This should be a cardinal rule for any conservative candidate: If the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board thinks you're making a wise policy decision, immediately reconsider.
Medicaid Expansion. HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
There's no need to quote any of this editorial as you've heard it all before. A 'conservative' member of the GOP who's been the beneficiary of relatively high taxpayer funding in relation to expenditures takes a "reasonable" position regarding expanding Medicaid and accepting the Billions of dollars in "free money" being offered up by the Federal Government.
In this case it's Harris County Commissioner Steve Radack, deemed a "conservative firebrand" by the gang of fools at the editorial board who refuses to be blinded by extreme ideology. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Such is the power of messaging, where a majority of people are starting to believe that these Federal dollars are created by the money fairy and will have no long-term repercussions. There's no mention of the fact that the manna from Heaven is temporary, and will soon mold and sour (or go away entirely) as did the sustenance the Lord provided to the Hebrews on their journey out of Egypt.
And what then?
Supporters of the plan assure voters that the funds will be "extended". That the temporary nature really isn't and that Congress will "surely" act to make the additional funds permanent. But, if they don't? Then Texas is going to be staring into a permanent budget hole and will be forced to radically alter its revenue confiscation structure in order to fund it. Because kicking all of those Texans off the Medicare rolls once the Federal funding goes away is not consistent with the incumbent protection plan that is our current electoral system.
It's not that Radack and Emmett are bad people. Far from it. I've met both gentlemen and they seem like devoted family men, genuinely nice, no better or no worse than anyone else, albeit with slightly better suits, and man-scaping than most.
The problem is they, like many other in the GOP, are not movement conservatives and are really just conservatives of convenience when it forwards their political ambitions. In this, they are not alone. The pandering and equivocation of politicians are part of the reason why Trump is so popular, and it might just be the key to the Texas Democratic resurgence, in the short term at least.
This is not to say that the medical system in America right now is anything less than a nightmare. It's an over-regulated mess whose cost structure is way out of line, and whose billing practices are a mess, and that's being kind.
The problem is that no one in the GOP seems to have an understanding what a workable solution is or, at least, they haven't made it public. In most cases they are content to prop up the ADA as a whipping-boy for fund-raising purposes, without actually taking any meaningful action against it.
For local GOP officials this is creating a problem. Because Emmett, Radack and Co. have a system to run, and they really don't want to make meaningful change independently because that would require a LOT of sweat equity and would require some original thought of the type that would be controversial and, in the case of Radack at least, potentially result in losing an election. From that perspective the natural default is to support more money coming in, and let the folks that come next worry about the blow-back.
It is becoming increasingly clear that momentum for Medicaid expansion is building in Texas and I have no doubt that it will eventually come. I believe that it's coming to Texas will be the canary in the coal mine for the collapse of the Texas GOP.
What follows that will be interesting to see. Hopefully it is better at the task of messaging than is the current harbor for those of a conservative lean.
Friday, March 11, 2016
Thursday, March 10, 2016
#PostGOP: Be careful to keep the baby, not the bathwater.
Suddenly, driverless cars are bad.
Liberals Want Your Car Keys. Daniel Gelernter, National Review Online
In short, if progressives (not liberals) approve of it, then it's bad.
History has shown that this is not the case. And I don't think it's going to be the case with driverless cars.
In fact, getting off work and then sitting in a car on the ride home that I hailed with an app on my phone sounds pretty pleasant. If I can read the news, watch TV or write a blog post during that 45 minutes then I've reclaimed that productivity. That I'm less likely to get in a wreck in a driverless car seems pretty much a given. After all, it won't get tired, sick or, let's be honest, for some people drunk.
The problem that Mr. Gelernter has identified is not with the act of driving, but the progressive idea that we all need to be subject to rule by an appointed elite class. Matt Vella, who penned the article in Time magazine that Mr. Gelernter is referring to, cannot cope with the fact that people think differently than him. Because of this he has decided that everyone with a through running counter to this is a "contrarian" (which will-soon morph into the Nazi-inspired insult "deniers"). Vella's argument is not to be met head-on because you cannot change the mind of someone who is 100% sure they are correct to the point that they will not consider opposing arguments. Instead, Vella's position needs to be foisted on a pike in the public square an openly mocked.
But that doesn't mean that driverless cars are bad. In fact, that they have fairly wide early enthusiasm suggests to me that they are a good idea. They have the potential to reduce automotive collisions which can lead to financial and physical ruin, they potentially can remove a great stressor for many, and they are a potential solution to Billions of dollars being continually wasted on 19th century transit solutions.
Are their ethical concerns? Yes. Just as their are with any new technology, implementation will be key. But one fool's rambling in a magazine should not cause conservatives to pull the plug on technical advancement.
Conservatives should embrace driverless cars, but they should fight very hard at the government seeking to over regulate the automotive industry as a result of them. It is the overreach of the regulatory state that is the undoing of many good technological advancements. Fear, by the supposed elite, that they will not sufficiently understand knew technology to make it (with apologies to Asimov) clearly distinguishable from magic. If they can't fully understand it then their reasoning for regulating what you MUST do with it (namely, that they know better) vanishes in a puff of exhaust.
Unlike Mr. Gerlernter I'm not worried about the driverless car taking away my keys. What I am worried about is the elite, progressive class trying to take away my freedoms.
I'd like to keep those ALONG with driverless cars if you please.
Liberals Want Your Car Keys. Daniel Gelernter, National Review Online
Vella admits that weaning America off its “long-standing romance with its cars” will be a tough chore. But it is apparently a worthy task because Vella, like millions of other Americans, has been a victim of a human-driven-car accident. So he knows firsthand just how dangerous letting humans drive can be. His whining rhetoric is reminiscent of that of the anti-gun lobby, who similarly maintain that the only thing preventing us from saving lives is an irrational and outdated emotional attachment.
This is pat leftist thinking: “Individuals want X. Individuals are incapable of doing X efficiently by themselves. Therefore X should be provided for them by experts.” The experts are generally the government, often the academics, but never the individual. They know which doctor you should see, which operations your insurance should cover, which schools your kids should attend, and what the curricula should be.While the author does make a salient point, he buries the lede underneath an avalanche of current-right thinking.
In short, if progressives (not liberals) approve of it, then it's bad.
History has shown that this is not the case. And I don't think it's going to be the case with driverless cars.
In fact, getting off work and then sitting in a car on the ride home that I hailed with an app on my phone sounds pretty pleasant. If I can read the news, watch TV or write a blog post during that 45 minutes then I've reclaimed that productivity. That I'm less likely to get in a wreck in a driverless car seems pretty much a given. After all, it won't get tired, sick or, let's be honest, for some people drunk.
The problem that Mr. Gelernter has identified is not with the act of driving, but the progressive idea that we all need to be subject to rule by an appointed elite class. Matt Vella, who penned the article in Time magazine that Mr. Gelernter is referring to, cannot cope with the fact that people think differently than him. Because of this he has decided that everyone with a through running counter to this is a "contrarian" (which will-soon morph into the Nazi-inspired insult "deniers"). Vella's argument is not to be met head-on because you cannot change the mind of someone who is 100% sure they are correct to the point that they will not consider opposing arguments. Instead, Vella's position needs to be foisted on a pike in the public square an openly mocked.
But that doesn't mean that driverless cars are bad. In fact, that they have fairly wide early enthusiasm suggests to me that they are a good idea. They have the potential to reduce automotive collisions which can lead to financial and physical ruin, they potentially can remove a great stressor for many, and they are a potential solution to Billions of dollars being continually wasted on 19th century transit solutions.
Are their ethical concerns? Yes. Just as their are with any new technology, implementation will be key. But one fool's rambling in a magazine should not cause conservatives to pull the plug on technical advancement.
Conservatives should embrace driverless cars, but they should fight very hard at the government seeking to over regulate the automotive industry as a result of them. It is the overreach of the regulatory state that is the undoing of many good technological advancements. Fear, by the supposed elite, that they will not sufficiently understand knew technology to make it (with apologies to Asimov) clearly distinguishable from magic. If they can't fully understand it then their reasoning for regulating what you MUST do with it (namely, that they know better) vanishes in a puff of exhaust.
Unlike Mr. Gerlernter I'm not worried about the driverless car taking away my keys. What I am worried about is the elite, progressive class trying to take away my freedoms.
I'd like to keep those ALONG with driverless cars if you please.
Energy Scarcity: What Bill McKibbon's wins mean for the poor.
*Full Disclosure: I work in government reporting/regulatory for a mid-major oil and gas company based in Houston. The opinions presented here are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer, the board, or any officer of the company. Also, because I work in the O & G industry I realize that many of you will discount my thoughts out of hand. That's OK, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to the reasonable people out there.
EPA Expands Methane Rules to all Oil and Gas Wells. James Osborne, FuelFix (Houston Chronicle)
As a world wide consumer of energy this is bad for you. If you're poor in America, or live in a developing country, this is even worse for you. The reason for this is that the new rules are going to come with an extreme cost, and that cost is going to be paid for by the consumer, most notably by the poor who will not be able to absorb the cost increase.
Of course, I can hear you say, 'But the Democrats are the party of the poor, how can they want to hurt the poor?' The problem with your question is that it is bunk. The Democrats are not the party of the poor, they do not work for the interests of the poor, nor do they care all that much about the poor except to provide them with sufficient government subsidy to ensure their vote.
At this point Republicans chime in 'See!! WE'RE the party of the poor, and OUR policies really help the poor.' But they don't. Because too many Republicans look at a problem as see an opportunity for a big G Government solution. Even Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, the founder and champion of the State's Tea Party Caucus (Which, tellingly, has absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party) has been known to suggest that "Government must do something!" when a problem arises.
It is the nature of those who Govern, who we have elected to govern us, to want control, to want to purchase power through largesse funded primarily by your tax dollars. In the end, the entire anthropogenic climate change fallacy is nothing more than an attempt to do that. Al Gore has leveraged a scientifically dodgy movie to do just that to the tone of Millions of dollars in personal wealth, all while not changing his or his families lifestyle one iota. Mr. Gore still travels via personal jet, in armored sports utility vehicles running on diesel. In most cases he is driven, and the house in which he lives is less climate friendly than some gas processing plants.
Then we have the story of Bill McKibbon, the new-age climate change activist who has coined the term "Keep it in the ground" which, he thinks, is a call to eliminate all oil and gas production, but is being used by the government as a means to attempt to control an industry that has vexed politicians for decades.
America is unique in the fact that it allows private citizens to have ownership, and profit off of, mineral royalties. In other countries the monies paid in royalty for oil, gas, coal etc. are exclusively the property of the government. This is why Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other countries enjoy a standard of living so high. It's why Scotland thought they could afford to break-away from Great Britain, and it's why many of the so-called "Nordic Democratic Socialist" governments can make things work. In all cases, they are not socialist but oil emirates in government structure.
There is a large group of Statists in America who want our company to operate the same way. They have latched on to the carbon movement to try and accomplish this goal. What you are being sold is that it is "Wall Street" who are going to be hurt by this and who cares right?
In truth, the people who are going to be hurt the most are the landowners who rely on those royalty checks, in many cases to bridge gaps in their income. The working poor are also going to be hurt because rising energy prices will affect them the most.
Scarcity of energy will be felt the most in developing economies. In fact, lack of energy being increasingly acknowledged as a prime contributor to World poverty. You don't often hear the green movement address this because it's one of their many inconvenient truths that they seek to hide from the general public.
In fact, the green energy movement is not about plentiful, so called 'free', energy as the businesses and politicians in their pocket would have you believe. In fact, even so-called 'new-environmentalists' admit that the movement views people to be the problem. Specifically, too many people of the wrong socio-economic class and mindset.
When Bill McKibbon, Al Gore and their sycophants suggest that on carbon we need to "keep it in the ground" what they're really suggesting is that approved forms of energy production should only be available to the groups they want it to be available to.
I have no doubt that the Earth's climate is changing. I believe this just as I believe that pollution above certain levels is a bad thing. However, I remain unconvinced that we know about this planet to determine the entire cause to be anthorpogenic. There is the problem of the warming pause to which climate change true believers have attempted to discount only by tweaking their computer models. And if you're serious about science then any contention that Mann's Hockey Stick has not been totally debunked is based only on faith in the movement.
At some point, we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that man is pretty much powerless, despite all of our hubris, to alter the Earth's climate significantly. In other words.....
Climate change is coming regardless of what we try and do so our focus had better turn to how to DEAL with it rather than how to PREVENT it.
Because dealing with the issue means providing developing economies with the tools they need to power their economies in the cleanest, cheapest way possible so that they can have access to technology and medical services at a 1st world level. In order to do this we need carbon. We also need political leaders who are not pushing fantasy in a thinly veiled attempt to grab power.
Does the Oil and Gas industry need to do a better job capturing methane? You bet. But the way to accomplish this is not to punish them into leaving mineral resources in the ground.
The way to do it is to encourage other countries to adopt natural gas so that the price rebounds and capture becomes economically feasible, and profitable. The Obama Administration (aided by a complicit Congress, is doing exactly the opposite by enacting regulations that are going to greatly increase the cost of energy for the poorest among us.
Hope and change for the ruling class. Pain and suffering for everyone else. I don't think he said that on the campaign trail did he?
Oh yeah, he did.* But his predominately poor supporters ignored that and voted against their own economic interests.
We're doing this to ourselves, and there will be no reason for the government to stop until we require them to.
*OK Sorry, I couldn't find a video linking to that tweet that didn't have the crazy, birther stuff in it. My apologies.
EPA Expands Methane Rules to all Oil and Gas Wells. James Osborne, FuelFix (Houston Chronicle)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expanding its crackdown on methane emissions from oil and natural gas drilling to all existing wells.The announcement from the White House Thursday came as part of a joint agreement with Canada on climate change, curbing methane emissions from North America and taking steps to protect the Arctic region from rising temperatures and oceans.The EPA had announced plans to cut methane emissions from new oil and gas wells last year. But if the United States was to reach the goal set out by President Obama of cutting methane emissions at least 40 percent by 2025, existing wells have to be included, said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.“Based on this growing body of science it’s become clear it come time for EPA to take additional action,” she said in a press conference. “We’ll start this work immediately and we intend to work quickly.”
As a world wide consumer of energy this is bad for you. If you're poor in America, or live in a developing country, this is even worse for you. The reason for this is that the new rules are going to come with an extreme cost, and that cost is going to be paid for by the consumer, most notably by the poor who will not be able to absorb the cost increase.
Of course, I can hear you say, 'But the Democrats are the party of the poor, how can they want to hurt the poor?' The problem with your question is that it is bunk. The Democrats are not the party of the poor, they do not work for the interests of the poor, nor do they care all that much about the poor except to provide them with sufficient government subsidy to ensure their vote.
At this point Republicans chime in 'See!! WE'RE the party of the poor, and OUR policies really help the poor.' But they don't. Because too many Republicans look at a problem as see an opportunity for a big G Government solution. Even Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, the founder and champion of the State's Tea Party Caucus (Which, tellingly, has absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party) has been known to suggest that "Government must do something!" when a problem arises.
It is the nature of those who Govern, who we have elected to govern us, to want control, to want to purchase power through largesse funded primarily by your tax dollars. In the end, the entire anthropogenic climate change fallacy is nothing more than an attempt to do that. Al Gore has leveraged a scientifically dodgy movie to do just that to the tone of Millions of dollars in personal wealth, all while not changing his or his families lifestyle one iota. Mr. Gore still travels via personal jet, in armored sports utility vehicles running on diesel. In most cases he is driven, and the house in which he lives is less climate friendly than some gas processing plants.
