Category Archives: local news

Glad the Scots said 'no' to independence

I’ve been thinking about the vote in Scotland to stay attached to the United Kingdom and the thought occurs to me: Would a “yes” vote to declare independence fuel further secession talk in Texas?

I’m only half-joking about that speculation.

A neighbor of mine sports a “SECEDE” bumper sticker on the back of his vehicle, right next to one that says he was “Proud to Serve” in the U.S. military. Frankly, I don’t get the juxtaposition.

Imagine if Scotland had voted to pull out of the UK. The Scots would have had to form their own military establishment, rather than relying on Her Majesty’s impressive military establishment for protection. There would be all kinds of ancillary expense to forming a nation.

The same thing applies to any notion that one of the United States of America should want to secede.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry a few years back made some careless remarks about secession. He came strangely close to endorsing the idea, only to back away and say he is a proud American who doesn’t want the Union broken up.

And we hear such talk among others around the state. I would call them the fruitcake wing of the Lone Star State’s 26 million or so souls, most of whom are good, decent and proud Americans.

I shudder to think what might have happened had the Scots had said “yes” to independence. I’m glad they went the other way on the issue. Sanity has a way of prevailing when the chips are down — most of the time.

Three cheers for public television!

Public television deserves a serious shout-out.

So I’m going to give it one today. There will be more to come as situations arise.

I’ve just watched a magnificent 14-hour documentary special broadcast on Panhandle PBS, the Texas Panhandle’s public television affiliate. It was titled “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History.” It is available online at PanhandlePBS.org — and I encourage readers of this blog to look at it if they didn’t watch it when it aired this past week.

(In the interest full disclosure, I must mention that I blogged daily on the “The Roosevelts” for Panhandle PBS. The blog, “A Public View,” can be found at PanhandlePBS.org — but hey, I digress. Back to the subject at hand.)

Why the shout-out?

Well, public TV occasionally surfaces as a target of political conservatives who have this idea that public money need not fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or the Public Broadcasting Service. They see PBS as some kind of propaganda tool — which it most assuredly is not!

“The Roosevelts” special was produced by Ken Burns, arguably the nation’s foremost documentary filmmaker. His list of acclaimed specials is getting too long to mention here. I’ll bring up one: “The Dust Bowl.” It aired in 2013 and told the story of humanity’s worst manmade ecological disaster. What’s more, it was centered right here, in the Panhandle and in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Burns’s special hit this region right in the gut, as many now-elderly residents recalled the terrible events of that era.

Burns delivered the goods once again with “The Roosevelts.” It told in intimate detail the struggles of this remarkable political family, centering on Theodore Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt. They were all kin to each other, even though Franklin and Eleanor were husband and wife as well.

This is the kind of programming that the public needs to fund with public money.

You want educational television devoid of tacky commercials? That’s what public television provides us.

It’s also why the opposition to public television funding is ridiculous on its face.

Give me more of it.

This book will be worth reading and re-reading

This idea should have been put forth years ago.

Then again, the product it would produce wouldn’t be nearly as rich as it figures to be.

My good friend and former colleague Jon Mark Beilue has been a columnist for the Amarillo Globe-News for about seven, maybe eight years. Prior to that he was sports editor.

He is asking readers for some help selecting his “best of” columns to be included in a book the paper will publish soon.

http://amarillo.com/blog-post/jon-mark-beilue/2014-09-09/have-suggestion-lets-hear-it

Jon Mark is a community treasure. He tells a story as no one else does or can. He says the book will be 200-plus pages in length.

The brief blog item he wrote is typically self-deprecating. He doesn’t take himself too seriously, which is a sure sign of a good and talented man.

Jon Mark, though, does take his craft seriously.

Do I have a favorite? I cannot even begin to select one, or a dozen, or a truckload of columns he’s written over the years.

I’ll trust others to compile the “best of Jon Mark Beilue.” I am certain beyond any doubt it will be a keepsake volume.

Puppy tales, Part 7

It is my duty to report that Toby the Dog has committed his first act of vandalism in our home.

You’ll remember that we acquired Toby just a few weeks ago. His former “owners” said they didn’t want him. We were mortified that they reportedly had turned him loose in our neighborhood hoping someone would claim him.

We did precisely that. We’ve taken him in. Toby is part of our family.

However, this addition has not been totally hitch-free.

We put him in one of our bathrooms the other day while we left to run some errands. We’ve decided to do that rather than let him run around the house. We leave him with a bowl of water, a little bed we purchased for him. He’s good to go.

Well, we’re learning now how we need to puppy-proof our house, much as we’ve learned how to child-proof it.

How do we puppy-proof our humble abode? My making sure he cannot chew things he shouldn’t chew on.

Such as yours truly’s sandals.

Toby found my sandals and promptly removed the insole from one of them and chewed it pieces. All over the bathroom floor the material had been scattered.

We came home, found the wounded shoe, put 2 and 2 together.

OK, is Toby in trouble? No. It’s our fault that we didn’t think strategically to prevent this kind of damage from being done.

Hey, we still feel fortunate. He remains very well-behaved. He doesn’t bark unless he has something to say, such as when he tries to urge his new brother and sister — our 12-yer-old cats Socks and Mittens — that he wants to play. They both hiss at him and both have clocked him at least once. No harm, no foul. He’s starting to get the message. Toby doesn’t gnaw on our furniture. He doesn’t dig holes in our yard.

We’ll be sure to guard against further vandalism, however. We just need to outsmart him.

Blogging is a blast … most of the time

Readers of this blog know — I hope — that I take great joy in expressing opinions on this or that subject.

I consider it a form of recreation, perhaps even therapy. I like sharing it on various social media. I post the blog entries to my Twitter feed, which goes automatically to my Facebook feed. They also post automatically to LinkedIn and Tumblr.

Sometimes, though, the Facebook feed results in some, shall we say, unfortunate reactions among a few of the hundreds of friends and “friends” who read this stuff on that social medium.

Some of my friends/”friends” react to the blog post. Their reaction draws a critical response from someone else on the feed. Then the initial responder respond to the response. Back and forth it goes. Then others enter the fray. Then it becomes a game of insults, a put-down contest, if you please.

Some of it is good-natured. Some of it isn’t. Then it gets out of hand.

I commented earlier today on Texas executing a young woman for the murder of a little boy. I stated my opposition capital punishment. Then the fusillade started among a few folks who had read the blog.

It got a bit crazy.

Sometimes I’m a bit slow on the uptake and sometimes I don’t recognize good humor when it’s hidden behind insults. Perhaps my friends — and these individuals are people I know well — were just kidding among themselves. They really didn’t mean to say all those nasty things to each other, or at least outsiders looking in — such as yours truly — shouldn’t interpret them as mean-spiritedness.

Forgive me, guys. I don’t get it.

I’ll keep spewing this stuff. Others can comment. They’re free to insult each other as long as they don’t use the magic word, which in baseball rhubarb parlance is “you.” By that I don’t want them saying, “You bleeping so-and-so!”

Let’s keep it clean.

Will lame-duck status signal end to incessant griping?

Barack Obama becomes a lame-duck president officially on Nov. 5, the day after the midterm elections.

He in fact became such the moment he won re-election in November 2012, given that the Constitution prohibits him from running for a third term.

That hasn’t stemmed the constant carping about his presidency and his alleged “failures” as the nation’s chief executives.

I have a friend who keeps yammering about the president being an “empty coat.” Other conservatives keep blathering about how his economic policies have “failed the country,” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Still others right-wingers blame the president for the myriad international crises that that keep flaring up all around the world, as if the United States has the power to put them all down — all at once.

I’m wondering when the constant griping will start to subside. My best guess is that the midterm elections might provide some relief for those of us out here who actually support the president, who voted for his re-election and who believe he’s done a good job given the horrible circumstances he inherited when he took office.

I live smack in the middle of Anti-Obama Country. The Texas Panhandle voted 80 percent against him in two presidential elections. So I get that he doesn’t have much cache in this part of the nation.

Here’s what I don’t get: I don’t get why the Obama haters — and they truly hate the man, perhaps for reasons they dare not acknowledge publicly — can’t start looking ahead to the next election and start scouring the landscape for a suitable alternative.

Are they out there? Is there a Republican on the horizon who can do better at reducing the budget deficit, reducing the jobless rate, helping private business hire more Americans, help provide health insurance for millions of Americans who didn’t have it, protect us against terrorist attacks, round up illegal immigrants and end two costly wars?

Barack Obama’s lame-duck status ought to be good news for his enemies.

Come on, folks. Cheer up. The nation is still standing. And we’re still the strongest nation on the planet.

Courthouse building: opportunity or eyesore?

I ventured recently to Canyon, Texas to interview a West Texas A&M University professor on a project for Panhandle PBS.

And as I usually do when I venture to the Randall County seat, I drove briefly around the Courthouse Square.

There it was. The old 1909 Courthouse building. All dolled up. The yard was manicured. The clock tower was keeping time. The building was nice and shiny. The windows were clean.

Then I looked closely at the windows from my car and noticed the interior was dark. Still. Not a thing going on in there — that I could see.

I keep wondering: What is going to happen to that building?

Randall County vacated that structure years ago. Commissioners Court has moved across the street into what used to be the old county jail. Virtually the rest of the government structure has moved a few blocks east to the Justice Center, which once was home to a Wal-Mart.

