I have to commend the Amarillo City Commission from refusing to flinch on the issue of red-light cameras at several dangerous intersections.

What’s more, I congratulate the commission for agreeing to expand deployment of these devices to at least two additional intersections.

The criticism that swelled up when the city installed the cameras more than five years ago seems to have quieted down a bit. But the commission took the correct course when it deployed the cameras to catch those who run through red lights and, thus, break the law. The city declared the cameras to be a hedge against threats to public safety, given the accidents that were occurring because motorists were ignoring the command to stop when the light turns red.

Back when I was working as a daily opinion journalist writing in support of the initiative, I heard a snootful from camera critics. Perhaps the most innovative gripe came from those who said they wanted to face their “accuser,” meaning they didn’t want some automated system catching them in the act of breaking the law. The cameras are activated when someone runs through a light; it snaps a picture of the license plate on the offending vehicle; the Amarillo Police Department runs that plate through its system to identify the owner of the vehicle. The city then issues a $75 citation to the owner, who then has the option to pay it or contest it.

Thus, the violator gets to face his or her “accuser.”

The most disgraceful complaint came from those who said the cameras invaded motorists “privacy,” which of course ignores the fact that motor vehicle traffic flows on public streets. Therefore, what happens on public property becomes the public’s business.

State law restricts how cities can spend the revenue they collect. Amarillo pays the vendor and then dedicates what’s left to traffic improvement. It cannot spend the money on office frills for, say, the city manager. Instead, Amarillo has used the money to pay for improved traffic enforcement and upgrades to traffic signals around the city.

I continue to support the concept of using these devices to catch motorist lawbreakers. And I sense that given the relative silence among residents that they’re getting used to the cameras’ presence. If the result is fewer accidents and perhaps even a decline in revenue, then so be it.

The cameras are doing their job.

President Obama has made it known what he wants to do to curb gun violence.

He wants to limit the size of clips to 10 rounds; he wants complete background checks of everyone who purchases a firearm; he wants make assault weapons illegal, as they once had been declared.

Now, with that is it possible to have a rational debate on this issue? I hope so, but I fear it won’t happen.

Second Amendment advocates – or should I say “zealots”? – have launched their PR campaign against these measures. The National Rifle Association is airing a TV ad that says the president is a hypocrite because the Secret Service provides armed protection for his children but he opposes arming teachers and security personnel in our schools. I cannot at this moment think of a more despicable ad campaign in recent memory than that one.

Look at it here:

http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2013/01/16/16543105-nra-ad-brings-obama-kids-into-gun-debate-white-house-fights-back?lite

Let’s move on. Before the president announced his proposals, at least two House Republicans threatened to impeach Barack Obama if he issued executive orders to implement some of these measures. They contend Obama would violate the Second Amendment by issuing such an order. Oh my.

I am a gun owner. I have two rifles stored in a place where no one but me ever goes. I don’t want the feds to take them from me. Based on what I heard today I am quite certain my rifles – both of which I have owned since I was a little boy – will remain in my possession. I also am equally certain that other responsible gun owners – the hunters, sports shooters and collectors to whom Obama referred today – also will keep their firearms.

However, to hear some hysterical critics tell it, the president has just laid the groundwork for the wholesale confiscation of every firearm in the nation.

I am certain I heard him say once again that he honors the Second Amendment and that hooded agents will not be barging into my home to take my guns from me. Didn’t anyone else hear that too?

What the president wants is to make it more difficult for lunatics like the shooters who executed the children in Newtown, Conn., or killed movie patrons in Aurora, Colo., or opened fire on Christmas shoppers in Clackamas, Ore., to purchase weapons designed exclusively to kill many people in rapid-fire fashion.

Will these proposals do the job? We won’t know unless if we have rational, reasonable and thoughtful debate on the subject. I am ready to listen to that debate. I am not going to listen to frenzied rants from those who are sowing the seeds of fear.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16528885-mark-sanford-to-announce-run-for-congress-wednesday?lite

Welcome back to the political arena, Mark Sanford. The U.S. House of Representatives needs more entertaining members such as you.

A part of me wants you to win the House seat. Maybe your nutty behavior will take our minds off some of the depressing seriousness that emanates too often from the House.

Will South Carolinians forgive your 2009 disappearing act, when your staff said you were hiking in the Appalachians while you in fact were in Argentina frolicking with your mistress? If they’re anything like Texans, they probably will. South Carolina is as reliably Republican as the Lone Star State. Sure, you suffered terrible damage because of this event. But at least your ex-wife, Jenny, emerged from that tawdry episode with an improved public image.

But here’s my favorite part of your public service I hope you bring back if you’re elected: I hope you tote that cot back to your DC office and sleep on it at night. When you were in the House in those days, you made quite a show of sleeping on the cot. You said you wanted to connect with ordinary folks back home. You went home every weekend to shake hands, listen to constituents, maybe kiss a few babies and scarf down some bad food at political events.

That office-sleepover stunt got me thinking. What kind of “real American” does that? Who sleeps at the office and then scurries home on weekends to provide some kind of phony visual demonstration?

At the time, Mr. Sanford, I inquired about my congressman, a fellow conservative such yourself. Mac Thornberry of Clarendon actually lives like a normal American. He moved his wife and then-two young children to DC when he got elected. They lived as a family. Yes, he still jets back to the Panhandle fairly regularly to visit with the home folks.

Well, whatever. I’m looking forward to watching you from a distance. What with social media and prying eyes and ears everywhere, there’ll be no place for you to hide.

Good luck surviving the scrutiny.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/impeach-obama-guns-edwin-meese.php

Ed Meese is back in the limelight, in all his goofy glory.

The former Reagan administration attorney general says President Obama could face impeachment if he choose the executive order route in implementing tighter gun regulations in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., massacre on Dec. 14. You’ve heard of that one, right? It left 20 children and six teachers dead, along with the shooter, who began his rampage by killing his mother.

The president wants something done about gun violence and he’s getting the usual pushback from the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups. They think any measure to tighten restrictions would violate the Second Amendment guarantee of gun ownership. I am quite sure Barack Obama has said he intends to honor the Second Amendment by allowing responsible gun owners to keep their firearms. His intent is to make it more difficult for lunatics to acquire them.

Meese says the Congress ought to explore impeaching the president if it determines he has violated the Constitution. Meese is the latest conservative to make such a claim. The looniest call for impeachment came from congressional new guy Steve Stockman, an East Texas Republican who’s back in the House of Representatives after losing his his bid for re-election way back in 1996. He had represented the Gulf Coast for a single term after defeating the late legendary Democrat Jack Brooks in the 1994 Contract With American GOP wipeout. Stockman did not distinguish himself and was drummed out two years later.

Stockman won election to a newly drawn district not far from his old one. And now this loudmouth is talking about impeaching the president whose intent is to protect children from madmen like the one who opened fire with an assault rifle in the Newtown elementary school classroom.

I’ll ask it again: Isn’t there some compromise to be found that tightens the rules for owning guns while honoring the Second Amendment?

I prefer the wisdom of two renowned combat veterans, former four-star Army Gens. Colin Powell and Stanley McChrystal, who in recent days have said that the type of weapon used in Newtown should be used exclusively on the battlefield.

http://thehill.com/polls/276869-the-hill-poll-voters-expect-tighter-gun-laws-

Polls are bearing something quite clear. A near-majority of Americans want stricter gun laws. The nation’s leading gun-rights group, the National Rifle Association, doesn’t want the feds to touch the gun laws.

So, here is where we stand. More Americans than not are telling lawmakers one thing; the NRA, meanwhile, is telling them something else. Who will members of the House and Senate heed?

My guess is that the NRA is going to win this argument once more.

Those polls declaring a plurality of support for tighter laws also indicate Americans don’t believe necessarily they’ll reduce gun violence. That is what the NRA has been saying.

But there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the a political system that puts more weight behind the moneyed special interests than it does with rank-and-file Americans whose only tool is their vote.

I’m acutely aware that most Texas Panhandle residents do not subscribe to the results determined by The Hill poll. Accordingly, the region’s congressman, Republican Mac Thornberry, is going to oppose tightening gun laws. So will the state’s two GOP senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. But these three men represent a tiny fraction of the national electorate; their views on guns apparently aren’t even shared by a majority of Americans.

If they manage to win the argument and persuade their colleagues to keep their hands off existing federal gun laws, then we could argue that they’ve circumvented the will of the people.

And the National Rifle Association, arguably the nation’s pre-eminent single-issue lobby, has scored another victory.

I keep wondering: Why can’t Congress, the White House and these special interests forge a compromise that enacts tougher laws while protecting the Second Amendment? Are gun rights and stricter laws mutually exclusive principles? I think not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57563653-10391739/george-p-bush-prepares-for-statewide-run-in-texas/

I am intrigued by the notion that yet another Bush is about to become part of Texas political history. It remains to be seen, of course, whether he becomes a mere footnote or carves out a significant place in Lone Star State lore.

