Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Happy New Year: A hopeful peek into Houston's 2015.
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Death to the year in review (and other stories)
As we rapidly approach the end of an utterly forgettable 2014 with our eyes firmly set on what (we hope) will be a much better 2015, there's plenty of yearning and heartbreak over the year that was. Unfortunately, it seems that those who write, either for a living (the media) or as a hobby (bloggers) can't help but force us to take a trip down memory lane, for better or worse, in a ham-fisted attempt to remind us what they think was important and how we're not placing enough weight on those items.
I'm referring, of course, to the increasingly prevalent 'Year in Review' features that every newspaper, TV Station, web-site and blogger feels the need to release. Usually, they're liberally sprinkled with content from their own organs which, in reality, means that these histograms are nothing more than some chest-beating masquerading a walk down memory lane. "Remember the time we wrote about...." and what-not.
Maybe it's nothing more than my proclivity to look-forward rather than backwards but I think we've reached the point where this tradition needs to come to an end.
Yes, it is important to understand history in it's context so that we can learn from our mistakes (and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it) but many of these year-in-review pieces discuss news items of such recent history that any context they may develop over time is stripped away in the immediacy of partisan wailing and gnashing of teeth.
While it's very easy, journalistically, to take a look back to one of Obama's many rounds of golf in 2014 it's very difficult to place any true perspective on it. It's also silly to say that the ACA is sure to be Obama's legacy when we're not even sure if it's going to survive the decade.
The same holds true for The Texas Tribunes (apparently) comprehensive and (supposedly) authoritative tome on the Perry "Legacy". In reality, this is a silly exercise in journalistic ego-building trying to set a road-map for historians who will probably ignore the thing anyway. The fact is, it's impossible to define what is (and is not) a politician's legacy while he (or she) is still occupying the office.
Part of the problem, I think, is the inability of society to take the long view. Currently, we live in an instant gratification world spawned by the Internet and (still relatively) easy credit. It's partly the fault of the general public that we require of our media (and newsish sites) to provide us historical context now.
The truth is that whatever legacy is ultimately affixed to Perry in the historical canon will evolve and emerge over the period of many years as the full effects of his policies and leadership will be realized.
So let's call for an end to the 'year that was' stories and start focusing instead on the year that might be. We can have no effect on the events that already happened but we can influence those that will. I think the latter is a much more productive use of our time than is the former.
I'm referring, of course, to the increasingly prevalent 'Year in Review' features that every newspaper, TV Station, web-site and blogger feels the need to release. Usually, they're liberally sprinkled with content from their own organs which, in reality, means that these histograms are nothing more than some chest-beating masquerading a walk down memory lane. "Remember the time we wrote about...." and what-not.
Maybe it's nothing more than my proclivity to look-forward rather than backwards but I think we've reached the point where this tradition needs to come to an end.
Yes, it is important to understand history in it's context so that we can learn from our mistakes (and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it) but many of these year-in-review pieces discuss news items of such recent history that any context they may develop over time is stripped away in the immediacy of partisan wailing and gnashing of teeth.
While it's very easy, journalistically, to take a look back to one of Obama's many rounds of golf in 2014 it's very difficult to place any true perspective on it. It's also silly to say that the ACA is sure to be Obama's legacy when we're not even sure if it's going to survive the decade.
The same holds true for The Texas Tribunes (apparently) comprehensive and (supposedly) authoritative tome on the Perry "Legacy". In reality, this is a silly exercise in journalistic ego-building trying to set a road-map for historians who will probably ignore the thing anyway. The fact is, it's impossible to define what is (and is not) a politician's legacy while he (or she) is still occupying the office.
Part of the problem, I think, is the inability of society to take the long view. Currently, we live in an instant gratification world spawned by the Internet and (still relatively) easy credit. It's partly the fault of the general public that we require of our media (and newsish sites) to provide us historical context now.
The truth is that whatever legacy is ultimately affixed to Perry in the historical canon will evolve and emerge over the period of many years as the full effects of his policies and leadership will be realized.
So let's call for an end to the 'year that was' stories and start focusing instead on the year that might be. We can have no effect on the events that already happened but we can influence those that will. I think the latter is a much more productive use of our time than is the former.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: When the last real leader passes on, the middling regional news daily struggles to encapsulate his legacy.
On Sunday, Decmber 21, 2014 Houston's former Mayor Bob Lanier reportedly passed quietly while napping after a lunch with family. It was a quiet exit for a good man and the last real leader that Houston's had in elected city government since he was term limited out of the job.
What Mayor Lanier did for the City of Houston, revitalizing her at the tail end of the oil bust by focusing on public works and public safety at the expense of trinkets, has not been duplicated by the string of empty shells that have followed. While he was immensely popular with many he did have his detractors, many of which will never forgive him for a perceived litany of sins. An example of this can be found in ChronBlog's rather weak attempts to document his time in power. Now fully immersed in the 'light rail for some' movement they can't help but quote figures like noxious member of the unproductive class David Crossley while editorially taking shots at Lanier (and allowing Bill White some odd historical revisionism) about his opposition to rail.
It's too bad that the New Mrs. White and the rest of the Chron are reduced to this because the lessons Mayor Lanier taught the city as its mayor need to be relearned. Current Mayor Parker went so far as to praise Lanier for his commitment to public works despite the fact that she possesses no similar commitment herself.
And while do-nothings like Crossley take shots at Lanier for his anti-Monorail and Light Rail in Houston stances, the current fiscal mess that Metro is experiencing suggests that he was correct. Certainly he deserves better than petty shots taken by a man who's done nothing to improve the quality of life in Houston outside pontificating and holding workshops about the inner-beauty of bees (or something)?
In fact, I think Lanier deserves a lot better.
Was he perfect? No, no one is. There are real policy areas where disagreements could be had with almost everyone. The important thing to note is this: Whether or not you agreed with Mr. Lanier on the issues, he was undoubtedly a leader.
Houston could use more like him, and less like the current crop of civic loudmouths that are currently trying to steer the ship.
God Bless the Lanier family and comfort them during this time.
What Mayor Lanier did for the City of Houston, revitalizing her at the tail end of the oil bust by focusing on public works and public safety at the expense of trinkets, has not been duplicated by the string of empty shells that have followed. While he was immensely popular with many he did have his detractors, many of which will never forgive him for a perceived litany of sins. An example of this can be found in ChronBlog's rather weak attempts to document his time in power. Now fully immersed in the 'light rail for some' movement they can't help but quote figures like noxious member of the unproductive class David Crossley while editorially taking shots at Lanier (and allowing Bill White some odd historical revisionism) about his opposition to rail.
It's too bad that the New Mrs. White and the rest of the Chron are reduced to this because the lessons Mayor Lanier taught the city as its mayor need to be relearned. Current Mayor Parker went so far as to praise Lanier for his commitment to public works despite the fact that she possesses no similar commitment herself.
And while do-nothings like Crossley take shots at Lanier for his anti-Monorail and Light Rail in Houston stances, the current fiscal mess that Metro is experiencing suggests that he was correct. Certainly he deserves better than petty shots taken by a man who's done nothing to improve the quality of life in Houston outside pontificating and holding workshops about the inner-beauty of bees (or something)?
In fact, I think Lanier deserves a lot better.
Was he perfect? No, no one is. There are real policy areas where disagreements could be had with almost everyone. The important thing to note is this: Whether or not you agreed with Mr. Lanier on the issues, he was undoubtedly a leader.
Houston could use more like him, and less like the current crop of civic loudmouths that are currently trying to steer the ship.
God Bless the Lanier family and comfort them during this time.
Monday, December 15, 2014
BadMedia: Maybe if the Chron stopped focusing on Austin and Dallas they wouldn't get scooped so much locally?
Grey Matters, the self-indulgent, overwrought "thought blog" currently being championed at every-turn by Houston Chronicle Managing Editor (And Grey Matters Contributor FWIW) Vernan Loeb is indicative of everything wrong about Houston's middling regional daily.
Rather than discuss ideas from a diverse cross-section of Houston thinkers it chooses instead to apply a strict, progressive filter to it's classification of brilliance. This would be OK if it were a personal blog typed out by someone not affiliated with a so-called "news" source but, considering the Chron's self-identification as a media outlet, it reflects poorly on the editorial lean of the publication as a whole.
On top of all this: the newspaper felt the need to create a manifesto. Historically things (or people) with manifestos have not found good ends.
This would be OK if Grey Matters took seriously the job of reporting all things Houston with an open heart and mind. Unfortunately, they don't. What they do provide, at times, is a little bit of insight into the mind-set of the editorial group which has, for years now, led the Chron down a dark tunnel of irrelevance.
To whit:
The Trouble with Austin. Lisa Grey, GreyMatters @ HoustonChronicle.com
It's probable, that when Ms. Grey wrote this she didn't realize just how silly it would look coming from a newspaper in a city that cannot either pave it's roads properly or maintain it's water system. It's also probable that Ms. Grey was under orders (which I'm assuming are running orders) to increase page clicks. As a matter of fact, it feels like most items on both chron.com and houstonchronicle.com($$$) are designed with page clicks, and not actual newsworthiness, in mind. So from that perspective it makes sense that Ms. Grey would pen a story about how Austin needs to grow up. Of course, news outlet KVUE in Austin felt duty bound to respond to the story probably in hopes that Houston v. Austin becomes the new Houston v. Dallas or something.
Let's hope not, because the entire Houston v. anyone right now (save possibly Detroit) is becoming more and more one-sided against the Bayou City in large part to misguided efforts from well-meaning but Houtopian fogged thinking by New-Urbanists whose talent seems to be producing little more than neat graphs maps and reports that they banged out over a coffee session on their new iApples in an effort to impress the brunette across the way.
In the meantime, most of the real reporting on Houston issues is being done elsewhere. Yes, the Chron has some good talent (and, some not so good talent) in the municipal reporting pool right now, but they don't have enough of it.
One wonders how much better the reporting at the Houston Chronicle could be if their increasingly limited resources weren't diverted to thought blogs, cheesy pictorials of scantily clad women, the New Mrs. White and the increasingly noxious Nick Anderson?
I propose to the Chronicle leadership a novel, or even quaint idea:
More news, less thought leadership. And quit worrying about what other cities in Texas are doing.
It would be OK with me as well (and probably many of the feminists that you claim to be in ideological agreement with) if you eliminated side-boob as a thing as well.
Rather than discuss ideas from a diverse cross-section of Houston thinkers it chooses instead to apply a strict, progressive filter to it's classification of brilliance. This would be OK if it were a personal blog typed out by someone not affiliated with a so-called "news" source but, considering the Chron's self-identification as a media outlet, it reflects poorly on the editorial lean of the publication as a whole.
On top of all this: the newspaper felt the need to create a manifesto. Historically things (or people) with manifestos have not found good ends.
This would be OK if Grey Matters took seriously the job of reporting all things Houston with an open heart and mind. Unfortunately, they don't. What they do provide, at times, is a little bit of insight into the mind-set of the editorial group which has, for years now, led the Chron down a dark tunnel of irrelevance.
To whit:
The Trouble with Austin. Lisa Grey, GreyMatters @ HoustonChronicle.com
It's probable, that when Ms. Grey wrote this she didn't realize just how silly it would look coming from a newspaper in a city that cannot either pave it's roads properly or maintain it's water system. It's also probable that Ms. Grey was under orders (which I'm assuming are running orders) to increase page clicks. As a matter of fact, it feels like most items on both chron.com and houstonchronicle.com($$$) are designed with page clicks, and not actual newsworthiness, in mind. So from that perspective it makes sense that Ms. Grey would pen a story about how Austin needs to grow up. Of course, news outlet KVUE in Austin felt duty bound to respond to the story probably in hopes that Houston v. Austin becomes the new Houston v. Dallas or something.
Let's hope not, because the entire Houston v. anyone right now (save possibly Detroit) is becoming more and more one-sided against the Bayou City in large part to misguided efforts from well-meaning but Houtopian fogged thinking by New-Urbanists whose talent seems to be producing little more than neat graphs maps and reports that they banged out over a coffee session on their new iApples in an effort to impress the brunette across the way.
In the meantime, most of the real reporting on Houston issues is being done elsewhere. Yes, the Chron has some good talent (and, some not so good talent) in the municipal reporting pool right now, but they don't have enough of it.
One wonders how much better the reporting at the Houston Chronicle could be if their increasingly limited resources weren't diverted to thought blogs, cheesy pictorials of scantily clad women, the New Mrs. White and the increasingly noxious Nick Anderson?
I propose to the Chronicle leadership a novel, or even quaint idea:
More news, less thought leadership. And quit worrying about what other cities in Texas are doing.
It would be OK with me as well (and probably many of the feminists that you claim to be in ideological agreement with) if you eliminated side-boob as a thing as well.
BadMedia: The Chron Eye for Australia
What's important to the Web-group over at The Houston Chronicle?
While Australia is working through a pretty dire situation the intrepid folks at Chron.com have decided that what we really want to know is.....
How the Australians party during the Winter.
That's not world-class.
Heck, it's even bad for a middling regional newspaper, which undoubtedly the Chron is.
While Australia is working through a pretty dire situation the intrepid folks at Chron.com have decided that what we really want to know is.....
How the Australians party during the Winter.
That's not world-class.
Heck, it's even bad for a middling regional newspaper, which undoubtedly the Chron is.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Texas Politics: Why does the State have a say on the distribution rights of a private company anyway?
Yesterday (or, earlier today at the time I'm writing) the news broke that 3 Texas craft brewers are suing the State of Texas regarding a 2013 law that required them to relinquish their local distribution rights to distribution middlemen for no compensation.
State Sued for "Stifling the Texas Craft Beer Renaissance". Reeve Hamilton, Texas Tribune
For conservatives this should be a no-brainer. However, it should also be taken further to question why the State has laws on the books regulating many private-businesses anyway.
When the bill was passed it was clear that it was a hand-out to the distribution companies, some of whom are owned or are subsidiaries of the large, multi-national brewing companies with whom the craft brewers are taking market share. For Republican legislators who campaign on the so-called "free-market" and other politically hollow terms this was an all-to-usual anti-free-market action. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the large alcohol distribution companies throw law-makers a big "welcome to the session" gala before each legislature convenes.
Of course, real reform would mean looking at a host of silly laws like this. For example: Why must car dealerships only be open on Saturday or Sunday, but not both? Why can't liquor stores be open on Sunday?
When you hear so-called conservative policy makers talk about waste in the Government you rarely hear them mention laws such as these.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you look down at the municipal level you can find many ordinances in cities across the state attempting to regulate something the State has no business regulating.
In an era where the State rushed head-long to supposedly de-regulate utilities and higher education (two areas that are not really free-markets [in reality they're either regulated monopolies or oligopolies]) it's amazing that in Texas, where our politicians constantly beat into our brains that they're more business friendly than anyone else, these types of laws are viewed as solutions.
The best outcome, for consumers, would be for the courts to strike the law down and decimate Texas three-tier system when it comes to alcohol sales. Even better for consumers would be the newly (very) Republican legislature to take a look at all areas where market-stifling restrictions* exist.
Fat chance though because there's a lot of money at play in Texas' legislative system.
*It will be read as thus by people of a progressive bent, but OF COURSE I'm not calling for a relaxation of safety or (in most cases) environmental standards. This is specifically related to the State interfering in legal, commercial enterprise or sales transactions.
State Sued for "Stifling the Texas Craft Beer Renaissance". Reeve Hamilton, Texas Tribune
Three Texas breweries filed a lawsuit against the state on Wednesday seeking to to overturn a 2013 law they say violates the Texas Constitution by forcing them to give away their territorial distribution rights for free.
In their complaint, filed in state district court in Austin, the heads of Live Oak Brewing in Austin, Peticolas Brewing Company in Dallas and Revolver Brewing in Granbury say that were it not for Senate Bill 639, they would be expanding. Instead, their plans to bring their beer to new markets around the state have been put on hold.
For conservatives this should be a no-brainer. However, it should also be taken further to question why the State has laws on the books regulating many private-businesses anyway.
When the bill was passed it was clear that it was a hand-out to the distribution companies, some of whom are owned or are subsidiaries of the large, multi-national brewing companies with whom the craft brewers are taking market share. For Republican legislators who campaign on the so-called "free-market" and other politically hollow terms this was an all-to-usual anti-free-market action. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the large alcohol distribution companies throw law-makers a big "welcome to the session" gala before each legislature convenes.
Of course, real reform would mean looking at a host of silly laws like this. For example: Why must car dealerships only be open on Saturday or Sunday, but not both? Why can't liquor stores be open on Sunday?
When you hear so-called conservative policy makers talk about waste in the Government you rarely hear them mention laws such as these.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you look down at the municipal level you can find many ordinances in cities across the state attempting to regulate something the State has no business regulating.
In an era where the State rushed head-long to supposedly de-regulate utilities and higher education (two areas that are not really free-markets [in reality they're either regulated monopolies or oligopolies]) it's amazing that in Texas, where our politicians constantly beat into our brains that they're more business friendly than anyone else, these types of laws are viewed as solutions.
The best outcome, for consumers, would be for the courts to strike the law down and decimate Texas three-tier system when it comes to alcohol sales. Even better for consumers would be the newly (very) Republican legislature to take a look at all areas where market-stifling restrictions* exist.
Fat chance though because there's a lot of money at play in Texas' legislative system.
*It will be read as thus by people of a progressive bent, but OF COURSE I'm not calling for a relaxation of safety or (in most cases) environmental standards. This is specifically related to the State interfering in legal, commercial enterprise or sales transactions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)