Category Archives: State news

Former UT football coach lands in good place

636130745704003397-usatsi-9533430

Charley Strong didn’t coach his team to enough football wins to suit the boosters, the athletic director and the fans who follow the University of Texas Longhorns.

UT fired the coach, sent him packing. Then the coach landed another gig, at the University of South Florida, where he succeeds Willie Taggart, who has headed off to coach the University of Oregon.

Despite the dismal win-loss record, Strong left the University of Texas football program better off. Why? Because of what he did in his first season in Austin. He cut loose a bunch of bad boys on the team, student-athletes who weren’t acquitting themselves properly off the field. He tossed them over, telling them, in effect, that they needed to live by certain standards to play for his team.

When it happened, I recall some of the players were stars on the team, gridiron studs, big men on campus. Coach Strong believes that character matters.

The loss of that athletic talent might have hurt the Longhorns’ football performance. It helped the team understand what their coach stood for: integrity.

I am not a UT grad. I didn’t attend school there. Neither of my sons attended UT; one of them graduated from Sam Houston State University, the other from the Art Institute of Dallas. I don’t have any particular vested loyalty in the program.

I do have an interest in seeing young men develop the right way when they are given a chance for a fully paid college education. Athletic scholarships aren’t just tickets to sports stardom. They also give these young people a chance to obtain a good education — paid for by their athletic skill — that will shepherd them through the rest of their life.

Coach Strong, by my way of thinking, sought to imbue that ethic in young men who play big-time college football.

He didn’t win enough football games. Big deal. I’m betting he likely produced a sufficient number of winners who played football for him — and will do so again at his next stop.

Thanks, Coach, for setting a great example.

Rex Tillerson? Huh? Where did he come from?

rex-tillerson-003_jpg_800x1000_q100

Eyes had turned to Mitt Romney, then to David Petraeus, then to Rudy Giuliani, then back to Mitt.

Then the president-elect shakes it all up and appears now set to name Rex Tillerson as the next secretary of state.

Rex the Texan. He’s the man Donald J. Trump is about to pick as the nation’s top diplomat.

Wow! Who knew?

Tillerson is president and CEO of Exxon Mobil. He’s another gazillionaire headed for Trump’s Cabinet.

You may ask: What does this fellow bring to the world of international statecraft? Man, I am officially baffled in the extreme.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/10/trump-taps-texan-and-exxon-mobil-ceo-rex-tillerson/

But here’s what many folks do know about Tillerson: His oil interests reach into Russia, where he reportedly has a good relationship with the Russian strongman, President Vladimir Putin. Oh, boy. Here come the questions.

Will the business interests get in the way of hard-nosed diplomacy? Does Tillerson’s friendship with Putin spell curtains for NATO, the Ukraine, Georgia and other nations affected by Russia’s sword-rattling? Does the apparent nominee’s lack of diplomatic experience hinder his knowledge of world affairs and the nuance required to deal effectively with foreign governments?

The Trumpkins aren’t yet confirming anything. Tillerson, though, appears headed for the State Department. For now. Unless the president-elect changes his mind. Again.

Texas might bind electors to vote for winner

7c2a3338_jpg_800x1000_q100

Is it a good idea for the Texas Legislature to enact a law that forces presidential electors to remain faithful to the oath they take?

Yes.

Another Texas Republican elector, Christopher Suprun of Dallas, has declared he won’t cast his vote next week for Donald J. Trump, who won the state’s 38 electoral votes. He hasn’t said for whom he’ll vote, but it has drawn a response from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who said he’s going to look into whether the Legislature will write a law that binds future electors to their pledge.

I think that’s a reasonable requirement. Texas would join 29 other states that have similar laws on the books.

Suprun joins another GOP elector, Art Sisneros, in denying Trump their electoral votes. There’s a big difference, though, in the two men’s decision. Suprun will cast his vote; Sisneros, on the other hand, took the more noble approach and quit his post as an elector. Sisneros said he couldn’t in good conscience vote for Trump — but neither could he violate the oath he took when he signed on as an elector.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/07/patrick-rogue-texas-elector-could-lead-binding-law/

I don’t suppose Patrick would seek a law that prevents electors from quitting, as Sisneros did. However, Suprun’s decision is a bit troublesome. The difficulty, in my mind, has nothing to do with Trump. I wouldn’t vote for Trump, either.

Instead, it’s related directly to the oath this elector took to keep faith with the state’s voters, who gave the president-elect a 9 percentage point victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

These public oaths don’t by themselves bind those who take them to remain faithful. But they should. These electors sign on as loyal Republicans or Democrats. Trump won the GOP nomination fair and square and won the presidential election under the rules laid out by the U.S. Constitution.

Patrick and the Legislature cannot enact a law quickly enough to make Suprun toe the line. They ought to do so for future presidential elections. Fair is fair.

Rep. McCaul: Solid choice, maybe, for Homeland Security

mccaul

I’ve spent a good deal of time criticizing some of Donald J. Trump’s picks for his Cabinet.

I now will say something good about someone under consideration for a key national security post: Rep. Michael McCaul might become secretary of homeland security in the Trump administration.

McCaul would be a solid choice.

The only remotely negative thing that comes to mind is that he reportedly is the richest member of Congress, so he would be continuing Trump’s pattern of picking rich folks to help him govern the country.

Beyond that? Well, McCaul has law enforcement experience and has chaired the House Homeland Security Committee.

It also is good that McCaul hails from Texas, one of the states on the front line of this homeland security debate.

Some critics have suggested that McCaul isn’t tough enough on illegal immigration. As the Texas Tribune reported: “In recent days, McCaul has come under fire from illegal immigration opponents who claim he has not been tough enough on the problem in Congress. In a TV interview Wednesday, McCaul called such criticism ‘incredulous and inflammatory and … slanderous.'”

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/02/cruz-praises-mccaul-trump-mulls-cabinet-job-him/

I like the fact that McCaul has congressional experience and that he represents a congressional district in a state where the homeland security issue has become arguably the most acute in the country.

From what I’ve heard from Rep. McCaul over the years, he doesn’t come across as a screamer. Instead, he sounds relatively reasonable and nuanced — which is a quality that Trump is going to need once he becomes president.

McCaul’s most vocal backer well might be U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a fellow Texan. It’s an interesting twist, too, as the Tribune reports, given that many Republicans have hoped McCaul would challenge Cruz for the GOP Senate nomination in 2018.

Hmm. Imagine that. Cruz now wants him ensconced in the Trump administration — and perhaps out of the way of his own run for re-election.

Whatever. Rep. McCaul would be a good fit at the Department of Homeland Security.

Texas GOP fed up with agriculture commissioner?

miller-4_jpg_800x1000_q100

Sid Miller blew into Amarillo the other day, ate dinner at a downtown restaurant and then proceeded to make an ass of himself by making a big show of his displeasure with the meal he received.

That’s not even close to describing the misdeeds of this loudmouth politician.

The Texas Tribune is reporting that Miller, the Republican commissioner of agriculture, has become the king of fake news. He puts out bogus items as if they are true. He makes defamatory statements on his social media feeds about Muslims, Democrats … anyone who opposes what passes as his world view of politics and public policy. He collects these gems from ultraconservative websites and then posts them on his Facebook page, which he boasts as having tens of thousands of followers.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/03/texas-ag-chiefs-facebook-account-fake-news-flows/

The Tribune’s analysis of Miller playing fast and loose with the facts is in the link. It’s so very interesting, and damning!

Get this: Texas Republicans just might be embarrassed and ashamed enough of this guy to run a serious primary challenger against him in 2018. How do I know that? Well, I don’t know it to be a fact, as it hasn’t happened yet.

However, I got a snootful today from a member of the Texas legislative delegation — a Republican, no less — who said damn near anyone would be better in the job as agriculture commissioner than Miller.

I happen to agree with that assessment. The guy is a loon.

My hope now is that if Texas Republicans are truly angry at the manner in which this statewide elected official has conducted himself that they’ll do something to get this individual out of office.

Women need not be shamed over abortion

Abortion law

Texas is seeking to shame women who make the most difficult decision any human being ever can make.

It is whether to terminate a pregnancy.

How is the state seeking to lay shame on the women who make that decision? Effective on Dec. 19, hospitals, abortion clinics and other health facilities will be required to bury or cremate the remains of aborted fetuses.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2016/12/01/latest-rules-one-effort-texas-shame-women-choose-abortion

The initial proposal sent shock through the abortion-rights community. Many in that camp feared that the state would require death certificates for these fetal remains. The state re-thought some of its initial provisions and decided to go with what is about to become law.

One of the initial provisions would have covered women who suffer miscarriages at home.

As the Dallas Morning News commented in an editorial: “The Department of State Health Services proposed the rule change in July. Its first draft sent tremors among both abortion-rights advocates and the state’s medical community. Would the remains now be required to have a death certificate? Would women who suffer miscarriages at home be required to see to the burial of their fetus?

“Thankfully, the department heard some of these concerns and acted to make clear that the new rule will not apply to miscarriages or abortions that occur at home, for example. Hospitals or clinics, not the women themselves, will be charged with seeing to the eventual burial of the remains. … Those changes are welcome. Requiring mothers suffering a miscarriage at home to see to the burial of the remains of what they had been carrying in their wombs would have been beyond cruel.”

If you check out the link attached to this blog post, you’ll see a letter that Gov. Greg Abbott issued. It contains some fascinating language in which it declares that fetal remains should be treated as human remains and not as “medical waste.” He calls pro-choice advocates “anti-life” proponents.

Oh, my.

The rule that will take effect, in my view, is unduly harsh toward women. It seeks to shame them for making a decision only they can make in consultation with God, their family, their conscience. As the Morning News notes: “It will require facilities to treat fetal remains as if they were bodies of the dead, no matter how or why the pregnancy was ended …”

There is no way on Earth either side is going to persuade the other side of the rightness of their argument — or the wrongness of the opposing view.

I am just sickened in the extreme by government’s continual effort to intercede in decisions that only women can make.

 

Red-light camera ban set for more debate

redlightcamera

Here we go … again!

The Texas Legislature is going to consider a bill — maybe more than one of them — to ban cities from deploying red-light cameras at dangerous intersections.

Stop me before my head explodes!

Amarillo is one of those cities that has put the cameras to good use at various intersections. City traffic and police officials reported recently that the cameras are doing their job. They are preventing motorists from running through red lights and putting other motorists in jeopardy.

But that ain’t stopping lawmakers from seeking to ban the cameras. The irony of this effort in this legislative body is too rich to ignore.

I’ll start with this fact: Republicans dominate both legislative chambers. The Republican Party traditionally has been the party that seeks to invest more control of government affairs to local authorities. Not so as it regards the cameras. In this instance, the paternalistic state is better equipped than the locals to determine whether there is a need for police to have some electronic help in preventing motorists from ignoring red lights.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2016/11/25/lawmakers-will-try-ban-red-light-traffic-cameras

Yes, some cities have taken the cameras down after using them for a time. Residents don’t like them? Fine, cities react to their constituents’ concerns.

Lubbock had them. Then they took ’em down.

Amarillo has deployed the cameras since 2008. Sure, there’s been some griping. Has any group put together a petition drive to get them taken down? No. The City Council remains firm in its commitment to using the cameras. I applaud the council for its persistence.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’ve been caught once running a red light. I didn’t do it on purpose. I just forgot about the camera posted at 10th and South Taylor in downtown Amarillo; I drove through the intersection and got caught. The camera took a picture of my car’s license plate and I got a ticket in the mail; I paid the ticket.

So, why does the Legislature want to meddle in cities’ decisions? According to the Dallas Morning News: “Whenever these cameras are put on the ballot box [in cities] … the cameras never win,” said Dallas Republican Sen. Don Huffines, who recently wrote a bill to get rid of the cameras. “They’re not popular, and people are tired of being found guilty by a camera.”

So what if a camera does what a traffic cop can’t do at that moment? I keep thinking back to something that former Amarillo Councilwoman Ellen Green once said in defense of the cameras. She said, essentially, that if you don’t want to pay the fine “don’t run the red lights.”

I have no clue whether the Legislature will make good on its effort to interfere with local prerogative. I do hope, though, that it backs off yet again. Let local traffic and law enforcement authorities determine the best way to keep lawbreaking motorists in line.

Texas elector follows conscience out the door

aakrqn1

Art Sisneros apparently is a man of deep faith and conviction.

He takes an oath and plans to stick by it. So, when he took an oath as a Texas Republican elector to vote for the individual who won the state’s electoral votes in the presidential election, he felt he had to abide by that oath.

Except for one thing: The person who won the state’s 38 electoral votes is Donald J. Trump, a man who — according to Sisneros — doesn’t deserve his vote.

What to do?

Sisneros did the only thing he felt he could do: He resigned as a Texas elector. He walked away from his task of casting a vote for president because he couldn’t (a) vote for Trump or (b) become something called a “faithless elector,” meaning he would break his pledge to support the GOP candidate for president.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-elector-art-sisneros-to-resign-instead-of-voting-for-donald-trump/ar-AAkRIX1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Sisneros calls the Electoral College “corrupted from its original intent.”  I won’t weigh in on whether we should toss the Electoral College out. My sense is that it still performs a public service to the national electorate by giving smaller states more of a voice in the electoral process … which I consider to be a good thing.

But I do like the notion that one elector has weighed carefully the consequences of his actions and decided his best option is to walk out, to follow his conscience out the door and to allow the state to appoint someone to his spot who isn’t as conflicted as he is.

As U.S. News and World Report noted: “(Sisneros’) decision followed a previous post in which he posed the question of whether it was ‘acceptable for a Christian to vote for a man like Trump for president,’ and concluded that he could not ‘in good conscience’ do so.

This is precisely the kind of contradiction that many of us saw, with committed evangelical voters sticking with Trump, even in light of the candidate’s admission that he groped women and behaved like a complete and utter boor.

I cannot help but wonder if there will be more of this kind of soul-searching among electors as the date approaches for them to cast their important votes for president.

Enter the white nationalist in Aggieland

spencer

This is the kind of story that gives First Amendment purists — such as yours truly — a serious case of heartburn.

Richard Spencer is slated to deliver some remarks at Texas A&M University. Just who is this fellow? He’s the founder of a white nationalist group — the National Policy Institute — that’s been in the news lately.

I use the term “white nationalist” only because that’s what he calls himself. He’s actually a white supremacist. A flaming racist, if you will.

Spencer is a young man with an agenda that isn’t going over too well with a lot of us. I include myself in that category of Americans repulsed to the core by what this guy espouses. He recently exhorted a roomful of supporters with a salute hailing the election of Donald J. Trump as president that looked for all the world like something the Nazis used to do in Adolf Hitler’s presence.

Why the heartburn?

Spencer is entitled to speak his peace. He happens to be an American citizen. The First Amendment protects people’s right to express their political views freely.

Some students and I’ll presume faculty at Texas A&M don’t want Spencer to speak Dec. 6 at the student center. They’re planning a protest. Some are petitioning the school to disinvite him.

As much as it pains and aggravates me to say this, they are mistaken if they intend to ban this guy from having the floor for his scheduled 30 minutes in College Station.

A university is a place that is supposed to promote a wide range of ideas, ideologies, philosophies and theories. Yes, even those many of us find offensive.

Here’s what the Houston Chronicle reported: “The university issued a statement Wednesday denouncing Spencer’s rhetoric and sought to distance itself from the event. The university had no immediate comment on whether it would try to cancel the speech.

“‘To be clear, Texas A&M University – including faculty, staff, students and/or student groups – did not invite this speaker to our campus nor do we endorse his rhetoric in any way,’ Amy Smith, a university spokeswoman, said in the statement.”

The Chronicle continued: “Private citizens can reserve space on campus for private functions, Smith said. The event organizer will pay all rental expenses, including security costs, she said.”

Here’s the whole story:

http://www.chron.com/local/education/campus-chronicles/article/White-nationalist-to-speak-at-Texas-A-M-10632460.php?cmpid=fb-desktop

Even though the university didn’t “invite” this fellow, his presence on the campus ought to some credence to the notion that all ideas should be heard within that environment, even if they aren’t welcome.

Conservative speakers have been shunned before on university campuses. I dislike that notion, even as someone who identifies more with progressive than with conservative causes.

However, if we believe in the constitutional protection of free speech and expression, then we need to adhere wholly to it.

Richard Spencer’s message no doubt will disgust and enrage many who hear it. Let the young man speak … then show him the door.

Missing a Thanksgiving tradition

texas2

So help me, I don’t know why I am thinking of this.

But I just am.

It occurred to me today that I am missing an annual Thanksgiving event. It’s a sporting spectacle: the University of Texas-Texas A&M University football game.

The Aggies tossed the intense rivalry into the crapper when they bolted from the Big 12 and joined the Southeastern Conference a few years back. I heard something about UT’s football network driving the Aggies toward the SEC. I’m not very savvy about the business of college football, so I won’t comment on that.

But we’ve lived in Texas now for nearly 33 years. I’ve grown accustomed to many of this state’s traditions. The annual UT-A&M game on Thanksgiving Day was one of them.

It’s no longer part of the state’s celebration of this uniquely American holiday.

I don’t have any particular loyalties here. Our sons didn’t attend either school. I know plenty of Texas Exes and Aggies.

I’ve learned, for instance, that there’s no such thing as a “former Aggie.” I also learned long ago that Aggies refer to their longtime rival as “texas university.”

I guess one might say — and I don’t mention this with any antipathy — that Aggies are a touch more obnoxious about the rivalry than their Longhorn friends.

However, it’s all grown a bit muted since the two schools no longer face off on Thanksgiving either in Austin or College Station.

Yeah, I miss it. I only can imagine how I would feel if I actually felt an allegiance to either school.