Last week, I wrote that it might be time for conservatives to start contemplating what to do after the GOP goes off the rails and, possibly, nominates Donald Trump to be their candidate for President of the United States of America. In that blog post I identified two main issues which I thought would be key to any movement going forward:
1. Rolling back and limiting the leviathan that is the Federal, State and Local government regulatory morass.
2. Restoring the rule of law.
Since that time I've done a lot of reading, and thinking about the issue and I've decided that additional focus should be placed on a 3rd issue as well.
Maggie Gallagher wrote a piece asking this question: Is the GOP Worth Saving? at National Review Online. In it she focused on the many failures of the modern GOP to stand for religious freedom in the face of so-called "equal rights" laws and ordinances.
I've realized, through articles like that, and others, that my original selective grab-bag of issues didn't go quite far enough. That's because they all addressed economic issues, but left out the core issues of freedom. And it's freedom that's the core idea that we're supposed to be working toward expanding and maintaining.
Economic freedom is important, I believe it's the key to alleviating (although not eliminating) a host of issues after all, but if you don't have the freedoms to think and act certain ways then all of the money in the world is not worth it.
But first, let's be clear. Despite the fact this won't stop the social justice warriors from casting cries of "racist!" and "Homophobe!" my way I'm not suggesting that the law should allow for blatant discrimination. Nor am I suggesting that we return to the days of "separate but equal" which, as we all know, were indeed separate, but hardly equal. Nor do I believe being a conscientious objector to other races is a viable defense for physical, or property harm. In other words, crimes are still crimes and people should not gain protections in committing them and then try to hide behind "religious liberty".
But people have the right to be odious, they have the right to be bigots, and they should have the right, under the 1st Amendment, to let people know that they are. Whether or not you feel that people who have religious objections to gay marriage are "on the wrong side of history" or not they should have the right to object. Provided they are not depriving anyone of their right to pursue life, liberty and happiness, then it's not really an issue the government should involve itself with.
In many cases the market self-corrects businesses who are ran by bigots. Right-thinking people choose to take their business elsewhere and waves of civil lawyers do the rest. The bakery in Texas that is now in hot water for refusing to make a GLBTQ couple a wedding cake went so far as to offer the prospective partners a list of competitors who would do that. In this case there wasn't an attempt to deprive anyone of anything.
All of this leads to my thought that in addition to the 2 issues above a 3rd should be added:
3. Restoration of the Bill of Rights.
It's important to note that the Bill of Rights covers the rights of private citizens, and not governmental agencies. In fact, I would argue that it's in the National Interest for the Government to act in the least discriminatory way possible. This ties back to the rule of law.
Not only is it important for economies to be free, but the so-called marketplace of ideas should be as well. Just as free markets led to people being offended by Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber so will a idea free-market lead to offense at some level. And it should. You don't have a right to not be offended, and being so often leads to the type of introspection that leads to personal growth. Despite being racist and insensitive to Asians in his Oscar's monologue, the biggest sin that Chris Rock committed is that he tried not to offend.
Good social comedy, by it's very nature, should offend. We seem to have forgotten that in the USA around about the same time we decided no one should be hurt....ever.
All this leads to is more litigation, and more legislation trying to prevent anything bad from ever happening again. That creates angry people who begin to think that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are onto something.
None of that adds a dollar to the economy or helps the poor move up the economic ladder to prosperity, it does not provide for the National defense either. In fact, it doesn't do much of anything except for transfer wealth to the lawyers who, as part of the courtesan class, funnel it to politicians in hopes of gaining favor.
On these issues the GOP has failed. Whatever replaces it next cannot.
Monday, March 07, 2016
Tales of a sub-par media outlet: Why the Spotlight Oscar won't matter.
The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board has decided to praise the movie Spotlight for winning an Oscar and showing why "journalism matters".
Hurrah for Spotlight. HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
Of course, the elephant in the room is that the Chronicle, and most Hearst-owned publications for that matter, have transitioned from being legitimate journalism outlets to operating like gossip-sites such as TMZ.
The leadership has taken the focus off of journalism of the type everyone likes to romanticize and toward click-bait focused on implied side-boob, gross-out and shock-value pictures. Want to know what Johnny Manziel is doing, or who he's dating? Chron.com is the place for you. Want to read about how bad the region's largest employers really are? FuelFix.com. Want to know why Houston could be great if only it transitioned to become just-like every other city at great taxpayer expense? HoustonChronicle.com.
Want solid, watchdog journalism that focuses on issues of local/regional import? You might as well turn to ABC 13 and KHOU 11 because they are just about the only ones doing journalism of that type any longer.
Newspapers like to romanticize their role in society. The problem is the type of journalism they try and make people pine for only exists in very limited cases. For the Hearst media empire, it's all but non-existent.
So, hurrah for Spotlight, but boo to the Houston Chronicle.
A city as great as Houston deserves much better.
Hurrah for Spotlight. HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
Of course, the elephant in the room is that the Chronicle, and most Hearst-owned publications for that matter, have transitioned from being legitimate journalism outlets to operating like gossip-sites such as TMZ.
The leadership has taken the focus off of journalism of the type everyone likes to romanticize and toward click-bait focused on implied side-boob, gross-out and shock-value pictures. Want to know what Johnny Manziel is doing, or who he's dating? Chron.com is the place for you. Want to read about how bad the region's largest employers really are? FuelFix.com. Want to know why Houston could be great if only it transitioned to become just-like every other city at great taxpayer expense? HoustonChronicle.com.
Want solid, watchdog journalism that focuses on issues of local/regional import? You might as well turn to ABC 13 and KHOU 11 because they are just about the only ones doing journalism of that type any longer.
Newspapers like to romanticize their role in society. The problem is the type of journalism they try and make people pine for only exists in very limited cases. For the Hearst media empire, it's all but non-existent.
So, hurrah for Spotlight, but boo to the Houston Chronicle.
A city as great as Houston deserves much better.
Friday, March 04, 2016
Tales of a sub-par media outlet: A lack of comprehension of basic civics.
The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board would have you know that they blame Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart for the mess that happened on election day.
Mediocre Tuesday. Houston Chronicle ($$$)
The increasingly worthless gaggle that makes up the Chronicles editorial department don't dispute this. Instead, they proceed to tick off a laundry list of actual problems that Stanart has had in past elections.
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Mr. Stanart. I think he does a poor job as Harris County Clerk and elections under his watch have been poorly ran, especially the release of voting totals after the polls close.
That said, the long lines that Harris County witnessed is not due to any actions by Stanart. That is because it is the parties who decide which precincts get combined, and which polling places are active during the primaries.
In other words, the Democrats have seen the enemy, and it is them.
No matter how much Senator Gallegos screams, or how many Democratic "activists" try and throw shade toward Mr. Stanart, the fact is their chosen leaders created this mess. If anyone deserves to take the blame here it's Mssrs. Lane Lewis and Paul Simpson, the respective heads of the county parties.
Then again, given that the Houston Chronicle has all but abandoned serious local reporting in favor of gross-out, click-bait, social media trolling should we be surprised that no one understands just how elections work any longer? The Democrats themselves have one of the most undemocratic democratic systems in America so why should their activists and politicians understand anything about the elections themselves?
Further more, if there's political hey, real or imagined, to be made against the other guy what's a little thing like facts? Especially when you have a group of opinion maker in the local fish wrap who are all but ignorant of civics and willing to repeat your charges ad-nauseum.
When the channels of communication are controlled entirely by those without scruples or knowledge, the first (and most important) casualty is the truth.
It's not that the editorial board intended to besmear Stanart, it's just that they collectively don't seem to know any better. Over the 35 years that I've lived in Houston editorial writing in this town has devolved from meaningful to a complete and utter joke. The downfall has been slow, steady, and disheartening.
Now we've gotten to a point where the facts don't matter and all of the arguments come from somewhere out in left field. What's really sad is, and at least the left gets this somewhat correct. The players who are going to be on the ballot from the left are single-A at best. The editorial board has been snookered by a team of not-quite-ready for prime-time players.
That's just sad.
Mediocre Tuesday. Houston Chronicle ($$$)
There were anecdotes of Election Day delays all across Harris County, and Gallegos' chief of staff, Leah Olive-Nishioka, joined several Democratic activists by putting the blame squarely on County Clerk Stan Stanart, a Republican.
The increasingly worthless gaggle that makes up the Chronicles editorial department don't dispute this. Instead, they proceed to tick off a laundry list of actual problems that Stanart has had in past elections.
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Mr. Stanart. I think he does a poor job as Harris County Clerk and elections under his watch have been poorly ran, especially the release of voting totals after the polls close.
That said, the long lines that Harris County witnessed is not due to any actions by Stanart. That is because it is the parties who decide which precincts get combined, and which polling places are active during the primaries.
In other words, the Democrats have seen the enemy, and it is them.
No matter how much Senator Gallegos screams, or how many Democratic "activists" try and throw shade toward Mr. Stanart, the fact is their chosen leaders created this mess. If anyone deserves to take the blame here it's Mssrs. Lane Lewis and Paul Simpson, the respective heads of the county parties.
Then again, given that the Houston Chronicle has all but abandoned serious local reporting in favor of gross-out, click-bait, social media trolling should we be surprised that no one understands just how elections work any longer? The Democrats themselves have one of the most undemocratic democratic systems in America so why should their activists and politicians understand anything about the elections themselves?
Further more, if there's political hey, real or imagined, to be made against the other guy what's a little thing like facts? Especially when you have a group of opinion maker in the local fish wrap who are all but ignorant of civics and willing to repeat your charges ad-nauseum.
When the channels of communication are controlled entirely by those without scruples or knowledge, the first (and most important) casualty is the truth.
It's not that the editorial board intended to besmear Stanart, it's just that they collectively don't seem to know any better. Over the 35 years that I've lived in Houston editorial writing in this town has devolved from meaningful to a complete and utter joke. The downfall has been slow, steady, and disheartening.
Now we've gotten to a point where the facts don't matter and all of the arguments come from somewhere out in left field. What's really sad is, and at least the left gets this somewhat correct. The players who are going to be on the ballot from the left are single-A at best. The editorial board has been snookered by a team of not-quite-ready for prime-time players.
That's just sad.
Election 2016: Why debates are horrible (and other things)
I rarely watch political debates, I've been less inclined to do so since the Bronzed Ego has been involved in them.
It's not that I would prefer to be watching The Voice or Blindspot or something on ESPN, it's that I typically find debates useless and boring. Granted, if you genuinely have no idea who you are supporting in a political race a debate might have some utility. However, for most of us we already know who we're supporting so the debate is really just a chance to mock everyone else's chosen candidate.
With El Bronzo in the lineup, the debates are childish and stupid. Last night, if i'm reading the news reports and Twitter correctly, The Bronzed Ego's best moment was when he referred to Marco Rubio as "Little Marco" and when her assured Americans that he was, small fingers notwithstanding, very well endowed for a paunchy, elderly Caucasian male.
Yes, you're going to read that Cruz, and to a lesser extent Rubio, "cornered" El Bronzo on policy and that they beat him over the head with the twin cudgels of Trump U and Hillary Clinton donations. You'll read this morning about how Trump is thin of policy knowledge and skin and that, when challenged, he more closely resembles a school-yard bully rather than a statesman. All of this is probably true. As a matter of fact, when it comes to Trump, I would say it's definitely true.
It also doesn't matter one iota.
That's because Trump's supporters don't care about policy. They don't care whether or not Trump's health care plan will work or whether his economic plan is based on unicorn farts. What they care about is that Trump does not act like a politician. That's it, no further questions.
The thing is that the more Trump blusters around the stage, acts churlish during the debates, constantly interrupting other speakers, making snorts, grunts and "nope" comments while they talking, the more he endears himself to his followers.
Because Trump is not, has never been, about reviving the conservative movement. He's not about reigning in the regulatory state or restoring the rule of law or limiting government or promoting policies that advance wealth. Trump is nothing more than a giant middle finger to the hordes of politicians in DC who campaign like populist conservatives, but govern like Statists.
Therefore it doesn't matter that Trump things the Nuclear Triad is, in Ted Cruz words "an 80's rock band" or that Trump University was a scam on the common man. It doesn't matter that Trump thinks China is a signatory to the TPP, that he has expressed a fondness for Putin, or even that he's making threats to limit media protections found in the 1st Amendment.
What matters to his base of support is that he is not a politician, and that he does not act like one.
That is why the key to beating him lies in proving that, as a businessman, he's really nothing more than a glorified politician. It's why he's working so hard to suppress his conversation with the New York Times where he might have said that the border wall he has promised is "negotiable". It's why he wants to keep his tax returns out of the public eye, for fear the public will see that he's just like the so-called "fat cats" that he chastises when he (legally) reduces his tax burden.
The problem that the GOP and, more importantly, Rubio and Cruz are having is that they are trying to attack the Bronzed Ego like he's a politician. That won't work. What they need to be doing is adjusting their tactics to promote him as a politician, to point out all of the politician-like things that he's doing and saying. It doesn't matter that Trump has a tenuous grip on policy, but it does matter that he's more than willing to "negotiate" away core items that he's stumping for on the campaign trail. That's what has made his followers so angry and that's what will likely have the most impact.
