FordAtkinson's Blog

They're baaack!  Well, almost.  Texas state legislators are making their way to Austin for the legislative session that begins January 13.  For a while, it appeared the first day would feature a dramatic showdown between House Speaker Tom Craddick and those who want to replace him. But Craddick, recognizing he couldn't win, bowed out. It's now almost certain that Republican State Rep. Joe Strauss of San Antonio will be the new Speaker of the House. 

Most voters greet the election of a new Speaker with the shrug of the shoulders.  While the Speaker is crucial to the legislative process, folks just want lawmakers to correct a few problems and get out of town without trying to fix something that "ain't broke." 

What do you want from the legislative session?  A cap on college tuition?  An open carry gun law?  Are you worried the legislators will try to do too much or too little?

In my lifetime, only JFK's murder and 9/11 exceeded the national shock of losing the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia and their crews.  When Challenger exploded shortly after launch, I was sent to Florida to cover the story at the Kennedy Space Center.  Within hours after Columbia broke apart during re-entry, I was in East Texas, interviewing witnesses and tiptoeing over shuttle debris. 

Images of those two disasters were rekindled this week when Nasa released a full report on Columbia's demise on February 1, 2003.  The report gives a second-by-second account of the shuttle's break-up over Texas and the crew's attempts to save Columbia.  It reminded me once again how dangerous space flight can be.

What has always amazed me, however, is the safety record of America's space program.  I hate to use the word "only" when refering to the astronauts who died and their families.  But my guess is the early pioneers of manned space flight would have never believed America would lose "only" two space vehicles over five decades of launches and re-entries.

By no means should the human error that contributed to the losses of Columbia and Challenger be minimized.  Nasa knows that both accidents could have been prevented.  Critics say the space agency's culture blinded it to the warning signs of potential disaster. 

With the space shuttle program winding down, what are your thoughts on America's space program?  Is it time to pull back or launch more resources into the exploration of space?

Pastor Rick Warren is President-elect Obama's choice to give the invocation at next month's inauguration.  The decision angers gay and lesbian groups because Warren opposes same sex marriage.  I've heard gay activists referring to Warren as "divisive." 

The last I heard, Obama himself opposes gay marriage.  Is Obama "divisive?"  The vast majority of pastors, indeed, the overwhelming majority of Americans, don't believe in gay marriage.  Are they "divisive?"  In every state where same sex marriage has been placed on the ballot, it has lost.  Are the voters "divisive?"

Warren supported proposition 8, the California measure banning gay marriage in that state.  But a majority of African Americans and Hispanics voted for it and were crucial in passing the proposition.  When will gay activists start attacking those two groups? 

This story may make your sober blood boil.  According to the Houston Chronicle, a drunk driver, convicted of intoxication manslaughter for the death of her passenger, is suing the truck driver she hit.  In 2007, Elizabeth Shelton was stinking drunk when she plowed into the rear of a box truck.  Her boyfriend, a passenger in her car, died in the crash.

Now, the daughter of Harris County Juvenile Court Judge Pat Shelton,  is suing the truck driver.  Elizabeth Shelton wants $20,000 for damage to her Lexus.  The company that owned the truck had allowed the insurance to expire, giving Shelton her opening to blame the truck driver for the accident.  Nevermind that tests showed Shelton's blood alcohol was three times more than the legal limit.

If this lawsuit got to trial and you were on the jury, what would be your verdict?

Political royalty rears its head again.  Caroline Kennedy apparently thinks she's entitled to high public office.  Kennedy, JFK's daughter, wants to be appointed to succeed Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate.  My guess is... she actually expects New York's governor to hand the seat to her once Clinton is confirmed as Secretary of State.

This kind of stuff drives me up the wall.  It's not that I don't respect the late president's daughter.  By all accounts, Caroline Kennedy has used her inherited wealth and influence in very positive ways.  She has tried to make a difference in the lives of the less fortunate.  Caroline's good deeds, however, have not earned her an appointment to the Senate.