Then we have the story of Bill McKibbon, the new-age climate change activist who has coined the term "Keep it in the ground" which, he thinks, is a call to eliminate all oil and gas production, but is being used by the government as a means to attempt to control an industry that has vexed politicians for decades.
America is unique in the fact that it allows private citizens to have ownership, and profit off of, mineral royalties. In other countries the monies paid in royalty for oil, gas, coal etc. are exclusively the property of the government. This is why Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other countries enjoy a standard of living so high. It's why Scotland thought they could afford to break-away from Great Britain, and it's why many of the so-called "Nordic Democratic Socialist" governments can make things work. In all cases, they are not socialist but oil emirates in government structure.
There is a large group of Statists in America who want our company to operate the same way. They have latched on to the carbon movement to try and accomplish this goal. What you are being sold is that it is "Wall Street" who are going to be hurt by this and who cares right?
In truth, the people who are going to be hurt the most are the landowners who rely on those royalty checks, in many cases to bridge gaps in their income. The working poor are also going to be hurt because rising energy prices will affect them the most.
Scarcity of energy will be felt the most in developing economies. In fact, lack of energy being increasingly acknowledged as a prime contributor to World poverty. You don't often hear the green movement address this because it's one of their many inconvenient truths that they seek to hide from the general public.
In fact, the green energy movement is not about plentiful, so called 'free', energy as the businesses and politicians in their pocket would have you believe. In fact, even so-called 'new-environmentalists' admit that the movement views people to be the problem. Specifically, too many people of the wrong socio-economic class and mindset.
When Bill McKibbon, Al Gore and their sycophants suggest that on carbon we need to "keep it in the ground" what they're really suggesting is that approved forms of energy production should only be available to the groups they want it to be available to.
I have no doubt that the Earth's climate is changing. I believe this just as I believe that pollution above certain levels is a bad thing. However, I remain unconvinced that we know about this planet to determine the entire cause to be anthorpogenic. There is the problem of the warming pause to which climate change true believers have attempted to discount only by tweaking their computer models. And if you're serious about science then any contention that Mann's Hockey Stick has not been totally debunked is based only on faith in the movement.
At some point, we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that man is pretty much powerless, despite all of our hubris, to alter the Earth's climate significantly. In other words.....
Climate change is coming regardless of what we try and do so our focus had better turn to how to DEAL with it rather than how to PREVENT it.
Because dealing with the issue means providing developing economies with the tools they need to power their economies in the cleanest, cheapest way possible so that they can have access to technology and medical services at a 1st world level. In order to do this we need carbon. We also need political leaders who are not pushing fantasy in a thinly veiled attempt to grab power.
Does the Oil and Gas industry need to do a better job capturing methane? You bet. But the way to accomplish this is not to punish them into leaving mineral resources in the ground.
The way to do it is to encourage other countries to adopt natural gas so that the price rebounds and capture becomes economically feasible, and profitable. The Obama Administration (aided by a complicit Congress, is doing exactly the opposite by enacting regulations that are going to greatly increase the cost of energy for the poorest among us.
Hope and change for the ruling class. Pain and suffering for everyone else. I don't think he said that on the campaign trail did he?
Oh yeah, he did.* But his predominately poor supporters ignored that and voted against their own economic interests.
We're doing this to ourselves, and there will be no reason for the government to stop until we require them to.
*OK Sorry, I couldn't find a video linking to that tweet that didn't have the crazy, birther stuff in it. My apologies.
Wednesday, March 09, 2016
Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: One more thing on the recycling deal* (Updated)
It is probable that Houston's diminutive Mayor Sylvester Turner, having never held down a job in the private sector, is confusing standard business practices with "monopolistic actions".
More numbers behind Houston's in-limbo recycling program. Mike Morris, HoustonChronicle.com($$$)
It is not unusual for a company to seek a higher rate for a shorter term contract. Longer contracts come with discounts due to the fact that there is a longer guaranteed cash flow. It is quite possible that Turner, who has spent his entire career in the political arena, does not understand how this works, and thinks that Waste Management is trying to "price gouge" the City.
If that is the case then the residents of Houston need to hold on because you're going to be in for a bumpy-assed ride for however many years Turner is in office*. (lawsuit pending)
*The other scenario is that Turner doesn't care, and is content to have talks fall apart as part of his continuing effort to lift the pillow-soft revenue cap and increase taxes.
Neither scenario is promising for the long-term future of Houston.
Update: Today, the Chronicle has changed their story.
City votes to keep recycling plan after council rejects offer. Rebecca Elliot, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
I will say this, that latter framing of the narrative makes less sense given that WM, elsewhere in the article, states that they are ready to continue processing recycling without a contract and has a desire to continue working with the city.
Someone at the Houston Chronicle has it wrong. A media outlet with actual editors wouldn't let this happen. Maybe, at some point, we'll know the full story?
More numbers behind Houston's in-limbo recycling program. Mike Morris, HoustonChronicle.com($$$)
Houston has always paid to deploy its trucks and drivers to collect residents' recycled items,but the plunging commodities market makes this the first time Houston has faced a direct cost to process the recycling once it is picked up. In the past, the city either made money when the recyclables were resold, or, if there was no money left over, the city's contract ensured it paid nothing out of pocket.
Now, Waste Management has negotiated away that "zero floor," and has hiked its processing fee from $65 per ton to $95 (in the four-year deal) or $104 (in the one-year deal Turner sought).
It is not unusual for a company to seek a higher rate for a shorter term contract. Longer contracts come with discounts due to the fact that there is a longer guaranteed cash flow. It is quite possible that Turner, who has spent his entire career in the political arena, does not understand how this works, and thinks that Waste Management is trying to "price gouge" the City.
If that is the case then the residents of Houston need to hold on because you're going to be in for a bumpy-assed ride for however many years Turner is in office*. (lawsuit pending)
*The other scenario is that Turner doesn't care, and is content to have talks fall apart as part of his continuing effort to lift the pillow-soft revenue cap and increase taxes.
Neither scenario is promising for the long-term future of Houston.
Update: Today, the Chronicle has changed their story.
City votes to keep recycling plan after council rejects offer. Rebecca Elliot, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
City Council members balked at the price and the length of the contract two weeks ago, prompting Turner to step in. He had proposed a one-year contract that would pay Waste Management $104 per ton, but the company rejected that idea on Tuesday.As you can see, we're getting two totally different stories here. Yesterday the tone was different, Waste Management is price gouging and not acting as a good corporate citizen. Today, the tone is that WM did not want to accept the higher price for a shorter length.
I will say this, that latter framing of the narrative makes less sense given that WM, elsewhere in the article, states that they are ready to continue processing recycling without a contract and has a desire to continue working with the city.
Someone at the Houston Chronicle has it wrong. A media outlet with actual editors wouldn't let this happen. Maybe, at some point, we'll know the full story?
#PostGOP: Conservative? Or Opportunists? The lessening influence of the pundit class.
I will admit to never being much a fan of conservative talk-radio or Fox News. Nor am I huge on most political punditry. For certain there are some writers whose opinions I respect (Charles C.W. Cooke, Kevin D. Williamson and a handful of others) but, for the most part I don't put much faith in the ramblings of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham or, especially, the walking bag of racism and stupid that is Ann Coulter.
The important thing to remember about most of these people is they are entertainers first, capitalists second and exhibitionists third. They can at times offer up some good, entertaining conservative writing or they can offer up thoughts that can only be classified as bat-shit crazy. They exist to make money (not a bad thing) and increase ratings (again, not a bad thing). What they are not intent on doing is forwarding, at all costs, conservative dogma.
Because of this I'm less than shocked to see most of them abandon conservatism and move behind Trump as his candidacy gains momentum. If you've paid much attention to them, and their business models, this shouldn't come as that much of a surprise.
Trump is good for ratings. His histrionics draw both eyes and ears to television and radio broadcasts throughout the conservative entertainment network. Fox News, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, et. al could care less who wins any election. As a matter of fact they benefit when the Democrats are in the White House. President Obama and his assaults on so-called "traditional American values" is better for business than is President Mitt Romney and fiscal sanity and competence. Competence doesn't energize the base and drive book sales. (Also, it's much harder to write a book about paying down debt then it is to write about the loony left and the dangerous things they do.)
When contained to the sphere of cracking on the opposition this is all fairly benign stuff. It's the right's version of Paul Krugman (the clown) banging away at increased deficit spending and declaring all and sundry on the right to be idiots. In the end, it doesn't hurt anything and provides low-information fodder for the base to digest before the next round of political fundraising occurs.
When that's happening the two parties (Yes Democrats, your side does it too) turn a blind eye to some of the crazier things said because hysterical, apocalyptic rantings are good for the party coffers. People are more likely to donate to the treasury during times of war, or after they are told that there is a war on Christianity, and the political entertainment industry is very good at stoking those fears.
The problem, for the GOP especially, is when the carnival barkers become the main voice in the room, when their Step Right Up! entreaties become the main sound that the electorate is hearing. This is when the core messages (reduction of the regulatory state, restoration of the rule of law, Constitutionalism) become lost in a sea of bile, racism and ignorance.
Then you have the problem of a weakened party. A party that has lost, or turned away from, those core principles in exchange for fealty to a patronage system which has rigged the game against everyday Americans, and set the GOP down an unsustainable path. With this party, and these fractured messages, the core siren of conservatism gets drowned out by populist, and nativist howling. Building a wall and making Mexico pay for it creates more coin for the realm than does forcing the Country to live within it's means.
The continuing problem for the GOP is this. A party that can no longer clearly communicate its core message to voters is no longer a party at all. It's a collection of special interests continually vying for a bigger piece of the government pie. The Democrats have seemingly accepted this and more importantly learned to control it. The difference between the two parties is that (for the most part) voters who lean left find this acceptable (provided their side is at the trough) while GOP voters (ostensibly) do not.
The anger directed toward the GOP, and embodied within the #NeverTrump movement (full disclosure, I'm a #NeverTrump guy if you haven't figured that out) is a natural reaction to a party that speaks out of both sides of its mouth. The GOP preaches about the rule of law, Constitutionalism and limited government while implementing and supporting policies that do just the opposite. Party heads such as Reince Priebus, Mitch McConnell and (formerly) John Boehner were quite happy defending Statist (and somewhat Corporatist) positions, provided their side was given a position at the trough.
Despite all of this, suggesting that the GOP is D.O.A. is not entirely accurate. While I'm titling this series #PostGOP even I don't think that the party is going to fully dissolve. What I do see is a diminished GOP that functions, on a National level, much like the Texas Democratic Party. A Trump nomination has the potential to be a disaster for the down-ballot races and could threaten conservative majorities in both the Senate and the House.
Of the root causes for this the most recent is the party's reliance on the squishy entertainment class to forward the message. There are other root causes to be sure (for one, the Democrats message a LOT better than does the GOP, for two, leadership is weak, ineffectual and rotten) but none is on more prominent display right now than the intellectual kiddie-pool that is Fox News, so-called conservative talk-radio and the newly minted collection of web-sites, pod-casts and internet broadcasts that I call DigiCon. (Digital Conservatism. See what I did there)
In order for conservatives to thrive going forward there's going to have to be a commitment to improving the message pertaining to the core issues. In large part, that means finding a group of pundits who have real conviction, and continually holding their feet to the conservative flame. Of course, before any of that can happen the current crop should be, mostly, required to just go away.
The important thing to remember about most of these people is they are entertainers first, capitalists second and exhibitionists third. They can at times offer up some good, entertaining conservative writing or they can offer up thoughts that can only be classified as bat-shit crazy. They exist to make money (not a bad thing) and increase ratings (again, not a bad thing). What they are not intent on doing is forwarding, at all costs, conservative dogma.
Because of this I'm less than shocked to see most of them abandon conservatism and move behind Trump as his candidacy gains momentum. If you've paid much attention to them, and their business models, this shouldn't come as that much of a surprise.
Trump is good for ratings. His histrionics draw both eyes and ears to television and radio broadcasts throughout the conservative entertainment network. Fox News, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, et. al could care less who wins any election. As a matter of fact they benefit when the Democrats are in the White House. President Obama and his assaults on so-called "traditional American values" is better for business than is President Mitt Romney and fiscal sanity and competence. Competence doesn't energize the base and drive book sales. (Also, it's much harder to write a book about paying down debt then it is to write about the loony left and the dangerous things they do.)
When contained to the sphere of cracking on the opposition this is all fairly benign stuff. It's the right's version of Paul Krugman (the clown) banging away at increased deficit spending and declaring all and sundry on the right to be idiots. In the end, it doesn't hurt anything and provides low-information fodder for the base to digest before the next round of political fundraising occurs.
When that's happening the two parties (Yes Democrats, your side does it too) turn a blind eye to some of the crazier things said because hysterical, apocalyptic rantings are good for the party coffers. People are more likely to donate to the treasury during times of war, or after they are told that there is a war on Christianity, and the political entertainment industry is very good at stoking those fears.
The problem, for the GOP especially, is when the carnival barkers become the main voice in the room, when their Step Right Up! entreaties become the main sound that the electorate is hearing. This is when the core messages (reduction of the regulatory state, restoration of the rule of law, Constitutionalism) become lost in a sea of bile, racism and ignorance.
Then you have the problem of a weakened party. A party that has lost, or turned away from, those core principles in exchange for fealty to a patronage system which has rigged the game against everyday Americans, and set the GOP down an unsustainable path. With this party, and these fractured messages, the core siren of conservatism gets drowned out by populist, and nativist howling. Building a wall and making Mexico pay for it creates more coin for the realm than does forcing the Country to live within it's means.
The continuing problem for the GOP is this. A party that can no longer clearly communicate its core message to voters is no longer a party at all. It's a collection of special interests continually vying for a bigger piece of the government pie. The Democrats have seemingly accepted this and more importantly learned to control it. The difference between the two parties is that (for the most part) voters who lean left find this acceptable (provided their side is at the trough) while GOP voters (ostensibly) do not.
The anger directed toward the GOP, and embodied within the #NeverTrump movement (full disclosure, I'm a #NeverTrump guy if you haven't figured that out) is a natural reaction to a party that speaks out of both sides of its mouth. The GOP preaches about the rule of law, Constitutionalism and limited government while implementing and supporting policies that do just the opposite. Party heads such as Reince Priebus, Mitch McConnell and (formerly) John Boehner were quite happy defending Statist (and somewhat Corporatist) positions, provided their side was given a position at the trough.
Despite all of this, suggesting that the GOP is D.O.A. is not entirely accurate. While I'm titling this series #PostGOP even I don't think that the party is going to fully dissolve. What I do see is a diminished GOP that functions, on a National level, much like the Texas Democratic Party. A Trump nomination has the potential to be a disaster for the down-ballot races and could threaten conservative majorities in both the Senate and the House.
Of the root causes for this the most recent is the party's reliance on the squishy entertainment class to forward the message. There are other root causes to be sure (for one, the Democrats message a LOT better than does the GOP, for two, leadership is weak, ineffectual and rotten) but none is on more prominent display right now than the intellectual kiddie-pool that is Fox News, so-called conservative talk-radio and the newly minted collection of web-sites, pod-casts and internet broadcasts that I call DigiCon. (Digital Conservatism. See what I did there)
In order for conservatives to thrive going forward there's going to have to be a commitment to improving the message pertaining to the core issues. In large part, that means finding a group of pundits who have real conviction, and continually holding their feet to the conservative flame. Of course, before any of that can happen the current crop should be, mostly, required to just go away.
Houston Area Leadership Vacuum: Turner the Diminutive has found his bogeyman for the trash tax.
I give you, Waste Management....
Contract impasse could force halt in city recycling program. Mike Morris, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
Poor Houston. Bilked and fleeced by none-other than the most devious monopoly ever created. A monopolistic force so vile, so clever, that it failed to foresee the commodity collapse and was forced to eat around $1 Million over the last couple of years because of a bad contract with the City.
All Turner is asking for is that they continue that money-losing proposition. Of course, he doesn't mention that part of the reason he wants Waste Management to operate at a loss is because the city has been mismanaged for so long that they are now looking at a deep short-fall in funds that threatens the patronage system that has been established.
The good news, if you're of a progressive, tax the crap out of everyone, lean, is that Turner can now use WM as the bad guy in two tax discussions.
First, he can take the realities of the recycling market, and the fact that some activists want recycling at all costs, and use it to justify his proposed solid waste tax. Yes, it will be termed a "fee" and will be foisted upon the public as the solution to all of the city's solid waste worries, but it will also create a huge revenue stream for Houston that will be largely collected from the pocketbooks of the poor and middle class.
Second, Wast Management's refusal to take a beating, and risk losing share value in the process, will be just another reason that Turner will use to float an ordinance in 2017 removing the city's pillow soft revenue cap.
It's one thing to keep increasing the amount of the budget shortfall (which is a classical political scare tactic FWIW) it's yet another thing to be able to point the finger directly at the bad guy, and put the blame for it on them. In this case a corporation who entered into contracts with the city in good faith, and houses its corporate headquarters here, is about to undergo the diminutive politician experience as it sees what passes for leadership in Houston throw a public fit.
A calculated fit, and a fit designed to provide them with some cover for the mess that they, largely, had a hand in creating, but a public fit that's designed, primarily, to convince those not paying very close attention that the City is an aggrieved victim here.
In one case however Turner is correct. We are dealing with a monopoly here. It's an organization that has removed choice from the citizens of Houston and trapped them into only having one choice for a variety of services that people outside the city frequently choose on the open market.
That monopoly is the City of Houston. And it's throwing a tantrum now that it can't get its way.
Contract impasse could force halt in city recycling program. Mike Morris, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
"They control the market. It's like a monopoly," Turner said of the Houston-based Fortune 500 company that long has held the city's recycling contract. "I support recycling. But asking people to accept a bad deal now and in the future is not good business, and I'm not prepared to allow the city to be hijacked by Waste Management or any one company. I want a good deal, but I also expect people to be good corporate citizens and not utilize their monopolistic status."
Poor Houston. Bilked and fleeced by none-other than the most devious monopoly ever created. A monopolistic force so vile, so clever, that it failed to foresee the commodity collapse and was forced to eat around $1 Million over the last couple of years because of a bad contract with the City.
All Turner is asking for is that they continue that money-losing proposition. Of course, he doesn't mention that part of the reason he wants Waste Management to operate at a loss is because the city has been mismanaged for so long that they are now looking at a deep short-fall in funds that threatens the patronage system that has been established.
The good news, if you're of a progressive, tax the crap out of everyone, lean, is that Turner can now use WM as the bad guy in two tax discussions.
First, he can take the realities of the recycling market, and the fact that some activists want recycling at all costs, and use it to justify his proposed solid waste tax. Yes, it will be termed a "fee" and will be foisted upon the public as the solution to all of the city's solid waste worries, but it will also create a huge revenue stream for Houston that will be largely collected from the pocketbooks of the poor and middle class.
Second, Wast Management's refusal to take a beating, and risk losing share value in the process, will be just another reason that Turner will use to float an ordinance in 2017 removing the city's pillow soft revenue cap.
It's one thing to keep increasing the amount of the budget shortfall (which is a classical political scare tactic FWIW) it's yet another thing to be able to point the finger directly at the bad guy, and put the blame for it on them. In this case a corporation who entered into contracts with the city in good faith, and houses its corporate headquarters here, is about to undergo the diminutive politician experience as it sees what passes for leadership in Houston throw a public fit.
A calculated fit, and a fit designed to provide them with some cover for the mess that they, largely, had a hand in creating, but a public fit that's designed, primarily, to convince those not paying very close attention that the City is an aggrieved victim here.
In one case however Turner is correct. We are dealing with a monopoly here. It's an organization that has removed choice from the citizens of Houston and trapped them into only having one choice for a variety of services that people outside the city frequently choose on the open market.
That monopoly is the City of Houston. And it's throwing a tantrum now that it can't get its way.
Tuesday, March 08, 2016
Tales of a sub-par media outlet: Outsourcing hard-news to non-profit advocacy groups. (Death-Row Edition)
The Houston Chronicle has graced us with yet another sympathetic portrait of a convicted killer on death row or, as my friend Kevin from BlogHouston terms it: Chron-Eye for the Death Row Killer Guy.
Scheduled to die, killer says he's better than most on death row. Alan Turner, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
It's the typical story, guy who committed hideous murder(s) given shade because of mental issues/bad representation/faulty trials or (in this case) all of the above. He's (and it's usually a he) then presented in the most sympathetic manner possible in keeping with the Chronicle's editorial position against the death penalty.
It's a classic case of a newspaper's editorial advocacy bleeding over into it's so-called "hard news" coverage and, under the current Houston Chronicle leadership, it is happening more and more often. Some reporters for the Chronicle clearly relish the opportunity to inject their personal beliefs into the stories, some do not. The latter are the beat and Sr. reporters that I consider to still be the good guys still working at the newly minted News Fortress on I-69.
Today however it seems a little bit worse. Because now the Chronicle is all but admitting that their death-row reporting is coming directly from an anti-death penalty advocacy group.
In this the Chron is admitting that they source primarily from The Marshall Project which is one of those groups that present itself as a non-profit news organization but which is really a group who advocates for massive overhaul within the criminal justice system.
From their "about" page:
The Marshall project is up-front and honest about their point of view and what they are trying to do with their "reporting". By using them as a source for their reporting on Texas death-row inmates, and having a Sr. Chronicle reporter write the story with no disclosure within the body of the same, the Houston Chronicle leadership is not.
If the Chronicle is willing to outsource (at least the research) for its criminal justice reporting then what else are they willing to do? Are we getting reporting on Houston government that's written by Janice "the Terrible" Evans? How about reporting on the Houston Port that's being edited by the Port Authority itself?
Again, I don't blame the reporters for this, I blame the people in charge of the editorial process. In short, I blame the editors, especially those in Sr. leadership.
We've known for a long time that the Chronicle cannot be trusted on stories relating to State politics, climate change or Houston regional transportation, and that on urban development issues they were weak we well. What we probably didn't realize was just how far the influence went, and how willing the Chronicle is to seemingly give up editorial control to groups with agendas in which they are in general agreement.
Then again, based on the almost 12 year old Chronicle rail memo, the increase in prevalence of 'newsish' blogs used to forward ideas and the unskeptical acceptance of quotes from institutional sources maybe this shouldn't have surprised us at all?
It appears that the more things change at Houston's former newspaper of record, the more they stay the same.
Scheduled to die, killer says he's better than most on death row. Alan Turner, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
It's the typical story, guy who committed hideous murder(s) given shade because of mental issues/bad representation/faulty trials or (in this case) all of the above. He's (and it's usually a he) then presented in the most sympathetic manner possible in keeping with the Chronicle's editorial position against the death penalty.
It's a classic case of a newspaper's editorial advocacy bleeding over into it's so-called "hard news" coverage and, under the current Houston Chronicle leadership, it is happening more and more often. Some reporters for the Chronicle clearly relish the opportunity to inject their personal beliefs into the stories, some do not. The latter are the beat and Sr. reporters that I consider to still be the good guys still working at the newly minted News Fortress on I-69.
Today however it seems a little bit worse. Because now the Chronicle is all but admitting that their death-row reporting is coming directly from an anti-death penalty advocacy group.
 |
| Image from a slide-show within the story. |
From their "about" page:
Not that I necessarily disagree with them, on the need for criminal justice reform, but I do disagree with a so-called news organization all but outsourcing their criminal justice reporting to what is admittedly an advocacy group.The Marshall Project will practice open-minded, fact-based journalism without fear or favor. Our editor, Bill Keller, has assembled a first-class team of reporters and editors dedicated to excellence, nonpartisan reporting, and innovation. We are a journalism organization because we think that journalism, done honestly and well, has infinite power to drive change. One need only look to the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements to appreciate how important journalists were in shaping public opinion. We do not need to be strident or ideological or selective in our use of facts . When the truth is as disturbing as it was in the segregated South, or in Vietnam, or today's prisons and courts, truthful reporting can have a powerful impact. We will explore what is working as well as what is broken, and where the potential exists for meaningful reform. Our commentary section will be written by individuals whose views encompass a broad range of perspectives. Our board of advisers, for example, includes both the inspirational civil rights lawyer Bryan Stevenson from the Equal Justice Initiative, and the conservative thinker Marc Levin from Right on Crime, both of whom have devoted their careers to making our system more humane and effective.Being nonpartisan is not the same as being neutral. We approach the issue with the view — shared by a growing number of conservatives and liberals — that our system needs serious rethinking. Thank you for your interest in The Marshall Project, and please do not hesitate to tell us what you think.
The Marshall project is up-front and honest about their point of view and what they are trying to do with their "reporting". By using them as a source for their reporting on Texas death-row inmates, and having a Sr. Chronicle reporter write the story with no disclosure within the body of the same, the Houston Chronicle leadership is not.
If the Chronicle is willing to outsource (at least the research) for its criminal justice reporting then what else are they willing to do? Are we getting reporting on Houston government that's written by Janice "the Terrible" Evans? How about reporting on the Houston Port that's being edited by the Port Authority itself?
Again, I don't blame the reporters for this, I blame the people in charge of the editorial process. In short, I blame the editors, especially those in Sr. leadership.
We've known for a long time that the Chronicle cannot be trusted on stories relating to State politics, climate change or Houston regional transportation, and that on urban development issues they were weak we well. What we probably didn't realize was just how far the influence went, and how willing the Chronicle is to seemingly give up editorial control to groups with agendas in which they are in general agreement.
Then again, based on the almost 12 year old Chronicle rail memo, the increase in prevalence of 'newsish' blogs used to forward ideas and the unskeptical acceptance of quotes from institutional sources maybe this shouldn't have surprised us at all?
It appears that the more things change at Houston's former newspaper of record, the more they stay the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)