Would Texas be next to split?

A California venture capitalist has just received permission to start gathering signatures to petition his state to split into six new states.

Can Texas be next?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/petition-to-split-california-into-six-states-gets-green-light/

California is too big to govern, say supporters of the movement to split the state up. So they intend to gather about 800,000 signatures to put the issue on the state ballot. My guess right at this moment is that it wouldn’t pass, but that’s just me.

All this hoo-hah in California reminds me of the constant grumbling here in Texas to split the Lone Star State into five states. Depending on who you ask, the state has the political authority to do so under the terms of its joining the Union in 1845. I haven’t studied the issue carefully enough to comment intelligently on what the state can or cannot do.

Back in 1991, a freshman state representative from Dumas, David Swinford, proposed breaking the Panhandle off from the rest of the state. I learned about it from my perch way down yonder in Beaumont. My initial thought was, “That is just plain nuts.”

Then I moved here in 1995 and when I got the chance I asked Swinford about his idea. He was only half-joking, he told me. He was concerned that Austin didn’t care enough about the Panhandle’s affairs. Besides — and this is hilarious — Swinford said he was unhappy that the official state map didn’t include the Panhandle on the same page as the rest of the state; you have to turn the map over to look for locations within the Panhandle.

The California saga will play out in due course. I rather doubt the state really is too big to govern effectively. And do you think the U.S. Senate will be able to grow by 10 new members if the state adds five more political subdivisions?

Consider, too, that California is heavily Democratic. Do you really think congressional Republicans are going to allow the Senate to add more Democrats to the Senate?

And we haven’t even talked yet about the House of Representatives.

Stay tuned to see how this most interesting political drama ends.

Memo to China: Butt out!

China has told President Obama that he should forgo a meeting today with the Dalai Lama, saying such a meeting with the spiritual leader would “impair” U.S.-China relations.

Hmmm. I think the president should ignore the Chinese.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/world/asia/china-us-dalai-lama/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

China has been subjugating the Tibetans for decades. The Dalai Lama represents Tibetans’ hopes for a free society. The People’s Republic believes the Dalai Lama is a “traitor” to the cause of whatever control the PRC wants to exert on the Tibetans.

Perhaps the president can remind the Chinese government that as the leader of the world’s most powerful nation, he is free to meet with whomever he wishes. And, perhaps, he can turn the tables on the Chinese despots by reminding them of their reaction to demands that they stop the repression Tibet and that they cease trying to bully Taiwan into coming back into the Chinese fold.

What do the Chinese say to these demands? These are internal matters and that the world should mind its own business. Never mind, of course, that Taiwan has flourished as an independent nation since its government were chased off the mainland by communists who fought with Nationalist forces in a bloody civil war.

Have your meeting with the Dalai Lama, Mr. President.

Being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice

Arizona’s state Senate has approved a bill that allows people to use their religion to deny services to gay people.

Just the other day, 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was asked whether he thought gay marriage posed a threat to heterosexual marriage. He expressed concern about that so-called potential threat.

And throughout the nation, all these discussions seem to rely on the assumption that homosexuality is a decision that people make.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/19/ariz-senate-oks-bill-boosting-service-refusal-based-on-religion/

It’s as if they awaken one day and decide: “I think I’m going to ‘become’ gay and start being attracted to people of my own gender.” Were that the case, wouldn’t it follow that straight people would make the same conscious decision?

In the interest of disclosure, I now will stipulate that at no time in my life did I ever decide to date girls. My attraction to people of the opposite sex was wired into my DNA the moment I was born, or so I always have assumed. I accepted the notion long ago that others are wired differently, and that their DNA wiring resulted in an attraction of a different kind.

I want to tell you a brief version of a long and moving story involving a friend and former colleague of mine.

His name was Tim. We worked together for several years at a newspaper in Beaumont. In the late 1980s, Tim’s appearance began to change. He was losing weight and his skin color was looking a bit pallid, but he kept working as an education reporter for the newspaper. Then, in 1988, my phone rang at home; it was a Sunday afternoon. Tim called and asked to meet with me at the newspaper. He had something he wanted to tell me.

I drove downtown and Tim and I met privately in my office.

He disclosed at that moment that he had contracted AIDS. He wanted my advice on how he should disclose that news to others. We talked about him writing an essay for the paper. He agreed to do it. He asked, “You know, of course, that I’m gay, right?” I didn’t know how to answer him. I said that I didn’t know it because we never discussed it. I, along with our other colleagues, only assumed it.

We published Tim’s essay. The response was overwhelming in the kindness expressed by those who read it. And from that moment in my office, when he revealed his medical condition, our conversational candor changed dramatically. We talked about private matters.

Tim said something later that stuck with me. “Why would I choose a lifestyle knowing I would be scorned and ridiculed?” he asked, rhetorically. That was his way of saying he was born gay and that there was nothing he could do to change that part of his life.

Tim died in 1994 of AIDS-related complications.

And I think of him often these days when current discussions turn to issues of whether gay marriage would have an adverse effect on the more traditional version of marriage and of laws lawmakers approve that give people the right to discriminate openly against people simply because of who they are.

The Arizona Senate has dishonored itself with its cold-hearted measure by allowing people to scorn others because of who they love.

 

 

President offers disappointing budget plan

The upcoming hassles over the next federal budget have taken an unfortunate turn.

President Obama has decided against proposing a new method of increasing Social Security benefits for retired Americans.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/198815-obama-abandons-cut-to-social-security

The headlines have suggested the president has “abandoned cuts” to the program. Actually, the term “cuts” is a bit of a misnomer. The idea had been to link increases in SSI to the cost of living index. Thus, Social Security recipients wouldn’t have their incomes reduced — as in getting less money than they were getting the previous year. The increases would be tied to the Consumer Price Index.

Why is this disappointing? I am one who believes serious budget reform has to include changes in discretionary spending. Social Security is one of those programs that has been seen as sacrosanct. You’ve heard it called the “third rail” of American politics: You touch it and you die, politically of course.

The CPI indexing linkage isn’t an unreasonable alternative.

Now it appears that the president has challenged congressional Republicans to battle him straight up in the next budget fight. There will be no pretense of negotiating.

At one level, I appreciate Barack Obama’s frustration with GOP negotiators, who have made it their mission — it seems to me — to stymie virtually every initiative put forth by the White House. Perhaps the president has had enough of it.

I wish he would have stood his ground on another issue. Social Security shouldn’t be treated as the Holy Grail.

Illegal immigrants show up at wrong place

Here we go again.

A politician known for being tough on illegal immigrants apparently has been caught hiring them himself.

Tsk, tsk.

Texas state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, is one of four men seeking the Republican nomination for Texas lieutenant governor. He has talked about how tough he’d be on undocumented immigrants. He’d ship ’em out of Texas, by golly.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/02/19/brief/

It turns out he reportedly hired them to work at his Houston sports bar way back in the 1980s. The Dallas Morning News reported it, talking to one of them who allegedly worked for Patrick back then. Patrick calls it dirty politics and blames one of his rivals for the lieutenant governor’s office, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, of playing dirty.

I know it’s an old story. Maybe the senator went through a change of heart since the days when perhaps he didn’t look as harshly at illegal immigrants as he does now.

Still, when you stake out a position as Patrick has done on illegal immigrants, you have to be sure you have nothing in your past you want to be kept secret.

Will these people ever learn?

You must define ‘outrage,’ Mr. President

President Obama said today he is “outraged” over the violence in Ukraine.

He vows “consequences” will occur if the Ukrainian government refuses to stop killing its people who are mounting what were supposed to be peaceful protests.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/198803-obama-outraged-by-rising-ukraine-death-toll

Let’s understand, of course, that the president was “outraged” over the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. He threatened a military strike, he sought permission from Congress — which it had demanded — to act and then, presto!, the Russians stepped in with a deal to rid the Syrian military of the chemicals it used on its citizens.

The Ukraine matter is different, to be sure.

The United States cannot launch a military strike against the former Soviet republic that sits right next to Russia. It can, and must, be firm in enacting economic sanctions — perhaps even imposing a trade embargo if the government doesn’t stop slaughtering its citizens.

Bear in mind that this is a big deal with huge implications around the world. Ukraine possesses a lot of the nuclear material used to build the Soviet arsenal during the Cold War. The Cold War ended a little more than two decades ago, but the material remains.

The Ukrainian government had announced a truce with those who were protesting, only to see the truce shattered overnight, prompting the rhetorical response from the White House.

And per normal these days, the usual suspects here at home are criticizing the White House and the president for perceived fecklessness in handling this crisis.

Let’s understand, the Russians aren’t about to let anyone — even the United States — get too involved singularly in this dispute.

There must be a concerted international effort involving the European Union, and the United States and Russia to bring huge pressure to bear on the Ukrainian government thugs.

Can our government play a role? Sure, but we need to make sure this remains a team game.

President Obama’s outrage must be tempered with reason and even a tad bit of patience.

You go for it, young man

You know, if I could vote for this guy, I think I would for simply one reason: his age.

Joe Newman is 101 years old and is running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives from Sarasota, Fla.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/101-year-old-florida-man-running-for-congress/

Why this guy? Beats me. I don’t know a thing about him, other than what he says on the link attached here. According to CBS.com, “Touting his breadth of life experience, the centenarian has launched a campaign as a write-in candidate against four-term Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan. He told a local news station he wanted to run as a write-in candidate instead of seeking a major party nomination ‘because I want to feel free to criticize the Democrats and Republicans.’”

I’m reminded of one of the beauties of getting to such a distinguished age. You can say whatever you want and no one is going to be as dismissive if you were, say, half as old.

I also am reminded of a tribute that the late great broadcast journalist David Brinkley paid to U.S. Sen. Wayne Morse, D-Ore. Morse at one time represented my home state of Oregon and in 1974 was running to recapture the seat he lost six years earlier to young Republican upstart Bob Packwood. Morse died during the 1974 campaign.

Brinkley noted that Morse was one of two senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, the act that essentially gave President Lyndon Johnson permission to wage all-out war against North Vietnam.

Brinkley’s tribute noted that Morse was 64 at the time he cast the “no” vote. The other one came from 77-year-old Sen. Ernest Gruening of Alaska. He said both men “weren’t on the take or on the make,” meaning their age liberated them to vote their consciences.

I’m guessing Joe Newman is similarly liberated. I hope he wins.

‘Routine traffic stop’ is never routine

Critiquing local media isn’t among my favorite things to do — Lord knows I made my share of mistakes over 37 years in daily print journalism — but a local news anchor committed an error I cannot let pass.

The 10 p.m. newscast led with a story about a drug bust on Interstate 40. Texas Department of Public Safety troopers pulled a vehicle over and — lo and behold — found a load of dope. Who knew, right?

The news anchor then uttered that time-honored phrase that a lot of young journalists use unwittingly. He referred to the incident as a “routine traffic stop.”

I now will make three points.

First, the news anchor isn’t a fresh-faced youngster looking to make his mark here before moving to a “larger market.” NewsChannel 10’s Walt Howard has been doing his job for at least as long as I’ve been in Amarillo, which has passed the 19-year mark.

Second, I’d bet the farm that the traffic stop in question wasn’t a real traffic stop at all. DPS troopers had a pretty idea what they had found when they pulled the vehicle over. It ain’t a coincidence, kids, that they found the drugs in the car. They either were profiling the occupants of the vehicle or they had a tip that the vehicle was coming through the area.

Third, and this is the most critical point of all, every police officer who’s ever worn a badge will tell you, “There is no such thing as a routine traffic stop.” I made that mistake once while writing a news story for a small paper where I worked in Oregon City, Ore. I referred to a traffic stop as “routine.” I got a call the next day from the late Bill Brooks, who at the time was chief deputy for the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office. He scolded me about the use of the term “routine” and reminded me of this fact: Any traffic stop has the potential for erupting into something far more serious and potentially tragic.

He implored me never to use that description again when reporting incidents involving police stopping motorists.

Lesson learned, Bill.

No early voting this time, thank you

The November 2013 Texas constitutional amendment election came at a bad time for my wife and me.

We had to vote early because we were going to be away from home on Election Day.

We’ll be at home here in Amarillo on March 4 when the primary election rolls around and I’m returning to form and am going to wait until Election Day to cast my ballot. I’m guessing my wife will do the same, although that’s her call to make.

I’ve long had this big-time hang-up about early voting.

I hate the idea of voting early for someone and then finding out — to my dismay — that my candidate has done something terribly wrong.

Thus, I like waiting until the last possible moment to cast my ballot.

Yes, I know casting my vote on Election Day doesn’t eliminate my candidate from committing a dastardly deed before he or she takes office. Given that it’s the primary election and that in Randall County at least — where there are zero Democrats on the local ballot — the Republican Party primary is tantamount to election. Thus, we have the wait the entire rest of the year before our candidates take office. That means a lot can happen between now and the end of the year.

Of course, that will be a factor only if I decide to vote in the Republican primary. I might vote in the Democratic primary, which has some contested statewide races that have piqued my interest. I haven’t yet made that decision, either.

Traditionalist that I am, I’ll still wait it out.

I’ll let others troop to the early-voting stations and get their votes out of the way.

I also will hope that their candidates don’t get caught doing something they — and those who vote for them — will live to regret.

Good luck, y’all.

May I please talk to a human being?

It’s time for a rant. Here goes.

It involves telephone technology and the search for a living, breathing human being to help you resolve a problem you have with a credit card bill.

I received a notice in the mail yesterday from a department store with which we have a credit card. The department store didn’t receive an electronic payment we had sent in late January. I was mortified, I’m telling you!

After checking our personal records, I discovered we had sent the payment, but that the department store never got it. I then discovered an error I had made in logging in the account number. My bad.

So, with that information in hand, I telephoned the 24-hour “customer service” line to find out what happened to the money that was sent electronically from my checking account to the department store’s payment center.

I got a series of electronic prompts. None of the prompts would allow me to speak to a human being. I kept getting transferred to more robotic voices asking me the nature of my call. Bill payment? No. Lost credit card? No again. Change of billing address? Heck no! History of recent transactions? No, dammit! History of transactions since last bill? Bleep no!

All I want is to speak to a human being.

I pressed “0,” but the robot said “she” couldn’t understand my response.

I said “I want to speak to an operator.” Again, no can do.

Finally, after about 15 minutes of this foolishness, I got a prompt that I recognized as something that might allow me to speak to someone.

“All agents are assisting other customers. We’ll be with you in a moment,” came the response.

I waited another 15 minutes.

Then a human being answered. “May I help you?” I got my question answered, although not entirely to my satisfaction.

My advice to anyone else in a similar pickle: Unless you have lots of time on your hands and aren’t upset at issue you are trying to resolve … don’t bother calling. It just boosts your blood pressure.

I feel better now.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience