Teacher emerges as hero

Megan Silberberger likely didn’t ever envision her job requiring this kind of heroism.

When a young freshman high school student began shooting at classmates this past week in Marysville, Wash., Silberberger did a profoundly heroic deed. She confronted the shooter and ordered him to stop.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/26/us/washington-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Witnesses have said Silberberger grabbed the shooter’s arm and, in effect, neutralized him, if only for a moment.

The boy, Jaylen Fryberg, would then turn the gun on himself and end his life.

One other student by then had been shot dead and four others had been wounded.

The tragedy had come to a sudden end.

Details of the confrontation haven’t yet been released through official channels, but enough eyewitness accounts of what people saw cast Megan Silberberger as the hero in this tragic event.

CNN.com reported: “Police have not yet said how many shots in total were fired, but there was at least one bullet left in the cartridge before the confrontation with Silberberger — because the final shot was the one that ended Fryberg’s life. A Beretta .40-caliber handgun believed used in the shooting has been traced to Fryberg’s father, according to the source.”

How does one explain such a tragedy?

Fryberg was known to be a popular student. He’d been named homecoming prince at Marysville Pilchuck High School. He was popular — quite obviously — among his peers at the suburban Seattle school. He also was described as a “happy” boy. What set off this rampage is now Question No. 1 for school and law enforcement authorities.

But these tragedies occasionally have ways of producing characters worthy of high praise.

I hope we’ll know more in due course about what is believed to be known about Megan Silberberger’s actions that day in the high school cafeteria.

I also hope she’ll recover emotionally from the extreme danger she faced down, likely never expecting such mind-blowing trauma when she went to work that day.

 

Democratic or Republican justice?

Two candidates for Potter County justice of the peace seem to have something in common, even though they represent differing political parties.

They both dislike electing judges on partisan ballots in Texas.

Wisdom crosses party lines, yes? Good deal.

A commentary in the Amarillo Globe-News took note of their shared dislike of partisan judicial elections. Democratic incumbent Nancy Bosquez is being challenged by Republican Richard Herman for the Precinct 2 JP post. Bosquez has been JP for several terms. I don’t know much about Herman.

Here’s the deal, though: I can make a case that no political office needs to be elected on a partisan basis, other than for the Legislature, governor and lieutenant governor.

All the rest of them, from attorney general, comptroller, land commissioner, agriculture commissioner … and on down through the county ballots, with the exception of county commissioner and county judge need not be elected on partisan ballots.

Have you ever wondered whether a county tax assessor-collector does his or her job based on her or her party’s political platform? Does a Democratic tax collector do the job differently than a Republican one? Same for treasurer, district attorney, even sheriff. How do you tell the difference between a Democratic law enforcement official and a Republican one?

The judge races drive me the most nuts.

I can understand Bosquez’s discomfort with partisan judicial elections, given that she serves in a heavily Republican county. Yes, her particular precinct leans Democratic, but it leans less in that direction than it did, say, a decade ago.

But the point is valid no matter one’s political affiliation. How does a Democratic JP adjudicate small claims cases differently from a Republican JP?

I’ve noted many times in the past regarding these partisan judicial races: Too many good judges from he “out” party get the boot when the tide favors candidates from the other party. That’s been the case in Texas dating back about three decades, when Republicans ascended to power. Democratic judges have been ousted by inferior Republican opponents — and exactly the same thing happened in reverse when Democrats held every office under the big Texas sky.

I’ll keep harping on the need to reform this goofy election system of ours, even though it’s falling on deaf ears.

Meantime, be sure to vote on Nov. 4.

 

 

Jeb's running? So says 'P,' the son

That settles it.

Jeb Bush is “more than likely” going to run for president of the United States in 2016.

That’s according to George P. Bush, the son of the former Florida governor.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/10/george-p-bush-more-than-likely-jeb-will-run-197647.html?hp=r3

I’m not yet sure about that, although I likely shouldn’t challenge what “P” knows about his dad’s intentions.

Perhaps I should presume that Jeb told “P” it’s OK to say he’s “more than likely” to run if the question came up — as it did — on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday news talk show.

“P” himself is a candidate for Texas land commissioner and figures to win the race in 10 days. After all, he’s a Republican and in Texas these days that’s all the credential he needs to win public office. Put an “R” next to your name and you’re in.

I’m still kinda/sorta pulling for Mitt Romney to make one more run for the White House. He’s made two stabs at it already, winning the Republican nomination in 2012 only to lose by 5 million popular votes to the president of the United States.

Jeb Bush, though, also intrigues me, given that I’m quite certain Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to seek the Democratic nomination. Imagine yet another Clinton-Bush campaign for the White House. Would Jeb seek to atone for his dad’s dismal campaign against Bill Clinton back in 1992?

More than that, though, is the idea that Jeb could run as a moderate Republican, which is where I believe the family pedigree guides him — despite brother George W’s rightward shift when he was elected president in 2000.

The final say on whether Jeb runs, of course, will come from Mom. That would be Barbara, who’s already suggested the nation is tired of the Bush name in national politics.

A “more than likely” candidacy doesn’t make it a certainty.

 

 

Are we really a second-rate power?

You hear it frequently these days from right-wing talking heads, politicians and a few “expert observers” that the United States is in danger of becoming a second-rate military power.

They express grave concern that the commander in chief, Barack Obama, seeks to “deliberately” reduce America’s standing in the world because of some trumped-up “anti-American bias” they’ve attached to the man.

I heard U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry express those concerns recently, although he did so with a good measure of class and decorum. He isn’t pounding on the same drum that many lunatics on the right are beating.

Thornberry — who’s set to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee next year — did suggest that China is growing its defense budge at a far greater rate than the United States and is concerned that the communist dictatorship may be about to surpass us as the pre-eminent military power on Earth.

He’s not alone in saying these things.

I dug into my World Almanac and Book of Facts and found a few interesting numbers. They relate to defense spending.

In 2012, China spent just a shade less than $90 billion on its defense establishment; Russia — which 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said is our “No. 1 geopolitical adversary” — spent $52 billion. That’s around $142 billion spent between these two fearsome foes.

The U.S. defense budget for 2012? $739 billion.

Are the Russians and Chinese getting so much more bang for the buck — pardon the pun — that we should worry that either of them is going to surpass us in military strength? I hardly think that’s the case.

I totally get, however, that in this new world of vaguely defined enemies and an international war against terror, that it is next to meaningless to measure military strength vis a vis our “traditional” foes.

Let’s cool our jets just a bit, though, when suggesting that the United States of America is no longer capable of defending itself against any foe.

We’re still pouring lots of money into our national defense and we’re still getting a damn good return on that investment.

 

If GOP takes Senate, it'll need to govern

The stars apparently are lining up for a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate, or so the experts are saying.

Let’s assume they’re right. A RealClearPolitics average of all the major polls show a six-seat shift, precisely the number that the GOP needs to become the majority in the Senate.

I’m not clear about the House of Representatives, where Republicans have ruled since 2011. Perhaps their control will tighten.

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-poised-snatch-us-senate-mid-terms-015415687.html

This much is becoming clearer as the mid-term elections approach: If Republicans are destined to control the entire legislative branch of government, then they need to prepare to actually govern, as in enact legislation that President Obama can actually sign into law.

So far since January 2009, when Barack Obama took office, Republicans have done their level best to block just about every major initiative the president has put forward. It started with the financial bailout package which the GOP opposed, but which got enacted over its objections.

Then came the 2010 mid-term election. The House switched to Republican control. Then the fun really began.

Republicans opposed the Affordable Care Act; they’ve conducted an ongoing series of show hearings on Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service’s vetting of conservative political action groups’ request for tax exempt status; they’ve opposed immigration reform; increasing the minimum wage and a host of other White House initiatives.

If the Senate flips, then we’re going to see donnybrooks develop over confirmation of, say, the next attorney general and a series of lower-level appointments the president will seek.

I’ll buy the notion that the legislative branch of government is going to turn Republican.

Will legislators keep trying to stick it in the president’s eye or will they actually compromise when possible on key bills and send them to the White House in good faith? And will the president follow suit and sign these bills into law?

Republicans have mastered the art of obstruction since Democrat Barack Obama became president. Let’s see if they can learn the art of governing.

 

Great public school teachers: priceless

Shanna Peeples is a former colleague of mine. She used to bleed printer’s ink, writing — quite well, I should add — for the Amarillo Globe-News.

Shanna gave that career up some years ago to enter another calling, as a public school teacher.

She teaches English these days at Palo Duro High School in Amarillo and this week received the highest honor a secondary teacher can earn: Secondary Teacher of the Year from the Texas Education Agency.

Think about this for a moment.

Texas comprises more than 1,200 independent school districts, and more than 2,000 secondary schools. All told the state employs more than 300,000 teachers in primary and secondary education. They educate 5 million or so children at all levels.

So, the honor that Shanna earned represents something quite special.

First, it honors the great work she does for Palo Duro High students. She is dedicated to their well-being and they are devoted to her, most of whom seek to do their very best to make Ms. Peeples proud of them.

I haven’t had the honor of watching Shanna teach her students. I’ll just accept with gladness and pride in my former colleague that the TEA has honored a great teacher for doing great work in a great school district.

Indeed, honors such as these should be valued by everyone who cherishes public education. Shanna’s work symbolizes the dedication that great teacher devote to their calling every single day.

How do you put a value on that dedication? Precisely how do you measure the good that these teachers bring to the students in their care during the school day?

Good teachers can become role models for the students in their care. Great teachers become embedded in students’ memories forever. We all remember the great teachers we’ve had along the way and whatever positive outcomes develop in our lives, it’s a very good bet indeed that some of the credit belongs to a teacher who steered us in the right direction when we needed a mid-course correction.

You cannot put a price on the value that good educators bring to those who are coming along. Shanna Peeples represents the greatness that exists in our public education system.

From where I stand, the TEA has chosen well and our future is in good hands as long as we keep producing high-quality educators.

 

 

Warning: The drought ain't over!

I noticed recently that Amarillo’s year-to-date rainfall total is slightly ahead of normal.

That gives some folks comfort. It gives others the mistaken notion that the drought that has grabbed the High Plains by the throat for the past four or five years has abated.

Nothing of the sort has happened.

The Amarillo rainfall total likely will finish around normal by the end of the year. I cannot predict that with any certainty, but it seems like a pretty good bet.

The problem with these droughts is that the depletion of water requires a lot of rainfall and snowfall to make it up in a brief period of time. When I say “a lot,” I mean epic proportions.

I had the pleasure of taking part in a statewide public television reporting project on the state of water in Texas. “Texas Perspective: Water” covered the condition of our water supply from the Panhandle to the Rio Grand Valley, from Deep East Texas to the Trans-Pecos. Everyone interviewed said the same thing: We’re in a drought.

It’s worse in some areas than in others, but statewide the condition of our water supply is at varying levels of precariousness.

http://video.klru.tv/video/2365345995/

It is my fervent hope that Amarillo residents and business owners keep the drought in mind as they go about their day. We can hope for continued rain. Maybe we ought to pray for it.

Let us not be tricked into believing the drought is over just because this year has brought us “normal” amounts of precipitation — which in this part of the world isn’t very much.

 

Perry to N.Y.: Learn from us

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has placed an important phone call to his colleague in New York and offered a critical piece of advice.

Don’t make the mistakes we made in Texas when handling an Ebola case, Perry reportedly told Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Good advice, governor.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/10/perry-offers-ebola-advice-to-new-york-officials/

The Texas Ebola case ended tragically for the Liberian man who brought the disease to the state. He died under the care of medical professionals in Dallas. A nurse who cared for him has just been released from medical care after she came down with the virus. Now  New York doctor who was in West Africa treating Ebola patients has been diagnosed with the disease and he apparently is responding to treatment.

Perry called Cuomo and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio to offer his assistance on how to handle the disease. Gov. Perry’s prime advice? Follow all the necessary medical protocols to the letter. A breach in protocol in Dallas apparently led to the nurse getting infected, according to the governor’s office.

The good news is that the nurse, Nina Pham, is now Ebola free.

There was some more advice Perry gave to Cuomo and de Blasio, according to the San Antonio Express-News:

“Perry shared some more lessons in separate Friday phone conversations with the officials, including regarding ‘the importance of informing the public about the realities of the Ebola virus in order to reduce misconceptions about its transmissions,’ his office said.”

Ah, yes. Public information.

A lack of accurate information has helped lead to the near-hysterical response in some quarters to the arrival of this disease.

A thorough dissemination of facts always should be of prime concern.

It’s good to remember that Ebola likely wasn’t on medical professionals’ radar when the patient arrived from Liberia. It’s on everyone’s mind now.

Gov. Perry has some valuable experience to share and it’s good that he’s sharing it.

 

Shooting shatters 'profile'

When news broke of the shooting at the Marysville, Wash., high school, and it was known that the shooter was a student, one of my first thoughts became: What kind of loner/outcast would do such a horrible thing?

Then the second shock arrived. The shooter was a freshman at Pilchuck High School who was popular with his peers, an athlete and a young man who’d just been named homecoming prince.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/washington-school-gunman-was-homecoming-prince/ar-BBaYo33

Then I watched a former FBI profiler, Clint Van Zandt, tell MSNBC that this case arguably is the most “baffling” he had seen, given that Jaylen Fryberg was the quintessential non-stereotype we’ve attached to individuals who do these kinds of horrifying deeds. Van Zandt essentially said you could throw the profile book out the window.

Fryberg killed himself after shooting another student to death and injuring four others, three of them critically.

The argument will rage once again over how this young man obtain possession of the weapon he used to bring such destruction to the school just north of Seattle.

***

We’re going to hear from gun-owner advocates that no laws could have prevented this from happening. Gun-safety advocates will argue the opposite.

And look and listen for the National Rifle Association — among others — to proclaim that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment is so sacrosanct that to touch any part of it would render it utterly meaningless.

Interestingly, Washington state voters are going to decide a referendum on the state’s ballot that expands background checks to include all gun purchases.

It’s fair to ask: Would such a provision have kept the weapon out of Jaylen Fryberg’s hands? Probably not.

It also is fair to ask: Do such laws make it just a little harder for nuts to obtain guns … and do they infringe on legitimate gun ownership?

“Yes” to the first part. Absolutely “no!” to the second.

Hey, what about that lawsuit?

Politico asks an important question: Why haven’t congressional Republicans filed that lawsuit against President Obama, contending that the president has misused his executive authority regarding the Affordable Care Act?

It’s just a short distance from Capitol Hill to the federal courthouse. The House GOP could file the lawsuit and get this thing started, yes?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obama-lawsuit-house-republicans-112196.html?hp=t1

Well, I have a two-part theory: First, the lawsuit lacks merit and, second, filing the lawsuit now with the world focused on much more grave issues, such as international terrorism, makes Republicans look petulant.

Politico also points out that the employer mandate, which is what the president delayed through his executive action, is set to kick in on Jan. 1. If the mandate starts — requiring employers to offer insurance to employees — then the lawsuit becomes moot.

House Speaker John Boehner announced his intention to sue Barack Obama with great fanfare. Then the world went up in flames in Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Nigeria, Ukraine — have I missed anything?

The president has been tested time and again by real crises, not pestered by made-up problems brought to bear by political opponents at home whose sole intent is to stick it to him.

I still contend the speaker is a reasonable man. He knows how it would look for him to pursue this lawsuit now.

Almost no one in Washington believes that the ACA will be repealed. It’s working. It is providing insurance to millions of Americans.

If the Republicans were going to strike a blow against what they say is executive abuse of power, well, the time has passed.

Let’s move on to things that really matter.

Let’s try governing.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience