Category Archives: State news

Abbott aligns with conspiracy theorists

Conspiracy theorists — or wackos, if you prefer — appear to have a friend living in the Texas Governor’s Mansion.

Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered the Texas State Guard to “monitor” some exercises being conducted by U.S. Army troops in Texas.

His intention? Abbott issued a statement: “It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed,” Abbott wrote. “By monitoring the Operation on a continual basis, the State Guard will facilitate communications between my office and the commanders of the Operation to ensure that adequate measures are in place to protect Texans.”

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3942bea584aa4d8a9e32e8e74157db0f/texas-governor-tells-state-guard-monitor-army-training

Protect Texans? Against whom? Federal troops?

Some Internet goofballs have put out some malarkey about a possible effort to impose martial law in the United States. Abbott’s order has the appearance — at least to me and perhaps others — of his buying into the nonsense that’s been floating around in cyberspace.

The exercise is called “Jade Helm 15.” It prompted a furious protest in Bastrop County by those who were suggesting the government is considering a mass weapons confiscation. Bastrop County Judge Paul Pape said conspiracy theorists had created a “frenzy” among some Texans.

It’s interesting that no other governor has issued such an order to “monitor” Army exercises in their states.

Abbott is alone among his fellow governors in his stated concern about Texans’ rights.

 

Rain offers new appreciation

I awoke this morning to the sound of rain beating on the front of my house.

It was music to my ears.

The sound used to be like fingernails on the chalkboard. It annoyed me. I was a lot younger then, growing up in a community known for its incessant rain.

Portland, Ore., is a lovely city. It’s full of tall timber and lots of flowers. It’s called the City of Roses and every June, it stages a festival honoring the roses that are in full bloom. The highlight of the festival, for me, was the Grand Floral Parade through downtown Portland. Mom and Dad would take us every year. We’d get there early, find a nice spot on the parade route and wait for the sounds of the drums.

It seemed to rain every year on our parade, though.

Which brings me to my point.

I hated the rain as a kid. I griped about it constantly. My parents tired of me always complaining.

Then I grew up, went away for a couple of years to serve in the Army, came home, got married and eventually my bride and I moved to Texas.

We gravitated to Amarillo more than 20 years ago.

It doesn’t rain nearly as much here as it does in Portland, or in Beaumont, where my family and I lived for the first 11 years of our Texas residency. It’s not that Portland gets a lot of rain each year, it’s that it seems to drizzle constantly. We could more rain in Beaumont in an hour than would fall in Portland in a month.

I’ve come to appreciate the rain much more now. The Panhandle drought has awakened me to the value that rainwater brings to everything. To the economy, to our ability to function as a society, to the fulfillment of our basic needs — such as quenching our thirst and, you know, bathing.

I won’t complain ever again about too much rain.

Growing up teaches us the value of things that used to annoy us.

Today, I intend to enjoy the sight and smell of the rain.

Texas power honeymoon is over

Is the honeymoon over among the Big Three of Texas’s state government?

Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Joe Straus sat down this week for some breakfast. It reportedly didn’t go too well.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/big-three-breakfast-blows

Patrick purportedly complained that Abbott and Straus were “picking on me” and said he wanted it to stop.

Abbott, Straus and Patrick all issued statements later, with the governor saying he had a “strong working relationship” with the lieutenant governor.

I daresay this might be a precursor of things to come in Austin, with Patrick marching to his own cadence as he runs the state Senate. Meanwhile, Abbott and Straus might be more inclined to operate on a mainstream conservative level.

R.G. Ratliffe, writing for Texas Monthly, reports that Patrick and Straus argued over Patrick’s assertion that the House isn’t moving quickly enough on Senate-passed legislation. Patrick declared a “new day” in Austin when he was inaugurated, got the Senate to pass some tough legislation — open-carry of firearms, tax cuts and moving the Public Integrity Unit to the control of the Department of Public Safety. The Man of the House, Straus, has let the legislation simmer far longer than Patrick wants.

Patrick, being the take-charge guy he is, now is trying to pressure Abbott to act on his behalf. Abbott apparently isn’t having any of it.

Thus, the three of them are at each other’s throats.

I believe some Texas pundits might have foreseen this kind of friction when Abbott and Patrick were campaigning for their respective offices.

Patrick is a tiger. Abbott is more, um, reserved. Straus? He’s more like Abbott than Patrick.

Might there be a feud building between Patrick and Abbott — that might lead to a primary challenge for governor, say, in 2018?

Let’s all stay tuned, shall we?

 

'Home rule' on red-light cameras? Apparently not

You live in a Texas city and your elected officials — the folks who represent you and your neighbors — have decided to install cameras at dangerous intersections to deter motorists from running red lights.

Your city has the authority to do such a thing under Texas law. Not as it relates to red-light cameras.

The Texas Senate has sent to the House a bill that would ban cities from deploying the cameras, as Amarillo and dozens of other cities have done.

Well, there goes home rule.

Sen. Bob Hall has declared the cameras to be a failure across the state.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article19246596.html

The bill would allow the cameras on toll roads. Therefore, given that there isn’t a toll road within hundreds of miles of the Panhandle, we won’t have the cameras.

I believe it is a mistake for the Legislature to seek to read the minds of mayors, council members, city managers and traffic engineers on this issue.

Are the cameras popular among Amarillo motorists? No. It’s because they catch them doing something they aren’t supposed to do, which is try to sneak past street signals that have turned red or, in some drastic cases, race through the lights from a dead stop.

Then again, I remain unconvinced that most motorists detest the cameras enough to merit their removal. Some of them do and they have protested loudly.

Their voices have been heard — way down yonder in Austin.

Everyone hates these tests; why do we have them?

Standardized testing has been a big part of Texas public education for the past three decades, dating back to the Perot Commission’s recommendation to reform the state’s education system.

You recall the Perot Commission, yes? It was headed by Dallas zillionaire H. Ross Perot, who in 1983 popped off about how Texas was more interesting in producing blue-chip football players than developing blue-chip academic scholars. Then-Gov. Mark White challenged Perot: If you think you can do better, why not produce some recommendations on how we can improve public education?

Perot accepted the challenge and headed the Perot Commission, which came up with a series of reforms, including some standardized testing that required students to pass if they wanted to graduate from high school.

It’s been a rocky journey ever since.

We’ve had TAKS, TAAS, TEAMS and now STAAR tests.

Obviously, I haven’t talked to every one of Texas’s 325,000 public school teachers, but I’ve visited with a lot of them during my 31 years living and working in Texas.

Every single teacher I’ve talked to hates the testing regimen. You can say the same thing about the parents of students; they hate the tests, too. Ask a student? You’ll hear it from them, too; they hate the tests.

My question, thus, is this: If everyone hates these tests, why do we still have them?

Railroad Commission has nothing to do with trains

Elizabeth Ames Jones used to serve on the Texas Railroad Commission.

Once, while visiting Amarillo, she paid a visit to the Globe-News, where I worked as editorial page editor.

During our conversation, the Republican former state legislator, made a fascinating and totally sensible proposal. The Railroad Commission needed to change its name. It has nothing to do with railroads or trains. It doesn’t have anything to do with trucking regulations, which it used to have. The name “Railroad Commission” is an archaic term that has zero relevance to what the agency does today, which is regulate fossil fuel production.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/20/texas-mulls-railroad-commission-name-change-again/

Why not change the name, she said, to something like the Texas Energy Regulatory Commission — or TERC, for short?

Why not, indeed?

The RRC is the state’s oldest regulatory agency, but as the Texas Tribune noted, it scrapped railroad regulation long ago.

That hasn’t persuaded the hidebound interests who still run many things in Austin to change the name of an agency devoted to energy-related issues.

It’s not an easy solution, as the Texas Tribune reports: “The change would require an amendment to the Texas Constitution, since the document mentions the agency by name. That means two-thirds of lawmakers in each chamber must approve before putting the question to Texas voters.”

Why not refer it to the voters in the form of a constitutional amendment proposal? The Legislature needs a super-majority of lawmakers to do it. My hunch is that too many of them are strangely devoted to the Railroad Commission, perhaps out of nostalgia if no other reason.

If Texas is going to continue its evolution into a modern state that recognizes that change occurs here from time to time, then it should change the long-ago obsolete name of an important regulatory agency.

Oil and natural gas are important to this state’s economy. Why not give its governing agency a name that everyone would recognize?

 

Open carry bill set to become state law

Believe it or not, I’m going to keep an open mind on open carry.

The Texas House of Representatives has approved a bill that would allow licensed concealed carry holders to wear their sidearms openly. The state Senate already had approved it. Gov. Greg Abbott says he’ll sign it when it gets to his desk.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/20/open-carry-headed-governors-desk/

Some legislative Democrats had sought to soften the bill by allowing big-city residents to vote on whether to opt out of the state law. That was a reasonable amendment to the bill, given that urban residents have a different view of open carry legislation than rural residents. Someone in the Oak Cliff neighborhood of south Dallas thinks differently of the bill than, say, someone living in Dumas or Dalhart.

“Rural open carry is different than densely populated open carry,” state Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, said. “If you put this to a vote in big cities, I think people are going to say resoundingly no.”

The amendment failed.

Now that I am resigned to open carry legislation set to become law, I’ll respect the Legislature’s decision — even though I disagree with it.

I now will hope that open carry doesn’t become the monstrosity I feared back in 1995 when the Legislature approved concealed carry legislation.

The concealed carry bill hasn’t produced shootouts in intersections, for which I am grateful.

Time will tell on this open-carry legislation. I’m going to hope for the best.

 

Texans will have a say in 2016 contest

It’s nice to be loved, isn’t it, Texas voters?

Bet on it. The large and likely cantankerous Republican presidential field is going to cozy up to Texans about a year from now when the state casts its primary vote for president of the United States.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/20/analysis-what-happens-when-texans-votes-matter/

It’ll be just like the old day. Hey, even the not-so-old days. Harken back to 2008, when Democratic U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton were slugging it out for their party’s presidential nomination.

By the time the Texas primary rolled around, the Democratic nomination was far from sewn up. So, what happened? Voters turned out in record numbers.

There’s more. Even in heavily Republican Texas Panhandle counties — such as Randall County — the Democratic Party polling places were far busier than the GOP stations. A lot of Republicans crossed over to vote in the Democratic primary and it likely enabled Sen. Clinton to win most of the state’s Democratic delegates.

As Ross Ramsey noted in a Texas Tribune analysis: “The mix of candidates could make a difference, too. Candidates with Texas ties, like Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry and Rand Paul, could draw their own home crowds if their candidacies are still alive early next year. And candidates from different factions could attract different herds of support.

“This sort of turnout boom does not happen often in Texas. The parties tend to settle their presidential nomination battles in places like New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa. By the time they get to Texas, they’ve already all but chosen their nominees.

“Voters like a fight, and you can see the evidence of that in turnout. When there’s a big race, more people vote.”

They’re going to get one, more than likely, on the Republican side in 2016.

And what about the Democrats? Barring some huge surprise — which is entirely possible — the Dems’ nomination looks like it already belongs to Hillary Clinton.

The Republican field looks as though it’s going to be huge and it’s going to take some time to cull the losers from the field. Thus, when Texas gets its turn to vote, we’ll be in the mix.

Can you feel the love?

 

'Gay conversion therapy' going strong in Texas

Texas politicians seem to think they’re the only correct thinkers in a nation that seems to be going in the opposite direction.

An example? Gay conversion therapy, which is drawing opposition from medical professionals and politicians throughout the land, appears to be showing no signs of slowing down in Texas, according to the Texas Tribune.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/18/opposition-gay-conversion-therapy-grows/

Have mercy on us all.

Gay conversion therapy seeks to persuade people that they aren’t actually gay. Never mind scientific evidence that someone’s sexual orientation is built into their DNA the same way, say, their hair and eye colors are built in.

That hasn’t stopped politicians from suggesting that a healthy dose of religious teaching, which the critics contend is occurring, will get rid of someone’s homosexual urges. As the Tribune reports, “The American Psychiatric Association has condemned it, and experts say it can cause mental harm to individuals.”

Hey, what does a group of trained medical professionals know?

The Tribune reports further: “David Pickup, who practices reparative therapy in California and Texas, said he was upset by the president’s words last week and feels reparative therapy has been mischaracterized.

“’Words hurt sometimes, and some of our clients have been upset about his public condemnation of these things — it has really hurt their feelings,’ Pickup said. ‘Reparative therapy is there for people who believe that for them, homosexual impulses arise not because of something genetic but because of emotional and sexual abuse.’”

State Rep. Celia Israel, D-Austin, has been trying to get a hearing before the House State Affairs Committee. She’s been stonewalled so far. Israel is hoping at least to get the subject on the table for some open debate.

Something tells me that with conservatives owning a supermajority in the House of Representatives and a strong majority in the Senate, the chances of at least a hearing are somewhere between slim and none.

Meanwhile, Texas will stand increasingly alone in standing by the notion that you can convert gay people into something they are not.

 

Julian Castro: right pick for HRC's ticket?

OK, here’s the deal.

I’ve already noted that it is absurd to try handicapping who will be the Republican and Democratic vice-presidential running mates next year. It’s still absurd to try to look so far in advance.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/04/12/running-mate-selection-way-too-early-for-that/

That all said, one name keeps popping up on the Democratic side that’s beginning to make some sense.

Let’s assume a couple of things.

One is that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democrats’ presidential nominee. Another is that Democrats are going to seek to tighten their grip on the Latino vote. Still another — and this remains a long shot — is that Texas, of all places, might be brought into play as the major party candidates fight for enough electoral votes to put one of them over the top.

Here’s a name to consider: Julian Castro.

This does originate with this blog post. Others have said Castro would be a nearly ideal choice for Clinton.

He’s currently the secretary of housing and urban development. Before that he was mayor of San Antonio. He has an identical twin, Joaquin, who serves in Congress.

Why should Clinton pick this young man? Well, he’s a handsome fellow. He speaks Spanish fluently; he also speaks English just as fluently. His story is compelling: raised by a single mother, graduated from Stanford University and Harvard Law. He’s an up-by-bootstraps kind of man.

Democrats have done well in recent election cycles with Latino voters. Republican President George W. Bush made serious inroads with that demographic group in 2000 and 2004, but it’s gone downhill ever since.

Clinton could cement the Democratic hold on Latino voters by putting Castro on the ticket.

As for Texas? Well, let’s just say that the hill for Democrats in Castro’s home state remains quite steep. The state remains heavily Republican and at this moment I cannot see how a Democratic presidential ticket — even one with a Latino in one of the spots — carries the state in 2016. Maybe in 2020.

Castro, though, could make the state competitive, forcing Republicans to invest campaign money in a place that since the 1980 election has been a shoo-in for the GOP.

Am I predicting Clinton will select Castro? Come on. Give me some credit. I’ve said it’s too early to make that call.

However, it wouldn’t surprise me.