Uncategorized

Sterling 'baited' into saying those things?

I’m going to need some help processing this “apology.”

Donald Sterling, the disgraced Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball team owner, says he’s sorry for saying those racist things to his — what shall we call her? — girlfriend/assistant/”silly rabbit.”

He said he was “baited” into uttering those disgusting remarks. Baited? Does that mean he was lured into saying things he didn’t mean? Was there some promise or payoff if he declared in a phone conversation that V. Stiviano — the said “silly rabbit” — shouldn’t be seen in public with African-Americans? Did little ol’ V. put a gun to his head and make him say those hateful things?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/11/us/donald-sterling-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Well, now he tells Anderson Cooper of CNN that he’s sorry. He declares “I am not a racist,” which of course is the usual dodge from those who actually do have racist tendencies.

The National Basketball Association has banned him for life from the game. He can’t take part in any basketball-related operations; he cannot attend Clippers games; he cannot attend league meetings; he’s going to be pressured to sell his team. He’s a pariah.

The players want him gone. His fellow owners want him out.

This is a disgraceful episode that so far has produced only one bright, shining moment: the swift and decisive action by brand new NBA Commissioner Adam Silver to banish Sterling from the NBA.

The timing of the “apology” also is suspect. He was revealed to have said these things about three weeks ago — and now he offers his mea culpa?

This individual said some truly awful things. That’s no longer in doubt. There will be plenty of explanation required now to persuade many of us that he didn’t really mean what he said.

I do not believe this “apology” is going to fly.

Uncategorized

Wind velocity is relentless

This item came to me the other day from a longtime Amarillo friend.

Linda has lived in Amarillo all her life, she told me, adding that her mother grew up in southwest Kansas.

Neither of them, she told me, had seen it blow as it did on Tuesday, April 29. That event is sort of becoming our version of “Black Sunday,” which occurred during the — gulp! — Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

This is worth mentioning as we’re battling the wind and airborne dirt yet again today. It’s not as bad it was the other day, but my friend’s assessment of the severity of that wind-and-dirt event is still quite striking as we continue to pray for rain to end this merciless drought.

I should add that my friend’s mother is old enough to have some memory of the Dust Bowl. So, to learn that she believes the April 29 dirt storm was the worst she’d ever seen … well, that’s saying something.

OK, are we in the midst of Dust Bowl 2.0? Another friend, Richard, told us today at church that as bad as it has been — and as bad as that particular day had become — it was, after all, just a daylong event. This friend also is a lifelong Panhandle resident. He’s a man of the soil. Unlike me, a city slicker if there ever was one, Richard has worked the land on and off for most of his life.

Thus, I’ve heard two varying reports of the severity of what we’re enduring these days. One of them, from the latter friend, seeks to put this misery into some perspective. Yeah, it’s bad, he says, but think of having to go through these dirt storms for days, even weeks on end! That’s what occurred during the Dust Bowl and it’s a far cry — so far, I should stipulate — from what we’re going through today.

Whatever perspective you want to place around the Spring of 2014 weather, I’m still alarmed to hear others who’ve lived here a lot longer than we have say this is as bad as it’s ever been.

I’m more than ready for rain.

Uncategorized

Court says 'yes' to pole tax

There is justice after all in at least one element of the Texas tax system.

The Third State Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the state assessing a $5-per-patron tax on strip clubs.

You go, judges.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/05/09/texas-strip-clubs-lose-pole-tax-appeal/

The court had heard an appeal on the tax’s constitutionality from strip club owners who don’t like charging their “gentleman” customers what’s been called a “pole tax” to enjoy the entertainment provided by, um, “exotic dancers.”

The court ruling said, in part: “We … render judgment that the sexually oriented business tax is not an occupation tax and thus there is no requirement that 25 percent of its revenue go to public schooling.”

The strip clubs had sued over some supposed obligation to dedicate a portion of the tax revenue for public education. The court said the tax need not be earmarked for schools.

I’m glad the court issued the ruling. The state needs the money, so why not assess a tax on those who would patronize these entertainment establishments?

The money does go toward assisting sexual assault victims and to health care for those who are victimized by these sexual predators … many of whom no doubt get some of their evil motivations by watching the “entertainment” provided at these clubs.

It’s unclear whether the strip clubs will appeal the ruling on the law enacted by the 2007 Texas Legislature. I’m hoping courts up the line will uphold the Third Court’s ruling.

The state can put the millions of dollars it stands to collect to good use.

Uncategorized

In-state tuition becomes key GOP flashpoint

It is no surprise to anyone who reads this blog regularly that I am not a fan of Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

I dislike his policies, his approach, his style and his mean streak.

However, when it comes to one key issue — whether to grant in-state tuition privileges to Texans who were brought here illegally by their parents — he is spot on. He favors granting those privileges to those who want to attend Texas’s many fine public colleges and universities.

Many in his Republican Party, though, do not. They oppose granting individuals who’ve grown up as Texans and who are here only because they were forced to come here by their parents those privileges.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/05/08/easy-resolution-state-tuition-gop-dream/

It’s going to become a flashpoint on a couple of levels.

First, Republicans running for office in Texas don’t want to alienate the far-right wing of the party’s base, which is where the opposition is coming from. Even though Perry isn’t on the ballot this year, his support of in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants well could become a key issue among candidates running for statewide office or the Legislature.

Second is Perry’s own political future. He is sounding and acting like someone who wants to run for president in 2016. He tried it in 2012 and fell flat on his face. Perry reportedly is in the midst of an extreme political makeover to create a new brand for himself.

Here’s how the Texas Tribune portrays the political split in Texas on this issue:

“Texans’ attitudes on in-state tuition are closely divided, though polarized along party lines. In the February 2014 University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll, 40 percent of registered voters said that illegal immigrants who graduated from a public high school in Texas and lived in Texas for at least a year should pay the lower in-state tuition; 47 percent thought they should pay the out-of-state rate. A slight majority of Democrats, 55 percent, opted for in-state tuition while a majority of Republicans, 61 percent, opted for out-of-state tuition. Maybe not surprisingly, 54 percent of Anglos supported out-of-state tuition, compared with only 34 percent supporting in-state tuition. Hispanics displayed the opposite attitude, with 31 percent supporting out-of-state rates and 51 percent supporting in-state rates.”

If Perry runs for president in two years, will the hard-liners in his party beat him bloody over what I believe is a common-sense, compassionate view of how to assimilate immigrants into Texas society?

I see no problem with granting these privileges to young Texans who know nothing other than life in the Lone Star State. Many — if not most — of them have assimilated already. They sound like Americans. They act like Americans. They have allegiance to this country and this state. Why not let them continue their education at a price they can afford?

Perry has taken the correct course on this issue. I hope he has the courage to stick with it if he enters the ’16 presidential race and starts taking body blows from those who disagree.

Uncategorized

Why stop traffic to ask for cash?

Is it me or is anyone else out there annoyed by the street-intersection solicitors asking for money to help this worthy cause or that one?

This rant comes courtesy of long-time Amarillo resident PattiLou Dawkins — who told me I could use her name if I posted a blog on this subject.

Well, I am and I will.

I happen to agree with PattiLou’s rant about these solicitors. They annoy the daylights out of me — and I believe they pose a potentially significant traffic safety risk during peak traffic times.

PattiLou told me today of an encounter she had at the corner of 45th Avenue and Coulter Street.

Some folks were standing on the median asking for money. A motorist nearby was fumbling through his pocket, unhooked his safety belt, and gave the guy some cash. He also dropped his bottle of water. He got out of his vehicle and chased down the runaway water bottle, returned to his vehicle and took off. The motorist, PattiLou said, did all this with traffic whizzing by.

Various charitable and philanthropic organizations get permission from the city stand in these intersections. I am more than willing to give money when it’s feasible. However, I usually find more than a little unfeasible to do so while I’m at the wheel of either of my vehicles.

Why is that? Well, I hate fumbling through my pockets for loose currency, unbuckling my seat belt in the process and then stopping while I have the green light to make a left turn, all of which holds up the individual behind me, possibly annoying him or her; and in these times, you never know who’s packin’, correct?

So, I’ll leave it at that.

If I have the cash on me — and if there’s no one behind me — I just might stop for a moment to give a buck or two.

Uncategorized

Where have you gone, diversity?

The first three sentences of an editorial in today’s Las Vegas Review-Journal set the table for an interesting discussion about the state of intellectual diversity.

The paper opined: “Colleges and universities like to promote themselves as open-minded bastions of diversity. They strive to fill their campuses with people of different races and backgrounds.

“Encouraging diversity of thought is another matter entirely.”

http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-campuses-closed-diversity-thought

The paper examined a recent controversy at Rutgers University, which had invited former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak at its commencement, only to have her withdraw after students and faculty protested her scheduled appearance.

Students staged protests and carried signs, one of which accused Rice of being a “war criminal.”

I’ve written already on the Rice controversy at Rutgers. No need to revisit that issue.

What’s troubling though, and I say this as someone who is of the liberal persuasion, is that liberals are giving their political philosophy a bad name when they protest in such a manner.

By definition, the term “liberal” is meant in the political context to foster inclusiveness; it is intended to bolster the notion that those who lean liberal are open to others’ ideas, that they’ll hear them, consider them and take them under studied advisement.

Someone tell me if I’m wrong on that one.

However, when liberals rise up and protest the appearance of conservative thinkers and policymakers, they turn the very definition of liberalism into a myth.

What’s worse is that these protests occur — of all places — on college and university campuses.

As the Review-Journal editorial notes (see attached link), these institutions promote themselves as “bastions of diversity.” Students enroll there ostensibly seeking to broaden their horizons. Conservative students get exposed to liberal thought; the reverse is true for students with liberal leanings who are exposed to conservative thought.

The Condi Rice episode ought to become — to borrow a term — a “teachable moment” for university faculty and students all across this great land.

Uncategorized

Monica's back; now, just go away

She’s back.

Monica Lewinsky is now 40 and she’s written a book. She has returned to the public eye apparently to sell a few copies of her book, to make some money and to set the record straight on what happened between her and the 42nd president of the United States.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-return-of-monica-lewinsky-106507.html?hp=r16#.U22Y5FJOWt8

Count me as one American who doesn’t care what she has to say.

Lewinsky’s role in the impeachment of President Clinton has been covered, dissected, micro-examined and analyzed to the hilt. It’s all been revealed.

She now wants to “move on,” and wants to “burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” You remember the blue dress, right? The one with the president’s, um, DNA that proved he did something naughty with the then 20-something White House intern.

He had denied doing it in testimony before a federal grand jury. Yes, he told a lie under oath and that became — officially — the reason the House of Representatives impeached him. The Senate put the president on trial, but he was acquitted.

The question perhaps always will remain, in my mind at least: How did a special prosecutor’s investigation into a real estate deal — which we called “Whitewater” — then involve what the president was doing after hours with a young woman?

I smelled a witch hunt at the time and I believe the prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, was motivated to find something, anything, to pin to the president. He found it when he discovered Monica Lewinsky.

She’s back, telling her side of the story. She believes she was scapegoated by the president and first lady — and their allies. Fine. She’s entitled to say it.

I’m already hoping she’ll now move back to private life and doing whatever she’s been doing since her moment of notoriety flamed out.

Uncategorized

Don't boycott Benghazi probe, Leader Pelosi

1 Comment

If I were in Nancy Pelosi’s shoes, I would take part in the special investigation of the Benghazi matter along with Republicans.

Pelosi, the leader of the U.S. House Democrats, might be considering a boycott of the hearings called by Speaker John Boehner. Big mistake, Mme. Leader.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/205715-boehner-stacks-benghazi-panel-with-lawyers

Boehner has selected a back-bencher, Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., to chair the select committee. Six other GOP members have joined the panel. As of this moment, no Democrats have been named.

The committee is going to conduct yet another hearing into what happened Sept. 11, 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where a firefight resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

There have been calls by Republicans in Congress that the State Department, led by Hillary Rodham Clinton, stonewalled the cause of the uprising. They’re suggesting some kind of cover-up. House committees already have looked at this matter. They’ve come up with, well, next to nothing to hang on then-Secretary Clinton, other than a botched response immediately after the event.

I don’t know what the select panel will find out, but its work ought to include Democrats.

There’s been some talk that Democrats might sit this one out, letting Republicans have their way. However, that’s not what their constituents sent them to Washington to do. They sent them there to participate in government activities.

This investigation, if it’s going to be as Boehner has billed it — a search for the truth and not a political witch hunt — should include those who will counter the intense grilling that will come from the GOP members. Democrats should ask their own difficult questions as well and the panel then should craft a bipartisan report that produces constructive recommendations for protecting our foreign service personnel against future attacks.

Boycotting these hearings would be counter-productive at almost any level possible.

Take part, Minority Leader Pelosi.

Uncategorized

Romney switches course on minimum wage

Do you recall the 2004 presidential campaign political ad that lampooned Democratic nominee U.S. Sen John Kerry for saying he was “in favor of the Iraq War before I opposed it”?

Well, 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney once opposed increasing the minimum wage but now he favors it.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/romney-on-minimum-wage-raise-it-251118147687

Romney spoke correctly on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” broadcast this morning by saying Republicans should be the party of more and better-paying jobs. He reminded his hosts that he parted company with the conservative wing of his party by favoring an increase in the minimum wage.

Indeed, Romney now is aboard the same wagon with a majority of Americans who favor increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.

His Republican colleagues in Congress need to listen to the party’s most recent presidential nominee who, let’s not forget, received nearly 61 million votes in the 2012 election.

To their discredit, though, congressional Republicans are listening instead to tea party conservatives who don’t want to lift minimum-wage earners who have to support their families out of poverty.

And hasn’t President Obama been saying that no family relying on the minimum wage should live in poverty? Strangely, Mitt Romney’s stance put him squarely in the same corner with the man who defeated him in the 2012 election.

Don’t wait for Romney to extol the president’s correctness on the minimum wage issue. That would go beyond the pale.

Uncategorized

Ready for tougher water-saving measures

It’s been reported that Amarillo residents haven’t yet subscribed to the water-conservation memo that’s been circulated.

We’re using water as if there’s no tomorrow. Oh yes, we’re in the middle of a drought that’s about four years old now and there’s no apparent relief in our immediate future.

What to do? Keep those “voluntary” restrictions in place? I’m beginning to think we need to get some orders from City Hall: Use less water or else.

I know that utility experts at City Hall are acutely aware of what’s happening around here. City Manager Jarret Atkinson happens to be a water expert in his own right. Still, the city keeps sending mixed messages. It says we should conserve water and then it says the city is in good shape, that it has enough water to last for, oh, about another 200 years. I sense that many of us are hearing the second part of that message more clearly than the first part.

The city has set monthly maximum water-use goals. Residents are exceeding those goals every month. Let’s remember, too, that summer isn’t even here yet.

The city has drafted a Stage 1 water emergency plan that calls for voluntary measures, such as watering lawns on certain days depending on whether you live at an odd- or even-number address; what’s more, you shouldn’t water your lawn more than three days a week.

That’s all fine. What happens, though, when you don’t comply? Nothing.

What should happen? Some fines might be get folks to stop using water. A more enforceable method might be to boost water rates, which is another way of hitting folks in the wallet.

It absolutely goes without saying that water is — hands down — the most precious resource we have. We cannot live without it. Nor can we continue to keep using it at the current pace.

If we cannot — or will not — comply with voluntary measures, it’s time for our local government to take the next step by ordering us to use less water.

The rain likely will return. No one on Earth can predict when that will happen. It might happen soon, maybe later, maybe sometime in our lifetime. Then again, maybe not until a lot longer after that.

What in the world are going to do until — or if — that day arrives?

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience