Oops! Perry now leads Energy Department

Rick “Oops” Perry is the new secretary of energy.

The former Texas governor is now in charge of formulating U.S. energy policy and is in charge of managing the nation’s still-massive nuclear arsenal.

He also is another one of Donald J. Trump’s Cabinet appointments who — if you ponder it — is patently unqualified for this job.

He once wanted to get rid of the Energy Department. Do you remember that? He stood on that 2012 Republican Party presidential primary debate stage and said he intended to get rid of three federal agencies if he was elected president.

Except he couldn’t remember the Energy Department, prompting the infamous “oops” response from the governor.

I think I have figured out why the president picked him for this post: His brain freeze amnesia excuses him and gives him license to run the agency he wanted to abolish.

Let us not forget also that the new secretary of energy once said of the president that he is a “cancer on conservatism” that needed to be excised.

Gov. Perry must have been kidding.

Journalists enter increasingly hostile environment

Those of who toiled as journalists — whether print or broadcast — have been forced to cope with the perception that the public hasn’t thought too much of us and the work we do.

There was a longstanding joke in the old days that reporters and used-car sales reps battled it out for the bottom spot on the public opinion totem pole.

These days, we now have the president of the United States tossing dung on top of reporters, calling them the “enemy of the people,” accusing them of outright dishonesty, suggesting they conspire to make up “fake news” and peddle it as the real thing.

Man, it’s even tougher these days to do the job I did for nearly 37 years.

I recently made the acquaintance of two young reporters for the Amarillo Globe-News, my final stop along my lengthy journalism journey — which ended on Aug. 31, 2012. They are both earnest and eager young reporters. I don’t know this as fact, but my sense is that the AGN is their first job out of college.

It’s a different type of profession now than it was when I got pointed in that direction way back when, before The Flood, or so it seems.

I never considered myself to be anyone’s “enemy.” My desire was to make a difference in the world and to chronicle events in my community and report them to the public. I spent most of my career in opinion journalism, but many of the principles that apply to reporting — such as fairness and accuracy — surely applied.

That was in the early 1970s. I had just finished a two-year hitch in the U.S. Army. I came home in the late summer of 1970, settled in with Mom and Dad and prepared to re-enroll in college the following January.

One evening, at dinner with my parents, Dad asked me if I had considered what my college major should be. I said I hadn’t thought it through. He asked, “Have you considered journalism?” I asked him, “Why that?”

He complimented me on the letters I wrote from Virginia and Vietnam, where I had served during my time in the Army. He called them “descriptive” and said he would share them with family members and friends. He thought journalism would be a good fit, enabling me to put my writing ability to good use.

“Sure thing, Dad,” I said. “I’ll consider that.” I did. I enrolled. I signed up for some mass communications classes. The bug bit me in the rear and, by golly, I was hooked. Of course, I learned right away that journalism isn’t just about whether one can write clearly; one needs to be able to learn how to gather information and determine its importance to the public.

I wonder today how many parents are having that kind of discussion with their college-bound children. I wonder if moms and dads are telling their kids to pursue this craft. Or have they bought into the tripe being peddled by the president that to be a reporter is to declare war on “the people,” to be their “enemy.”

For that matter, did those two young reporters I met recently whether they got that kind of pep talk from Mom or Dad at the dinner table.

The craft is changing rapidly. Newspapers are emphasizing their “digital content.” They are becoming — to borrow a distasteful term — “click whores” that are more interested in how many people click on their websites than in the number of people purchasing a newspaper.

I do wish all young reporters the very best as they seek to make their own way in this changing — and increasingly hostile — climate.

$20 million in the bank to build wall … where’s rest of it?

Donald J. Trump vows to build a “great, great wall” across our southern border.

It’s going to cost as much as $20 billion — give or take a few billion bucks. How much money does the president have on hand to start the job?

Department of Homeland Security officials say they’ve got about $20 million on hand, in the bank, to start the job.

The gap between 20 billion and 20 million dollars is, um, really yuuuge, man!

Where’s the rest of it going to come from? Trump says Mexico will pay for it. The Mexican government says no … it won’t pay. Can the head of one sovereign government force the head of another one to do something he doesn’t want to do?

I guess we could go to war with ’em, right?

That won’t happen. Quite obviously.

According to Reuters: “Trump has said he will ask Congress to pay for what existing funds cannot cover and that Mexico will be pressured to pay back U.S. taxpayers at a later date.

“Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan has said he will include funding for a border wall in the budget for next fiscal year. He has estimated the cost to be between $12 billion and $15 billion.”

The Ryan estimate falls short of what Homeland Security officials have said; they place the cost at more than $21 billion.

This wall-building stuff is making my head spin.

Trump continues to court the support of fiscal conservatives. But he wants to spend $54 billion additional on defense spending, while cutting other programs to pay for boosting the Pentagon budget; he wants to spend $1 trillion on a road and bridge rebuilding program.

Oh, and he wants to cut taxes, too!

What does that do to the national debt? The annual budget deficit?

Does the president pile more debt on us while blowing the budget apart? Hey, I think he said the Obama administration’s “disastrous” fiscal policy was something he intended to fix.

Construction of this proposed wall, so help me, is going to cause many more headaches than it is intended to cure.

Someone’s actually listening in Trump administration

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions did the right thing today: He has recused himself from any investigations involving the president of the United States and the Russian government.

As the late, great New York Yankees broadcaster Mel Allen would say: How ’bout that!

Sessions has come under withering attack over whether the Justice Department should be involved in these probes about whether the president and the Russian government had any improper or illegal contact during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The AG clearly was not the right man to lead such a probe. He’s a friend and close political ally of Donald J. Trump; he served on the president’s national security team during the campaign; he nominated him at the GOP convention this past summer.

No one could — or should — trust this AG to perform the kind of investigation that these questions about Trump require. He has backed out, to which I say: Good for you, Mr. Attorney General.

“I have recused myself in the matters that deal with the Trump campaign,” Sessions said at a hastily called press conference today.

Please note that he said he has “recused myself.” Is that good enough? I hope it is. I hope his recusal means that he won’t have any communication — not even in private — with the career prosecutors who might be working on this case … for the time being.

A better solution to this conflict of interest issue would be for the Justice Department to hand this matter over to an independent counsel, someone with zero ties to the administration. Congressional Democrats want that to happen; so, too, do a number of key congressional Republicans, which gives this notion some staying power.

It cannot be disputed with any degree of seriousness that the Russians sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. Trump has sought to disparage and discredit our intelligence community by saying it is wrong to draw that conclusion. His reaction has been disgraceful and disrespectful in the extreme.

The Kremlin denies any such wrongdoing. Show of hands: Who believes anything that comes out of the Kremlin? Me, neither.

The question many of us have is whether the Trump campaign team communicated with Russians before Trump took power, seeking to apply some leverage in lessening the sanctions that the Obama administration had placed on Russia over its interference with our electoral process.

I believe in my heart that such action could be defined as, let’s see, treasonous. We need to know what the top man — that would be Donald Trump — knew, when he knew it and whether he was a party to any of it.

‘W’ trying, perhaps, to be too cute with his critiques

George W. Bush is saying he doesn’t want to “criticize” his successors as president of the United States.

Then he says things that sound oh, so critical of them.

Which is it, Mr. President? Are you going to weigh in fully or are you going to keep one foot off the scales?

Speaking at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, the ex-president warned against “isolationist tendencies,” an apparent reference to some of the statements made by Donald J. Trump and his administration.

It would behoove Bush to steer clear of references to the Iraq War, which in my view, didn’t turn out quite the way he and his team envisioned it and sold it to the United Nations and to the American public. We weren’t greeted as “liberators”; the fight to secure Baghdad was far tougher than advertised; and, oh yes, we never did find those weapons of mass destruction that the Bush team said were in the late Saddam Hussein’s possession.

As USA Today reported, “Bush said that there is a lesson ‘when the United States decides not to take the lead and withdraw,’ an apparent critique of former President Barack Obama.

“’Vacuums can be created when U.S. presence recedes and that vacuum is generally filed with people who don’t share the ideology, the same sense of human rights and human dignity and freedom that we do,’ he added.”

The former president should lose the pretense of “not wanting to be critical” of his successors. That would be too bad if he did decide to weigh in fully. I kind of admired his declaration that he didn’t want to undermine his immediate successor, President Obama, as he sought to craft his own foreign and domestic agenda. Neither did his father, George H.W. Bush, when he turned the presidency over to the man who defeated his re-election effort, Bill Clinton.

If Bush 43 is going to speak critically of current policy, then he just ought to say so and cease trying to sugarcoat it with “I don’t intend to criticize anyone” statements.

Actually, Mr. President, I get what you are trying to say.

Dr. Carson approved for HUD post; more OJT for key Trumpster

OK, let’s review for a moment the nature of some of Donald J. Trump’s key Cabinet appointments.

Betsy DeVos, who has zero exposure to public education is now head of the U.S. Department of (Public) Education. She didn’t attend public schools, her children didn’t attend them, she favors vouchers that would spend public money to allow parents to send their kids to private schools.

Scott Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general who has sued the Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly, is now head of the EPA. He wants to dismantle the rules and regulations designed to, oh, allow for a clean environment.

Ben Carson, whose spokesman once said is not qualified to run a federal agency, today has been confirmed to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Carson is a renowned retired neurosurgeon and is a former Republican primary opponent of the president of the United States.

Rex Tillerson, the former head of ExxonMobil, has not a lick of experience in international diplomacy. But there he is, serving as secretary of state.

These folks all have something in common with the person who picked them for their high-profile government jobs. The president doesn’t any experience, either, in the job to which he was elected.

Trump is holding the first public office he ever sought. He has zero public service experience. He has focused his entire adult life on one thing: personal enrichment. He doesn’t know how the government works. He doesn’t seem to grasp the complexities of governance and legislating.

Hey, that’s OK in the minds of millions of Americans who voted for him. He told it “like it is” during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Can all of these individuals learn how to do their jobs? I damn sure hope so … for the sake of the nation they are leading.

Thanks for reminding me, Fox Sports

Joel Embiid was supposed to be the next big thing to take Philadelphia by storm.

The 76ers drafted him high in the draft. Then he appears to be breaking down. He’s out for the rest of the 2016-17 season with a meniscus injury that appears to be worse than the doctors first feared.

Then Fox Sports, in a report posted online, took note of the following. “Now, the soon-to-be 23-year-old is staring into the abyss — as the ghosts of Greg Oden, Yao Ming, Sam Bowie, Bill Walton and the like stare right back.”

More than a few of us out here took particular note of three of the four men mentioned: Greg Oden, Sam Bowie and Bill Walton.

What do these young men have in common?

They all were first-round picks of the Portland Trail Blazers, my hometown NBA team.

Ugghh!

Oden and Bowie never made the grade in the pros. They broke down. I guess I should fess up that the Blazers picked Bowie over another up-and-comer, a young man out of North Carolina named Michael “Air” Jordan.

Walton was injury-prone from the start, although he did put together two great seasons for the Blazers, leading them to the NBA title in 1977 and winning the league’s most valuable player award the following season; he then suffered yet another serious injury — and sued the Blazers for medical malpractice.

Oh, the memories. Some of them I’d rather forget.

Didn’t they impeach a president for doing this?

President Bill Clinton took an oath to obey all the laws of the land. He then became entangled in an investigation that turned up an inappropriate relationship with a White House intern. He was summoned to testify to a federal grand jury about that relationship, he swore to tell the truth and then, um, fibbed about it.

House Republicans were so outraged they impeached him for it, put him on trial in the Senate, where he eventually was acquitted.

All of that over a sex scandal. Sheesh!

Now a sitting U.S. attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has allegedly been caught in a much more serious lie of his own.

He took an oath to tell the truth to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings. He told senators he never had any conversations with Russian government officials during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Now comes reporting from “enemy of the people” media outlets that, yep, the AG did talk to the Russians.

Should he stay or should he go? Congressional Democrats want Sessions to quit. I won’t go that far just yet.

I do, though, believe the questions surrounding Sessions’s relationship with Donald J. Trump — they’re close friends and even closer political allies — disqualifies him from the get-go from pursuing any kind of unbiased, impartial and thorough investigation into the president’s relationship with Russia.

Some top Democrats want him out. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. What’s interesting to me and others is that a number of key Republicans have joined their Democratic “friends” in seeking Sessions’s recusal from any potential investigation.

The president, quite naturally, is going to label the reporting of Sessions’s contacts with the Russians as “fake news.” He’ll debunk reporters for the Washington Post and New York Times — who have been leading the media probe — as “dishonest” purveyors of fiction.

As one who once toiled the craft of journalism, although surely not at this level, I take great personal offense to Trump’s penchant for counterattack. Rather than reacting seriously and with measured calm, the nation’s head of state goes off on these rants about the media’s so-called status at the people’s “enemy.”

The attorney general has no business investigating whether the president had any kind of improper relationship with Russian government officials prior to his taking office. Whether he should remain on the job, well, that will have to be determined quickly.

I know that the law is designed to presume someone’s innocence. The world of politics, though, is a different animal altogether. In that world, the presumption often infers guilt and the accused must prove his or her innocence.

It might not always be fair. It’s just the way it is.

City Council candidates? Recycling … make it a priority

I have some wishes for the Amarillo City Council candidates to ponder as they campaign across the city in search of votes … and I likely will reveal some of them in this blog during the course of the campaign.

Here’s one that I think needs City Hall’s attention: recycling.

The idea of reusing our products seems to be on no one’s radar. Plastic jugs, bottles and cans, newsprint? Pfftt! Just toss it into the trash can, let the big ol’ trucks pick ’em and haul it all of to the dump.

The city used to place Dumpsters at locations around town. You could toss newsprint — such as old newspapers — into them. The Dumpsters lasted some time, then the city yanked them away. Why? Too many residents were just tossing run-of-the-mill garbage into these recycling bins. It created a headache for solid waste disposal crews, so the city said “to hell with it” and surrendered. It gave up.

I haven’t heard much debate of any kind about the City Council campaign, at least not yet. I hope to hear from some of the candidates for council member and for mayor to discuss the issue of recycling.

I would love to hear how the city could institute a curbside recycling program for residents. This discussion just doesn’t resonate with anyone, it seems.

My wife and I came here from Beaumont, a city of about 120,000 residents near the Gulf Coast. Beaumont isn’t known as an environmentally conscious community. Yet for years it ran a curbside recycling program where residents could fill bins with plastic products, glassware and newsprint; we would put the bins along the street in front of our homes and recyclers would pick them to, um, recycle them.

My understanding is that the program lost some of its steam after we left.

All five City Council seats are up for election on May 6. Is there any notion out there among one or more of the candidates about whether there’s any possibility of establishing a recycling mindset in our fair city?

Tech pulls plug on vet school in Amarillo

I was disappointed to hear the other day that the Texas Tech University Board of Regents has decided against seeking money to create a school of veterinary medicine in Amarillo.

The money would have come from the Texas Legislature, which I am quite certain has gotten its share of pressure from Texas A&M University to spend the money on, um, other priorities.

Tech had floated the notion of creating a veterinary school in Amarillo as a way to create a pool of medical professionals who would serve the cattle and horse industries that are so prevalent in this part of the world.

Tech, though, got some immediate push back from A&M, which has a first-rate veterinary medicine program already — but none in Amarillo or elsewhere in the Texas Panhandle.

The systems happen to be run by two men with extensive legislative experience, I hasten to add. Tech’s chancellor is former state Sen. Bob Duncan, the Lubbock Republican who gave up his Senate seat to take the chancellorship at his alma mater; the A&M chancellor happens to be John Sharp, a former Democratic state senator from Victoria who’s also held elected posts as a Texas railroad commissioner and comptroller of public accounts.

I don’t know what kind of relationship these men have, but they no doubt now are rivals for a depleted source of revenue that would pay for the establishment of a veterinary medicine school.

Let’s also acknowledge the presence of a third state senator with something to say about this notion. That would be Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, who happens to chair the Senate’s Higher Education Committee. Didn’t the chairman see a need to fight for Tech’s veterinary school — which would serve his sprawling West Texas Senate district?

I believe a Texas Tech veterinary school would be good for the state, good for Amarillo and the region and good for the university system. A&M officials seemed intent on torpedoing the idea from the get-go, suggesting that there is insufficient demand for a veterinary medicine school to justify an Amarillo campus run by a competing university system.

So, Texas Tech’s regents say they won’t seek money this legislative session to finance development of a veterinary school in Amarillo. They have other pressing needs … they said.

Fine. I just don’t want this idea to get buried under a pile of manure.