Christie on climate change: It’s real

What gives with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie? Doesn’t he want to be the Republican nominee for president in 2016?

He’s traipsing through New Hampshire saying some things that are sure to fire up the GOP base against a potential Christie presidential candidacy.

He’s saying, well, that climate change cannot be denied and, what’s more, that human beings are a contributing factor to the world’s changing climate.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/241495-chris-christie-global-warming-is-real

The planet is heating up, Christie says, and we need to get busy trying to minimize the impact that human activity has on this phenomenon.

Look, his own state was hammered in October 2012 by Superstorm/Hurricane Sandy, which weather experts said was such an anomaly that they blamed climate change on that event when it happened. It wiped out coastal communities in New York and New Jersey.

Christie has changed his tune on climate change. He once opposed regional efforts to cut greenhouse gases. Then he vowed to eliminate coal-fired power plants from his state.

Yes, this climate change issue has sparked vigorous debate. Those who deny it’s happening — including influential U.S. senators, such as Republican Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma — push back by saying that science hasn’t  yet concluded that human beings are a factor in climate change … if it’s actually occurring.

Others, though, say science is on their side, that temperatures are rising, ice caps are melting, weather patterns are changing and that human beings play a significant role — through deforestation and carbon emissions — in creating those changes.

Now we can welcome a potential leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

Thanks, Gov. Christie, for changing your mind.

 

Techno-terrorists elevate threat to U.S., world

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson issues a stern warning.

International terrorists have become cyber-savvy and are posing a uniquely new threat to the world.

Are we on guard against these guys? And what in the world do we do to stop them?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-security-chief-warns-of-new-phase-in-terror-threat/ar-BBjy1fG

“We’re very definitely in a new environment, because of ISIL’s (IS’s) effective use of social media, the Internet, which has the ability to reach into the homeland and possibly inspire others,” Johnson said in a TV interview this morning.

The Islamic State reportedly is recruiting heavily through the Internet. It’s also posing serious threats to cyber infrastructure.

It’s no longer just madmen with bombs strapped their chests who pose threats to human life. This global war has turned into a battle of wits.

This new threat brings to mind something that congressional leaders sought to bring to national attention. I keep waiting to hear from the Texas Panhandle’s congressman, Republican Mac Thornberry, on how we’re defending ourselves against cyber warriors.

House Speaker John Boehner tasked Thornberry some years ago to lead a congressional committee that would devise strategies to fight Internet hackers and other enemies who would seek to do serious damage to our cyber infrastructure.

When these discussions bring the news to the front pages and gobble up air times on our news networks, I always seem to miss hearing from Rep. Thornberry, who I understand to be an expert on these issues.

I trust he’s working behind the scenes. He’s also become chairman of the House Armed Services panel, which is a huge responsibility all by itself.

Still, our Homeland Security secretary no doubt can use all the help he can muster in protecting “the homeland” against cyber attacks.

Let’s hope this fight transcends the political differences that seem to divide the White House and Capitol Hill … even when it involves national security.

 

Here's how views can evolve

A Facebook friend dug up this column I wrote back in 1998.

http://amarillo.com/stories/112998/opi_history.shtml#.VU_p91J0yt-

I offer it here to illustrate the distance my views have traveled on the issue of single-member districts. It speaks to the election in the late 1980s of two African-Americans to countywide offices in Potter County. It also tells how a Latino was elected to a state district judgeship, also in Potter County.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2013/12/22/re-thinking-single-member-districts/

The county’s voting plan was — and is — strictly at-large.

I wrote in favor of that plan.

Perhaps history can repeat itself in a couple of years at the next Amarillo municipal election, or perhaps next year when Potter and Randall counties go to the polls. The city is about to welcome its first African-American city councilman, Elisha Demerson, who was elected Saturday.

If voters are truly ready to judge candidates solely on their ideas, then my political evolution could take another turn.

 

Intraparty squabble good for political soul

President Obama says Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., “is wrong” to oppose him on a free trade proposal with a dozen Asian countries.

OK. So, the Democrats are now squabbling.

Meanwhile, Republican candidates for president are taking pot shots at each other over a wide range of issues, with tax policy and immigration leading the way.

There. Now the Republicans are fighting.

Is this bad? Do these intraparty squabbles harm our form of government?

Not in the least.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-obama-is-happy-to-fight-elizabeth-warren-on-118537612596.html

So far it’s been mostly a GOP fight. Democrats have been fairly quiet in assessing each other.

Until now.

Warren has emerged as the far left’s champion — oh, maybe co-champ, along with independent socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, who ‘s running for president as a Democrat. A lot of lefties want Warren to run. She’s said everything but the categorical refusal to run for president in 2016. She keeps couching her intentions in the present tense — “I am not running” or “I have no interest” in running. None of those responses eliminates the possibility of her changing her mind.

She disagrees with a free trade deal with Asian nations. The president stands by his insistence that freer trade with our Pacific partners is a good deal for the country.

So, let’s continue to debate this issue.

It strengths our political process to have these fights within our respective major parties.

It’s going to test the mettle of the parties’ nominees when they emerge from their party fracases.

And, yes, that includes you, too, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

Reading Tom Brady's body language

My wife isn’t a football fan, per se.

She doesn’t care so much about the details of the game, or even the men who play it.

However, she’s an astute reader of body language. She’s told me this about New England all-Universe quarterback Tom Brady, who’s been accused of having general knowledge that someone deflated those footballs prior to the Patriots’ game with the Indianapolis Colts.

“He looks like someone who was spoiled by his mother and has gotten away with everything he’s ever done,” she said. Does that mean Mrs. Brady actually spoiled little Tommy, or that my wife has inside knowledge of such? No. She said only that he looks like the type. “All he has to do is smile,” she said.

That was her takeaway from Brady’s appearance the other day in which he refused to answer questions about the deflated football story that has a lot of NFL fans in a tizzy these days. He looked “too smug,” she said.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/09/reality-not-looking-good-for-tom-brady-and-patriots/IGT3myWkYdZagI4FCzkHKJ/story.html

The rumor mill is churning out stuff about the National Football League getting ready to suspend Brady for at least part of the next football season. Some reports say he might have to sit the entire season out if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell decides to drop the hammer.

I don’t particularly care one way or the other whether Brady sits or plays. I don’t think there’s that much of a story there about what Brady knew about the balls’ air pressure and when he knew it. I mean, the Patriots clobbered the Colts that day.

However, if my wife’s intuition is correct — and she is the very definition of “woman’s intuition” — then the all-world QB is likely to receive the shock of his life when the NFL commissioner decides to punish him for breaking a simple rule.

 

 

Does election diminish need to rethink voting plan?

Elisha Demerson’s election to the Amarillo City Council made history.

It also might have taken a bit of the bite out of those who think the city should revamp its voting plan to create a single-member district for its council members.

I am continuing to consider that a change in the city’s voting plan is in order.

My long-standing support of the city’s at-large system continues to waver, even though Demerson’s election as an African-American candidate in the current system might augur against such a change.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2013/12/22/re-thinking-single-member-districts/

I’m not keen on creating four single-member districts, while electing the mayor at-large. If I were King of the World, I’d consider expanding the council by two places, giving it six council member and electing two of the six at-large while dividing the city into four wards.

Other cities have done something like with varying degrees of success.

Indeed, Demerson’s victory is a ringing triumph for those in Amarillo who’ve declared that it’s virtually impossible for a minority candidate to win an at-large contest. The city’s black population comprises less than 10 percent of the total.

But think also about this: While Demerson was defeating incumbent Ellen Green in Place 1, Lilia Escajeda — the council’s sole Hispanic member — lost her seat to challenger Randy Burkett.

Does her loss lessen the joy that minorities are feeling today over Demerson’s victory?

Hey, I’m just askin’.

 

Demerson scores historic win

Say whatever you want about the tone, tenor and tenacity of the campaign between City Councilman-elect Elisha Demerson and the incumbent he defeated today, Ellen Robertson Green.

Demerson’s victory is historic in that an African-American has been elected to a citywide public office.

The city’s at-large voting plan has been a point of contention among civil rights groups, minority-oriented political action organizations and citizens interested in changing the plan to a single-member district voting plan.

They’ve contended the at-large plan puts minority candidates at a disadvantage. Amarillo’s black population is less than 10 percent, so it stands to reason — those activists contend — that black candidates fare poorly when they put their names up before a voting public that doesn’t “identify” with them.

The League of United Latin American Citizens sued the Amarillo school district in 1998 to create a single-member voting plan for the school system. LULAC and the school district then agreed on a cumulative voting compromise plan that later was adopted by Amarillo College’s Board of Regents.

Well, perhaps we can put that “minorities can’t win in Amarillo” rationale to bed.

Demerson scored a solid victory. The voting turnout still was pitiful. None of the City Council winners can claim an absolute majority supports their election. What they all got was a majority of a slim minority of voters’ support.

It’s true as well that Demerson had been elected already to a countywide office when he became Potter County judge in 1987. So, he’s no stranger to bucking stiff electoral odds.

He’s just blazed a new trail along Amarillo’s political path.

 

Status quo gets thumped at Amarillo City Hall

Change is a-comin’ to Amarillo City Hall.

Mayor Paul Harpole was re-elected tonight, but by a narrower margin to which he’d been accustomed.

Elisha Demerson defeated incumbent Ellen Green in the race for City Council’s Place 1. This result disappoints me. I’ve said it before, but Green was my “favorite” council member. She spoke candidly, bluntly and truthfully on a whole array of key issues.

Brian Eades will return to his Place 2 council seat. Good call there.

Randy Burkett won election to Place 3, defeating incumbent Lilia Escajeda and several others, while avoiding a runoff. More on him in a moment.

Mark Nair and Steve Rogers appear headed for a runoff in Place 4, the seat vacated by incumbent Ron Boyd, who was appointed to the council upon the death of Jim Simms; Boyd chose not to seek election.

I’ve had to ask myself during this campaign: What in the world is so wrong with the city that got folks seemingly so angry? The city appears to be in good financial shape. Its infrastructure is under renovation at many levels: street repair, utility line installation and repair, highway construction.

I’m one who believes in the concept that’s been presented for the city’s downtown revitalization. That concept is moving forward, although perhaps more slowly than some of us would like. The demise of Wallace Bajjali, the former master downtown developer, doesn’t appear to have put the city in a huge financial bind.

And yet …

Change is on its way.

***

Which brings me to perhaps the most stunning development of tonight’s election: Burkett’s thumping of the field that included an incumbent who, as near as I could tell, didn’t do anything to offend anyone.

It was revealed late in the campaign that Burkett had put some commentary on his personal Facebook page that some folks found offensive. I’m one of them who took serious issue with some of the political bitterness that Burkett expressed. Some of it seemed to border on racist content. He denied any racist intent and said he’s not a racist.

I also heard a couple of his TV spots in which he uttered two clichĂ©s: It’s time for a change and it’s time to run city government “like a business.”

What the bleep does it mean to run a government “like a business”?

Successful businesses are run by chief executive officers who make command decisions. Yes, they might consult with employees, but then again, they might not. They are responsible for the success of a business and take the hickey when things go badly.

A number of residents out here who think the city should put some key decisions to a vote. Is that how you run a business, by asking employees to vote on every big decision you make?

Burkett called for change. It looks as though we’re about to get it with three non-incumbents set to take office.

To what end, and for what purpose, remains a mystery.

 

Listen to one of your own, GOP, on 'Obamacare'

Brent Budowsky is singing Karl Rove’s praises.

