Monthly Archives: December 2017

local news, State news

Die, Bathroom Bill, just die

I am going to make a not-very-aggressive prediction.

It is that Texas House Speaker Joe Straus is going to bow out of politics at the end of 2018. He likely will ignore my plea that he reconsider his decision to not seek re-election from his San Antonio House district next year.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2017/12/speaker-straus-would-you-reconsider-quitting-the-house/

There. That all said, my hope now is that the next speaker of the House of Representatives will follow Straus’s lead and do whatever he or she can to derail that crazy Bathroom Bill that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and most of the Texas Senate wanted to enact into law this year.

The Bathroom Bill was the brainchild — if you want to call it that — of archconservative legislators who had this goofy notion that it would be OK to discriminate against transgender people. They sought to craft a bill that required individuals to use public restrooms in accordance with the gender designated on their birth certificate.

That means a man who becomes a woman must use the men’s room; same for women who become men.

They came up with this cockamamie idea that transgendered people would seek to assault people sexually in those restrooms.

The good news came from police chiefs and business executives across the state. They all came out in opposition to the Bathroom Bill. The speaker of the House, Straus, heard their concerns and said “No can do” when the Bathroom Bill made its way to the other end of the State Capitol from the Senate.

Straus was having none of it. The bill died in the regular session and then didn’t survive the special legislative session that Gov. Greg Abbott called.

Where do we stand now?

I’ll also presume that Lt. Gov. Patrick will be re-elected in 2018. He’ll then bring his nutty notion back to the Senate when the 2019 Legislature convenes. The House will be led by someone other than Speaker Straus. It well might be state Rep. Four Price, the Amarillo Republican who told me he was a big supporter of Straus and his agenda. Dare I presume, thus, that he, too, might block a future Bathroom Bill from becoming law? One can hope.

If it is someone else, then one can hope that whoever ascends to the speaker’s chair would do the same thing.

At least that’s my hope for the next legislative session: Kill the Bathroom Bill dead, man.

media news

Happy Trails, Part 64

A friend of mine writes that he is fearful of watching the film “The Post.” He doesn’t want to sob out loud over what he describes as the demise of a noble craft and the state of play in the nation today.

“The Post” tells the story of the Washington Post’s decision to publish the Pentagon Papers, which documented the deceit and deception that guided U.S. policy in fighting the Vietnam War. It stars Meryl Streep as Post publisher Katherine Graham and Tom Hanks as the paper’s editor, Ben Bradlee.

I admire my friend greatly and he knows of my great personal affection and professional respect for him.

I want to differ just a bit with his analysis of the film and what it might to do to his state of mind. I want to see the film, because I want to remember the excitement I felt reporting on communities where I lived and worked; I want to remember how much satisfaction I received while chronicling the communities’ progress.

Yes, there were times when I was working as a reporter and later, as an editor, when I sweated telling the tough stories about officials’ conduct. I never felt comfortable doing it, but I usually found a way to suck it up, take a deep breath and plod ahead in pursuit of the mission.

One story stands out. It involved a young businessman in Amarillo who, shortly after leaving the City Commission, secured a grant from the city’s Economic Development Corporation, which offered taxpayer funds for start-up businesses. We perceived that the former city commissioner might have used his influence improperly to secure the grant. We decided to call him on it with an editorial that called for a change in the way the EDC vetted those grant applications.

I told the ex-commissioner that we would comment on the grant and that he might not like what we had to say. “When am I going to become just a private citizen?” he asked with more than a touch of anger in his voice. I responded, “When you stop taking public money.”

Oh, and the EDC did rework its grant application and approval process. Mission accomplished!

Yes, the media have taken a vastly different turn since those days. Newspapers, as many old-school journalists knew them, are fading faster than yesterday’s news.

However, I wouldn’t surrender a single day for the career I chose to pursue after I returned home in 1970 from my stint in the U.S. Army. It was a hell of a great ride. It was full of adventure, a bit of chaos. It exposed me to the most interesting people imaginable. It allowed me to travel to exotic places. I made many lasting friendships and I learned from many mentors along the way.

Will watching “The Post” sadden me? Not for an instant. It will make me proud to have been a small part of a grand craft.

religious news

Guns in church: strange scenario

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says it’s OK for licensed gun owners can carry their weapons into church.

Is it me or does that seem like the strangest of juxtapositions: guns and houses of worship?

Paxton issued his ruling in the wake of the Sutherland Springs church massacre that left 26 people dead in the worst mass murder in modern Texas history.

I don’t know about you but I am uncomfortable with the idea of guns anywhere near a church sanctuary.

Churches have option to say ‘no’

Paxton says churches, of course, have the option of banning guns on their property. I am going to check with the church my wife, son and I attend to see if it allows firearms into its sanctuary. I am going to pray to Almighty God in heaven that it does not.

Texas legislators loosened prohibitions on concealed-carry laws by allowing guns in churches. I am not as opposed to concealed carry legislation as I used to be. I feared shootouts would occur as road rage erupted into gun violence. Silly me. That hasn’t happened.

I just have this aversion to guns in holy places where people worship in the name of the Prince of Peace.

I’ve touched on this before. Here is an earlier post:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/01/god-wouldnt-allow-guns-in-church/

entertainment news

An R-rated Christmas movie? Really?

I just witnessed a TV trailer for a film the announcer called a “Christmas comedy.”

It’s titled “Father Figures.” Then I was jolted a bit when I saw the text on the TV screen that told me the film is R-rated. That’s one step removed from NC-17, which used to be called “X-rated.”

I asked my wife, “Isn’t it a bit ironic for a Christmas movie to be rated R?” She believes as I do. Yes. It is ironic, indeed.

It’s also a bit weird.

I remember watching “The King’s Speech,” the Oscar-winning film that depicted Britain’s King George VI — portrayed by Colin Firth — struggling to cope with a debilitating stutter. That film was R-rated, too. As I watched the film, I kept wondering, why is this film R-rated?

Then came this scene in which the king started blurting out a stream-of-conscience rapid-fire barrage of “F-bombs” as he sought to cure himself of the stammer. Right there. That’s it. That scene turned “The King’s Speech” into an R-rated masterpiece. It was hilarious to boot!

How, though, do filmmakers turn a Christmas movie into an R-rated piece of art? Yeah, yeah, I’ve seen “Die Hard,” which some folks consider a Christmas movie as well. NYPD Officer John McClane blurts out an F-bomb or two in that one, too. I don’t know that promos called it a “Christmas movie” at the time of its release.

This one, “Father Figures,” puzzles me. I don’t know how a “Christmas movie” — released during this holy holiday — can carry an R rating. Someone help me understand.

local news, political news, State news

Texas Senate 31 race might portend national GOP fight

Incumbents don’t often get challenges from within their own party.

But with Republicans fighting with each other in virtually every state in the Union, we’re seeing an intraparty battle royale shaping up — even in Texas, where Republicans are so firmly entrenched in power that Democrats have difficulty getting any media attention.

Let’s look briefly at Texas Senate District 31.

The sprawling West Texas district — which stretches from the Permian Basin to the Oklahoma border — has been represented ably by former Amarillo Mayor Kel Seliger. He was elected to the seat in 2004 after President Bush appointed the late Sen. Teel Bivins to be ambassador to Sweden.

To my mind, Seliger has acquainted himself quite thoroughly with the needs of the entire district. He speaks Permian Basin-ese to his constituents down south, just as he speaks our language when he comes back to Amarillo and points north.

But he’s not “conservative enough” to suit some Republicans. Two GOP challengers have lined up against him. One is former Midland Mayor Mike Canon; the other is Amarillo businessman Victor Leal. Canon ran unsuccessfully against Seliger four years ago. He’s a TEA Party favorite who does well speaking in TEA Party talking points and slogans. I’m not yet sure how Leal is going to frame his campaign, other than he’s going to say he favors low taxes, family values and accountability.

As if Seliger or any other Texas politician doesn’t endorse those things?

Seliger has inserted himself into an odd place. He’s no fan or friend of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. He declined to join his other Senate Republicans in endorsing Patrick’s re-election bid, which I guess factored into Leal’s decision to run against Seliger.

The question of the moment deals with whether Seliger is being “primaried” by GOP rebels. He’s been in the Texas Senate for more than a decade. He has achieved leadership roles in the Senate, serving as chairman of the Higher Education Committee and as a key member of the Education Committee.

I can’t shake the feeling that this internecine GOP “warfare” has found its way to West Texas.

I’ve already staked out my preference on this blog: I want Seliger to be re-elected. Getting through the GOP primary all but assures it. If he has been targeted by those who seek change just for change’s sake, he’d better be ready for a major fight.

education news

Boys Ranch faces possible building-name quandary

Lamont Waldrip’s name is now identified with a new dormitory at Boys Ranch.

The long-time superintendent of Boys Ranch, though, has been named by some men as one of culprits in a long-hidden matter involving abuse of boys who were living at the ranch.

According to an article in The Guardian, a British-based publication, a wealthy donor gave $1 million to Boys Ranch with the stipulation that it name the building after Waldrip.

I believe it would be wise of the Boys Ranch governing board to think long and hard about whether the late superintendent — who died in 2013 — should be memorialized.

The current president and CEO of Boys Ranch, Dan Adams, says that other boys had different experiences with Waldrip and that they “liked and admired him.” That might be true. I am in no position to dispute or affirm what Adams has said.

Here, though, is the problem. Adams has apologized publicly for what happened to the men when they were boys. He, in effect, has acknowledged the veracity of their contentions.

Do the folks at Boys Ranch really want to honor the memory of someone whose name has been tarred in this fashion?

Read the Guardian articleĀ here.

I’ve already stipulated that the reports of abuse shouldn’t detract from the good work that has been done at Boys Ranch since its founding in 1939. Indeed, Adams has provided seemingly ironclad assurances that none of what has been alleged is going on there.

However, the institution — and one of its long-standing pillars — have been stained, perhaps indelibly, by what has been reported.

Lamont Waldrip’s name shouldn’t be engraved on a permanent structure at Boys Ranch.

 

local news

Needing to hide frustration with Internet lingo

I need to learn to disguise my frustration with Internet jargon, lingo, terms of art.

Today was a bit of a shopping day for me. I ventured to a couple of locations in Amarillo to find a gift for my much better half. One of them was Barnes & Noble, the famous bookseller.

I asked about a particular book. The young man looked it up online. “I’m sorry to tell you we’re sold out,” he said. “But I can order it for you.” I asked if it would get here by Christmas. “Oh, no.”

Then I mentioned that she has this Internet tablet. He asked if it was equipped with a “Nook” or some other kind of hookup.

That’s when I let it slip. I answered in a voice that dripped with exasperation: “I … don’t … know.”

My answer, or more to the point the tone of my voice, drew out-loud laughter from the six other customers who were gathered around the Customer Service kiosk.

A young man standing next to me said he understood my exasperation. A lady pointed to a man standing next to her who I presume is her husband and said “That sounds like someone I know pretty well.” The fellow about whom I think she was referring laughed … again!

This new Information Age has created a language that many of us don’t yet understand. I’m getting a bit more conversant in some of it. I am able to talk to the company that “hosts” my blog domain and am able to ask fairly intelligent questions. Two years ago I would have had the tech on the other end of the phone pulling his or her hair out by the roots.

My sons and my daughter-in-law know how to speak this language. I am guessing that very soon my 4-year-old granddaughter will be fluent in Internet-speak; indeed, her brothers already have learned the language.

Me? I’m going to work first on masking my ignorance.

national news, political news

Federal government is broken

Take a look at this picture. It shows the president of the United States declaring victory in the effort to enact a significant tax cut.

The men and women behind him? They’re all Republican lawmakers. You won’t see a Democrat in the bunch. Congressional Democrats opposed the tax cut. They say it favors the rich and hurts the middle class. Republicans see the cuts as spurring business growth, creating more jobs, giving the economy a necessary kick in the rear end.

The picture also — to me, at least — depicts a government that does not work. We’re being governed by the party in power. They are shoving legislation down our throats. They are suggesting that since they can grip the gavel, there’s no need to heed the wishes of those Democrats who just are crybabies still bemoaning the loss of a presidential election they thought was in the bag for their candidate.

Fairness requires me to say this: Democrats did much the same thing in 2010 when they were in control of Congress and the White House. They passed the Affordable Care Act with zero Republican votes in either chamber of Congress.

My point is this: Good government requires both parties to search for common ground. I much prefer to see photo ops with presidents signing legislation into law with leaders of both parties surrounding them. The president hands out pens as he signs the bill to individuals who were instrumental in enacting the law. They go to members of both major parties who are sharing in the president’s reflected glory.

President Lyndon Johnson had many political allies among Republicans; President Richard Nixon could say the same about Democrats — until he got into serious political trouble; Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush could rely on pols from the opposing parties when the chips were down.

We didn’t see bipartisan joy when Barack H. Obama signed the ACA into law. We won’t see it when Donald J. Trump signs the tax cut bill.

This is not how government should work.

Sad.

local news

Et tu, Boys Ranch?

One would be hard-pressed to find a Texas Panhandle institution with more renown and universal respect than Boys Ranch, the school founded in the late 1930s to care for boys in trouble.

The late Cal Farley served in World War I and came home to found the school that offered boys “… a shirt-tail to hang on to.”Ā 

It has graduated young men and women who have gone on to do great things. They have served in elected office and have become pillars of communities across the nation and around the world.

But now comes word from some former students about allegations of abuse they suffered while living at the Ranch. This is heartbreaking in the extreme.

I have good friends with lengthy ties to the Ranch. I am not going to discuss in detail what has been alleged by these former students/residents who have come forward four decades after the incidents reportedly occurred.

Instead, I intend to stand up for the great work that has been done at Boys Ranch in the decades since Cal Farley founded the legendary organization.

What’s more, I want to applaud current president and chief executive officer Dan Adams for “manning up” with a public apology to those who have spoken out. They did so to The Guardian newspaper, which published an article today spelling out the allegations.

Adams issued a statement that said, in part: “Thousands of people have found hope and healing at Cal Farley’s Boys Ranch, both past and present. Tragically, not everyone who participated in our programs through the years was helped by them. No words by me or anyone else will change that.”

See the rest of Adams’s statementĀ here.

The men who spoke to The Guardian say all they want is an apology. They have gotten it.

Is this the end of it? I don’t know. I pray that it is.

Here is theĀ Guardian article.

Oh … my goodness.

International news, national news, political news

Memo to GOP: Remember ‘Benghazi’?

Republicans in Congress and their friends in the media are now singing loudly from the same political hymnal.

They want special counsel Robert Mueller to either be fired or they want him to conclude his investigation into the “Russia thing.”

Oh, they have such short memories.

I feel compelled to remind them all of one word: Benghazi.

The GOP conducted an investigation with seemingly no end. It involved then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and whether she committed some sort of crime in relation to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The attack killed four Americans, including the nation’s ambassador to Libya.

They held hearings. They brought Clinton before congressional panels. They quizzed her, berated her, threatened to “lock her up!” over the chaos that ensued from that tragic event.

It went on for years. From 2012 until 2016. It cost millions of dollars of public funds.

Now we have Mueller on the hunt for the truth behind another highly sensitive matter: whether Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russian government officials who sought to meddle in our 2016 presidential election.

They now are alleging bias in the Mueller team. They point to two staffers who exchange pro-Hillary email and text messages — before Mueller fired them when their antipathy toward Trump became known.

Some in the conservative media are pressuring the president to fire Mueller. Big mistake, folks! The president says there’s no evidence of collusion. Fine. Then, let Mueller’s team reach that conclusion on its own.

As for the calls for the special counsel to wrap up his probe, Republicans on Capitol Hill and around the country need to examine their own conduct during another probe involving a prominent Democratic politician.

If we’re going to demand a thorough probe into alleged wrongdoing, then it must apply to everyone.

Isn’t that only fair?