I hate re-plowing old ground.

But …

A report out of Florida concerning a former top Amarillo municipal administrator brings to light the dangers of failing to screen applicants thoroughly for these jobs.

According to an Amarillo Globe-News story co-written by my friends Karen and Kevin Welch, Jihad El Eid has been charged with bribery and is being sought – along with his brother – by federal authorities who want to arrest them. El Eid is charged in Broward County, Fla., with taking $150,000 in bribes in exchange for landing construction contracts from a company also under investigation.

Why does this matter to us here in Amarillo? Because El Eid once was hired to be the city’s traffic engineer, a post that pays a handsome six-figure salary financed with public money. The problem with El Eid, though, was that he was under suspicion of bribery at the time he was hired in December 2010. El Eid was a traffic engineer in Florida, but had been demoted from that job. No one here at the time thought to inquire about the demotion and what led up to it.

Amarillo officials acknowledged this major hiring breakdown. El Eid left the city and eventually the country – ending up in his native Lebanon – while on the job in Amarillo. City Manager Jarrett Atkinson fired him when he failed to report to work.

To his great credit, Atkinson – who was fairly new in his own job at the time – called for a top-to-bottom review of the city’s hiring practices and has instituted a policy that requires background and reference checks on all applicants.

That revamped policy is the good news coming out of this embarrassing tale. The bad news is that the city is having to relive this nightmare all over again while authorities in Florida seek to solve a criminal act.

It’s time for me to come clean on something that happened this afternoon.

While driving home from a noon meeting in downtown Amarillo, I was flipping through radio channels when I came upon Rush Limbaugh’s AM radio gabfest. It didn’t take long to remind myself why I virtually never listen to the blowhard. (Note: I said “virtually never,” because the comments here disqualify me from proclaiming that I “absolutely never” listen to Limbaugh.)

He was bloviating about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s appearance before two congressional committees Wednesday in which she explained what happened on Sept. 11, 2012 in that horrific fire fight that erupted at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four heroic Americans, including Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya. I read Wednesday that he described the hearings as a “pukefest,” apparently out of disgust over the way Democratic senators and House members praised Clinton’s service to the country.

For the record, I concur that she’s been a spectacular secretary of state.

Limbaugh noted that Clinton has this “aura of invincibility” about her, which he apparently doesn’t believe is warranted. And why not? “She’s never been elected to anything,” he bellowed.

Stop. Hold it. Time out.

My memory is clear on this. Hillary Clinton, after serving eight years as first lady of the United States, was elected to the U.S. Senate from New New York in 2000 and re-elected in 2006. Both victories were landslides. Thus, she has been elected to something … a pretty important office in fact. And if I remember it correctly, she won plenty of Senate admirers from both political parties for her work ethic, intelligence and her own ability to forge bipartisan compromises.

Is this a major point? Probably not in the grand scheme of things, but it does demonstrate how one individual continues to hold such sway with an adoring public that ignores his glaring aversion to the truth.

There, now I feel better.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/?hpt=hp_c1

It’s going to happen, finally. Women will be allowed to serve in combat roles in the U.S. military. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement later today in what figures to be the most talked-about policy overhaul since the racial integration of the armed forces in the late 1940s.

Yes, it’s bigger than lifting the ban on gays serving openly, given that everyone knew that gays were serving already.

But here’s the question: Aren’t women serving already in combat roles? Yes they are and they’re doing so with distinction. They’re flying combat aircraft – helicopters and fixed-wing; they driving truck convoys through hostile territory, and some of them have died as a result; they are serving with civil affairs units in combat zones, working with indigenous populations in what was called “pacification” during the Vietnam War.

What Panetta will announce is that women will be allowed to serve in the combat arms: infantry, armor and artillery. And that’s where some disagreement may emerge. I think it’s overblown, given the role that women have been playing already on the battlefield.

Will women be strong enough to walk on patrols carrying rucksacks full of gear? That seems to be the top concern among infantry personnel. What about handling artillery ordnance? And what about their skill at operating an M-1 Abrams battle tank? I understand the concern, but the Pentagon brass now believes female military personnel will rise to the challenge that is being thrown in front of them.

I’ll make this personal point of privilege. A cousin of mine is serving in the Army. She’s been ordered on several tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the Afghanistan tours of late have been of relatively brief duration. She has worked in a civil affairs capacity and has been armed to the teeth while working with civilians trying to build infrastructure in their communities. She also has engaged in fire fights with enemy personnel. I have no doubt, none, that she can hold her own in any male colleague.

OK, I’m biased. I’m immensely proud of my cousin. But my sense is that she is just one of many thousands of women who can carry out any order given them.

Yet another new day is dawning at the Pentagon, and it will result in the strengthening of the world’s most powerful military force.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/01/23/slow-start-to-legislative-session-part/

The Texas Legislature meets every other year for 140 days. That’s about five months’ time to get lots of business done for a state of 26 million inhabitants and one of the world’s largest economies.

Yet as it always happens, our 150 state representatives and 31 state senators lollygag around for far too long, getting into a rush at the end to try to wrap up the business for which they have so little time to complete.

It’s happening again in this session, apparently.

I have been watching this spectacle unfold since 1984, when my family and I first moved Texas, first to Beaumont and then to Amarillo. I simply don’t get it.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, given that we pay our “citizen” legislators so little money. They earn $600 a month. In addition, they get a per diem expense payment while the Legislature is in session. It’s less than $200 daily and it’s supposed to cover ancillary expenses related to the job, such as lunches with special interest representatives and the like, office supplies, staff expenses … those kinds of things.

It’s probably unrealistic, then, to expect our legislators to hit the ground at a full sprint when they’re sworn in at the beginning of the session. I don’t doubt that our state lawmakers – Reps. John Smithee and Four Price, and Sen. Kel Seliger, all of Amarillo – work hard while they’re in Austin.

It’s just that the collective legislative body seems to cram so much work into so little time. Do they have time to read at the last minute the volumes of text contained in legislation? I suppose that’s why they have staff members and chiefs of staff. It’s their job to do the heavy lifting, which includes plowing through those gazillions of words.

Still, a part of me wishes the Legislature could get down to serious business earlier than it does. The result might be thoughtful laws that make sense, which is a key component of good government.

That assumes, of course, that Texans still believe in such a thing.

Some folks on the right have taken to accusing those on the left of playing the race card too frequently to explain the ideological chasm that exists among Americans in these contentious times.

But that criticism occasionally ignores an unmistakable truth, which is that righties have their own racial burdens to bear.

Witness the recent rant by Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly, one of the premier right-wing loudmouths on TV. He accuses President Obama of wanting to take down Republicans because, according to Bill O, he thinks the GOP is the party of “white privilege.”

I’ll stand aside for now. Take a look at this link. I wonder what others think of O’Reilly’s comments.

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/278435-oreilly-obama-sees-gop-as-purveyors-of-white-privilege

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/17/opinion/obeidallah-bible/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Dean Obeidallah has this idea that presidents should not take their oath of office with their hand on a Bible.
In an essay he wrote for CNN.com, Obeidallah says the Constitution is the document to which the president swears and that is where his hand should rest. It’s also interesting to note that this man is a former lawyer and a “political comedian.” When I read the essay I kept looking for a punch line. I didn’t see one, so I’m assuming he’s making a serious point.
Well, President Obama has just taken his second inaugural oath and it has been reported by various media around the world that he took the oath with his hand on an old Bible once used by President Abraham Lincoln.
I got to thinking about what the CNN essayist said and wondered for a moment what kind of firestorm would erupt in the conservative media had this president taken his oath on a volume other than a Bible.
Every conservative political commentator’s head would explode. Heck, many of them already have accused the president of being a closet Muslim who sympathizes with terrorists … despite his many declarations of his Christian faith. That doesn’t matter, they say. The president is lying and he really hates Christians, the nuttiest among them say.
An acquaintance of mine once said the president took his fist oath with his hand on a Quran – Islam’s holy book. I looked at him, stunned to say the least. “How do you know that?” I asked. “It’s all over the Internet,” he said with as straight a face as I’ve ever seen someone utter such bilge. I told him – in not-very-polite terms – that what he had just said was nothing but unadulterated bull corn (or a term to that effect). We haven’t spoken to each other since.
The president takes what’s been viewed commonly as a sacred oath. Thus, in my view it is appropriate for him to place his hand on a Bible if that is what he prefers. The Constitution does not require it of presidents. But I see nothing wrong with him using the Bible as an affirmation of the oath he takes to serve the United States of America.
And, let’s not forget, presidents have the option of ending the oath with the “so help me God,” which Barack Obama has done twice.
Congratulations on your second inauguration, Mr. President. God bless you.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/277911-sen-mcconnell-seeks-fresh-start-with-president

I am heartened by what’s being reported about Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

It is that the Republican senator wants a fresh start with President Obama. No more talk, apparently, of making Obama a “one-term president.” Indeed, with the president’s second inauguration on tap this weekend, the single-term wish never will be fulfilled.

This bruising campaign that ended with Obama’s re-election – with a substantial Electoral College majority to boot – is history. It was a rough first term for the president and for the 112th Congress, which has made way for the current crop of lawmakers to try to solve the problems their immediate predecessors left unsolved.

The initial signs don’t look promising, with talk of impeachment over the president’s gun policies. Then again, the impeachment talk is coming from a couple of nut jobs, one of whom hails from Texas, freshman Republican Rep. Steve Stockman, who one commentator this week described as the House’s new “Allen West.”

But let’s set that silly stuff aside.

McConnell wants the president to talk about deficit reduction and spending cuts in his inaugural address. That’s a reasonable request. The good news, though, is that it comes with no outward threats. That could be a harbinger of the fresh start McConnell seeks.

It’s also instructive that as the fiscal talks reached a climax at the end of 2012, McConnell turned to his former Senate colleague, Vice President Joe Biden, for help in breaking the logjam. He gave up trying to negotiate with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and sought help from the schmoozer in chief of the Obama administration. That outreach also could be seen as the opening of a new chapter.

One final note: Both sides of this ongoing argument need to bury the hatchet – and not in each other’s back. My own hope is that President Obama can learn how to schmooze as well. Lyndon Johnson knew how to talk to the other side, as did Ronald Reagan.

Indeed, Obama is fond of invoking Reagan’s name when it benefits his own agenda. He also ought to adopt some of The Gipper’s inherent good cheer in working with Republicans.

With no more personal campaigns to wage, now is the time for a fresh start.

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.