Two of Caroline's cousins have served in Congress and, of course, her "Uncle Teddy" is one of the Senate's most influential members.  Their path to election was cleared by the Kennedy family influence.  They may have also felt entitled to public office, but, at least, they went through the "inconvenience" of placing their names on the ballot. 

To be fair, inherited political influence crosses party lines.  George W. Bush is the most prominent example among Republicans.  There's a long tradition of children following in their powerful family's political footsteps.  Remember John Quincy Adams? 

Even so, it seems to me Caroline Kennedy's "request" to be given a Senate seat goes beyond the pale.  Why doesn't she run for a lesser public office, then work her way up?  She might very well make a fine public servant.  But shouldn't Caroline shed the cape of political royalty first?  After all, if Caroline successfully sets the example for presidential offspring, can Chelsea Clinton and Jenna Bush be far behind?

Here's a multiple choice question:  Who's more corrupt, Democrats or Republicans?   

A) Democrats 

B) Republicans

C) All of the Above

I've been around politicians for a long time now.  One of the first things I learned as a young reporter is there are some very smart people who get elected to local, state and federal offices.  And there are some very dumb ones, too.  I've met very decent politicians in both parties and many I wouldn't trust for a second.  The "character" issue transcends the political spectrum.  There are conservative crooks and cheats and liberal crooks and cheats.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is the latest example of political corruption.  Yes, I know, the 51-year-old Democrat is innocent until proven guilty.  But his own words, captured on tape by FBI wiretaps, prove at the very least that Blagojevich is an arrogant jackass who has no business being in public office.  As governor, Blagojevich has the power to fill the soon-to-be vacant Illinois senate seat now occupied by President-elect Barack Obama.  According to the FBI, the wiretaps caught the governor plotting to sell the seat to the highest bidder.  He described the opportunity as "golden."  In conversations outlined in court documents, Blagojevich insisted on monetary kickbacks for his wife and himself in return for naming the new senator.  At one point, the governor asserted  "... I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing." 

The Blagojevich revelations came just days after Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson lost his bid for re-election to congress.  Jefferson is awaiting trial for bribery and money laundering.  And let's not forget Democrat Charles Rangel, the New York congressman facing all kinds of ethical questions that could turn into a legal quagmire. 

Of course, Republicans have been slammed with one scandal after another.  After being tried on financial misconduct charges, Sen. Ted Steves of Alaska is now a convicted felon.  Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is still trying to explain his arrest in a bathroom sex sting.  Former California congressman Randy Cunningham is in prison for accepting bribes.  I could go on and on naming scandal-plagued figures in both parties.

Back to my question.  Of course, the answer is "C."  Corruption infects both parties equally.  The disease can be caught by those who call themselves liberal or conservative.  I've never quoted the late Alabama Governor George Wallace before.  But, while running as an independent for president in 1968, Wallace used to say "... there's not a dime worth of difference..." between the Republican and Democratic parties.  When it comes to corruption, the difference is even slimmer than that.

I'm not much of a whiner, but a couple of things are really bugging me.  First up:  my local telephone bill.  For the second straight month, the bill contains charges for services I've never authorized.  I complained to the phone company for the second straight month.  Once again I was told the charges come from fax and email service companies that are probably hoping I won't notice.  Well, an additional 75 bucks isn't a ton of money, but it's something I do notice, especially when the phone bill is only supposed to be about 50 dollars total.  The phone company takes the charges off the bill, but can't promise they won't appear again next month.  So, I call the individual service companies and raise holy heck.  After putting me on hold for as long as a half hour, the companies promise to never charge me again.  Of course, they are at a "loss" to explain how the charges ended up on my bill in the first place. Yeah, right.  

 I findly calm down and head to the post office to mail a small package.  When I arrive, I find about ten people in line.  Two postal employees are behind the counter and a third is sitting in a chair in the lobby.  She says she's just there to answer questions.  I say to myself, "I do have a question: why aren't you on your feet behind the counter helping customers."  But I keep my question to myself, grit my teeth and stand in line for 20 minutes before being called to the counter.  I pay $1.34 to mail the package and leave. 

Okay, I'm done whining.  Just had to get that off my chest.  But I'd like to know what's really been bugging you lately?  Don't be shy. 

If you're opposed to gay marriage, those who support it label you "intolerant."  The label is designed to signal that gay marriage opponents don't have the intellectual or emotional capacity to cope with an alternate viewpoint.

So, what happens when Californians vote to ban same sex marriage?  Those on the winning side of Proposition 8 say many  in the gay and lesbian community can't bring themselves to "tolerate" the will of the people.  According to the LA Times,  gay marriage supporters are threatening their opponents in the artistic community with their jobs.  A theater company artistic director who's against gay marriage has actually been forced to resign.  Elsewhere, some members of the Mormon Church say their property has been vandalized because their religious beliefs don't include same sex unions.

So, who are the "intolerant" ones here?   Opponents of same sex marriage, supporters of it, or both?

Just when you thought Barack Obama had put a fork in the Clintonization of American politics, our President-elect reportedly wants Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state.  Funny, I thought one of the reason's Hillary wasn't asked to become Obama's running mate is Barack didn't need the distraction of more Clinton drama.                                                      
                                   It's mostly about Bill, of course. Bill Clinton couldn't muzzle himself during the campaign and his detractors say he is unlikely to keep his mouth shut during the next four years.  Plus, they fear Bill's speeching-making and consulting in foreign countries are bound to cause problems, no matter how much he promises to shrink into the background.

Much of the far left wing of the Democratic Party is horrified by the thought of Hillary managing America's foreign policy.  They don't trust her, especially given her initial support of the Iraq War.  These are the very supporters who gave life to the Obama Campaign in its early stages by donating tens of millions of dollars and volunteering countless hours of time.  They did all that because they didn't want Hillary Clinton anywhere near the levers of power in Washington.

From Obama's point of view, there are solid reasons to nominate Hillary.  She's smart, knows many foreign leaders and her ascendency to the top level of the state department would help thaw the chilly feelings many of her supporters still have toward Obama.  By naming Clinton, Obama would be following the old dictum:  keep your friends close and your enemies closer. 

Yet, I wonder if Obama is on the verge of taking a completely unnecessary risk.  He's got a clean slate right now.  The Clinton nomination could put more than a few smudges on it.  What do you think?  Is Hillary worth the risk? 

You know what really bugs the Sarah Palin haters?  It's driving them nuts that Palin just doesn't care what they think.  She just forges ahead, stealing the limelight from other Republican governors at their conference last week and sitting for one network interview after another.  Oh, yeah, Palin probably feels a bit empowered because exit polling now clearly shows she helped the GOP ticket.

Palin's pathological haters have a few things to hang their hats on.  No question, the Alaska Governor looked like a deer caught in headlights during the Katie Couric interview.  While I thought her debate performance against Joe Biden was just fine, I can understand why her critics were turned off by the wink and dropped "g's."  Like Barack Obama, Palin had a very thin resume for someone on a national ticket.

Even so, the piling on of Palin is so over the top that one can only conclude her most rabid critics are either sexist or scared.  Sexist because they can't abide a feminist who isn't also a liberal; scared because they sense Palin, with four more years of seasoning, could be a threat in 2012. 

Two weeks after the election, Obama is trying to put the campaign behind him.  The President-elect is looking forward.  He's gotten over the campaign and all the mudslinging.  Sarah Palin has, too.  Wouldn't it be nice if her critics followed those examples?

Two months ago I dodged a bullet fired by Mother Nature when Hurricane Ike left my Houston home standing with barely a scratch.  Eight days without power was the only price I paid for that horrific storm.

This weekend my sister wasn't so lucky.  A storm of fire and wind consumed her home as it raced through the northern foothills of Los Angeles.  Terry got out with her car, two cats and her purse.  She and about 500 residents who lived in a mobile home park lost virtually all their possessions.  As I write this, authorities are combing through debris, hoping to find no evidence that some residents lost their lives. 

I know people in Texas who say they would never live in California because of the wildfires and earthquakes.  I guess you accept certain risks because you grow accustomed to them.  I grew up in Southern California taking the risks for granted.  I was shaken out of by bed by an earthquake in 1971.  A few months later, I spent  a night on my roof, hosing down flaming embers as yet another wildfire threatened, but ultimately didn't reach our house.  

Of course, I know folks in California who say they would never call Texas home because of the hurricanes, tornadoes and floods.  After living in Houston for 27 years, I have put those risks in perspective.  I guess you just have to pick your poison. 

Like thousands of Texans who lost their homes to Ike, my sister will get through this ordeal.  Insurance will pay for most, if not all of her material losses.  Terry will continue teaching middle school students as she puts her life back together.  Still, It won't be easy.  She'll ride an emotional roller coaster.  She's bound to get frustrated dealing with administrative red tape that always slows down recovery from a disaster.  Those of you still coping with the hurricane's aftermath know exactly what I mean.

First Barack Obama spent time with President Bush at the White.  Now, Joe Biden will visit Dick Cheney  Thursday in the vice presidential residence at the Naval Observatory. 

Can you imagine Cheney giving advice to Biden?  Can you imagine Biden politely nodding his head as Cheney delivers his words of wisdom?  Maybe Cheney will eventually show the next vice president the "undisclosed location" that seemed to be Cheney's second home.  Talk about wanting to be a fly on the wall!

Some anonymous McCain Campaign insiders have labeled Sarah Palin a dunce and a diva.  Well, she's proven herself smart enough to fire back quickly with plain spoken language that cuts through the usual Washington-speak. 

 Palin tells reporters in Alaska "I consider it cowardly" that her critics chose anonymity.  Actually, I like "gutless yellow bellies" better, but the Alaska Governor can speak for herself.  Palin says questions or comments she made about Africa and NAFTA during her debate preparation were taken out of context.  "That's cruel.  It's mean-spirited. It's immature.  It's unprofessional, and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news.  It's not fair and it's not right."

In effect, Palin is calling out her critics and challenging them to come forward.  Sarah's making it clear she's not going away.  My guess is she'll be all over the country, making speeches and raising money for Republican congressional and state-wide candidates in 2010.  I don't know whether Palin has a future on the national political stage in 2012.  I just hope the cowardly jerks attacking her anonymously, the people who ran a lousy presidential campaign, are part of the Republican Party's past.

The media are doing it again.  They're using unattributed sources to trash a public figure.  The victim this time is Sarah Palin.  McCain Campaign sources, who don't have the guts to be identified, claim Palin was a diva.  She threw temper tantrums, they say, didn't know Africa is a continent and didn't know which countries were a parties to NAFTA. 

It doesn't matter whether any of this is true.  By the time the media and bloggers get through with it, the accusations of Palin's incompetence will be part of American political lore.  Only a few people will ask the key question:  what are the motives of the spineless McCain aides who are dishing out the dirt.  Here's the answer:  they lost the election and are looking for a scapegoat.  After all, the reason John McCain lost couldn't have anything to do with their own performance and advice, could it? 

By assassinating Palin's character, these sources are actually making McCain look incompetent for choosing her as his running mate.  In covering their own backsides, they're exposing McCain to ridicule.  We know one thing about these sources.  They have yellow streaks running down their backs.  Perhaps they should demonstrate the kind of courage McCain showed in Vietnam and reveal their names to the public.  Don't hold your breath.  They wouldn't recognize an act of political courage if one fell in their laps.