Much Ado About Texas: The Wrong Stuff

Lately there's been a lot of chatter, meaningless chatter I should say, about "Texas History" and how to "fix" it. Mainly this is to assuage the guilt of some who are having a difficult time coming to grips with their family's past.

To Whit:

Texas Needs a Re-branding away from racially charged myths. Chris Tomlinson, Chron Austin Bureau.

And.

"Being Better Texans" - Letters from the same people who statistics say can't name their State Rep. Houston Chronicle

Since this topic is seemingly meaningless, OF COURSE I've got some things to say about this. After all, what is a blog good for outside of meaningless banter?

First off, I'm not a Texan.

Sure, I live here (for now) and I spent a large part of my life here (pretty much from 2nd grade on) but I was born in Duncan, Oklahoma, half of my ancestors originated in California (a place I've only visited once) while the others came from various locations in either Texas or Oklahoma.  I've got some roots here, but they're more shallow than Erica Grieder's Twitter feed. (trust me, that's pretty damn shallow. It's top soil)

So, why am I here?

Because I work in the oil and gas industry and this is where the jobs are.

It's not because I have some deep connection with the State. As a matter of fact, I have a closer connection with many other places other than Texas. I live in Houston because of my job. I hold no sense of special Houston pride, nor will I brag about how many generations of a Texan I am. (A childish, silly argument made by childish, silly people)

So now, you know from what perspective I am writing today, what (meaningless) thing do I have to say?

First, I've only ridden a horse two times in my life. I don't own a pair of cowboy boots and I'm not especially fond of modern country music. I consider rodeo season in Houston to be among the worst times to live here.

Yet, I would not want it to go away, because it means a lot to a LOT of people.

To say cowboy culture is "just a small" part of Texas history and to suggest that people should more accurately dress as slave-owners is inflammatory, and wrong.  Texas cowboy history is only a sliver from a "white's-only-need-apply" perspective and ignores the great cultural contributions of the Vaqueros. Ignore them at your peril.

Nor is it fair to suggest that the defenders of the Alamo were just "racists who wanted to kill Mexicans". They were flawed people, just like you and I, fighting to defend their way of life, and hoping to keep their lands. That they were not entirely pure in their motivations in no way places them on the same level as General Santa Ana, one of history's all-time bad rulers.

But this is the problem with trying to shove historical figures into modern norms. Ideas, norms and society change over time. Some would call this "progress" and try to benefit from it politically but ultimately the arc of history does not bend to either liberal or conservative social norms. In fact, the arc of history is not an arc at all, it more closely resembles a scribble.

I will admit to always being amazed by the willingness of the victorious Union to allow Confederate statues and symbols to survive after the War Between the States. The Confederacy lost, yet in many cases have been allowed to craft the narrative of the past as if they were the winners.

In Midland, I went to Robert E. Lee High School who proudly proclaims its mascot to be "Rebels". As a teenager this didn't bother me, as an adult it does not bother me to say I went there. It's a fact, it happened, I had no say in the matter.

That a Texas High School should decide to honor a Virginian General, probably the best General in the War Between the States FWIW, seems an odd choice now, but back then it didn't register, even among the minority students in the school. We were all proud Rebels. (To be perfectly honest, I haven't paid attention to the area in quite some time, so I'm not sure if there's a move to change the name of the school today. To be really honest, I don't care.)

Elsewhere in the State: San Antonio is correct to celebrate the history of the Alamo, and the relatively recent movement to bring more diversity into the story is wise as well.  But Santa Ana should not be lionized. In fact, Houston should do more to emphasize the San Jacinto monument, and the victory at the Battle of San Jacinto that led to Texas becoming first a near-bankrupt Nation-State which was eventually saved from insolvency by the United States of America.

And before you go off judging the Texas Rangers solely because of an Indian Slaughter (which happened, there's no denying that) go read Empire of the Summer Moon to see just how messy, brutal and barbaric that era was, on both sides. Again, history is a scribble, not some great arc toward societal awareness.

The long and short of it is this: If you cannot come to terms with the fact that the City/State/Country in which you reside has, at one time or another, done some pretty vile shit then you're never going to find a place to be happy and content. If you think the only way for modern society to atone for these past sins is for the ancestors of the ruling class to sit splay-legged on the ground while the ancestors of the cattle class walk by and kick them in the groin you're not going to find satisfaction.

Sins of the parents and all of that.

Wailing, gnashing of teeth and calls for societal apologies are not efforts to solve the issues they're efforts to assuage familial guilt. If only our elected rulers will apologize for things of the past I can go about my life without guilt.....until the next historical atrocity is unearthed by some writer trying to make a quick buck.

The best way to 'make-up' for past atrocities is two-fold. First, work hard to ensure that they never happen again. Second, work hard to ensure that everyone has equal access to the rapidly growing wealth-pie that is (or, more accurately was) the American economy. 

Work to ensure that "driving while black" in the wrong neighborhood is no longer a thing, work to end political payola which wall-off certain people from engaging economically, take a deep look not at ensuring everyone pays their "fair-share" (which is a lie we've come to believe) but that everyone gets a "fair shot" at success. Work to ensure immigrant families have a way up from the bottom rung of the economic ladder. In short, try to make present society better.

And stop-trying to paint over history, or (even worse) to white-wash it into things that remove, primarily white folks ideas of what makes them guilty. If our history, warts and all, do not empower and inspire us then they only serve to divide us and bring us down.

Lately we've been listening to the people who try to do the latter more than the former, and we continue to elect to public office narcissists who do nothing but try to obtain power through division.

Maybe it's time we stopped giving our power away to these people? Because if we don't turn this around pretty quickly they're going to have all of it, and then it will be impossible to get it back.

Just a thought.

TLSPM: "If I (and my friends) don't like it it must be cronyism" is a tired saw.

I have to admit to chuckling, just a bit, when I read the latest missive from the Houston Chronicle's business-unfriendly business columnist today.

Buddy System still rules in Austin, and those friends don't come cheap. Chris Tomlinson, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

It's the same-old, tired, Texas Lock-Step Political Media saw:  "If I don't like the bills that passed, and the things they accomplished I'm just going to bemoan special interests and call it a column."  I'm starting to wonder if these are pre-written, or if there is a form column out there somewhere?

Because it's always the same.

That is not to say that crony-capitalism is not alive and well in Texas. Of course it is. In fact, Tomlinson mentions a couple of areas where it's on full display.  Namely, auto sales and the construction industry.  He left out one of the biggest, the liquor distribution con that upholds the "Texas 3-step" to the benefit of a few and the detriment of many, but he's never seemed to really get behind issues such as this anyway.

Of course he's mad that the Texas Railroad Commission wasn't totally revamped, because his friends in certain special interest groups didn't get their way.  An argument could be made however that the voters who elected oil and gas industry-friendly representatives to large majorities in Texas are quite happy with the way things are going at the RRC right now.

The name change to the Texas Energy Commission seems like an expensive waste of time, and the proposals that Sierra Club and others are making are not to protect the environment, they're designed to cripple and industry that is one of the largest employers in the State.  People rarely vote to be unemployed. regardless of whether or not their industry makes political donations.

Yes, it would have been nice to see some real tax reform come from the Lege this year, but not of the type Tomlinson is asking for (which involves huge tax increases on everyone in case you're wondering) and it also would have been nice to see something done about roads.  Texas is currently solving it's problems via the toll road option, an option for which I'm not entirely opposed.

Education spending is a tougher hill to climb. In large part this is because our schools are doing a horrible job in regards to wise spending. It's tough to cry poor when many districts are still spending hundreds of Millions of dollars on football stadiums, or when it's reported that the administration growth outpaces teacher growth.  Also when centralized administrative staff is averaging twice the salary of teachers. In short, we have too many administrative staff on the payroll making too much per year.

Speaking of cronyism, isn't that what happens when the Texas Municipal League advocates against property tax reform? Yet the TLSPM does not treat it as so despite the fact that you have an organization seeking to protect its bottom line at the expense of consumers. The only difference being that Tomlinson and his ilk like to attend cocktail parties with elected officials, they don't get invited to the cocktail parties thrown by CEO's and the like.

Almost every bill is going to have winners and losers, and quite often the winners will donate money to politicians to ensure they stay in the W column. This is not cronyism as much as it is politics today, especially at the State and Local level where the ordinary citizen does not pay much attention to the goings-on.

I would say that it would help if columnists stopped being lazy by using the non-magical version of Rita Skeeter's auto-quote quill, but it wouldn't.  Because most people aren't paying attention anyway. Increasingly, they're just tuning out the newspapers and finding other things to do.

It's, partially, the newspaper's fault because they failed to adapt to changing times. It's also partially our fault because we haven't been paying attention. We get the government we deserve.

Blaming cronyism doesn't change that central fact, but it probably makes for quicker column writing, which allows for a writer spending more time in leisure activity.

Texas Leadership Vacuum: About that Abbott/Trump U mess. #TLSPM

Five years ago (5), then Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott declined to push a case against Trump U, who agreed to leave the State.  Shortly after that Trump made some donations totaling $35K to the Abbott campaign, one of the only Republicans he donated to in that cycle.

We know this, because the AP had a paragraph mentioning it in a broader story about the failed real estate training program.

Trump University Model: Sell Hard, Demand to see a warrant. Jeff Horwitz and Michael Biesecker, AP.com

Besides the probe that led to Attorney General Schneiderman's suit in New York, the office of then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, opened a civil investigation of "possibly deceptive trade practices." Abbott's probe was quietly dropped in 2010 when Trump University agreed to end its operations in Texas. Trump subsequently donated $35,000 to Abbott's successful gubernatorial campaign, according to records.

It is important to note that we did not hear about this due to the diligent reporting of the Texas Lock-Step Political Media.  Oh sure, NOW they're reporting it (frequently classifying it as "BREAKING!" news hilariously) but during the time, and even in the run-up to the last election, it apparently wasn't a priority for the TLSPM.  Now however, all over it. Like. A. Rash.

This shouldn't surprise you much, because the story and, more importantly, the manner in which it's been reported, says as much about the TLSPM than it does about Abbott himself.

For one, the idea that there is a group of reporters in Austin furiously beating the bushes in Austin, looking to uncover nefarious dealings under the Pink Dome is both a romanticized myth, and a lie. In fact, you have a small (and getting smaller) group of cub reporters whose main job is attending press conferences and speaking with Democratic Opposition Research teams, and advocacy groups, in order to be fed stories.

What this story really suggests is that the Oppo research team for then-Democratic Superwoman Wendy(?!?) Davis was not necessarily all that robust. Neither were the teams for Abbott's primary opponents. (To be fair however, the field did pretty much clear out of him)  Despite this, you would have thought that some Republican with aspirations to be Governor might have uncovered what is basically a public record events and "connected the dots" as reporters like to say.

Secondly this rolls back the classic lie that "reading a daily newspaper is the only way to be informed".  No, it's really not. In fact, given the rather miserable state of news-gathering organizations these days I'd say reading a newspaper has fallen in importance to reading a gossip rag. Today most, if not all, stories are force fed to a group of reporters who have become lazy and over-reliant on institutional sources.  If you're not getting your news from a variety of sources, you're really missing out.

Third, it's high-time we all come to the conclusion that all politicians, even the ones that we choose to like, are at their core political animals who would strongly consider sub-letting their children for a six figure donation, IF they thought the public wouldn't find out about it that is. In the corporate world "office politics" is a bad thing. In politics they are the rules of the game.  We put people in a position where we hold them up to be experts on everything, and then act surprised when they sub-let their expertise to people who are willing to give them money to listen to it.

I for one am shocked, SHOCKED! to discover that there is gambling at this establishment. But we shouldn't be, and we shouldn't be surprised that the TLSPM IS shocked because it's pretty clear that they've been taking part in it for a while now.

TLSPM: Happy fictions from a "certain type" of Texas Loyalist.

It's tough when the rest of your home state isn't as enlightened as you.....

Why Texas is Deep In My Heart. Mimi Swartz, New York Times.

Still, these are the kinds of events that cause people from places like Massachusetts, Manhattan and California, not to mention England, France and Sweden, to ask us: "How can you stand to live in Texas?" Their tone usually suggests that any explanation that doesn't involve our incarceration here is indefensible.

I call bullshit.

Because over the past several years I've traveled all over this pebble, have met many people of all political stripes, have shared beers with them, dined with them had laughs and some fairly decent rows over Arsenal and which fooball league is better.

Not once have had EVER had anyone ask me "How can you stand to live in Texas?"  In fact, this is pretty much how the conversation goes....

Not-From-Texas Person: "So, where are you from?"

Me: "Houston, Texas"

Not-From-Texas Person: "Oh, OK, so how's the weather there now? Hot?"

Me: "Oh yeah, and humid." 

(Back to discussing whatever we were discussing)

And that's it.

My argument would be that if you're hanging out with the type of people who would ask "How can you stand to live in Texas?" then the problem is that you're choosing to hang out with some pretty pathetic people.

It's not Texas, it's you. (and your choice of dinner companions.)  Or, viewed from another angle, why do you let this get under your skin in such a manner anyway?

Yes, it's true, Texas has had some colorful, potentially lawbreaking, elected officials come down the pipe lately. Some have been bat-shit crazy, some incompetent and some, as in the case of Miller, more of a clown show than anything else. But, are the actions of any of them worse than those of Rahm Emanuel?  Are the actions of  Paxton worse than those of Anthony Weiner?  Did the Beacon Hill scandals cause people to ask "How can you stand to live in Massachusetts?" (Want to go International? Look up the history of political scandals in the United Kingdom France and Sweden. Or, better yet, how about the Panama Papers for some additional light reading?  The fact is political scandal is not held by Texas as a monopoly. Neither are mass runs to the fainting couches by left-wing elites, but Texas seems to be a leader when it comes to that.

But why?

Because there's very little effect that any of this is going to have on the day to day life of the Caucasian Statist/Progressive. Sid Miller providing "amnesty" to cupcakes isn't going to cause much of a stir in River Oaks, because the gourmet cupcake industry was over (in the rest of the country) about two to three years ago. There's a show on Food Network for Chrissakes so you know that it's done and dusted as a culinary movement. So what if a GOP candidate thinks that Obama was a gay prostitute when he was younger? Most progressives think that Dick Cheney eats little children. Again, does it personally impact your life?

As a matter of fact, given the anger and generally unpleasant disposition of Caucasian progressives of a certain age I think you'd be happy that there are Republicans here doing things of which you can disapprove vocally. Makes it all the easier to partake in that most progressive tradition of cognitive dissonance.

In fact, as with most of the "real life" experiences that come from the Texas Lock-Step Political Media these days I'd be surprised if anyone were actually asking the questions the author is attempting (poorly) to answer here. This is shame-porn for those whose ideas aren't winning over a healthy slice of the electorate in a state that's doing pretty well financially. A fairly weak attempt to explain why you have lost to a group of people who have effectively insulated themselves from the deleterious effects of their policy on those less-fortunate than them.

None of this is to suggest that the actions by Sid Miller, Ken Paxton or Mary Lou Bruner (of Mineola) deserve to be defended, nor should the inability of the State GOP to stop any of them from winning the nomination and, at least in two cases, being elected to the offices themselves be downplayed. If the parties have a primary job, it's recruiting and advancing qualified candidates to the ballot for voters to then make an informed choice. Ideally speaking that is. The rest is just logistics and glad-handing.

The Texas GOP is just as, if not more, delinquent in its duties than is the National GOP. It's just another example of a party that is no longer serving much purpose other than to prop up party loyalists and the lampreys that are surviving off of the carcass. Something that should provide hope to Texas Democrats, were that their party was functional at all.

The mistake being made by the TLSPM is assuming that people in Texas, overall, want change. And that by attempting to shame them into it they can help craft a better State for which they can then sit on the veranda (Patio is soooo 90's) and sip bottomless mimosas while the poor and destitute line up (out of eyesight of course) to receive a seemingly never-ending supply of taxpayer largesse, paid for by those one-step higher on the income ladder.

"How can you stand to live in Texas?"

One way is by not making up shit answers to problems that don't have much bearing on our day-to-day lives.  The other is by choosing not to give a damn where people who live in states where the economy is suffering, the cities are crumbling and the politicians seem hell-bent on making it worse, think.

 

 

Texas Lock-Step Political Media: Continued Reporting on Something Trivial won't make People Care. Also #PostGOP

You have to hand it to the TLSPM, when they think something should be an issue they will doggedly try and beat you over the head with it until you care:

Protesters call on Cornyn to "Do his job." Kelsey Bradshaw, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

About three dozen protesters demonstrating outside his Austin office Monday called on U.S. Sen. John Cornyn to "do his job" and at least meet with Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland.

Houston NAACP: No Supreme Court Justice, No Peace. Florian Martin, HoustonPublicMedia

Most of the about 20 protesters were with the Houston branch of the NAACP, which organized the rally. Also there were Harris County AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Richard Shaw and HISD board member Jolanda Jones.

Those participation numbers are just sad. And while I realize it's important, to the Democrats, to have Mr. Garland nominated (Note to the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board, it's Mr. Garland NOT Mr. Merrick, as you seem to have trouble figuring out) and flip the Supreme Court. As such, they're pretty much rounding up the advocates that have nothing else better to do and sending them out to dutifully protest.  Credit to the Houston NAACP however, because 'No Justice, No Peace' is a better chant than 'do his job'.

Some of it, of course, is due to a relatively slow news cycle in Texas.  The Lege is not in session, there's not a whole lot going on and this is forcing the TLSPM to fixate on progressive outrage over so-called Jesus shots and anyone ever known by Attorney General Ken Paxton and anything they might ever do wrong.

The hope, of course, is that a much more progressive candidate will win in the next election and take their place, ushering in a new, enlightened Texas that the cub reporters working for various Texas media outlets no-longer are ashamed of.  In their eyes, Texas needs an Agricultural Commissioner whose main focus is combating climate-change, and restricting certain foods that they don't like to eat from the dinner table of others. Texas needs an Attorney General who will go after people making a profit, take it from them, and redistribute it to those who can't. If that new Attorney General would be willing to conveniently ignore the rule of law when it gets in the way of social progress that would be great as well.

Of course, none of this suggests that Mssrs. Miller and Paxton are particularly good at their respective jobs. Miller is a social-conservative operating a bureaucracy that has nothing to do with social issues, Paxton is a serving Attorney General under indictment for securities fraud. If the GOP had been paying attention, they would have put stronger candidates against them in the first place, not let them run against relatively weak competition. (Despite what the TLSPM tells you, neither Miller or Paxton were opposed by political heavyweights, although their opponents both would have been better than them.)

The job for what is the rapidly shrinking sane branch of what's left of the GOP is to put up strong primary contenders against both of them and then hit them hard on their record.  Will this be enough to sway the social-issues, nativist, and somewhat sizable, Trump-faction of the Texas GOP*? I have my doubts.

Ironically, the TLSPM is aiding and abetting both Miller and Paxton by continuing to report on these issues, and they're probably hurting Mr. Garland's chances (not that he had many to begin with) by continuing to act like these tiny micro-protests matter.

If there's one thing that the social-GOP voter hates more than a RINO (An increasingly meaningless term which really is code for "any Republican who the conservative media complex tells me not to like) it's the "liberal media".  Every hit on Miller and Paxton just endear them more to the social-GOP base. It's like Trumpism at the State level. Every attack is verification that the candidate is onto something that the so-called establishment (Another meaningless political term, many anyone who is not just like me) doesn't like and therefore is something that should be supported.

At the National level this gives us Trump, who has parlayed some anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and (to be honest) misogynist talk into a National lead for the GOP Presidential nomination. At the State level it's given us Paxton and Miller, two elected officials currently serving in positions that they should be allowed nowhere near. To the detriment of not only intelligent political discourse but the GOP Party as a viable movement going forward.

In our two-party system if you don't think that having one party become dysfunctional is a bad thing then you haven't been paying attention to either California or Texas the past few years. Whatever it is that ultimately replaces the GOP, or (more likely) reforms it, had better be a movement rooted in limited Government or rule of law or we're going to be looking down the barrel of more elected officials such as Trump, Paxton, Miller, Jackson-Lee, Rahm Emmanuel and Al Franken. Our political system is going to become nothing more than a bloated, corrupt, comedy act.

If it's not already.








































*I've a feeling that, minus Cruz, Trump would have won Texas pretty much going away and would be the undisputed presumptive nominee by now.

Texas Lock-Step Political Media: Can you imagine.....

Quorum Report (of whom I'm not a subscriber) did another hit-piece on Conservative donors and the TLSPM is dutifully playing along.

Tea Party Billionaires Pushing to Make Over Legislature. David Saleh Rauf, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

I realize that there are still many who don't believe that legacy media has anti-conservative bias. You know the type, those people who lock-on to every story that is even slightly negative toward a Democrat, or positive toward a Republican and says "HA! SEE!"  You know them as low-functional idiots mostly.

Because the bias in the media doesn't lie along party lines, it never did. It's ideological bias.  Think about this.  The Chron has done several stories about Liberal donor Steve Mostyn. In all of those stories he's seen as the scrappy underdog fighting the good fight.  The Wilks?  Or, even worse, the Evil Koch brothers?  Ripping at the very heart of our democracy.

And Texas House Speaker Straus is ALWAYS portrayed as the "Adult in the room" despite the fact that, oft times, his responses to critics are extremely juvenile.

Unlike many I'm not overly concerned by this bias. But I understand that it's there, it's a real thing, and it slants the media's political coverage greatly. My only wish is that they would admit to, and disclose it openly.

It's OK that the Houston Chronicle is a left-leaning publication. That they are not in support of most conservative ideals. We all know that the Chron is pro-higher taxes, anti-2nd Amendment and even anti-1st Amendment when it comes to the free speech rights of private citizens (The Chron clearly believes that free speech protections should only be extended to members of State-approved media). We also know that the Chronicle prefers to see huge government intervention in the private economy, are against Christian groups engaging the the political process, are for abortion on demand with no restrictions, taxpayer subsidized birth control and forced equality through the jailing of the non-compliant if necessary.

This has been established, but still they fall behind the "neither right nor left" fallacy.

How much better they would be if they just owned up to it.  They would go from a place with hackneyed political opinion to a journal of leftist thought almost overnight. We would then understand the viewpoint from which their opinion sprang and could take that into consideration. Some would accept it without question, some would reject it by rote, and some might even use it as a point in their consideration.

Instead we're given the lie of the neutrality of the media.  Can you imagine if we dropped the charade?

Texas Lock-Step Political Media: How can we miss Wendy(?!?) if she won't go away?

You will be made to care.

Wendy(?!?) Endorses Clinton for President. Patrick Svitek, Texas Tribune

"I hope that that opportunity (to run for office) presents itself to me again because I loved being in public service and I loved fighting for the things I was fighting for, " Davis told reporters Wednesday. "It may or may not happen in my future. If it doesn't, I'm going to keep my voice out there. I'm going to continue to work to make sure we're electing people that represent the values that I and so many others in this state hold dear."

I'm willing to bet that State Republicans hope the opportunity presents itself as well. Davis was a horrible candidate who ran primarily on a single issue (the so-called "war on women") and seemed clueless regarding almost everything else. Her flip on gun ownership was damaging, as was her seeming lack of understanding of the State budget process and other nuts and bolts items pertaining to the Governorship.

But, she wore pink tennis shoes and the TLSPM really, REALLY liked her. Almost to the point of hero worship.

At minimum, what they're doing here is an attempt at image repair, with hers being damaged horribly during the thrashing by Abbott. So far we've seen the Houston Chronicle's Peggy Fikac carry a lot of the water trying to repair the image of her friend (and coffee buddy one supposes) while also working to help Battleground Texas emerge from the ashes of electoral destruction so it only makes sense that the TLSPM is well...marching in lockstep.

There are three main factors explaining why you are starting to hear more about Wendy(?!?) lately.

1. Ideologically speaking, she's where the TLSPM thinks Texas should be. - You can go far with the TLSPM and Texas Democrats by supporting three issues. Throwing gobs of money at education, abortion on demand and GLBTPIS rights. Never mind that there are no serious plans for paying for all of this, or that the citizens of Texas have indicated that, while they are sympathetic to the problem (excepting abortion) they aren't willing to absorb the large tax increases needed to reach Textopia.

2. The Austin-centric TLSPM likes Wendy(?!?) on a personal level. - Sure, they won't admit it, but the tone of the writing during the run-up to the election was borderline hero-worship, after the defeat it read as if we were witnessing a wake. In reality, the TLSPM is a courtier class who greatly aspire to be members of the Royal court. The Royals being those who, in their minds, would dole out the most political favors (and hold the best parties).

3. It's been long enough. - In local and state politics, the voters have a much shorter memory for disastrous failure than they do on a national level. The feeling is now, from the TLSPM, that Wendy(?!?) the "bad candidate" will have largely been forgotten and the new Wendy(!!!) pulled from the ash-heap that was the election, given a new set of pink tennis shoes and recast as the plucky underdog "fighting" against the evil, male-dominated, establishment, is a winning look.


It's possible that the TLSPM is correct on this, and that a positive media onslaught will be sufficient to keep Wendy(!!!) in the public eye rather than Wendy(?!?). What's not going to change is the truth that she is a sub-par politician. Any politician who describes what they do as "fighting" is rhetorically challenged, places too much importance on what they do, and uses martyr language to try and overstate their importance and stir up low-information voters. It also means that they have an outsized ego, a need to be in the public eye, in a position of power, telling others what to do while the little people (Or the TLSPM) tell them just how important they really are.

It's simple.  A politician who "works" for the people is using staff-level language. A politician who is "fighting" feels that society would crumble without their efforts. Unfortunately, the nature of politics attracts "fighters" to the fold like moths to a flame. It takes an ego and a large disdain for the little people to run for office.  From that perspective the TLSPM is correct. Wendy(!!!) is back.

Texas Leadership Vacuum: How many Flags Over Texas Again?

As the country attempts to unwind itself over the horrible killings that took place in a South Carolina church Texas is attempting, staggeringly, to find its way in this brave new world.


Texas Lawmakers ask Gov. Abbott to establish a task force on Confederate Monuments. Lauren McGaughy, Chron.com

Five prominent state lawmakers are asking Gov. Greg Abbott to convene a task force to decide whether to alter or remove any of the many Confederate memorials and monuments on the Capitol grounds in Austin.

In a letter to Abbott sent Monday, the five Democrats asked that the task force consider "whether the monuments are historically accurate, whether they are appropriately located on the Capitol grounds, and whether any changes are needed."
The letter was signed by Sen. Rodney Ellis, Reps. Senfronia Thompson and Sylvester Turner, all three of Houston, Sen. Royce West of Dallas and Sen. Judith Zaffirini of Laredo.

I'm currently a little bit concerned that the washing away entirely of Confederate history is nothing more than an attempt to throw things down the memory hole. As I've stated before, the public use of the Battle Flag of the Tennessee regiment should never be condoned.  This was a flag of aggression against the United States and (to be factual) really had no influence on Texas at the time.

What the "Starts and Bars" is NOT, is the Flag of the Confederacy.

Removing the Confederate Flag, image found here. is of cultural import to Texas, as it was, and forever will be, one of the "six" National flags that flew over Texas throughout it's history.  Here's the problem, if you begin to whittle away at history because you don't like it then you might not like what you'll find.

The Six, Five, Four, Three, Two One Flag over Texas.

The Flag of the Confederate States of America - Clearly, this one poses a problem because of the slavery and active rebellion against the current nation issues.  It also flew over Texas for a (relatively) limited period of time.  If any of the Big Six had to go this would be the obvious choice because 1) they lost the War between the States and 2) It offends some.

The Flag of Spain  - Who doesn't like Spain?  I mean, it's one of my favorite countries to visit. However, the Spanish ceded Texas to France. The Spanish also gave us Alberto Contador, who was Lance Armstrong's chief rival at the end of the latter's competitive racing days.  Also, what the Conquistadors did why they were conquering the New World was genocide right?  Gone.

The Flag of France - It's France.  And Texas is not only bigger than France but they have better food, tourism and culture than does Houston.  Now, you understand with Houston that any slight generates a raging inferiority complex among both the FoodBorg and members of the Texas Media. Besides, the Spanish defeated the French at the Battle of the Fort of LaSalle (Imagine that) and, as we've demonstrated with the flag of the Confederate States we don't want the flag of a loser flying over us do we?

The Flag of the Republic of Texas - This one seems like a no-brainer, I mean, it's the current flag of the State of Texas and the same flag when it was (briefly) the Republic of Texas. The problems here are two-fold. 1. The Republic of Texas was a near-broke, deep in debt dysfunctional mess. Almost from it's inception it seemed to have no clue what to do with freedom other than pleading to the United States for inclusion. Once it became a State it wasn't long before hot-heads booted out Sam Houston and made a dash for the Confederacy.  2. This flag offends, to a great degree, our friends from Mexico who have moved here and are now making a life.  One only need look at the outrage when the (now) Houston Dynamo briefly considered naming themselves Houston 1836 to see that the Lone Star flag is also an image of oppression and (in some eyes) theft of land rightfully belonging to others.

The Flag of the United States of America - As odd as it sounds, it's sort of hard to find anyone in Texas today that this flag doesn't offend.  The Black community is offended by slavery, the Mexican and South American communities are offended by America's overreach into their respective countries affairs, the Tea Party is now offended by Washington DC, and the progressives are offended that we have not fully transformed into a worker's paradise. As a matter of fact, if the goal is to NOT offend, maybe this should be the first flag to get removed from any and all historical monuments?


This leaves us with just one flag, a great flag of historic importance to Texas, New Mexico, parts of Arizona and California.  That's right.......


The Flag of Mexico - I can't really see anyone that this offends.  Except for Caucasian conservatives and they're the only group remaining that you can offend without facing any fear of repercussion. There's no history (in America at least) of dark skinned people being oppressed by the Mexican government, a growing minority-majority group of people were either born, or have direct ties to, there. Most of the Rio Grande Valley operates as an extension of the country anyway, and their drug cartels have pretty much overtaken the gray and black markets.  As time goes on this will only become more prevalent as the Texas Legislature continues to bury it's head in the sand regarding demographic realities (and the need to address the same in a manner that allows immigrants to incorporate themselves into the non-underground economy and civil society).


So after giving around 5 minutes thought, I think the only option is to strike out all mention of five of the six flags that flew over Texas and only celebrate the one left standing.  Hail! then to the One Flag Over Texas*. The Mexican Flag.  Long may it wave.









*Of course, these means that there is going to have to be a lot of revisions done in terms of history, textbooks and local yore, but anything is possible if you only dream big enough and refuse to take no for an answer when it comes to the politically correct revision of history. Oh, and there remains that little matter of changing the name of a certain theme park.  But I'm sure they'd be willing to part ways with their moniker if the tax abatements were large enough.  Maybe, tax free for 20 years?

Just a thought.

Texas Lock Step Political Media: "Ken Paxton is VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION!"

A recipe for stirring up a controversy.


1. Find a controversial Supreme Court ruling

2. Wait until a prominent Texas elected official weighs in on the matter

3. Misconstrue the actual opinion and report that said elected official is "defying the American Government!"

4. Watch the National Talking heads take this incorrect reporting and run with it.

5. Double down by running partisan opinion pieces further misconstruing the argument.

6. Frame all pieces contrary to this meme in a "yeah,but" manner


When you see something that's as poorly reported as this issue has been, if you're a thinking person it should make you question why you believe the opinions and proclivities of reporters and their editors on much of anything.

In fact, Ken Paxton did NOT state that Texas could "defy" the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage at all. What he did say was that in cases where a County has someone certified and on staff willing to issue marriage licenses to all, then a conscientious objector may choose to opt out of their duties in doing so and be reassigned if necessary.  In counties where there is no other option, a person still has the option to object but they should be ready to face personal, legal proceedings but that the State will not play a role in their defense. Instead, Paxton reminded objectors that there were pro-bono lawyers available who would plea their case for them.

We've seen this play out on a smaller scale in Mississippi where a clerk resigned her position rather than perform an action that ran counter to her religious beliefs.  What Paxton's opinion stated was that, if there is another member of staff to fill the roles, that person would have, in Texas, retained employment albeit in a different role.

It's reaction to items such as this that highlights the big lie that has been the crux of the GLBT argument until this point.  In the famous "pizza parlor" case, we were told that the GLBT lobby wasn't out to ruin lives if you disagreed with them, they just wanted equal access and protection.

Now that they have that, they're moving forward to the next phase of the plan which is to have all religious objectors fired, their personal items burned and the ground salted in the wake.  As a good friend of mine says frequently "You will be made to care."

One of the problems that we're now witnessing is that, in almost all cases, those who are perpetually offended always have to have another issue to point to as causing offense.  It's not enough that equality has been granted, people have to believe in their hearts and minds that the victors are correct. If they don't, they should be mocked and ridiculed and driven from public (and private) life to live as a pariah among their peers.  Perhaps be should consider a "S" mark in black to be worn at all times signifying "straight"?

It's possible that, as a straight, Caucasian Christian male firmly rooted in what is considered to be the "historic ruling majority" that I can't work-up sufficient dander over people believing differently than I to a point that I want them to lose their jobs and their lives be ruined.  Or, it's possible that I can't work up this kind of dander because I believe in the right of everyone to disagree with me?

It's also possible that the media is choosing to report on Paxton this way because they are a part of some vast Leftist conspiracy to run the Republicans in Texas out on a rail.  Or, it's possible that they are reporting this way because they have it out for Ken Paxton?

While their might be a smidgeon of truth in both of those the more likely scenario is that they are reporting this issue this way because that's what they've been told to report by the people in Austin to whom they listen.  When they attend happy-hours and dinner socials all of the talk is about Big Bad Ken coming down on 'teh' gays and trying to subvert the will of 'Merica.

Today's media lives in an echo chamber and they are more likely to suffer from cognitive dissonance then even a conservative political blogger who works at an oil and gas company. (Hi!) The problem is that they are also less likely to understand conservative positions on issues because they rarely, if ever, talk about them with non-politicians. It's this way of thinking that results in the Tea Party becoming a cast of nutters, that pulls reporting on issues into the land of the absurd, and which dumbs down political discourse in a State which is in desperate need of it.

You may have read this and thought "good" that anyone who religiously objects doesn't deserve to be given a microphone in the public square.  You may equate them to racists, thieves and child molesters for all I know.

You would be wrong. It is vitally important that Texas, and the United States of America for that matter, continue to allow and encourage the free exchange of ideas, no matter how those ideas may personally offend.

Because free speech IS, by definition, offensive.  If you're not offended, then you're not really paying attention.

Texas Leadership Vacuum: The Texas Supreme Court rules against open government.

With all of the hype and noise surrounding Obergefell v. Hodges and King vs. Burwell over the weekend you could be forgiven for missing this decision from the Texas Supreme Court:

Texas Supreme Court limits open government law, GHP can keep books closed. Mark Collette, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday limited the public's right to know about private groups that get government funds.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court sided with the Greater Houston Partnership, agreeing that GHP doesn't have to open its check registers even though it received funds from the city of Houston and other local governments worth about $1 million per year.

This is a bad decision for Texans in terms of government accountability and transparency. Unfortunately it was decided during a time where all of the oxygen is being sucked out of the news cycle by other forces.

Perhaps someday this will be given a full review and treatment by Texas Lock-Step Political Media, but don't hold your breath.  In many cases the people writing the articles are friends with the defendants in the case and have no interest in seeing any kind of review of these pseudo-government agencies.

That's too bad.

Texas Lock-Step Political Media: Nevermind that it wasn't working.

Shock and outrage from "children's health advocates" yesterday as Ag Commissioner Sid Miller lifted the State-wide ban on schools having deep-fat fryers and selling sodas.

Agriculture Commissioner rolls back ban on deep fryers, soda sales. Liz Crampton, The Texas Tribune.

Critics have argued that Miller's push is a step backward for childhood nutrition. In 2013, 16 percent of high school students in Texas were obese, up from 14 percent in 2005. Only Arkansas, Kentucky and Alabama reported higher rates. Nationwide, child obesity rates have jumped from 7 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 2012.

Citing Local Control, ag commish ends ban on fryers, soda in schools. Brian M. Rosenthal, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

(The Chron doesn't want you to read this, hiding it behind their increasingly expensive paywall. In deference to that I am only quoting selectively and encourage you (if you can) to go and read the entire piece.)

The American Heart Association said in a statement that the changes would "roll back years of progress in the work to reduce childhood obesity."

                

The epidemic has emerged as a major health problem in Texas, which ranked fourth highest in America in obesity among high school students in 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The state's rate that year was 16 percent, up from 14 percent in 2003, according to the national organization. 

Texas Ag Commissioner Sid Miller drops deep fried food ban in schools. Julie Chang, Austin American Statesman ($$$)

(As with the Chron, the Austin American-Statesman would prefer that you NOT read their journalism. I will respect their wishes by only selectively quoting here and encouraging you to go read the full article if you can)

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller announced Thursday that he is lifting a public-school ban on the use of deep-fat fryers and the sale of sodas. He said his decision returns control to school districts, which were required more than a decade ago to get rid of such types of foods. (Emphasis Added)

 And so it goes.

It should be noted, and at least one of the articles states, that this change in State policy is likely to not change much. It's doubtful that many districts, under pressure from parents, will change existing policy.

Nor, looking at the data, does it appear that any schools who decide to bring back in fat-fryers and sodas will see much of an effect anyway.  It's important to note that, from 2005 to 2013 (when the ban was in effect) the child obesity rate in Texas rose 2 percentage points and our State ranking (in comparison with other states) rose as well. According to this analysis Texas childhood obesity rates didn't move at ALL between 2003 and 2011. Furthermore, Texas Children STILL outrank the National Average for obesity rates despite this "ban" being in place for over a decade.

A person using reason, would be right in concluding that the ban is not having the desired effect.

However, the Texas media isn't using reason. In whole their reporting is driven by two things. 1. Anecdotal anger driven by advocacy groups whose goal is not, in whole, to reduce childhood obesity but to control and limit what the poor and obese eat and 2. A genuine dislike of Sid Miller, who has not given them the deference they feel they deserve either in the campaign or while in office.

The TLSPM framing of Mr. Miller has always been that he's a buffoon who has no business being in the position. This is not changing here nor is it likely to change. In many cases, the TLSPM endorsements skewed wildly toward Jim Hogan who not only did not actively campaign for the job, but who had no political experience or (seemingly) inclination to hold the job.  If history tells us anything, the TLSPM is unlikely to admit that there were (ever) wrong about either a candidate, or an election, and will continue to double down on the negative coverage until a replacement (hopefully someone with a big Statist inclination) if found.

Until this happens Texas citizens can continue to expect a host of lock-step reporting that overblows tempests in teapots like you are seeing here.  This is a policy change that will have almost zero impact, yet it's being treated as if Sid Miller is attempting to force-feed children fried food and mandate soda IVs during school hours.

Obviously, that's not the case, but realizing that means that you also have to realize that the TLSPM is not about reporting the news more than they are forwarding an agenda and (most importantly) generating page views.

TLSPM: Of Jade Helm 15, Abbott and measured responses.

Fresh off being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary, the Chron's Lisa Falkenberg aims her keyboard at Governor Greg Abbott and his response to Jade Helm 15....

Abbott fans the flames of radical paranoia. Lisa Falkenberg, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

After reading Ms. Pulitzer's piece my thoughts are....."meh". While I'm not on board with Mr. Abbott's 'response' to the issue I do understand while some people (not all of them 'radicals') might take issue with special forces training occurring in Texas given the current administration's negative view toward the State*.

Does this mean that I think Obama is laying secret plans to take over the State after voiding the next election and naming himself President for Life?  Nope. However, I don't think monitoring by the State military is going to amount to much either.

A better response would have been to remind everyone that this is Jade Helm 15. Which indicates that Jade Helm 1-14 were conducted without the Feds running over the civil liberties of those being "invaded". From that perspective, I think Abbott got some bad advice and may have overreacted just a bit.

It's disappointing, but it's hardly the end of the world or a sign that the Governor is somehow stirring up the radicals and turning Texas into a dry powder-keg of revolution just looking for a spark. If anything, the TLSPM 'response' to the so-called radical actions by Abbott are just as radical in that they drip with a sense of partisan rage. What Falkenberg, and other members of the TLSPM are doing is something that you would expect to come almost exclusively from the pub-shop of the Texas Democratic Party.

Given that the TDP currently is in a state of disarray, maybe they should count their lucky stars that, on this issue, the TLSPM is basically doing their job pro bono?  In Falkenberg's case, she's ALWAYS been prone to overstate and feign incredulousness when trying to make her point. Her sense of outrage is always paired with a disbelief that anyone might, possibly, take a look at the world in a manner different then she does. It's beyond her abilities to grasp that people make decisions on issues taking into account a wide variety of inputs not limited to being a 'sixth-generation Texan' or having 'red hair'.

Texas could have had, deserved actually, a reasoned reaction to these events that didn't involve trying to work everyone into a lather. Sadly, it doesn't feel like there's anyone currently in the TLSPM that's really up to the job.

Just another reason that newspapers would do better refraining, for the most part, from political commentary and focus instead on reporting the facts in a full and transparent manner.  Better reporting on Jade Helm 15, and the Governor's response to it, would have been far more productive than sitting down in front of a keyboard and spleen-venting.

Of course, it's the spleen-venting that the bosses feel attract page-views so unfortunately you can expect to see even more of this going forward.  In the end it's Texas, not the Governor, who lose out.





























































*On that note, whenever you see someone in the comments section say that they "used to vote Republican" but are now sick of the party you can pretty much bet that they never voted Republican and have always been sick of the party.  Real Republicans, while they might disagree with some of the Tea Party groups, are not bolting the party en masse due to some sense of shame. That's a lie that's being propped up by the Democratic Party in an attempt to over-emphasize the far-right element of Republicans while trying to deny that they themselves moved far-left a long time ago.

Newsish: The Texas Tribune Blurs the Line (TLSPM)

A funny thing.  When you navigate to The Texas Tribune you're greeted by a pop-up advertisement that leads you to Texas Wins a pro-LGBT advocacy group. One assumes they paid for the right to advertise on the site.

Unusually, the top story on Texas Tribune is a very LGBT-friendly piece on so-called 'gay conversion' therapy.
Here's an example of some of the prose:

The suicide of a 17-year-old Ohio transgender girl whose parents sent her to a therapist to "convert" her has refocused national attention on so-called gay conversion therapy. But despite calls to end it from President Obama, gay rights groups and medical associations, the controversial practice isn't likely to face a statewide ban in Texas. 

I say unusually because this is not what I would call a "hot-button" issue when you take into account the bill the article is referring to is still mired in committee and unlikely to get out. Given that this is fairly low on the Lege's radar it's curious that it's receiving much space at all.

Whether or not you're a supporter of reparative therapy (I'm not FWIW) both the tone of this article and the language on the two other articles relating to LGBT issues  are decidedly pro-LGBT and anti-the opposition. Also the last linked article appears to refer to a rally in which Texas Wins seems to have participated (or even ran, sponsored and organized) but the doesn't note who the organizers were, OR that Texas Wins, an advocacy group who advertises their membership includes religious leaders, and that they advertise for LBGT rights, anywhere in the story. Regardless of your position on LGBT rights this should concern you as a consumer of media because it appears that the Tribune's coverage on the issue is tainted at best, slanted at worst, diminished in credibility either way.

Even more concerning is that most of the Tribune's advertising appears to be advocacy based including this ad from Parkland Hospital discussing their unpaid medical care while articles about Medicaid expansion have no mention that there are groups actively advocating for expansion who advertise on their site.  So this is a systemic problem for the Tribune then, not just something related to a single issue.

All news reporting organizations who wish to remain a going concern basically receive revenue from one of three sources, sales of the product (newspaper, magazine etc.), donations (for non-profits) and advertising revenue.  It is a necessity that any donors or advertisers who are related to a particular story be specifically and fully identified in the same way it's key that their product (if for sale*)be labeled with a price. It's OK for a news organization to have an editorial point of view, in fact, overseas it's understood that they do and it's fully disclosed what that point of view is. In America however the media is a true believer in a neutrality that doesn't exist, and the Texas Tribune is one of the biggest apostles of this fallacy.

The thing is, it's very clear, in their wording and who they select as experts to provide quotes, which way the Texas Tribune is leaning on any particular issue. It's no secret then that the web-site is pro LGBT rights, pro-increasing state funding for infrastructure, and pro-Medicare expansion. What's not clear is that these are advocacy positions adopted by Tribune advertisers, featured prominently in banner ads. These advertisers are not disclosed at all in the stories themselves.

Not only does this do a disservice to the readers but it opens up the Tribune to questions of journalistic intent that is not really fair to the reporters and editors. Minus official Tribune disclosure and policy it might seem as if the opinions come from those who wrote the stories or that the advertisers swayed them to write from a certain perspective.  Whereas, if the Tribune would properly disclose, within the stories, that groups advocating for "position X" advertise or are donors to the site then it would give the reader a full picture of what is going on, and who might potentially be involved in the editorial process.  Again, it's not wrong for the Tribune to be the progressive leaning news of Texas, but it's improper for them to try and do so by omitting information that allows readers to make their own determination.

By failing to disclose key-advertisers who are taking advocacy positions on the stories in which they report the Tribune is failing a basic tenet of good journalism.  They could fix this pretty easily but, given their poor history and reactions to calls for the same in regards to donors, I suspect everything will just remain the same over there and Texas' Lock Step Political Media will continue it's downward spiral into irrelevance.

Texas Lock-Step Political Media: Opining (wrongly) on the proposed Texas Religious Freedom Act.

Whether or not you're for or against the wave of so-called "Religious Freedom Acts" that are popping up in state-houses (and the news) with much frequently lately, it's important to realize that some of the arguments both for, and against, are just not based in reality.

Unsurprisingly, the Texas Lock-Step is leading the charge in our fair state in getting this 100% wrong.

Hammond is one not like the others. R.G. Ratcliffe, Texas Monthly

With companies such as AT&T, American Airlines, Apple, Dell, Chevron, BP, and Shell now offering same-sex partner benefits, it is easy to see why Hammond and the Texas Association of Business oppose the religious freedom law and other perceived anti-gay measures. “These amendments are bad for business. They’re bad for Texas. They would devastate economic development, tourism and the convention business,” Hammond said. “Major corporations across the board oppose this legislation. They would not want to come to Texas or expand in Texas. Conventions, the Super Bowl, the Final Four, all those things would be at risk in Texas if this was to become part of the constitution.”

The biggest problem with this argument?

For one, there's nothing in the law that compels a company to NOT offer same-sex partner benefits. In fact, I would think that, if these companies believe these policies are "good for business" they would view it as a competitive advantage that other companies are able to 'opt-out' on religious grounds.

As a market mechanism for drawing the best talent then, this should be a boon to  American Airlines, Apple, Dell etc.  To suggest that companies be forced through coercion to offer these benefits flies in the face of the very market principles that Ratcliffe is suggesting Hammond champions.

There are many reasons that I would never consider starting a business, in Texas, that serves the public directly. Groups like the Texas Association of Businesses are one of those, high-minded moral crusaders are another. What the TAB really wants to do is tilt the cost structure to favor  their lager members. Almost every policy position that they espouse would add burdensome costs to small and medium-sized businesses.  They are also not genuine in their reasoning for opposition to the sanctuary city bill (they like the below-market cheap labor) but that's a different story for a different post.

In theory I'm opposed to acts like the RFA*. I believe that, as a business owner serving the public, you have an obligation to do so fairly. I worry that people will use these to object to a variety of things outside of what the scope intended.(Yes, I realize that's a slippery-slope objection, guilty as charged)  In practice, I'm opposed to the opposition to these bills. I don't see anything good resulting from a long-term program of coercion that forces people to accept the GLBTPC lifestyle if they feel it stands in direct conflict with their religious beliefs.  I find the opposition tactics to be disingenuous and, at times, downright untrue. Perhaps I would be more sympathetic to them if they also stood in opposition to Muslim's who wouldn't cater to a Bar Mitzvah, or a GLBTPC baker who refuses to bake a cake for a Defense of Marriage rally.

