"I do not like Houston. I've never been as miserable in any other place in the world as I am here."
This is the first line in David Dorantes odd mix of a rant against Houston and a love letter to an Ex who left him and married another man.
The article, if you can read it behind the Chron's increasingly expensive pay-wall, ran earlier today on the "Gray Matters" blog-ish type piece of whimsy that serves as a de-facto editorial outlet for Chron staffers, and people that they find compelling.
It's articles like these, and prose such as this (Example: "I once had a girlfriend. I loved her very much [I still love her, she is married to another man]") that has lead me to question why I ever started paying the Chron for access to this dreck in the first place.
The problem with the Chron's in-house editorial writing is that it is both simplistic in it's logic and dismissive of other points of view at the same time. Yes, Falkenberg won a Pulitzer, but she only won it after Chron Editor Jim Newkirk was appointed chair of the selection committee for that subject. As I've previously mentioned, this doesn't mean that her columns were unworthy, but it does mean that her award is tarnished and we will never know if she did win based on equitable judging.
Of course, it's not fair to single out Ms. Falkenberg for this because it's something the media has done for years now. The Pulitzer has long since stopped being a marker of excellence in journalism and now treated as a participation medal for the cool set. For reference see: the Nobel Peace Prize. Same difference.
This doesn't mean that ALL of the writers at the Houston Chronicle are bad, quite the contrary. In many cases the writing is pretty decent. I do question the ability of the editors to understand their jobs but I know of many reporters over there who hustle their asses off and genuinely try to do a good job.
For a large portion of the leadership, and some of the reporting staff, the problems behind their subscriber hemorrhage isn't their product, it's you.
From time to time they pull back that curtain and allow a peek behind what's going on in their minds, and why they hate you for not seeing the world through their lens. Not that it's fair to ask them to see things your way but, at the bare minimum, there should be an understanding that the vast majority of Houston's do not share the same Houtopian, new-urbanist dream held by the editors and their running circles.
The projection is astounding. I, and other non New-Urbanist types get accused all the time of being "angry". We're either angry that the light rail was built or angry that Critical Mass is gumming up traffic or angry that Mayor Parker is doing her level best to put a Band-Aid on the cancer that is becoming Houston's financial situation. This could not be further from the truth. The folks that I meet with (who are, some of the biggest names in the so-called "angry opposition") are for the most part quite happy with their lots in life.
And I'm happy too. I enjoy living in Houston, traffic, potholes, gender neutral restrooms, bad politicians, horrible media and all. I'm glad that there are organizations like Metro that are easily made fun-of, that our local politics are entertaining, that there are groups such as Houston Tomorrow and Tea Party groups that provide almost constant humor and I'm happy that the party bloggers in this town are so consistent. It makes living here entertaining and blogging about the city easy. I have a good job that provides for my family, we spend time taking advantage of the many amenities that are available including the Houston Zoo, Miller Outdoor Theatre, golf year around, the Museum District, good places to eat, drink and generally live a fairly happy life. My only concern is that all of this gets whitewashed away by some wave of gentrification that strips Houston of all that makes her vibrant. In short, I fear world-classiness most of all, not the people behind the movement. For the most part, among the ones I've met, them I actually like.
Yes, the weather is not the best, and yes the traffic sucks, and yes, there are many people in this City who would just as soon spit on you as give you a drink of water. Quite often however I've found those types to be the New Urbanists rather than the luddites who are continually "against progress" or "wanting to hurt the poor" (both not true in most cases*). Were money and access no object are their other places I'd rather live?
Of course. Pamplona, Spain for one, Northern Italy for another, in America probably Las Vegas and that's about it. Although, if pressed, I'd probably move anywhere in France. (Watch the TV coverage of the Tour de France, you'll understand)
Maybe because I live in the suburbs I don't see the level of hate and threats of physical confrontation that Chron writers seem to experience. I've walked, ridden my bike, driven and rode trains and buses around Houston and I've never had anyone approach me with a tire-iron in hand threatening to beat my brains in because I was walking. And I doubt many people in Houston have either. For the most part we all get along and make our way through life in this City potholes and all. Sure, there might be the quick bleating of a horn or an odd anonymous online comment but, for the most part, the folks in Houston that I've met are pretty amicable, even when we disagree from time to time. Usually on those occasions I've found it best to just agree to disagree, and order another round.
So either the Chron is hiring a special kind of asshole or mountains are being made of molehills in their writer's minds.
Of, possibly, they're just going for page-clicks. If that's the case then they suckered me in. It's just these days, I exclusively take the free route in through their Twitter account.
*Hurting the poor, or evil intentions supported by bad moral arguments are not just the provenance of progressives, new urbanists and the left. If you don't think that Tea Partiers, Republican establishment writers and (admittedly) you and I fall into the trap of false demonization from time to time then you're not being fair. A reminder that this is OK when you're using a person's own words to characterize their position (as can safely be done using the prose of the linked article above, where the author clearly spells out the fact that he is, in fact, a raging asshole with interpersonal communication issues) but is usually bad when you have to project what it is that they're thinking. A few years ago I was constantly making this error when categorizing New Urbanists. I've tried to get better at that just focusing on what they are actually saying instead of what I imagine them to say. Still not perfect, but hopefully getting better.
