Abbott: Texas’s newest job poacher in chief

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has been called the state’s latest “job poacher in chief,” picking up where former Gov. Rick Perry left off.

I beg to differ on one specific point. It’s a matter of style.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/11/brief-june-11-2015/

Perry made waves when he boarded airplanes and flew to states — such as California — to make a big show of luring companies away from those states and relocating in Texas. He grandstanded and pranced, donning hard hats and talking to the media about how Texas is a better place to do business than those states governed by those dreaded Democrats.

I took him to task for the manner in which he sought to “poach” those jobs.

Greg Abbott, though, is doing it differently. He’s more low-key about it.

He recently sent a letter to the head of General Electric, based in Connecticut. He told the CEO that Texas’s tax environment is much friendlier than Connecticut’s. The Texas Legislature just approved a legislation aimed at giving tax breaks to companies; meanwhile, Connecticut keeps heaping greater tax liability on business owners.

The Abbott approach is far less in-your-face than the Perry approach.

I don’t begrudge any state governor who seeks to boost his or her state’s business community by luring big-ticket firms from other locations.

The optics of such a mission, though, do matter.

 

A put up job? So what?

The thought did occur to me when I read about some young Amarillo residents speaking on behalf of downtown development efforts: did someone put them up to this?

A friend of mine wondered the same thing, he said so publicly, and then encouraged me — after I posted a positive-sounding blog essay about the kids’ testimony — to “stop being so naïve.”

Then the thought occurred to me: so what if they were?

The young people told the Amarillo City Council that the city should proceed with efforts to remake downtown. They spoke in support of the multipurpose event venue, of efforts to reshape Polk Street, of designs to bring more entertainment downtown, adding to the district pizzazz factor.

The more pertinent question might be: do they believe what they’re saying?

I don’t recall anyone asking them if they actually believe in the $100-plus million project and the hotel-motel tax funding mechanism built into it.

I’ll continue to give them — and this project — the benefit of the doubt. I like the concept that’s been laid out and I think it has the potential of being an enormous success over the long term.

If these young people didn’t actually want downtown Amarillo to prosper, no amount of cajoling or coercion is going to persuade them to put such views on the record.

Why not, then, just accept the young men and women at their word?

Unless someone can prove beyond a doubt that something nefarious went on — such as money changing hands — I’ll believe the young people meant what they said.

ESPN to honor Caitlyn Jenner … for what?

Bob Costas is a smart sports journalist who goes far beyond who gets the most hits, scores the most touchdowns or sinks the most three-point field goals.

He’s been known to offer opinions on a wide range of issues beyond the field of competition.

He often is spot on.

I think he’s on target with his assertion that ESPN’s plan to honor Caitlyn Jenner with a special courage award, named after the late tennis great Arthur Ashe, is an attempt to exploit Jenner and boost the network’s ratings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/10/bob-costas-caitlyn-jenner-arthur-ashe_n_7555508.html

This likely will be the final thing I’ll say about Jenner, whose sex changed from man to woman. Jenner once was Bruce Jenner, Olympic decathlon champion who turned into a reality TV personality; he married Kris Kardashian and became the foil for his former wife and her daughters.

Then Bruce became Caitlyn.

I’m not sure about the “courage” it took to do such a thing. Jenner always has struck me as someone who craves publicity. She’s getting a ton of it now.

The Arthur Ashe Courage Award is named after the tennis great who died of AIDS complications in 1993. He announced to the world that had contracted HIV through a tainted blood transfusion. It broke the hearts of a sports nation that had admired him for his talent on the tennis court and his courtly, gentlemanly demeanor.

Caitlyn Jenner earning an award in memory of Arthur Ashe? It just doesn’t feel right.

There. I’m out.

 

City hears from the young and, until now, the silent

downtown amarillo

Amarillo City Council members got a snootful this week from some of their constituents.

No, it wasn’t the usual gaggle of naysayers who keep harping on why Amarillo can’t do this or that.

The pleas instead came from a handful of young people interested in seeing the city redevelop its downtown district into a place that would attract them, make them want to come back here or perhaps to stay and start their lives.

The open meeting at City Council Chambers featured a number of folks who support the concept that’s been developed for downtown’s rebirth — assuming, of course, that it’s allowed to come into this world.

They like the idea of a multipurpose event venue, the MPEV. They like the notion of redeveloping Polk Street, turning it into an entertainment district. They like the idea of a downtown convention hotel which, quite naturally, will require additional parking.

They didn’t speak to council members Tuesday about the nuts and bolts of funding. They spoke instead of the concept.

I’m not a young person. I do agree, though, with our young residents.

Some other, older residents, said they disapprove of what’s being promoted. While the young folks like the idea of emulating, say, Austin, at least one other said the city should retain its current flavor, its ambience and whatever else it currently boasts.

Well, so much for “thinking outside the box” for some folks.

Me? I’m willing to take a chance on turning Amarillo into something more than a tad more vibrant than it has been.

I’ve been helping produce a weekly newspaper in Tucumcari, the Quay County Sun. I just finished editing some stories that told of that community’s weekend festival, called Rockabilly on the Route — that would be Route 66, which runs through Tucumcari, just as it runs through the heart of Amarillo.

Isn’t there an opportunity for Amarillo, with its own Route 66 heritage and its own arts and music community, to capitalize in such a manner? Sixth Avenue runs right through the city’s central district, connecting with Historic Route 66 west of the central district.

How about not letting such an opportunity slip through our fingers?

That, I believe, is what the young people said they want for their city.

I’m glad they spoke out. I now hope the council members heard them.

 

 

Saluting the good editors out there

The blog attached here hits me at a couple of levels. One of them saddens me; the other offers me a chance to salute my former colleagues who get too few accolades.

Regretting the error: A life in newspapers

The blog talks about a “life in newspapers” and the mistakes that get made whenever you produce that things that ends up — or used to end up — on people’s front porches every day.

Like the writer of the blog I’ve attached, I also spent a life in newspapers. My lifespan lasted 37 years. It ended suddenly nearly three years ago. I’ve moved on.

But as the blog notes, mistakes happen when you produce a newspaper. Hey, we’re all human, right? As one of my former editors used to say, the fact that a paper gets shipped out daily “is nothing short of a miracle,” given all the things that can — and sometimes do — go wrong.

My two takeaways:

* Newspapers as we’ve known them are fading away. They’re being produced these days with fewer people. The Denver Post recently announced more buyouts and layoffs of newsroom employees. That means the newspaper will continue to go to press each day, but fewer people are on hand to shepherd that process.

What does that mean? It means more pressure is being applied to those employees. More pressure means more stress. More stress means shorter attention spans. Shorter attention spans means more errors, such as the one noted in the blog about the “amphibious” baseball pitcher. The operative word should have been “ambidextrous.” You and I know the difference between the words’ meaning. But when you rely too heavily on computer spell-check technology and less on human knowledge of the English language, well, you get that kind of mistake.

There’s more of that going on. It’s happening everywhere, such as at the newspaper where my career ended.

It saddens me terribly.

* Good copy editors are invaluable and deserve more praise for doing a good job. When a newspaper publishes what’s known as a “head bust,” the copy editor responsible for approving that page gets the heat. Yes, that shouldn’t happen. But for all the head busts that see print, we never see the mistakes that are caught and corrected. By whom? The individuals with the responsibility of ensuring that mistakes do not find their way into the finished newspaper.

Too often, we take those individuals for granted. We expect them to do their job, which is not an unreasonable expectation. But when they do their job well, we need to appreciate all they do openly.

I’ve had the honor of editing news copy during the length of my career. I’m doing it now, as a matter of fact, while helping a friend produce a weekly newspaper. It’s a blast and I’m having fun.

The stress, though, is palpable.

As the newspaper industry that we’ve known is evolving into something we cannot yet define, we’re putting more stress on fewer people.

We need to sing the praises of those who do their job well.

 

POTUS vs. SCOTUS over ACA

President Barack Obama has chided the Supreme Court over its decision to hear a case involving the Affordable Care Act.

Some critics, of course, suggest the criticism is out of bounds, that the president is trying to “bully” the nine justices who could strike down a key provision in the ACA. Bully those men and women? I don’t think so.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-congress-fix-health-law-court-rules-against-071508891–politics.html#

Obama says the court was wrong to take up a case in the first place. The case, to be ruled on perhaps in just a matter of days, involves the legality of the federal subsidies used to help pay for Americans’ health care. An estimated 6.4 million Americans’ health insurance policies are at risk if the court strikes down the subsidy.

Now the president has declared the ACA to be a “reality,” it is law and it is part of the American fabric of providing health insurance to those who need it.

Is he right to challenge the court? Of course he is.

Just as critics chide the president for ignoring the separation of powers contained in the Constitution, they ignore the obvious notion that the separation argument goes the other direction. By that I mean that the judiciary, as a co-equal branch of government, isn’t immune from criticism from another branch of government. Indeed, the legislative branch — Congress — hardly is shy about criticizing the executive and the judiciary when either of those branches of government steer in what lawmakers suggest is the “wrong direction.”

Where the president misfired, in my view, in his criticism of the Supreme Court was when he did so during his 2010 State of the Union speech. With several court members sitting in front of him, surrounded by other administration and military officials, not to mention a packed chamber full of lawmakers, the president said the court was wrong in its Citizens United ruling that took the shackles off of campaign contributors. Whatever criticism the court deserved, that was neither the time or the place to deliver it.

So, the fight goes on between Barack Obama the nine men and women who hold the fate of his signature domestic policy achievement in their hands.

 

What if Obamacare gets stricken?

You’ve heard it said that one should be careful about they wish for, that they just might get it.

Congressional Republicans have been wishing for an end to the Affordable Care Act. The U.S. Supreme Court might grant them their wish. Then again, the court might uphold the ACA.

But if the court strikes down the subsidies set aside in the law and deprives an estimated 6.5 million Americans their health insurance, who do you suppose is going to feel the heat the most? I’m guessing it’ll be Republicans who will have to come up with a plan of their own to restore the lost health insurance that so many millions of Americans have been able to obtain under Obamacare.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/244369-gop-fears-it-will-win-obamacare-court-battle

The Hill reports that a court victory might be the GOP’s worst nightmare.

And get this, according to The Hill: “The politics of the King vs. Burwell case are extremely treacherous and tricky for Republicans because if the subsidies are thrown out by the court, Republicans are in the position of having to create a fix that would be seen as a problem by their most conservative supporters,” said John Ullyot, a GOP strategist and former senior Senate aide.”

So, key Republicans are going to be whipsawed. Their base doesn’t particularly like federally mandated anything, let alone health insurance. They’ll fight with GOP leaders who want to repair the ACA. Meanwhile, those 6.5 million Americans will see their health insurance evaporate. Many of them live in states that will become key battleground states for senators seeking re-election.

The court will hand its ruling down any day now. President Obama has criticized the court for even agreeing to hear this case; he believes the case doesn’t even merit a court decision, that the law is ironclad, given that the court already has upheld it once already prior to the 2012 presidential election.

Whatever the court decides — and I’m far from willing to concede that it’ll strip out the ACA subsidies — at least one side of the aisle is going to go ape.

Heck, if the court rules in favor of Republicans, we might see both sides of the aisle lapse into catatonic states.

 

 

 

 

SCOTUS hands White House an unexpected victory

The Supreme Court has decided that the United States needs to remain neutral in an ancient debate over who controls one of the world’s holiest cities.

The issue is a passport and whether the parents of a child born in Jerusalem could put the word “Israel” on the document’s listing of one’s place of birth.

It’s kind of convoluted. The court — in a 6-3 decision — sided with the executive branch of government, which contended that “Jerusalem” should stand alone on passports, given the contentious nature of the debate over who actually controls the city.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-strikes-down-jerusalem-passport-law?cid=sm_fb_lastword

Longstanding policy had stated that passports marking the place of birth of those who hold them shouldn’t put Jerusalem in Israel, as it remains a key sticking point in the on-going dispute between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority.

The American citizens of a boy born in Jerusalem in 2002 wanted his passport to contain the word “Israel.” Congress enacted a bill declaring that birth certificates could identify the birthplace as Jerusalem, Israel if parents requested. President Bush signed the bill into law, but complained that it interfered with the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.

The court sided with the executive branch.

I’ve been to Jerusalem. Much of it clearly is in Israel. The Israeli government has its capital there. However, the city also is divided by a large, forbidding wall, on the other side of which is the West Bank, governed by the Palestinian Authority.

The Supreme Court has decided correctly in not interfering in this most sensitive dispute.

As NBC News’s Pete Williams reported: “The administration, under presidents of both parities, has insisted that because sovereignty over Jerusalem is one of the major sticking points in any Middle East peace agreement, the U.S. would remain neutral. Being forced to say that Jerusalem was under the control of Israel, the idea went, would be taking sides.”

 

Call him a ‘former police officer’

Eric Casebolt no longer patrols the streets of McKinney, Texas, on behalf of the McKinney Police Department.

He quit today, just a few days after being video recorded roughing up a 14-year-old bikini-clad girl in a disturbance that erupted from a pool party.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-officer-seen-in-viral-video-has-resigned-police-chief/ar-BBkTiMU

How does a pool party melee become cause for someone to give up a career for which he once was cited for excellence? It’s because the officer overreacted to the max when the kids didn’t do as he instructed him. His muscling of the girl to the ground was bad enough; then he drew his service pistol out on unarmed boys who had joined the ruckus.

Oh yes. Most of the kids are black; the officer is white.

One blogger, writing for the Dallas Morning News, wondered if such an incident would have occurred had the girl been a “blue-eyed blonde.”

Does this end the episode? Probably not. Casebolt likely won’t be prosecuted for any crime, as no one was injured in the disturbance. However, the eyes of the community will be focused sharply on how officers react in the future.

Let us chalk up yet another incident — and add it to the list of reasons local police must build trust in the communities they swear to “protect and serve.”

 

Homosexuality gaining acceptance

Homosexuality isn’t the demon among a growing number of Americans, says a study by the Pew Research Center.

The study indicates that in almost all demographic groups, homosexuality is more widely accepted than it was in 2013. Almost all groups.

Who doesn’t think that way? Conservative Republicans, according to Pew.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/only-one-group-americans-become-224300984.html

Does that surprise you? I didn’t think so. It didn’t me, either.

The tide of history is turning against those who continue to harbor ill will toward gay people. We’re seeing a growing acceptance of gay marriage; certainly, more Americans believe gay people should not face discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.

As for the Pew figures on conservative Republicans’ continued antipathy toward gay people, I think it speaks to the difficulty the GOP is going to face in future national elections.

The nation is changing in many substantive ways. Many pundits have noted the increasing numbers of ethnic and racial minorities and how those groups tend to vote against GOP candidates.

The conservative wing of that party is continuing to call the shots on how to shape the party’s governing platform — and it doesn’t include a more inclusive outlook toward the LGBT community.

Whether individual candidates adhere to that national platform often is up for discussion. Still, when the party hierarchy, driven by its most conservative members, put anti-gay language on the record, voters will take notice.

 

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience