This simple dedication is for all those worked up over the Olympic flame: “Games Without Frontiers,” by Peter Gabriel.

***

     The Olympic torch has gone into hiding as officials figure out what to do. Everywhere the flame has been taken on its global journey toward the Summer Olympics in China protesters have tried to stop the torch and otherwise made a big ruckus over China’s violent crackdown on the Tibetan separatist movement. We can only presume that the Chinese have seen American TV shows and determined that the notoriously peaceful Tibetan monks are still able to kung-fu them all right back to the Qing Dynasty, and must be wiped out.

     Protests over China’s hosting of the Olympics have at times gotten out of hand. The flame reportedly was snuffed out five times during its tour of France, and officials were worried about what might happen in its only stop in the United States, San Francisco — the city that includes Chinatown, of course.

     They needn’t have worried; in fact, the torch should have had a longer run in this country. After all, if we know anything, it’s how to protest. That’s part of the greatness of our heritage.

     Americans have enjoyed freedom of speech for centuries, and have learned to use it both effectively and creatively. As a result, most law enforcement agencies have been trained to deal with demonstrations and protests. As we found out at Chicago in 1968 and Kent State in 1970, police have tended toward violence when they became afraid or frustrated. Experience and training have made violence against protesters rare here.

     Much of that relative peace can be credited to the Rev. Martin Luther King. One of his greatest legacies is the ideal of passive resistance — nonviolent protests. Many people inspired by King, including Saul Alinsky who wrote “Rules for Radicals,” embraced and refined nonviolent demonstration techniques. In other words, Americans normally don’t throw rocks at police, and police normally don’t respond by firing bullets back at them.

     More than likely, protests along a U.S. torch run would have been relatively bloodless, and yet effective. Protesters probably would have just tried to impede the route by sitting or lying on the roadways, and police dutifully would have just picked them up one by one, zip-tied their hands and tossed them into the paddy wagons.

     Switching themes, we’re beginning to hear calls from Capitol Hill and elsewhere that the United States lead an international boycott of the games, or at least the opening ceremonies.

     How soon we forget. Boycotts were the rage for a decade, and all were a flop. More than two dozen countries avoided the 1976 games in Montreal to protest the participation of New Zealand, which hadn’t joined the international trade embargo against South Africa and its Apartheid policies. The United States led the next boycott four years later in Moscow, to protest the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan before we did. The Soviet states returned the favor in 1984 by staying away from the Los Angeles games.

     In the end, those boycotts had little effect on international politics, and the decision to keep the U.S. team home in 1980 helped secure President Jimmy Carter’s defeat that year. And in true entrepreneurial fashion, Ted Turner leaped at the opportunity and organized the Goodwill Games, which reasserted the ideal of keeping politics out of international sport, and made him a little money to boot.

     At least Peter Gabriel got a catchy little tune out of the whole Olympic boycott affair (see above).

     So forget about keeping Americans out of the Chinese Games. We’d only be punishing ourselves, and the rest of the world would go right on ahead without us. Besides, people still celebrate 1936, when Americans ignored calls for a boycott, and instead sent a U.S. contingent, led by Jesse Owens, that shut Hitler up in his own backyard.

     That’s the way to get things done. So let the flame move forward, and let the Games begin!

Today we offer a heartfelt dedication to Mrs. Hillary Clinton: “I Am Woman,” by Helen Reddy.

***

Hillary Clinton stands a good chance to become this country’s first female president. If you think about it, however, people who really want a woman president because of the traditional characteristics women exemplify, their best bet might just be Barack Obama, and not Clinton.

Clinton is hardly the first woman to launch a serious campaign for the presidency. The first was Victoria Woodhull, more than 135 years ago, representing the Equal Rights Party. Margaret Chase Smith was the first to run in one of the major political parties, when she sought the Republican Party nomination in 1964. Shirley Chisholm was the first to win a major primary, capturing the New Jersey Democratic primary in 1972. Geraldine Ferraro made the final ticket as the vice-presidential nominee in 1984, and would have been the first in line to the presidency had she and Walter Mondale won the election. Other notable female candidates include the colorful Bella Abzug, Elizabeth Dole and Carol Mosely Braun.

It can be said, then, that Clinton simply is the one who is taking the inevitable next step, winning substantial votes and possibly capturing the Democratic Party nomination this year.

That’s a good thing, especially since many of her supporters insist that her gender has nothing to do with their belief that she’s the current candidate who would make the best president for at least the next four years.

There are those, however, who have expressed the opinion that any woman would be a better leader than any man; remember Sally Field’s rant during this year’s Emmy Awards that “if mothers ruled the world, there would be no (expletive) wars in the first place”?

Field is by no means the first person to express such a sentiment. Many people, including some candidates themselves (remember Pat Schroeder?) said that women had qualities that, by their very nature, made them better leaders than men.

Those qualities included more rational thinking, more empathy for the people who would be helped or hurt by government policies, better communication skills and an ability to stay calmer and think clearly during a crisis.

Empathy isn’t a word that’s associated with Hillary Clinton, however. In addition, her temper is legendary. Former aides and White House workers during husband Bill’s presidency talked of frequent shouting matches, and the retribution she could bring against the culprit of any slight or crime against her or her husband, whether real or imagined.

Clinton is clearly intelligent, but at times betrays a paranoia that borders on the Nixonian. She frequently plays the victim, most recently accusing the press of being kind to Obama while attacking her at every turn. And we can’t forget the famous 1998 charge that she and Bill were victims of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that was being perpetrated by the media — that’s the radical left-wing media, don’t you know.

Meanwhile, Obama is the best communicator to come along in a long time. He’s as smooth and eloquent as they come. And we haven’t seen him worked into a swivet over anything yet. He exhibits a calm that some say gives them confidence that he’ll feel their pain, as it were, and offers rational, well-thought-out answers to the questions and issues he’s faced so far.

It would seem, then, that if you’re looking for a candidate who exhibits the best qualities attributed to a woman, those qualities are most likely to be found in Obama. If, on the other hand, you want a Democrat who’s a tough-as-nails, take-no-prisoners kind of leader, then Hillary’s your man.

   Today we offer a musical dedication to presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich: “As Long as you Follow,” by Fleetwood Mac.

***

   Kucinich has filed a lawsuit against the Texas Democratic Party to force his way onto the state’s March 4 primary. The party rejected his original application as invalid, because he didn’t sign an oath printed on the application stating that if he wasn’t the eventual party nominee, he would support whoever was.

   The Ohio congressman’s lawsuit, which he co-filed with native singer Willie Nelson, claims the loyalty oath violates the U.S. Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel has scheduled a hearing on the case for Jan. 11.

   “He’s right to challenge a blind loyalty oath to the Democratic Party because it’s un-American,” Nelson is quoted as saying in a news release issued by Kucinich’s campaign.

   Of course, Kucinich has the right to challenge the party’s requirement. It doesn’t seem to make sense, especially in a state that’s known for independent thinking. What if the ultimate party nominee doesn’t share Texas’ interests, and even promotes programs and policies that are detrimental to the state and its residents?

   Be that as it may, however, the same First Amendment that Kucinich cites in his challenge gives the party the right to issue the mandate. The right to assemble clause allows the party to support only those who are willing to play by its rules. If Kucinich doesn’t like it, he is free to start his own party, file as an independent, stage a write-in campaign or bypass the state altogether.

   All we have to say is, welcome to the de factor two-party system we have in this country.

   The two parties are so dominant that few candidates dare try their luck outside of these two. Just ask Ron Paul, who ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988. Knowing how hard it is to get elected as a third-party candidate, Paul has consistently run for his Congress seat as a Republican, and he’s now seeking that party’s presidential nomination this time.

   We should remember that the primaries are entirely party functions, and in order to participate one has to be a registered or declared member of that party. The primaries are the process in which each party selects its candidate for the November general election. Those who complain that they can’t vote in both party primaries obviously don’t get what they’re all about. And we can’t be Republicans and Democrats at the same time.

   The open vote comes in November, when we can vote for one candidate in each race, regardless of party affiliation.

   Of course, the general ballot will have more than two candidates in several races; we have the Libertarians, the Green Party and other groups sponsoring their own candidates. The Democrats and Republicans, however, get the vast majority of the votes, and all others just languish on the fringes.

   Kucinich doesn’t want to be an outsider, so rather than show his independence or give in to the Texas party’s wishes, he wants to force the party to fit his ideals.

   He has the right, and the party majority should be free to honor or reject his wishes, without bringing the courts into play.

   We’ll be watching on Jan. 11, to see what the judge says. Then we’ll see who has to follow whom.

   We send a dedication and a shout out to President Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf: “Bad Meets Evil,” by Eminem.

***

   This is pure speculation, of course, but one has to wonder if Bush, at least indirectly, contributed to the assassination of Pakistan’s former prime minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

   It was common knowledge that at the time of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, it was generally believed that Osama bin Laden was living somewhere in the mountains of northeast Pakistan. Instead, Bush chose to send troops into Afghanistan and Iraq.

   A relevant tangent here: We don’t feel the same animosity toward the CIA as many other people do; we believe the Bush administration has used the agency as a convenient scapegoat, and we’re just waiting for the books to come out as soon as a new president is in power and a few of our spies retire.

   Remember that as soon as the White House started talking about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, plenty — and we do mean plenty — of other government officials were quick to report that the CIA, as well as U.N. inspectors, had failed to find any evidence of those alleged WMDs. Once we were well into the war and people started to ask where those weapons were, the Bush gang blamed the invasion on faulty intelligence. Public reports already showed that that intelligence said there were no WMDs, and it was right all along.

   Same with Pakistan. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan, which may or may not assist, or at least permit, anti-Western terrorists. We do know one thing, however: Afghanistan’s president Hamid Karzai actually endorses factions that oppose the Taliban and bin Laden’s al-Qaida. In fact, Karzai has complained that Musharraf’s tolerance of terrorists has allowed them to create destruction and unrest in Afghanistan, then fleeing to safety in Pakistan. The tension between these two countries brought out the fact that Musharraf had actually signed a treaty with Islamic tribal leaders pledging no aggression toward their minions holed up in Pakistan’s mountain ranges. Pakistan was their safe haven.

   Musharraf was asked about the pact at a joint news conference with Bush held in September 2006 at the White House, where the two pledged mutual interests and support. Musharraf said the treaty did not give terrorists free rein, but rather was intended to stop terrorist attacks.

   ”I believe him,” Bush responded, calling Musharraf one of our top allies in the war against terrorism. Bush also lifted economic sanctions against the country that President Clinton had imposed during its nuclear standoff with India in 1998. Bush has send Musharraf $10 billion in aid since the 9/11 attacks.

   So before Bush sent troops into Afghanistan, the CIA already was reporting that bin Laden wasn’t there, but rather in Pakistan. Based on those reports, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage reportedly got a hold of Pakistan’s military intelligence chief and said the United States would bomb Pakistan “back to the Stone Age” if that country didn’t help bring bin Laden to justice.

   We think that reaction was appropriate, and could have been followed with a set of deadlines: U.S. bombers would fire missiles into one mountain every 72 hours, for instance, until bin Laden was produced.

   Instead, the administration at first downplayed Armitage’s threat as unauthorized, and more recently has even denied that it ever happened.

   Meanwhile, Musharraf has gotten more brazen since his buddy-buddy meeting with Bush last year. Reports of attacks on opposition members have increased in the past year, and in March of this year the president fired Pakistan’s chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry. After the Supreme Court voted to reinstate their leader, Musharraf declared martial law, fired numerous judges and suspended both the constitution and presidential elections scheduled for October.

   The Bush administration stepped in to keep the peace. They brokered a deal that would let Musharraf stay on as president for five more years without elections, but he had to relinquish control of the military. He also had to allow parliamentary elections next year and let Bhutto return from exile in Dubai. It was assumed that Bhutto, ever an advocate against violence, would maintain order among the opposition. It was also assumed she would be elected prime minister, and help serve as a counterbalance to Musharraf’s presidency.

   Since her return on Oct. 18, however, hundreds of opposition members have been killed — at least 140 on the same day she returned to Pakistan.

   Now that she’s been killed, Musharraf gets to enjoy the benefits of the deal he made with Bush, and probably doesn’t have to endure the concessions since the opposition probably has been driven underground. And, given his non-aggression treaty with the tribal lords, they essentially serve as sentries protecting the border with neighboring countries.

   And bin Laden? He remains safe as a frog in a bog, thank you very much.

   And that, as the song says, is what happens when bad meets evil.

   Today we dedicate a song to Anderson Cooper and other media muffins who spout politically correct rhetoric that they have to know isn’t true: “Little Lies,” by Fleetwood Mac.

***

   Anderson Cooper has to know better. But there he was, a special guest on fellow CNN talking head Nancy Grace’s show on Oct. 22, promoting “Planet in Peril,” his own version of the “we’re destroying the earth” shows that everybody’s doing these days.

   You know, like the “Today” show’s recent episode in which each of the show’s cohosts was dispatched do different corners of the globe to show viewers some of the glaciers, ice floes and jungles that we’re destroying by burning up fossil fuels. It was compelling, all right – until one wonders how much fuel they burned up flying to all those places, and running all those generators that powered the lights, cameras, campsites, etc.

   So, there’s Mr. Cooper, shilling away, and he decides to tell the world just how immediate the problem is. This isn’t something that might happen in the future, we’re all starting to die right now.

   Cooper did that by declaring that the raging wildfires that are burning up half of California are the result of everybody who doesn’t like Al Gore.

   “We’re seeing the wildfires today all across Southern California,” Cooper said. “You know, as the climate changes, the snows in the mountains out west melt faster. That means there’s drier conditions throughout the summer, and then you get wildfires like this. So we’re already seeing the impact in places around the world, and it’s only going to get worse for our kids and grandkids.”

   Of course he had to play on the love we have for our children. Too bad it’s all a lie, and he has to know it is.

   Make no mistake, these fires are directly caused by the hand of man. But it’s not because of our use of oil.

   We already know that much of the fire was started by at least one kid with a match.

   The fire got out of control, again, not because of drier conditions, but because of gross mismanagement of federal lands. The U.S. Forest Service has admitted that its policies make fires less frequent, but worse.

   Fires occur all the time. It’s a natural phenomenon that has gone on as long as the world has existed, archeologists say. It’s sort of the world’s way of renewing itself. Dead leaves, dried branches and other natural rubbish accumulates, and suddenly a lightning strike or other event ignites a pile. The fire spreads until it consumes all the debris, and often puts itself out.

   And that’s a good thing. Most people have seen places along the side of the road that have burned at one time or another. Just after the fire’s put out the area looks charred and black. About a week later, however, that same spot is alive again, with new sprouts of grass that are even greener than the surrounding unburned area.

   Federal, state and local officials don’t let those burns take place anymore. A spot of land flares up and they are quick to douse the flames. Forest managers sometimes even have to light “controlled burns” to do what they prevented all those times they snuffed out natural fires. By the time they do that, however, the leaves, etc., that fuel the fire are much more abundant than what would have burned originally.

   Development adds to the problem.

   “People have interjected their homes into a system that has a natural tendency to burn very frequently, and where we have suppressed the frequency of those fires for so long, there’s an ungodly amount of fuel there,” Forest Service ecologist Hugh Stafford told The Associated Press earlier this year.

   This is no sudden phenomenon. It seems we’ve had these kinds of wildfires for the past several years, burning up parts of California, Utah and New Mexico.

   A 2004 study by Duke University placed the blame squarely on federal land management. The study noted that the Bush administration implemented policies that were intended to “fireproof” the Western United States, and that those policies obviously backfired.

   “Fire suppression, logging and grazing on fire-prone public land were intended to reduce the risk of fires, but many Western forests are now more flammable,” concluded Norman Christensen Jr., professor of ecology and Dukes founding dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences.

   He said too much dry grass, low shrubbery and other debris was being allowed to accumulate.

   “Ignited ground fuels can create enough heat to scorch a tree up to a height of 150 feet,” Christensen said. “Reducing them should be the first priority of any wildfire management plan. Yet the practice of suppressing wildfires has allowed debris to accumulate to dangerous levels on he forest floor.”

   The result: 9.9 million acres burned by wildfires in 2006; 8.7 million acres burned in 2005; 6.8 million acres in 2004; 4.9 million in 2003; 6.9 million in 2002; 3.6 million in 2001; and 8.4 million acres burned in 2000.

   And so far this year wildfires have eaten up 8.2 million acres of land.

   This tells us several things: First, the cause of our wildfires is general knowledge: We’re preventing small fires that would clean forest floors, inviting calamity when the areas finally ignite. And that ignition is inevitable; the harder we try to prevent fires, the more likely we make them, since there’s more fuel to burn.

   We also learn that fire, in small doses, is a good thing. It cleans and fertilizes the land. And the world is better for it.

   Unfortunately, alarmists draw more attention than those who say things aren’t so bad. And when you’re trying to attract viewers to you prime time show — viewers that mean millions in advertising revenue, some people aren’t going to let small nuisances like the truth get in the way.

     A musical dedication goes out to the non-mayoral members of the Brownsville City Commission: “I Wonder if I Care As Much,” by the Everly Brothers.

***

     Mayor Pat Ahumada has had some questionable ideas for using taxpayers’ money. He killed an ongoing review of development impact fees, only to push through another one — the city’s fourth — and the second from the same company. He cut money for the single most critical thing residents are screaming for, street repair, and tried to raise taxes higher than anyone else was willing to go, saying there was simply no money in the city coffers. Then he worked to give special allocations to the Convention Bureau, art museum and community playhouse after announcing that the city had $13 in surplus funds. On all these questionable moves the city commissioners simply went along for the ride.

     They’ve also joined Ahumada in condemning the plan to build a fence along the river, despite concerns from most sane people who know that the fence won’t keep anybody out, it wreaks havoc on the environment and further alienates one of our closest diplomatic partners (and third-largest trading partner).

     Unfortunately, that’s as far as they’re willing to go.

     Commissioners unanimously passed a resolution declaring their opposition to the proposed border fence. But when the mayor asked for a commitment of $200,000 to the effort, the commissioners balked. When he later proposed a resolution to deny federal access to city property for the purposes of building the fence, no one had the guts to even second the motion for discussion.

     “We need to fight, but we also need to be smart about it,” Troiani said at the public commission meeting on Oct. 16.

     Indeed. With that statement, Troiani made it clear that he and the others are neither smart nor willing to fight. They’ll gladly throw $300,000 at an arts museum that grossly miscalculated its ability to pay for a new building, but won’t put up two-thirds of that amount to address the single most important domestic issue that’s now being discussed throughout the country: our nation’s border policy. And since we just happen to be on the border, Ahumada is right in saying that this is Ground Zero.

     This newspaper, and plenty of other people, have made it a point that one of the most glaring points that can be made on our border issue is that the border knows it’s a bad idea. People living and making laws thousands of miles away are telling each other that terrorists are streaming across our borders, putting us all at risk. We’ve been quick to ask the obvious question: If there’s such a danger, then where is it? Why do those most opposed to this stupid nationalist jabbering those who actually live on the border and who know who and what might be coming across, and whether we’re actually in danger or not.

     We can’t do that anymore. Our elected officials have weenied out and refused to defend our homeland from those who would be just as happy to kick their own brown butts out of the country if they had the chance.

     Somebody should file a lawsuit, if only to open the door for anybody or group to offer amicus filings on any of the issues surrounding the fence, be it environmental, property rights, foreign relations or civil rights.

     Maybe it’s the mindset of those who seek elected office in the Rio Grande Valley. They are quick to call themselves elected leaders, not servants. If they believe they have so much power and authority, then they must see the federal government through similar prisms, and not recognize that our nation was designed to have the people rule, and elected officials are merely representatives.

     And that’s what this battle is all about: who has final say over the land that is in private hands, even when it’s along the border.

     If the city chose to challenge the feds, it would help address the questions that have been gnawing at so many Americans for some seven years now: Does one appointed homeland security director really have the authority to set policies that supercede laws passed by 535 elected members of Congress?

     Such a fight could well burn up $200,000, or just a portion of it, if others are willing to join in the litigation. Maybe the American Civil Liberties Union would be willing to help litigate the issue; it doesn’t charge directly for its legal services. But somebody has to at least put up the filing fee to get the case started.

     And who knows? It could meet with success. U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle on Oct. 10 ordered a stop to any work toward constructing a border fence in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area in Arizona. Huvelle ruled that the federal Bureau of Land Management didn’t complete a thorough environmental impact study on the planned fence. The judge noted that the feds didn’t allow enough time for public input in order to make more informed determinations. The same concerns have arisen in Texas, after the government rejected pleas from residents and lawmakers to extend the short window for public input.

     Certainly, the fight against the fence will continue; there are enough responsible, committed people, both local and national, to maintain opposition. Unfortunately, our local commissioners don’t have the character to put actions behind their words. The worst part is that knowing these guys, they will be the first to bask in the glow of any successes the real opposition might win.

     Maybe they don’t seem to care as much because this fence doesn’t really affect them. After all, it shouldn’t be so hard to slither through a fence if you have no backbone.

     And now a dedication to all smart friends in the U.S. government: “It’s Up to Me,” by Jethro Tull.

***

     Did you hear about the case of Herbert and Shirley-Ann Leu? Seems they ran crossways with the feds when they built an 85-foot long concrete wall along their backyard, on their own property.

     The wall isn’t just for security, the couple made it solid and strong to guard against erosion; the yard slopes and they don’t want it washed away if rains get too heavy.

     But they received an order to tear it down, and if they don’t, the government will go onto their property and tear it down for them, then send them the bill for the trouble.

     Seems the wall interferes with a government project that is in the works — the border wall.

     Yup. The Leuses live along the U.S.-Canada border, and part of the planned border wall approved by Congress will run right alongside the Leus’ retaining wall. The border wall is set to run seven feet away, in fact.

     Now, if the feds want a wall there and the Leuses already built one there, one might think that it could easily be incorporated into the government’s plans. Just get an easement from the couple for the width of the wall, and connect to it.

     Things are never that easy in the world of bureaucracy, however. Government specs for the wall project prohibit any permanent structures within 10 feet on either side of the government wall. The Leus’ wall is three feet inside that buffer zone, even though it’s on their own property.

     As all government projects and edicts, however, this thing promises to take lots of time, and burn up lots of taxpayers’ money, to resolve. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which fights cases of excessive government regulation and environmental extremism, has filed suit against the government action.

     Here’s where it gets fun.

     Apparently, the Justice Department was talking about a settlement. But the guy who wrote the demolition order, Dennis Schornack of the International Boundary Commission, fought against giving in to the puny private landowners.

     And Schornack’s a Republican.

     He fought so vigorously, in fact, that he got himself fired. Ah, but he learned a few things from his GOP bosses, who have placed themselves above the law and Congress whenever they are asked to account for themselves. Schornack has filed his own lawsuit, claiming that since the commission he worked for is international in nature, it is above actions by the U.S. government alone — even though it was the Bush administration that hired him in the first place.

     And now the Leuses, who, it appeared, were going to get some kind of settlement, like getting to keep their wall, have to wait for Schornack’s case to be decided, since that will determine whether his authority on the matter trumps the federal government’s authority to settle out his order.

     So if you have property along the Rio Grande and you want to keep strangers off your property (or keep your pets from going astray), be forewarned: Don’t go around building any fences. The feds just might have to tear it down. so they can build their own fence.

     Today we start with another dedication to the ever-popular Mayor Pat Ahumada: “The Illogical Song,” by Supertramp.

***

     We can understand that Brownsville’s mayor might not like this Imagine Brownsville stuff. After all, it’s not his baby. And he’s not alone. Some people suspect that this is just another one of those feel-good operations to gain public confidence while shuffling money to a few friends. Some suspect that this could be that old failed RioGulf thing, which fell apart with all the grace of an out-of-control merry-go-round, flinging parts and participants every which way.

     Ahumada wants to kill the whole idea, including the $450,000 the city committed last year to pay civil engineers to gather information and prepare a study on n what the city’s residents need and want.

     This is the second time the new mayor looks to kill a project that his predecessors began; the first was a third study aiming to determine how much developers should pay for the infrastructure needed to support new housing developments.

     The problem is, Ahumada can’t just cancel contracts at will. In the absence of a breach by the other party, legally that can only be done if it is determined that those entering into the contract are younger than 18, or found to be mentally incapacitated. (We’re not taking this line of reason any further — we’re sure each reader continue this paragraph to his or her own delight).

     So we had to pay the economic researchers who were hired to do the impact fee study; we just let them off the hook without having to actually finish their work. That doesn’t make much sense, does it? And guess what? Now our Public Utilities Board is saying it still needs that information, so it’s planning to go out and look for another group, and pay for a FOURTH study.

     Thanks, Mayor Pat.

     Now he’s saying the money for the Imagine Brownsville contract isn’t in the budget. That argument won’t wash, though. The mayor, along with the city manager and other City Commission members, makes the budget. If the money’s not in the budget, then he needs to put it there, whether he likes the idea or not.

     The city committed to the project a year ago, and is obligated to uphold its end of the deal. The city is right now making its budget for the next fiscal year (which starts in a month), and the first part of budget making is going over all your obligations and figuring out how you’re going to meet them. He can’t just leave the money off the books and then tell the engineers that he’s sorry, but we’re not going to keep our end of the deal. Life don’t work that way.

     Ahumada could well have a point. We’re paying a lot of money for a study that might have been done just as well in-house. But the City Commission that was in place at the time approved the study and committed to it. And it appears that a majority of the current commission still supports the idea. Ahumada says himself that he’s just one vote; in this case he’s outnumbered, and he has to deal with it.

     He also has to meet the obligations his predecessors made, just like his decisions will bind those who follow him in office.

     So if the money’s not there, then it needs to be found, and whoever didn’t put it there needs to be called on the carpet.

     That’s the only logical thing to do.