Still no railroad museum in Amarillo … why?

rail depot

My wife and I talk about a lot of things while walking through the neighborhood with our puppy, Toby.

She mentioned that her brother is coming to visit us in a few days. He’s quite the railroad enthusiast. She wondered aloud how nice it would be to take him to a railroad museum while he’s here.

It cannot happen … because we have no railroad museum in Amarillo!

Then this thought occurred to me: Although this community was built by pioneer families who raised cattle on this vast expanse of land, it also became a hub for the Santa Fe Railroad.

We have an abandoned rail depot just east of the Civic Center. The railroad built a 12-story office building downtown to serve as division headquarters for the company. The Santa Fe Building went dark several decades ago, then it came back to life after former Potter County Judge Arthur Ware negotiated a deal to buy the Bastille-like structure for 400 grand.

And we still have no museum in Amarillo that celebrates the legacy left by the railroad that was such a huge part of this community’s development.

I wrote about efforts to convert the depot building into a museum. I interviewed my friend, Amarillo lawyer Walter Wolfram, whose dream is to find a place to display the artifacts he has collected over many years.

Here’s the link to that story:

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/29763260/santa-fe-depot-may-become-a-museum-soon

As the city marches forward toward redeveloping its downtown district, there ought to be some talk — out loud and in public — about how this community can develop a railroad museum that honors the men and women who toiled here as this community was coming of age.

The Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum recently named a new interim director. That’s a fine venue to honor the entire history of the region. We have a museum along Interstate 40 that honors the quarterhorse and its role in shaping this community. We have a wonderful art museum.

We have Cadillac Ranch, for cryin’ out loud!

Center City is embarking on an initiative to create a cultural district for the city.

It seems to me — as I sit out here in the proverbial peanut gallery — that there ought to be a concerted effort made to clear away the hurdles that have prevented this community from honoring the railroad industry that helped build it.

Third-party bid emerging from … GOP?

romneymitt_110512gn8

I’m always willing to admit to being a little slow on the uptake at times.

Here’s an example of something I’m having trouble connecting.

Mitt Romney is recruiting members from within the Republican Party to run as “third-party” candidates for president in 2016.

Yes, that Mitt Romney. The Republicans’ 2012 presidential nominee. Mr. Establishment Republican himself.

Here’s what’s puzzling. At least two of the names he’s recruiting belong to other mainstream Republicans. Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279926-report-romney-met-with-kasich-sasse-about-third-party

These two fellows have at least one thing in common: They both despise Donald J. Trump, the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee.

For that matter, you can add Mitt to the list of Trump foes.

Let’s play this out for a second or two.

What happens if, say, Kasich or Sasse decide to take Mitt’s bait? They run for president as a “third party candidate.” What in the world do they call this “third party”? Would it be Republican 2.0? How about the Real Republican Party? Or, Your Grandpa’s GOP?

Trump’s brand of Republican Party politics bears virtually no resemblance to the kind of platform on which Mitt ran in 2012, or on which Kasich ran this year until he suspended his campaign just a few weeks ago.

I don’t know much about Sen. Sasse, other than he’s been a vocal Trump critic ever since Trump decided to run for the party’s presidential nomination.

I guess you have to go way back to 1912 to find such a serious schism within the Republican Party. That was when former President Theodore Roosevelt broke away from the GOP to form a progressive party, the Bull Moose Party. That split guaranteed the election that year of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

I’m guessing no one needs to remind Mitt that history does have a way of repeating itself.

 

No real surprise; Texas high court endorses do-nothing school policy

SCHOOL_FINANCE_TRIAL_TEXAS_50498503

At one level — had I been following this case more closely — I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the Texas Supreme Court had ruled the state’s public school funding system to be “constitutional.”

I’ll admit that I haven’t been as avid a follower of this issue as I should have been.

The court ruled this week that the state is doing all it should be doing to finance public education. Never mind that previous courts, previous judges and educators across the state have said the state does far too little to support public education.

Not so, said the state’s highest civil appellate court.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160513-editorial-school-finance-decision-could-spell-disaster-for-texas-education.ece

The Dallas Morning News editorial I’ve attached to this blog post lays it out pretty well. The Texas Supremes have set an amazingly low bar for state public education.

The court has declared in its unanimous ruling that taking care of public schools rests exclusively with the Texas Legislature.

Here is what I do know about the state of public school financing in Texas.

The Legislature has dramatically cut state spending on public schools over the past several sessions. Do the Supreme Court justices now believe the Legislature is going to reverse itself, that it’s going to find more money to distribute equitably among the more than 1,000 independent school districts around the state?

Of course, the political ramifications must be factored in.

Republicans control — by wide margins — both legislative chambers. They also occupy every statewide office in Texas. That includes the nine individuals who comprise the Texas Supreme Court.

Who out there really thinks the justices ever were going to buck the policies set by their GOP brethren in the other two branches of state government?

Here’s part of what the Morning News said: “In refusing to intervene, they’ve placed an enormous responsibility to fix our system of school finance on the shoulders of state lawmakers, the same lawmakers who have refused for decades to do what is needed. As a result, Texas’ 5 million public school children will be the ones who most directly bear the costs of the high court’s refusal to fix a system that it concedes requires ‘transformational, top-to-bottom reforms.'”

The justices have recognized the state’s public education system is broken but they won’t do anything to fix it.

The ball’s back in the Legislature’s court. Again.

Do something, lawmakers, to repair the system you’ve broken.

No, Ivanka … Dad hasn’t ‘elevated’ the debate

trump_050316getty

Ivanka Trump’s love for her father is a beautiful thing to see.

Most of the time.

It becomes a bit less beautiful when she says things about the “contribution” dear ol’ Dad has made to the level of discourse in this year’s campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Donald J. Trump — Ivanka’s father — has “elevated (the debate) — he’s created dialogue around issues. It’s a powerful thing,” she said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279838-ivanka-trump-my-father-has-elevated-the-dialogue

I don’t believe that’s the case.

Trump has come under intense criticism from leaders in both major political parties for, let’s see, doing the precise opposite of what Ivanka Trump says he has done.

He has lowered the level of discourse. He has taken it to depths not seen in at least two generations.

Daddy Trump’s insults of other candidates have topped the charts.

He has ridiculed other candidates’ physical appearance, their eating habits, their level of “energy.” He has hurtful things about a journalist’s physical disability. Trump has said amazingly crass things about the alleged reasons another journalist asked him tough and pointed questions at a televised debate.

Ivanka Trump also disregards the lies Trump has told all along the way as he moves closer to becoming the Republican Party’s presidential nominee.

One stands out: Donald Trump said he watched “thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attacks. He’s also said the Mexican government is sending rapists, drug dealers and murderers to commit mayhem and misery on this side of the countries’ common border.

This is how his daughter — by all accounts an accomplished young woman — describes as “elevating” the level of discourse during the campaign for president.

She said her father is “honest.” He says what’s on his mind at the moment, Ivanka said.

There’s something to be said — although I don’t know what that would be — for that brand of “honesty.” Let us not, though, suggest that it elevates the quality of what has passed so far for political debate.

 

 

Trump denies an impersonation?

trump

Can this campaign for the presidency get any stranger than it has gotten in the past few hours?

Yeah. It can. More than likely it will.

Donald J. Trump’s unbelievable march to the Republican Party presidential nomination has been hit with another bizarre tale. It involves a Washington Post report that in 1991, Trump impersonated someone named “John Miller” while extolling the virtues of — yep, that’s right — Donald Trump.

“Miller” was talking up Trump’s virtues in an effort to stave off reportedly negative publicity about his divorce. Those who’ve heard the recording insist it’s Trump’s voice.

Here’s where it gets weirder in the extreme. Trump this morning denied it was him.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-denies-impersonating-spokesman-223158

What’s utterly insane is that even an untrained voice analyst can detect speech patterns and sentence structure that sound identical to what the real Donald Trump uses today.

But, oh no. Trump said it’s not him.

In the grand scheme of things, this likely shouldn’t count as a big deal. Except that we’re talking now about the man who’s poised to become a major-party presidential nominee. All he had to say when asked about the recorded phone conversation was, “Yes, I did it. I like to promote myself. I was just having a little fun.”

The reporter who covered the conversation initially for People magazine has said just in the past day that Trump actually called her at the time to apologize for impersonating this “John Miller” character.

Given this candidate’s astonishing record of getting away with utterly outrageous behavior on the campaign trail, do not look for this latest incident to put much of a dent in his upcoming nomination.

We can, I suppose, just add it to the lengthy list of bizarre behavior that has been the hallmark of his business and personal life.

To think he’s going to try to sell that record to a country that in just a few months will be electing its next head of state.

 

Amarillo is dangerous? Don’t think so

crime-scene-tape

A Houston law firm has tarred Amarillo with a designation that I think many of us who live here would dispute.

The Darrow Law Firm says Amarillo is the fifth-most-dangerous city in Texas.

No. 5 in the state! We live in a dangerous community, the firm declares.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/31953135/amarillo-ranked-no-5-most-dangerous-city-in-texas

These surveys sometimes are hard to stomach, particularly when they portray your community in less-than-flattering contexts.

According to KFDA NewsChannel 10: “The Darrow Law Firm looked at three factors for their ranking: Crime, police, and community. Out of 34 cities in the state, Amarillo ranked 3rd highest in crime, 14th-lowest in police investment and 24th-highest in community risk, per capita.”

West Texas A&M University criminal justice professor Harry Hueston disagrees with the findings. He told the station that studies such as this tend to paint communities with too broad a brush.

I am sure that a recent crime victim might agree with the assertion that Amarillo is a dangerous place. We’ve been fortunate in that regard, so we see the study in a different light.

I know this: I am not going to take any extra-special precaution to guard against someone intent on doing harm.

I’m cautious enough as it is.

Here’s the study. Take a look.

http://www.houston-criminalattorney.com/most-dangerous-cities-texas/

Don’t be scared.

Hezbollah leader killed … good! Let there be more

BBt0udt

Mustafa Badreddine was a bad actor.

He’s now dead. Who killed this terrorist? Hezbollah, the terror organization he helped lead, thinks the Israelis are responsible for the bomb blast that killed Badreddine in Syria.

Israel isn’t commenting. Officials there usually stay mum about these incidents.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/top-hezbollah-commander-kille-in-syria/ar-BBt07l2?li=BBnb7Kz

If the Israelis indeed are responsible for the death of Hezbollah’s top military leader, my initial reaction is this: Good deal … now let’s go after the rest of them!

I am one who strongly backs Israel’s effort to defend itself against the terror threat the nation’s existence every day.

I’ve had the honor and the pleasure to travel throughout the country. It was seven years ago this week, in fact, that I ventured to Israel for a month with four dear friends as part of a Rotary International Group Study Exchange.

One of the places we visited was in Nahariyah, on the country’s northern border with Lebanon. We could see the fortified border — complete with barbed wire and watch towers — along the ridgeline where we toured. Just on the other side of that border is a nation where Hezbollah runs wild.

Just as Hamas has launched rockets into Israel from Gaza, Hezbollah has done the same from Lebanon and Syria. They send their missiles into neighborhoods, targeting civilians. The Israelis are forced into a constant state of alert against these terrorist organizations.

Do the Israelis make any apologies for the measures they take to eradicate terrorist leaders? Absolutely not … nor should they.

As Reuters reports: “Israel deems Hezbollah its most potent enemy and worries that it is becoming entrenched on its Syrian front and acquiring more advanced weaponry.”

It wouldn’t surprise any observer of this ongoing conflict to learn that Israeli agents detonated the bomb that killed Badreddine.

Will the Israelis own up to it? Probably not.

That’s all right with me.

 

Tax matters become our business

13firstdraft-trump1-tmagArticle

You’re running for president of the United States.

It’s a grueling event. It has required candidates to do things they dislike doing, but they do them anyway.

One of those things is to reveal to the public they intend to govern how much they pay in taxes to the federal government. Presidential candidates have been doing it since 1976. It’s not required by law; candidates just do it. Some do so more willingly than others.

So, when a media representative asks the candidate about his or her tax rate, how much they pay in taxes, how is the candidate supposed to respond?

Donald J. Trump got that question this morning from George Stephanopoulos on ABC-TV’s “Good Morning America.” Trump’s response? “It’s none of your business.”

Well, actually it is.

The man now presumed to be the Republican Party’s next presidential nominee is throwing out tax plans left and right. He’s back-tracking, switching his views, telling us what he intends to do — before he changes his mind — about how much money he wants the rest of us to pay in taxes.

Trump has been less-than-forthcoming on his tax returns. He won’t release them for public review, contending that the Internal Revenue Service is in the midst of an audit. IRS officials respond with, “So what?” He still can release the returns.

Trump won’t do it.

Then he tells a network news anchor that the information is “none of your business.”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/13/donald-trump-on-his-tax-rate-its-none-of-your-business/?_r=0

It is absolutely our business to know how much a man who wants to be president pays in taxes to the government — our government, the one financed by American taxpayers.

Of course, the president doesn’t set tax policy by himself — or herself. Tax legislation originates in the House of Representatives. As the saying goes, “The president proposes, Congress disposes.”

Still, if a president is going to propose tax policy to Congress — which might then become law that has a direct impact on every American’s household income — then the public has a right to know whether the presidential candidate is paying his or her fair share.

Who determines what is fair? We do.

 

Listen to this man’s sensible argument on fighting terror

kurdish fighters

David Petraeus is a retired U.S. Army general — the four-star variety. He served in combat and commanded troops in the fight against international terrorists.

He served for a time as the nation’s spook in chief, aka the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

He’s written a compelling essay for the Washington Post in which he argues forcefully against those — that would include you, Donald J. Trump — who propose to ban visitors to this country based solely on their religion.

Here’s the crux of what Gen. Petraeus is trying to convey:

“I have grown increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.

“Some justify these measures as necessary to keep us safe — dismissing any criticism as ‘political correctness.’ Others play down such divisive rhetoric as the excesses of political campaigns here and in Europe, which will fade away after the elections are over…

“As policy, these concepts are totally counterproductive: Rather than making our country safer, they will compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens. As ideas, they are toxic and, indeed, non-biodegradable — a kind of poison that, once released into our body politic, is not easily expunged.

“Setting aside moral considerations, those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.”

Take a look at the complete essay:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-petraeus-anti-muslim-bigotry-aids-islamist-terrorists/2016/05/12/5ab50740-16aa-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

How about returning sanity — and intelligence — to this issue of protecting ourselves against those who seek to do us harm?

 

 

Transgender issue taking strange turn

Transgender-Bathroom-600x321

I am trying to understand this issue, but it’s escaping me … so far.

The Obama administration is going to send out a “directive” to public school systems throughout the country advising them against discriminating against “transgender” students.

It won’t have the “force of law,” according to federal officials. It will warn districts that they face being denied federal funds if they fail to comply with the directive.

Check this out:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama-administration-to-issue-decree-on-transgender-access-to-school-restrooms/ar-BBsZoch?li=BBnb7Kz

What is giving me so much grief?

It’s the “transgender” issue all by itself.

People who identify  with the opposite sex should be granted access to facilities set aside for the opposite sex, say proponents of transgender rights.

So, if I hear them correctly, a man with all the requisite male body parts can use a woman’s public restroom. Same for a woman who wants to use the men’s restroom.

Simply identifying with the other gender doesn’t require them to dress appropriately, as I understand it. Am I wrong about that?

How do we know who’s truly transgender, therefore, and who, um, isn’t?

Here in Texas, the lieutenant governor weighed in on this matter by ordering the Fort Worth Independent School District superintendent, Kent Scribner, to resign because of guidelines he wrote governing the issue — in that school district.

I’ve stated already that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick overstepped his bounds by meddling in a local issue. Scribner’s employment status should be determined exclusively by the school board that appointed him.

The federal “directive” seems to line up the same way. Have the federal courts ruled on the constitutionality of this matter? If so, then it got past me.

I’m trying to understand which rights are involved here, particularly as it pertains to individuals who haven’t yet been surgically altered to comply with their stated gender identity.

I have no issue, moreover, with those who’ve had the “gender reassignment” surgery and have been re-created into the appropriate gender. The medical procedure, by my way of thinking, removes the transgender confusion.

I’ve stated many times over many years that I don’t understand a lot of things.

This, most assuredly, is one of them.

My head hurts.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience