Still steamed over red-light cameras’ demise

I must admit that I am still angry with the 2019 Texas Legislature, which in itself is no great flash. A lot of Texans are angry with legislators for a lot of reasons.

My main source of anger stems from legislators’ decision to pull the plug on red-light cameras that cities have deployed to help police enforce traffic laws. I mean, too many motorists are none too inclined to obey red lights at intersections which are intended to order motorists to stop and not proceed until the light turns green.

The result has been serious automobile crashes. Motorists occasionally stop and then race through the intersections before the light changes from red to green. Or, they just keep on racing on through.

Dallas city traffic officials reported this past week that the red-light cameras had helped reduce auto accidents. They also generated revenue for the city to use on traffic infrastructure improvements, which the Legislature required of cities when it enacted the red-light camera law in the first place.

Then came the pronouncement from Gov. Greg Abbott, who signaled his willingness to sign legislation banning cameras when it got to his desk. The Legislature delivered it to him and, by golly, he kept his word. Dammit, anyway!

At least the Legislature had the good taste to allow cities to keep the cameras deployed until their vendor contracts had expired. Indeed, my wife and I recently visited Amarillo, where we lived for 23 years before moving to the Metroplex, and noticed that the city still has it cameras working. They’ll be unplugged in due course.

As a social media acquaintance of mine noted in reaction to an earlier blog post on the subject, driving on public streets is a “privilege” and not a right guaranteed for motorists, who all they have to do to avoid getting cited by cities is just follow the law.

Don’t run through the red lights!

Hey, Blago … you aren’t a ‘political prisoner’

I have to weigh in briefly on a ridiculous assertion by the former Illinois governor who contends he was a “political prisoner” sent to prison for eight years by “corrupt prosecutors.”

Rod Blagojevich had his sentence commuted by Donald Trump. He’s now out and is telling the world that he was imprisoned because of, um, pure politics.

Actually, he wasn’t sent to the slammer for those reasons. A jury of his peers convicted him of trying to “sell” a U.S. Senate that had been vacated by Barack Obama, who had been elected president of the United States. He was caught in a recording offering the seat to the highest bidder. I believe that fits the description of, dare I say it, a “quid pro quo.” It was an illegal act that stunk to high heaven.

Blago wasn’t a political prisoner. He got caught participating in an unseemly, corrupt political act. He was told to pay a price of a 14-year prison sentence.

Then along came Donald Trump, the former “Celebrity Apprentice” TV host. Blago had been a contestant on his show. So the former TV celebrity-turned-president thought he’d do his good friend a favor.

He set him free.

A political prisoner? Hah! Give me a break!

CNN’s Anderson Cooper challenged Blago’s assertion. Check it outĀ here.

Gov. Blagojevich is off his rocker.

Is Bernie becoming the new Hillary?

Maybe it’s just me, but I have to ask: Is Bernie Sanders becoming the new Hillary Clinton?

By that I wonder if Bernie is going to become a first-name celebrity the way Hillary became one about the time her husband was elected president of the United States in 1992.

I see headlines, I hear commentators, I read actual next and commentary text referring to the Vermont U.S. senator by his first name, leaving off the last name as if we’re supposed to know instinctively about whom they are referring.

There ain’t many celebrities who attain what I call “first name status.” They’re usually athletes. I think of Arnie, Reggie, Wilt, Magic.

Then came Hillary. Commentators refer to the former first lady, former U.S. senator and former secretary of state in a sort of colloquial fashion. I find it a bit disrespectful, if you want to know the truth. Then again, I have fallen occasionally into that trap on this blog. So I guess I cannot gripe too loudly.

Now it’s Bernie. We say the name and we’re supposed to presume it’s the independent senator from Vermont who’s masquerading as a Democrat while running for the party’s presidential nomination.

Hey, before he became president, we used to refer to Donald Trump as The Donald. Do you recall that? I guess now that he’s seized control of the nuclear launch codes, we’re supposed to treat with a modicum of respect ā€¦ if only he would behave in a manner that enables him to earn it. I don’t call him The Donald on this blog. I still cannot attach the word “President” in front of his last name; the thought of it makes me cringe. But I digress.

Bernie is now the established front runner for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2020. I don’t want him to run against Trump this fall. I believe Trump will bury the democratic socialist after sliming and smearing him beyond all recognition.

However, for as long as he remains in the public eye, I guess he’s going to be just plain ol’ Bernie.

They beat up on Bloomberg; now, wait for the ex-mayor to fight back

The five Democratic presidential contenders had their day in the first joint appearance with Michael Bloomberg.

Now it is quite likely that the former New York mayor, a late entrant into the Democratic primary fight, will be ready for Round Two.

The candidates will face off again next Tuesday in advance of the upcoming Super Tuesday primary featuring contests that will select about one-third of the delegates to this summer’s Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee.

Do I want Bloomberg to clean their clocks? Not necessarily. I merely want to warn the devotees of those who beat the stuffing out of Bloomberg that presidential confrontations have a history of reversing political fortunes.

Two example stand out:

  • Recall the 1984 debates between President Reagan and former Vice President Walter Mondale. The GOP president stumbled, mumbled and bumbled his way through the first encounter. Many in the media considered him washed up, that age was getting the better of him. The president came back in the second round and was asked whether, based on his first performance, he was up to the job. Reagan said he would not “exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Game over. Reagan was re-elected in a monumental landslide.
  • Ā In 2012, President Obama faced GOP challenger Mitt Romney in a series of debates. Round One was a disaster for Obama. Romney went on the attack. He had the president off balance for the entire encounter. They came back for the second debate and President Obama asserted his knowledge of governance and totally turned the tables on the former Massachusetts governor. Obama won re-election.

And so ā€¦ as we ponder whether Michael Bloomberg is up to the task of fending off the frontal assaults of his fellow Democratic contenders, I must caution everyone that the world’s ninth-richest individual and a former mayor of the nation’s largest city didn’t obtain his status as a business powerhouse by being a dumba**.

He’ll be ready.

The rest of the field had better be on their toes.

Heroic admiral sounds the alarm

Yes, Admiral William McRaven,Ā  I am afraid. I am quite afraid now at the actions of our commander in chief.

Your op-ed in the Washington Post ought to be read by all Americans. Many of us are alarmed at the actions of Donald John Trump since his acquittal in that U.S. Senate impeachment trial.

I get what you wrote, that Trump’s firing of the director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, because he did his duty in informing members of Congress is a clarion call of alarm to all of us. Maguire wanted to blow the whistle on Russian interference on our 2020 election, just as they did in 2016. Trump reacted not out of concern for the integrity of our electoral system, but out of worry that the revelation would harm him politically.

So, yes, your description of Trump’s huge ego jeopardizing our national security is spot on!

As Newsweek.com reported: “Over the course of the past three years, I have watched good men and women, friends of mine, come and go in the Trump administrationā€”all trying to do somethingā€”all trying to do their best,” wrote McRaven, who in 2011 oversaw and orchestrated the Navy SEAL raid in which Osama Bin Laden was killed. He later wrote, “But, of course, in this administration, good men and women don’t last long.”

No, sir, good men and women don’t last long. That’s because this president wants to surround himself only with those who profess unqualified loyalty to him. Their oaths to the Constitution or to the greater national good do not matter to this guy, the president.

But you know that already, admiral.

I admire your service. I salute you. I honor you. I welcome that you have spoken out. You, sir, have credibility that few other Trump critics possess. It is born of your service as a SEAL and the heroism you displayed on the battlefield and the leadership you showed in directing the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Thank you for your service and thank you also for lending your important voice to this important debate over the fitness of Donald Trump to serve as our president.

Where is Tulsi Gabbard?

(AP Photo/Jennifer Sinco Kelleher, File)

Virtually all of the zero percenters competing in the Democratic Party presidential primary have dropped out.

One of them remains: Tulsi Gabbard, a member of Congress from Hawaii.

She is still in the hunt, or so she says. Except that she’s nowhere to be seen or heard.

I’ve heard she’s been on Fox News shows of late, talking up her campaign as if it still was a factor in the quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

I am thinking she needs to bow out and leave the contest to the candidates who stand a snowball’s chance in hell of carrying the party banner forward.

Stars and Stripes falls victim to changing media climate?

Wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute.

Donald John Trump keeps yammering about how much he cares about the men and women who serve in the military, doing duty that he couldn’t fit into his own life when he was of the age to fight for his country.

Why, then, is the Pentagon — under the current president’s watch — stripping Stars and Stripes of the government subsidy on which it relies to provide news and other information to our military personnel?

Stars and Stripes, which has been published regularly since World War II, is losing its $8 million annual subsidy, ostensibly so the Pentagon can spend that money (which amounts to chump change in the total spending accrued by the agency) on other projects.

As Stars and Stripes reported: “Every day in my office as commander of U.S. European Command, I would read Stars and Stripes,” said retired Adm. James Stravidis, who served as EUCOM chief and NATO Supreme Allied Command from 2009 to 2013. “It was an invaluable unbiased and highly professional source of information which was critical to me in my role overseeing U.S. military throughout Europe.”