And that's my biggest problem with all of this. It's not really about religious freedom or the right to believe as one chooses is the best fit. It's really all about providing protection to the groups the political sides have decided to allow most favored nation status. In the end, this is for-votes, what can you give me to make me feel good politics, on both sides.

The fact is this, Texas Democrats are trying to cater to two groups, upper-middle class to wealthy Caucasian progressives who currently form the back-bone of their party financing structure, and the GLBTPC groups who currently are among their most vociferous supporters and who they use to attack Republicans without getting their hands dirty.  Republicans are also pandering to the evangelical right (NOT, it should be noted the "evangelical tea party" which doesn't exist, another of Ratcliffe's many erroneous assumptions in the piece.). Republicans have always pandered to the so-called moral-majority for votes.

The two parties are shouting over one another while the TLSPM has decided that they are going to insert their framing of the issue to further muddy the waters and, they hope, drive outrage and (most importantly) page-views. If anything Ratcliffe's piece suffers from two main faults.  First, he clearly displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the underlying issues. More egregiously, he falsely applies the Great Man Theory to Hammond in all areas.  Not only is Hammond "right" on the issues but Ratcliffe asserts that he is "right" in his motivations as well, subtly implying that anyone in opposition to Hammond and his fellow travelers is not. This is wrong-headed thinking at best, intellectual dishonesty at it's worst.

The biggest problem with the TLSPM is that they ALL think this way.  Hence the term "lock-step". The second biggest problem is that, on most issues, they get it factually wrong.





































































*Before the session started I opined that the Texas Legislature should just pass a solid budget (the only thing they are required to do by the Texas Constitution) and call it a day. When the Lege starts believing the key to Texas' problems lies in their legislative actions? That's when the problems start and the TLSPM rushes blindly forth.

Houston Leadership Vacuum: Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! This Editorial Board has got to go!

For what is really a fairly decent City, Houston really suffers when it comes to media, especially political opinion on State and Local matters.

For the most part I'm not including our TV news media here, they're not set up for that type of analysis. But when you take a look at the rest of the media landscape you're more likely to get a firm slice of political opinion from a passer-by on the street than you are one of Houston's new media outlets.

You shouldn't expect much from entertainment outlets such as CultureMap: Houston, The Houston Press or Houstonia. After all, these outlets are basically entertainment/food/fashion/lifestyle sites/publications who dabble in news from time to time. In the grand scheme of things, they're blogs with a budget.

You should expect solid political opinion from the Editorial Board of the Houston Chronicle however, as they still occasionally try to do 'news' and make comments regarding the same.

How are they doing?

Well......

Ups and Downs. The New Mrs. White, ChronBlog

1.  City Council moved fast to unanimously approve the awe-inspiring master plan for Memorial Park drafted by philosopher/visionary landscape architect Thomas Woltz. It isn't going to be inexpensive and the Uptown TIRZ is opaque regarding funding. But we're ready for a land bridge and a new jogging track now.

So, it's going to cost a LOT and it's not quite clear how it's going to be funded. Plus, it's being backed by a TIRZ which (from time to time) the New Mrs. White claims to have issues with.  But hey, there's a land bridge and jogging track so damn the traditional job of the media to hold government fiscally accountable and let's go forward whole-hog!  What's a few Billion dollars (if you include the money they want you to spend on the Astrodome) amongst friends?

2.  When you have a part-time Legislature, stupid things happen. The House of Representatives pulled an all-nighter Tuesday into Wednesday to pass its version of the budget. We shouldn't have to bring our blankie and a pillow to the Capitol to watch elected officials do business. And it is impossible for the elected ones and their staffs to do their due diligence on no sleep. Why not schedule the debate over two days?

For their next act the New Mrs. White reveal to us that they believe that the Texas Legislature is 100% there to react to their timeline.  I'm sure it's tough, writing fluff material for Gray Matters and then being expected to stay up late to watch the Legislature work.  This is no doubt very taxing and tough for one to swallow.  We all feel for you I'm sure.

State Budget Disorder. The New Mrs. White, ChronBlog

There's nothing inherently wrong with a low tax, low services governmental philosophy as long as Texas is able to meet all of our baseline needs while balancing a budget. However, over the past several legislative sessions, our elected officials have failed to make the key investments necessary to foster a top-quality workforce and business-friendly environment. That's why Gov. Greg Abbott used his State of the State address to focus on the meat and potatoes of governance: transportation, pre-K and higher education. But the recently passed state House budget fails to adequately address these concerns.

For example, the budget contributes nothing to the Texas Tomorrow pre-paid college tuition contracts, which face a $594 million unfunded liability. That's a promise made to Texas families that politicians must keep. The budget also falls $502 million short of fully funding the Hazlewood Act, which requires Texas' public universities to provide tuition breaks for veterans and their families. 

 

Even when they might be on track the cognitive dissonance of Mrs. White manages to get it wrong. It's impossible to take the State to task (rightly) for their underfunding of these programs if you refuse to call the City of Houston to the carpet (rightly) for their underfunding of the municipal pension programs.  Sure, Mrs. White has paid lip-service to the problem over the years but she was strangely silent when former Mayor Lee P. Brown created the mess in the first place, she's been complicit in the kicking the can down the road that happened during the White administration and she seems more interested in providing political cover for friendly city politicians now.

This is not to say that the current State of Texas proposed budget doesn't have problems (it does) but one needs to show some consistency in one's criticism if you want to be taken seriously.  Mrs. White is nothing on these issues if not inconsistent.

Slideshows galore. The New Mrs. White, ChronBlog.

Texas voters last spring rejected two candidates, one Democrat and one Republican, who had impressive agriculture and administrative credentials. Miller had neither, and yet he's the man who has the job. He has said that his top priorities are water and rural health care. Both issues are important. Our hope is that he'll cease with the distracting sideshows and focus on what's important for this state. 

If there is one thing for which the Chron should never criticize anyone, it's for having too many distracting slideshows.

From time to time I feel it's time to repeat the call:  Shutter the Ed Board Chronicle, redeploy the resources to hard news reporting. There's no opinion coming from you in-house columnists, rapidly deteriorating editorial cartoonists and joke of an editorial board that is not being more well-written by outside sources.  In fact, in most cases, the "other voices" and guest editorials make much-more compelling, sensible arguments than do that generated by Chron staffers.

The New Mrs. White long lost her credibility when the infamous rail memo was accidentally leaked online. In the years since, if anything, they've regressed even further to the point now that they're just embarrassing themselves.

There are some good reporters still working at the Chronicle, it's long past time to give them the resources and staffing they need to cover Houston.

The politics of personal perception.

2015 is shaping up to be one of those years where I think about blogging, for a minute, and then find something far more important to do in real life.  C'est la vie right?

In reading Victor Davis Hanson's NRO article on violent extremism however I stumbled across a quote that struck me as both profound, and worthy of a bit of expansion.

How to Empower Violent Extremism, Victor Davis Hanson, NationalReview.com

Add in the fact that most people have little ideology other than wishing to ally themselves psychologically with a perceived winning cause

Hanson is dead on here. But this quote is only one piece of the puzzle. In my experience most people become interested in politics for a combination of three reasons.

1. As Hanson said, they want to be on the "winning" side.

2. People want to align themselves with what they think is "cool".

3. For the worst political hacks political activity is a desperate cry for attention.

Admittedly, this list is not comprehensive. There are, in fact, very earnest and honest political activists out there who are supporting causes for very real, very honorable, reasons. I'm not pessimistic enough to say that all political activists are attempting to make up for some flaw in their lives.  But if you look at the above reasons you begin to understand why....

Cognitive dissonance is so prevalent among partisans.

Political writers (especially bloggers) jump back and forth between disliking a candidate and suddenly finding them to be incapable of wrong-doing. (There are Houston political bloggers for whom this is the status quo)

People take it personally when their candidate/issue loses.

Successful (although not necessarily good) politicians understand this dynamic and play off of it to win elections. If they're really good at it then they can be elected on a stump speech that they have no intentions of adhering to during their term. They can then go back and get re-elected despite not living up to how they campaigned.  John Culberson is very good at this, as is most of the Texas Democratic Congressional delegation. They can do this because they understand the mind-set of the voter they are trying to attract. On the other side of the spectrum Wendy!? Davis was not.

Most, not all, of politics then is less about governing than it is about crafting a message that brings in the votes while satisfying those who supply the money. What the actual votes are on the issues matters little, with politicians understanding that a bad vote will be flushed out of the news cycle before the next election and the power of the incumbency (even in a supposed "anti-incumbent" environment) allows the message to be shaped and molded.

Of the two major parties the Democrats have been marginally better at using these dynamics to create party loyalty. They understood the power of celebrity and used it (see: The Oscars) and they dumbed down their logic to pre-teen levels. Republicans have been less successful, allowing "conservative" to become a cooler brand than themselves. What this means is that the "establishment" is now a dirty word among so-called "conservative" voters which leads to the rise of players such as Lt. Gov Dan Patrick (who is a true opportunist clothed as a conservative) and Sen. Ted Cruz (who is a true conservative who understands the mob).  Of the two give me more Cruz and less Patrick but that's a different topic altogether.

One of the off-shoots of our current "beauty pageant" election system is that, quite often, we're not voting for the candidate who would govern better but the candidate who either looks the best or sounds the best on TV. One of the reasons the political career of David Dewhurst fell apart so rapidly is that he was unable to grasp the change in the Texas Republican Electorate. He was running on establishment competence when what the voters wanted was "cool" movement conservatism.

If all of this sounds like we're beating our heads against the wall politically you're right.  We are.

It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that the media's role as enabler in this dynamic is one of the reasons politicians are so successful at it. From the Scott Walker brouhaha to The Texas Tribune, the functional idiots at Vox and the other 'newsish' sites it's fairly clear that political reporting, as an industry, is dead.

The only question remaining is this: If the media is not there to report the facts and social media is only a trumpet for self-promotion, how in the world is the populace to be informed?

I don't have that answer.

 

How will they govern? The Republican Majority as a whole.

The current Texas election, much the same as recent elections, is expected to be a Republican rout. The brand of the Texas Democrats is so weakened state-wide, their base of support so concentrated, that it will be a major upset should all of the state-wide races and a large majority of the State House and Senate races not tilt the Republicans way.

Amazingly, after 20-plus years of Republican rule, the question "Can the Republicans Govern?"  is still being asked by some members of Texas' Lock-Step Political Media.

Political Monsters. The New Mrs. White, Chron.com

Don't want to vote? So don't. It's the Texan way. Lisa Falkenberg, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

Abbott says that, as Governor he would 'be like Greg Abbott'. Peggy Fikac, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

Elkins' conflict. The New Mrs. White, Chron.com

UT/TT Poll: Transportation Amendment on cruise control. Ross Ramsey, Texas Tribune.

UT/TT Poll: Abbott holds a commanding lead over Davis. Ross Ramsey, Texas Tribune

Why Entitlement Reform isn't on the GOP Agenda. Jim Manley, WSJ

Davis ad focused on Abbott's wheelchair raises legitimate questions. Wayne Slater, Dallas Morning News

In the Valley, Van de Putte blasts Patrick, urges students to vote. Christopher Hooks, The Texas Observer


With one exception (the WSJ story) all of the articles that I've chosen carry a common theme: The questions still being raised by the TLSPM as to whether or not Texas Republicans can govern.  It was a question first clumsily asked by a then-relevant Paul Burka in 2003 and it's been repeated as accepted dogma by the TLSPM since that time*.

In 2003, that question made some sense.  Having taken over the entirety of the Texas political process for the first time there were legitimate questions whether or not this group of fresh-faced, politically inexperienced lawmakers could come together, back away from the scary rhetoric and actually create a budget, address the state's issues, and do something besides cut taxes and then wait for the furor to subside.

The good news, if you're a citizen of Texas and not a hard-core partisan, is that they did. The sky did not fall and things pretty much went on as they had for generations.  Yes there were tax cuts, tort-reform and a whole bunch of other things that made Democrats cringe, but the basic functions of government never ground to a halt. (Except for when the Democrats decided to take a vacation in Ardmore, OK)

A much bigger issue is that the Republicans, either through ignorance or indifference, have not done a very good job outlining exactly what they think good government looks like. While "cut taxes" is a mantra that's resonating at the ballot box there's not been an overriding narrative of what cutting taxes looks like in relation to things that citizens expect from their government. When you look at the current iteration of the top of the Republican ballot there's very little to indicate this is going to change.

Abbott, despite his ads speaking about infrastructure and education, has an issues page filled with National red meat for the base Dan Patrick is being Dan Patrick and while he's promoting his vouchers plan for education alongside property tax reductions, he's been off and on that bandwagon for years now and, seemingly, if it does get fixed he's out of campaign material. Glenn Hegar is saying a lot without actually saying anything. And Ken Paxton and George P. Bush are clearly already thinking about a higher office.

Before you shut this down and think that I'm suggesting you should vote against the Republican slate you're mistaken. As a fiscal conservative I think that all of these candidates deserve your vote. The narrative of the TLSPM has been that, especially in the races for Comptroller and Attorney General, the Democrats offer a slate of pragmatic, business friendly candidates who are going to govern against progressive type and not try to bury the state's economy under an avalanche of new business taxes and soak-the-rich policies to make everyone pay their 'fair share'.  This is a happy fantasy, but one that I don't share based on the candidates own statements and legislative histories.

Which brings us back to the narrative. If you only read the TLSPM and nothing else then it's amazing that Texas Republicans can fog a mirror electorally speaking. Part of this is because Republicans such as Perry and Patrick have shown that you don't need the media to win in Texas and part of it is because the TLSPM likes and agrees with the Texas Democrats more often then they like and agree with Texas Republicans. In many ways, those narratives are never going to go away no matter what Republicans do, short of turning to Democratic policies.

Even IF Texas Republicans decided to pivot and support the DREAM Act, fund education beyond the dreams of Avarice, move to change the voting laws to allow for same-day registration and do pretty much everything the TLSPM desires, they would still push for Democrats to be elected because they would still think more would be done if only the right people were in charge.

Clearly the Republican way-forward is with principle. But it also lies in defining exactly what those principles are. What ARE the things that Texas Republicans feel to be 'core government services?' In the linked editorial addressing Rep. Elkin's recent troubles it's a given that the state has the obligation to regulate and eliminate pay-day and auto-title loans.  Do they?  Is it the obligation of the State to clothe, house and properly educate every child regardless of their desire? Does the State have an obligation to provide grants and tax breaks to bring business (and, by extension, jobs) to Texas?

Unlike Lisa Falkenberg, I'm not going to attempt to sit behind my keyboard on a Sunday evening and tell you what you need to think. Nor am I going to belittle you if you think differently than I.  There are, I admit, sound arguments behind both the yes and the no's on all of these positions. Choosing to think yes or no where I think differently is not a sign of mental weakness (as Falkenberg (wrongly) suggests) it's a sign of mental strength.

What I do know is that Republicans need to start doing a better job outlining what are core functions of government and what are not. And Republican voters had better start doing a better job rewarding candidates who take the issues seriously. The second problem will be how to get this message out to the voters, because the TLSPM is not going to be very keen on putting it out there for them.

Finally, Texas Republicans need a leader who's not only solid on the issues, but able to communicate them effectively.  For all of the noise relating to 'demographics is destiny' and Battleground Texas, the sense of inevitability surrounding the two is overblown. To counter this Texas Republicans are going to have to get better at their ground game, in their communications and in controlling their rhetoric. Because, right now, the left is doing a much better job of this and what's really holding them back is a dearth of quality candidates, a national party that's doing whatever they can to blow it and some curious policy positions that are at odds with the electorate. At some point, this is going to change and Texas Republicans will have a fight on their hands.

Conservative Republicans could take huge steps toward winning this fight by clarifying the conservative position now. To do this it's time for conservatives to stop saying what they're against and start saying what they're FOR. I'm not sure if there's anyone in this crop of state-wide candidates that's able to accomplish this however.  I hope I'm wrong.





































*2003 was the first year that Republicans held all of the State-wide offices along with majorities in the Texas House and Senate. In reality Republicans had a strangle-hold on state-wide races for much longer.