Recent editorials from Texas newspapers

Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Texas newspapers:

Longview News-Journal. March 19, 2018.

Since the tragic murders of 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, this nation has been in a discussion concerning how to keep students safe in our schools.

The debate has been both formal and informal, between legislators and between neighbors.

Such discussions at all levels are important, and we hope they lead to substantive changes that, at long last, start to make a difference.

Our children deserve to feel safe in their classrooms, and it is up to all adults - not merely school leaders - to see that becomes a reality.

These discussions have been about guns, of course, and while we would not diminish the need for that, guns are not the only threat our children face daily in class.

The other danger does not make a sound at all, and often we do not ever know it has done harm. It does not kill but it can change the life of a student forever. This threat is from teachers or other school staff members who cross the line to become sexual predators.

Just as the overwhelming majority of gun owners would never consider going on a murderous shooting rampage, only a tiny percentage of all school employees would prey upon students.

The threat is very real, however. One only has to keep up with the news to know that.

Just this month we heard of another student who had become a victim of a coach and physical education teacher. He was not the first in our area, either. Many of our school districts have seen at least one such predator charged in connection with an improper relationship with a student.

Those are just the ones we know about. Some of these people are undoubtedly successful in keeping their relationships secret.

Both men and women have been charged with such crimes across Texas, and frequently it seems that part of the lure these predators use is access to drugs.

As preventing gun violence in schools is vital, so is reducing the ways these predators can get students into improper relationships.

Solving this problem isn’t going to be easy, either, but there are some steps that can be taken by school districts to tighten what staff members can get away with. Unfortunately, those also would have to apply to the many who would never do wrong to stop the few who would.

Districts can forbid employees from direct personal electronic messaging with individual students. All texts or other messages would have to include at least one other school employee. Failure to follow this rule could lead to termination.

Schools can forbid the use of Snapchat and similar smartphone apps that do not keep permanent records in communications between employees and students.

Schools also can strengthen rules designed to prevent one student and one employee being alone together, including giving students rides home from an activity.

The Legislature, for its part, can make laws against improper relationships even stiffer than they are.

The punishment for this crime must be such that it stays uppermost in a predator’s mind.

There are certainly other steps that would be beneficial, but just doing a few of these can help stop some of the opportunity these predators are looking for.

This isn’t as volatile as the gun debate. Action can be taken now. There is no need to wait.

___

Houston Chronicle. March 19, 2018.

Texas voters of a certain age remember a time when our congressional delegation worked together for the good of our state.

Politicians from opposing parties running for jobs in the nation’s capital argued with each other until Election Day, but everything changed after Inauguration Day. Once they crossed the Potomac River and arrived in Washington, whether they were Republicans or Democrats, they behaved first and foremost like loyal Texans.

Now, if only briefly and only on one issue, some of our lawmakers in Washington brag that they’ve revived that tradition, working together to secure federal disaster assistance money in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.

Unfortunately, that spirit hasn’t prevailed at all levels of government. Houston’s mayor complains the General Land Office in Austin is dragging its feet and failing to consult with local authorities about how federal funds should be spent. Meanwhile, a new report from the governor’s chief operating officer bears a laundry list of bureaucratic hurdles standing between storm victims and relief money. More than six months after the floodwaters receded, Washington has made progress appropriating badly needed funds, but it’s abundantly obvious that government officials at all levels still have plenty of work cut out for them.

After months of infuriating delay, Congress finally passed the so-called “third supplemental” appropriating $89.3 billion for disaster relief. That’s more than double the Trump administration’s utterly inadequate original proposal. Texas senators and representatives from both parties pounded their fists for the increased funding, which came better late than never.

That isn’t as easy as it used to be. At one time, members of Congress could earmark spending for specific projects in their districts, but that’s no longer an option. So as committee members worked on a bill appropriating money for victims of hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria and the California wildfires, U.S. Rep. John Culberson, Houston’s man on the House Appropriations Committee, used tricks he learned in the state legislature to insert some important language. As a result, the finished bill gives priority to areas to that have suffered “multiple disaster declarations in recent years,” a phrase that just happens to describe greater Houston. That crafty wording puts our area at the head of the line for receiving flood control funding from this legislation.

So now, there’s a pot of federal money available for projects along waterways like White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou and Clear Creek. Dredging in the Houston Ship Channel with federal funds is another possibility. Congress has also appropriated funds that can be used to study new projects, like building a third reservoir.

Still, the final decision on where this money will be spent rests not with Congress, but with federal bureaucrats like officials at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our representatives in Washington need to keep the pressure on to bring as much of this federal funding as possible into the Houston area.

At the same time, this appropriation from Washington throws some balls into Austin’s court. A total of $28 billion is dedicated to HUD community development grant programs, including money that could help individual homeowners. Whatever piece of this pie comes to Texas will be administered by the state’s General Land Office, headed by Commissioner George P. Bush. Unfortunately, Mayor Sylvester Turner complains the GLO has been “hogging” federal disaster funds and failing to consult with city officials about how to put that money to use.

All told, Congress has appropriated more than $100 billion to hurricane relief. But state officials say only $13.3 billion has been provided directly to Texas, where Hurricane Harvey’s estimated economic impact totals $125 billion.

Remember, any amount of time a Texas politician spends on some cable news show or whipping up a politically convenient distraction is time that could be dedicated to jawing the federal bureaucracy about Harvey recovery. Flood prevention must be the number one issue of the 2018 elections, and voters should be ready to reward and punish candidates accordingly.

More than six months have passed since Hurricane Harvey struck. Our lawmakers still have a lot of work to do, and so do elected officials in Austin, at county courthouses and at city halls throughout our area. They need to do it together, tossing aside their red shirts and blue shirts and wrapping themselves in the Texas flag.

___

Amarillo Globe-News. March 20, 2018.

Legendary British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, who recently died at 76, left behind a legacy that will inspire generations.

He also left behind a question that will, hopefully, serve as the most important of his lifetime - and of all time.

Hawking overcame a debilitating disease, the same disease of legendary baseball player Lou Gehrig, to become arguably the most influential scientist in recent memory.

Hawking’s theories and opinions on the origin of the universe have become widely accepted through the years.

However, the question of how we got here - and why we are here - remains.

Hawking had this to say about mankind in a 2011 Guardian interview, “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

Despite the fact we sometimes have a hard time just logging onto our office computers, permit us to counter Hawking’s assessment as humans only being computers, and when our computer logs off, we are done for eternity.

If the human brain is only a form of a computer, if humans have no soul, how does one explain how the human brain processes emotions and feelings?

Computers, as we know them, do not have the ability to love or to hate. Computers do not have the ability to laugh, to cry - to feel anger or joy. Computers do not have a conscience, which determines whether they consider things good or bad. (Granted, some humans behave as if they have no conscience, but this is a topic for a different editorial.)

Computers do not feel guilt. They do not feel shame. They do not feel embarrassment. They do not feel fear.

Computers do not feel pain - and there are many types of pain.

Computers cannot look at their children, and see the awesomeness that is the ability to create another human being.

Computers do not ponder why they are here, and what is their purpose.

To some, these human characteristics may seem weaknesses. To others, they are what makes life worth living.

It is for these reasons that we have to disagree with Hawking. These uniquely human attributes exist for a reason - to provide us with the knowledge that there is more to humanity than being simply another computer - another machine without a mind of its own.

What lies beyond this Earth? Well, that depends on what you believe, on what you feel inside - not on what a computer, designed by man, tells you.

___

San Antonio Express-News. March 20, 2018.

CPS Energy has received fairly strong blowback for its so-called “flexible” energy plan.

This is largely because the plan includes coal power through at least 2042. It also projects half of CPS Energy’s power will come from clean energy sources by 2040. Not only is coal a more expensive energy source, it’s also a major source of carbon dioxide emissions, the leading contributor to climate change.

At a time when technology around renewable energy sources is rapidly developing, and natural gas prices are projected to be low for decades - thanks to fracking - environmental groups have been particularly pained to see coal projected to remain in CPS Energy’s portfolio for years to come.

Less coal, or no coal, likely means more clean energy.

“It’s absurd to think that we should have any coal in our energy mix anywhere close to 2042,” Terry Burns, chairman of the Sierra Clubs’ Alamo Group has said in a statement.

Such frustration is understandable. The desire to have San Antonio’s power generation free of greenhouse gas emissions is commendable. But the community would benefit from a more nuanced and realistic discussion.

It’s unfortunate, but not absurd, that coal would be part of San Antonio’s long-term energy mix. This is more a product of bad timing than bad policy.

Remember, CPS Energy opened its Spruce 2 coal plant in 2010 at a cost of $1 billion. It was a different era in terms of gas prices and renewable technologies. The lifetime for such a plant is 55 years.

Yes, Spruce 2 could be taken offline, but it would need to be replaced with another energy source, likely natural gas, said Cris Eugster, CPS Energy’s chief operating officer. That would be an untenable hit to ratepayers. It also wouldn’t make any sense given how quickly technology is evolving.

As it stands now, CPS Energy cycles its coal-power sources at roughly half capacity, Eugster said. When wind power dies down in the morning, coal power plants fire up to meet peak demand. They also provide much-needed backbone to the Texas energy market.

This dynamic may change as renewables and battery storage technology develop, which is why the plan has been dubbed flexible. That flexible path projects that CPS Energy will generate half of its power from renewable sources by 2040.

Could the utility do better in this regard? That’s a fair question. There are certainly aspects of the flexible plan that merit further review and discussion.

For example, CPS Energy has said it will need to run the older Spruce 1 unit until 2030. The plant dates back to 1992 and is in need of $130 million in pollution controls. If the plant really is going to run for 12 more years, then CPS Energy likely needs to commit to those pollution controls. Otherwise, the utility needs to explore an accelerated timeline.

The utility is also studying retiring its V.H. Braunig natural gas units in the 2020s. This represents an opportunity to be more aggressive with renewable energy sources.

The public could also benefit from more information. Why not publish emissions data online as well as real-time updates about CPS Energy’s energy mix? The utility is in a unique position to drive this type of conversation.

Could the utility set more ambitious clean energy targets in its flexible plan? If so, what would that mean for ratepayers?

In this sense, CPS Energy’s flexible plan should be viewed as the beginning of a long community conversation, not the end. It’s a conversation that will be enhanced by the city’s climate action plan.

The relative newness of the Spruce 2 plant means coal will almost certainly be part of CPS’ energy mix for decades, but that reality doesn’t mean CPS can’t still be a leader in clean energy.

___

Denton Record-Chronicle. March 20, 2018.

We are closely following Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s warnings to public school employees that electioneering on the public’s dime is illegal.

Public school administrators and teachers, including Denton Independent School District Superintendent Jamie Wilson, fear that Paxton and other conservative Republicans are attempting to starve public schools of funding needed to educate 5.5 million students in Texas.

Now, during an election year, Paxton is sending cease-and-desist letters to school districts, warning them that using taxpayer-supplied smartphones and computers to advocate for or against specific candidates is illegal.

Unfortunately, some district administrators have done just that. And it’s wrong.

The state’s 1,025 school districts (excluding charter schools) employ an estimated 650,000 people across the state. About 50 percent are teachers. Most of them lean toward the Democratic Party, who oppose proposals to siphon state funding away from public schools through a voucher system that would send more students to private schools.

School district employees, when viewed as a monolithic voting bloc, are considered a problem in conservative Republican circles led by Paxton, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Gov. Greg Abbott. School districts are the largest employers in many rural communities, and lawmakers pay attention to their wants and needs.

We understand on a practical level why Paxton wants to suppress political activity among school district employees who lean Democratic. But all political activity is not the same. Let’s dissect it.

Encouraging citizens to vote is as American as apple pie. School teachers and administrators are on safe ground when they urge anyone 18 or older to vote. But trouble arises when they use taxpayer-funded equipment to advocate during business hours for a specific public school-friendly candidate.

School superintendents and their employees should not so much as send a retweet encouraging people to vote for a certain candidate. They shouldn’t “like” any candidate’s Facebook posting. And they should not use school district letterhead or lend their names to candidate endorsements.

Any of those transgressions gives the Paxton crowd grounds to conduct a voter suppression campaign using the power of the attorney general’s office.

Paxton is the state’s top law enforcement officer. When he sends a threatening letter to a school district administrator, it’s serious business. And it’s political. He wants Republicans to win elections in 2018.

We urge public school employees to be careful. They should avoid electioneering while simultaneously stepping up their efforts to encourage everyone to vote, including 18-year-old high school seniors.