George P. Bush, the son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, says he wants to run for statewide office in Texas. Will it be for Texas governor, for attorney general, for land commissioner? The smart money suggests he will seek the land commissioner’s office.

Bush is an interesting young man. He’s 36 years old, is fluent in Spanish (his mother is Mexican), is handsome and is well-educated (with a law degree).

I witnessed George P. Bush’s political coming out at the 1992 Republican convention in Houston when he took to the podium to speak on behalf of “Poppy,” George H.W. Bush, who was seeking re-election as president. The 16-year-old George P. ended his speech by exhorting the crowd with “Viva Boosh!” The Astrodome crowd erupted … and a star was born.

His name also is Bush, which at this very moment would – at best – be a mixed blessing in almost every other state in the Union. But not in Texas … apparently.

Uncle George W. Bush left the presidency in 2009 with the nation’s economy in shambles; we were still fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Osama bin Laden was still hiding in plain sight in a three-story compound in Pakistan. Since then, though, the economy is recovering, the Iraq war is over, the Afghanistan war is drawing to a close and bin Laden’s corpse was dumped into the ocean after U.S. commandos killed him in May 2011.

George P. Bush’s name remains a plus in Texas nonetheless. I’m not entirely sure why that’s so, but it is.

The land commissioner’s job has been described by some as something of a dead-end post. Not true. It can be a stepping stone to bigger and better offices. But whichever course George P. chooses will depend on what other Republicans do.

Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson was thought to be running for lieutenant governor; then again, the current lieutenant governor, David Dewhurst, was considered a shoo-in for the U.S. Senate, except that he lost the GOP primary this past summer. Dewhurst likely will seek re-election to the job he holds. Attorney General Greg Abbott might run against Gov.-for-Life Rick Perry, should “Goodhair” seek another term. If Abbott makes that leap, it opens up the AG’s office for someone such as George P.

But if Abbott seeks re-election to the AG office, does that give George P. an opening to run for (gulp!) governor?

All this intrigue makes my head hurt.

In the old days, presidents would appoint people to Cabinet posts, a few senators might gripe out loud, but then the nominee would be confirmed overwhelmingly.

Those days may be gone.

President Obama has nominated White House chief of staff Jack Lew to be treasury secretary. He is considered by most observers – and that includes most senators who will vote on his confirmation – to be eminently qualified. He has extensive federal budget experience; Lew is known to be a tough negotiator; he has the confidence of the president. These all are solid qualifications to be the nation’s top Money Man.

But at least one senator is vowing to block Lew’s nomination. Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama said the other day that Lew “never should become treasury secretary.” Why? Sessions says that Lew is too much of an, um, ideologue. He’s just too darn liberal to suit Sessions. Never mind that Barack Obama was re-elected on Nov. 6 by a significant Electoral College majority, not mention nearly 5 million popular votes. And as such, he is entitled to select qualified individuals to serve in the nation’s Cabinet.

Jack Lew is qualified to be the next secretary of the treasury.

Sessions, though, embodies much of the contentiousness that infects both houses of Congress. Senate rules empower him to block the nomination all by himself if he so chooses. He can mount a de facto filibuster, even without ever having to stand on the Senate floor and talk himself to unconsciousness – which is the way filibusters ought to commence.

Sessions is vowing to be a one-man wrecking crew.

What’s most fascinating about this particular senator’s objection is his own history as it regards Senate confirmation.

In 1986, President Reagan appointed Sessions to a federal judgeship. He was a federal prosecutor at the time. The Senate began probing Sessions’ record and learned that he had uttered some racially insensitive remarks. Indeed, some critics labeled him an outright racist. The Senate Judiciary Committee, after hearing all of that – and after hearing from Sessions himself – voted to reject his nomination. Sessions withdrew his name from consideration.

Sessions was elected to the U.S. Senate a decade later.

The irony lies in that this senator, who couldn’t even muster enough votes on a Senate panel to be confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench, now is able – by virtue of his office – to cast aspersions on other nominees.

It is simply amazing that Jeff Sessions would exhibit such gall.

President Obama cracked wise the other day while announcing his nomination of Jack Lew to be the next treasury secretary. The object of the president’s wisecrack was Lew’s signature.

It’s illegible. An NPR reporter referred to it this morning as resembling the “swirly frosting on top of a Hostess Cupcake.” Well, Lew – the White House chief of staff – hadn’t worried about the appearance of his signature until now. You see, the signature is going to appear on paper currency once he takes office, a point that Obama made while announcing the nomination.

The president said when he learned of Lew’s chicken-scratch signature, he considered “rescinding my offer to appoint him” as treasury boss. Then Lew agreed, the president said, to “make one letter legible so as not to debase our currency.”

Everyone laughed. Indeed, the current treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, had to perform a signature makeover of his own when he took office, as it, too, was illegible.

But my wife made an interesting point when we learned of this signature kerfuffle. What about future generations of treasury secretaries – today’s elementary school students – who aren’t taught proper penmanship. The computer age has all but made handwriting a lost art.

In fact, we have young members of our family actually admit to being unable to sign their name in cursive handwriting.

How many millions of young American school children are going to come of age in the next generation or two who fall into the category of not knowing how to sign their name? And what will happen when one of them gets a call from, say, the 50th president of the United States asking them to lead the Treasury Department? Will they have to construct a signature that until that moment did not exist?

We’re laughing now at Jack Lew’s illegible signature. He can repair it quickly, given that he likely had to learn the proper way to write his name.

It might not be such an easy task down the road when handwriting becomes extinct.

Good government requires certain responsibilities of those who earn their pay from taxpayers’ wallets.

Take the case of incarcerating bad guys. Curry County, N.M., has had difficulty in recent years retaining jail administrators. The county recently fired its latest jail administrator. The job has been a revolving door the past five years. It seems the county keeps picking losers to run its lockup.

The two newest members of the Curry County commission, though, now say they want the county to consider seriously privatizing the jail. Put the operation in the hands of a private security company and let it handle the headaches associated with running the place. That’s the issue the county should discuss, the commissioners say.

Bad idea, commissioners.

Texas has privatized its own prison system at several locations. There have been no widespread cases of abuse, mismanagement or malfeasance at these lockups. But the privatized nature of these institutions doesn’t deserve the credit by itself.

I’ve always felt that state and local governments have a responsibility that accompanies the roles they embrace openly. Counties and municipalities hire police officers to arrest suspected criminals; taxpayers foot the bill for those salaries. Counties also pay judges – handsomely in many cases – for the work they do in administering justice; that money, too, comes from the public trough. Taxpayers pay for courtrooms. Moreover, they pay jurors a small stipend to listen to evidence and to deliver verdicts. The public also pays for prosecutors who seek jail or prison time for offenders.

Why, then, should the public responsibility end when the criminals are locked up?

Whatever problems Curry County is having with jail administrators probably has far less to do with the public nature of the job than with incompetent hiring practices.

Putting jail operations in the hands of private contractors is the same thing as waving a white flag of surrender, that the county cannot do anything to fix an internal problem.

I cannot let this day pass without taking note that it marks the 100th birthday of the 37th president of the United States, Richard Milhous Nixon.

I’ll admit to having mixed feelings about this day and the man who came into this world a century ago.

He took part in the first election in which I voted. It was 1972 and I voted for his opponent, Democratic U.S. Sen. George McGovern. I was barely home from the Army and was cutting my political teeth. I despised Nixon’s conduct of the Vietnam War, which I got see up close for a time. McGovern, who died near the end of 2012, sought to end that war. Nixon’s allies painted McGovern with grotesque distortions. The Committee to Re-Elect the President – with its apt acronym CREEP – waged a reprehensible campaign that turned out to be a winner; Nixon won re-election in a 49-state landslide.

It didn’t end there. The Watergate scandal that started with the June 17, 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Committee office in DC exploded in 1973 and ‘74. The nation learned of Nixon’s profound paranoia, of how he sicced the CIA against the investigation of what happened at the Watergate. The House of Reps sought to impeach him; the Judiciary Committee drafted articles of impeachment, setting the stage for the full House to follow suit. Nixon quit his office in August 1974.

Nixon, who was nicknamed Tricky Dick by those who loathed him, left the public stage with the disgrace he had earned.

But my feelings about him today, so many years later, have been tempered by what has happened to his Republican Party. Nixon would be seen by many GOP zealots today as the kind of liberal that Nixon himself despised. The Environmental Protection Agency came to life on Nixon’s watch; the president supported equal rights for women; he was virtually silent on issues such as abortion and marriage equality. How would he fare in today’s climate? Not well. Indeed, some have suggested he couldn’t win a GOP primary.

I cannot celebrate this man’s centennial birthday. My own memories of him remain mostly negative, although my bitterness toward him has subsided. Perhaps one day those thoughts will turn positive. Just not yet.