Allow me to join Adm. Stravidis in declaring my own intense interest in Stars and Stripes. Many of us serving in Vietnam came to rely on the newspaper to tell us of what was happening back home. We also had Armed Forces Radio, but to those of us who preferred to read the printed word, Stars and Stripes served as a sort of lifeline to the “The World.”

Are we now being led to believe that our young men and women no longer get to read the news that Adm. Stravidis said kept him informed just a few years ago?

This is an absolute shame.

Beware of Super Tuesday mischief

Listen up, my fellow Texas residents. I want to alert y’all to what might be lurking as we prepare to vote on Super Tuesday.

Democrats are going to vote on March 3 for president, choosing from a still-lengthy list of contenders vying for the nation’s top office. One of them, a “democratic socialist” named Bernie Sanders, has stolen the momentum from the rest of the field. Sen. Sanders is going to march into Texas as the man to beat. I saw a poll just the other day that shows Sanders with a 3-point lead over Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Republicans, meanwhile, have no seriously contested primary awaiting them. Donald John Trump, the nation’s current president, is going to cruise to the GOP presidential nomination.

Meanwhile, millions of Texans have voter registration cards that don’t have a mark on them, other than their signatures. We haven’t voted yet in either primary.

I am suggesting there might be some mischief-making on the horizon. By that I mean that some Republican voters can cross over and vote in the Democratic primary for the candidate they want their guy, Trump, to face in the fall election campaign.

I mentioned Bernie Sanders a moment ago. Do you get my drift?

Sanders is a far-left winger. He talks a good game about being “electable.” I have serious doubt about that. He is a prime target of the GOP slime machine that is going to smear him as a godless socialist/communist. Indeed, many of his proposals have set himself up for the Republican attack machine.

Given that Texas’ open primary system enables voters to cross over into the “other party’s” primary, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see a gigantic Democratic turnout with numbers inflated by a significant number of GOP voters seeking to cause a bit of trouble among Democrats.

Consider yourselves forewarned.

Russians engaging in ‘strategic’ interference?

(AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

Hmm. Let’s see how this might play out.

Russia has re-entered the U.S. presidential election by trying to help Donald Trump win re-election. U.S. intelligence analysts have said as much to the president and to congressional leaders, prompting Trump to fire the acting director of national intelligence and replace him with a fierce loyalist

You got that? OK. Let’s look at the other side of it.

Russia also is helping Bernie Sanders, now the leading Democratic challenger to Trump. Sen. Sanders had a briefing on that bit of news. Why help Sanders? I’ll take a stab at it.

The Russians want the Democrats to nominate arguably the least electable challenger to Trump, enabling the president to cruise to re-election.

Sanders keeps talking about his own electability, how he’s going to get average Americans to rally to his side as he campaigns against Trump ā€¦ assuming, of course, he gets the nomination.

I’m not sold on that notion. My strong hunch is that Russia is trying to sow deep division within the Democratic Party, which plays squarely into Donald Trump’s wheelhouse, paving the way to his re-election.

Just a thought.

Cameras make streets safer, so let’s get rid of ’em!

What do you know about this?

Dallas city transportation officials are boasting about the effectiveness of the red-light cameras that the city used to deploy. They made the streets safer, but because the Legislature and Gov. Greg Abbott wanted to get rid of them, the city is being forced to unplug the cameras.

What a travesty!

The city isn’t alone. The 2019 Texas Legislature enacted a law that ordered cities to do away with the devices once their current vendor contracts expired. Dallas’ time has come. The city must pull the plug the cameras.

Get a load of this, though: The city says the cameras did their job in helping the police enforce traffic laws. It contributed to a reduction in T-bone wrecks at intersections.

I long have supported the idea of cities using the devices to help police enforce these laws. The cameras take pictures of vehicles that run through red lights. The city then sends citations to the owner of the offending vehicle. The owner then must pay a fine at municipal court or, if he or she feels the citation was issued incorrectly, he or she can appeal the citation.

Yes, cities also derive revenue from these cameras. Dallas stands to lose $2.5 million to $3 million annually, according to city officials. The Legislature, though, mandated that cities must use the revenue to enhance traffic programs. Dallas officials say their traffic infrastructure needs repair and the money generated by the cameras helped fund those repairs.

As the Dallas Morning News reported: The Texas Legislature ā€œtook another tool away from us,ā€ said Michael Rogers, director of Dallasā€™ Department of Transportation, forcing city officials to rethink how to reduce crashes at problematic intersections.

I don’t live in Dallas. I do live close enough to the city to be somewhat concerned about the demise of these devices, given that I occasionally venture into the belly of the traffic beast on occasion.

I am sorry to hear the news that Dallas is bidding goodbye to a valuable law enforcement tool.