The Texas Senate has confirmed three new appointments to the University of Texas System Board of Regents.

Can we now get back to the business of letting UT-Austin President Bill Powers do his job … without interference/meddling from regents?

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/24/texas-senate-confirms-nominees-ut-system-board/

Senate Higher Education Committee Chairman Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, noted some mistakes in confirming earlier regents in 2011 – before Seliger became chairman of the committee. A lengthy confirmation hearing elicited pledges from the new folks that they had no intention of seeking Powers’s dismissal, or that they would meddle in administrative matters.

The new regents are Paul Foster of El Paso, Ernest Aliseda of McAllen and Jeff Hildebrand of Houston. Their confirmation hearing got a bit testy, which one would expect given the assurances that Seliger’s committee was seeking.

The UT System board has been fraught with fighting and quarreling with Powers for longer than anyone would care to remember. Frankly, it’s been embarrassing to the system that is supposed to pride itself on putting education first. That hasn’t been the case with the UT System’s flagship campus.

Just maybe the board can set aside its meddlesome ways and let Bill Powers do the job for which he was hired.

Enough, already.

Gov. Rick Perry has vetoed a bill that would have forced politically active organizations to be more transparent.

His reason? Perry says the bill would have a chilling effect on people’s right of free speech and political expression.

Oh, brother.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/25/perry-vetoes-dark-money-bill/

“At a time when our federal government is assaulting the rights of Americans by using the tools of government to squelch dissent it is unconscionable to expose more Texans to the risk of such harassment, regardless of political, organizational or party affiliation,” Perry said in his veto message.

Senate Bill 346 would have required politically active non-profit groups to disclose the source of their monetary donations. Perry believes that requirement stifles free speech. I suggest it does nothing of the kind. It merely allows the rest of us to know who’s giving money to politically active groups and enables other Texans to determine for themselves whether these groups are worthy of public support.

I must ask: What is so unreasonable about that?

SB 346 pertains to non-profits falling under the 501c(4) tax code, which has been under some examination of late with the controversy involving the Internal Revenue Service probe of such organizations and their political activity. The bill was cobbled together hastily in the House of Representatives and it included an exemption for labor unions. My thought on that is that the bill could have been approved and then tightened in 2015 to bring labor unions under the same umbrella as other non-profits. All other groups – liberal and conservative – are covered under the bill.

Of course, conservative activists say SB 346 targets their groups and causes. I don’t think so. As I understand it, the bill pertains to many liberal-leaning non-profits, so their donors are subject to precisely the same scrutiny as those on the right.

But that doesn’t matter to Gov. Perry, who is trying to protect his political allies.

The cause of political transparency has taken another punch in the gut.

The bridge that collapsed north of Seattle this week signals the start of yet another spirited debate in Washington, D.C.

What are we going do to repair our crumbling infrastructure?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/us/washington-state-bridge-collapse-highlights-infrastructure-needs.html?ref=us&_r=0

Part of the Interstate 5 bridge fell into the Skagit River. No one died in the incident, even though several vehicles plunged into the drink. We can give thanks that no one was lost.

However, the government is in serious budget-cutting mode. The mandatory sequestration of funds – some of which might go toward highway and bridge maintenance – could potentially hinder this important work.

Is the Seattle-area bridge collapse a harbinger of similar occurrences in the future? Many civil engineering experts think it is. Since I’m not a civil engineer, I’ll take their word for it. Indeed, I’m not hearing any others say that the nation’s roads and bridges are in just wonderful condition … thank you very much.

We remain a highly mobile society. We like to drive our vehicles long distances, which is especially true in the Texas Panhandle – which requires those who live here to drive a while just to get anywhere.

Are our bridges safe?

The economy is shoring up President Obama’s poll numbers.

Who knew?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/is-the-economy-saving-obamas-approval-ratings/

Nate Silver, the math whiz whose Five Thirty-Eight blog, published by the New York Times, called the 2012 election almost exactly, thinks the economy might be the president’s ace in the face of the other matters that seem to be dragging his poll numbers down.

I’m trying to process that one. I’ve noted already that the economy is turning into a net plus for the president. It boggles my mind to think that the one issue Republicans thought in 2012 would sink Obama is now turning out to be keeping him afloat.