Alternatively, the GOP needs to make the case that El Bronzo's policies will not solve the rigged system. In fact, they will only make it worse. Because a man who has operated throughout the entirety of his business career on the patronage system will not understand any other way. It's the patronage system after all that's limiting growth, contributing to wage stagnation and stifling economic mobility.
So far Cruz and Rubio's consultants have been either unable, or (more likely too ignorant) to make that charge stick. They're calling plays from a playbook that might have worked against Romney and McCain (not a real conservative) but which the Bronzed defense has figured out. To be fair however, it's not just the campaign consultants who haven't figured it out. Many of the so-called Republican 'pundits' and media personalities haven't either.
What they have figured out is that the Bronzed Ego is good for ratings, which means that they are increasingly starting to back his campaign. While that's a blog-post for another time it does say a lot about why the GOP is struggling, and threatening to collapse as a national party if it hasn't already.
El Bronzo is a politician, and not an especially intelligent or talented one at that. If the candidates and GOP can't make that case then maybe we're better off blowing it up and focusing on #PostGOP matters?
It's not that I would prefer to be watching The Voice or Blindspot or something on ESPN, it's that I typically find debates useless and boring. Granted, if you genuinely have no idea who you are supporting in a political race a debate might have some utility. However, for most of us we already know who we're supporting so the debate is really just a chance to mock everyone else's chosen candidate.
With El Bronzo in the lineup, the debates are childish and stupid. Last night, if i'm reading the news reports and Twitter correctly, The Bronzed Ego's best moment was when he referred to Marco Rubio as "Little Marco" and when her assured Americans that he was, small fingers notwithstanding, very well endowed for a paunchy, elderly Caucasian male.
Yes, you're going to read that Cruz, and to a lesser extent Rubio, "cornered" El Bronzo on policy and that they beat him over the head with the twin cudgels of Trump U and Hillary Clinton donations. You'll read this morning about how Trump is thin of policy knowledge and skin and that, when challenged, he more closely resembles a school-yard bully rather than a statesman. All of this is probably true. As a matter of fact, when it comes to Trump, I would say it's definitely true.
It also doesn't matter one iota.
That's because Trump's supporters don't care about policy. They don't care whether or not Trump's health care plan will work or whether his economic plan is based on unicorn farts. What they care about is that Trump does not act like a politician. That's it, no further questions.
The thing is that the more Trump blusters around the stage, acts churlish during the debates, constantly interrupting other speakers, making snorts, grunts and "nope" comments while they talking, the more he endears himself to his followers.
Because Trump is not, has never been, about reviving the conservative movement. He's not about reigning in the regulatory state or restoring the rule of law or limiting government or promoting policies that advance wealth. Trump is nothing more than a giant middle finger to the hordes of politicians in DC who campaign like populist conservatives, but govern like Statists.
Therefore it doesn't matter that Trump things the Nuclear Triad is, in Ted Cruz words "an 80's rock band" or that Trump University was a scam on the common man. It doesn't matter that Trump thinks China is a signatory to the TPP, that he has expressed a fondness for Putin, or even that he's making threats to limit media protections found in the 1st Amendment.
What matters to his base of support is that he is not a politician, and that he does not act like one.
That is why the key to beating him lies in proving that, as a businessman, he's really nothing more than a glorified politician. It's why he's working so hard to suppress his conversation with the New York Times where he might have said that the border wall he has promised is "negotiable". It's why he wants to keep his tax returns out of the public eye, for fear the public will see that he's just like the so-called "fat cats" that he chastises when he (legally) reduces his tax burden.
The problem that the GOP and, more importantly, Rubio and Cruz are having is that they are trying to attack the Bronzed Ego like he's a politician. That won't work. What they need to be doing is adjusting their tactics to promote him as a politician, to point out all of the politician-like things that he's doing and saying. It doesn't matter that Trump has a tenuous grip on policy, but it does matter that he's more than willing to "negotiate" away core items that he's stumping for on the campaign trail. That's what has made his followers so angry and that's what will likely have the most impact.
Alternatively, the GOP needs to make the case that El Bronzo's policies will not solve the rigged system. In fact, they will only make it worse. Because a man who has operated throughout the entirety of his business career on the patronage system will not understand any other way. It's the patronage system after all that's limiting growth, contributing to wage stagnation and stifling economic mobility.
So far Cruz and Rubio's consultants have been either unable, or (more likely too ignorant) to make that charge stick. They're calling plays from a playbook that might have worked against Romney and McCain (not a real conservative) but which the Bronzed defense has figured out. To be fair however, it's not just the campaign consultants who haven't figured it out. Many of the so-called Republican 'pundits' and media personalities haven't either.
What they have figured out is that the Bronzed Ego is good for ratings, which means that they are increasingly starting to back his campaign. While that's a blog-post for another time it does say a lot about why the GOP is struggling, and threatening to collapse as a national party if it hasn't already.
El Bronzo is a politician, and not an especially intelligent or talented one at that. If the candidates and GOP can't make that case then maybe we're better off blowing it up and focusing on #PostGOP matters?
Thursday, March 03, 2016
Election 2016: What to do #PostGOP ?
First.
Trump, Cruz and Rubio had fair (not great) nights on Super Tuesday. I realize this runs counter to what you've read in the media (namely, that the Bronzed Ego triumphed). In fact, Trump's delegate haul of 238 was on the lower end of what many observers felt he needed to call the evening a success (the O/U for that was 250).
Cruz, held serve in Texas (his home state) and, in a mild surprise, Oklahoma and Alaska, but failed to register, most notably with evangelicals, almost every where else. That said, he currently stands second in the delegate count so many people, most of whom don't seem to understand maps, are suggesting he's the top guy to knock out Trump.
Rubio's math is a little tougher. First, he hasn't "won" anything except Minnesota so he's struggling to make people understand the power of proportional delegates. It doesn't help that he's up against the Bronzed Ego, who is furthering the regression of the general population by focusing on "wins" instead of delegate counts. For example, Trump "won" Virginia but only received one more delegate than did Rubio.
Kasich has no path, he's a regional candidate who simply refuses to see that, either through a sense of malice toward the conservative arm of the GOP, or by blinders provided by his consultants. Carson did see that he's a fringe candidate (finally) and (sort-of) suspended his campaign.
Where this leaves us is in the unenviable position of having to listen to almost every pundit on the right, many of whom are partially responsible for getting us here in the first place, tell us that El Bronzo is either the worst thing in the history of worst things or the greatest thing since sliced white bread.
On the other side, we have the Democrats who, as they do, are suddenly finding themselves "very concerned" over what's happening to the GOP. By concerned, of course, they mean "crapping themselves in glee and breaking out the champagne bottles."
Regardless of what the pundits are saying, I think Trump is the leader with Rubio and Cruz' odds getting longer and longer. What is clear is that the rusting hulk that is the GOP National Party has passed it's expiration date and those of us concerned with quaint ideas such as economic and political freedom had better start planning for what's next.
I call it #PostGOP and I think its going to be crucial to conservatives to consider this.
To me, the two-main issues of importance are going to be reigning in the ever-growing octopus that is the regulatory State, and re-establishing the rule-of-law in American politics. Yes, issues such as abortion and National defense and infrastructure matter, but those issues are nothing if we don't have the political and economic freedoms in place that the Country was founded on.
Yes, there are times in our history that America has behaved badly. As a country we haven't always lived up to our potential. In short, we've done some bad things. Unlike other countries however America has (eventually) for the most part tried to right those wrongs and learn from its mistakes.
Can we do better? You bet. Our relationship with Central and South America is one area where we can improve. Internationally and domestically we can walk back race relations from the ledge of silliness that President Zero has placed it.
More importantly, we can reign in the over-burdensome regulatory state and let business people, and private citizens, go more easily about the business of creating wealth. What this will really do is reignite the concept of social mobility, the idea that you're not limited to your current status just because you were born into it. It's this lack of social mobility that's angering so many people in the first place. (If you read one article that I link to in this post, please make it this one)
I'm not sure if either Rubio or Cruz are going to be able to knock the Bronzed Ego out of the catbird seat for the Republican nomination. To be honest, I think that's about as likely as Her Highness actually being indicted by Obama's Justice Department. What I do know is that any conversation of conservatism post-Trump is going to have to happen at the local level first. The brand, at least in Texas, where I live) is starting to take on a significant amount of water.
The question now is, what comes next? First though we have to let this election cycle play out.
#NeverTrump
Trump, Cruz and Rubio had fair (not great) nights on Super Tuesday. I realize this runs counter to what you've read in the media (namely, that the Bronzed Ego triumphed). In fact, Trump's delegate haul of 238 was on the lower end of what many observers felt he needed to call the evening a success (the O/U for that was 250).
Cruz, held serve in Texas (his home state) and, in a mild surprise, Oklahoma and Alaska, but failed to register, most notably with evangelicals, almost every where else. That said, he currently stands second in the delegate count so many people, most of whom don't seem to understand maps, are suggesting he's the top guy to knock out Trump.
Rubio's math is a little tougher. First, he hasn't "won" anything except Minnesota so he's struggling to make people understand the power of proportional delegates. It doesn't help that he's up against the Bronzed Ego, who is furthering the regression of the general population by focusing on "wins" instead of delegate counts. For example, Trump "won" Virginia but only received one more delegate than did Rubio.
Kasich has no path, he's a regional candidate who simply refuses to see that, either through a sense of malice toward the conservative arm of the GOP, or by blinders provided by his consultants. Carson did see that he's a fringe candidate (finally) and (sort-of) suspended his campaign.
Where this leaves us is in the unenviable position of having to listen to almost every pundit on the right, many of whom are partially responsible for getting us here in the first place, tell us that El Bronzo is either the worst thing in the history of worst things or the greatest thing since sliced white bread.
On the other side, we have the Democrats who, as they do, are suddenly finding themselves "very concerned" over what's happening to the GOP. By concerned, of course, they mean "crapping themselves in glee and breaking out the champagne bottles."
Regardless of what the pundits are saying, I think Trump is the leader with Rubio and Cruz' odds getting longer and longer. What is clear is that the rusting hulk that is the GOP National Party has passed it's expiration date and those of us concerned with quaint ideas such as economic and political freedom had better start planning for what's next.
I call it #PostGOP and I think its going to be crucial to conservatives to consider this.
To me, the two-main issues of importance are going to be reigning in the ever-growing octopus that is the regulatory State, and re-establishing the rule-of-law in American politics. Yes, issues such as abortion and National defense and infrastructure matter, but those issues are nothing if we don't have the political and economic freedoms in place that the Country was founded on.
Yes, there are times in our history that America has behaved badly. As a country we haven't always lived up to our potential. In short, we've done some bad things. Unlike other countries however America has (eventually) for the most part tried to right those wrongs and learn from its mistakes.
Can we do better? You bet. Our relationship with Central and South America is one area where we can improve. Internationally and domestically we can walk back race relations from the ledge of silliness that President Zero has placed it.
More importantly, we can reign in the over-burdensome regulatory state and let business people, and private citizens, go more easily about the business of creating wealth. What this will really do is reignite the concept of social mobility, the idea that you're not limited to your current status just because you were born into it. It's this lack of social mobility that's angering so many people in the first place. (If you read one article that I link to in this post, please make it this one)
I'm not sure if either Rubio or Cruz are going to be able to knock the Bronzed Ego out of the catbird seat for the Republican nomination. To be honest, I think that's about as likely as Her Highness actually being indicted by Obama's Justice Department. What I do know is that any conversation of conservatism post-Trump is going to have to happen at the local level first. The brand, at least in Texas, where I live) is starting to take on a significant amount of water.
The question now is, what comes next? First though we have to let this election cycle play out.
#NeverTrump
Tuesday, March 01, 2016
Election 2016: Super Tuesday
First: Read this.....
Never Trump. Jon Gabriel, Ricochet
Second: It's no secret that I've always been a reluctant member of the Republican Party. This is in large part because most Republicans are joyless people with whom I have little in common. When you're a pro-gay marriage, pro-gambling, pro-immigration, pro-individual choice Republican with libertarian leanings you often find yourself at cross-purposes with the Party in the Bible-belt South. (One issue on which we do agree is pro-life, that wasn't always the case but I was wrong then, and have come around now)
The problem is that the Democrats are even worse. If you want to be depressed, spend some time around a progressive social justice warrior without a fifth of whiskey. If you can do that without making a bee-line toward the medicine cabinet more power to you.
Also, Democratic policy, for the most part, is an exercise in silliness. Yes, the GOP is too corporation friendly and yes, they get issues like immigration totally wrong. I admit that their 100% insistence on cutting taxes for the rich gets tiresome.
But they aren't anti-business, for the most part and they aren't full of social justice warriors.
That said, if the GOP selects Trump as their nominee for the Presidency of the United States of America I will, as will many others, leave the party. This time I will not come back.
Because if a group of people that I'm not all that sure about anyway decide to nominate an odious, self-promoting, wanna-be strongman as their standard bearer I'm out.
Of course, if Trump does get the nomination the very real possibility exists that the GOP itself might be out. Oh sure, it will still limp along in some manner, and at the State level there will probably still be some life, but as a National entity it could find itself crippled for a generation.
This would be a disaster for the Nation as Democrats would have free-reign to undo each and every piece of the American Experiment to their choosing. You could pretty much say goodbye to the Bill of Rights, profitable business, finance as we know it, and prosperity. Under policies designed to promote "clean energy" (but which would really be designed to limit energy) the poor and middle-class would suffer greatly while the ruling and courtesan classes dined on peacock and baby seal. The income gap would turn into an un-passable gulf and poverty rates would sky-rocket.
Increased regulation would stifle entrepreneurship, the newly-empowered unions would destroy productivity and profitability and federal environmental policy would all but shutter the oil and gas industry, causing millions to find themselves out of work with few prospects. Patronage would surpass merit as the means to success and all the while the GOP will find itself relegated to permanent minority status, similar to the Republican party in California.
I cannot and will not be a party to that.
So, today I'm going to cast my vote for Marco Rubio. It's quite possible this is the last vote that I will ever cast as a Republican.
#NeverTrump
Never Trump. Jon Gabriel, Ricochet
Second: It's no secret that I've always been a reluctant member of the Republican Party. This is in large part because most Republicans are joyless people with whom I have little in common. When you're a pro-gay marriage, pro-gambling, pro-immigration, pro-individual choice Republican with libertarian leanings you often find yourself at cross-purposes with the Party in the Bible-belt South. (One issue on which we do agree is pro-life, that wasn't always the case but I was wrong then, and have come around now)
The problem is that the Democrats are even worse. If you want to be depressed, spend some time around a progressive social justice warrior without a fifth of whiskey. If you can do that without making a bee-line toward the medicine cabinet more power to you.
Also, Democratic policy, for the most part, is an exercise in silliness. Yes, the GOP is too corporation friendly and yes, they get issues like immigration totally wrong. I admit that their 100% insistence on cutting taxes for the rich gets tiresome.
But they aren't anti-business, for the most part and they aren't full of social justice warriors.
That said, if the GOP selects Trump as their nominee for the Presidency of the United States of America I will, as will many others, leave the party. This time I will not come back.
Because if a group of people that I'm not all that sure about anyway decide to nominate an odious, self-promoting, wanna-be strongman as their standard bearer I'm out.
Of course, if Trump does get the nomination the very real possibility exists that the GOP itself might be out. Oh sure, it will still limp along in some manner, and at the State level there will probably still be some life, but as a National entity it could find itself crippled for a generation.
This would be a disaster for the Nation as Democrats would have free-reign to undo each and every piece of the American Experiment to their choosing. You could pretty much say goodbye to the Bill of Rights, profitable business, finance as we know it, and prosperity. Under policies designed to promote "clean energy" (but which would really be designed to limit energy) the poor and middle-class would suffer greatly while the ruling and courtesan classes dined on peacock and baby seal. The income gap would turn into an un-passable gulf and poverty rates would sky-rocket.
Increased regulation would stifle entrepreneurship, the newly-empowered unions would destroy productivity and profitability and federal environmental policy would all but shutter the oil and gas industry, causing millions to find themselves out of work with few prospects. Patronage would surpass merit as the means to success and all the while the GOP will find itself relegated to permanent minority status, similar to the Republican party in California.
I cannot and will not be a party to that.
So, today I'm going to cast my vote for Marco Rubio. It's quite possible this is the last vote that I will ever cast as a Republican.
#NeverTrump
Tales of a Sub-Par Media Outlet: Trinkets are never enough.
Remember Houston's shiny, new, green, dedicated bike lane? Back when then Mayor Annise Parker got City Council to green-light the thing it was hailed as a marvel for pedaling that would usher in a new age of bicycling in Houston and lead us down the path toward world classiness in the vein of Amsterdam and...other world classiest places.
Fast forward to today however and Houston's 3/4 mile plinth to bicycling greatness has suddenly morphed into a boondoggle. At least, according to the group of bumblers at the Houston Chronicle's increasingly irrelevant editorial board....
City Hall Update. HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
The bike lane to nowhere. (You see what they did there right? Copying the bridge to nowhere which was a sign of government waste and earmark abuse?)
Clever.
Except, for the Chronically inept editorial board, the solution isn't to eliminate a bike lane that's almost completely unused and which is creating more problems than it solves. The solution, is to increase the madness exponentially.
Because what Houston needs are more lanes of traffic off-limits to 93% of commuters and workers who drive their cars so bicyclists can repeatedly pedal outside of the lane.
The rest of the editorial, found above, is an exercise in silliness and bad civics.
The irrelevant editorial board chastises Turner for not addressing the pillow-soft revenue cap, without mentioning that he is prohibited by Texas law from doing so until 2017. The Chronicle also seems to imply that, under no circumstances, are cuts to anything except for pensions and the revenue cap going to be acceptable as a means for fixing Houston's budget.
As Houston continues to increase the tax and regulatory burden on small and large businesses the threat of flight becomes more and more a reality. Soon all that's going to be left within the city of Houston are those too rich to care, and those too poor to do anything about it.
Rebuilding jobs and the economy in Houston's disadvantaged neighborhoods isn't going to be accomplished by taking a bigger piece of the pie from those who are succeeding, it's going to be accomplished by streamlining interaction with City Hall and allowing people to reinvest more of their money into their business.
While it's true that I'm no supporter of Sylvester Turner, that doesn't make it fair to call him out for what he's done so far.
Has he solved Houston's problems? No. But it's fair to say that, at least for now, he hasn't made them markedly worse. Given my expectations for his Mayoral tenure that's meant as praise. Faint praise yes, because we haven't seen his long-term plan.
It's fairly clear however that the Chron won't be willing to praise Turner until he squeezes more dollars from Houston's citizens. Given that the Chron just saved a bundle in property tax with the sale of their downtown operation, I'm willing to be their budget can absorb quite an increase at the new digs while still coming in under the old total.
If only all of us could be so lucky as to sell our house when the tax bill gets too high and relocate to another property with a lower bill in the same city.
This is the world that the Houston Chronicle's editorial board lives in. And residence in such is the main contributor to why it needs to be disbanded, it's members cast free and the resulting free dollars be spent hiring new beat reporters. Because listening to the advice of the editorial board has likely saddled Houston with Billions of dollars in boondoggles.
Let's not waste our time building any more.
Fast forward to today however and Houston's 3/4 mile plinth to bicycling greatness has suddenly morphed into a boondoggle. At least, according to the group of bumblers at the Houston Chronicle's increasingly irrelevant editorial board....
City Hall Update. HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
The city's looming budget crunch should rebut any presumptions that Houston is going to have a newly recommended $500 million bicycle network in place anytime soon. However, pedaling out the proposed network at a slow pace risks a disconnected system that doesn't help cyclists or drivers, and doesn't do much to reassure taxpayers that their money is spent wisely. Houston already has a warning sign against this practice highlighted in dark green - the Lamar Street bike lane to nowhere.
The bike lane to nowhere. (You see what they did there right? Copying the bridge to nowhere which was a sign of government waste and earmark abuse?)
Clever.
Except, for the Chronically inept editorial board, the solution isn't to eliminate a bike lane that's almost completely unused and which is creating more problems than it solves. The solution, is to increase the madness exponentially.
City Hall should model San Diego, which is planning to add a grid of protected bike lanes in its downtown in a single project
Because what Houston needs are more lanes of traffic off-limits to 93% of commuters and workers who drive their cars so bicyclists can repeatedly pedal outside of the lane.
The rest of the editorial, found above, is an exercise in silliness and bad civics.
The irrelevant editorial board chastises Turner for not addressing the pillow-soft revenue cap, without mentioning that he is prohibited by Texas law from doing so until 2017. The Chronicle also seems to imply that, under no circumstances, are cuts to anything except for pensions and the revenue cap going to be acceptable as a means for fixing Houston's budget.
As Houston continues to increase the tax and regulatory burden on small and large businesses the threat of flight becomes more and more a reality. Soon all that's going to be left within the city of Houston are those too rich to care, and those too poor to do anything about it.
Rebuilding jobs and the economy in Houston's disadvantaged neighborhoods isn't going to be accomplished by taking a bigger piece of the pie from those who are succeeding, it's going to be accomplished by streamlining interaction with City Hall and allowing people to reinvest more of their money into their business.
While it's true that I'm no supporter of Sylvester Turner, that doesn't make it fair to call him out for what he's done so far.
Has he solved Houston's problems? No. But it's fair to say that, at least for now, he hasn't made them markedly worse. Given my expectations for his Mayoral tenure that's meant as praise. Faint praise yes, because we haven't seen his long-term plan.
It's fairly clear however that the Chron won't be willing to praise Turner until he squeezes more dollars from Houston's citizens. Given that the Chron just saved a bundle in property tax with the sale of their downtown operation, I'm willing to be their budget can absorb quite an increase at the new digs while still coming in under the old total.
If only all of us could be so lucky as to sell our house when the tax bill gets too high and relocate to another property with a lower bill in the same city.
This is the world that the Houston Chronicle's editorial board lives in. And residence in such is the main contributor to why it needs to be disbanded, it's members cast free and the resulting free dollars be spent hiring new beat reporters. Because listening to the advice of the editorial board has likely saddled Houston with Billions of dollars in boondoggles.
Let's not waste our time building any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)