BadMedia: Houston Chronicle - Last week's news, today.

Curious what's going on locally in politics in America's 4th largest city?

Believe it or not you're not likely to find it on the Politics and policy page on the website for the former newspaper of record.

As of now, 7:48 AM, January 8th, 2019 the most recent story showing up on the page is dated....

12/29/2018 (note: I wrote this story last night but verified this morning.)

Want a story from August about local leaders pushing for the $2.5 Billion dollar bond election?  You can read that, it passed in November with over 60% of the vote mind you so you're probably a little late.

Want to know that Harvey victims were still struggling back in April 2018? Covered.

How about a December 19th, 2018 about Houston struggling to expand it's sidewalk program? You're in luck.

All of the stories I linked to were penned by Mike Morris, who has either been on vacation for just over a week or who honestly can't find anything in local Houston politics and policy to write about. Even on the front page of HoustonChronicle.com the most recent story I can find relating to Houston Politics and Policy is this December 12th story on the delay of the vote for the Houston Airport System renovation contracts.  Surely something has happened with those right?  Or there's more to the story on these right?

For all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding the downfall of newspaper media, and their self-prescribed "critical role" in the function of democracy the fact is you're more likely to get Twitter take-downs of the CFPI Halftime show or (from time to time) soft-core porn pictorials on Chron.com than you are actual hard news and that's too bad.

Because there are a lot of messes to try and sort out in Houston but the Chronicle has clearly chosen to feature click-bait and (erratic) editorial content over actual hard news. You know, the stuff that is ACTUALLY critical to public interaction with democracy?

Houston doesn't need more j-school grads combing Twitter, and it sure as hell doesn't need the unhinged ramblings of Chris Tomlinson, Erica Grieder or Lisa Falkenberg.

Tomlinson is a business reporter who hates actual business, Falkenberg is just special and Grieder is just....well...erratic? Oversold on her own brilliance which is really not a thing? A public meltdown waiting to happen? (again)

Judging by the stories featured it's clear that the Chron has it's priorities all out of whack, and that Houston civic engagement is suffering because of it.  Their subscription rate continues to decline, as does their relevance within the City.  We're started a new year, but we're saddled with the same old crap-fest of a newspaper.

The Dallas Morning News is currently suffering the same fate, and they just sadly laid-off 43 of their staff. Reportedly shrinking their news staff to 20 people.  Twenty people to cover all of the Dallas Metroplex.

How long before the Chron does the same?  Turning itself into nothing more than a gossip rag with a couple of political opinion writers?

Not that anyone will notice. You'll still (presumably) be able to log onto HoustonChronicle.com and view reporting that's almost a year old.


Sad.

ShutterTheEdBoard: Without oil....

The increasingly irrelevant Houston Chronicle Editorial Board has pronounced itself Pope in the issue of environmental sins.

Sins of Oil will be Shouted from the Rooftops. HoustonChronicle ($$$)

They go on to list all of the 'sins' of oil.

The Catholic Church suddenly doesn't like it and......

And nothing.  Because without the oil and gas industry you don't have the following:

Computers and the Internet
Electric Cars
Green Energy transmission systems
Mobile Phones
Packaging.
Houses
Busses (even ones that run on CNG)
Most medical devices
Industry
Heating fuel for the NorthEast

You name it, and the oil and gas industry probably has a hand in it. Even newspapers such as the Houston Chronicle who would be unable to print a product sans oil and gas.

Now, I'm OK if you don't necessarily approve of the industry, you're entitled to. But to cast such a wide net over all of us and term us "sinners" because we're providing a product that fuels the world (and will continue to, until a replacement for plastics and international shipping and other transportation is found) is not only irresponsible, but dishonest and clumsy as well. It's also inflammatory and (to be honest) vile to term your home cities most important, largest industry as "vile, sinful" or some other nonsense.

It's a good thing the Chronicle Editorial Board has been shoved behind the Chronicle' pay-wall.  There are a lot of good reporters at that publication who shouldn't have their good-names sullied by the increasingly irrelevant, predominantly Caucasian, wealthy and progressive Editorial board who writes decrees for Houston's most diverse city and who, increasingly, feels themselves to be God.

It's high-time for newspapers to rid themselves of the unsigned editorial board, and to redeploy the resources to covering actual news.  In fact, I would argue that most staff-opinion writers are crap, offering up partisan fodder and child-like outbursts offering no real, workable solutions other than "see things my way".

Not that there's no place for that writing, but it would be better served in an opinion outlet such as National Review or Slate not news outlets per se, but a place where people can go and be reaffirmed that their tribe is "on the right side", God-like even. (Full Disclosure: I'm a fan of the writing of Kevin D. Williamson of National Review.)

Houston residents, the few who can read this stuff, would do well to ask the Houston Chronicle why they think it's OK that the largest employer be shut down and the tax base of the city be decimated? Do they really hate you or are they just very angry that you won't STFU and follow their lead? (And, the leads of the politicians they curry favor to.)

What this comes down to is one irrelevant agency calling for the shut-down of a relevant one, and causing great pain and hardship for its customers at the same time. The customers should demand the same of the ed board.

Guess which one will be missed? (Hint, it's not the anonymous scribblers)

Shutter The Ed Board: Turner hits, Turner scores. (A body shot)

It's not a big secret that I'm no huge fan of current Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. I view him as a life-long politician who finally got elected to the position of his dreams just in time to allow everyone to discover just how incredibly out of his depth he is.  He's a Houston version of Hillary Clinton, or one of the Castro brothers, or Greg Abbott and John Culberson if you prefer some examples on the right. (Clinton, however, being the most prominent, riding her husband's coattails she's bounced from government job to government job despite accomplishing nothing, and now is considered to have quite the resume because of it.)

So it was with no small measure of surprise that I read his take-down of the increasingly worthless Houston Chronicle Editorial Board yesterday evening.

Chronicle Editorial Board criticism about housing decision is off-base. Sylvester Turner, HoustonChronicle.com

 I do, however, have a big problem with an institution that does not reflect the diversity of this city publishing a lecture on race and class that does not elevate all children, regardless of where they live.

...

We have a lot more work to do on this long journey to equality, to be sure - but the Houston Chronicle editorial board needs to reset its perspective. A good first step would be to increase diversity on the editorial board so that it looks more like Houston and has greater access to the diversity of life experiences that the majority of Houston knows.

Of course Turner, who is a very institutional "status quo" type of guy, not being one to call for huge change, seeks to reform (in his view) rather than do anything groundbreaking. Based on that foundation his call for the "diversification" of the Gang of Idiots makes sense.  He also is one who believes that diversity for diversity's sake is a solution. It's important to note that, when he mentions 'diversity' Turner is referring to physical, rather than mental diversity. The former is prized while the latter is demonized.

Most intelligent thinkers, and leaders, understand that diversity is a worthy goal, but should not be pursued to the exclusion of results.  From that perspective, the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board has not produced successful results in quite some time and is a horrid waste of resources at the paper. Their tone-deafness to this issue, an issue where I agree with Turner FWIW, putting affordable housing in that neighborhood is ridiculous given the cost, and their total disconnect from Houston's citizenry make it clear that they've outlived their usefulness.

Turner got a slight hit against them, but a KO blow would have been a call for the shuttering of the board (including, the angry doodler and most of the political columnists) in favor of increased staffing on the news desks.

And while it's possible that a truly diverse editorial board, one including say, Bill King, Mustafa Tameez and Gina Gaston (as an example, I doubt any of these three would be interested) MIGHT do a better job penning opinions that matter to Houstonians they would still be operating under an outdated model of news-gathering.

In the "good old days" almost everyone in America got their news from a newspaper. They also got political and election advice from media barons who had no qualms about openly revealing their political leanings in their publication.  Amazingly, partly because they had no real competition, this so-called "yellow" journalism is now considered the golden age of the newspaper.  But something happened on the road to irrelevance, the media decided that they needed to portray themselves as "impartial" despite not being so and trust in them began to erode. The media barons gave way to corporations and the news became a profit center.

Then came the Internet, and suddenly every half-assed moron with a keyboard and the ability to (barely) string a sentence together became an unabashed expert on everything*, suddenly the media, and especially, unsigned editorials didn't matter as much. The media doubled-down on their "neither left or right" fallacy and public trust continued to erode. Circulation dropped, online portals were created and 'page hits' became the goal increasingly pushing out hard news stories.

Then the cuts came, and came, and a lot of solid, hard news reporters found themselves staring at the unpleasant reality of unemployment that really had not been an issue before. Those who could, jumped ship and either became spokespersons for government officials or government departments. or they jumped over to the dark-side and stopped worrying and came to love the Internet (news sites). The (mostly good) rank-and-file reporters that are still employed at the hulking beasts find themselves under-equipped, under-staffed and running on low morale. Investigative news is rapidly going away, being outsourced to independent shops and local news channels.

But the unsigned editorial still remains, shining like a black light that highlights all of the goo on the walls of the meeting room. It's a relic, it needs to go, and newspapers need to focus on the core job that they've always promised they would never stop doing.  Reporting the news.

It would be better, for them, however if they just gave up and admitted that they were doing so from whatever political perspective they choose.  It might even help them get some trust back.








































*Yes, I'm self-describing there, except for the "string a sentence together" nonsense, an area where I clearly struggle.  Half-assed moron though?  Guilty.

Big XII (X for now) Expansion: The Chron "reports", hoping that you will decide they're correct.

Tales of a middling regional daily trying desperately to remain relevant in today's media landscape.

Things have been going OK for University of Houston athletics of late. The football program is on the ascendancy, the basketball team is showing signs of life, and facilities are improving, as is revenue and exposure.

The University as a whole is doing fairly well also. Academic rankings are on the ascendancy, enrollment is spiking, current leadership seems to be more than competent.  And despite the occasional misstep news coming out of Cullen boulevard is generally positive.

Of course, this means that it's time for Houston's middling regional daily to start trying to dump buckets of ice water on the institution.

UH 'banks' on joining the big leagues so 'sustain' athletic spending. Benjamin Wermund (UT-Austin alum) and Joseph Duarte (UT-Austin alum), HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

Is cost of moving to Big 12 too steep for Cougars? Chron (UT-based) sports staff. Chron.com


No doubt the editorial staff at the Chron considers the above to pieces to be 'important' journalism. Stories that "need to be told" for the "good of the community" rather than for the good of the alma-mater of the overwhelming majority of the journalism staff.

Never you mind that, in accepting the Chron's premise in the latter story involves ignoring a few, key facts:

1. University spending on athletics is not a zero-sum game.

In fact, a successful athletic program often, although not always, increases funding in other departments due to increased exposure, university pride etc. It is clear that the leadership at UH, but not the Chron, feels that their athletic spending is an investment toward the future. One that, unless you're Baylor right now, will pay off in terms if increased positive exposure. In none of the stories that they are writing does the Chron even pay lip-service to that fact.

2. Revenues aren't static.

The underlying theme in the second story is that UH doesn't make enough to be able to "afford" Big XII membership. If you assume that their athletic revenues will stay flat after membership to the Big XII, then that argument might hold some water.

But the reality is, their revenues from athletics will increase after joining the Big XII, even if they have to spend a few years under a reduced-share agreement.  Because part of the Big XII revenues is going to still be greater than a full share of American Athletic Conference revenues.

The only reason you write this article is that you don't want to see UH included. For UT-Austin, aTm and other schools the primary reason for this is because you don't want to compete with them.

So far Baylor (Baylor!?) is being honest about this and so is Former UH head coaching disaster Dana Dimel.  But "we don't want UH in the Big XII because it makes recruiting harder for my school of choice" is a tough-journalism sell. It's not deemed to be "important" enough as is making the tenuous connection between athletics and tuition increases far more 'important' journalism might consider looking at the Permanent University Fund which is controlled by, and exclusive to, the Texas University System and the Texas A&M university system to the exclusion of all others. (Including, most egregiously, the Texas State University System which is growing in size, and having to increase tuition at rates much higher than the two systems provided an artificial funding advantage due primarily to politics.)

I'm not suggesting that it is the job of the Houston Chronicle to cheer for the University of Houston, although Rah! Rah! reporting is typically what they do best (provided the Rah! Rah! target in question is rich, well connected or puts on cool parties). What I am suggesting is that what the middling regional daily should focus on is not the rooting interests of their ever-shrinking group of reporters, but the financial well-being of the entire Texas public university system. That goal is not accomplished by selectively choosing facts and then presenting them in a way that's not exactly reflective of the truth, or (in the case of the first story) regurgitating a more than four year old story about athletic fees and then leaving out the fact (reported in their own paper) that the students voted FOR the very fees that are in question.

As bad as the Houston Chronicle tried to frame it however, it appears that UH leadership understands that this will not last if the University doesn't attain membership into a power 5 conference. UH is firing their shot, and they are doing it with student approval.