Joblessness is down. Hiring is up. The deficit is shrinking.

As with all things political, the president’s foes aren’t giving him any credit for that trend – although they’d be pulling the trigger immediately if the numbers were going the other way.

Politics ain’t for the faint-hearted … you know?

I don’t know if I’m feeling old or if my colleagues’ youth has me perplexed.

I went to work this week carrying a book to read during some down time. It’s Douglas Brinkley’s biography, “Cronkite.” A young colleague sitting next to me who, I guess is perhaps in her late 20s, looked at the book and asked, “What are you reading?”

“Cronkite,” I said. “Oh,” she answered. “Who’s he?”

“Um, he would be Walter Cronkite,” I said, adding that he was a renowned news anchor and broadcast journalist.

“Oh, I see,” she said. “Is the book good?” she asked. Well, yes, I answered.

In fairness to my young colleague, Cronkite retired from CBS News in 1981, more than likely before she was born. He kept a fairly low profile in the years since his retirement, although he did produce some news and science specials for CBS until his death in 2009.

The brief exchange just reminded of me of how quickly this ol’ world has changed – and continues to change.

I’m trying to stay current. Honest.

At times it’s tough to let go of what – and who – got us to where we are today. Walter Cronkite, once called the “most trusted man in America,” was one of those who led us to this point.

President Obama’s critics are going to seize on this one, bet on it.

http://thehill.com/video/administration/301833-obama-fails-to-return-marines-salute

The president boarded Marine One at the White House on Friday and did not return the salute snapped by the Marine on duty at the foot of the stairs entering the helicopter. Obama came back out of the chopper, walked back down the stairs and shook the Marine’s hand while – I would imagine – offering an apology for his lapse in military courtesy.

Here, though, is the question: Was the president required to return the salute? No.

Indeed, not all presidents salute the military personnel who stand guard. Ronald Reagan was the first president in my memory to return the salute. In fact, his salute wasn’t all that military-like in its execution. President Reagan’s salute looked more, um, Hollywood than military. Those who have saluted superior officers while they wore the uniform know what I’m talking about.

No president going back to Dwight Eisenhower, if my memory is correct, returned the salute. Interesting, too, that Ike – a retired general of the Army – wouldn’t salute the military guards. John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter – all of whom were veterans – didn’t return the salute. Then came Reagan. George H.W. Bush – another veteran – didn’t salute the guard.

Bill Clinton – who, famously, was not a veteran – returned the salute as did George W. Bush, another veteran. Now, it’s non-veteran Barack Obama in the commander in chief’s chair and he has decided to salute the military personnel.

But protocol doesn’t require the civilian commander in chief to return that salute. It’s the president’s call exclusively.

None of that will matter to the legions of right-wingers who’ll find yet another bogus reason to criticize this president.

I could swear, so help me, that I heard two of the three main TV meteorologists in Amarillo say two days ago that we had some heavy rain and severe weather coming this way.

They said it on live television, beamed directly into my living room.

They said it categorically, without equivocation.

We’ve been waiting for some rain, which we need in the worst way. But the skies have remained mostly clear ever since those dire predictions came forth.

I know the weather forecasters run the risk of being run, since they cannot predict with any certainty what nature’s forces will do. Maybe they got caught up in the media news rush in the wake of the Moore, Okla., tragedy. I am not demeaning what’s happened to those good folks, but at times we seem to willing to believe the worst when something so tragic happens so close to us.

Do I want a tornado to blast through Amarillo? Of course not. I do want some rain. A substantial amount of it would be just grand. I’d even settle for a bit of wind, but not too much.

One of the TV weathermen displayed these “computer models” that said the rain would arrive Thursday afternoon. He said it with all the authority that comes with someone who’s been doing his job for as long as he has done it. So did the second weatherman I saw. I don’t watch the third “chief meteorologist” in Amarillo, mainly because he goes hysterical whenever we do get “severe weather.”

Which begs the question: I can’t think of any other job in the world where someone can be so wrong so often and still be able to do that job.

What the heck. They always can blame it on God.

Dan Radmacher is a blogger in Roanoke, Va., with whom I am acquainted. I cannot profess to know him well, but we have many mutual friends and professional associations.

