Would a Secretary Perry bring wind into U.S. energy grid?

electric sparking lamp

Let’s play out a possible scenario that, the more I think about it, sounds increasingly intriguing.

It’s the idea of naming former Texas Gov. Rick “Oops” Perry as the country’s next energy secretary.

Set aside for a moment that Perry once said he wanted to get rid of the Energy Department. His recitation of the three agencies he’d dismantle produced his infamous “oops” moment during a 2012 Republican presidential debate.

Let us also set aside that Perry once called Donald J. Trump a “cancer on conservatism.” The president-elect is considering him for this key Cabinet post anyway. Hey, Perry did end up endorsing and campaigning for Trump. I guess they’ve made up.

Perry served as Texas governor for 14 years, longer than anyone in state history. On his watch, the state managed to do something quite correct with regard to energy policy. It has become — along with California, imagine that — among the leaders in wind energy generation in America.

I’m not entirely clear on what direct role Gov. Perry played in all of that. I do know, though, that during the time he served as governor, the state’s sprawling landscape has become “decorated” with wind turbines, in many instances for as far as one can see.

The Texas Panhandle is among those places where wind power has become major “alternative energy” source.

It is as clear as can be that Perry comes from a state that also produces a lot of fossil fuel. Oil and natural gas also are quite prevalent throughout Texas.

I will remain hopeful, though, that a former governor of a state that has developed such a huge — and growing — alternative energy industry might want to imbue a federal agency that he might lead with the same policy.

Drill, baby, drill isn’t the only way to rid the nation of its dependence on foreign oil. Indeed, we’ve already come a huge distance in that regard during the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency, which has promoted many forms of clean alternative energy sources to heat and cool our homes, fuel our motor vehicles and power our industrial plants.

Would an Energy Secretary Rick Perry continue that policy? Would the president who nominated him allow such a thing?

My hope springs eternal.

Rick ‘Oops’ Perry interviews for Energy post

LIVERPOOL, UNITED KINGDOM - MAY 12:  Turbines of the new Burbo Bank off shore wind farm stand in a calm sea in the mouth of the River Mersey on May 12, 2008 in Liverpool, England. The Burbo Bank Offshore Wind Farm comprises 25 wind turbines and is situated on the Burbo Flats in Liverpool Bay at the entrance to the River Mersey, approximately 6.4km (4.0 miles) from the Sefton coastline and 7.2km (4.5 miles) from North Wirral. The wind farm is capable of generating up to 90MW (megawatts) of clean, environmentally sustainable electricity. This is enough power for approximately 80,000 homes. The site is run by Danish energy company Dong Energy.  (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

The irony is almost too rich.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry is under consideration for secretary of energy in the Trump administration.

The irony falls along a pair of tracks.

First, Gov. Perry vowed during the 2012 GOP primary campaign to eliminate the agency, but he got hung up in that “Oops” moment when he couldn’t recall the third federal department he’d wipe out.

Second, and this one has become a common theme in Donald J. Trump’s search for Cabinet officials, Perry once called Trump a “cancer on conservatism” that needed to be excised. Perry was among the Gang of 16 Republicans vanquished by Trump on his way to the party nomination.

Now the former Texas governor is among those under consideration for an appointment in the “cancerous” administration to lead an agency he once said was an example of federal government waste.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2016/12/12/rick-perry-running-energy-post-meets-trump

Can the president-elect’s search for a new government team get any weirder?

Yeah … probably.

Time to admit real reason Hillary lost

aaltlfm

Harry Reid isn’t long for the U.S. Senate. He’s retiring in a few weeks from his role as Democratic leader, but he’s going out with a bang.

I believe it’s time that Reid and his fellow Democrats realize what some of us out here — yours truly included — are beginning to understand.

Hillary Rodham Clinton lost the presidential election because Donald J. Trump outhustled her in the waning days of a bitter campaign. FBI Director James Comey’s 11th-hour letter to Congress declaring he was looking into more e-mails might have had some effect on the outcome. However, I do not believe he fired the kill shot at her campaign. Reid blames Comey almost entirely for Clinton’s loss.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/reid-blames-comey-for-hillary-clintons-loss/ar-AAlsVPy?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Trump took the fight to Clinton in those so-called “swing states” and grabbed them from Clinton’s column. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan should have voted for Clinton. Voters there went the other way because she didn’t pay enough attention to them at the end of the campaign.

It’s called “retail politics,” which describes how candidates show up to shake hands, kiss babies, eat rotten “food” at fairgrounds. In other words, voters like to believe the candidate feels for them.

She didn’t do that.

As for Trump, well, he had those yuuuuge rallies that got all kinds of air time and newspaper print space.

Does any of this mean the better person won the presidency this past month? It only means the better candidate did.

I will not accept that Trump is suited temperamentally — or any other way, for that matter — for the office he is about to assume. However, I am willing to accept that he and his campaign team outsmarted their opponents down the stretch.

Trump, therefore, delivered the final shock to many of us in a campaign full of shocking moments.

No Santa Claus? Are you kidding, ‘pastor’?

To be brutally honest, I hardly ever give this guy a passing thought.

However, he has thrust himself into the news yet again. David Grisham, the Repent Amarillo “pastor” who likes calling attention to himself, has done so in splendid fashion.

He went to Westgate Mall this past Saturday, according to the Dallas Morning News, and berated children waiting to sit on Santa’s lap. Santa Claus “doesn’t exist!” he told the children and their parents.

Really, “pastor”? Not in anyone’s heart? Not in their imagination?

Oh, no. This guy wants Christmas to be strictly, solely, exclusively about celebrating Jesus Christ’s birth. Hasn’t anyone ever informed this fellow that one can do both? I’m going to presume for a moment that when he was a child he got to sit on Santa’s lap and tell the Jolly Old Man what he wanted for Christmas.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2016/12/12/santa-claus-exist-texas-pastor-heckles-children-parents-waiting-meet-santa-mall

As the Morning News article points out, Grisham has paraded himself in front of the media before. He once tried to launch a boycott against the city of Houston because voters there elected an openly gay mayor, Annise Parker; he also sought to burn a Quran, but had the copy of the Islamic holy book taken from him at the last minute at Sam Houston Park in Amarillo by a skateboarder.

No Santa Claus, eh?

xexhibits_online_yesvirginia_g4031-150x150-jpg-pagespeed-ic-qyopkfogcc

Well, now is a good time to bring back the classic essay that dispels for all time the no-Santa farce. Perhaps you’ve heard of the piece that was written by Francis Pharcellus Church. It was published on Sept. 21, 1897 in the New York Sun.

http://www.newseum.org/exhibits/online/yes-virginia/

http://www.newseum.org/exhibits/online/yes-virginia/

 

Take that, “Pastor” Grisham!

Blogger’s Note: I refuse to refer to David Grisham as a pastor without putting quote marks around the word, as in “pastor.” To my way of thinking and to my understanding of the Bible, he is nothing of the sort.

 

Yes, we need a ‘One China Policy,’ Mr. President-elect

ttd_chinataiwan_hate_thumb_oo

Donald J. “Smart Person” Trump keeps stepping in it.

The president-elect told Fox News Sunday that he doesn’t feel obligated to follow what’s known around the world as a “One China Policy.”

It’s a simple concept.

The People’s Republic of China says there is only “one China.” Taiwan, which calls itself the Republic of China on Taiwan, also says there is just a single China.

Neither country recognizes the other diplomatically. Taipei has no PRC embassy, Beijing has no Taiwanese embassy. Almost the entire rest of the world recognizes the PRC as the sole China. The United States of America has recognized the PRC since 1979, at which time it ended relations with Taiwan.

Now we have the president-elect of the  United States saying he isn’t bound to follow a One China Policy. Trump told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday: “I don’t know why we have to be bound by a One China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things,” he said. This is ridiculous on its face.

The communists who now govern the PRC took the country by brute force in a civil war that erupted after World War II. The nationalist Kuomintang party, which governed China under the rule of Chiang Kai-shek, fled to Taiwan in 1949 and set up a government in exile.

China declared Taiwan to be a “renegade province” and vowed to take it back, by force if necessary. The world for decades didn’t recognize the PRC as the legitimate Chinese government; it gave that recognition to Taiwan.

President Nixon changed all of that by going to China in 1972, shaking hands with Mao Tse-Tung and giving birth to a new bilateral relationship. President Carter sealed the deal in 1979 by offering diplomatic status to the PRC.

“Smart Person” Trump, though, decided to roil the waters by speaking over the phone with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, who had called to congratulate him for being elected president. The PRC is damn angry! They have expressed “serious concern” over that breach of protocol.

Meanwhile, some Republican hardliners at home are cheering the president-elect for this outreach.

There is a crystal-clear reason why Taiwan doesn’t just declare its independence from the PRC and, thus, set up a de facto second China. Some officials expressed it to me during my first visit in 1989 to the island nation. “We take these threats” of military retaliation by the PRC if Taiwan declares its independence “very seriously,” they said.

And they should. The PRC possesses a gigantic military apparatus — in addition to its enormous economic impact around the world.

Taiwan functions as an independent nation. It has trade relations with many countries around the world. The United States is sworn to defend Taiwan in the event of an attack by the PRC. It does not belong, though, to the United Nations or to the World Health Organization. It has been shut out of virtually all worldwide cooperative agreements.

If there ever is to be anything other than a One China Policy enacted, that has to come from Beijing and Taipei. Those two nations have to reach an agreement of some sort that recognizes that Taiwan never will be assimilated back into the mainland.

Will that happen? Taiwanese officials believe to this day that their future remains on the mainland. They are intent on waiting for the communist system to fail in Beijing, just as it failed in Moscow. That might be a pipe dream, but it is their dream.

The president of the United States needs to butt out.

A smart person knows at least that much.

Waiting to hear what Russians actually did

trump

I don’t understand a lot of things.

One of them involves the Russian effort to “influence” the 2016 presidential election, allegedly to grease it for Donald J. Trump to become the next president.

We’re hearing a whole lot of chatter about the CIA’s findings that apparently conclude that Russia did use cyber tactics to meddle in the U.S. electoral process.

But …

What did the Russians do? What precisely did they do, using their computer systems to hack into relevant computer platforms in the United States to tilt the election in Trump’s favor? How does this sort of hacking actually work?

http://time.com/4597416/transcript-donald-trump-fox-interview/?xid=homepage

We keep hearing about “classified information” that’s been shared with pertinent members of Congress. One of them, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said this morning he couldn’t divulge what he knows. All he would say was that the CIA has made a determination that the Russians did something to seek to influence the election outcome.

A lot of Americans are interested to know what the Russians — or whoever — did. It is my sincere hope that we can learn at least a snippet of what the CIA says it knows.

The danger, of course, is whether releasing too much information to the public could jeopardize our own country’s ability to retaliate against the meddling nation or to protect us from future cyber-crime attempts. I get all that.

The media, though, keep nibbling around the edges of what the Russians supposedly sought to do.

As a consumer of this information, I am awaiting some explanation of what precisely was done, by whom — and to what end.

Who decides Trump ‘needs’ briefing?

aalqppl

Donald J. Trump says he doesn’t need to be briefed daily on national security issues because “like, I’m a smart person.”

The president-elect also says he gets the briefings when “I need it.”

My question is this: Who determines whether Trump “needs” the briefing, the president-elect or the national security team assigned to provide the intelligence information to him?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-says-no-to-daily-redundant-intel-briefings-because-hes-a-smart-person/ar-AAlqP05?li=BBnb7Kz

What appears to be emerging here is an enormous responsibility for Mike Pence, the vice president-elect who happens to have actual government experience as governor of Indiana and before that as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Pence gets the briefings far more frequently than Trump, according to the president-elect. This suggests to me that Pence is preparing to the Trump administrations’ go-to guy on issues relating to national security.

Fighting the Islamic State? Dealing with geopolitical threats in Europe, Asia and Latin America?

Let Mike deal with it. The president is too busy making America great again.

And I bet you thought no vice president could wield the clout that Dick Cheney did during the George W. Bush administration.

Bipartisanship emerges … in opposition to Trump picks

aalr3ki

What do you know about that?

Donald J. Trump might be learning that he doesn’t have as many friends on Capitol Hill as he thought he did.

It appears that some of the president-elect’s Cabinet picks aren’t going down well … with some Republican lawmakers. Never mind the Democrats. You know they’ll detest almost any pick the GOP president-elect is going to make.

I was struck this morning when I heard Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky declare himself to be almost an automatic “no” vote against probable secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson. Why the intense opposition? That would be the selection of John Bolton to be Tillerson’s deputy secretary, according to Paul. Bolton believes in “regime change” and has all but advocated going to war with Iran, both views that Paul opposes strongly.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-opposition-to-potential-trump-cabinet-nominees-grows/ar-AAlqKVs?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Others among Trump’s Republican base of support are bristling at some of the picks. Steve Mnuchin, Trump’s pick to be treasury secretary, represents the “status quo,” according to Erick Erickson, the longtime TEA party activist. Labor Department nominee Andrew Puzder is said to be in favor of “open borders.”

Now we have Tillerson at State. U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, said he has “concerns” about Tillerson’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Tillerson is CEO of ExxonMobil, which is exploring for oil throughout Russia; Tillerson has brokered numerous business deals involving Russian government officials, including Putin.

Where do we go from here?

Trump will need a lot of friends on Capitol Hill to rally to his side as he sends his Cabinet picks to the Senate for confirmation.

Here’s the deal, though: He ran against many of them within his own Republican Party on his highly improbable victorious campaign for the presidency.

Good luck, Mr. President-elect.

Former UT football coach lands in good place

636130745704003397-usatsi-9533430

Charley Strong didn’t coach his team to enough football wins to suit the boosters, the athletic director and the fans who follow the University of Texas Longhorns.

UT fired the coach, sent him packing. Then the coach landed another gig, at the University of South Florida, where he succeeds Willie Taggart, who has headed off to coach the University of Oregon.

Despite the dismal win-loss record, Strong left the University of Texas football program better off. Why? Because of what he did in his first season in Austin. He cut loose a bunch of bad boys on the team, student-athletes who weren’t acquitting themselves properly off the field. He tossed them over, telling them, in effect, that they needed to live by certain standards to play for his team.

When it happened, I recall some of the players were stars on the team, gridiron studs, big men on campus. Coach Strong believes that character matters.

The loss of that athletic talent might have hurt the Longhorns’ football performance. It helped the team understand what their coach stood for: integrity.

I am not a UT grad. I didn’t attend school there. Neither of my sons attended UT; one of them graduated from Sam Houston State University, the other from the Art Institute of Dallas. I don’t have any particular vested loyalty in the program.

I do have an interest in seeing young men develop the right way when they are given a chance for a fully paid college education. Athletic scholarships aren’t just tickets to sports stardom. They also give these young people a chance to obtain a good education — paid for by their athletic skill — that will shepherd them through the rest of their life.

Coach Strong, by my way of thinking, sought to imbue that ethic in young men who play big-time college football.

He didn’t win enough football games. Big deal. I’m betting he likely produced a sufficient number of winners who played football for him — and will do so again at his next stop.

Thanks, Coach, for setting a great example.

Liberals should heed advice from one of their own

diversity1

Nicholas Kristof makes no apologies for being a liberal thinker.

Nor should he. The New York Times columnist, though, offers a serious word of caution to his fellow liberals and progressives: If you mean what you say about demanding diversity in all aspects of contemporary life, then do not shut out those ideas with which you disagree.

Kristof’s essay in the Sunday New York Times echoes a recurring theme on which he has written before.

He chides universities and colleges for becoming echo chambers, for demonstrating unwillingness to hear thoughts expressed by those on the right, even the far right.

He says this about his fellow liberals: “We champion tolerance, except for conservatives and evangelical Christians. We want to be inclusive of people who don’t look like us — so long as they think like us.”

Ouch, man!

He’s correct. We see this played out on occasion when universities invite noted conservatives to speak on their campuses. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been victimized by outrage expressed by liberal faculty members and student body officers; so has Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration.

Even here in the Texas Panhandle, when one-time Bush presidential strategist Karl Rove was invited a few years ago to deliver a speech at a West Texas A&M University graduation event, you’d have thought WT had invited the spawn of Satan himself, based on some of the reaction.

Kristof has delivered a sound message for all his fellow liberals to heed. If you truly want diversity of thought and opinion, then open your own eyes, ears … and minds.

As Kristof writes: “It’s ineffably sad that today ‘that’s academic’ often means ‘that’s irrelevant.’ One step to correcting that is for us liberals to embrace the diversity we supposedly champion.”

Amen, brother.