That should have at least been MENTIONED in the Chron's 'reporting' on the issue, but it wasn't.  Regardless of your opinion toward UH inclusion into the Big XII that type of omission is a grievous journalistic sin by the Chronicle. At best it was lazy, at worst it was a ham-fisted attempt at opinion writing in what was framed as a 'hard-news' story. Regardless of the motivation it's just another data-point illustration the Chron to be an intellectually lazy middling-regional daily with little interest in reporting the news as opposed to trying to "make" the news.

It's also a diminishing institution, whose had to shutter it's downtown offices and whose diminishing circulation is only outpaced by the diminishing size of it's staff.  UH meanwhile appears, for now, to be on the ascendancy.

All that said I still think UH' future is better served outside the Big XII. But I understand their trying to gain access to it.

Tales of a sub-par media outlet: Polls we like. (Vs. companies we don't)

Imagine, if you will, that Exxon/Chevron/BP you name it released a poll suggesting that over 60% of Texans were in support of hydraulic fracturing (i.e. fracing). What do you imagine the reporting, if any, would look like?

Let me give you a hint:

"Oil-industry backed poll shows 60% of Texans support fracking"

Yet today we get a poll released by a healthcare group showing that 60% of Texans are in favor of expanding Medicaid and no one bats an eye.

Study: Texans Favor Medicaid Expansion. Jenny Deam, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

More than 60 percent of Texans support an expansion of Medicaid here and plan to take those views into the voting booth in November, a new survey commissioned by the Texas Medical Center Health Policy Institute finds.

The survey results, unveiled Wednesday at the annual Medical World Americas convention in Houston, show the public at odds with the state's Republican leadership, which has steadfastly refused to consider such an expansion, calling it wasteful and a bad solution.

Since this is an article in the Houston Chronicle, I've not yet seen either the cross-tabs or the wording behind this poll. A Google search for the same revealed nothing.  All we know is what the article, and the Texas Medical Center, are saying, and we're supposed to accept that as 100% true.

Forgive my skepticism but I have a hard time believing any poll if it's backed, funded and released by a group that has a bias in the outcome unless I see the details behind it and have a chance to look at how the questions were worded, whether trade-offs were proposed etc.  These details matter.

It's similar to the issues that I consistently have with the Houston Area Survey which constantly asks broad questions without once suggesting that a trade-off is always going to be required.  Yes, people would love to live in a more urban, centralized environment but they wouldn't want to do so if a.) they had to live in a high-rise condo or b.) pay 5 times what they pay for their current homes.

The same goes for Medicaid expansion. Unless you have no heart (and I'm presuming that most of you do) then you're all for everyone getting the healthcare they need.  The problem lies in the trade-offs.

What if an expansion of Medicaid means that the State will have to raise your (yours, not just the people making slightly more than you) taxes?  Or, create a State income tax that will soon probably be non-deductible from Federal taxes?

What if you will be required to lose a portion of coverage that you care about because hospitals and doctors will be required to care for a certain percentage of high-financial-risk patients?

From what I can tell, the biggest impediment to Texas expanding Medicaid is the red-tape that it will force the State to absorb. The Obama Administration could have chosen to offer block-grants to the States, allowing them to establish systems that work for them (Texas is not the same as Arizona for example) but instead they chose a 'one-size-fits-all' solution that is fitting none, and in many cases causing the exchanges to collapse and the bill to cast doubt on the efficacy of the private medical system. (Which, it should be noted, it exactly what it was meant to do)

But a bigger issue is that Houston's former newspaper of record is becoming an opinion magazine rather than a repository for journalism. Whether on this issue or where people pee and take shits the Chronicle is no longer a trusted source for information.

Tales of a Sub-Par Media Outlet: Down the Memory Hole. (District D version)

In a recent editorial the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board had some negative things to say about Houston City Councilmember (District D) Dwight Boykins:

Towing Wreck. HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

Despite all the back-and-forth over background checks for Uber drivers, nobody seemed to care about Gonzalez's criminal background when the city gave him a towing contract. Boykins and the rest of council let him into a city program with plaudits, and now more than 50 Houstonians say they've been exploited by a criminal enterprise.

So before you ask who's driving you, or who's towing you, make sure to ask the more important question: Who's representing you?

That might be a good question to ask the Editorial Board themselves who, during the last election and the election before, endorsed Mr. Boykins offering up no concerns regarding any ethics lapses that might concern the public or cause them to ask "Who's representing you?"

So it's a little disingenuous for the now haughty gang of idiots that make up the Editorial Board to be lecturing voters when they themselves didn't do their job.

Of course, they don't mention that in the editorial here because you're not supposed to worry about those things.  What you're supposed to worry about is that, for one reason or another, Dwight Boykins is now off the patronage reservation and is finding himself (rightfully) in the cross-hairs.

Kind of makes you wonder what else the Chronicle is missing when reporting on local issues? It also makes you wonder why the Chronicle continues to spend large amounts of money that could be redirected to actual local reporting keeping a group of ciphers on the payroll?

That's one of the perks of editorial writing in today's (lightly read) age I guess.  You never have to apologize for getting it wrong. Imagine a tree, falling in a forest with no one around.

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.

Image from a slide-show within the story.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 ($$$)

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.

Tales of a sub-par media outlet: So you've lost your job. (HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!)

On more than one occasion I've been taken to task by various staffers of the Houston Chronicle for my incessant criticism of the fading company.  Usually, their argument falls something like this:

"They're human beings that work there".

Of course, the staffers are correct.  With the possible exception of Ken Hoffman, the employees of the Houston Chronicle are human beings.  That is why I don't call for anyone to lose their jobs, except for the members of the Editorial Board, many of whom are either there ceremonially or who have personal wealth to a level that they can afford to stop preaching.

The reporters and other staff?  I want them to stay around and keep working, keep reporting etc.  While it's true that I think the newspaper would be better given a refreshing of the editorial direction, that doesn't mean that I want anyone to "lose their job".  They are people with families and pets after all.

Conversely, I wonder what they would say if you asked them for the same respect?

Probably just to shut up and keep purchasing their product.  Because, when it comes to reporting on the rest of us, they seem to find people losing their jobs in the private sector pretty damn funny.

Oil crash memes bring humor to petroleum's plunge. Craig Hlavaty, Chron.com


Now, granted, Chron.com is the wart on the ample backside of the Hearst Media empire. It's where we're given the social media beat, tantalizing headlines that naked bodies are just a click away and lectures on what we SHOULD be doing from Jr. reporters with J-school degrees and little life experience. In short, it's a tabloid masquerading as media.

But it's still part of Hearst Corp and (ostensibly) the Houston Chronicle.  That's why it's so jarring to see a newspaper poke fun at people getting laid off and losing their livelihood. When you juxtapose that to the same publication's serious treatment of government losing tax revenue a clearer picture starts to form:

Region braces for impact of declining sales-tax revenue. Mike D. Smith & Mike Tolson. HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

You have read here, many times, of the courtesan class. A group of people who's sole purpose in life is seemingly to prostitute themselves to the ruling class without regard for appearance or propriety.  They are the modern-day equivalent of court jesters and they have firmly imbedded themselves in the media.

To the courtesans the loss of income by people is a joke, something to be mocked and laughed at. The true tragedy is when the ruling class has to face reduction. That cannot stand. There was a time, when newspapers and media engaged in something they still like to jokingly call "accountability journalism". The inside joke is that they no longer hold those with power accountable at all.  The media prefers to go after the ruled, not the rulers. And they honestly believe that they are held in special favor for that.

So, the next time a staffer from the Houston Chronicle chides you for reminding them of just how bad they're doing, make sure to point them to these two articles (or, if you're clearer thinking, this blog post which contains both).  If they try to say that "they're people too" you should probably tune them out.  What they're really saying is that they don't want to listen to criticism, and that the problem is not them, it's you.

Which is what they always think.  The problem is you.

The day is coming where enough problems are going to look at legacy media and decide the abuse makes the relationship not worth maintaining.  Maybe we're already there? 

Tales of a Sub-Par Media Outlet: An agenda for me but not for thee?

Endorsement season with the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board is usually unintentionally hilarious.

For Tax Assessor-Collector. HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

"If you want an administrator, Sullivan is your man," Sumners told the Houston Chronicle editorial board.
That's exactly what we want. An administrator can ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively, and focus on the duties of office.

That's great. It should be noted that Sullivan's opponent, Don Sumners, is promising to be a "taxpayer advocate" in the position, a watchdog in the supposed mold of former Assessor-Collector Paul "Quit" Bettencourt.

So, the Chronicle wants an administrator, unless the 'taxpayer advocate' is an advocate of people paying MORE taxes that is.....

Brandon Dudley, however, listed the solutions. Dudley currently serves as chief of staff and general counsel for state Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and that experience in the state Legislature is apparent. A graduate of the University of Houston Law Center with a background in social work, Dudley is a regular policy wonk. He is quick to point out the ways that wealthy commercial landowners can exploit loopholes in the property appraisal system, which shifts the tax burden onto average homeowners. Dudley, 42, has even reached out to other tax assessor-collectors across the state in search of innovative ideas and best practices for the office. 

But for the Democrat, and a member of Sheila Jackson-Lee's rapidly expanding local political machine it should be noted, the exact same people are OK with a healthy dollop of advocacy.

The problem for the Editorial Board is this: They only want their advocates to advocate for one thing: Increased tax takings from local residents and businesses. Should they occasionally branch into the realm of advocating against certain politicians the Ed Board doesn't like? That's even better.

This would be OK if it was limited to the inane, lightly read, scribbling of the Ed Board, but it seeps into their hard news coverage all too often. The idea and viewpoint that Houston's problems can be solved by dusting off the catapult and hurling large sums of (other people's and companies') money at the problem.

A more intellectually honest endorsement would be to call for the selection of Don Sumners vs. Brandon Dudley, or Mike Sullivan vs. Ann Harris Bennett.  At least then you are carrying with you some ideological consistency that isn't as blatantly, obviously, Statist.

While it is not the position of this blog to make endorsements I would urge voters to consider adding this to the long list of races that you choose to under vote.  It's the same thing with the DA's race where no matter who wins, it's starting to look like we'll all wind up losers in the long-run.

Meanwhile, let's ignore these silly little exercises in mid-20th Century vanity that the Chronicle thinks are still viable in today's Internet age.  The funny thing is, while the leadership pays lip service to so-called "accountability" journalism their editorial decisions do more and more to downplay it every day. Never mind the fact that they have lost track of whom it is they are supposed to keep accountable.

Repeating: Shutter the Ed Board. Fire the members and redeploy the resources to the news desk to cover the many local governmental and quasi-governmental entities that blow through tremendous taxpayer dollars every day, and to which the Chronicle pays little attention.

 

Tales of a Sub-Par Media Outlet: Why is this news?

In Texas, the property tax valuation system works as follows:

1. Property tax rates are set by the appropriate authorities.
2. The responsible appraisal districts provide property owners with their appraised value on which taxes will be based.
3. The property owner has the ability to appeal the appraised valuation through a process laid out via statute.

Everyone, from a single family homeowner to the biggest corporation has the ability to appeal their appraised valuation. Tens of thousands do every year.

So why is this a news story:

Exxon Mobil, Harris County engage in tax feud. Nancy Sarnoff, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

Exxon Mobil is fighting the Harris County Appraisal District over the $1.04 billion value placed on its sprawling new office complex in Spring, just south of The Woodlands.
The oil giant, which has been guarded about the campus project, would not provide its own estimation of the property's value. But its appeal claims the actual value "is substantially below" what was assessed.

There is absolutely nothing unusual about this, nothing especially newsworthy, and certainly nothing that elevates it to the level of "tax feud".

Unless that is, you're trying (through the headline) to make it seem that Exxon-Mobil is trying to be sneaky and somehow not pay "their fair share" of taxes, to take money away "from the children".  Which is what big, evil oil companies do right?

Of course, "Exxon-Mobil disputes their property taxes, as do thousands of others" doesn't make for a click-bait headline in a news outlet that's increasingly devolving into a review of social media running in between slide-shows of scantily-dressed women.

It should be noted, I don't blame the reporter, Nancy Sarnoff, for this. It's pretty clear reading the article that she's not trying to cast this as a "feud".  As a matter of fact, reading the article the entire thing sounds pretty mundane (which, it is FWIW).

But then you have to wonder what editor thought this was a good story line to begin with?

To be honest, Kate Middleton's childhood pictures are more newsworthy. At least she's got a title.

For a while it seemed that the Chron was going to be content to keep the behind-the-paywall content on their website pretty straight-forward and newsy.  After the decision was made to hide the Editorial Board however, the content bleed has slowly continued. That's a bad thing for those who would like their news straight, with little hype, but it's another bullet-point in the argument that the Houston Chronicle should drop the pretense of unbiased journalism and embrace their role as left-of-center journal.  Because big, evil oil not paying their "fair share" of taxes IS a big deal to the left after all, and a truly unbiased news source might think it prudent to mention that.

Or, at the least, not try and engage in such hyperbole regarding the same.

Tales of a Sub-Par Media Outlet: Live! Nude! Girls!

