Uncategorized

Food fight erupts in Congress

There likely can be no greater example of the current political pettiness infecting Congress than the fight that’s erupting over first lady Michelle Obama’s desire to have our children eat healthier meals in school.

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/celeb-chef-bashes-gop-food-plan-272409155677

Congressional Republicans want to scale back Mrs. Obama’s healthy-eating program. They contend, along with their activist friends, that the first lady is trying to force feed healthy eating habits in our public schools, making school administrators adhere to silly dietary rules.

The first lady has taken an uncharacteristically (for her) stance in response to the criticism. She’s fighting back.

She’s noting that childhood obesity has begun to decline in the country. Children’s healthier school meals are having a tangible — and positive — impact on their health.

And somehow this is seen as a bad thing?

I’ll need some help understand this one, folks.

Congressional Republicans want to roll back the standards the government has enacted for our kids. The first lady says she’s offended as a mother and as an American. She blasts Republicans for “playing politics with our nation’s children.”

Is there no end, or limit, to this political petulance?

Uncategorized

Dewhurst lost his good-government voice

Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka thinks that Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst never understood the changing nature of the Texas Republican Party.

Thus, state Sen. Dan Patrick was able to beat him to become the party’s nominee for lieutenant governor.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/what-happened-david-dewhurst

I want to posit another notion. It is that Dewhurst lost his voice when he tried to outscream the far right wing of his party.

His former voice was one that endorsed good government. He tried to break into the ranks of the tea party wing of the GOP by sounding like them. It turned out he wasn’t very fluent in tea party-speak.

He said all those things about being tough on illegal immigration, about cutting taxes and fighting to abolish the Affordable Care Act. He just wasn’t very good at spouting that kind of rhetoric.

So now David Dewhurst is officially a lame duck. The 2015 Legislature will convene without him. Patrick or Democratic state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte will preside over the Senate.

Patrick speaks the tea party language. Van de Putte speaks the language of good government.

We’ll know in due course if the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor will be true to her own voice and her own set of principles. David Dewhurst lost his voice — and his way.

Uncategorized

Whether to court-martial Bergdahl

The rhetoric is getting pretty heated now about the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and whether he should be tried for desertion.

Some of his combat “buddies” are saying Bergdahl left his post before being captured in Afghanistan by the Taliban. He was held captive for five years until his release this weekend in an exchange of prisoners; the Taliban got five of their leading militants in return for Bergdahl.

So, what’s the next course of action?

How about letting the Army interrogate everyone with knowledge of what happened when Bergdahl was taken by the Taliban? The Army has a pretty capable judge advocate corps of lawyers who can get to the heart of what went down.

If it’s decided that Bergdahl did desert his post, that he left his comrades in the lurch, that he committed what some are calling an act of treason, then he ought to be court-martialed.

The initial word from the Pentagon was that the Army likely wouldn’t court-martial the young man, believing apparently that he’d suffered enough.

I’m not so sure about that. I’d like to see the Army investigate this matter fully and make a careful, studied determination of what happened five years ago.

Yes, there have been comments made. To date, none of them has been corroborated. Let’s look for the truth.

Uncategorized

Why put party labels on judges?

Critics of this blog no doubt are going to blast me for suggesting this a partisan idea.

Too bad. Here goes anyway.

Why in the world do we in Texas have to elect judges on partisan ballots? Believe it nor not, I asked the question when I lived in a heavily Democratic region of the state — in Jefferson County on the Gulf Coast — and I’m asking it yet again.

I’ve given up on the notion of going to an appointment/retention concept used in many other states. It’s when the governor appoints a judge and the judge then stands for what’s called a “retention election.” Voters can keep the judge or toss him or her out.

I’ll stick, therefore, to the notion that Texas eliminates good judges who happen to belong to the “out” party, the one no longer in favor with voters. In Texas — except for some pockets — that means Republicans are “in,” while Democrats are “out.” Dallas County, interestingly, is elected Democratic judges. Big deal. It isn’t any better than it is, say, in the Panhandle. Good GOP judicial candidates are getting bounced out in Dallas County the way good Democratic candidates keep losing.

I’ve asked the question many times of judges and judicial candidates: What is the difference between Republican justice and Democratic justice?

Their answers don’t turn on partisanship. They turn instead on judicial philosophy. They either have a “liberal” view of justice or a “conservative” view. Why, then, can’t voters decide on the merits of a candidate based on his or her judicial philosophy, regardless of party?

All of this would take an amendment to the Texas Constitution. It won’t happen, of course, as long as Republicans control both legislative houses, the governor’s office and the lieutenant governor’s office. Why should it change? The GOP controls everything.

