Now, that is going to be some ballpark

baseball

Amarillo is getting ready — soon, I hope — to unveil plans for construction of a baseball park downtown.

Its price tag has inflated a bit, from $32 million to around $50 million — give or take. The plan is to lure a Class Double-A baseball team that’s affiliated with the San Diego Padres of the National League. The team would relocate here from San Antonio, which is seeking to bring a Class Triple-A team from Colorado Springs.

Musical chairs, anyone?

Get a load, though, of what they’re planning for Arlington, Texas, where the Texas Rangers play hardball in the American League.

The city leaders want to replace a 22-year-old ballpark with a $900 million structure. Good deal, yes? I guess so. These ballparks cost a lot of dough these days.

I only wish the Arlington folks would drop the idea of putting a roof on the new stadium, presuming it will be approved by voters who will be asked for their blessing.

Read about it here:

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/arlington/article78764147.html

I happen to be a baseball traditionalist. I dislike playing an outdoor game under a roof. You play basketball in gymnasiums, not baseball. For that matter, you also play baseball on grass, not something called “artificial turf.”

Don’t get me started on the designated hitter, pine tar and all the body armor that batters wear when they’re facing a fastball-throwing pitcher.

When the Amarillo ballpark gets rolled out, my sincere hope is that the architects that the Local Government Corporation will hire will keep it simple.

I am not thrilled at the escalated cost of the ballpark — aka the multipurpose event venue — but it can be kept somewhat in check if we dispense a measure of the glitz and glamor that’s likely to be built into that showcase down yonder in Arlington.

Politicians muck up public education

texas-education-hat

I’ve lived in Texas for more than 32 years and have gotten quite accustomed the state’s penchant for electing people to so many public offices.

The Texas Constitution was set up as a document designed to decentralize power. I get it. Honest, I do.

But one elected body doesn’t need to be an elected body. I refer to the State Board of Education.

Fifteen individuals sit on that board, representing districts carved out of the state. They’re Texas residents who have varying degrees of expertise in public education, in curriculum, in all the issues affecting students and teachers.

But the upcoming Republican Party runoff election set to occur next week in East Texas reveals one of the hazards of this system of having politicians setting public education policy.

Mary Lou Bruner is running for a seat representing District 9. Her opponent is Keven Ellis, who by all rights should win. Bruner, though, is the favorite. She’s also an individual who has made some absolutely astounding public statements that make many of us question her fitness for the job.

She says the president of the Unites States once was a male prostitute; she says dinosaurs became extinct because the baby lizards couldn’t fend for themselves once Noah’s ark made land in Turkey. There’ve been other equally weird statements.

In reality, Bruner exemplifies just part of the problem with the SBOE. The other politicians on the board keep fighting among themselves over curriculum. Some folks want public schools to emphasize texts that rely on religious faith. Others disagree with that. The board once got into a serious battle over school fund investment policy.

What’s a credible alternative to electing these individuals?

Perhaps we could have the governor appoint them, selecting people from academia and/or from business. The state is full of qualified academic champions and business titans.

Have these folks stand for confirmation by the Texas Senate. Have them serve, say, six-year terms.

The state at one time used to appoint its state education board. The Legislature, though, returned the issue to the voters, asking them to decide on a constitutional amendment returning to an elected board. Texans voted “yes” and aren’t likely to give up that right.

But the state’s political structure seems to have flown off the rails, as we’re quite possibly going to see in East Texas if SBOE District 9 voters elect Mary Lou Bruner.

She shouldn’t be in a position to be taken seriously. However, the state’s extreme rightward lurch speaks — in my view — to the need to reform the Texas State Board of Education.

 

Thanks for listening, Gov. Fallin

Oklahoma-Governor-Mary-Fallin-Vetoes-Abortion-Bill-650x488

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin likely didn’t read my earlier blog post about a bill that landed on her desk that would have made abortion illegal in her state.

Then again …

OK, I’ll take all the credit I deserve. How’s that?

Fallin vetoed Senate Bill 1552 this afternoon, calling it too ambiguous. The Republican governor remains fervently pro-life, but she’s also a realist. She knows that SB 1552 likely wouldn’t withstand a constitutional challenge.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/okla-governor-vetoes-sweeping-abortion-ban-bill/ar-BBti0bA?li=BBnb7Kz

Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in most cases, remains the law of the land. That’s the entire land, which includes Oklahoma.

There actually was a voice of reason among the Oklahoma legislators who sent SB 1552 to Fallin’s desk. It came from a Republican senator, who also happens to be a physician.

Dr. Ervin Yen was the lone GOP senator to vote against the legislation. He described it as “insane.”

I’d bet real American money that Gov. Fallin likely disagrees with the insane description. Still, she did the right thing by vetoing a bill that clearly violated established federal law.

Why not debate climate change in public schools?

books

As a believer in the view that human beings are contributing to Earth’s changing climate, it causes me some pain to say the following.

I believe the Portland Public Schools system has made a mistake in banning texts that question the causes of climate change.

Oregon’s largest public school district has issued a directive that bans texts that cast doubt on what many scientists have said: that human activity has created a global warming crisis that threatens the planet’s ecosystem.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-05-20/portland-public-schools-ban-educational-materials-denying-climate-change?src=usn_fb

I grew up in suburban Portland, Ore., so this decision strikes me close to my heart. I attended Portland schools until the seventh grade; my parents moved us to the ‘burbs in East Multnomah County in 1962.

I have long feared that human activity — deforestation and the emission of carbon gases into the atmosphere — have contributed to the changing climate. Did you see the latest report that said April was the 12th consecutive month of record temperatures worldwide?

That doesn’t mean, though, that we cannot allow our students access to those who doubt the results of such activity.

This isn’t even close to the same thing as teaching the biblical version of Earth’s creation alongside Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory. One theory is based on a faith-based belief; the other is based on science. Teach the scientific theory in public schools and teach other in church.

Climate change and its causes, though, seems to be fair game for an open discussion in our public schools.

The Portland school system has slammed the door on those who have raised legitimate concerns about the notion that Earth’s climate is changing and that humans are the primary cause of that change.

Do I accept those concerns? No. That doesn’t mean they’re coming from crackpots.

The students would do well to be exposed to competing ideas on this important global issue.

 

Get ready for big abortion fight

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin speaks during a news conference in Oklahoma City, Thursday, Oct. 8, 2015. Fallin said “it became apparent” during discussions with prison officials last week that the Department of Corrections used potassium acetate, not potassium chloride, as required under the state’s protocol, to execute Charles Frederick Warner in January. "Until we have complete confidence in the system, we will delay any further executions," Fallin said. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

In 1907, Oklahoma became the 46th of 50 states to join the United States of America, an event that subjected the residents of that state to all the “laws of the land.”

That means Oklahomans are bound to adhere to mandates handed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which interprets the constitutionality of the law.

Get set, then, for a big fight as Oklahoma tries to defend itself against challenges to a bill that makes abortion illegal in the state.

Why the fight? Because the Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that the practice of terminating a pregnancy is legal in all 50 states and that women could make that decision until the time that the unborn child is determined to be “viable.”

The Oklahoma Legislature has sent a bill to Gov. Mary Fallin’s desk that makes performing an abortion a felony, except in the case of rape or incest or if carrying the pregnancy to full term endangers the mother’s life.

The landmark Roe v. Wade decision in January 1973 didn’t spell out any exceptions. It said that women who choose to end a pregnancy have that right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the practice was declared legal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oklahoma-abortion_us_573df1b9e4b0aee7b8e94b41

The Oklahoma law is seen as being a mostly symbolic gesture, even if Fallin signs it. She has until Wednesday. Gov. Fallin, a pro-life politician, hasn’t yet said whether she’ll sign it.

The cost to state taxpayers, though, could be substantial if abortion-rights groups challenge the law and subject the state to expensive legal proceedings.

Oklahoma lawmakers have made a profound political statement. They have thumbed their noses at the highest court in America and have determined independently that they are able to flout federal law that the judicial system has reaffirmed.

Gov. Fallin should veto the bill. If she wants to make abortion illegal, she should have to wait — and hope — for the chance to change the philosophical composition of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Look for a load of unflattering photos

Donald-Trump-Bad-Hair-Photo-1

Political campaigns of all stripes employ a universal tactic when seeking to put the opposition in a negative frame of reference.

They find the most unflattering pictures of the “other guy” and plaster them on TV ads or billboards. You know what I’m talking about.

I get the feeling the presidential campaign of 2016 is going to feature a trove of negative images.

I’ll now get to the point: Donald J. Trump has taken us to a new level of disgusting references to people’s physical appearance.

He’s referred to women as “fat pigs.” He once chided former fellow Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina by asking, “Would anyone vote for that face?” Oh, and then he stood on a campaign podium and mocked a reporter who has a severe physical disability.

The Trump campaign already is looking for pictures of Hillary Rodham Clinton that it will plaster on campaign literature and/or TV ads. Rest assured, too, that the Clinton team is doing precisely the same thing as it prepares its onslaught against Trump.

I generally dislike referencing public figures’ physical appearance, but since Trump already has opened that door …

It seems quite certain to me that this individual’s rather, um, expressive face is going to provide his political foes with plenty of grist to use as they campaign against him.

donald-trump-gag-big

The world is full of such pictures of every politician who’s ever entered the public arena.

However, hold on this year for a seriously rough ride through what figures to be the meanest campaign in anyone’s memory.

The pictures are going to tell a major part of the story.

 

Senator wanted simply to say he is sorry

bobbennett_606af7bda32915fc21b748ce42baedc2.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000

The media today are reporting an extraordinary event involving a dying former U.S. senator.

Robert Bennett was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. As he lay in his hospital bed, knowing he was going to die, the former Utah Republican senator wanted to issue an apology.

To whom did he want to apologize?

He wanted to say how sorry was to any Muslim hospital staffer who was working in the facility where he was a patient. Bennett’s son, Jim, has talked today on MSNBC about how his father had asked him if there were any Muslims employed there.

Sen. Bennett — who died on May 4 — said he wanted to apologize on behalf of the Republican Party because of the hateful anti-Muslim views expressed by presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Bennett was among the first senators targeted by the TEA Party wing of the GOP. He was defeated in the 2010 Utah Republican Party primary by Mike Lee, who would go on to win election to the U.S. Senate.

It’s not that Sen. Bennett wasn’t a conservative politician. His record as a senator from one of the most conservative states in the nation is certifiably conservative. According to TEA Party activists, though, he wasn’t conservative enough.

So now the media are reporting that Bennett felt compelled to apologize to a group of fellow Americans who happen to worship as devoted Muslims.

It was an amazing deathbed gesture in response to an equally amazing — and disgraceful — public posture against people of a certain religious faith.

Time for careful analysis, not fear

trump

A jetliner has crashed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Aviation experts and some defense brass have speculated that it’s likely to be the result of a terrorist attack. However, what do we know with absolute certainty? Only that the plane crashed. That’s it.

The White House is staying mum for the moment. The FBI is sending its experts to the eastern Med to look for answers.

What, though, is the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee saying? It’s a terror attack, said Donald J. Trump. No question. “When will we become vigilant?” he asked in a tweet.

EgyptAir Flight 804 went into the sea just east of the Greek island of Crete. It was en route from Paris to Cairo. It veered sharply in one direction, then into another and plunged from 37,000 feet into the sea.

Yes, it doesn’t appear to have been a “mechanical failure.” But this is no time for rush judgments or declarations from the presidential campaign trail from candidates.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-reacts-to-egyptair-calls-it-a-terrorist-attack/

American voters need to listen up. They need to assess the quality of comments that major-party candidates for the highest office in America make as the experts try to sort through the confusion caused by such a tragic event.

Sixty-six people now are missing. They likely will be declared “presumed dead” in very short order. Reports indicate the discovery of debris from this flight, even though those reports have been disputed by Greek aviation officials.

So, how about standing down rash comments about what some of us think might have occurred until we know more — if not all — the facts?

 

 

 

It’s over, Sen. Sanders

Bernie_Sanders_by_Gage_Skidmore

Democrats and Republicans seem to operate under differing rules of political combat … in this presidential election cycle, at least.

Republicans opened the presidential primary campaign with 17 individuals seeking their party’s nomination. One of them remains. He is likely the most improbable candidate you ever could imagine.

Donald J. Trump is a man with zero public service record, a scatter-shot approach to what passes as foreign and/or domestic “policy” and a checkered personal history.

He’s the last man standing among all those Republicans.

Democrats opened their season with just five candidates. Three of them are now off the grid. Two are left: U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton’s all but got her party’s nomination in the bag. Sanders is hanging on, cheered on by those big rallies.

So, here’s what I believe should happen: Sanders needs to call it a campaign. He’s made his point — repeatedly — about income inequality and Wall Street corruption. He’s not going to be nominated president.

It’s time for him to clear the field for Clinton to run against Trump — head to head.

Democratic gurus are growing a bit restive. They see these polls that show Clinton and Trump in a close race. They fear that the longer Sanders continues his sniping at Clinton, the more damage he inflicts on her chances to become the nation’s 45th president.

My own view is that this contest shouldn’t even be close.

Trump is patently — at virtually every level one can name — unfit to become president. Yet he continues to win cheers from those who think he “tells is it like it is.” They rally to his calls against what he calls “political correctness.” The man is a buffoon … yes, a wealthy one, but a buffoon nonetheless.

Clinton is far from the perfect candidate. But she’s been examined up close and personal for more than two decades. Her career — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state — has been dissected more carefully than a laboratory frog.

She continues to fend off the challenge from the remaining other Democrat in this contest.

The primary season is over, Sen. Sanders. You lost. Hillary Clinton won.

It’s time for Sen. Sanders to “suspend” his campaign and then start writing the fiery speech he plans to give at the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating convention this summer in Philadelphia.

As for Trump … well, uh, keep doing what you’re doing.

‘Benghazi’ chairman admits what was thought all along

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reacts as she is introduced to speak at the Massachusetts Conference for Women in Boston, Thursday, Dec. 4, 2014. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

This item is making the rounds throughout social media.

To wit:

In the most outlandish version of this story, President Obama or Hillary Clinton ordered the military to “stand down” rather than come to the aid of the Americans who were under attack.

Earlier this week, a letter from two House Democrats to Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who is chairing the select committee investigating the Benghazi attack, revealed that the GOP’s own chief investigator acknowledged during the investigation that nothing “could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi.”

…In an interview on Fox News today, Gowdy responded to this newly released information by acknowledging, “Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there is any issue with respect to that — they couldn’t.”

Chairman Gowdy, thus, has acknowledged that the four brave Americans who died in the firefight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were doomed from the start.

Terrorists attacked the compound. They set it afire. They exchanged fire with security personnel. Four individuals — including Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, died.

Ever since that tragic event, congressional Republicans have sought to deliver the goods on then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They’ve accused her of lying, of covering up the events.

Her response to many of these allegations has been at times clumsy and inarticulate. There have been confusing answers regarding a video that allegedly sparked the riot at the consulate.

This entire tragedy has taken on a life of its own.

The central question, though, has been whether U.S. officials did enough to stave off the deaths of those who were killed.

Chairman Gowdy now seems to have answered that question.

They did all they could do.