His latest blog continues an ongoing battle of wits he’s been waging with Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto, this time over the depth of the recent scandals that have spit up all over President Obama.

Here’s the link to his latest post. It’s worth a careful look:

http://bloggingdan.com/

I want to congratulate Dan for saying something that needs saying time and again. It is that while the conservative media are fond of accusing the liberal media of bias, those on the right do so without the slightest understanding of what they’re saying – about themselves. Taranto seems to think the media are in the tank for Barack Obama and have gone far too softly on the president.

Radmacher wrote this in response:

“Taranto moves onto the ‘liberal’ media, accusing the media of being more in cahoots with Obama than it’s ever been with any other president or political party. This ideological and political alignment, Taranto warns with no hint of irony or self-awareness, has led the media to abdicate ‘their guiding principles of impartiality, objectivity and sometimes even accuracy.’ The man works for a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, and he wants to lecture others about abdicating impartiality, objectivity and accuracy? Never mind that the conservative media that he is part of is far guiltier of abandoning impartiality and objectivity, and has never cared much about accuracy. But how could Taranto miss that the biggest mainstream media blunder in recent weeks — ABC’s reporting on Republican fabrications of those recently released emails as if they had seen the originals — worked against Obama, not in his favor?”

I couldn’t have said it better myself, Dan.

I’ve long noted that a cable news network, such as the one owned by Rupert Murdoch, that must proclaim – over and over – that it is “fair and balanced” usually is neither.

I’m just guessing this one out loud, but my hunch is that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott knows something the rest of us don’t know about Gov. Rick Perry’s political plans.

He might know that Perry won’t run for re-election to an umpteenth term as Texas governor.

That is why he’s plowing ahead with his own run for governor, or so it seems.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/23/abbott-not-waiting-perry-build-his-campaign/

It always had been understood that no one would challenge Perry if the governor sought another term. That wasn’t the case in 2010, certainly, when then-U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison ran against Perry in the Republican primary, only to get trounced by the governor.

Perry has this strange appeal to Texas voters that – to be totally candid – astounds me. I’ve been in Texas long enough to have acquired a pretty good feel for the state’s political pulse. Gov. Perry seems to be unbeatable at a state level. After thumping Hutchison in the 2010 GOP primary, he went on to hammer Democratic nominee Bill White, an astute business-minded former Houston mayor.

Is there any reason to believe Perry would be vulnerable in 2014? The major event that harmed his brand was that disastrous 2012 GOP presidential primary run that came crashing to Earth before if ever got started. I don’t hear much grumbling about that effort now as the statewide election season begins to crank up.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that the attorney general knows something. The same can be said for former Texas Republican Party chairman Tom Pauken – a longtime friendly acquaintance of mine – who also is planning to run for governor in 2014. Pauken was appointed head of the Texas Workforce Commission by, that’s right, Gov. Perry. So one would think those two guys would be big-time political pals. Pauken, though, wants Perry’s job.

The Perry Era may be coming to an end, yes?

I’m suffering from conflicting principles.

I consider myself to be a civil libertarian, in that I cherish the liberties granted to me by the U.S. Constitution. I also consider myself to be loyal to my flag and to our national security interests; accordingly, I detest those who forsake those interests in an effort to bring harm to my fellow citizens.

Thus, the conflict is erupting now as President Obama acknowledges that unmanned drone aircraft have killed at least four Americans in the ongoing war against international terrorism.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/despite-obama-speech-drone-role-to-only-increase-91837.html?hp=t1

Should we be launching these drones over suspected terrorists in U.S. airspace? No. That goes too far. However, we’ve deployed these weapons on the battlefield in Afghanistan and in other hot spots where terrorists lurk. Americans, sadly, are among those who seek to kill their fellow Americans. Are these people enemies of the state? I consider them to be precisely that.

They become fair game, so to speak, when they take up arms against American military personnel. They have betrayed their citizenship and in my view no longer qualify as “loyal” Americans.

The Constitution, though, grants all Americans the right of due process. Killing these so-called Americans in a military operation circumvents that due process. However, I keep coming back to whether these individuals have virtually surrendered their rights as citizens when they take up arms against their nation.

I’m going to need some time to think all this through. I haven’t made up my mind. I’m open to some thoughts on the subject.