The same thing can be said when Democrats ran the show. They didn’t show any inclination to changing the Constitution, either.

We’re stuck with a lousy judicial election system.

Uncategorized

Cleaner air a new focus

President Obama has unveiled a strategy that he hopes will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent.

Power-generating plants will have to reduce the emissions by 2030 or else face stiff penalties.

Cleaner air is a good thing. Spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is bad, as it contributes to the climate change scientists say is well under way around the world.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/02/epa_seeks_to_cut_power_plant_carbon_by_30_percent_122825.html

Oh, but just wait. This measure is going to be met with all kinds of hostile reaction.

The coal industry is going to lead the charge, as the coal-fired plants are the chief culprits. Who are the winners? Let’s try the natural gas industry — which, by the way, is flourishing in West Texas. Natural gas fires these plants, too, but does so more cleanly and it is cheaper than coal.

So, do you think our state’s government leadership will climb aboard the Environmental Protection Agency bandwagon and endorse the president’s new initiative?

Do … not … hold … your …. breath.

As with everything these days, politics gets in the way of doing the right thing.

The White House is occupied by a Democrat. Texas state government is populated by Republicans. Therefore, if one party proposes something, it’s a bad thing in the eyes of those in the other party.

Let’s remember something, though, if we’re going to politicize this argument. The 1970 Clean Air Act was signed into law — along with the creation of the EPA — by a Republican president of some note, a fellow named Richard M. Nixon.

Utility companies that rely heavily on coal-fired electricity likely will threaten to raise rates on customers to pay for the improvements being mandated by the EPA. Our electric utility isn’t as reliant on coal as many others, given that we have plenty of natural gas to fuel our electrical needs.

“The purpose of this rule is to really close the loophole on carbon pollution, reduce emissions as we’ve done with lead, arsenic and mercury and improve the health of the American people and unleash a new economic opportunity,” said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The rule is worth enforcing. I happen to be all in favor of cleaner air, even if it might cost a little bit more to breathe it.

Uncategorized

Show us the money, governor

Give credit it is due to Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

He lured a massive corporate operation from California to Plano, a Dallas suburb. Perry also danged about $40 million in front of Toyota to make the move halfway across the country.

That’s 40 million public dollars, yours and mine.

However, the governor is acting as if the public doesn’t deserve to know the details of the transaction.

http://www.texasobserver.org/rick-perry-seeks-keep-details-toyota-incentives-secret/

He’s keeping the financial incentives secret.

Wait a minute, governor. That’s our money, isn’t it? I know you’re a man of means, but you didn’t write a personal check to the Toyota honchos, did you?

The governor’s office has gotten Freedom of Information requests from the Texas Observer and the Houston Chronicle. The idea is that since it’s public dough, the governor owes it to, um, the public to explain the incentive package that went to Toyota in the public’s name.

Perry’s office has declined the request, saying that revealing the details would reveal to competing states Texas’s economic strategy and enable them to sweeten deals that might lure prospective companies away from here.

The Observer’s Forrest Wilder reports: “Perry’s attorneys argue that releasing any information before the deal is finalized ‘would seriously disadvantage Texas by allowing other states to directly approach this entity with competing incentives.’”

Still, the governor isn’t messing with his own money. It’s ours and the governor should tell us what he’s doing with our money.

Uncategorized

Questions arise about Bergdahl's release

Questions and concerns have surfaced about the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from his Taliban captors.

They are legitimate and serious questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hagel-discusses-details-of-us-operation-to-exchange-taliban-detainees-for-captive-soldier/2014/06/01/551c21f8-e95f-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

My most pressing concern is this: How is the United States going to ensure that the five high-ranking Taliban officials released from Guantanamo Bay prison do not re-enter the fight against this country?

We gave up these individuals in exchange for Bergdahl’s release after five years in captivity. He reportedly was in failing health and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said his release was expedited to “save his life.”

The Taliban terrorists were turned over to Qatar officials and have been placed on a one-year “travel restriction.” How does that work? U.S. officials reportedly worked out a deal to have Qatari officials sit on these guys for a year. After that? Who knows?

Here is where I hope the CIA and every other U.S. intelligence agency capable of taking part is doing their job. By that I have to hope that we’re keeping eyes on these monsters 24/7, watching every move they make. Do we need to know the particulars? I have no need to acquire such highly classified information, but I do hope our intelligence professionals are up to the task of keeping these guys in their sights at all times.

As to the questions about whether the Obama administration broke the law by negotiating with terrorists and doing it in secret, we have to accept that sometimes we have to do unseemly-looking deeds to accomplish a worthy goal. The administration says it did keep congressional sources informed of what was going on.

As long as we can keep the released Taliban officials on a very short leash and prevent them from turning against our forces, then I’m willing to accept the strategy employed to have one of our own men released from captivity.

Our spooks, however, had better not mess this up.

Uncategorized

Ideology paints non-ideological campaigns

Glenn Hegar is the Republican nominee for Texas comptroller of public accounts.

He wants to be the state’s bean-counter in chief. Hegar also wants voters to know that he’s a strong conservative. Does he necessarily tout his financial credentials? Not exactly. He talked during the primary campaign about his pro-life position and his religious devotion.

Interesting, yes?

Ryan Sitton is the GOP nominee for railroad commissioner. He said the same thing about himself as Hegar. He mailed out campaign literature touting his strong conservative credentials, including his strong support of gun owners rights.

Also interesting.

What’s strikes me, though, about these two examples is that the principals are seeking offices that have nothing to do with abortion, or God, or guns ownership. Hegar wants to be the comptroller, whose main job as defined by the Texas Constitution, is to provide legislators and the governor with an accurate accounting of the state’s fiscal condition. The job Sitton seeks is focused even more narrowly. Railroad commissioners regulate the oil and natural gas industry. That’s it. Heck they don’t even set policy for railroads or rail cars, which used to be part of their job.

We’re hearing a lot of ideological talk among candidates, almost exclusively on the Republican side, who are running for nuts-and-bolts offices.

I understand why legislative or congressional candidates would want to establish their ideological credentials with voters. They seek to write laws. The other folks simply carry out the laws enacted by lawmakers and signed by either the governor or the president of the United States.

I am hoping that as the fall campaign commences we hear more from the candidates about how they intend to manage the offices they seek and less from them about irrelevant ideology.

Uncategorized

Street light turns annoying

The older I get the more pet peeves I acquire.

It’s part of life, I reckon.

But one peeve that has annoyed me since I was, well, much younger is a light that turns red for no apparent reason, forcing me to stop — again for no apparent reason.

I encountered such a light today in downtown Amarillo.

My wife and I were traveling northbound on Buchanan Street, right in front of the Amarillo Civic Center when — presto! — the light at the Globe-News Center for the Performing Arts turned red. We braked quickly to stop; didn’t want a traffic ticket, you know.

Why the annoyance?

The light sits in front of the Globe-News center parking lot, which shortly before 1 p.m. today was empty. No vehicles could be seen on it. Anywhere.

Thus, the question: Why doesn’t the city traffic department turn that light off when no one is using the Globe-News Center?

The technology is there. The city can switch the light across Buchanan to blinking yellow — or it can just turn the signal off completely.

Let me reiterate: There is zero need to stop traffic at that location when nothing is happening at the performing arts venue.

I’m good now … until the next peevish bur gets under my saddle.

Uncategorized

Benghazi = Birtherism

It’s beginning to sound, to me at least, that the Benghazi story is going to stay in the news through the 2016 election cycle.

After the election, it will disappear.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/06/01/fox-panel-laughs-at-laura-ingrahams-unrelenting/199529

Why then? It’s becoming clearer by the week that right wing think tanks, media outlets and politicians want to keep the issue roiling as long as former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is in the hunt for the presidency during the next two years.

If she decides to run, which most folks think is a given, it will continue to be a discussion topic right up to Election Day. Then we’ll have the result. She’ll either be elected or defeated by a Republican; I’m assuming, of course, that she’ll be the Democratic nominee for president.

After that, the issue goes away. Quietly. Suddenly. Just disappears.

It kinda/sorta reminds me of the birtherism issue that dogged Barack Obama through two election cycles. There were those on the right who questioned whether he was constitutionally qualified to serve as president, alleging he was born in Kenya, rather than Hawaii.

We all heard the yammering, yes? Forget that we’ve heard very little from the left on the issue regarding another possible presidential candidate, Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who actually was born in Canada. Mama Cruz is an American, however, which makes him a U.S. citizen.

Hey, wait a minute. Wasn’t President Obama’s mother an American, too, which made him qualified to serve as president — even if he had been born in a foreign country?

Whatever. The birthers stopped their preposterous notion the moment he was re-elected in 2012.

I’m betting the same thing will happen with this Benghazi matter, no matter the outcome of the House select panel’s investigation into that horrible Sept. 11, 2012 fire fight that killed four Americans at the consulate in Libya.

These “scandals” do have a way of materializing — and vaporizing — at politically opportune times.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience