RIP, John Ward

To say that John Q. Ward was a “survivor” in a cutthroat, ruthless and unforgiving business is to commit the mother of understatements.

Ward served as Amarillo city manager for — hold on! — more than 20 years. He served under several city commissions and city councils — the city changed the name of its governing board years ago.

The former city manager died the other day of a lung infection, according to his wife, Donna.

I had the pleasure of getting to know John Ward during my years working at the Amarillo Globe-News. He was the source — along with the city secretary who later became his wife — of all information I needed as a journalist working for the newspaper of record.

I knew about Ward’s inherent suspicion of media. He didn’t always like talking to people such as me. I don’t really know why, except that those of us who pursue our craft often find things wrong with city government and report it to the public that needs to know. As the man who ran the City Hall show, it falls always on the city manager to be held accountable for all that goes on.

Still, we had a cordial and totally professional relationship. I attribute that to John Ward’s understanding of his role as the city’s top administrator and my role as someone who occasionally had to probe deeply into the goings-on that made the city work.

Amarillo worked well under Ward’s administrative leadership. The city grew steadily if not spectacularly. He stepped into the city manager’s post succeeding a fellow who became something of a municipal legend, former manager John Stiff.

Ward, therefore, learned from one of the best.

City managers as a rule don’t last nearly as long as Ward did in Amarillo. That is a credit to his skill and his knowledge of the community he served.

John Ward was a good one … for certain.

School vouchers: bad deal!

Gov. Greg Abbott keeps spitting in the faces of what should be his most ardent constituency, the rural Republicans who vote overwhelmingly to keep the GOP governor in office.

That’s right. He continues to push for his school voucher plan that would take money from public school districts and give Texans the choice of sending their children to private schools.

Why is that such a spitter? Because rural Republican legislators have been arguing against the school voucher plan because of the negative impact it would have on public school systems that are the heart and soul of so many rural communities.

Public schools so often in Texas are the center of social life in many towns. GOP legislators know it better than anyone, which is why they have been battling with the governor over his desire to rob the school systems of money they need.

Abbott said that pro-voucher legislative candidates fared well in the March primary this month. He said the state is “two votes away” from making the voucher plan law. He is urging Republicans to put his plan over the top in the Texas House by electing just two more pro-voucher Republicans.

According to the Texas Tribune: “We are now at 74 votes in favor of school choice in the state of Texas. Which is good, but 74 does not equal 76,” Abbott said, referring to the number of votes he needs to pass the bill into law. “We need two more votes.”

Greg Abbott says Texas close to passing vouchers | The Texas Tribune

He tried to get the measure enacted through four special legislative sessions after the 2023 Legislature adjourned this past May. He failed every time.

This effort disgusts me, as a taxpaying Texas resident who sent his own children through public schools. They received fine educations, earned their college degrees and have become productive members of this great state’s population.

Therefore, I am going to root against the effort to put Gov. Abbott’s notion over the top.

Outrage keeps mounting

My wellspring of outrage seems to know no bounds, given the idiocy that keeps flowing from the overfed pie hole of the 2024 Republican Party presidential nominee in waiting.

He said the following recently to a crowd of MAGA minions cheering his every ridiculous proclamation: He will pardon all the so-called “hostages” who are jailed for their assault on the U.S. Capitol on 1/6 … if he’s elected president in November.

Yep. It’s now out there, on the record. The traitorous mob that sought to assassinate the then-vice president, Mike Pence, and killed a cop seeking to defend the Capitol, defecated on the floor of the government building and vowed to overturn the results of a free, fair and legal election would get a pardon from the former Moron in Chief.

Is there any sense of decency left in that individual? Don’t bother answering that one. There was no decency to start with and he is demonstrating with each political rally how utterly unhinged he has become.

 

Yes, I am better off

Allow me to make this declaration … as if you can stop me from making it.

Here goes: I am better off by a long shot than I was four years ago.

The question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”, is getting some traction of late. Republicans are saying “no!” They want to tar President Biden with a phony economic crisis, suggesting that the recovery from the COVID pandemic is a figment of our imagination.

It isn’t. Our economy is robust. It is — to borrow the phrase — “rocking along” by producing a record number of new jobs, historically low unemployment, a shrinking national budget deficit, an inflation rate that is stabilizing and shrinking, too.

Yes, the nation is better off than it was when Joe Biden took office as president. I won’t listen to the lies put forth by his immediate presidential predecessor.

Are in perfect condition? Of course not! Perfection is an impossibility.

But we’re damn sure better than we were.

40 years ago … my life changed

Holy mackerel, man! This landmark anniversary almost got past me, but I won’t let it go without offering a comment on how a single move from one state to another changed my life.

I grew up in Portland, Ore. I lived there for the first 34 years of my life. I met the girl of my dreams there. I married her. We brought two sons into the world. I started my career in journalism there.

Then it changed in late 1983 with a phone call from a former boss of mine. He had gravitated to Beaumont, Texas. He wanted to know if I would like to work with him on the Gulf Coast at a newspaper that was healthy, vibrant and a chronicler of a tremendous “news town.”

I interviewed for the job. He offered it to me. I accepted his terms. I moved from Portland to Beaumont in March 1984. My career got the boost it needed.

I landed in a great news town, as my boss had stated. In my first week on the job, voters there cast their ballots on a street-naming referendum. Beaumont’s Black community wanted to change the name of a major street to honor Martin Luther King Jr.; the referendum failed narrowly.

Did I suffer culture shock? Yes. I wasn’t used to racial politics. I ran smack into it in Beaumont. I adjusted nicely, I am happy to report.

I did enjoy modest success from 1984 on to the end of my full-time career.

My family joined me a few months after I got to what I call The Swamp. My sons came of age in Texas. My bride and I carved out a wonderful life here.

We stayed in Beaumont for nearly 11 years. Then we moved again. To Amarillo about 700 miles northwest of our home. Culture shock again? Yep! We stayed in Amarillo for 23 years. I enjoyed more success there. We made many friends in both of our stops in Texas.

My career ended in August 2012. I was “reorganized” out of my job. I quit on the spot and got on with the rest of my life.

What did all of this teach me about myself? It taught me that I am an adaptable creature. My years in Oregon gave me a comfort level I thought I would be reluctant to let go. I had spent two years away from home serving my country in the Army. Perhaps my time in the Army prepared me unknowingly for what would happen 14 years after I returned home when I got the call to move to a part of the country that was vastly different from what I knew.

Then opportunity knocked. I answered the proverbial “door.”

Have I reached a new comfort level in my new home state? Yes. Texas’s politics has changed dramatically since our arrival here 40 years ago, but I am not one to move on just because politicians who represent us make decisions with which I disagree.

I am still keeping up the fight. I will do so with this blog for as long as I am able.

The past 40 years have zoomed by. I am trying to slow it down a bit. Wish me luck on that effort.

These guys were ‘really rich’

Quiz time: Did you ever hear Mitt Romney, or Nelson Rockefeller, JFK, RFK or Teddy Kennedy proclaim to adoring crowds that they were “really rich”? 

Time’s up. I didn’t think so.

But yet … this year’s presumptive Republican presidential nominee has made such a proclamation. Many times, in fact, since he became a politician in the summer of 2015.

Well, it turns out he might not be quite as “really rich” as he bragged. It is being reported widely that the guy who also proclaimed himself to be “really smart” and would hire “the best people” to work for him cannot raise the $400-plus million bond he is ordered to pay in the defamation case brought by E. Jeanne Carroll, whom a jury has ruled was raped by the former Idiot in Chief.

I am reluctant to say “I told you so,” but I have maintained all along that anyone who claims out loud to be as rich and smart as the former POTUS more than likely is neither.

New York Attorney General Leticia James now faces the prospect of seizing the ex-POTUS’s assets to make him pay for what he owes the court. Wouldn’t that be, um, rich beyond belief.

Mitt Romney said out loud what many of us knew already prior to the 2016 election. He called the so-called “really rich” guy a “phony” and a “fraud.”

Am I stunned at what might happen soon? Yes! Am I surprised? Not one little bit!

Where’s the outrage?

The 45th POTUS has remained stunningly silent on the “rigged election” that occurred the other day in Russia, which elected his pal Vladimir Putin to another term as president/strongman/despot/thug/goon.

And yet the former Moron in Chief continues to rail against the phony allegation that the 2020 election in this country was “stolen” from him. It wasn’t.

Putin is despot for life in Russia, a title to which his American pal aspires, or so it appears.

He “won” the election in Russia against virtually zero opposition, which is how they do things in the formerly democratic Russian Federation. It is reverting to the ways of old, to the ways of the evil empire it replaced in 1991.

Are we hearing anything in protest from the presumed Republican presidential nominee or from his shrinking gaggle of cult followers?

Hah! Not even …

Civility isn’t dead after all!

For the past few years I have been presuming that collegiality and civility have died a slow, painful death, that they have been replaced by rancor and hatred for those with opposing points of view.

Then I read an editorial in the Dallas Morning News that told me to hold on, that it ain’t so.

The editorial talks about two justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor, who spoke to the National Governors Association. They talked about how the justices can differ, but they do not see each other as enemies.

The editorial states, in part: Civility and compromise are values in our democracy that, as of late, are buried in bitter arguments or smothered in misinformation.

Barrett is a deeply conservative member of the high court; Sotomayor is an equally fervent progressive jurist. The editorial notes: “When we disagree, our pens are sharp. But on a personal level, we never translate that into our relationships with one another,” Sotomayor told the crowd at one event.

The DMN editorial takes particular note of the extraordinary friendship forged long ago by two justices, the late Antonin Scalia and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their friendship became a talking point around the country as to how people with widely divergent points of view can retain personal affection.

The editorial is posted here: Two Supreme Court justices are reminding us how to act like adults (dallasnews.com)

Barrett said: “We don’t speak in a hot way at our conferences,” Barrett said. “We don’t raise our voices no matter how hot-button the case is.”

I am heartened to hear the words of two jurists who have told the world what goes on behind closed doors at the nation’s highest court. May their secret be repeated in other governmental chambers — such as the Congress — where the principals do raise their voices and speak ill of each other.

Disgust is sinking in

There can be no way to describe adequately what I am feeling now about the progress of the criminal proceedings against the 45th president of the United States.

Dude somehow is managing to run out the clock on several fronts. What’s even more disgusting is that he might be getting help from a supposedly “impartial” jurist who might be setting the table for an instructed verdict of acquittal in the federal case involving the ex-POTUS’s pilfering of classified documents.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, whom the former Moron in Chief appointed to the federal bench, keeps issuing goofball rulings that benefit her fella … the aforementioned ex-POTUS.

The latest one has been vilified by legal scholars from stem to stern on its weirdness. Cannon has instructed prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith and the criminal defendant’s counsel to provide reams of “discovery” evidence on the eve of when the trial is supposed to start.

The complexity of the ruling reportedly suggests that the judge might be able to issue a bench ruling calling for an acquittal. If it holds up! That’s not a sure thing, or so I am led to believe.

The ex-POTUS also is stalling in the case involving the New York state trial on the hush money he paid to the porn actress to keep her quiet about a one-night stand the two of them had in 2006. The former Idiot in Chief denies ever engaging in sex with Stormy Daniels but cut her a $130,000 check to keep quiet about it. Go … figure!

The trial on the 1/6 assault on our government — the one the ex-POTUS provoked on the Ellipse — has been delayed.

Oh, and the Georgia case? Who knows what’ll happen there. A judge says the DA can stay on the job, but the fellow with whom she had a relationship has resigned as lead prosecutor.

All of this points to the chaos created by the former guy’s stalling tactics.

Let us not forget that he has said all along he is innocent of anything being accused. Despite that, he acts very much like someone with something serious to hide. The stalling and the proclamations of innocence just do not add up.

Schumer out of bounds on Israel’s politics

Charles Schumer should tend to the affairs of New York and the U.S. Senate … and keep his nose out of Israeli politics.

Schumer recently called for the ouster of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The New York Democrat and Senate majority leader also said Israel needs to conduct a special election to find a prime minister who, I will presume, is more to Schumer’s liking.

I am not going to endorse Netanyahu’s stance on the way he and the Israeli Defense Forces are prosecuting the war in Gaza against the terrorist group Hamas. He does need to pull back and stop the insane attacks on civilians in Gaza and must be more proactive in fighting the growing starvation that is killing helpless civilians.

However, for a sitting US senator — this nation’s highest-ranking official who happens to be Jewish — to call for a change of government in America’s strongest ally in the Middle East goes way beyond what is right and proper.

I strongly believe that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorists. Hamas is a ruthless, brutal organization that started this war with its horrific rocket attack on Oct. 7, 2023. It aimed its ordnance at civilians and is now paying the price.

But, so too, are civilians caught in the carnage. Israel vows to destroy Hamas and I find it impossible to disagree with Bibi Netanyahu’s stated aim in that regard.

As for the chutzpah that Sen. Schumer is exhibiting, he needs to stand down and butt the hell out of Israeli domestic politics.