local news, national news, political news, State news

Redistricting really and truly matters to us

Redistricting is an issue that usually appeals to policy wonks, political junkies and perhaps nerds who have nothing better to do than think about this stuff.

I’m not really a wonk; I don’t consider myself a nerd. I am a bit of a political junkie.

But the redistricting mess is something that ought to concern everyone who’s affected by state and national government.

That means, um, everyone.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/06/analysis-redistricting-reformers-hopeful-pessimist/

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on its last day of his latest term that Arizona can allow someone other than the legislature to redraw congressional lines. The 5-4 ruling means that the state can appoint a special commission to do the job left normally to partisan politicians.

So, what does that mean for Texas?

Probably not as much as it should, according to the Texas Tribune.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/06/analysis-redistricting-reformers-hopeful-pessimist/

The late state Sen. Teel Bivins of Amarillo used to say that redistricting provided Republicans the “chance to eat their young.” I never quite understood what he meant by Republicans eating their young. Democrats do the same thing.

The Texas Legislature redraws legislative and congressional boundaries after every census is taken. It’s done a horrible job of gerrymandering districts into shapes that make zero sense. It’s a bipartisan exercise in political power retention.

After the 1990 census, Democrats who controlled the Texas Legislature managed to split Amarillo in half in an effort to protect Democratic U.S. Rep. Bill Sarpalius. It worked through one election cycle, as Sarpalius was-re-elected in 1992. Then came 1994 and Sarpalius got tossed out when voters elected Republican Mac Thornberry.

Some of the congressional districts downstate snake along streets and highways. They make zero sense.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “The Arizona case opens the door for voters to take the map-drawing away from the people who are occupationally dependent on the lines on those maps. That’s a fancy way of saying the lawmakers have a conflict of interest when they draw. They’re picking their voters instead of drawing the lines as if they had no interest at all.”

Did you get that? Legislators who draw the lines are the actual beneficiaries of their very own work.

They shouldn’t be involved. The Constitution doesn’t require legislators to do this task; it says only that states must do it.

If legislatures pass that duty to specially appointed commissions, then they are entitled to do so.

So, Texas legislators, what are you waiting for?

national news, political news

Strike the rebel flag in S.C.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has done what she had to do.

She signed a bill that brings down the Confederate battle flag that flew in front of the statehouse in Columbia, S.C.

Yes, it’s a mere symbol. However, it’s a powerful symbol … of hate, bigotry, tyranny and enslavement.

The South Carolina legislature debated the issue passionately, but decided ultimately to do what it had to do.

It needed to come down. The context, of course, is the horrifying massacre in that Charleston, S.C., church in which a gunman killed five African-American church members — including its pastor. A young man, Dylann Roof, has been accused of the crime and what we know about young Roof is that he is an avowed racist who waved the Confederate battle flag proudly as a demonstration of his intention to start what he called a “race war.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/south-carolinas-governor-signs-confederate-flag-removal-bill/ar-AAcLNgx

The flag is down and I’m glad about that.

However, one can take this campaign too far. I think it’s starting to veer into some tricky territory. TV Land has stopped showing “Dukes of Hazzard” reruns because the car that Bo and Luke Duke drove in the show had a battle flag emblem on its roof.

Now comes talk of removing Confederate military figures’ statues.

There is a certain historical significance in many of these monuments. These individuals were answering a call to duty. Yes, they were fighting to break up the Union. It’s good, though, to remind ourselves of our nation’s dark moments.

I have no problem with the battle flag coming down in places like South Carolina, where the Civil War started in 1861. The flag has become the emblem of hate; you see it flown at Klan rallies. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles banned the flag from appearing on license plates, and the Supreme Court upheld the state’s right to issue that prohibition.

The flag is a hateful symbol. But not all monuments dedicated to the Confederacy conjure up the same level of intense loathing among so many Americans.

So, let’s seek to dial back the knee-jerk responses to other symbols that carry historic significance.

 

Uncategorized

Give planet status back to Pluto!

pluto

My friend Dan has it right.

Pluto deserves planet status. None of this dwarf planet nonsense.

The picture here is taken from a spacecraft that any day now is going to zoom right past the ninth planet in our solar system.

It’s small. It’s cold — as in, well, beyond frigid! It doesn’t have life, that we know of.

Astronomers demoted Pluto some years back. They called it a dwarf planet.

But it has five moons orbiting it. How many does Earth have? Just one. We’re a planet, though. Pluto is a dwarf.

We’re about to get an up-close-and-personal look at Pluto.

I echo my friend: Return it to planet status! As Dan says: “Don’t listen to those astrologers! Pluto is real!”

 

local news

Another giant passes from the scene

Like any lawyer, Jerry Johnson knew the jokes about his profession.

He could recite them all, even though they were countless.

He could laugh at them, knowing full well that he really didn’t fit the mold.

The great man wasn’t brash. He wasn’t conceited. He wasn’t a fast-talker.

Jerry Johnson instead was a man of high honor, integrity, humility and if you were in a hurry to get a quick answer from him, well, forget about it. It took Johnson a while to get his point across. His drawl was as slow and fluid as they come.

Amarillo lost a gigantic figure in its legal community with Johnson’s death.

Me? I lost a friend, a great source for all things political and someone with whom I occasionally shared some political commonality.

http://m.amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2015-07-08/longtime-lawyer-jerry-johnson-dies#gsc.tab=0

Jerry was a dedicated Democrat. He cherished his friendship with, say, Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson … to name perhaps the state’s most high-profile powerhouse Democratic couple. He also had friends on the other side of the aisle.

I recall attending an event in Johnson’s honor, commemorating his many years as a lawyer at the Underwood firm. Texas Comptroller John Sharp made the trip from Austin to salute Johnson. One dignitary couldn’t be there, but someone read a letter from him. It came from Karl Rove, the Republican political genius and architect of George W. Bush’s two successful campaigns for Texas governor and, oh yes, his two successful campaigns for president of the United States.

Democrat or Republican, they all respected and admired Jerry Johnson.

We’d have lunch on occasion and we’d go over the political doings of the day. He’d grouse about Republicans, praise Democrats. He actually asked my opinion on this or that. I’d give it to him and this wise and gentle man would actually listen — as in actually pay attention.

The Amarillo Globe-News named him Man of the Year in the 1990s and later included him in its list of the Panhandle’s most influential people.

He was a huge presence and was the personification of integrity and honor.

My favorite comment from those who remembered Johnson comes from Amarillo lawyer Selden Hale, who said: “If you had to pick a daddy and couldn’t pick your own, he would be the one I’d pick.”

Yep. Amarillo’s heart today has a huge hole in it.

legal news, national news, political news

Change the federal judicial system? Please, no

What is it with some American politicians?

A court ruling or two doesn’t go their way and they want to toss aside one of the basic tenets of our federal government? They want to elect federal judges, make them stand for “retention” if they make a decision that upsets some of us?

That’s the view of a leading so-called “conservative” U.S. senator who’s also running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Take it away, Ted Cruz of Texas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-chris-matthews-supreme-court-119891.html

Cruz jousted this week with MSBNC’s Chris Matthews over the setup of the federal judiciary. Cruz doesn’t like the two recent Supreme Court rulings that (a) upheld the Affordable Care Act and (b) legalized gay marriage in the United States.

The junior senator from Texas now thinks Supreme Court justices should stand for retention to enable voters a chance to decide if they want them to keep their jobs.

Matthews, not surprisingly, went semi-ballistic — which is part of his shtick. He brought up the Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stop the Florida recount. Texas Gov. George W. Bush was leading by 537 votes at that moment over Vice President Al Gore. Gov. Bush was awarded Florida’s electoral votes, which were enough to elect him president of the United States by a single electoral vote.

The five Republican-appointed justices’ overruled the four dissents cast by the Democratic-appointed justices. Politics? Gosh, do you think?

Conservatives hailed that decision. And why not? It was all done according to precisely the manner allowed by the U.S. Constitution. Some of us might not have liked the outcome, but that’s how it goes. The justices made the call.

Cruz didn’t object then, Matthews reminded him.

The nation’s founders set up a system in which the federal judiciary is intended to be free of political pressure. The president appoints judges and Supreme Court justices, who then are subject to approval by the Senate. They get lifetime jobs and, therefore, are able to rule according to how they interpret the Constitution.

This idea that we should now subject justices to the political will of the people is simply not in keeping with what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

Political conservatives, such as Sen. Cruz, keep harping on “original intent.” Well, the founders’ “original intent” was to separate the judicial branch of government from the political tug-of-war that exists in the legislative and executive branches.

Cruz said he is “reluctant to call for elections,” and said it “makes him sad.” He added that he has made that call because “a majority of the justices are not honoring their judicial oaths.”

Yes they are, senator.

Let’s leave the judicial system alone.

local news

Rain, rain, rain … keep thinking ‘drought’

Even as I write this brief post, let us ponder something that seems nonsensical.

The Texas Panhandle has been drenched — and that’s a relative term — for the year to date. We’ve exceeded our annual precipitation average, and it’s only the eighth day of July. It’s raining again tonight. Hard.

Should we consider the drought to be over? You’re welcome to do so, if you wish. We intend at our house to continue operating as if we’re in a drought.

We won’t water the lawn, which of course is quite obvious, given that we’ve had plenty of moisture already. We intend to watch our indoor water consumption. When it dries out, we’ll keep our lawn-watering to a minimum.

We only average about 20 inches of rain per year on what I call the Texas Tundra. We’ve reached that total already in 2015.

Our playas are full. Lake Meredith’s levels keep rising. Who knows? Perhaps they might even release some water upriver at Ute Lake, allowing it to flow down the Canadian River into Lake Meredith.

Water planners said this all could happen if we kept the faith and were careful with our water resources.

Our water condition is much better than it was just two years ago.

Remember, though: The drought took years to develop and it’ll take years to be abated fully.

Uncategorized

To the woodshed … perhaps?

2 Comments

harpole

Texas open meetings requirements are pretty strict. They allow public bodies to meet in secret only for specific reasons, with personnel discussions being one of them.

And when the body shuts the door, it keeps the public out so that its members can speak freely about the issue at hand.

Tuesday, the Amarillo City Council had a lengthy closed-door meeting. No one outside the room knows what was said when the council shut the door to talk about City Manager Jarrett Atkinson and the Amarillo Economic Development Corporation board.

They went into the meeting to talk about the “status” of both — Atkinson and the AEDC board.

When the council came out, Mayor Paul Harpole announced that Atkinson’s resignation and the resignations of the AEDC board members was off the table. The city is moving forward, he said.

OK, so what the heck happened in that room?

Harpole and the rest of the council won’t say specifically. They papered over the discussion, calling it cordial, businesslike … all the things you might expect to hear. Perhaps it was all of that.

Councilman Mark Nair had called for Atkinson’s resignation on the day he took office. Councilman Randy Burkett, another council rookie, called for the AEDC board to quit.

Then they changed their minds.

Hmmm. Interesting, yes?

Since the public is left to speculate on what happened in that City Hall room, I think I’ll do a little speculating right here — about what I think should have occurred.

Harpole should have given the two brand new council members the tongue-lashing of their lives, much in the manner that President Reagan took then-Office of Management and Budget Director David Stockman “to the woodshed” for steering too far off course during the early years of the Reagan administration.

We don’t know what Harpole told his council colleagues. We do know, though, that he scolded Burkett strongly in public over Burkett’s assertion that he demanded Assistant City Manager Vicki Covey’s resignation when Covey’s retirement already had been in the works. Burkett wasn’t present to hear Harpole’s harsh words, although I’m quite certain he heard of them soon afterward.

It’s also instructive that Burkett left the Tuesday meeting quickly and fended off media attempt to question him as he exited the building.

So, all the principals say they’re happy with the way the direction the city is headed. Councilman Nair spoke of the need to pull together.

Good for all of you — and especially to Mayor Harpole, if he did what I hope he did behind closed doors.

legal news, political news

Where was this voice on gay marriage?

Of all the voices heard across the United States of America that were commenting — pro and con — on the historic Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage, one voice was conspicuously silent.

It belonged to the former vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney.

He’s been quick to lambaste the liberals ever since leaving office in January 2009. He calls Barack Obama the “worst president of my lifetime.” He’s leveled heavy fire on congressional Democrats on any number of foreign and domestic issues.

On this one, the issue that resonates on both sides of the political divide — for vastly different reasons, of course — he’s been silent.

The gay marriage debate hits the former VP squarely where he feels it. His daughter, Mary, is married to a woman.

In this instance, Vice President Cheney’s silence has been remarkable.

He dare not rile the base of his Republican Party, the folks who still adore him for his staunch conservative views, by endorsing how the Supreme Court has affirmed the Constitution’s equal protection clause contained in the 14th Amendment.

Then again, he dare not criticize the court out of concern that critics might jump all over him for condemning his very own daughter — who I am absolutely certain he loves without condition. Fathers do that, you know.

Man, it’s a dicey world when you have to decide which brand of loyalty wins out — loyalty to family or to political principle.

My hope is that family takes precedence.

 

Sports news

Shrieking? At Wimbledon of all places?

Wimbledon is supposed to be a place of grand decorum, politeness and good manners.

Now, though, we hear gripes about the grunting that goes on while the world’s greatest tennis stars are playing each other. What’s more, the fans apparently get tanked up on gin-laced drinks and have been mimicking the grunts some of the players — notably the women — make while they’re competing.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/tennis/sound-and-fury-as-azarenka-blasts-scream-queen-critics/ar-AAcGf3z

I’ll stipulate that I’m not a huge fan of tennis. I like watching it some of the time. I’m not glued to my TV set when the “majors” are being played. Wimbledon is one of them. The closest my wife and have ever been to the place was on an airplane that in June 2006 was making its approach to Heathrow Airport in London; the bird flew over the stadium, and I’ll admit it was kind of cool to see it from the air.

It fascinates me somewhat that an uproar would occur at this place.

Why, they don’t even allow the competitors to wear anything but white on the court. Headbands? They have to be white, too.

Wimbledon is as stodgy a place as, say, Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia, which has banned CBS Sports announcer Gary McCord from taking part in the network’s TV coverage of the Masters Tournament because, well, McCord’s smart-alecky personality rankles the stuffed shirts who run the Masters.

So, if the green jacket crowd can dictate who covers their golf event in Augusta, why can’t the stuffy Brits who run Wimbledon get the athletes to stop their grunting and shrieking?

What’s more, why don’t they make the stands a booze-free zone?

Do I like hearing the grunting? No. It does distract me from what I’m watching. But that’s not my call.

It’s just that if the tennis royalty that runs Wimbledon is going to demand certain behavior and make the athletes wear only white, then let’s go all the way.

Stop the shrieks and tell the fans to behave themselves.

 

local news

First a shakeup, now there’s none

2 Comments

Amarillo City Hall isn’t about to break out into complete bedlam after all.

I think that’s what I read this morning.

After demanding the resignation of the city manager and the entire Amarillo Economic Development Corporation Board, two of the three newest members of the City Council have pulled back.

City Manager Jarrett Atkinson is going to stay on the job; the AEDC board will remain.

The city will continue to move forward on its ambitious plans to reshape, remake and revive downtown.

What the …. ?

Did someone sprinkle fairy dust over all the principals at City Hall?

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/29497232/amarillo-city-council-no-longer-asking-for-six-resignations

Whatever. Something positive happened after that lengthy closed session Tuesday. I happen to be glad. I’m sure others around the city are as well.

Atkinson told my NewsChannel 10 colleague Madison Alewel the following: “I think we’ve got everything on a path to move forward collectively, not just as a council, or just myself, or city staff, but the community. We’re in a very good place now and I’m very pleased with that.”

The city clearly did not have to lose its chief executive officer who’s in the midst of a comprehensive downtown redevelopment program. Nor did it have to replace its entire AEDC board, which since 1989 has been using a fraction of sales tax revenue to lure business into the city.

There needed to be an understanding of what the new council expected. Did the parties reach that understanding in that closed session? Well, one can surmise that some accommodation was reached.

The multipurpose event venue remains a sticking point. Do we proceed with it? My hope is that it moves forward so that the developer already on board with plans to build the convention hotel nearby proceeds with his project.

If the MPEV gets shelved, the hotel won’t be built. The project will come to an inglorious end.

My sincere hope is that we’re witnessing a coming together and that, as Atkinson said, we’re all “in a very good place now.”

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience