Here’s to the man who brought down The Man

Billie Sol Estes

I was in college when the Billy Sol Estes "scandal" broke and, at the time, I didn’t think it was any big deal. It had to do with non-existent anhydrous ammonia tanks in West Texas. Somehow Estes convinced gullible farmers in the Pecos area to purchase the tanks and then he would lease the tanks from them for the same amount as the mortgage payments. Got it? What’s the big friggin’ deal? The farmers really weren’t out anything. The problem was that Estes used the fraudulent mortgages on these tanks to obtain loans from banks outside Texas that could not easily verify the existence of the tanks.

Still, back then it didn’t seem to me the stuff to make national headlines. He didn't kill anyone. He didn't even rob banks. (OK, maybe in some form, he did. It just wasn't armed robbery.) But there were some other extenuating circumstances.

One was the fact that Estes was well connected politically. He displayed personally autographed pictures of then President John F. Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson on his office wall. Johnson, it was said, even convinced the Agriculture Department to look the other way when it came to Estes’s business dealings.

Another was the fact that Estes, for all practical purposes, literally owned the town of Pecos and most of the land around it, financing his purchases with the bank loans. The one thing he didn’t own was the town’s newspaper, a semi-weekly publication called the Pecos Independent and Enterprise. However, in 1961, when the paper refused to endorse Estes when he was running for a place on the local school board, he simply started his own newspaper, the Pecos Daily News. He established ridiculously low advertising rates in an attempt to run the Independent out of business. His plan seemed to be working. The Independent slashed the number of reporters on its payroll from five to two.

Oscar Griffin Jr.

One of those two was Oscar Griffin Jr., someone I had never heard of until my ever vigilant South Florida correspondent alerted me about him a couple of days ago. Seems that Griffin was in a small Pecos café one day when he overheard a conversation about Estes between two local farmers. He said one of the farmers described Estes’s easy money scheme as "like pennies from heaven."

Griffin decided to check into this a little more and went into his own newspaper’s records. There he found detailed information left by a previous owner, Dr. John Dunn, who discovered that Estes had borrowed $24 million (that would be $180 million in today’s dollars) using the non-existing tanks as collateral.

Griffin put together an investigative series that ran in the Independent, incredibly without much fanfare, in February and March of 1962. Few people paid attention to the revelations and the overwhelming majority of them were not disturbed by it. "You have to remember that Billy Sol was like a god in this town," a Pecos resident told a New York Times reporter later that year, adding "Anyone opposed to him might just as well pack up their bags and leave town."

Somehow, the series did catch the attention of the F.B..I., which launched an investigation that resulted in (1) Estes receiving a 24-year prison sentence (that was later overturned) on a number of fraud charges, (2) Kennedy deciding Johnson’s association with Estes was the reason he needed and desperately wanted to drop LBJ from the ticket in 1964 and (3) Griffin and the Independent winning the Pulitzer Prize in 1963 for distinguished local reporting.

I bring all this up now because Griffin died Nov. 23 at the age of 78 and it seems to me that his passing went unnoticed by too many institutions, especially those in the journalistic field. It was noticed, however, by one Billie Sol Estes who said in a telephone interview with the Times from his home in Granbury, Texas, "It’s a good riddance that he left this world."

By the way. Today there is only one newspaper in Pecos, The Pecos Enterprise. It is a direct descent of the Independent and Enterprise. The Daily News went into receivership soon after the scandal broke.

Once again, a state government official over-reacts

Big friggin’ deal. A white supremacist about to be executed by lethal injection orders a "last meal"containing more calories than the population of many African nations see in a lifetime and what happens? Texas prison officials cancel the policy of a "last meal."

So what if Lawrence Brewster ordered a last meal of two chicken fried steaks, a triple meat bacon cheeseburger, a cheese omelet, a larger bowl of fried okra, a pound of barbecue, three fajitas, a meat-lovers pizza, three root beers, a pint of Blue Bell vanilla ice cream and a slab of peanut butter fudge?

So what if State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, chairman of the committee that oversees the state prison system, fired off an angry letter to Department of Criminal Justice executive director Brad Livingston condemning the order demanding "last meals" must come to an end.

The sensible solution, the rational solution would have been for Livingston to limit what condemned prisoners may order for their last meal to (1) one entre (2) one veggie, (3) one non-alcoholic beverage and (4) one desert.

But then when have you ever heard of a state government official ever being sensible or rational?

What’s going on with Dairy Queen

It seems I have seen more Dairy Queen television commercials in the last couple of months than I have in the last 40 or 50 years combined. And I really like the spots — they have a sense of anarchy to them that really appeals to me. I especially like the bit about the piñatas filled with Mary Lou Rettons. Completely off the wall.

However, even before these commercials began airing I began noticing the disappearance of Dairy Queens. It seemed that every small town in Texas used to have a DQ on the main highway through town. Now it seems that they have all been replaced by Sonics.

I will admit it’s been five years or so since I have taken an extended road trip outside of Texas and perhaps the Queen is expanding rapidly elsewhere. But from my viewpoint here, the entire ad campaign — as clever as it is — seems like a waste of time, money and creativity.

Photo of the day

I’m afraid of the repercussions I might get if I actually put this photo of Gov. Hair on this journal, but it is simply too good to pass on without at least providing a link.

For your listening and viewing pleasure

Finally, someone has something nice to say about Texas, Gov. Hair

An editorial appearing in today's New York Times had some complimentary words for Texas and our would-be presidential candidate governor concerning the reform of the juvenile justice system around these parts. Imagine this: the state that kills more prisoners than any other is not even sending a lot of juveniles to jail anymore. Instead, these "troubled children receive guidance and rehabilitation services in or near their communities, where families, churches and other local organizations can be part of the process." And, according to the editorial, the scheme seems to be working. Hooray for us!

A magnificent Texas film festival

The Royal Theater in Archer City

Texas Monthly and the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema (Didn’t we almost have one of those here?) are joining forces to present one great unique movie-going experience, dubbed the 2011 Rolling Roadshow. Together, representatives from the two organizations selected the state’s 10 best films. But they didn’t stop there. Next they selected 10 iconic locations around Texas to screen these films. And the screenings are free!

Here’s the schedule:

June 3: The Searchers at Old Fort Parker in Groesbeck. The film was inspired by the true story of a young girl’s kidnapping in 1836 by Comanches during a raid on Fort Parker.

June 4: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre at Junction House in Kingsland. This is the house where the film was shot, although it has since been moved 80 miles from the original shooting location in Williamson County and now houses a restaurant serving Texas cuisine.

June 5: Blood Simple at Dessau Hall in Austin. Dessau Hall, one of Austin’s many live music joints, doubled as Marty’s bar in the Coen Brothers’ film debut.

June 11: Hud along the railroad tracks running through Claude. I finally understood why Oscars were given for sound editing when I heard Hud Bannion’s white Cadillac driving over the railroad tracks in this film.

June 17: Red River at the Fort Worth Stockyard Exchange because where else would you show the all-time great cattle-drive movie?

June 18: Bonnie and Clyde at Farmers and Merchants Bank Building in Pilot Point where the movie’s first major heist scene was filmed.

June 19: Tender Mercies at the Ellis County Courthouse in Waxahachie. According to a long-standing rumor, Robert Duvall prepared for his Oscar-winning role in this movie by playing guitar with musician Mike Daniel on the steps of this court house in the town square of where most of the film was shot.

June 24: No Country for Old Men somewhere in Marfa.

June 25: Giant at the Paisano Hotel in Marfa. The hotel was where the cast and crew stayed during the film’s lengthy Marfa shoot.

July 1: The Last Picture Show at, where else, the restored Royal Theater in Archer City. Of all the screenings, this is the one I would most like to attend.
 
You can get more details on the festival here and here.

Dumb doc becomes East Texas hero

Wacky Wakefield

Why am I not surprised that Andrew Wakefield, described here as “one of the most reviled doctors of his generation,” has found a following in East Texas?

For those not familiar with this jerk, he’s the one who claimed back in 1998 that there was a link between the measules-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism, an idea that has been debunked unanimously by scientific and medical authorities.

Texas just seems to be a magnet for kooks.

Beautiful Texas land up for sale - a steal at $54 million

I don't know if I have an absolute favorite drive in Texas, but the Davis Loop, if not No. 1, is very close to the top. The Loop begins and ends in Fort Davis, winds through the Davis Mountains and it takes you right by the McDonald Observatory and Sawtooth Mountain (pictured here as seen from the Davis Loop road). Right before you get to this point on the loop, on the western side of the road, is The Rockpile Ranch, which I just learned from my intrepid South Florida Correspondent, is up for sale at the dirt cheap price of $54 million. As my SFC hinted in his note to me, a savvy investor could make that amount back quickly allowing the ranch to be used as a setting for film production. No matter, click on the link to see some of the most beautiful scenery to be found in the state.

If you ain't got that do-re-mi

Woody Guthrie's words are as true today as when he wrote them 60 years ago. If you are poor and live in a conservative state like Texas, the government is not going to do much to help you out. And, if you are a minority, you are completely out of luck. That's one of the reasons more than 6.1 million Texas residents -- a number greater than the population of 33 other states -- don't have health insurance. They simply can't afford it.

So, you would think, that Texas government officials would welcome federal laws making insurance possible for these people. And, if you did think this way, you would be wrong. Here's why:

Most of those poor Texans who can't afford health insurance would be eligible for Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor, and the new health law will vastly expand eligibility by offering coverage to childless adults. The problem is Texas, because of its damn-the-poor conservative politics, traditionally has set among the country’s most restrictive Medicaid eligibility thresholds. This has limited its Medicaid rolls, as have burdensome application requirements, outmoded computers, inadequate staffing and difficulties in signing up children born to illegal immigrants. Among the reasons the law could be expensive for Texas is the state’s past failure to enroll many of those already eligible for Medicaid. Going forward, Washington will pay a much smaller share of the cost for those recipients than for those who gain coverage because of expanded eligibility. But, of course, Gov. Hair and the rest of the state's Republican leadership are now blaming Washington for Texas' failures.

Of course, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's numbers are inflated, but he has to lie to make it sound more alarming. His estimate, for instance, doesn't include the first four years of the new health care law when the state's contribution to Medicaid expenses will be negligible. But Texas political leaders have never let the truth stand in the way of their demagoguery. For example, Gov. Hair said last April that Texas would not establish the temporary high-risk insurance pool required by the law, leaving that task to the federal government. “You can’t run around saying the federal government wants to take over Texas, but then when we have an opportunity to do it ourselves leave it to the federal government,” said State Representative Garnet F. Coleman, just one Democrat pointing out the inconsistencies in Hair's philosophies.

So when you read about folks like the lieutenant governor going before his rich Republican backers crying that the new health care law will bankrupt the state, just remember none of this would have happened if Texas had just done the right thing in the first place.

Gov. Hair blames God for BP rig explosion

That noted kook Pat Robertson claimed that Hurricane Katrina and the earthquake in Haiti were God's revenge for the sins committed by us mortals. Now our own Gov. Hair, speaking at a Chamber of Commerce function in Washington said this about the current environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico caused by British Petroleum's oil rig explosion:

“From time to time there are going to be things that occur that are acts of God that cannot be prevented.”

What? The fool is trying to convince us that a mechanical failure that killed 11 people and threatens the Gulf coast fishing industry is an "act of God"? Who does he think he's kidding? Not only that, he went on to praise BP for its otherwise excellent safety record, failing to notice, I guess, the 2005 explosion at the BP refinery in Texas City that killed 15 workers and injured 170 more.

Hair's Democratic challenger Bill White had a far more informed response to the situation. I agree with what Charles Kuffner wrote on his blog Off the Kuff: "Wouldn’t it be nice to have a Governor who can understand stuff like this and make sense of it?"

Right Time, Wrong Place

I sympathize with the motives of the throng protesting Arizona's unconstitutional new immigration law who marched Saturday to Dallas City Hall and I actually understand why they marched there. At least I think I know why -- the plaza in front of the building offers the perfect place for a large crowd to assemble. Still, as a symbolic gesture, it was all wrong. The Arizona law is not a municipal one. It was enacted by a state legislature and signed by the governor. In fact, I know of three cities in Arizona, including the two largest - Phoeniz and Tucson - who have filed suits challenging the law.

Here in Dallas, the city's leaders have absolutely no intention of even passing ordinances like the onerous one passed by the Farmers Branch City Council, already struck down by the courts, that attempted to regulate immigration through housing, let alone the far broader one passed by the Arizona Legislature. The Dallas City Council at least has the sense to know that immigration regulation is, by definition, the sole jurisdiction of the federal government. So marching in Dallas City Hall was simply for the convenience, not the message.

The protest would have had far more symbolic meaning if the marchers had continued past City Hall to assemble around the Kennedy Memorial next to the Earle Cabell Federal Building. Think about it.

Once again, Texas Republicans prove they hate their constituents

I guess it should come as no surprise that Republican Attorney General Gregg Abbott of Texas, the state with the highest percentage of uninsured citizens in the nation, announced he would file suit to prevent the new health care reform law from applying to Texans.

That could mean health insurance companies in Texas could continue to raise premiums, deny health care to the sick, blacklist those with pre-existing conditions and force the elderly to pay increasingly higher costs for their prescriptions.

The good news is that most constitutional scholars say the tactic won't work because the law is framed as a tax, which the federal government has the power to create.

A look at Canadian and its high school football team

The New York Times has a spread today on the Panhandle town of Canadian and its unifying force, the high school football team, 2007 and 2008 state champions. Here's one paragraph I found particularly telling:

"After an energy boom tapped out in 1985, the downtown in Canadian, population 2,233, grew desolate. A dozen buildings were left empty or boarded up. But the town grew more savvy about the boom-and-bust cycle of oil and gas, remaking itself in the late 1990s as a regional center for ecotourism and refurbishing its downtown with restored brick storefronts, a popular steakhouse and a state-of-the-art movie theater (pictured)."

Later on, the author wrote:

"The current recession has gut-punched oil and gas drilling, costing 400 to 500 local jobs, city officials said. Yet Canadian remains one of Texas’ most prosperous school districts. It has an enrollment of only 798 from pre-K through 12th grade, but the school district’s property values were last assessed at $1.5 billion. Each student in grades 7 through 12 has been issued a laptop computer by the district. The tennis team has four courts on campus. The state champion track team has a new running surface. The football team has an artificial turf field, an 8,500-square-foot field house scheduled to open next month and a sophisticated computer scouting system that can track opponents’ plays for the last five years."

It's a good read. Check it out.

Wick Allison opposes death penalty

I am just now recovering from the shock of reading this post on D magazine's Frontburner blog in which noted conservative and the magazine's publisher Wick Allison says he opposes the death penalty.

Mr. Allison writes: "Are we keeping the death penalty just so a few state politicians can claim to be 'tough' on crime? Are we endangering lives merely for the sake of posturing?"

Way to go, Wick!

Texas students missing out on educational standards

My family moved a lot when I was kid. My father was a chemical engineer who worked as a construction superintendent for a company that built chemical plants. As soon as he finished constructing one plant, we would move to another location to build another one. I went to kindergarten and first grade in New York City, but then the migrations began--to Michigan City, Ind.; Lakeland, Fla.; Richmond, Calif.; New Orleans; Houston; Burlington, Ontario, Canada; and Fresno, Calif., where I completed the junior year in high school I began in Canada. At this point, my father left this employer to join Brown & Root and so we moved back to Houston. I only attended the final semester of the high school I graduated from.

I mention all this because these moves showed me first-hand the disparity of the national primary and secondary educational system. I discovered the best schools were in Canada and California. The worst in New Orleans. Texas was not high on the list. In Canada, for instance, where French was the second language, the requirements for high school graduation included seven years of French (five years of grammar, two of literature), plus two years of another foreign language (either German, Spanish or Latin). When I began high school in Houston the first time we lived there, Spanish was the only foreign-language option available in high school. And even then the Spanish teacher was primarily an algebra teacher who was recruited to teach Spanish because no one else was available. She was learning it the day before she tried to teach it to us.

Finally something is being done to correct this imbalance. Actually, something is being done in 46 states as well as in the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. These 46 states—representing 80 percent of the nation’s K-12 student population—have formally agreed to join forces to create common academic standards in math and English language arts through an effort led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The four states not participating are Alaska, Missouri, South Carolina and, of course, Texas. Missouri might join as soon as it finds a new state education chief.

The announcement of this process said "A primary goal is to eliminate the patchwork of academic standards across the country that result in students in the same grades learning different things in different states. The effort also is intended to devise a more rigorous common set of academic targets, and then internationally benchmark them."

I find it intolerable that Texas is not part of this coalition because it will put high school students from here at a competitive disadvantage with the other 92 percent of America's high school graduates. Our future depends on the ability of our children and we cannot shortchange their educational opportunities. If nothing else, coalitions like this force educational policy makers from all over the country to come together to share ideas. That has to be a good thing. It's a shame that Texas -- and Texas primary and secondary school students -- will have to lose out.

Dylan highly honored to be an almost real Texan

The current issue of Rolling Stone contains the following quote attributed to Bob Dylan, which needs no explanation or amplification (and, if it does, you won't get it from me):

"I think you really have to be a Texan to appreciate the vastness of (the state) and the emptiness of it. But I'm an honorary Texan. George Bush, when he was governor, gave me a proclamation that says I'm an honorary Texan. As if anybody needed proof. It's no small thing. I take it as a high honor."

I can't help it, I must pose the question. Is it really that much of an honor to be an honorary citizen of an empty state?

A victim's father speaks out on guns on campus

A trio of college professors, obviously using a research grant paid for by the National Rifle Association, published an op-ed article in the Dallas Morning News last month supporting the carrying of concealed weapons on campus. If you are interested in reading their drivel, you can find it here. But what I found even more interesting was a response to the article written by someone who identified himself only as victimsdad. Here is what he had to say:

While I hesitate to question my academic colleagues who are recognized authorities on the issues upon which they speak, I would challenge you to re-evaluate your position on the guns on campus issue. Based on your various academic fields which are not directly related to public safety, violence, or criminology, I would have to say that your opinions, while as valid as anyone's, are not definitive or particularly expert on the issue and you might do well to yield to other, more experienced voices.

Still, I think it is important to address your position, seeing as it has been seized upon by the supporters of guns on campus who see you as some sort of authorities. No matter that for every academic who supports your position, I and others can produce fifty or more who will unequivocally oppose your position, they are not getting the media attention you are getting right now because we represent the default argument. You, for reasons that I'm sure you believe in wholeheartedly, are bucking the tide and are getting noticed as a result.

I will even make a prediction that, in the coming months, you will be approached, wined and dined, jetted around the country, and get lots of free range time by various gun factions. They will trumpet your position in order to bolster their own. Enjoy yourself, but watch your back. You will be making a deal with the devil, several, actually, and it could turn out badly. I, myself, have been physically and emotionally assaulted, threatened, and vilified by them on many occasions. I hope you know what you are getting into. These people do have guns, and many of them are simply not particularly stable or well-socialized as was recently proven in Pennsylvania.

So to my point. Not everyone wants to live in a world of paranoia and fear. As a college professor for the past 25 years and a victim of gun violence myself (my seventeen year old son was shot and killed during a fast food restaurant robbery), I would not work on a campus that allowed concealed carry. Virtually every student I know would avoid going to a school with such a policy. I would not attend an athletic event or patronize a university that had such a policy. I simply do not want to live in that world. The presence of guns does not make everyone feel safer, especially the millions of us who are already victims of gun violence. Do your own poll. Even in Texas I'm sure the numbers would be significant.

It is unfathomable to many people in this country that gun owners are so attached to their guns in the first place. There are gun owners, and then there are gun owners. In my interactions with this group over the past ten years, I have found the most extreme, rabid, ideologues of the lot range from borderline mentally unstable to full-blown sociopaths. I kid you not. To not be able to care and have compassion for humanity -- innocent men, women and children who have been gunned down -- is not normal. Their superficial and insincere sympathies are insulting to us as victims. Once they say "I'm sorry for what happened to you, but..." their credibility is gone and they move to a place that is without merit in an issue that matters so much to us. To care about inanimate objects that give a false sense of security in the face of a perceived constant threat is simply not how the human brain is supposed to work.

Yet, this small minority is making quite a mess of things. Those of us who have lost family members to gun violence are doing all we can to make a difference while the supporters of guns and (dare I say by logical extension) gun violence use hyperbole, extremism, lies, paranoia, and belligerence to, wittingly or unwittingly, protect the gun industry's profits, nothing more.

This problem should be solved rather easily. Other countries have done so. Every US state and most major US cities have annual gun death rates greater than the entire nation of Canada. That is nothing to be proud of. With all the guns in this country we should be the safest nation, not the most dangerous. Texas alone should be safer than any other state, yet it is not. The gun supporters' logic clearly fails on this simple point. We have catered to the gun industry for decades. Look at the legacy we now have. It's time to move in the other direction so that others do not become like the Virginia Tech families and like me. It is a horrible fate.

You will note several things about those who are the most extreme supporters of what they call "gun rights," if such a thing could exist. They religiously protect the makers and sellers of these weapons while violating their own mantra, "enforce the laws we already have." Then why aren't they helping weed out the bad gun dealers? Why aren't they working to prevent straw purchases? Why aren't they supporting efforts to interdict inter- and intrastate gun runners? They're all breaking the law, but at every turn the gun owning community works tirelessly to prevent us from enforcing these laws. It is not being consistent nor rational and they are not being good citizens. These are the people you are aligning yourself with in your position.

Next, let's get some background out of the way. The multi-billion dollar a year gun industry created this problem by paying legislators to vote to ensure that they could sell guns to anyone at anytime for any purpose. This is clearly documented in many sources, including those who were instrumental in these practices who have seen the error of their ways and have exposed the unethical behavior of the gun industry. The industry hid behind its own twisted, historically inaccurate, and rather illiterate interpretation of the Second Amendment that only coincidentally supported its agenda. Yet they will take advantage of it to no end as it affords them the "right" to make money. Needless to say, by comparison, the First Amendment affords no such right to the press or media.

Effectively preventing killers from getting guns is the only rational response to this spate of tragedies. Of course, virtually none of the most recent high profile and deadly multiple shootings have been carried out by gang bangers or common criminals but by what have been called for years, "law-abiding gun owners." Turns out this demographic can't be trusted after all, despite teleological claims to the contrary. So, now the call is for us to all own guns so that we can protect ourselves from "lawful gun owners," too. Not only is this offensive but ludicrous.

You cite without reference several times, "peer-reviewed" sources that prove somehow a negative, i.e. that carrying concealed weapons somehow depresses criminal activity. In point of fact, no such "peer-reviewed" studies exist. If you are referring to Mr. Kleck's and Mr. Lott's rather shoddy and discredited research, the only peer review they received was being welcomed with open arms by the gun community who has since elevated their specious claims to the level of mythic status. If their research had been subjected to a real peer-review in a more rigorous arena, say, breast cancer research, they would be laughed out of the building. Furthermore, why do you ignore other scholarly studies by those like Jon Vernick, Garen Wintemute, David Hemenway, Jens Ludwig, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy that just as clearly demonstrate just the opposite using more rigorous statistical methodologies? You may not agree with them, but it does not lend credibility to your position to ignore them.

Finally, I would have to question how you view human nature when it comes to supporting such a response to school violence. Not one professor, student, administrator, or campus security officer that I have talked to since Columbine or Virginia Tech is in favor of allowing concealed carry holders to carry guns on campus. I can understand the gun culture's lack of understanding about the contemporary college/university environment and human nature, but not yours.

In order to try to reach a conclusion about this issue, let's look just at the logistics for a second. Leave behind the ideology. You should already know that colleges and universities already take campus safety and security very, very seriously. Already, (sadly) many schools have sworn and armed police forces. Virginia Tech does. Theirs is actually larger than many small towns. In fact, the biggest problem at Tech was not the lack of an armed militia of students and faculty, it was the unfortunate conclusion reached by the first officers on the scene. They thought the crime was over. Furthermore, there is some question as to the administrative response that inhibited the investigation and further tactical response to the initial shootings.

This was a criminal incident that re-defined tactical response, much like the 9/11 tragedy. It hadn't really been done before and no one thought that the shooter would continue the rampage. It was not a pattern that anyone recognized. We know better now and many policies have changed as a result, just as they changed after Columbine. Hard lessons to learn, but we learned it the only way we know how, through experience. Now, there is much less likelihood that another Virginia Tech can occur simply because of readiness and preparedness, much as there is far less chance of anyone successfully storming an airliner cockpit post-9/11.

As a result of the Tech shootings, many changes have been made to address this type of crime in the future. Many of them we as faculty are probably not even aware of. Schools that do not have armed police officers, like mine, are often in urban communities where a squad car is rarely more than a minute or two away. I feel safe there and yes, seconds count, but even if you have one hundred students on a campus of 5000 carrying concealed, and that would be a very high percentage indeed even in Texas, you know that the students and faculty are compartmentalized in their own classrooms or dorms for most of the day. The chance that they will be in a position to respond any faster than campus security on patrol is minuscule. The chance that the shooter will walk into their classroom is even more remote. Could they be in the right place at the right time? Maybe, but not very likely. Even if they are, will they get off a shot before they are killed? President Reagan was shot, along with Jim Brady and others, while surrounded by a bevy of Secret Service agents, probably the most highly trained personal protection force on the planet, by an insane man who was still able to get off every round in his small revolver that he had never before fired. He was not in a "gun-free zone," to be sure.

And so, the only relevant question is this: With all the safe moments that occur every day on our campuses, what will be the result of legalizing the carrying and possession of firearms in this environment? To that, those of us who know college students well can only answer with two words -- Beer and Hormones. Should we increase campus security and develop effective policies to mitigate crime? Absolutely. Should we attempt to do this by (and I'll even use the gun side rhetoric here) allowing concealed carry holders to carry their lawfully allowed firearms in the classroom, in the stadium, and about the campus, AND to allow them to possess and store these firearms in their dorm rooms and residence halls? Absolutely not.

The larger and more complex questions that need to be asked here are these: Once the novelty wears off, how secure will those firearms be? How often will people really carry their guns to class and around campus? What kinds of personal, institutional and financial responses will it result in from those who do not want firearms on campus or resist the initiative? What problems will these gun owners, or those with access to their guns, try to solve in a fit of passion or poor judgment? What campus based regulations will have to be reviewed and instated to deal with this infringement of their self-determination and traditional independence?

These are complications that far outweigh the claimed "benefits" to the campus community. Campus regulations alone could be so tough that no one except off duty police officers taking night classes would even be able to jump through all the hoops necessary to be one of the concealed carry chosen few. Glib responses and "solutions" don't go nearly far enough when weighing the costs and benefits nor the administrative response. We can see pretty clearly that this is, once again, yet another way of infiltrating guns into our daily lives in order to sell more guns and make more profit. I am terribly sorry that you have been sucked into this fanatical morass and lent your voices to it.

Furthermore, I believe that experienced gun owners who support this argument or model simply do not understand the mentality of the college student as gun owner. By federal law, one can't even buy a handgun from a licensed dealer until the age of 21. They can, in Texas, possess a handgun at a younger age, but it must be obtained from an unlicensed dealer or as a gift. In other states, the law is more stringent. Now, that can be lot of trouble to go through to get your concealed weapon and I think it's appropriate to conclude that only a very, very small number of college bound gun enthusiasts would even fall into this category, though I will admit there will be some.

Setting the underage minority aside for the moment, let's say that a typical student has just turned 21 and wants to become part of the student protection squad. That means that they are most likely a senior, perhaps a junior. As you are no doubt well aware, seniors are the smallest undergraduate student population on campus and often don't even take classes with first and second year students. You could be a graduate student or an older student, but this model still leaves the vast majority, that is to say virtually all of the student body unprotected at any given time, doesn't it? So, the bad guy doesn't attack upper level courses and sticks to large 101 lecture classes populated by first and second years. People still die.

Teachers, being academics and extremely intelligent people, I find have an abhorrence of violence and an aversion to weapons of any type. Granted, some don't, but not very many. No doubt, you fall into that category, but as I said, there are not many of you. Not only that, but they can be extremely casual about things that are not critical to their field of study. Add to that the fact that the teacher is likely, typically, to be the first one shot in the classroom and arming them makes no sense at all. One cannot defend against ambush. Even the staunchest gun owner has agreed with me on that.

Now back to our 21 year old gun owner. He/she buys a gun and gets a concealed carry permit after taking a training or "safety" course (many of which are a joke when it comes to the various state concealed carry requirements) and they now think they can defend themselves and their classmates. In truth, they are nothing more than a danger to themselves and others. Without police level training, one is useless and dangerous in this sort of crisis. In college there is little time for going to the range and keeping up your skills. You know as well as I do that students have lives. They have much better things to do than drill holes in little paper targets during their spare time, because they don't have any spare time.

Therefore, these people will have virtually no experience or training, nor do they have time to practice. But they will believe, wrongly, that even they can be heroes. In a crisis, they'll be dead. Note that many of these shooters are now wearing bulletproof vests. Even the police have trouble taking them out. The young vigilante squad will be dead, dead, dead.

Guns on campus is a foolish idea promoted by people who know virtually nothing about campus life and culture and who are fanatically bound to their paranoid philosophy of life. We need for them to stop trying to pull us into their mad darkness and instead work with us in the light to effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals in the first place.

Actually, as I think this through, a far more effective security measure would be to simply install locks on classroom doors that can be actuated from inside. I can't remember the last time I saw a turn button lock on the inside of a classroom door. Keyed locks on the outside are the rule, but the ability of teachers or students to secure a door from the inside is rarely afforded. This simple measure would have likely saved the vast majority of lives at Virginia Tech given the evidence presented.

The bottom line is simple. It is not too much to ask, nor is it controversial to insist that criminals should not be able to buy guns easily and shoot up a college classroom. Not controversial at all. Let's start there. If Texas has the temerity to be the first state to pass a guns on campus legislation, all I can say is that those of us who have gone before will be here for the victims. That's more than I can say for the gun industry and its noisesome supporters.

NOTE: I am trying to learn more about "victimsdad," and if I learn anything, I will pass it along.

Texas Senate votes to make college campuses less safe

Senate Bill 1164, which was opposed by university administrators, university faculties, university staff members, university students and public safety officers from across the state, but supported by the only group that matters to Texas lawmakers, the National Rifle Association, sailed through the Senate today. It would allow guns in public buildings on university campuses in Texas -- and I mean all buildings, despite attempts by some clear-thinking senators to exclude some obvious ones, such as:

• The University of Houston maintains a charter elementary school for children of faculty members and others who live near the area. Guns will be allowed in this elementary school.
• But Texans want their kiddos exposed to guns younger than elementary school. That's why the Senate refused to exempt pre-schools located on college campuses.
• Ever been the to Cactus Cafe on the UT-Austin campus? Great place. At least it used to be. This bill supersedes existing laws prohibiting guns in bars. Alcohol + guns = trouble. Always has. Always will.
• We don't allow guns in stand-alone hospitals in Texas, but with this Senate bill you'll be able to tote your concealed handgun inside the Health Services center on the UT campus.
• On-campus mental health centers will allow people to carry concealed handguns inside. That really ought to help those with suicidal tendencies being treated there.
• The chemistry labs at the University of Texas at Dallas prohibit food, drinks, cigarettes, short sleeves, shorts and sandals because of the dangers of the chemicals being used. However, they won't be able to prohibit guns. Does that make sense?

The Senate made sure that this bill had nothing to do with on-campus safety. After all, statistics show that 93 percent of violent crimes committed against students occur off-campus anyway. But one senator introduced an amendment that would have allowed the Texas Coordinating Board to change the law if it was realized that safety on campuses was getting worse. Seems reasonable: If we learn that guns make campuses less safe, then let's rescind the law allowing them. That amendment was defeated, proving once and for all this legislation is not about safety on campus but in caving into the wishes of the NRA.

I challenge anyone to approach any college professor and ask him or her if he or she will feel safer under this law. How will that professor feel when a student approaches asking for a grade change or permission to turn in an assignment late, knowing that student just might be carrying a concealed handgun?

Gov. Hair's infamy spreads

New York Times op-ed columnist Gail Collins is letting the rest of the world know how two-faced our governor is. She thought it interesting that it's places like Texas, where patriotism is supposed to be so strong, that want to secede. I mean, how American is that?

She also called Perry's statement that Texas could secede anytime it wanted to as "a beloved piece of state folklore despite its unfortunate drawback of being totally untrue." And she took several swipes at those who attended last week's "tea parties."

Here's how she ended her piece:

(Texas Gov.) Perry, who is the sort of person who calls other guys “dude,” used to be a cotton farmer, a group that seems to have a special talent for combining rugged individualism with intransigent demands for government assistance. Even as we speak, the Obama administration budget-cutters are trying to end a longstanding federal practice of paying the costs of storing the entire national cotton crop every year. No other farmers get this kind of special treatment, and I am sure Perry’s failure to mention it when he calls for an end to corporate bailouts is a terrible oversight that will be corrected immediately.

The big mystery here is why the tax-protest crowds were behaving as if the world was coming to an end when all Obama’s infant presidency has done is lower taxes for a vast majority of the public. And why people like Perry seem to feel compelled to egg them on.

The answer is that what’s left of the Republican Party is intent on cutting off the knees of the administration before it actually manages to fulfill any campaign promises on reducing the huge economic gap between the top 5 percent of the country and the rest of the populace. In pursuit of that mission, fortune favors the hysterical and rewards politicians who behave like gerbils that just bit into an electric wire.

We don’t want to blame all Texans for the high jinks in Austin. It’s a state full of lovely people, three-fourths of whom, according to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, have no desire whatsoever to secede from the United States.

But Perry really understands how that other quarter feels.