High Plains Blogger

crime news

309 = epidemic

Let us ponder for a brief moment a simple number: 309.

That is the number of what we call “mass shootings” that have occurred in the United States just in the current calendar year.

Now, where I come from, they would be inclined to call that an epidemic. Yes, 309 incidents of mass shootings — defined as when we have more than four fatalities — have occurred in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. That’s just in 2022!

At this very moment, I am not feeling too damn free and I certainly am not feeling brave about the prospects of venturing too far from home.

They had a Fourth of July parade in suburban Chicago, for God’s sake, when the latest terrorist attack occurred. Authorities have just announced that a seventh victim has died from injuries suffered at the grimy hands of the shooter.

When in the name of all that is sacred is enough going to be enough?

crime news

Paranoia is growing

Make no mistake about this, which is that with each incident of random gun violence the more frightened I am becoming of attending any sort of outdoor activity.

An afternoon at the movie theater? Shopping for groceries at the supermarket? Driving in heavy traffic along a busy highway? A holiday parade celebrating the nation’s independence?

Forget about it!

The Highland Park, Ill., shooting that killed six people and injured a couple dozen others has driven me just about to the breaking point.

I hate feeling so nervous, so anxious, so frightened at what is happening in this country?

Not only that, we have a family that gives us worry, too, as they go about their day.

education news

Pols step up correctly!

My previous blog spoke well of the Texas State Board of Education’s decision to keep teaching elementary public school students about “slavery” and to forgo the use of a term called “involuntary relocation” in our curriculum.

I want to highlight one aspect of that decision. It came unanimously. Yes, 15 members of the SBOE voted as one. Why is that a big deal? Because the SBOE comprises politicians who are elected to the office. They run as Republicans and Democrats. They have constituencies to which they must appeal. They represent vastly different districts drawn across our vast state.

They come from different ideological backgrounds, bias and political leanings.

Yet on this matter, they spoke with one voice.

Make no mistake, the SBOE made the correct statement. The term “slavery” should remain in our public school curriculum to remind our children of the darkest chapter in our nation’s history.

That the SBOE locked arms on this matter is cause for high praise.

education news

SBOE pushes back on language change

Texas board of education strikes down proposal to call slavery ‘involuntary relocation’ (yahoo.com)

Well, I’ll be deep fried and rolled in oats. The Texas State Board of Education, a committee of 15 politicians elected to a panel that determines public school curriculum, has shown some needed guts.

The SBOE appears to have squashed an idea to change the way schools teach second graders about slavery. A group of educators had pitched an idea to call the enslavement of human beings as “involuntary relocation.”

The SBOE said “no” to that idea. Texas’s public schools will continue to teach our children about “slavery,” and will keep the language as it has been presented.

Yahoo News reported: While involuntary relocation isn’t an entirely unknown term in social studies, it often “has relationships to refugees and forced displacement due to violence or ethnic cleansing,” said Neil Shanks, clinical assistant professor of middle and secondary education at Baylor University.

In this case, Shanks added, the term appeared to be “intended to water down the issue of slavery.”

Let’s understand that slavery is the darkest chapter in our nation’s otherwise glorious story. We shouldn’t dilute its impact by introducing the kind of terminology that means next to nothing. “Involuntary relocation?” What the hell is that?

The State Board of Education, to its great credit, voted unanimously to stay the course on teaching our children about the evils of slavery.

national news

AOC offers sound idea

Here’s a thought that comes from a member of Congress but is one I want to present here as food for thought.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, one of the House’s most outspoken progressive members has suggested that any member of Congress who sought a pardon from the president of the United States should be expelled from that body.

Follow me on this.

AOC noted that during the House committee hearings on the 1/6 insurrection we learned that several House members sought a pardon from Donald J. Trump. According to AOC, one who seeks a pardon is admitting his or her guilt in committing a crime.

Hmm. Fascinating, yes?

Reps. Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Louis Gohmert, Mo Brooks and Marjorie Taylor Greene all were identified by witnesses as House members who sought pardons from Trump. Why? They must have known all hell was going to break loose on 1/6, as did Trump.

They’re all right-wing, wacko Republicans. Thus, you could expect that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — an ardent Democrat — would take a hard line on whether her colleagues should remain as members of the people’s House. However, AOC — with whom I have some problems in the past — makes a valid point about whether these GOP nimrods deserve to keep their seats in the House.

If they have admitted to a crime for which they sought a pardon from the lame-duck POTUS, then they have admitted that they have committed a felony. If that is their admission, do they then deserve to remain in their House offices, drawing pay from taxpayers’ wallets and making public policy decisions that affect every American?

No! They do not!

crime news

Oh, the tragic irony

Surely, I am not the only American who sees the horrible irony of the mass shooting today in Highland Park, Ill., that killed six people and injured dozens of others.

It occurred on the Fourth of July, the day we recognize the birth of our great nation that tragically has become known for precisely the type of violence that erupted yet again this morning just north of Chicago.

“Only in America” can this happen? I hate making that suggestion, but it appears that appears to be the case. To be clear, other parts of the world do experience this sort of madness … but not to the extent to which we are becoming seemingly numb to its frequency in this country.

We just finished burying those 19 precious children and two of their teachers in Uvalde. That remembrance came immediately after 10 shopping center customers were gunned down in Buffalo, N.Y.

The instances occur with frightening regularity. My wife said to me today, “It looks like we’re not going to be able to go anywhere.” The shooting today took place amid the red, white and blue bunting, banners and flags of a Midwest town’s parade honoring our nation’s 246th birthday.

The good folks of Highland Park now will be consigned to remembering this day for entirely different and tragic reasons.

legal news

City facing stern court test

My cheap-seat perch has enabled me to weigh in on a matter involving a community where I lived for 23 years and remains a place where I maintain a deep affection.

Amarillo City Hall is going to trial Tuesday to face a lawsuit filed by a local businessman over a city effort to foist a $260 million debt on property owners to build a new Civic Center. I use the term “foist” understanding what it implies.

The city is foisting the debt on taxpayers because those very city residents said “no” to a bond issue in November 2020 that would have done what the city wants to do without voter approval.

There is something fundamentally wrong with that approach.

Businessman Alex Fairly wants the 108th District Court in Potter County to slow the process down just a bit to enable all parties — I’ll presume Fairly intends for the city to be included — to present their cases more thoroughly. The city, according to Fairly, wants to fast-track the decision to a quick verdict.

Fairly is contesting the legality of the decision to issue those “anticipation notes.” He argues that the city didn’t give proper advance notice to residents and did so without going through the entire process he says is required.

I won’t argue that case. What does seem wrong is the timing of this effort by the city.

To be clear, if I had a vote in the matter, I likely would have voted “yes” on the money to build a Civic Center; the one they have is no longer adequate. However, most voters turned thumbs down on the project. I tend to respect the view of the majority … you know?

The City Council’s response has been tantamount to sticking its finger in the eye of electorate, telling them: We don’t care what you think. We need to do this anyway and we’re going to go around you … no matter what.

Therein lies what I believe is the crux of the argument that Fairly is trying to make.

This legal challenge represents a significant departure from the way city government has operated in Amarillo for practically as long as I have been acquainted with the city and its leadership.

This can be a healthy challenge to the city’s power structure. I want it to be a constructive one as well.

crime news

He didn’t know he was in charge?

Pete Arredondo needs to quit his job as Uvalde Independent School District chief of police. He’s already resigned his city council post, citing a need to clear the city of “distractions.”

The blunt truth, though, is that I cannot get past the scandalous excuse Arredondo has given for failing to stop a gunman from killing all those children and the two educators this past month at Robb Elementary School.

Arredondo said he “didn’t know” whether he was the lead officer in the moment.

So, what did he do? Nothing! For nearly one hour, the gunman kept killing children. Arredondo did not respond because he “didn’t know” whether he had authority to act.

I spoke with a North Texas educator immediately after the tragedy unfolded in Uvalde. This fellow, and I will keep his identity private, seemingly didn’t understand why the Uvalde cops waited. “We are going in,” the North Texas educator told me in describing how he would respond to a similar situation were it to occur on his watch.

“We aren’t waiting” for someone to determine who’s in charge, he said.

The lack of transparency and — so far! — the lack of accountability for what happened in Uvalde has upset many of us, most notably the loved ones of those who died in the slaughter.

Pete Arredondo is at the center of this continuing storm. He has failed his community and he needs to go.

First things first, though. Arredondo must explain what happened that day and why he froze while children and teachers were being shot to death.

religious news

Church and state are separate … period!

Lauren Boebert must believe she knows something that’s lost on practically every American alive today, given that the nation’s founders created a government more than two centuries ago, long before any of us were around.

The Colorado Republican congresswoman made a patently preposterous assertion recently. She said: “The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our Founding Fathers intended it. I am tired of this separation-of-church-and-state junk.”

Well …

She made the comment at a church service. Imagine that, eh?

Let me spell out what I believe the founders intended. They intended to create a secular governing document, one that does not answer to the dictates of spiritual teaching. The First Amendment, for example, contains several civil liberties the government protects. The first one mentioned — and this is important — deals with religion.

The amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … ” I want to call attention to the fact that the founders thought enough of that clause to make it the first one mentioned in the First Amendment to the nation’s government document.

Boebert’s ignorant statement about “separation-of-church-and-state junk” reminds me of a mantra a former Amarillo Globe-News colleague of mine used to recite. He kept insisting that since the Constitution doesn’t mention church-state separation specifically that it doesn’t really exist. I had to remind him that the courts have held over the course of two centuries that the First Amendment’s meaning intends to keep the church out of government’s business. Just because the Constitution doesn’t declare in so many words that the church cannot mingle in state business doesn’t make it less true.

So it is with nimrods such as Lauren Boebert, who in her brief time in Congress has managed to stand out as a spokeswoman for some truly wacky notions.

I tend to interpret the Constitution the same way I interpret my Bible, in that I am inclined to take a broad, expansive view of what both documents mean.

It’s my right to do so. The Constitution speaks clearly to it in that First Amendment.