And why not? Budowsky is an economist of some repute and is a former aide to the late, great U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas. He thinks Rove — aka “Bush’s Brain” — is spot on in telling his fellow Republicans to give their futile effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

It’s a loser. Any remote chance the GOP has of tossing the ACA aside is going to cost them dearly, especially when — in Budowsky’s eyes — the first person dies because he or she is denied affordable health insurance because Republicans have won their fight to repeal the ACA.

Karl Rove surrenders to ObamaCare

And why should the GOP high command listen to Rove?

Easy. The man’s a brilliant political strategist.

He helped engineer George W. Bush’s winning campaigns for Texas governor (in 1994) and two successful races for the presidency (in 2000 and 2004). The governor’s race should have been in the bag for the incumbent, the late Democrat Ann Richards. Rove came up with a strategy that held Bush to a tightly scripted line of specific issues and reforms he would enact if elected governor. He never veered off the script as he went on to defeat Richards.

The man knows a winning political cause and a losing cause as well as anyone.

As Budowsky writes in The Hill: “Rove’s surrender to ObamaCare, advising Republicans against pretending they would repeal ObamaCare, is politically very wise. Rove’s fear about what happens to Republicans if the court does overturn ObamaCare provisions and the world witnesses horror stories of Americans being hurt because of Republican anti-ObamaCare politics — without any Republican policy to undo the damage — is politically brilliant.

“Imagine daily stories on television about very ill Americans being stripped of healthcare, about children losing their insurance because they would no longer be covered by their parent’s policies, about Americans with preexisting conditions being thrown to the insurance wolves without ObamaCare, and about huge insurance premium increases that would punish many millions of Americans because of the Republican war against ObamaCare.”

Budowsky also predicts that the Supreme Court is going to uphold the ACA when it rules on its constitutionality before the end of the court’s current term.

Pay attention. Karl Rove might not be every American’s favorite operative/pundit/talking head. Howeve, he is wise to counsel his fellow Republicans to give up a fight they’re certain to lose.

 

Army experiment off to rough start

My friends, acquaintances and even readers of this blog understand my liberal political leaning.

I consider myself a progressive on most issues.

We all have our limits. Mine involves the military and whether it’s wise to seek to integrate women completely into all the combat arms.

Word out of Fort Benning, Ga., suggests the Army’s experiment with qualifying women to serve as Rangers is falling, shall we say, flat on its face.

I’m not surprised.

http://www.defenseone.com/management/2015/05/all-8-women-fail-to-advance-ranger-school/112270/

Eight women have failed to advance beyond the first phase of Ranger training. They have a chance to try again, as do the male soldiers who also fell short in the first phase. The eight women, though, comprise the entire complement of females who signed up for the elite fighting force. They all fell short.

I should ask: Is this really what the Army wants? Does it really intend to ask women to strap on heavy ruck sacks, load them down with ammo, ask them carry a weapon — often a heavy one — into battle right along with their male counterparts?

Forgive the appearance of chauvinism, but last time I checked the average woman wasn’t as strong as the average man.

To its credit, the Army has insisted all along it wouldn’t lessen the rigorous physical standards to suit the women who are seeking to participate in the combat arms — infantry, artillery and armor.

I fully accept the combat roles that women are performing already in the military. They ride truck convoys through hostile territory; they fly combat aircraft — fixed- and rotary-wing alike — into blistering enemy fire; they serve in civil affairs units working behind enemy lines with civilian populations in what we used to call in Vietnam “pacification” efforts.

Armed forces’ female personnel perform valiantly, heroically and have sacrificed much in defense of the nation.

The effort, though, to create a “gender-integrated” fighting force that includes women fighting in elite combat forces might be a step too far.

I want like the dickens to be proven wrong. I want the women to succeed. I want to see them stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their male counterparts in elite forces, such as the Rangers.

Hearing the news about the failure of the eight women from the Ranger training course makes me dubious that this effort is going to work.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience