national news, political news

Mandatory voting? Bad idea, Mr. President

President Obama believes big money has too much influence in determining who gets elected.

I agree with him.

He also suggests that mandatory voting is a constructive reform that would counteract big money’s pervasive idea.

I disagree with that idea.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-suggests-mandatory-voting-might-be-a-good-idea/

The president spoke at a town hall and pitched the idea of requiring citizens to vote to an audience. He said other countries require it. He cited Australia as one example.

Allow me to argue that one of the many aspects of “American exceptionalism” is the notion that Americans are free to vote or not vote. We proclaim our love of liberty and while I bemoan constantly the hideous voter turnouts — particularly in state and local elections — I remain enough of an optimist to think we can browbeat complacent citizens to get off their duffs and vote.

We elect presidents with, say, 60 percent turnouts. Political scientists are happy to see that kind of turnout. I find it disgraceful. That means 40 percent of the eligible population doesn’t care enough to vote for those seeking to lead the greatest nation on Earth.

But should we force people to vote?

I’m dubious of that requirement. The freedoms we enjoy should include the freedom to be apathetic. It’s individuals’ call.

Besides, requiring people to vote removes the great political putdown that many Americans — myself included — are proud to utter when the situation presents itself: If you haven’t voted, then keep your trap shut.

But, yes, the president is correct about one aspect of his remarks. Big money wields way too much power.

legal news, local news, State news

Texas grand jury system under review

The Texas criminal justice system has this strange idea about how to select trial juries and grand juries.

Grand jurors are chosen in most counties by jury commissioners, who are selected by a presiding judge; the commissioners then look for people they believe are “qualified” to serve on a panel that determines whether a criminal complaint should result in officials charges brought against someone. The issue is whether a grand juror can commit to meet over the course of several weeks to make these determinations.

Trial jurors are selected at random. District clerks go through voter registration rolls to find people whose names are put into a large pool of potential jurors. The only qualification is that they be residents of the county and be of sound mind, etc.

Here’s an interesting aspect of the selection processes. The state believes it is fine to select someone at random, and then ask that person to determine whether some lives or dies if that individual is convicted of a capital crime. But a grand jury requires more of a screening process to find individuals who can serve on that panel.

Texas legislators are considering a bill that would make the grand jury selection system look more like the trial jury selection method.

I say, “Go for it, lawmakers.”

Back in 1984, when I arrived in Texas, the newspaper where I worked at the time, the Beaumont Enterprise, was involved in an editorial campaign to change the grand jury selection system. There had been questions raised about whether a particular grand jury had been chosen because grand jurors had a particular bias. The paper raised all kinds of heck with the two judges in Jefferson County with criminal jurisdiction. We argued vehemently that the system needed to be changed. Over time, the judges heeded our calls and changed to a random selection method.

State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, thinks the state should require a random method in all 254 Texas counties.

He says the system needs total confidence in all its working parts. As The Associated Press reported, the current system is ridiculed as a “pick a pal” system in which friends pick friends to serve on a grand jury.

Now, for the record, I once served on a grand jury in Randall County. I was asked by a friend, who was serving as a jury commissioner for the 181st District Court, presided over by Judge John Board.

I agreed. Board chose me along with several other people and we met regularly for three months. We confronted no controversy during our time and our service ended without a whimper of discontent.

That particular grand jury worked well. The threat, though, of dysfunction created by potential bias has created a need for the Texas Legislature to change the selection system.

If the random selection method is able to seat people who then can determine whether someone should die for committing a crime, then it will work to select people who can decide whether to charge someone with a crime.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Race enters Lynch debate over AG vote

I didn’t predict it would happen, but the debate over when to vote on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as the next U.S. attorney general has taken an unsurprising turn.

