Uncategorized

Water supply excellent … for now

Lynn Tate, head of the High Plains Water District, gave the Rotary Club of Amarillo some good news Thursday.

Amarillo is in excellent shape with regard to its long-term supply of water. We’re in far better shape than almost any other significant city in Texas, he said. T. Boone Pickens once had this idea of pumping water from the Texas Panhandle to places downstate; it didn’t work out, Pickens never found a willing buyer and he ended up selling the water to the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority, which quenches Amarillo’s thirst.

We’ve got about 200 years worth of water available to us from the Ogallala Aquifer, which covers several states from Texas to Nebraska and even parts of the Dakotas.

Hey, no problem with water supply.

Should we be complacent? I don’t think so.

I didn’t hear Tate say anything about whether cities — namely Amarillo — should institute mandatory conservation measures.

He seemed curiously serene about it.

I am in no position to question seriously Lynn Tate’s expertise on these matters. He’s a lot more educated than I am on these matters. He grew up in a farming and ranching family in the eastern Panhandle. He went to law school and has had a successful law practice in Amarillo. He’s a first-rate agriculture lawyer.

However, I cannot help but think the city ought to be a tad more proactive in its water conservation efforts than it seems to be at the moment. Same with CRMWA and the High Plains Water District.

Tate did mention that irrigated agriculture accounts for 85 to 90 percent of all water use in the Panhandle, which means there’s little that homeowners in Amarillo can do to prevent the decline in water resources. He also said he believes the aquifer is recharging in some areas and that the water levels are “stabilizing.”

Isn’t it time, though, to discuss openly what we should do to forestall the day when crises arrive and we might not have enough water to take care of our needs?

I know that 200 years is a long way off. We’ll all be gone by then. So will our kids, grandkids and great-grandkids. Good stewardship requires us to think even beyond that time, doesn’t it?

Just sayin’.

Uncategorized

NSA changes welcome

Count me as one of the relatively few Americans who have become overly concerned about National Security Agency surveillance practices.

Perhaps it’s because I have nothing to hide or fear from the government. I behave myself, pay my taxes, don’t talk to terror organizations and am generally happy with my station in life.

Pretty boring stuff, actually.

Still, President Obama’s planned reforms of NSA surveillance tactics ought to be welcome news to those who have become anxious over recent revelations about what the government does to prevent terrorist attacks.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/16/22328345-obama-to-propose-key-changes-in-data-collection-program?lite

One change will be the requirement of judicial oversight of the release of any data collected. Republicans and Democrats seem to speak with one voice in Congress about the need to rein in the NSA, believing it operated with too much intelligence-gathering latitude.

Maybe so. Again, I have nothing to fear from it.

I get the concern, however, from those who worry about possible erosion of civil liberties, such as the right to privacy and the right to be protected against overzealous government intrusion.

Hasn’t the president told us that the NSA is not listening in on everyone’s phone calls? Hasn’t he assured us time and again that our privacy is being protected, that the NSA has been targeting only those suspected of engaging in potentially dangerous activity involving organizations bent on harming Americans?

Yes, I know: This is the same president who pledged we wouldn’t lose health coverage under the Affordable Care Act … and that pledge didn’t quite work out so well.

This is a different matter altogether.

Still, the changes ought to assuage some fears out there about NSA overreach.

Meantime, I’ll keep leading my boring life.

Uncategorized

Fired aide may hold key to Gov. Christie’s future

A special committee assigned to investigate the bridge lane-closing scandal that just won’t go away has within its power the ability to determine one key question.

What did Gov. Chris Christie know about the lane-closure and when did he know it?

I should add that the panel can determine the motives behind the closure.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/16/22325075-christie-campaign-organization-on-subpoena-list-in-bridge-probe-source-says?lite

Just ask Bridget Kelly, the fired former deputy chief of staff to Christie.

Someone ordered the lanes closed on the world’s busiest bridge, the George Washington, which connects New Jersey to New York City. At issue is why. Some have alleged the lanes were closed to get back at the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., who had declined to endorse the Republican governor, Christie, for re-election.

Now … is that why Kelly wrote the email that declared it was “time for some traffic problems” on the bridge? Only she can answer that.

What’s more, did she tell her boss in advance of the closure that it was going to happen? She has the answer to that one, too.

Put the woman under oath and make her tell the truth under fear of prosecution for perjury. Then we might get to the bottom of this matter.

I have no particular desire to see Gov. Christie caught in a lie. I hope he told the truth the other day when he said he didn’t know in advance of the lane closures, or that he didn’t even know that the bridge traffic had been constricted so terribly.

Why is this story so important? Because Christie is considered a possible — if not probable — candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

My desire, though, is to find out from the one person — Kelly — whether the governor knew about the closure, whether he ordered the closure to get back at the mayor and whether he felt he needed to teach the mayor some kind of cruel lesson that simply got out of control.

I’m actually a little weary of this story. Tell us what happened, Bridget Kelly … and why.

Uncategorized

‘Compromise’ not such a dirty word

It turns out that compromise indeed is possible in the 113th Congress.

When it shows itself, we learn that things actually can get done, such as approving a federal budget that keeps the government running through September. The House of Representatives approved the deal overwhelmingly and has sent it back to the Senate hopefully for final approval.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politics/house-spending-bill/index.html

The $1.1 trillion budget deal marks a departure from recent history, where Republicans and Democrats have fought over every big and little thing in the budget. It has produced gridlock, made a lot of people angry, shut down part of the government for a time, forced public opinion of Congress into a sinkhole and redefined the term “political dysfunction.”

Does this signal a new day on Capitol Hill? Probably not. However, one can hope.

Tomorrow might bring a new set of hassles and disagreements, particularly in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives that seems to have declared its intention to block everything House Democrats and the Democrat in chief in the White House want to do.

The bill reduces funds for the Internal Revenue Service, gives federal workers a 1 percent pay increase and gives money to the Environmental Protection Agency. These measures make Republicans happy. Meanwhile, Democrats got something for themselves, such as funding for Head Start, which helps early childhood education efforts.

No one is entirely happy with the deal, nor are they entirely unhappy.

That’s the spirit of compromise. Things can get done. It’s how you legislate. It’s how good government is supposed to work.

What’s more, it doesn’t inflict nearly the pain that stubborn intransigence can produce.

Uncategorized

Cat does well, even without claws

I am happy to report that at least one of our de-clawed cats can hold his own in a fight.

We adopted two sibling kittens in the summer of 2002. We brought them home and they acclimated themselves immediately into our family. They are wonderful pets. One little problem kept occurring: We could not get them to stop scratching the furniture. We finally reached the end of our tolerance over that when our little female kitty decided to climb the drapes in the dining room.

That’s it. We’re going to de-claw them. It was a tough call, given that we’d never done that to any of the many cats we’d owned. My mother used to call it “mutilation.”

We took them to the veterinarian. She took out the front claws. They recovered just fine.

Problem solved with the furniture-clawing.

Our two cats are quite different in personality. They’re about to turn 12. They’re in great health. Our female, Mittens, is quite shy, particularly around strangers. Our male, Socks? Another story altogether. He’s most definitely un-shy. He loves people, particularly my wife and me. He loves us so much that my poor, tormented wife hasn’t had a good night’s sleep in about, oh, 12 years. Our male kitty likes to cuddle at all hours of the night. We do not have the heart to banish him from the bedroom. Besides, if we closed the door I am quite convinced he’d beat it down.

Well, we witnessed something yesterday that validates even more our decision to de-claw our pets.

Socks went outside for his morning constitutional and encountered an intruder, another cat from the ‘hood. They confronted each other against the back fence. Then it started. Our cat pounced on the intruder and, shall we say, gave him the dickens.

We had heard from our vet that cats can defend themselves without front claws by using their back claws as weapons. To be honest, the combatants were moving so quickly I could detect precisely how our brave cat was fighting off the intruder.

Suffice to say he did. The other cat jumped the fence. Socks’s fur was bristling. He settled down quickly once he realized he had won the fight.

I felt this odd sense of pride in his ability to fend off the intruder. No blood was shed by either animal.

Still, I have to say it: That’s my boy.

Uncategorized

President vs. Military: Nothing new in Gates book

My friends on the right are having a good time these days dissecting former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s assessment of Barack Obama’s presidency, particularly the part about the president’s strained relations with the military. He writes about it in his memoir, “Duty.”

I have been wondering about that. Is it really unique to this president, or to the office, that the commander in chief would have difficulty with the brass?

I tend to think not.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/01/15/gates_obama_was_suspicious_of_militarys_motives.html

The link attached here contains part of an interview that Sean Hannity had with Gates in which Hannity seems to seek to lure Gates into acknowledging some kind of special animus between this White House and the Pentagon.

Again, is that really new and unique to this administration?

I am going to share a brief personal recollection on that very subject.

My late uncle, Tom Kanelis, was a career Army officer. He enlisted in 1943 and then received his commission some time after that. He then served during the Korean War, where he saw all kinds of hell as an infantry officer with the 2nd Infantry Division. He would serve a total of 27 years in the Army before retiring in 1970 with rank of colonel.

His last post was at the Pentagon, where he served as a staff officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He attended many high-level briefings with the Joint Chiefs and their civilian bosses, namely the defense secretary and his staff.

I asked Tom about the brass’s view of civilian authority. He was pretty unequivocal. The brass resented all civilian authority, period, he said. I was shocked to hear that. “What about Ike?” I asked of President Dwight Eisenhower, the former general of the Army who — as you will recall — played a huge role in defeating Hitler’s forces during World War II. Didn’t matter, Tom said. Once Ike took off his uniform and and then entered politics, he added, he became one of “them.”

Yes, this is just one example. Other officers have different views of different presidents. Ronald Reagan is held up as the recent example of a commander in chief who had huge respect among the ranks of the brass.

I also know that the brass at the highest levels won’t say directly whether they disagree with a civilian edict. They take an oath to follow lawful orders without questioning them.

Gates’s revelations about Barack Obama and his top military commanders doesn’t surprise me in the least. They’ve existed at some level throughout the history of the Republic and will exist for as long as the nation exists.

That means forever.

Uncategorized

Okla. same-sex marriage ban nixed; is Texas next?

Well, this is a fascinating development in the on-going debate over same-sex marriage.

A U.S. district judge has struck down Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage, declaring that the state’s constitutional amendment violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the one granting equal protection under the law.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/oklahoma-gay-marriage-ban-struck-down

I’ll point here that Oklahoma is arguably even redder — meaning more Republican — than Texas, which is pretty darn red.

That begs an obvious question, in my mind. Would the Texas constitutional amendment stand up under a challenge such as the one mounted in Oklahoma?

Judge Terrence Kern wrote: “Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.”

Two couples of the same sex challenged the Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage in 2004. Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment was approved by a majority vote of all Oklahomans. The judge’s ruling declares that even with a majority vote, the amended state constitution cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution.

Precisely the same thing happened in Texas, where voters approved a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. To be honest, that vote made me uncomfortable for a number of reasons, the chief of which was that the state already had a statute on the books that prohibited people of the same sex from marrying each other. The Legislature, though, decided to add some extra enforcement of that law by piling on a constitutional amendment.

Texans then said “not just ‘no,’ but ‘hell no!'” to the same-sex marriage prohibition.

Is our state’s constitutional amendment any more legitimate than the one struck down in Oklahoma?

I’m thinking it’s not.

Uncategorized

Texting draws violent response

Time for a shameful admission: I’ve wanted to physically harm people I’ve witnessed sending text messages while sitting in a movie theater.

I’ve never acted on that impulse … thank goodness.

But a 71-year-old retired police officer did just that the other day and he now is facing the prospect of spending perhaps the rest of his life in prison.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/?hpt=zite_zite3_featured

Curtis Reeves is being charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of 43-year-old Chad Coulson, who was sending a text message to his daughter while the film “Lone Survivor” was being shown.

The men argued. Then it escalated. The confrontation ended when shots were fired, killing Coulson.

Wesley Chapel, Fla., authorities are investigating the case. Prosecutors have leveled charges against the ex-cop.

Given what we’ve witnessed about Florida law in recent months — e.g., the George Zimmerman acquittal in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin — there’s no telling how this case is going to turn out.

However, it certainly sends a message to those who would choose to ignore theater messages flashed on screens prior to the start of a film to put telecommunications devices away — or else.

In this case, the “or else” proved deadly.

I’m taking the hint.

Uncategorized

Coverup looms as worst part of bridge battle

If Richard Nixon taught politicians of the future anything, it should have been that the cover-up usually is worse than the crime itself.

The president got caught in covering up the Watergate burglary by using federal authorities to quash an investigation. It cost him his job in August 1974.

Is there another cover-up under way in New Jersey?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-nj-documents-show-extensive-coverup-in-fort-lee-traffic-shutdown/2014/01/10/09af4efc-7a1f-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html

The Washington Post suggests there might be some serious trouble brewing for Gov. Chris Christie, who’s been investigated for the closure of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, allegedly as payback for a Democratic mayor’s refusal to endorse Christie’s re-election bid.

Did the governor order the lane closures on the world’s busiest bridge? I doubt it. But did he know about it when it occurred? Was his staff acting on orders given by those quite close to the governor?

Does all of this testify to Christie’s reputation as a vengeful bully?

What did the governor know and when did he know it? That question — a form of which was posed by Republican U.S. Sen. Howard Baker during the Senate Watergate Committee hearings — went to the president of the United States. It seems valid today to ask it of Gov. Christie.

Uncategorized

Biden multi-tasks: peace talks with memorial service

Vice President Joe Biden took advantage of a key opportunity today to visit with Israeli President Shimon Peres about the need to keep peace talks going with the Palestinian Authority.

Biden presses Israel on peace talks

Biden went to Israel to attend the memorial service for the late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who died over the weekend at age 85.

The VP’s message was that Israel should recognize Palestinian autonomy while seeking guarantees of its own security.

For his part, Peres told Biden that the Palestinians aren’t the “enemy.

“They are our neighbors and our friends,” he said, adding that terrorism is “destroying their fabric.”

That’s a realistic view of life in that terribly troubled region.

“Anytime that you have a leader from the United States as significant as Vice President Biden sitting down with the prime minister of Israel, which Vice President Biden will be doing while we’re here, there’s an opportunity for progress,” she said. “Every time there is an opportunity for progress, for the United States to be in a position to help Israel in the cause of crafting and finalizing a two-state solution, we take that opportunity.”

I’m reminded of what the great Winston Churchill once said about the value of talking. “To jaw-jaw always is better than to war-war,” Churchill said.

Keep jawing.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience