A pair of editorials published by a paper where I used to work debates whether air conditioning units should be installed in Texas prisons.

The Beaumont Enterprise asks readers to make the call.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/opinions/editorials/article/PRO-CON-VIEW-Should-Texas-prisons-provide-4601603.php

Here’s my call: I don’t think Texas prisons need air conditioning.

My first tour of a Texas maximum-security prison occurred not long after I arrived in Amarillo in early 1995. The then-assistant warden took me on a tour of the lockdown, the William Clements Unit, and that’s where I saw how the inmates lived. The TDCJ tour guide, Rick Hudson, explained to me that the state just didn’t see a compelling need to air-condition its prison units. The Clements Unit is equipped with fans that blow ambient air around and that, he said, was sufficient for the inmates.

As the Enterprise editorial points out while arguing against the AC units, the cost of outfitting every prison facility in Texas would be astronomical. Didn’t the state just go through yet another legislative session in which budget-cutting was near the top of lawmakers’ agenda?

I am acutely aware of how hot it gets throughout the state. The Panhandle gets as hot as any other region of Texas. In places such as Beaumont – where I lived and worked for nearly 11 years – the heat is compounded by intense summer humidity that almost defies description.

The state, though, doesn’t lack for ways to help keep inmates reasonably comfortable during the hottest time of the year. Keep them hydrated. Let the fans blow the air throughout common areas.

I’ve been struck over the years by comments from hard-core Texans who complain that the prison system has become too much like a “country club.” I’ll tell you this: The Clements Unit is no country club. Many of the individuals who are doing time in these places have done some terrible deeds against society.

Are they suffering unduly because it gets warm inside those walls? Hardly.

I’m in the midst of trying to settle a score with a major American airline. To those seeking to do the same thing, I offer this simple piece of advice: Be patient … if you can.

My nightmare began the evening of June 6 on a United Airlines flight from Amarillo to Portland – the one in Oregon. The plane took off from AMA a bit late that afternoon and headed southeast toward Houston. About 20 minutes out, the pilot told us we would be diverted to College Station because inclement weather had shut down Houston’s Intercontinental Airport.

I glanced at my watch. I had a long layover at IAH so I figured, “No sweat. I’ll still get to Portland on time.” I knew how the Gulf Coast weather changes quickly. We landed in College Station.

Sure enough, a few minutes later, the pilot told us IAH was reopening and we would take off shortly … after the plane was refueled.

Then the fun began. About an hour later, the pilot came back on the air and said the ground crew put too much fuel in the plane and had to “defuel” the bird before we could take off. More time elapsed. Pilot then told us we couldn’t defuel the plane and we would take off and fly around for awhile so we could burn off the “excess fuel.” A 20-minute hop to IAH turned into an hour-plus.

I looked at my watch again. Out of luck. I would miss my connection to PDX. We landed in Houston. We sat on the taxiway for about, oh, an hour. Weather-related bedlam at the airport had backed gate traffic up. The pilot eventually parked our bird. We got vouchers for a hotel and some meals and then were bused to our hotel.

I took a three-hour power nap. Woke up. Got back to the airport in time for a 7:33 a.m. flight to Denver, where I would connect to another flight to Portland. We boarded the plane, a shiny new 787 Dreamliner.

We sat there. Pilot told us the plane wouldn’t start. We exited the plane, walked to another gate and boarded another Dreamliner. Our 7:33 a.m. departure was now set for 9:30 a.m. Then that departure was delayed while the crew awaited the arrival of the drinks they would serve us en route to Denver. We left around 10:30 a.m.

I looked at my watch … once more. With any luck we would arrive at Denver and I could make my connecting flight to Portland – but only if the airline would ensure the plane could wait a few minutes for me and some other passengers needing to make that connection.

We got to Denver about 15 minutes past the departure time. I deplaned, went to the agent at the end of the gate and was told my connecting flight already had taken off; I needed to rebook another flight.

I did. I then waited nearly 10 more hours in Denver before taking off for Portland at 9:22 p.m.

I landed safely at PDX.

Moral of the story: If it had been just the weather, I would have made every connection the previous evening and would not have lost a full day of vacation.

But now I’m trying to work through the airline’s website to get someone’s attention. The link I’m supposed to use keeps giving me “error” messages. I go to the “feedback” link. I’ve filled out three forms telling the airline what happened and asking for some kind of compensation, either a refund or a travel voucher.

I’m still waiting to hear from them.

I’m trying desperately now to follow my own advice about being patient. But my patience is running thin.

I’m baffled by the election results out of Iran.

The returns are in and an Islamic cleric named Hassan Rowhani has been elected the next president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He’s been called a “moderate,” which well could have much different meanings in Iran than it does in the land of the so-called “Great Satan.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/world/middleeast/iran-election.html?hp&_r=0

I’ll admit, though, to being mildly optimistic about what the returns mean. Might they mean a gradual cessation of the bluster and sabre-rattling we’ve heard from the current Iranian leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Could it mean that the new leadership wants, finally, to talk to us instead of threatening us with violence? And might it mean that our most valued and trusted ally in the Middle East, Israel, can stand down just a bit from the high-alert status created by Iran’s declared intent to wipe Israel off the face of the planet?

Rowhani’s victory well might signal the dawning of a new spring in Iran, where the economy is tanking thanks in part to the choking sanctions imposed by two American administrations – led by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Rowhani well might be listening to those who put him into power; he finished with 50.7 percent of the vote in a six-man field of candidates, avoiding a runoff.

Of course, time will have to tell us what all this means. It could mean nothing at all. Rowhani’s policies could turn out to be just a continuation of his predecessor’s madness. Then again, Rowhani’ victory could portend a new day that brings some semblance of reason and sanity to an Iranian government that, by my reckoning, never has experienced either trait.

If the latter is the case, the Iranians’ learning curve will be steep, but not insurmountable.

I was heartened to hear the election results out of Pampa this past month that allowed alcohol sales on Sunday.

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=910028#.Uby6Fkoo6t8

It’s going to be a reality in a town that had forbidden such activity for reasons that always have baffled me.

None of this activity means that people necessarily will abuse the booze. They won’t all climb into their cars and create a madhouse on city streets, roads and highways. Nor will they become drunken slobs staggering down the street in droves.

But the new city ordinance will, according to Pampa officials, bring additional revenue to retailers who choose to sell alcoholic beverages. Thus, the city and state will derive financial benefit from sales tax increases, which could be spent on such things as, say, ways to prevent alcohol abuse.

Many communities in Texas still prevent the sale of alcohol on Sunday, believing the holy day shouldn’t be tainted. I don’t understand any of this in an era when people are mobile enough to drive to the next community or even to the next county to imbibe.

It might have made some sense when Panhandle residents had to rely on horses and buggies to get from place to place. But that was then.

Welcome to the 21st century, Pampa.

John McCain doesn’t seem to think arming the rebels fighting the Syrian government isn’t enough.

What does the Republican senator from Arizona want? More troops on the ground? More American blood being spilled?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324049504578545772906542466.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

President Obama has decided to give weapons to the rebels fighting forces loyal to the hated Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. national security team has determined that Syrians have used chemical weapons against the rebels, a line that Obama said Assad shouldn’t have crossed. His response has been to become more actively involved in the civil war that reportedly now has killed more than 90,000 people, including several thousand children.

McCain, who’s been highly critical of the Obama administration’s foreign policy on many levels, believes arming the rebels is insufficient, but he won’t take the next step by declaring categorically what he really seems to want: direct military intervention.

We’ve ended the Iraq War after a decade of fighting there. The Afghan War is drawing to a close, after a fight that’s lasted even longer. We’ve already used air power to help topple Moammar Gadhafi in Libya; indeed, congressional Republicans were critical of that effort, suggesting that the president was “leading from behind” while our pilots were enforcing a no-fly zone over Libyan airspace.

So what now, in Syria?

By my reckoning, U.S. arming of forces loyal to the rebels well could turn the tide. I harken back to the 1980s when the late U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Lufkin, spearheaded congressional efforts to arm rebels in Afghanistan fighting the invading forces of the Soviet Union. Wilson pursued that effort doggedly and got enough of his congressional colleagues to go along with the effort that the mujahadeen eventually wore down the Soviet invaders and forced them out of Afghanistan. What resulted, of course, eventually would turn out badly for everyone, but the point is that we can provide sufficient firepower to turn the tide of battle in a region that is vital to our national interests.

And John McCain, of all people – given his own history of combat and imprisonment as a prisoner of war in Vietnam – should understand the costs associated with more warfare.

Gov. Rick Perry did it once more to the Texas Legislature: vetoing a bill with strong bipartisan support on specious grounds that it duplicates federal law.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/14/senator-perry-vetoed-equal-pay-bill/

Someone has to explain why the governor keeps sticking it in the eye of legislators from both parties who this legislative session have found ways to lock arms to forge bipartisan coalitions. The latest target of Perry’s veto pen is House Bill 950, which mandates equal pay regardless of gender. Yes, it looks and sounds just like the Lily Ledbetter Act approved by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in 2009. Perry vetoed the state law on the grounds that it duplicates federal law.

State Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, told the Texas Tribune: “I am deeply saddened by his action not just because of its impact on thousands of families affected by wage discrimination but because it’s a rejection of the bipartisanship that this body and the House showed by voting that bill to his desk.” Davis was a co-author of the bill that would have brought state law into synch with federal law.

Is that an unreasonable thing to do? Of course not. Perry, though, seems intent on wrecking the spirit of bipartisanship that became something of a pleasant surprise in the 2013 Legislature.

Perhaps it is Perry’s belief that Texas should stand alone against what he has labeled federal intrusion. Virtually every other state has approved laws that mirror the Ledbetter Act.

Why not Texas? Looks to me to be nothing more than partisan stubbornness.

I’m not a big fan of U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. It’s not that he’s done anything grossly objectionable, it’s merely that he’s flown mostly under my radar during all the years I’ve been interested in civic affairs.

But he said something the other day that resonates. The longest-serving – ever – member of Congress said Capitol Hill has gotten too nasty, too mean, too bitter, too partisan, too angry, too … well, take your pick.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/305521-toasted-as-longest-serving-dingell-urges-greater-civility-in-congress

He longs for a return to the days when Democrats and Republicans used to work together for the common good, such as when Democratic President Lyndon Johnson worked hand in hand with Republican U.S. Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois to get the Voting Rights Bill passed in the mid-1960s. Dingell was there for it.

It’s a new day now. We have the likes of, oh, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas questioning decorated Vietnam War vets’ appreciation for the military. Remember when then-Democratic U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York launched into a frothing, screaming soliloquy on the House floor, calling his GOP colleagues every name in the book?

Dingell remembers a day when both politicians of both parties were Americans first and Democrats or Republicans second. These days it’s the other way around.

Effective governance doesn’t function well under the current toxic environment.

I have concluded this about Republican politicians: They should shut their pie holes when the subject of abortion comes up.

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., is the latest Republican inductee into the Political Hall of Shameful Comments They Wish They Could Take Back.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/12/rep-franks-tries-to-clear-up-rape-comment/?hpt=hp_bn3

Franks said the other day that the “incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.” He was speaking about a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. The bill does not exempt pregnancies that result from rape, an event that Franks said doesn’t warrant an exemption because there are so few of them.

Hmmm.

OK, now he says his comments were “taken out of context,” that he meant to reference rape-caused pregnancies in which the baby is in the womb for more than six months.

We all know by now what two other recent GOP pols said about rape. Former U.S. Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri said infamously in 2012 that women’s bodies have a way of preventing pregnancy after the woman is raped, making a ridiculous reference to what he called “legitimate rape.” Then came former Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock’s comment that a pregnancy caused by a rape was “God’s will.” Both men lost their bids for higher office.

Now we have Trent Franks stepping into a realm into which he knows nothing.

I don’t particularly care how Franks intends to “clarify” his remarks. He has spoken stupidly about the hottest of hot-button issues.

In the future, when the topic of abortion comes up, simply do this: Shut. Up.

We all love firefighters. They put their lives on the line whenever the alarm goes off. They’re the real deal.

This morning, I witnessed a brief exchange between a group of Amarillo firefighters and a little boy who I guess is around 4 or 5 years of age.

The firemen, about eight of them, were shopping for groceries at the United Supermarket at 45th and Bell around 10:30 a.m. The little boy saw them in the produce department and spoke out, apparently recognizing that they were firemen; I’m not sure how he would know that, as they weren’t wearing their fire-proof suits and hats, so I’m guessing someone said something to him.

Some of the firemen walked over the youngster to engage him in some conversation. The youngster’s grin said so much.

I think I overheard one of the men ask the boy if he wanted to be a firefighter someday. I’m pretty sure the boy said yes. “Give me a high five,” one of the firemen said to the youngster, who happily obliged.

Those men made one youngster’s day.

And to be honest, just by watching what happened, they made mine, too.

Well done, fellas, and thanks for your service to the community.

It always intrigues me that whenever Panhandle media make note of the region’s legislative delegation, they find a way to omit the name of one of its best.

State Sen. Bob Duncan, a Republican who lives in Lubbock, is on Texas Monthly’s list of 10 best legislators. Duncan’s Senate district sprawls through much of West Texas’s South Plains region, but it does include a tiny corner of the Panhandle.

It’s good – for me, at least – to know the region is represented by someone who’s held in fairly universal esteem by those who watch Texas government’s wheels grind along.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/best-and-worst-legislators-2013

None of the Panhandle’s other lawmakers made the “Best” or “Worst” lists. Good to know that our delegation isn’t embarrassing itself – and the rest of us – by “honored” with dubious distinctions such as being on the “10 Worst” list published every other year by Texas Monthly. But it is disappointing, at least a little, to see that we haven’t made the “Best” list this year.

We don’t lack for hard-working legislators. Republican state Reps. John Smithee and Four Price of Amarillo are serious fellows who take their jobs seriously. Smithee’s been doing it longer (since 1985) than any of the Panhandle delegation and, thus, has earned the title of “dean” of the bunch. Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, the “other” Panhandle senator, also is a serious fellow who has yet to make a splash big enough for the Texas Monthly gurus to notice.

It’s not that Texas Monthly is the end-all to this kind of recognition. It’s just that the magazine’s lists are cause for celebration or derision when their names are revealed.

I’ll now give a hand-clap to Bob Duncan, one of the best of the state’s 181 state legislators. He’s one of ours to boot.