The Texas Railroad Commission has taken another step toward a new identity.

It’s about time.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/02/texas-railroad-commission-sunset-bill-passes-senat/

Senate Bill 212 would rename the three-member panel the Texas Energy Resources Commission. Appropriate, given that the RRC has not a single thing to do with train regulations. It has everything to do with energy regulation Texas.

So, why not have a name that reflects its duties? Because over many legislative sessions, some dyed-in-the-wool old goats didn’t want to change the name because, well, they thought history and tradition were important than relevance.

It’s been a ridiculous resistance effort from the get-go.

I’ve lived in Texas nearly 30 years and the Railroad Commission has had nothing to do with trains almost during that entire time. The RRC once regulated trucking rates, but gave that up too in the 1980s to concentrate on energy regulation.

The Railroad Commission had a member, Kent Hance – the current chancellor of the Texas Tech University System – who wanted Texas to become an ex officio member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Texas does consider itself a “whole other country,” but that seemed a bit pretentious.

The Senate vote to rename the RRC passed with a 21-0 vote, which is a sizable mandate to do something that makes sense.

Besides the new name can morph into a nice acronym: TERC.

Let’s do it, legislators.

Ted Cruz may be setting records in Washington for Senate ostentatiousness.

First, the Texas Republican defeated the state’s lieutenant governor, David Dewhurst, whom almost every political “expert” in Texas thought was a shoo-in to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Senate. Didn’t happen, as Dewhurst lost the GOP primary to Cruz, who then went on to defeat Democratic former state Rep. Paul Sadler handily in the 2012 general election.

Then the rookie senator took his seat and began slinging accusations left and right about President Obama’s picks for at least two key Cabinet picks: John Kerry at State and Chuck Hagel at Defense. He suggested the two men, both decorated Vietnam War veterans, lacked “sufficient regard” for the military. Cruz has never served in the military, let alone put his life on the line.

He’s strutted and preened in front of TV cameras, joining the likes of Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and Republican Rep. Peter King, both of New York, as the most TV-hungry pols on Capitol Hill.

Now comes word that Cruz might want to run for president of the United States of America in 2016.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/ted-cruz-2016-president-90843.html?hp=t1_3

Count me as one American who’ll never vote for this guy, but who kind of hopes he takes the leap.

I’ve never particularly liked politicians – or businessmen and women, for that matter – who act like know-it-alls when they take on new assignments. Cruz just seems to have this way about him that gets under my skin. He chastises individuals with many more years of experience in the sometimes-complex act of legislating. He lectures his colleagues on the Constitution, such as when he scolded Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California on the fine points of the Second Amendment, to which Feinstein said she is “not a sixth-grader” and knew a fair amount about the Constitution.

This guy, a tea party favorite, is going to be fun to watch, if only to see if his hubris has any limits. So far, Ted Cruz’s reservoir of self-aggrandizement seems infinite.

I need help here.

I’m having trouble understanding how the term “gun control” has become synonymous to some Americans with “disarmament.” I am perplexed that the argument has become one of absolutes, that any form of gun control is seen by gun-rights advocates as code for “they’re coming to disarm law-abiding Americans.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/297319-rnc-and-dnc-clash-over-ad-with-picture-of-obama-consoling-newtown-family

The universal background check legislation that failed in the U.S. Senate is the best example of the perversion of this debate. The background check is seen by foes of gun control as an intrusion. They say, accurately I’ll concede, that a thorough background check wouldn’t have prevented the Newtown, Conn., school massacre that left 20 children and six educators dead. It is true that the madman who did the deed took the guns from his mother – who had purchased them legally – and then killed her before embarking on his killing spree.

That argument, though, begs the bigger question. How do we stop other madmen from acquiring guns from, say, a private party or a gun dealer? Universal background checks to me seem like a reasonable option.

The gun lobby, though, has persuaded enough lawmakers that any form of tighter laws translates into some kind of Big Brother overreach into people’s homes, where they keep their guns. I believe I’ve heard the president himself say on many occasions that no one who owns a gun today will have that firearm taken away.

The intent is to seek to prevent future madmen from committing the kinds of tragic deeds that occurred in Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg … wherever these kinds of massacres have occurred.

I see nothing in any of these proposals that translates to disarming lawful Americans.

Mark Sanford wants to return to public office after betraying the people who once elected him governor of their state.

It blows my mind that he just might get that chance.

Sanford debated Democratic opponent Elizabeth Colbert Busch in South Carolina the other night. Sanford, the former Republican South Carolina governor, has become the object of late-night comedians’ jokes, pundits’ barbs and even has been dismissed by the higher-ups in his own political party.

But he just might win the special election to Congress from South Carolina.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17976693-sanford-plays-party-card-with-colbert-busch-in-sole-sc-debate?lite

Why the jokes and the dissing?

Well, he had an affair while he was still married to his wife, Jenny. That’s not the worst of it – in my view – although cheating on one’s spouse is bad enough. Sanford took off for the Southern Hemisphere to frolic with his mistress while telling the world he was “hiking the Appalachian Trail.” He disappeared. He was off he grid, all the while getting paid to “govern” his state. He lied.

That was over Mothers Day weekend 2009. The word got out. Sanford was caught and the political world began its collective tittering.

Colbert Busch is a solid candidate. She reportedly did well in the debate with Sanford, who observers said needed to hit it out of the park against the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert. They also said he didn’t get the job done.

The GOP has turned its back on Sanford, who recently was caught sneaking into his wife’s home and violating a court order to stay away. The soap opera quality of this campaign almost defies description.

It’s been sort of fun watching this guy try to explain himself. But now the serious business of selecting a congressional representative is almost at hand. I hope Mark Sanford gets the boot in the backside he deserves. It’s obviously not my call. Vote wisely, 1st Congressional District residents.

Sandra Day O’Connor now says she’s having second thoughts about a case that many folks say determined who would be elected president of the United States in 2000.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/justice-oconnor-maybe-bush-v-gore-was-mistake

My first thought when I saw that was that Al Gore may have thrown something large and heavy at a breakable object when he heard the news. My second thought, once I read what the retired Supreme Court justice said, was that the outcome likely may have been the same.

Either way, I still wonder: What took her so long to reach this conclusion?

O’Connor was the first woman appointed to the high court, selected by President Reagan in 1981. She retired in 2006 after taking part in the landmark decision that enabled Texas Gov. George W. Bush to be elected president over then-Vice President Gore by the narrowest margin in memory.

The 5-4 decision, with O’Connor voting with the majority, ended the recount of ballots in Florida. Bush had about 500 more votes than Gore in Florida, giving him the state’s electoral votes needed to put him into the White House. He won with 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266 votes, needing 270 to ensure victory. And all this occurred with Gore capturing more popular votes nationally than the guy who won.

O’Connor says now that the court perhaps should have tossed it back to the state and not decided it. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye,'” O’Connor told the Chicago Tribune.

What would have happened? Well, the recount could have continued and perhaps Bush’s lead would have held up. Or, perhaps, Gore could scarfed up a few more votes, wiped out Bush’s slim margin and he would have won the state’s electoral votes, enabling the VP to move into the White House.

More than 12 years after one of the most controversial rulings in Supreme Court history, the debate is about to catch fire all over again.

Listen up, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, one of your own is calling you out.

Jennifer Rubin, a noted conservative columnist for the Washington Post, says Cruz is too mean and his mean streak is hurting the conservative cause.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/04/29/dont-be-a-jerk-sen-cruz/

I don’t particularly care if Cruz’s brusque behavior harms conservatives. I do care, though, if it gets in the way of good government.

Cruz has been in the Senate for less than four months and already he’s making a name for himself, several names in fact. And some of them might be unfit for print here.

Remember the time he questioned whether Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, two decorated Vietnam War combat veterans, had a “sufficient regard” for the military? And this came from someone who’s never worn his country’s military uniform.

Well, he’s taken – in Rubin’s view – to voting against legislation and then criticizing his fellow Republicans for voting against his wishes. Rubin compares Cruz unfavorably to fellow tea party Senate golden boy Rand Paul, R-Ky., who Rubin describes as being “polite to a fault.”

“These qualities serve him well, indeed making some strident positions seem less so. Moreover, Rand Paul is trying to accomplish something. He’s put forth a budget. He’s offered suggestions to amend the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill. He’s suggested reforms to our drug laws,” Rubin writes about Paul.

Cruz, on the other hand, comes off as a strident know-it-all who hasn’t been in the Senate saddle long enough to understand the long-standing clubby nature of the organization to which he was elected.

And when the rookie senator gets dressed down in public by the sometimes-irascible Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for impugning the integrity of someone such as former Republican Sen. Hagel, then you’ve been dressed down by one of the best.

President Obama drew the line in the proverbial sand: Syrian use of chemical weapons was a game-changer in a country ripped apart by civil war.

Now what?

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/29/pentagon-steps-up-planning-for-potential-military-intervention-in-syria/?hpt=hp_bn2

Obama’s critics on the right want him to act immediately and decisively. Send in the jets and the bombers, they say, to wipe out the government forces that reportedly have used the weapons on their foes.

But the president is trying to weigh his options with great care. He has good reason to avoid a rush into this bloody conflict. Syrian air defenses are first-rate, unlike those in Libya, where the U.S.-led air campaign operated with virtually no opposition in the effort to topple the late Moammar Gadhafi. Syria presents a different problem. Its air defense system was developed and installed by Syria’s friends in Moscow. There can be no guarantee that U.S. warplanes can conduct an air campaign without suffering grievous losses.

So it is pertinent to ask: Is the country ready to lose more American lives over Syria, in another war, after losing more than 5,000 lives in Afghanistan and Iraq? Do we really want to do this?

Obama is right to lay down the no-chemical-weapons marker on the Syrians. He would be justified in taking action against Syria, given the country’s proximity to Israel, our most important U.S. ally in the Middle East.

But the war hawks on the right need to pipe down and let the Obama administration weigh its options carefully.

Politics often breeds cynicism. I understand how that can happen when politicians listen more intently to deep-pocketed special interest groups than they do to rank-and-file voters.

But Amarillo might be witnessing a brand new level of cynical political strategy at work. It galls me beyond measure.

Some individuals who oppose the Amarillo City Commission’s decision to ban the use of handheld cellphones by motorists have created a Facebook page, as reported by the Globe-News’ Kevin Welch, that calls for residents to not vote in the May 11 municipal election.

The strategy, as these loons see it, is to lower the petition-gathering threshold for those seeking to put the cellphone ban on the ballot in November. The fewer voters who cast ballots for municipal office, the fewer signatures they would need to collect to qualify for a spot on the ballot this fall.

Mayor Paul Harpole, the lone commission member facing an opponent on May 11, labels this tactic correctly: It’s “not democratic” and “distressing,” he told Welch.

I’ll add a couple more adjectives, Mr. Mayor. Let’s try “insane,” and “foolish.” Perhaps I could declare that the reason for doing this is based on an outright lie.

Someone named David Kossey – who, I should add, lives in Canyon – reportedly is leading this Facebook nonsense. He contends that Amarillo commission members approved the ordinance with “little or no input from the public.” Really? I could swear the city called for public hearings prior to voting on it. I also could swear that the city debated this issue publicly for months before deciding finally to enact the cellphone ban. Where was Kossey during all of this?

The good news, though, comes from City Attorney Marcus Norris, who says the vote-squelching effort won’t affect this petition drive. Petitioners still need to reach the threshold set by the 15,280 people who voted in the 2011 municipal election; they need to collect enough signatures to equal 25 percent of that turnout. Seems that the date of the beginning of the petition drive locks them into the previous turnout, not the one that’s about to occur.

But the whole idea of discouraging voter participation turns my stomach. It’s nothing but a shameful display of cynicism.

Driving back this past weekend from Albuquerque I noticed something that I cannot let pass without some snarky comment.

I must have seen a half-dozen billboards advertising for the truck stop or convenience store at the next exit along Interstate 40 that boasted having “Clean Restrooms.”

I know what you’re thinking. Why does that even merit comment here? Well, maybe it might be no big thing to some folks, but I am struck by proprietors who feel the need to brag about doing something that ought to be a no-brainer. I also have plenty of experience walking into a truck stop restroom that isn’t fit for human use. So then cleanliness becomes a marketing tool for businesses to attract motorists off the highway.

Still, this kind of advertising reminds me of the political ads from politicians who say we should vote for them because, among other things, they have been “happily married” for a gazillion years to the same woman. I make that comment gender specific because the ads always represent male politicians – and we certainly know that a good many men in elected public office have been caught doing things with women other than their wives.

So, there you have it. Cleanliness and marital fidelity are things worthy of boasting.

Good grief.

One of the things I like about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is his fearlessness.

The Republican is one tough dude in the face of critics. And as his job performance relates to his handling of the Superstorm Sandy aftermath, he is spot on in his unapologetic stance.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/296633-christie-no-regrets-for-clashing-with-gop-over-sandy-relief-efforts?

Christie told MSNBC the other day he makes no apology for the way he praised President Obama – one of those dreaded Democrats – for the federal response to the storm that tore across the Jersey Shore. He said he’d do it again.

The governor’s proverbial embrace of Obama near the end of what was supposed to be a razor-thin presidential campaign is thought to have helped the president open up a lead over GOP challenger Mitt Romney as the campaign headed into the stretch. I’m not so sure the events were quite that decisive.

Obama showed his chops as he consoled stricken New Jersey residents looking for some assurance that the feds would be there to help them. He would have done so even without Christie standing at his side. Besides, New Jersey and New York – the states hit hardest by Sandy – were in the bag for the president already.

Gov. Christie showed in the storm’s aftermath that public servants must put the needs of the people they serve above all else. Politics be damned, as Christie said – most emphatically when “Fox and Friends” talking head Steve Doocy asked him whether he thought Mitt Romney would visit New Jersey as well. Christie’s stone-faced answer? He didn’t “give a damn” about the politics of the crisis with which he was dealing.

The man had a job to do. And why in the world should he apologize for doing it?