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: Still Getting it wrong.

The Houston Chronicle's new "conservative" (read: slightly less liberal but still solidly Democratic) columnist chastises the Democrats for not getting their act together on the ballot, without realizing why they won't win....

Texas Democrats need to try a little harder to put the State in play. Erica Greider, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

Most puzzling of all, though, is how little the Democratic Party is doing in Texas. Individual candidates, to be sure, are storming the ramparts; the most notable is Beto O'Rourke, the U.S. representative from El Paso, who is challenging Ted Cruz for a seat in the Senate. And some of the congressional primaries are, frankly, oversubscribed.

Beto O'Rourke is the latest, no name ID, fave-rave of Texas Democrats, whose candidacy is likely to invigorate the TLSPM and the InterLeft but will be destined to lose to incumbent Ted Cruz by double digits. As Greider notes, the slate at the top of the ticket looks grim. It's gotten so bad for Texas Democrats that they're going back to "Draft (insert celebrity name here) mode".

But the real reason Texas Democrats have no chance is in the comments to Ms. Greider's tome.  From a leftist with the nom de plume of ROBIN:

Texass is just a few years from turning purple, and then blue.

Yes, because you're going to win the hearts and minds of voters by insulting them and calling them names.  Enjoy the fringes of the political landscape folks, thank you and have a nice night.

The biggest problem that Democrats have right now is that they've become the party of relatively well-off, predominantly Caucasian progressives. Progressives who view themselves as functionally, mentally and otherwise superior to the rest of the rubes in America (and Texas) in every way. Unfortunately, for them, their political ideals are out of step with a majority of Texans and they are, almost to a person, horrible at the whole relatability thing. Mix in the fact that their entire political apparatus appears to be made up of low-functioning idiots with communication and relatability issues and you have a perfect recipe for electoral banishment.

It's gotten so bad for Democrats that they were relegated to choosing a gubernatorial candidate based on her tennis shoes.

The Texas Democratic Party is urban, in a State that's still got a sizable rural population. They still pay lip service to minority groups, while promoting progressive policies that have been disastrous for them. They have no solutions outside of "we're going to tax you until your eyes bleed" and even then they can't seem to agree on how to spread that message. They're bereft of leadership, have no bench strength and if they do eventually win it will be by default.

Because the Texas Republican Party is worse. They just have a ton of candidates with some name ID.

I gave up voting a couple of election cycles ago because I realize that it doesn't matter which set of morons we put in charge of the ship, it's still going to hit the iceberg eventually. It's heading that way because we've allowed our politics to be controlled not by the citizens, but by the politicians. And yes, the media helped get us to this point through hero worship of some pretty horrible people.

I've no doubt that a Texas Democrat will eventually win a State-wide race in Texas, at which point the TLSPM will erupt in euphoric joy. As for the rest of us?

That just means there's a new way for us to get screwed.  Hopefully they allow us the luxury of Vasoline.

TXLV: You're about to pay more for your beer and liquor, with less choices.

Hold on to your wallets, because the Texas Legislature is at it again....

Craft Brewers call Texas Legislature's passage of bill 'disheartening'. Ronnie Crocker, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

A bill that would force Texas breweries, once they've grown beyond a state-limited size, to sell and buy back their own beer before offering it in their own taprooms has now passed both houses of the state Legislature.

Before we go any further I want you to think about the logistics of this for a minute.

1. Texas Brewery brews beer, wants to sell some from their taproom.
2. If they are above a certain size (175,000 barrels of annual production) they cannot unless....
3. The 'sell' the beer to distributors and then buy it back at a mark-up (sometimes as high as 30%).
4. It is likely the beer in question will never leave the premises.

In other words the Texas Legislature, supposedly one of the most conservative in the country, has just mandated that Texas brewers of a certain size must pay up to a 30% tax on their wares to a private industry for which the industry does not have to offer any services upon return.

Of all the bad liquor laws in the State of Texas, including those that Wal-Mart is challenging in Federal Court and almost anything related to the TABC this undoubtedly takes the gold medal as the worst.

Imagine if you made sandwiches and wanted to sell them at a restaurant, but the Texas Legislature ruled that you could not sell those sandwiches until you paid 30% of their value to Sysco. This would be true even if you purchased your meat from a local butcher, and brought it to your restaurant without their services.

I would imagine you would feel a little bit put out by all of this.

Yet, our august officials in the Texas Legislature (with mostly Republicans voting in the affirmative) have determined that this is a very good thing and an area where government should get involved. I would say that I can't wait to hear Dan (the Man who would be King) Patrick offer up a 'conservative' argument for this but I'd be lying.  Lying because I doubt any politician is going to be asked to explain their vote, or offer justification for it. It's unlikely that they'll suffer for it at the ballot box either because, on the whole, Texas citizens don't care.

What they do care about is being able to buy beer, wine and liquor at commodity prices, whether or not the product in question is, in fact, a commodity.  While buying liquor in Houston I've, first-hand, heard customers arguing for massive discounts on luxury liquors such as Louis III, Pappy and some high-end Champagnes.  They want Dom or Veuve (more of a mid-range product but that's another post) but they want to pay low-end Moet prices. $9.99 per bottle please.

Of course, that $3.00 tap beer will now cost $4.00 despite never having left the facility. A dollar of that cost is going to a company that is doing nothing at all except collect a private tax imposed on the producer by Texas' increasingly un-conservative legislature.

I, for one, hope the breweries sue.  Because I think they'll win if they frame this as an unconstitutional taking. The argument for seems pretty strong.

I hate to say it for the small liquor stores but I hope Wal-Mart wins as well.  Texas liquor laws need to be blown up, rewritten and the ground needs to be salted where the three-tiered system once stood.

Then what is left of the GOP needs to do some soul-searching and decide whether or not they want to keep their elected officials. Increasingly, it's getting harder and harder to find ones that deserve an affirmative answer to that question.  Certainly no-one in leadership.

TXLV: Texas is getting the government it deserves. (And it's not pretty)

I've never met a politician that I would like to join at a bar and drink a beer with.

And I've met several of them. This is probably because all politicians are not the "sit down and enjoy a beer while watching the game" type of people.  In reality they are the "sit down and enjoy a beer while watching the game only if I can see some benefit to me or my campaign" type of people.

I'm not being rude, that's just reality.

The way our political system currently operates people don't get re-elected by being a decent person, or even all that personable (i.e. Borris Myles) they get re-elected mainly through name-recognition and the fact that the power of the incumbency grants them large campaign chests with which to outspend all but the most wealthy competition.

How do they amass wealth in their campaign funds? By offering gift-basket legislation to large political donors.

Brewers Object to Beer Measure. Ronnie Crocker, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

The bill originally would have forced Karbach and the others to shutter their taprooms. A revised version allowed them to continue operating them, but it would require breweries above the limit to first sell their beer to a distributor and buy it back - at a markup of around 30 percent - before selling it on site.

The wholesaler's logic behind this is laughable. They are only trying to "protect" craft brewers from those big, mean multi-national beer companies.  They alone have the ability to do this you see.  All they need is a 30% mark-up on beer that never leaves the brewery in order to do so.  Never mind that some (not all) of these distributors are part-owned by the very multi-national liquor companies they claim to be so valiantly protecting the little guy against.

The thing is, there's a better than average chance that a bill this odious, so obviously an attempt to redistribute income for no work whatsoever, is going to pass because the distributors spend a LOT of money wooing politicians, throwing "welcoming" galas for them at the beginning of the Legislative session and dumping the maximum amount into their campaign chests.

When a Texas politician sits down to have a beer, it's usually to discuss what the Wholesale lobby is going to do for him/her next.  Even the ones that DO sit down with the small, independent brewers are only doing it because someone in their staff told them it's a "good look", good looks being important to those in show business after all.

The point here is that it doesn't matter which party you put in power, the levers are still the same, only the labels change.  If you think that a Democratic regime in Texas wouldn't do the same thing you're sadly mistaken. They're the ones that allowed the distributors to gain so much influence and power in the first place.  Democratic cows are no less sacred, they're just a different breed of cow.

A lot of people moan and cry over this. Functional idiots such as Elizabeth "High Cheekbones" Warren and Bernie "Three Dachas" Sanders have made a living pushing the "get money out of politics" fallacy after all.

What they all know is this:  As long as a significant portion of the American population doesn't pay attention to politics at any level beyond glancing at the occasional headline, or poorly reported story (the media in this country is just as bad as the politicians for the most part) they can go on saying one thing, doing another, and still be held up as the "hero of the little guy" while deciding which vacation home they should visit next.

The story in Texas is just the same, only the casual dress is different.  While the pols in DC prefer Cardigan sweaters the 'everyman' politician in Texas likes to be seen hunting and wearing camouflage. On dressy occasions its boots and a cowboy hat, the latter of which they frequently wear indoors.

Something no gentleman or lady would ever do.


Something to think about.

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 Politics: It's the little things.

It was deemed newsworthy that a driver was ticketed going 117 MPH in Austin over the weekend. I point this out because you probably see people driving that fast every day. At least, you could if you drove on Beltway 8.

The speed limit on the Beltway is, for the most part, 65 MPH.  I would remind you that this is the posted LIMIT.  However, try driving in the left lane doing 65 during a non-peak hour and you're more than likely to get someone killed.  That's because the REAL speed limit on Houston's version of the Autobahn is actually however fast your car can go and how fast you can comfortably drive it. I've been driving at, or near, 65 on the Beltway on many occasions and have been passed like I was standing still.

So what does any of this have to do with politics?

For politicians, the little rules and inconveniences that make up every day life are the bread and butter of politics. Forget meat and vegetables, we're at a much more basic level than that. Seemingly mundane items like the setting of speed limits, the timing (or lack thereof) of traffic lights etc. don't grab many headlines, but they involve years of study and planning (in some cases).

The problems arise when many of these rules and regulations are perceived to not be based on sound reasoning but something entirely arbitrary.  Consider speed limits in the Houston region. Inside Harris County, and the counties immediately surrounding it, speed limits on Interstate Highways are typically set at 65 MPH (There are stretches of road where they are set lower, at 60 or even 55 MPH). The reason for this is not because of road conditions or driver safety or anything like that, it is because of the EPA. Because Houston has failed to meet pollution control targets a depressed local speed limit is part of the plan to remediate air pollutants. Therefore, when you drive through the area you are required to slow down by 10 MPH until you reach the county border after the county border at which point the speed limits raise to 75 MPH as they are in much the rest of the State.

When this plan was first devised the idea was that, in order to REALLY cut down on pollution (the unelected bureaucrats said) the limits would be reduced to 55 MPH, despite the fact that there was a.) little evidence this would help and b.) no additional justification for doing so.

The result?  Drivers roundly ignored the speed limits and sped about even faster, at times, then they would have under normal conditions. It was a little bit of civil disobedience on a city-wide scale. Local police officers, realizing the bowl of crap they've been handed, just punted on speeding tickets except in the most egregious of cases. Eventually, realizing it just wasn't working, the city relented and agreed to raise limits by 5 MPH within the city, and 10 MPH outside. The politicians then patted each other on the back, and went back to trying to game the system declaring the problem "solved".

Except it wasn't. And if you think it was then you haven't driven on Houston's Interstate system all that often.  Speed limits are treated as suggestions, or base-lines, certainly not limits. I challenge you to head out on a Saturday morning and try to drive the speed limit in the left lane of Houston's Interstates.  The honks and angry looks that you receive from motorists will be withering.  You will feel like you're the proverbial tortoise being passed up by so many hares.

The problem is that, as a society, we're losing our connection with both the societal contract and the rule of law. It's death by a 1000 cuts for civility.  Speeding, running red lights, cutting into lanes of traffic illegally, turning from no-turn lanes because you didn't want to wait in the turning lane line, all of these things are people violating both the law, and the unwritten social contract that we make with each other on a daily basis.

You see it pretty much everywhere, in almost every aspect of daily life now.  The common rules of law and civility are pretty much going away.  People cut in line, shoplifting is on the increase, people have no qualms about parking in handicap parking spaces when they don't have a handicap.

In part this is happening because people are increasingly selfish, in part it's because we're not only polarized in our politics, but in our private lives as well. Part of it is probably also that we're just really, REALLY bad drivers. But, most of all it's due to the fact that many people just don't respect the integrity of the system any longer.

Texas currently has an Attorney General under indictment for securities fraud, there's a member of the State Legislature in Houston who has been convicted of barratry but who is still expected to win reelection.  There is, not surprisingly, no pressure from his party to step down.  As a matter of fact, this convicted criminal is getting support.  The Houston Independent School District is in the process of rolling-back ethics reform which would allow them to, once again, receive campaign donations from companies actively bidding for contracts.  When questioned they say to trust them, that they only have the best of intentions.

The problem is, people see through junk like that and, at a subconscious level, start to lose faith in the system.  Because if the people making the rules are corrupt then the rules themselves are corrupt and so is pretty much everything that we've been asked to do.  This is why, no matter how many exemptions or tweaks are made to the ACA, there are still going to always be a percentage of people who choose to pay the fine and opt out.

Unfortunately, for the system, the answer to all of this is usually the problem itself.

"We're the Government, and we're here to help"

Texas Leadership Vacuum: We love rules that restrict others, until they restrict the things we like.

The Houston Chronicle, inadvertently, brought up an interesting point about "local ordinances" or (codes) and how people tend to support them, until they don't.

The first story was a headline story on chron.com complete with recent Houston City Code violations. These ranged in scope from failure to maintain "minimum standards" to "junked vehicles" to "dangerous buildings" or items that were just considered a "nuisance".

While the idea behind codes is a good one, after all, you don't want to live next to someone who does not maintain their houses, the Devil, as "they" say, lies in the details, especially when those details start to branch into the absurd.  For example....

Texas Man Arrested for Not Mowing His Yard. Dylan Braddour, Houston Chronicle.

Neighbor's Sue Terry Black's Over Excessive Barbecue Smoke in Austin. Heather Leighton. Houston Chronicle

Dallas Officials Remove Blue Police Support Ribbons due to Code Violations in Dallas. Dylan Braddour. Houston Chronicle.

We're used to seeing a host of horror stories about homeowners stuck in HOA Hell, where disagreements over supposed "code violations" lead to house liens, and even evictions, houses sold at auction and people suing for relief. The standard response from 'others' (those not involved in the mess) is that the homeowners purchased the home with eyes wide open, that they knew what they were signing on for and deserve everything they get.

There's rarely any mention of an HOA potentially making ridiculous requests, but it happens more frequently than people think.  It happens in the cities as well, where ordinances are enforced through zero tolerance methods similar to what you find in today's schools.  For the most part, we're OK with this, provided the codes don't impugn something that we like.

When the shoe is on the other foot though, if our favorite hangout is threatened because of a violation of the noise ordinance, or if a barbecue restaurant is in trouble because they create barbecue smoke, we suddenly become enraged.  To quote Douglas Addams: Something! must be done.

Too often that Something! is to either pass another ordinance or, in many cases, a specifically targeted exemption. These solutions either a.) make the Codes so unwieldy as to be unintelligible, or b.) turn the codes into a de-facto rule-book for what types of business we want to see. It then punishes those we don't by picking the feared 'winners and losers' not by what the market will bear, but by what people THINK they want the market to be.

That last distinction is fairly important.  Because why we all think we understand and know what the market wants (we're the market right?) the truth is we don't. This is due to the fact that we are all, individually, just one small slice of the market as a whole. Putting your entire household in the same bucket is often impossible since each family member potentially wants to see different things.

None of this should be read to mean that codes outlining acceptable minimum standards for home or building maintenance should be abolished. Quite the contrary. It should be required that people keep their homes in working order, their grass mowed and their automobiles from collecting rust in the front yard. 

What we need to work to avoid is the idea that the Codes in question can insulate us from everything we find offensive while ensuring those things we don't are allowed. Too often our call to city government when offended is to demand an ordinance be written that outlaws the offending item. City Council, eager to be reelected and happy to assume more power, is often too happy to do this. Rare is the municipal official who looks at a controversy and says "You know what? I think the laws we have on the books are sufficient."  Were that more would do that.

Then there's old political trick of telling the affronted to just go pound sand. In our current age of being continually aggrieved, it wouldn't hurt us any to be told that occasionally. Especially when, in the case of the barbecue smoke, we're not really being harmed in any way.  Looking at that example you can clearly see just how damaging a knee-jerk municipal politician can be. One solution proposed? To require every barbecue establishment in Austin to install smoke-scrubbers that can run in cost up to $20,000.

It would benefit most communities in Texas to take a hard look at their community codes and begin executing a shave with Occam's Razor. Work to remove the needlessly complex and complicated from the code and focus on the basics.  Of course, this will mean taking away some power from local government and that's probably too much to ask.

Another method would be for the citizenry to just stop and think a minute before clamoring for relief from the local municipalities. Sadly, we currently live in a society that thrives in victimhood, to the detriment of coherent problem solving.

In other words: We're probably just a little bit screwed.

So the next time you wonder why some things you used to do you can't anymore or why all of the nice things are going away, take a look at your city code, and the elected officials and citizens who asked for it.  What to do after that is entirely up to you.

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: Taking it one step further

In what has become an easy target, the Chronicle Editorial Board weighed in again today on the Prohibition era laws that don't allow craft breweries to sell their products to consumers "to go".

Suds Buster. Editorial Board, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

Texas allows wineries, distilleries and brewpubs to sell their products directly to the consumer for off-premise consumption. Yet brewery visitors must drink any beer they buy before they leave.

Forgetting for a moment just how patently unfair this law is, or that there are other aspects to the law (forcing local breweries to give away [without compensation] their local distribution rights) which are downright ridiculous, this speaks to a big problem with the business regulatory environment in Texas.

And I'm not talking just about beer.

Automobiles, for example, and the laws that establish, and prop-up, the dealership system, are antiquated and discourage growth in the Internet age. While I'm no fan of Tesla, that Elon Musk cannot sell his cars in Texas, without providing a percentage to a middle man, runs counter to the so-called 'business-friendly' climate the State likes to promote.

The fact is that Texas supports business as long as it's the 'right kind' of business. 'Right kind' being defined as those with pockets deep enough to hire lobbyists and pump large amounts of money into re-election accounts. And yes, I'm including in this group not only the wind-energy industry, but the Oil and Gas industry itself, which receives huge tax incentives which allow it to produce at below-market cost structures.

Texas also lags when it comes to the so-called "gig" economy. From local politicians who are beholden to the hotel and taxicab lobby, stunting the growth of Uber, AirBnB and others, to State and National elected officials who rely on these influential groups to bank-roll their Millions in campaign funds.

In Texas cities routinely try to stifle anti-establishment operations such as food trucks, jitneys and other emerging businesses with little chance of victory for the new businesses. The entrenched order is both well funded, and provided with better access than their newer opponents.

This doesn't mean that successes don't happen. From time to time public outcry leads to common sense prevailing. But too often it doesn't. That's why Houston watched the demise of GoRevGo with some sadness and why workers in several cities don't have the option of hopping over to a local food truck for a quick bite.

In Texas, despite the protestations of our elected officials, the free market is not free. There is an increasingly high barrier to entry. Once you get in, mind you, the perks are legion. More and more municipalities are picking winners and losers through public-private partnerships and, unless you're Amazon, it is relatively easy to develop a business plan that dovetails with a local politician's agenda, which can earn you a tax abatement if you try hard enough.

We are bombarded with stories regarding how the Texas Government, under the leadership of those mean old Republicans, are killing the business climate within the State by refusing to raise taxes to pay for increased Government services. We hear that our future is at stake because we won't take Federal money loaded with an expiration date which will eventually create a huge budget hole to expand Medicare, and we're given the guilt trip that people are coming to this State in an effort to "feed their families" and we won't hold out our entitlement filled hands to them.

What we don't hear enough of is how politicians of all ideological stripes are stifling the ability of everyone to improve economically by rigging the game toward established players. While the free market is not an ends in and of itself the expansion of it's freedom is one part of an overall strategy to help those in need.

Groups like the Chronicle Editorial Board understand that concept when it comes to beer. It's amazing to me that they fail to apply that to the rest of the economy.  It would be of benefit to all Texans if they did.

Texas Leadership Vacuum: Shooting the horse (tracks) for their own good?

After months of political bickering over so-called "historical racing" the Legislative Budget Board called the racing industry's bluff and refused funding for the Racing Commission which forced all of the horse and dog tracks in Texas to shutter effective September 1st.

One day later, it appears that is changing as new reports are suggesting that tracks can reopen and simulcasting can continue.  Reading through all of the stories it appears that the Legislative Budget Board has agreed on a 3-month temporary funding deal that will allow both sides more time to work out their differences over historical racing, which the industry feels is key to their financial success.

And here we are. While I'm just an accounting manager I would not feel comfortable reopening my doors under a 3-month stay of execution when the likely result is that the courts are going to rule against the thing I think can keep me solvent sometime before the year is out anyway.

Even IF the Texas State Senate (who is, to be honest, the main push behind all of this political anger) ultimately decides to let historical racing have its day in court I really think this is just lengthening the song that tracks are singing as they take a long stroll by the graveyard. 

The problem, as I see it, lies with Texas refusal to seriously consider casino gambling within the State. This has always been the pile of horse dung (or dog dung, whatever) in the room for the industry and nothing has changed. The reason that horse racing is working in Louisiana and Oklahoma (and to a certain extent, New Mexico) is because the purses for their races are propped up by some pretty ridiculous slot-machine revenues whose payout levels are allowed to be ridiculously low per state regulations.  This provides the tracks in neighboring states an extra pile of cash to "add to" the purses for which the horses (dogs) are running.  Higher paybacks mean a better return on investment for animal owners, trainers and jockeys.  All of this means that a higher quality horse, trainer and jockey are competing right across the border.

Because of this Louisiana Downs has the $400,000 Super Derby (Gr II) on it's schedule and Remington Downs (OK) puts on the $540,000 Remington Park Futurity.   While Lone Star Park has a Nice stakes payout schedule (including a $1Million dollar race) other tracks, such as Sam Houston, dither around the $200,000 or less level for stakes races.  What this means is that the top horses, trainers and jockeys, are moving their tack elsewhere for bigger payouts.  This has been a problem from the beginning of the industry, whose high point was the running of the 2004 Breeder's Cup at Lone Star.

Personally, the decline of Sam Houston has been especially disappointing.

The facility is beautiful and, for the most part, top notch. It's also in a bad location and has been poorly managed.  The old saying was that, when building it, 'they spent twice as much as they should have, put it in a place that no-one can get to, and then put the wrong people in charge of it.'  Besides that, they did do some things right.  The turf course, for example, is considered one of the better in all the land. The seats have great sight-lines and it's possible to view the finish line from most of the seating areas.  The track is well maintained, has a great tote-board/video monitor in what is a very picturesque infield.

Are there downsides?  Sure.  For one, the concessions are borderline awful, there's no good dining option at the track and the liquor beer and wine options are basic, at best.  Finding a Texas craft beer is a miracle, and don't even ask for a wine that's not also available in a 1.5L format at the grocery store for under $10.  There are not enough betting terminals for big events (for example, I used to go on the Friday before the Kentucky Derby to place my bets because there was a good possibility I wouldn't be able to get through the betting line in time on racing day to bet live) and their betting options are sub-par.

As an example of bad betting Sam Houston never, to my knowledge, offered a pot-guaranteed early or late pick 4.  Never. One of the most popular bets in horse racing (and one that's saved Los Alamitos in California) and Sam Houston never seriously considered it.  Granted, now that things are bad there's not enough money in the bank for them to make a guarantee.  But the old management, the group before the current group, actually could have done this and possibly increased their betting handle (which would allow for bigger purses) but they were fairly clueless on how to run a horse gaming operating and were soon forced to sell out to the current group.

I do, to some extent, give the current management team a pass. They arrived at a time where the industry was faltering, the ambulance had come out on the track and there weren't many options left. In response to a dying racing industry, the current management group tried to supplement income by turning the track into a concert venue, extreme racing location and festival grounds.  This has kept them financially afloat but none of that money was significant enough to plow into the racing operation.  So, Sam Houston (and the other tracks in Texas) are still looking up at neighboring states who use casino revenue to inflate their purses to levels Texas cannot hope to reach.

All of this brings us back, conveniently, to casino gambling. Namely, slots.

From the go, horse racing in Texas was always built on the thought that casino gambling would eventually be authorized and the tracks would be competing on equal footing with neighboring states.  Of course, the industry couldn't admit that when they first sought (and received) legislative authorization to conduct business. Doing so would have immediately torpedoed their lobbying and would have led to no racing in Texas.  Depending on your view of gaming, this might not have been a bad thing.

Regardless of whether or not you approve of gaming in Texas, if the racing owners didn't include the variable of slot machines in their initial economic forecasts then they were running on a set of the worst economic impact reports I've ever seen.  I've always thought however, that the racing industry based their initial projections on slots being present. There's no way they could have thought that non-casino revenue assisted racing was ever going to work.

So now, we're moving (it seems) back into limbo. If the legislature authorizes a 3-month extension of funding for the Texas Racing Commission then the tracks will fire back up and everyone will turn a wary eye to the Texas Supreme Court who is going to rule on the legality of the TRC's authorization of historical racing which will signal to Texas whether or not any of this matters long-term. The thought being that, should the TXSC reject historical racing the tracks will have to close due to impossible economics. IF however, track owners say, they're allowed to install historical racing terminals then everything is going to turn around and Texas will be churning out horses and races that rival American Pharoah and the Triple Crown.

Except, they won't.  Because even IF the TXSC rules in favor of the tracks (Aside: I don't think they will) historical racing terminals in and of themselves are not going to be the cure-all that the tracks need. These terminals will just be a Band-Aid on the cancer that is an uncompetitive environment.  What the tracks really need is the expansion of gambling in Texas to include Class III slot machines. IF they could get that, then they would stand a good chance of succeeding long term.

Given the current political make-up of the Texas Legislature and body politic I can almost guarantee you this is not going to happen.  As proof of this I offer up the following evidence:  Tillman Fertitta, owner of the Landry's empire and the Golden Nugget casinos, has long advocated for casino gambling in Texas. He even has a resort in Galveston (the San Luis) that is designed for such a purpose.  Last year, he finally opened up a Golden Nugget in Lake Charles Louisiana, which relies almost exclusively on Texas imports for its financial success.

Looking back on this the revocation of funding for the Texas Racing Commission might have been a blessing in disguise for the race tracks. Sometimes it's better to be humanely euthanized than it is to slowly bleed out.

Texas Leadership Vacuum: An Opportunity for Garnet Coleman

Shortly after the entire story of the sorry affair surrounding the untimely demise of one Sarah Bland hit the airwaves, one of Houston's own State Representatives ended up with egg on his face when dashcam video of his traffic stop revealed not that he was treated "like a child" as he claimed but that Mr. Coleman was a) driving really fast b) has done that before (and gotten a warning), c) tends to pull the "do you know who I AM? card frequently (which means that he thinks he's better than everyone else an entitled to certain privileges that shouldn't be available to all) and d.) either makes things up for publicity's sake or has a severely maladjusted offense-o-meter.

A decent man would offer an apology to the officer who he besmirched and I'm not aware that Coleman has done anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, he's still protesting that he's correct. All of which suggests that his offense-o-meter is knocked out of whack, perhaps irreparably.

If this is future Coleman then we couldn't help wonder how else he might decide someone treated him wrong?

In the spirit of bipartisanship we're here to help.

Texas ranks among absolute worst states for women's equality. Nicole Raney, CultureMap

The study draws from 11 key metrics across three main categories: workplace environment, education and political empowerment. The data set mainly focuses on differences in the workplace, such as income and unemployment rate, but also includes the number of residents with bachelor's degrees and the percentage of females holding lawmaker positions.

Now, before you accuse us of asking Coleman to resign, this is simply not our goal.  What we are really hoping for here is a press conference where Coleman can expound on the details he was "treated like a woman" by another politician, a police officer, or some other public official.  If Coleman REALLY wants to double down he can blame all of this on the fact he was wearing his "I Stand with Wendy(?!?)" replica pink shoes that day.  It's a win/win for both Coleman (who gets some free pub) and the media Austin Bureau who is (admittedly) struggling to find things to write about.

Coleman has a long history of making blunt, oft-times outrageous, statements. And while we've progressed a long way from the days when his mental-illness was used against him politically the pendulum has swung a little too far in the other direction, to a place where he seems to be above criticism.

Which is too bad.

Because, unfortunately in society today, there is STILL a problem with "driving while black" in the minds of some officers and women, while they have made great strides, still have obstacles and hurdles to overcome.  Antics like those of Coleman  only serve to distract from the real issues, and they give opponents of any change ammunition in their fight.

That said, there is something to the idea of political comedy.  Joe Biden has almost mastered it, as has Sheila Jackson-Lee on a more local level. If Garnet Coleman can rise to the level of those two in the comedy department who knows how high he can go?

Of course, this leaves us with a problem. Namely that many of the same people who will take this blog post literally and seriously are the same that take politi-comedians seriously as well.  And those people vote, which is why we need better.

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 Leadership Vacuum: It's only SOME things we want Decriminalized.

Other things, we want to make more illegal than they already are.....

Child's death raises issues of gun safety, criminal prosecution. Rebecca Elliot, HoustonChronicle.com($$$)

I would argue that the pain of having to bury your child (or in this case, grandchild), and to live every day for the remainder of your life with that pain, is punishment enough.

But it's never enough for the "someone! must be blamed." crowd how demand that there be a criminal conviction and, even better, prison time when horrific accidents occur. Of course, only certain types of horrific accidents, those where items such as guns, knives, automobiles or other items considered 'out' by those who determine such things are involved.  For instance, you don't see an outcry to make-tougher laws against driving a train while intoxicated when a large train accident happens.

Sure, you see calls for the engineer to be prosecuted (if there's criminal liability) but no one seriously suggests that the laws need an overhaul when trains are involved.  The notable exception being oil trains, but that's more about a hatred and misunderstanding of oil which overrides any love of trains that the self-appointed arbiters may have.

I always try to default to the concept of social good.

It's fuzzy I realize this but, it makes more sense to me than some warped sense of "justice" that is always thrown around.  What is the social benefit to imprisoning someone for doing something stupid that creates a tragedy that they and their families are going to have to cope with for the rest of their lives?

This is not like an intentional murder, where clearly there is a social benefit to locking this person away, or just ending them altogether.  Or theft, or a robbery.

As America continues to increase in our incarceration rate (we're not the top like some say, because several totalitarian countries are omitted from the count) is there really a benefit to this?

I'm sorry, but I just can't see it. Just like I can't see imprisoning someone who chooses to light up a joint in their living room. (If they get out and drive a vehicle however under the influence that is, and should be, a different matter). More controversially, I'm not a fan of the new Millennial trend of criminalizing bad business decisions.  Just because the banks failed does not mean that "someone should be held responsible" from a criminal perspective.

Ironically, many of those who think so also believe in separation of Church and State. Despite this, they want to see the 7 Deadly Sins criminalized. The cognitive dissonance that you have to possess to be involved in today's criminal justice debate is really quite outstanding.

To my way of thinking, a better idea would be to decriminalize mistakes, to allow people to grieve, and figure out how, without assistance from the nanny state, they are going to live the rest of their lives under the guilt of what they have done.

Your mileage may vary of course.  Soon however they will criminalize something that you may do.

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.

Texas Leadership Vacuum: Closing the book on the Texas Democrats disasterous 2014 candidate slate.

After the weekend's run-off election for San Antonio Mayor, Texas Democrats can (happily) wave goodbye, for now, to what might be the worst slate of state-wide candidates in recent history.


Taylor claims win in San Antonio Mayoral Runoff. Patrick Svitek. Texas Tribune

It's unclear where Van de Putte goes from here. Much like Wendy (?!?) Davis her trouncing in the 2014 general election has made her fairly unelectable state-wide.  Her last hope was to win the Mayor's race in San Antonio and use that to reform her image.

Whether through Democratic apathy or because she's just too far left for the electorate, that's not going to be the case.

Sure, she'll end up OK and will probably get a job as either a lobbyist or working with an advocacy group but, from an elections perspective, I can't help but feel that Van de Putte is finished. Much in the way Davis is done.

It's a stunning end to a ticket that, initially, had some Democrats giddy with anticipation. Hopes that were quickly dashed as it came to be realized that Wendy! Davis was really Wendy (?!?) Davis and that Van de Putte was no match for now Lt. Governor Dan Patrick. (Who is probably among the best politicians in the State when it comes to the nitty-gritty of political strategy and campaigning [and yes, it pains me to say that])

Fielding quality candidates has been an issue for the State Democratic Party for some time now. If you look at the charred remains of their candidate bench, and think about potential spot-holders in the next election cycle, perhaps the leading name for the Dem nominee for Texas Governor is......


Annise Parker.


And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Texas PSA: You are now safe.

sine die.


It is now officially time to sort through the carnage and see what the unintended consequences will be from the bills that ultimately get signed by Gov. Abbott.

Oh, and wait for the inevitable special session on education funding that will be necessary when the judge rules.




*sigh*

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.

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.