County Judge Ernie Houdashell told me a few years ago he was trying to swing a deal. With whom, he didn’t say. He just would tell me that some folks are interested in moving into the building.

It’s also interesting that the Randall County website features the old courthouse structure on his home page.

http://www.randallcounty.org/

Houdashell is a wheeler and dealer par excellence. I wish him well in his search for a worthy tenant. I have a few guesses on who or what might move in there. The Canyon Economic Development Corp. comes to mind. So does Canyon City Hall. I once thought the Canyon Independent School District might be interested, then CISD built that new office complex at the north end of town.

It’s just a shame to see a building with a renovated exterior paid for with historical preservation grant funds and local tax money just sitting there. Empty. Waiting for someone to turn on the lights.

It’s too pretty a structure to remain vacant.

TR clearly was a RINO

Watching the first episode of PBS’s series on the Roosevelt family last night, I was struck once again by the notion that Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed himself to be a dedicated Republican, but didn’t act like one who is defined by today’s Grand Old Party.

Let’s call TR the original RINO — a Republican In Name Only.

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-roosevelts/

The first part of “The Roosevelts” documentary produced by historian Ken Burns tells of TR’s ascendance to the presidency. He was the youngest man ever to assume the office. He got there by way of the assassination of President William McKinley.

He set out to bust up monopolies, rein in oversized companies, while making them pay their fair share of taxes. He didn’t believe business could build the country all by itself. Teddy Roosevelt believed in activist government.

TR used government muscle to secure land in Panama and begin construction of the Panama Canal. Is that an “infrastructure project” or what?

Imagine today’s Republican Party doing any of that. It wouldn’t happen. TR would be laughed out of the party that we’ve come to know and — in my case anyway — loathe with a passion.

“The Roosevelts” is going to be broadcast throughout the week. It will continue through TR’s post-presidential life and the battle he fought with his own Republican Party. He didn’t think it was “progressive” enough, so he launched a presidential bid in 1912 under the Bull Moose party banner. He failed, but laid the groundwork for what would become the modern progressive movement.

The series will chronicle the careers of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, two champions in their own right. They were dedicated Democrats.

Teddy Roosevelt, though, more or less broke the mold that used to define early-20th century Republicanism. What has emerged in the century that followed is a mere shadow of what it used to be.

Regents chose well with Lowery-Hart

OK, so I’m a little late commenting on this one, but I’ll weigh in nonetheless.

Amarillo College’s Board of Regents made a sterling choice in naming Russell Lowery-Hart as the college’s next president.

Having said that, I still wish Lowery-Hart would have been put to a stronger test than he got before regents named him their sole finalist for the post, succeeding Paul Matney, who retired after a 40-plus-year affiliation with the college.

Lowery-Hart was second in command at AC. So he doesn’t climb many rungs on the ladder to take the top administrative job.

I get that regents know him well, that he knows the college political and academic infrastructure inside and out, and that he has virtually no learning curve to negotiate as he takes command of the staff.

Over the past few weeks I’ve visited with friends associated with Amarillo College. They all sang Lower-Hart’s praises as a man, an administrator, educator and someone who loves AC. They like his vision and the way he expresses it. They like that he’s “one of us.”

My only wish would have been that regents invited in candidates from other regions, interviewed them along with Lowery-Hart and then considered their visions, outlooks, approaches and credentials.

Something tells me Lower-Hart would have stacked up well against any set of applicants with whom he would compete.

A thorough vetting and comparison with other candidates would have strengthened the local guy tremendously and — were he to still get the job — strengthened the school he was chosen to lead.

Still, I extend my best wishes to the new Amarillo College president.

 

 

Puppy tales, Part 5

Toby went to the doctor today.

We got a surprise when the doc looked him over.

I went there with some questions, the first of which was: How old is this dog?

The veterinarian opened his mouth, peered at his teeth and said he doesn’t yet have his incisors. “He’s 5 months old,” she said without a hint of doubt.

I let out something akin to a gasp-howl. I couldn’t believe he is that young.

“Are you sure about that?” I asked … stupidly.

“Oh, yes,” said the doctor.

OK, I’ll take her word for it.

“Has he had any shots?” the doctor asked.

“I don’t know the first thing about this dog,” I responded. Well, actually, I had just found out the first thing — which is his age. I explained to her the quick version of how we acquired little Toby only a few days ago: Niece found him in the alley, he followed her home, she returned him to owners the next day, who then said they didn’t want him, she went out again the day after that, found him and his owners, told the owners, “My aunt and uncle want him,” took him back. Now he’s ours.

Toby’s now been vaccinated maybe for the second time. The doctor said it wouldn’t hurt him to get another round of vaccinations.

It’s the age thing that surprised me the most.

He’s a young’n.

Looks as though we’re in this one for the long haul.