I didn't click through the slide show that accompanied this headline:

But I'm going to assume that There is no nudity on display

Secondarily, there's the Twitter beat.

I imagine it must be quite the disappointment to go to Journalism school, graduate with visions of Woodard and Bernstein dancing in your head, and then find out that your job is to scour Twitter for what is really just a take off on Mean Tweets because some dunce of an editor thought that is what journalism should be in the 21st century.


One final thought: For a publication that editorializes strongly against the objectification of women, they sure do run a ton of slide-shows that......objectify women.


Do as I say, not as I do one guesses.


UPDATE: Look! It's Rousey!!

Compare and Contrast: Business Intrusion into Politics

Two businessmen, both getting involved in politics. Two different reactions:

Houston as a playground - An Entrepreneur's dream. HoustonChronicle.com($$$)

The 36-year-old native Houstonian is known for being a social entrepreneur and large-scale dreamer. He hopes, after years of owning and operating an organic furniture store, he can harness Houston's artisan and maker community by connecting them with the equipment they need to produce local, handmade products, in turn driving down the cost for home goods.

Libre, backed by the Koch brothers, aims to raise GOP standing by Hispanics. Ashley Parker, NY Times via HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

But the group has also drawn the ire of some Hispanic and immigration advocacy groups by raising concerns about some of President Barack Obama's more sweeping executive actions on immigration, and by pouring money into House races to help defeat two Hispanic lawmakers - Pete Gallego of Texas and Joe Garcia of Florida, both Democrats - because they supported the president's health care plan, among other issues Libre opposes.

 The New Urbanist, progressive businessman is presented as an idealist and a dreamer, the free-market group? Out of touch with those they are trying to reach. (The NY Times doesn't mention that the groups speaking out against Libre are, themselves, partisan Democrat groups.)

The point is that, when you hear about political advocacy by business, it's important to remember that the calls for exclusion are only being made with one side in mind. Businesses who promote the goals and values of the ruling and courtesan class are encouraged to get involved.

Critics on the Left will dismiss this as just more rambling against so-called "liberal media bias". That's fine, I've long given up trying to make them understand that the media is biased on the side of the ruling class,. Those who still discount media bias on party terms (instead of ideological as it exists) are typically partisans who are told what to think and who very happy to do so,

For the rest of us, how we're presented the news still matters.

So, while I'm OK with this entrepreneur being praised, it should be noted that his business model relies, more than somewhat, on public monies, including land-grants and subsidies just as the Koch's does.  My ideal is to get rid of the cronyism and let businesses compete. I would think that a business model of Kaplan's (Green, locally produced) would succeed in certain areas of Houston where such things matter.

Mr. Kaplan should have the chance to succeed, as should the Koch brothers. And both have the free speech right, in America, to advocate for their cause.  What's truly disturbing here is that the editors of the Chronicle obviously think one business should not have that right. That blind-spot the Chron carries editorially is a detriment to their business and political coverage.

Good News: Houston is not the roiling viper pit of Islamaphobia some feared.

It started with a tragic fire.

Cause of Mosque Fire in SouthWest Houston Declared "Incendiary". Chron.com

Authorities have upgraded the investigation of a Christmas Day fire at a southwest Houston mosque to "incendiary" and cited multiple points of origin in the two-alarm blaze as suspicious.
"As part of the investigative process, evidence is being collected and analyzed; and interviews are being conducted," the Houston Fire Department said in a release Saturday. "We want to reassure the public that we will conduct a complete and thorough investigation."

Which was followed by former Council Member, and current Islamic Community Leader MJ Khan warning folks to not make uneducated guesses as to the cause:

"Everything is damaged inside, except the copies of the Qur'an, which were miraculously not damaged," said MJ Khan, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, which operates the mosque. "We got them out last night."
He urged community members not to speculate about the cause of the fire. "Of course, there is sadness, there is anxiety," he said. "When people don't know, there are all kinds of concerns." But he said he took the opportunity at afternoon services Saturday to reassure the community.

Of course, this didn't stop CAIR from immediately doing so....

Houston Area Muslim Leaders Worry About Backlash. Leah Binkovitz, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) urged investigators to consider bias as a possible motive. After discovering multiple points of origin, the Houston Fire Department's arson bureau, working with the Houston police and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, found that the fire was set intentionally.

Which then led to the Houston Chronicle's Gray Matter's section to choose to lecture Houstonians:

The Woman in the Hijab. Gray Matters, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

She was just another mom on just another Friday night in Sugar Land, tired and overworked and ready to get the shopping over with, except she wore a headscarf that told the world, "I am Muslim." And I hated her. I hated her for being out in public. I hated her for her faith. I hated her for making me wonder if Houston was the next target, if on some future Friday night, I would be mourning one of my loved ones, or my loved ones would be mourning me.

All of this designed to lecture, to allow writers to take their hatred, and misunderstanding, of Islam and Muslims and project it onto the City of Houston citizens as a whole, to expunge their individual guilt by assuring them that Houston, one of the most diverse cities in the world, was  growing hotbed of anti-Muslim hate that mirrored their own personal feelings.

This was proven by two tragic Mosque fires, proof that Houstonians were targeting Muslims at an alarming rate.

Except none of it was true.

Man Charged with setting Mosque fire was a devout attendee. Carol Christian. Chron.com

According to a charging instrument released by the Harris County District Clerk, Moore told investigators at the scene that he has attended the mosque for five years, coming five times per day to pray seven days per week.

Man charged in Mosque fire denies hatred of Muslims. Brian Rosenthal, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

The 56-year-old homeless man with a drinking problem made headlines last year when he rode a bicycle up to an arson investigator and admitted he started a blaze that destroyed a storage building at the Quba Islamic Institute in south Houston.

This is not to suggest that there are no people in Houston who hold anti-Islamic beliefs. Of course there are.  Just as there are people who are anti-Semites, racist and (if you read the Chron.comments) carry an unhealthy hatred of Christians.

What it doesn't mean is that Houston is somehow a viper pit of anti-Islam backlash waiting to explode with carnage, slaughter and hatred. It is important that this fact is not overlooked.

In Houston people work, shop, play every day surrounded by a vast variety of people of different races, creeds and religions. For the most part we coexist just fine.  In the highly segregated world of Inner-Loop, relatively well-off Progressives however such integration is not often the case.  Because they don't live and work around those who are much different from them ideologically, they have difficulty understanding how differing people can get along as most of us do.

So, as we start the New Year there's good news.

Despite what you're being told, and despite what people like CAIR, the Houston Chronicle and others would have you believe, for the most part we're all getting along about as well as can be expected in these times.

I don't know about you but that makes me feel pretty good.

As for the events that happened? Reasonable people can agree that arson and violence against our fellow law-abiding citizens is never a good thing. We can also think fire investigators and the police for efficiently doing the jobs to which they are assigned.  It is important to remember that both of these suspects are innocent until proven guilty so let's allow the justice system to play itself out, and spend this New Year ignoring those who prefer to spend their time trying to kick up a viper's nest that doesn't appear to have any basis in reality.

#ShutterTheEdBoard What the Oil Comanies Understand.....

...that the Chronicle Editorial Board doesn't.

Standing for a Carbon Tax. The Chronicle Editorial Board, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

Rarely do companies ask to be taxed. But when the Houston Chronicle editorial board met with representatives from Exxon Mobil Corp. this week, we heard loud and clear their support for an across-the-board tax on carbon emissions.

There are two reasons oil and gas companies have decided that they prefer a tax to Al Gore's "carbon credit" scheme.

1. A tax is easily budgeted, and it makes cost/benefit analysis of future projects much easier to make decisions on.

2. A tax is easily passed on to the consumer, other working interest owners and even federal, state and private royalty owners leaving the companies with very little financial exposure at all.

What the US Government does with the tax?  These companies don't care.  But this is the funding mechanism for the give-away by Western, developed, countries to developing economies in order to help them 'cope'.  India has already estimated it is going to need Trillions of dollars to ensure that it's emerging economy can provide power and water to the citizens it has been ignoring for decades now.

Here's the rub:  The people making policy recommendations at the oil and gas companies are smarter than the people in politics or the media, by far.  They understand that there will be ramifications to having to pay said tax, to the American economy especially, but they also know that their diversification world wide will blunt that. Companies operating in Africa and the Middle East may actually benefit from the largesse America is poised to throw at developing nations while only suffering a hit for a small fraction of the tax.

The biggest problem, right now, is that the free market of ideas is being strangled by the yoke of government regulation and subsidy preventing people from finding unique solutions to ease the transition from hydrocarbons.  Of course, we'll never live in a hydrocarbon free world. For one thing, all of the plastics and other materials that make life easier are derived from crude oil and there will always be a market for heating homes with relatively clean-burning natural gas.

Where there could be advances, and should be advances, is in nuclear power and hydrogen fuel cells to power transportation, as well as Liquefied Natural Gas.

But, you're not seeing that because our politicians have been sold a Hybrid/Electric bill-of-goods which has led most subsidy money to go toward plug-in cars whose root source of energy is mainly coal.

So, America is going to pay, a LOT, developing countries to "assist" them with getting green. In reality we're going to subsidize the growth of Countries in direct competition with our economy in a self-defeating exercise.

This doesn't mean that I'm an isolationist, far from it. In fact, I am typically on the side of free trade and believe that the growth of the global economy is a rising tide that raises all ships. But what I don't believe in is paying other people to compete with you which is effectively what the developed countries are offering here.

If you want to have privilege guilt do it on your dime, not on mine.

As for the Chronicle Editorial Board, it's amazing to me that less than a week after bemoaning the negative consequences of the current oil slump to Houston, they are immediately back on their high-horse calling for the dissolution of that same industry.  If anything in Houston needs to go it's them, not the biggest employer in the region.

Tales of a sub-par media outlet: Diversity for thee, but not for me (us) #ShutterTheEdBoard

In a scathing editorial (for them) yesterday the current iteration of the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board offered it's unsolicited opinion to the Supreme Court regarding their upcoming ruling on Fisher vs. The University of Texas.

UT Policy A-OK. Chronicle Editorial Board. HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)
(Maybe they moved the editorial content behind the paywall because the other staffers were getting embarrassed by it?)

The University of Texas at Austin is Burnt Orange and White, but it could use more colors. In this year's class, 19.5 percent of the student body is Hispanic and 3.9 percent is black in a state that is already majority-minority. That needs to change. Higher education is the path to success, and success can't be limited to a few.

Oh really?

Below is the current roster of members of the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board. The people responsible for crafting the stance on racial issues for Houston's former newspaper of record:

Nick Anderson - Caucasian - Male
Paul Barbetta - Caucasian - Male
Jeff Cohen - Caucasian - Male
Veronica Flores-Paniagua - Latino - Female
Joe Holley - Caucasian - Male
Evan Mintz - Caucasian - Male
James Newkirk - African American - Male
Jack Sweeney - Caucasian - Male
Andrea White - Caucasian - Female

Paraphrasing for a minute:

The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board is Gold Star and White, but it could use more colors. In this current version, 11 percent of the board is Hispanic and 11 percent is black in a state that is already majority-minority. That needs to change. Free and open journalism is the path to a healthy country, and the public discourse can't be limited to a few.

Oh.

Tales of a Sub-Par Media Outlet: The Chron Editorial Board Plumbs New Depths on Tax Rate Cuts #ShutterTheEdBoard

Anger. It's an unbecoming emotion for a group that is, ostensibly, the voice of calm and reasoned thought in America's 4th (soon to be 3rd, someday) largest city. It can also lead to some dodgy reasoning when tax rate cuts are involved.  As you can see below.

Tax Cuts. The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board, Chron.com

(Due to the high level of "seriously?" in this editorial I am going to quote a bit more than usual, not a Fisking but certainly a review)

Mayor Annise Parker just cut Houston's property tax rate to its lowest level since 1987. Then again, it wasn't exactly her idea. City Hall was compelled by Houston's revenue cap to make the cut. The cap, which was first approved in 2004, restricts the annual growth in property tax collections to the combined rate of inflation and population growth, or 4.5 percent, whichever is lower ("Forced by cap, Houston cuts tax rate again," Page A1, Thursday). If it were up to Parker, the city would be free to keep rates where they are and collect the extra $20 million from the last budget year and $112 million from the next. After all, the city's pension obligations aren't restrained to 4.5 percent growth, and revenue should be allowed to keep up. There's also calls for the city to hire more police officers and fix routine infrastructure problems, not to mention the projected $126 million budget deficit for next year. Every week, 11 district council members sit around the City Hall horseshoe to advocate for their own individual districts, and five at-large council members argue for big picture concerns. This push and pull of interests makes it easy to find deserving, responsible ways to spend funds on necessary services. Remove the cap, and it isn't hard to guess exactly how the money will be spent on potholes, pensions and public safety.

This may, or may not be true.  The fact remains however that any discussion of Houston's budget without mentioning historical excesses in the current context is silly and does a disservice to the readers. For example. It IS relatively hard to guess exactly how the money will be spent because the city has several "nice to have" initiatives that have consistently taken priority over pensions, potholes and public safety.  Mayor Parker herself has spend money on parklets, green bike lanes (Just like Amsterdam!!), parks, potties, funding for the arts, bike-share, bike-paths, murals and a host of other items that are not potholes, pensions and public safety.

While it is fair to argue against the voter imposed, pillow-soft, revenue cap, it's not fair to suggest that the windfall the city would receive from its removal will instantly go to core priorities. Doing so ignores the city's recent history of throwing money at all kinds of 'nice to have' trinkets while ignoring the meat and potatoes issues of potholes, pensions and public safety. To say that the editorial board is being naïve here is probably too kind as they are some of the biggest cheerleaders for trinket governance that the Houston area has.

It gets worse when they get to the County....

As former Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Don Sumners wrote Tuesday, Harris County is expecting a record $230 million in increased tax revenues, and will not return any of that to homeowners who have seen their property values - and taxes paid - skyrocket ("We should all share in county's windfall," Page B5, Tuesday). If the county had straightforward budget holes that had to be filled or pressing policy needs, like the city of Houston, this static tax rate would seem perfectly reasonable. However, when the Houston Chronicle editorial board met with county representatives to discuss bond votes, they couldn't provide any explicit plans for how taxpayer dollars would be spent. Instead, we heard two key goals in their spending plans. First, ensure that money is equally split between commissioner precincts. Second, provide roads for new, far-flung growth throughout the county.
If the county can't say how it will spend our money, then taxpayers should get some of it back. 

Just to get this straight. The Editorial Board of the Houston Chronicle is openly advocating that Harris County give some of their tax income back to the taxpayers via refunds. That they have too much money, so much that they don't know how to spend it.

Or are they?

These sorts of rate cuts don't necessarily mean you'll pay less on your taxes. Growth in property values will likely eclipse whatever relief homeowners receive. But if the government can't justify its spending, then it has not earned the right to collect. City Hall has a portfolio of problems that could be solved by removing the revenue cap. For the county, all we see is a blank check.

Not really.  Because, what the Editorial Board is really arguing for is a repeal of the voter imposed, pillow-soft revenue cap. They, and the government, view taxpayer dollars as revenue earned, not income taken from taxpayers. This is a big flaw in the thinking of many in the ruling class, specifically that they are entitled to unlimited revenue to spend as they wish.  Make no mistake about it, if the City did not find itself forced to cut the property tax rate under the current revenue cap, we would not see this editorial at all. At least here, unlike in their hard news story on the item, they got it right that the average homeowner will not see a cut, only a slowdown in the increase on their tax bill.

This is not about the County having too much money, it's about the Editorial Board, and by extension the City of Houston, feeling that it doesn't have enough.  I expect to see more and more of this stuff coming from the Chronicle in the run-up to the 2017 elections when a referendum on the cap can be expected to show up on the ballot. You're going to hear gloom and doom and tales not only of financial woe, but of fiscal disaster and a city spinning toward the precipice with no brakes and no money to buy them.  Imagine Detroit, but without Joe Louis' fist in the town square.

My question to the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board is this:

If you're so worried about the County having too much money then why did you recommend voting FOR all four bonds they placed on the ballot?


Go ahead, think about that.   I'll wait.

Hashtag Harmony: #HALV #ShutterTheEdBoard and #BadMedia in one editorial.

The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board released it's luke-warm endorsement for Houston Mayor early Sunday Morning.

Sylvester Turner for Mayor. HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

None of the seven major candidates running for mayor can claim a complete resume.

The "endorsement" goes on to provide Turner with some back-handed compliments for hanging around the legislature for a long time, for coming up with a pension solution that the ed board still "has strong reservations" about and for a lot of time passing from the scandals that weighed Turner down in his prior two runs for Mayor.

That's hardly effusive praise, and it's hardly a reason for Houston voters to pull the lever for a man who seems to be running on a platform that's a mixture of raise taxes, increase spending and work the city's legislative lobby department to death.

For example, Turner wants to "increase funding to Houston schools" as Mayor but admits that school funding is provided by the Texas Legislature. To accomplish this goal he's stated (on Twitter) that the city will lobby harder for increased funds.  While that's laudable it's hardly a solution to education funding that a true leader would espouse.

While the Chron makes mention of Turner's "impressive policy papers" on many issues what they fail to notice is that most of them are really just outlines of things that might be a plan that skirt important specifics such as where the funding is going to come from.

That's the biggest problem with Turner's campaign, one that the Editorial Board doesn't address, that he has a ton of plans to dust off and role out Mrs. White's old money catapult, but is unwilling to say where exactly the money to put in that catapult is going to come from.  The answer, of course, is through repealing the pillow-soft, voter-approved revenue cap and raising taxes on everyone except for his supporters and key constituency. Turner's a smart enough politician to understand that if he says this, he's going to go down for a third time.

More importantly however, is how the Ed board chooses to address the remaining candidates in what we can only assume is an effort to maintain access should Turner not prevail.

Adrian Garcia: Was given the worst treatment as the Chron has determined that all of his pre-campaign high hopes have been dashed against the reality of his disastrous administration of the Harris County Sheriff's Office. They also point out that "Sheriff Selfie" is pretty much an empty shell. Garcia doesn't have policy he has pictures, that he posts on-line. Ironically, the criticism of Garcia's relatively lightweight policy muscle can be passed on to Turner as well. Neither of the two front-runners in this race seem all that bright from a policy perspective.

Stephen Costello: You get the feeling that the Chron wanted to throw their endorsement toward Costello but felt a lot of pressure to not do so due to his mid-tier standing in the polls. Confusingly, they praise current Mayor Annise Parker for being a competent Mayor but then criticize Costello for being too much like Parker. The fact is that Parker has been a disastrous, although popular Mayor who has exacerbated Houston's financial woes while choosing to focus on policy priorities such as HER Ordinance and exaggerating her impact on the homeless situation.

Bill King: Again it feels like the Chron thinks King might be the one person in the race with solutions to the problems, but they again shy away due to fears over future access to City Hall should they be wrong. Of all the candidates, King got the most positive write-up and the specific mention by the Chron that he should be included in future situations.

Ben Hall, Chris Bell, Marty McVey: None of these candidates were given a passing mention, which means that the Ed Board either did not talk to them or did not consider them serious candidates to the race and saw no sense in mentioning them to maintain access.

In the title, I suggest that this endorsement is a harmony of all the major themes of this blog. Houston has a leadership vacuum that's only going to get worse if Turner is elected. The Chron Editorial Board can't even pen a decent endorsement any more, which some would argue is their only remaining purpose for existing. Beyond all of that however, making an endorsement for a candidate with scandals in his past, whose only qualification for the job is that he's been in politics for a while and who is the candidate that you think might win the thing is a cop-out.

Every time I think the Chron Ed Board can't dig the hole any deeper, they produce a shovel with a longer handle. This mayoral endorsement should never have been written and it serves no purpose in the race. In fact, it was more damning of Turner than anything that's been previously written because it casts him as an empty suit who's done nothing during his career but look after his own interests.

Of course, being the bad candidate that his is, Turner has the endorsement all over his campaign website.


That right there tells you pretty much everything you need to know about Turner. It's not this site's policy to make endorsements, it probably shouldn't be the Chron's policy either since they seem to be incapable of credibly performing the duty.

Tales of a sub-par media outlet: Going fuzzy on the 1st and 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

For the Houston Chronicle, and other media outlets really, the problem with the first two acts of the Bill of Rights is that many people consider them actual rights.

Conceptually, the Chronicle (and all of media) claim to be champions of the 1st Amendment and the free speech/religion principles that it proclaims. This works up until the point that whatever speech they are hearing runs counter to their progressive value-system.

Open Carry anti-Islamic Rallies: Who's the terrorist here? Sarah Raslan, HoustonChronicle.com ($$$)

And even if it were a mosque, isn't religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution that the protesters claim to revere? Or do they believe the Constitution enshrines "freedom of religion sans Islam"?

First off, the writer is incorrect. The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech. That guarantee is provided by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Where the author, and the Chronicle, are confused is that the 1st Amendment is a two-way street. Yes, it grants those who practice Islam the right to construct, and worship, within a Mosque, a right that I wholeheartedly support (even though I myself do not follow Islam and will not worship there). It also, and this is the sticky part, grants the protesters the right to conduct a peaceful protest against the presence of a Mosque.  If you accept the first then you must also accept the second. You cannot only have it one way as the author tries to do. 

What the First Amendment does not protect is the right of the protestors to get violent, or disruptive within the private property of the Mosque, or to throw things etc. You do not have the right to enter a crowded theater and yell "Fire!" or engage in activities that may harm another individual. Hurting someone's feelings doesn't count. 

With free speech comes the responsibility of both being offended and facing the consequences of that speech. We're not promised that the Government will protect us from other people shouting us down. More importantly, this is not a violation of the Mosque members' rights (as the author is claiming) but an endorsement of those rights. In certain countries Christians, and other non-Muslims are not only protested against, but they are being slaughtered for their refusal to accept the official orthodoxy. THAT is a true violation of the first amendment, not Ms. Raslan's hurt feelings.

On matters regarding the 2nd Amendment the Houston Chronicle (and other media) are even worse.

Aiming for Sanity. The Houston Chronicle Editorial Board. Chron.com

Why do you consider the Second Amendment among all others sacrosanct? Every other constitutional right is circumscribed, including our First Amendment rights of free speech, a free press and the freedom to demonstrate peaceably. Setting aside the debate about whether the right to bear arms actually refers to militias rather than individuals, how can you argue that the Second Amendment confers an absolute immunity against any attempt to protect the general welfare? Do the words "well-regulated" mean anything to you?

Do the words "false narrative" have any meaning to the Chronicle?

I ask this because we do have regulations surrounding guns already. We have in place restrictions who can purchase them, who can carry them (both concealed and in an open manner) and we've even settled the so-called 'thorny' issue of individuals vs. militias at both the federal State and Municipal levels. After all, the debate regarding abortion and the Affordable Care act is considered "settled" by prior Supreme Court ruling, why does this not mean that the individual vs. militia issue is not settled as well?

On gun rights the media and gun opponents are trying their level best to  not mention confiscation as a part of their narrative but it keeps slipping in regardless. The reason for this is because, at heart, the anti-gun movement is about confiscation. It's the only end-game to an problem with no end. What the Chron (and other media outlets) do is try and put a pretty picture on that face. They roll out the editorial board and Lisa Falkenberg to try and make the case that 'common sense' is needed when what they really want is for you to admit fault and submit to the confiscation quietly and meekly. Only by delegitimizing gun ownership can they ultimately succeed. The desire is to establish a more perfect society (in their eyes) but not a more perfect union. The details in the differences matter.

The biggest problem with repeal of the 2nd Amendment is that enacting such a plan in the real world would involve suspension of the remainder of the Bill of Rights.  Consider this:

It's been mentioned, in several places, that there are over 300 Million guns in private ownership within the borders of the United States. In order to confiscate those guns the United States would need to enlist the help of the US Military, this is a violation of the posse comitatus act which would lead to the natural suspension of the 3rd amendment (the confiscating soldiers would have to live somewhere), 4th Amendment (unlawful search and seizure), 5th Amendment (due process), 6th Amendment (trial by jury) the 9th Amendment (removing the rights of the people through interpretation of the constitution) and the 10th Amendment (the powers of the States to individually regulate firearms).  Any way you look at this, it's problematic.

All of this just goes to show just how hell-bent media organizations are to ring true Benjamin Franklin's famous quote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  Now, granted, Franklin was originally speaking about liberty in financial terms, but it applies here as well.

I've long argued that the editorial arm of the Houston Chronicle is an aging relic whose stated purpose has long since outlived it's expiration date. The presence, on a newspaper, of both unsigned editorials and house opinion writers makes as little sense as the proverbial feminist fish with a bicycle.

There is no special expertise that can be given to a degree in journalism when it comes to complex socio-political issues. In many cases the author only receives their ideas from others and acts as a wordsmith to arrange them in an aesthetically pleasing manner on a computer screen. Just because one has written about science for a period of time does not make them a scientist, nor does writing about war make one an experienced soldier qualified to comment on battle tactics. And writing about hot-button political issues does not make one a qualified expert on Constitutional matters.

Neither the Houston Chronicle or any of the other Chron opinion writers add anything of note to the conversation that cannot be handled by outsourced editorials or enhanced investigative reporting.  What's worse, the path that they find themselves on currently is one that is disastrous for the City, State and Union as a whole because they are actively attempting to limit the rights of the citizens in return for crumbs from the table of the ruling class.  It is time for them to go, with the resources they free up being deployed to more and better news gathering activities.

Of course, they probably think the same thing about me and my blog, when they spend any time at all thinking about it that is.  The difference is that I pretend to have no special expertise on the matter, only an opinion whose right to express I exercise. Yes, they have the same right, they are just provided with a bigger bullhorn and an air of legitimacy that I believe it's time to take from them.