The issue of race has entered this debate, as Lynch is the first African-American woman ever nominated to head the Justice Department.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/dick-durbin-loretta-lynch-back-of-bus-116180.html?hp=t1_r

The introduction was made by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who said the delays in voting on Lynch’s confirmation has forced the nominee to “sit at the back of the bus.” Durbin’s reference, of course, was to the great Rosa Parks, the civil rights icon who famously refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in the 1950s.

To my mind, the issue more about partisan politics than it is about race and Durbin should not have gone there during his Senate floor speech.

Durbin drew the expected criticism from Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the Senate’s lone black Republican, who accused Durbin of being a race-baiter.

“It is helpful to have a long memory and to remember that Durbin voted against Condoleezza Rice during the 40th anniversary of the March [on Selma]. So I think, in context, it’s just offensive that we have folks who are willing to race bait on such an important issue as human trafficking,” Scott said. “Sometimes people use race as an issue that is hopefully going to motivate folks for their fight. But what it does, is it infuriates people.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is wrong to hold up the Lynch vote. She needs to be confirmed and the Justice Department needs to get refocused exclusively on its job, which is to enforce federal law.

I just wish we could have kept the race argument out of this so we can stick instead to the raw political gamesmanship that the GOP leadership is playing while delaying Lynch’s confirmation vote.

 

International news

Bibi's no nut, but he needs to rethink some things

2 Comments

Benjamin Netanyahu has won another extension as Israeli prime minister.

His Likud Party won more seats in the Knesset than any other party, but it still lacks an outright majority. So Bibi’s going to have to compromise here and there if he hopes to govern his country.

Contrary to what you might have gathered from a couple of recent posts about Bibi’s campaign, I actually feel a bit of sympathy for the tough line he takes in governing Israel.

Netanyahu is an Israeli army veteran. He’s seen the enemy up close. His brother was killed in that daring 1976 hostage rescue mission in Uganda. So, Bibi’s heart has been broken by violence.

I still believe he made a mistake in coming to the United States to speak to Congress without first consulting with President Obama. The snub — by him and by House Speaker John Boehner, who invited him — has damaged U.S.-Israel relations. But let’s get one thing straight: The nations remain critical allies.

All that said, his victory now enables Netanyahu to work with Obama to repair the damage. I trust he’ll do so. He talked while in this country about the special relationship the countries have had for the past six decades.

He campaigned hard in the waning days of the campaign by declaring an end to Palestinian settlements. That, too, was a mistake. Perhaps he can rethink that ban, given that the Palestinians are seeking to build a home of their own.

It’s good to understand, though, how Netanyahu views security in his country. It’s the single most vital issue with which he must deal.

The Hamas terrorists who govern Gaza have been lobbing missiles into Israel periodically since, oh, for as long as missiles have existed. Israel must be allowed to defend itself and to use whatever force it has to put down the attacks. To that end, Netanyahu is unafraid and I happen to applaud his courage in fighting Hamas.

The bigger picture, though, requires Netanyahu to understand that his country comprises citizens of widely diverse views. Not every Israeli shares his world view. I told you recently about a couple in Haifa who oppose Likud’s hard line and rest assured, there are others just like them.

Israel enjoys a special place in our network of allies. It deserves that special place and some special treatment. Benjamin Netanyahu, educated in this country — and able to speak to Americans like an American — isn’t going anywhere any time soon.

 

State news

An interesting argument on open-carry …

Many of my friends, acquaintances and colleagues seem to think I live, breathe, eat, drink and smell politics and policy … 24/7. Most of them know that I once was a full-time print journalist whose job was to stay abreast of these things.

That’s all they want to discuss with me. That and my granddaughter.

A friend and colleague, though, posed an interesting notion this week about the proposal in the Texas Legislature to allow Texans to carry firearms openly, where everyone can see them.

My friend told me he has a concealed-carry license and carries a gun, presumably where the sun doesn’t shine.

“I think open-carry is a stupid idea,” he said. “Why? Because of something happens and someone starts shooting a gun, he’s going to shoot the guy with the gun. The individual who’s carrying openly becomes a target.”

Interesting, yes?

My friend wants the open-carry legislation to become law in Texas. He and I shared our views on it and I told him I remain concerned about it, although I perhaps could change my mind on it over time as I did — more or less — with the state’s concealed-carry law.

I certainly will pray my friend’s concern about the target aspect of open-carry legislation doesn’t pan out.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/18/brief/

 

local news, State news

State senator incurs power broker's wrath

2 Comments

State Sen. Kel Seliger is no fan of Michael Quinn Sullivan … and vice versa.

A piece of mail arrived at my home this week from an outfit called Empower Texans, a political action group headed by Sullivan, a would-be state political kingmaker. Its subject? Seliger absent on tax relief efforts.

It seems that Sullivan is on board with the tax cutting frenzy that many conservatives seem to prefer at the moment. Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick have put forth an agenda of “reducing property and business taxes,” which Sullivan said has been “set as a priority for conservative lawmakers for the legislative session.”

Senate Bill 1 would provide $4.6 billion in tax cuts. Only two Republican senators oppose it. One of them is Seliger of Amarillo. My strong hunch is that the other GOP senator to oppose it is Kevin Eltife of Tyler.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/03/03/ex-mayor-sounds-cautious-tone-in-texas-senate/

This disagreement highlights one of the critical difficulties facing the Texas Republican Party. Does the party keep cutting taxes while the state has the money on hand to do things, such as fix roads and bridges? Or does the state do what Eltife and, presumably, Seliger want to do, which take is care of some vital needs before cutting taxes?

I happen to agree with the Eltife approach (as mentioned in the blog post attached to this item).

That’s not the case with the folks who are calling most of the shots in the Legislature. Eltife, wrote the Texas Tribune’s Ross Ramsey, “wants the meat and potatoes before dessert. Most of his colleagues, however, have their eyes on the pies.”

I should add that Sullivan found a candidate to run in 2014 against Seliger, former Midland Mayor Mike Canon. Sullivan backed Canon to the hilt, only to fall short when the votes were counted throughout the sprawling Senate District 31.

Are you having fun yet, Sen. Seliger?

 

International news

Bibi wins; now, make up with Barack

Barack Obama’s candidate didn’t win the election to become Israel’s next prime minister.

The winner is the current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose right-leaning Likus Party will continue to control the governing Knesset.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bibi-bounces-back-116167.html?hp=t1_r

President Obama’s critics call this a sharp rebuke of the U.S. president, with whom Bibi has a difficult relationship.

But let’s understand something right off the top: If the bullets and rockets ever start flying in Israel, the United States will be at the side of its most dependable Middle East ally. Of that there can be no question. Netanyahu has acknowledged as much, as has Obama.

So, what’s the big deal with this strained relationship?

It goes most recently to the speech Netanyahu made to Congress without first consulting with the White House. It is centered on Israel’s desire to see greater U.S. sanctions on Iran, with whom we are negotiating a deal to end Iran’s nuclear development program. Obama objected to Netanyahu’s speech, didn’t meet with him when he was in-country — and the Obama foes are raising all kinds of hackles over the frayed relationship.

I don’t buy it.

Here’s what ought to happen: The two men have secured phone lines to each other’s office. One of them — it doesn’t matter who — needs to pick up the phone and start working toward a way to end the public rift.

It’s in both leaders’ best interest. They both know it and my hunch is that they well might already have had that chat.

 

national news, political news

Rep. Schock calls it a career

Aaron Schock was thought to be a Republican superstar in the making.

The Illinois congressman, though, has become a GOP goat. He’s quitting Congress at the end of the month because of a mountain of reports that he spent money lavishly, inappropriately and perhaps in violation of federal law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/17/illinois_rep_aaron_schock_announces_resignation_125960.html

I will not join the Democratic Party chorus that is blasting House Speaker John Boehner to smithereens over Schock’s sudden departure. In reality, none of this is the speaker’s fault. The entire mess falls squarely on Schock’s shoulders.

He said the usual thing politicians say when they are forced to quit because of ethical trouble. The stories of his spending and his alleged failure to report it correctly have become a “distraction,” Schock said in a statement.

He had served in Congress for six years and was thought to be one of his party’s shooting stars.

No more. He’s about to vanish from Capitol Hill.

In truth, the story was more than a distraction. It besmirched the entire House of Representatives, which comprises members who represent all Americans and which enacts laws that affect all of us.

Aaron Schock was one of them and he needed to go.

Later, young man.

local news, national news

In defense of police work

1 Comment

Police officers are taking a beating these days.

Not by everyone, mind you, but by some who at times seem to imply that they believe police officers generally are a trigger-happy bunch too willing to pull their guns out and shoot someone.

I feel compelled to revisit a course I once took courtesy of the Amarillo Police Department.

A few years ago, APD officials invited some media folks to its simulated training center for a little practical training on how and when to fire a pistol at someone committing a crime.

Do you shoot or not shoot? That was the question we had to answer to ourselves in a split second while undergoing a simulated criminal act. In the dark. With little warning of what was about to happen.

We were armed with guns that shot paint balls. If you got hit with one of these pellets, well, it smarted some.

We were dressed with some protective gear, given the scenario we were about to visit, then turned loose into a room, or a hallway to confront someone — portrayed by an Amarillo police officer — who is committing a simulated “crime.”

Shoot or don’t shoot?

I have to admit something right here: I didn’t do well on all the scenarios with which I was presented. In once instance, I “shot” someone who was running away from me. I wasn’t supposed to shoot in that case. The training officers all laughed out loud at me; I laughed back … with considerable embarrassment.

One of the things I learned from the training exercise, though, was how one’s adrenalin rushes through one’s body. My own body was trembling with anticipation as I entered each scenario — and I knew I was shooting paint balls, not real bullets.

When it was over, I tried to imagine how my adrenal glands would have reacted had I been an on-duty cop, packing a 9-mm pistol, confronting a bad guy and then having to decide in a split second whether to shoot him or let him go.

My sweat-soaked body betrayed the nerves that got the better of me.

Law enforcement does have bad police officers who make poor decisions. They usually are called out by witnesses, the media and even at times fellow officers. The rest of them — most of them — do their jobs well.

Those are the men and women who deserve our thanks.

 

national news

Wyatt Earp: Now there was a gun control freak

1 Comment

Texas is inching closer toward a law that would allow residents to carry guns openly, where everyone can see them.

The state Senate has approved a bill allowing it, prompting the debate yet again about what the Second Amendment says and what its authors intended. Are all citizens given the right to “keep and bear arms,” or is it referring to the “well-regulated militia” having that right?

Let’s save that one for another day.

But a friend of mine, Benny Hill, reminded me today that Wyatt Earp perhaps was one of the earliest advocates of gun control.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123

Good ol’ Marshal Earp used to keep the peace in Tombstone, Ariz. How did he do it? One way was to require everyone entering his town to check their firearms as the proverbial front gate. No guns allowed, said Earp. He just kept ’em locked up until the folks left town.

Would anyone dare consider Earp to be a soft progressive, a flaming left-wing liberal intent on taking everyone’s gun away from them? I doubt it sincerely.

Yes, he had good reason to confiscate temporarily people’s guns. Crime was running rampant in the Old West town. It was worse in Tombstone, apparently, than in most places.

As the Los Angeles Times reported in January 2011: “You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff’s office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn’t pick it up again until you were leaving town,” said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. “It was an effort to control the violence.”

Imagine someone trying that tactic today. Imagine as well the reaction from, say, any gun-owner-rights advocacy group — no need name names here — to the notion of surrendering your sidearm while you entered any city in America.

Gun laws were a lot tougher than they are now. And to think so many Americans keep wishing for the good old days.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience