and my expectation would be that this no-nonsense military man demanded it of the boss before he agreed to serve.

If the president committed full access to the new man, great.

If he keeps his pledge, that’s even better.

Democrats to grass roots: Cool it with the ‘I-word’ talk

The “I-word” might be gaining some traction among rank-and-file Americans who profess worry — even fear — of Donald J. Trump.

Democratic Party officials are issuing a wise word of caution. Avoid the rush toward an impeachment of the president of the United States.

I happen to agree with the Democratic Party elders/wise folks.

Impeachment is a serious matter. It’s only occurred twice in the 228-year history of the Republic. The 17th president, Andrew Johnson, came within a single vote in the Senate of being tossed out; the 42nd president, Bill Clinton, was acquitted by healthier margins on all three counts heard during his Senate trial. A third president, Richard Nixon, was on the verge of being impeached before he resigned in disgrace in 1974.

Trump has stirred plenty of enmity during his single month in office. To suggest that he ought to be impeached is at best far too premature an act to even consider; at worst, well, it might be a fool’s errand.

As Politico reports: “’We need to assemble all of the facts, and right now there are a lot of questions about the president’s personal, financial and political ties with the Russian government before the election, but also whether there were any assurances made,’ said California Rep. Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. ‘Before you can use the ‘I’ word, you really need to collect all the facts.’

“’The ‘I’ word we should be focused on,’ added Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle, ‘is ‘investigations.'”

I happen to share the concerns of many of my fellow Americans about the questions that are looming large over the Trump administration. So soon after the president’s inauguration, Americans would be wise to give the guy some time to clear out some of the wreckage he has brought upon himself and his administration.

I want to offer a slightly conciliatory word here. Trump became president with zero experience in government. He hadn’t spent a single moment of his life in public service until he placed his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office of the presidency.

It might be too much to ask that a zillionaire businessman/TV celebrity could know all the nuance and complexity of forming a government as massive as the one he now commands.

He has made some remarkable missteps in just a few weeks on the job. He has said some amazingly stupid things and made some ridiculous gestures. Are any of them impeachable? No.

But he’s got this personal enrichment matter he must clear up. That “emoluments clause” that bars presidents from profiting from relationships with foreign governments is pretty clear. The president hasn’t done nearly enough to clear himself of that mess.

He had better get busy.

The fired-up grass roots Americans who are hell bent on impeaching the president had best listen to the political elders who know about these matters.

Their advice? Cool it.

Right-winger draws rebuke from conservatives … good!

It turns out that political conservatives have their limits on the level of provocation they are willing to tolerate.

My spirits are lifted when I read such things.

Milo Yiannopoulos, a right-wing provocateur, has been disinvited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference annual meeting after drawing a sharp rebuke from other conservatives.

Yiannopoulos, who is openly gay, recently stated that younger gay men would benefit from a relationship with — ugh! — older men. Oh, but he has condemned pedophilia and, I guess, he has tried to legitimize his hideous views by telling of the sexual abuse he suffered as a child.

He’s also written extensively against homosexuality. Go figure.

Right-wing bloggers, pundits and consultants are outraged that CPAC would invited this guy to speak in the first place.

According to The Hill: “Conservative blogger Erick Erickson on Monday slammed the ACU’s decision to include Yiannopoulos among their speakers, casting the move as more of a publicity stunt than a contribution to conservative dialogue.”

I am heartened to learn that conservatives have their limits on the level of bile and vitriol they would tolerate. Let’s flash back, oh, about two decades or so.

Conservatives were none too shy about defaming President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary, by suggesting they were complicit in what they said were the murders of their political opponents. None other than the late preacher/demagogue/”Rev.” Jerry Falwell actually produced a video, “The Clinton Chronicles,” that suggested the Clintons were responsible for the suicide death of their longtime friend Vincent Foster.

I don’t recall hearing much protest then from the right about that shameful act of defamation.

That was then. Today is a new day, I reckon.

Milo Yiannopoulos is getting the scorn he deserves from his so-called political brethren.

As conservative consultant Matt Mackowiak said of CPAC’s decision to disinvite Yiannopoulos: This is not a hard call.