This is how you trick ’em

beilue_13

My pal Jon Mark Beilue has established an April Fool’s Day tradition at the Amarillo Globe-News, where I worked for 17-plus years.

This man is a master of putting one over on readers.

He does it intentionally once each year. He did so again today with this masterpiece about a proposed location for the Barack H. Obama Presidential Library.

He once spun a yarn about film star/heartthrob Matthew McConaughey moving to Amarillo; he once told a tall tale about the late Stanley Marsh 3 establishing an art museum inside an abandoned grocery store building next to Interstate 40. There have been others; those are two of my personal favorites.

I’ll just add this point before asking you to enjoy it as I have done already today.

The beauty of this kind of writing, which Jon Mark does better than anyone else I know, is that it tempts you to suspend your disbelief when you read it. You actually start to believe it could happen that, somehow, it’s not a prank.

Well, obviously it is.

Most of us in this part of the Texas surely are glad that it’s all a joke.

Others of us, well, might think differently.

Still, this is brilliant.

Enjoy.

Parents have the real ‘skin in the game’

20060912-25

Let’s chat some more about that proposed West Texas A&M University football stadium that has been endorsed by a fraction of the student body at the Canyon campus.

Some social media discussion centers on whether Moms and Dads are actually footing the bill for the stadium, which WT officials say will be paid for partially with student fees.

The plan is to assess an additional $152 per-semester fee for students enrolling at WT. School brass said that WT will use reserve funds that have accrued as well to help with the cost.

But who actually pays the money?

Yep, it’s Mom and Dad.

I don’t have a dog in this particular fight. My sons graduated from college in 1994 and 1995. Our older son graduated from Sam Houston State University, the younger son from the Art Institute of Dallas. We moved to Amarillo from Beaumont in January 1995, so our college obligation was all but completed by the time we got here.

I do recall, though, discussing student fees with both of our sons as they were working their way toward obtaining their degrees.

So, is it possible, then, that WT students could have had similar discussions with their parents as this football stadium idea got kicked around at the campus?

This looks to me like a fair and equitable way to help finance construction of an athletic facility at WT.

Furthermore, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. WT President J. Pat O’Brien — who’s retiring at the end of the current academic year — laid out a fairly ambitious concept near the beginning of his tenure at WT to update the athletic infrastructure. The aim, I recall him saying, was to create a recruitment tool to lure students to WT.

Enrollment has grown. The campus has prospered.

The parents of the students currently enrolled at WT have gotten a good return on their investment.

WT student body speaks: Let’s build it

wt stadium

Can’t we just once settle something without discussing the validity of the vote?

West Texas A&M University’s student body — or a small fraction of it — has voted narrowly to endorse the construction of a new on-campus football stadium.

WT enrolls about 9,000 students; of that total, fewer than 1,600 of them cast ballots on the idea. What’s more, it passed by 68 votes. Hardly a smashing mandate.

Hey, there’s no rule that said it had to pass by a larger margin among a larger pool of voters. Correct?

One of the issues appears to be the timing of the construction and the notion that current students will be exempt from the proposed $152 per-semester fee increase that will be levied on future students to help pay for construction of the unnamed stadium that’s estimated to cost about $26 million.

No worries, says retiring WT President J.  Pat O’Brien. The school will use reserve funds that comprise fees contributed by current WT students. Thus, he said, the current student body has “skin in the game.”

I want to applaud the university for asking the students to decide whether to support this idea. It’s going to be their financial burden to bear and it is only right to ensure that the school has the support of the student body before proceeding with construction.

I also lament the lack of turnout among the student body. I get that students are busy. They have lots on their minds, particularly the upperclassmen and women who are planning their post-university lives.

However, the size of the turnout really doesn’t matter. We elect presidents of the United States of America often with barely more than half of those who are eligible to vote.

As for whether today’s student body has “skin in the game,” that’s an unavoidable circumstance. Today’s students cannot be expected to hang around longer than they need to just to pay for a major construction project.

My hope now is that the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents signs off on the project and that the school can build a stadium that will make the students proud.

 

Memo to Trump: Abortion is not an ‘off the cuff’ issue

trump

Here comes the defense of Donald J. Trump’s hideous declaration on national TV this week that women should be “punished” if they obtain an illegal abortion.

He was speaking “off the cuff” during a town hall meeting that was televised by MSNBC. That’s what the Republican presidential campaign frontrunner’s spokeswoman told Fox News.

Many of us heard Trump make the statement under intense questioning from Chris Matthews. We also heard about his immediate reversal.

Trump needs to understand something if he has a prayer of avoiding a complete implosion of his presidential candidacy.

It is that there are a number of issues that require deep thought and nuance when the candidate is pressed to discuss them.

They include, oh: nuclear proliferation, climate change, immigration reform, health care reform and, yes, abortion.

I’m sure others are out there, too.

Trump’s flack, Katrina Pierson, told the Fox News Channel, “Well I say when you are a political candidate for eight months, you are speaking off the cuff. That’s one of his appeals, that he’s not a scripted politician.“

What is so wrong with thoughtfulness?

Scripted pols learn that their words matter. Unscripted pols need to get that, too. When the subject turns to abortion — an issue that gets zealots on both sides of the divide worked up into a frothing frenzy — then those words matter a great deal.

Trump hasn’t gotten it. He likely never will get it. He’ll keep on speaking “off the cuff” on issues that require some study, soul-searching and a comprehensive understanding.

Pierson is right about Trump’s “appeal” to those who keep laughing off this stuff.

It’s not funny.

 

GOP wall beginning to crack

Caplan-Merrick-Garland2-1200

Republican resistance to President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland is beginning to show signs of weakening.

Two GOP U.S. senators, Susan Collins of Maine and John Boozman of Arkansas, say they’re going to meet with Judge Garland. Jerry Moran of Kansas, a reliably conservative lawmaker, has said the same thing. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, too. Same with Mark Kirk of Illinois.

Is a mere meeting with two Senate Republicans enough to bring this nomination to the confirmation process? Hardly. The meetings, though, do seem to suggest that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s effort to block the nomination is being seen for what it is: a political game of obstruction.

Is it beginning to sink in to some GOP senators that Garland is the best nominee they’re going to get? He’s supremely qualified. He’s a judicial moderate, a studious and thoughtful jurist.

Consider what’s happening out there on the political campaign trail.

GOP frontrunner Donald J. Trump is beginning to implode. He said women should be “punished” for obtaining an abortion, then took it back; he said he wouldn’t “rule out” the use of nuclear weapons against the Islamic State, even saying the same thing about deploying nukes in Europe; his campaign manager is accused of battery against a female reporter.

However, Trump remains the frontrunner for the Republican Party presidential nomination.

Do members of the Senate GOP caucus understand that Trump’s chances of being elected president are vaporizing?

McConnell said Obama shouldn’t get to fill the vacancy created by the death of conservative judicial icon Antonin Scalia. That task should belong to the next president, McConnell said.

And who is that likely to be? I believe it’s going to be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The GOP-led Senate is now facing the prospect of simultaneous earthquakes. The Democratic presidential nominee could win the White House in a landslide and the Senate could flip back to Democratic control once the votes are counted in November.

Against that backdrop, we’re beginning to hear from an increasing number of Republican senators that, yep, Merrick Garland is as good as we’re going to get.

Clinton, Sanders differ on SCOTUS approach

hillary

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders differ on quite a bit these days.

One of the more intriguing differences is seen in how they want the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court to be filled.

Sanders would pull the nomination of Merrick Garland — who President Obama has appointed to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia — off the table if he is elected president in November. He then would pick someone of his choosing.

Clinton doesn’t even think that’s a topic for discussion. She said this week that Obama is president until January and he deserves to have his pick for the court considered by the U.S. Senate.

She also takes sharp aim at the reason Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gives for obstructing this nomination, for wanting the next president to make the choice. McConnell said “the American people deserve a voice” in determining who that person should be.

Fine, said Clinton. “I was one of the 65 million people who voted” for President Obama’s re-election in 2012, she said, adding that McConnell is now trying to silence her voice, along with tens of millions of other voters who choose Obama over Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

You got that right, Mme. Secretary.

I, too, am among the nearly 66 million Americans who cast their ballots for the president. I don’t like being silenced any more than Clinton does. Nor should the rest of those who cast their ballots for the president.

Don’t we operate in a system that grants power to the candidate who gets more votes than the other person?

Yes, we have one president at a time. The man in the hot seat right now still has all the power entrusted to him by the U.S. Constitution.

Let this nomination go forward, Mr. Majority Leader. Americans’ voices have been heard.

Trump does the impossible

abortion-debate1

Of all the commentary being tossed around in the aftermath of Donald J. Trump’s absurd assertion that women should be “punished” for obtaining an illegal abortion, the most interesting came from a Republican strategist who doubles as a commentator for CNN.

Anna Navarro said this morning that Trump managed to do the “impossible,” which she said was that he managed to anger both the pro-choice and pro-life sides of the abortion divide at the same instant.

Trump told MSNBC interviewer Chris Matthews at a televised town hall meeting in Green Bay, Wis., that women “probably” should face some punishment if they got an illegal abortion. Matthews questioned Trump on how the government could make abortion actually “illegal,” to which Trump didn’t have an answer.

The Republican primary campaign presidential frontrunner quickly backed off that statement, declaring that the doctor should be the one facing punishment, not the woman — who he described as a “victim” of the illegal act.

That didn’t go over well at all with the pro-choice crowd.

The pro-life crowd, meanwhile, was still steaming over the notion that a woman could be punished for obtaining an abortion.

And so the drama continues.

The fun factor of this campaign just keeps getting stronger.

Abortion tempest erupts

 

Chalkboard - Abortion

Donald J. Trump finds himself in the middle of a tempest over arguably the most contentious political issue ever.

Again!

The Republican Party presidential primary frontrunner said Wednesday — in response to some aggressive questioning by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews — that a woman should face “some punishment” were she to obtain an illegal abortion.

Yep. He said that. A woman should be punished.

Then the firestorm erupted. What in the world is he talking about?

Republican candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich were quick to condemn Trump’s statement. Then came the fury from Democratic candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Within a couple of hours, Trump issued a statement that said the doctor should face the sanction, not the woman whose pregnancy was ended.

I won’t bother you with a dissertation on my own views of abortion, as you perhaps already know I remain pro-choice on the issue.

What is bothersome about Trump’s answer and then his recanting of his initial response is the non-preparedness the candidate keeps exhibiting when pressed for answers on these critical issues.

Abortion matters deeply to many millions of Americans. It seems, to me at least, that few of us have mild feelings about the issue. We’re either fervently pro-choice or pro-life. Trump’s view on the issue has evolved over time. He is seen on videotape telling an interviewer about a decade ago that he is “strongly pro-choice.” Then he told Matthews this week that he is “pro-life.”

I’d be curious to know what changed Trump’s view on this issue. How did he go from one firm position to another? Perhaps the only other major-party politician I can recall pulling such a dramatic switcheroo would be George H.W. Bush, who abandoned his pro-choice views immediately upon accepting Ronald Reagan’s invitation to join him on the GOP presidential ticket in 1980.

Donald Trump initial answer to the question of whether a woman should face punishment reveals what Sen. Cruz identified correctly as Trump’s utter lack of preparation to discuss these issues when confronted with them.

Somehow, though, I cannot escape the feeling that Trump will find a way to deny he ever said what millions of Americans already heard him say.

Most disturbing of all will be that many Americans will believe him.

 

Protecting the Texas coast? What a novel concept!

wozniak-whooping-cranes-texas-gulf-coast-c-jeff-wozniak_h10_6206

Well, ruffle my hair and call me Frankie!

Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush has made a commitment to a portion of the state that has been, well, seemingly kind of put on the back burner for too long.

Bush has pledged to make coastal protection a top priority of his during the 2017 Texas Legislature.

The last land commissioner to make such a pledge — and then follow through with it — was a Democrat. You might remember him. His name is Garry Mauro who, in 1998, had the misfortune of running for Texas governor against an incumbent named George W. Bush. Gov. Bush mauled Mauro by more than 30 percentage points while cruising to re-election.

It was a shame that Mauro didn’t do better against George P.’s Uncle W. He had held statewide office for well more than a decade and had done a creditable job as land commissioner.

I got to know him while working along that coast, in Beaumont. I was editorial page editor of the Beaumont Enterprise and witnessed a lot of Mauro’s commitment to protecting the coast.

He started coastal cleanup operations; he sought to protect wetlands from further erosion. He was a coastal region champion.

That emphasis went by the wayside at the General Land Office during the administrations of David Dewhurst and Jerry Patterson.

Now we have another Republican, a first-time officeholder at that, committing publicly to protecting the coastline.

Bush already has taken steps to make good on his pledge, according to the Texas Tribune. As the Trib reports: “The office has partnered with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a long-term plan to address problems in the Houston Ship Channel and the Corpus Christi area in order to ‘ensure that Texans receive fair treatment following tropical storms and hurricanes.”‘

My wife and I moved from the coast to the High Plains of Texas more than two decades ago, but my own interest in coastal matters has remained high … even though I haven’t written much about them on this blog.

I am heartened to hear the land commissioner make a public commitment to strengthening the coast, which faces hazards every year during our hurricane season.

The coast ought to matter to the entire state.

I’ll offer George P. Bush one suggestion: Get on the phone and call Garry Mauro and ask him for some advice on how to proceed with ensuring greater coastal protection.

Hey, you can do it private, P. No one has to know.

Find homes for the homeless?

homelessness

An earlier post on High Plains Blogger prompted a good buddy of mine to send me a link to a story published a year ago on how another city decided to deal with homelessness.

The city is Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, population 61,000.

The mayor of Medicine Hat, a self-proclaimed “fiscal conservative,” Ted Clugston, decided the city should provide homes for every homeless person within 10 days of their learning they were without a home.

The blog I posted earlier commented on the Amarillo City Council’s decision to table an ordinance that regulates where homeless people can sleep.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/03/whether-and-how-to-protect-homeless-folks/

Is it possible for Amarillo — with its population of nearly 200,000 residents — to embark on an ambitious plan to end homelessness?

It seems impossible for a couple of reasons.

One is that Amarillo is home to a major interstate highway interchange. I-27 ends at I-40. It’s the east-west highway — I-40 — that brings a lot of transient traffic through the city. Are these folks “homeless” Amarillo residents? Well, no. They are passing through.

How many of them are there? I haven’t a clue, but there would seem to be a fairly greater number of them than the folks who live in Medicine Hat.

The Canadian city also sits astride a major highway, Canada’s Highway 1. So perhaps that city gets a fair amount of pass-through transient traffic as well.

I think the second reason a homeless eradication program seems unrealistic for Amarillo is that, to be candid, I don’t sense the political will here to provide housing for every homeless person.

According to the Huffington Post: “If you can get somebody off the street, it saves the emergency room visits, it saves the police, it saves the justice system — and so when you add up all those extra costs … you can buy a lot of housing for that amount of money,” Clugston told the (CBC) network.

He initially resisted the idea of finding housing for those who need it. Then he changed his mind.

Would we really commit to such an ambitious and proactive project? Do we have the civic and political leadership to lead such an effort?

My gut tells me “no.” I could be persuaded otherwise.

Your thoughts?

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience