Two Corinthians walk into a bar

Can they get coverage under Obamacare?  Thanks, I'll be here all week.  Now for some real humor.



Because all the kewl kids are posting Samantha Bee videos; and because I'm ostensibly about religion here, and politics, and because this is just so good.

We don' need no steenkin badges!

My Procedure prof opened the class by telling us that he would spot you the law, and he would retain the rules of procedure; and he'd beat you in court every time.

Yup.

Nevada's process for sending delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia is among the most complex. When the state caucused in late February, the fourth state on the calendar for the Democratic Party, the results of that process favored Hillary Clinton. Twenty-three of the 35 total bound delegates were given out proportionally in the state's four congressional districts, giving Clinton a delegate lead of 13 to 10. The results of the caucus suggested that after the state convention — which bound the state's seven at-large delegates and five delegates who are elected officials or party leaders — Clinton would end up with a 20-to-15 lead over Bernie Sanders, with Clinton winning one more delegate from the at-large pool (4-to-3) and one more from the party-leader pool (3-to-2) than Sanders.

I agree with Charlie Pierce:  "This sounds like something Kim Jong-Il would have thought up on the golf course between his 11th and 12th holes-in-one."  But I also agree with Jimmy Durante:  "Dese are de conditions dat prevail!"  And, it turns out, it's also not so one sided as that:

Prior to the state convention, some Sanders supporters began an effort to shift the convention rules in a way that they viewed as more favorable to their candidate. One of those changes, the Las Vegas Sun reported, was a process for verifying voice votes; another took issue with the state party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, heading up the convention. Supporters at the event circulated petitions to the same end. The scene was set.

The first report from the credentials committee on Saturday morning indicated that Clinton had a slight edge in delegates. Sanders fans voted against that report, per Jon Ralston, and then demanded a recount — but this was simply a preliminary figure. As in the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1, the final total delegates went through a process of realignment as the day progressed.

This, in other words, is how these things are done; and also why you don't want to watch sausage or legislation being made.  Cutting out the drama which is not directly related to the outcome (shouting down speakers, etc.; you can get better information on that here, if you're interested), we return to the saga of the credentials committee:

The ultimate total reported by KOLO-TV was 1,695 Clinton delegates to 1,662 for Sanders, giving Clinton that one-delegate total in the at-large and party-leader pools. But the drama was far from over. Fifty-six Sanders delegates — enough to swing the majority — were denied delegate status, mostly because they weren't registered as Democrats by the May 1 deadline, according to the state party. (The Sun reports that eight potential Clinton delegates suffered a similar fate.) 

Now this is not the point where the rules changed.  Apparently that happened with the change to how voice votes were verified.  It actually isn't clear whether that change was implemented or not, but I'm guessing it wasn't because the Sanders delegates weren't seated and without them, Sanders didn't have the majority.  The point is, the rules changes started with the Sanders supporters, who decided they had the votes, they got to send out the part invitations.  Turned out it wasn't that simple, and they also didn't have the votes.  Credentials, ya know; you aren't a delegate until the right people say you are.*

See what I mean about having the rules v. having "the law"?

And then the casino where this event was taking place decided everybody had stayed up past their bedtime, and threw them all out.  No, seriously.

Now, predictably, this is blowing up in some circles, though again, I agree with Charlie Pierce:  time to pull the plug on this nonsense.  This argument is over 'four freaking delegates," and rules so arcane they would make a Procedures professor call for a stiff drink.  When we're down to screaming about that kind of arcana, we're done.


*The devil is in the details there:

Concerns remained. A Sanders supporter complained on the stage that 64 people weren’t allowed to participate.

A state Democratic party representative said that figure is misleading. Six of those were allowed in. Some had incomplete or unidentifiable information, including names and addresses, and hadn’t responded to requests to correct it. Others hadn’t registered as Democrats by the deadline.

Wading through this again, it boils down to this:  Clinton won more delegates than Sanders in the Nevada caucuses, but then fewer Clinton delegates than Sanders delegates showed up for the state convention.  Except too many of the Sanders delegates couldn't get credentialed, so the balance tipped back in favor of Clinton's delegates.

And that, per the Sanders supporters at Salon (at least), is grossly undemocratic.  Somehow.  All I know is, Charlie Pierce is right.

J'Protest!

Pastor Dan (Bless him!) points me to this, from which I want to take a few responses that aren't quite his (not that there's anything wrong with that!).  Although I have to start by agreeing that this:

For Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., the key question is "whether or not there is a binding morality to which everyone is accountable."

Simply means Albert Mohler wishes for a time when everyone agreed with him, a time that occurred sometime just before he realized there was a world full of other people who are NOT Albert Mohler.  Mohler thinks of that as the encounter with nothingness, but the more correct French phenomenological label is simply the "other."

And yes, that is harsher than Pastor Dan, but then I never claimed to be as nice a person as PD.  And then you have to put this kind of stuff in the context of the article, so:

Mohler is a co-founder of the biannual Together for the Gospel conference, which brought together thousands of evangelicals last month at a sports center in Louisville, a few miles from the Southern Baptist campus. Electronic signs around the top of the arena carried such messages as "We Were Born Out of Protest" and "We Stand on Scripture Alone, Not Man's Wisdom."

"Our theme for this year is, 'We Protest,' " Mohler tells NPR. "You might say [it's] putting the 'protest' back in Protestantism." He and his fellow conservative leaders urge Christians to take a "biblical" stand against such things as no-fault divorce, extramarital sex, "transgenderism" and gay marriage. His new book is We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking Truth to a Culture Redefining Sex, Marriage, & the Very Meaning of Right & Wrong.

Protestantism was a protest against the prevailing church structure and orthodoxy (no communion every Sunday!), not a protest against the prevailing sectarian culture.  If anything, Protestantism was an expression of the prevailing culture (starting with Luther in the principalities of what is now Germany, and Calvin running Geneva, and the Scots asserting their independence of culture from England; etc., etc,. etc.)  To put the "Protest" back in "Protestantism" you'd have to be objecting to the prevailing religious orthodoxy which, ironically, claims itself in the words of Albert Mohler and the SBC.

Me thinks he doth protest too much.  But then, as that parable of the beam and the splinter puts it, isn't that always the way?

Isn't it ironic?  Don't you think?

So Mohler wants to be in the world but not of the world; or maybe not even in the world at all:

"Conservative Christians in America are undergoing a huge shift in the way we see ourselves in the world," Mohler says. "We are on the losing side of a massive change that's not going to be reversed, in all likelihood, in our lifetimes." In his view, Christians must adapt to the changed cultural circumstance by finding a way "to live faithfully in a world in which we're going to be a moral exception." (It is this goal, Mohler says, that explains the passage of "religious liberty" laws to protect people who want to express their opposition to same-sex marriage or "transgenderism.")

Check out the picture of Mohler at the link; dude makes me look like a youngster.  Which is not a comment on his age (ageism!) so much as a comment on the undeniable fact he is being left behind by an ever-changing world.   And I gotta agree with Pastor Dan:  what the hell is "transgenderism"?  Another made up word that means "scary change I don't like!"?  The people who are scared of such changes have my sympathies; that doesn't mean they have my agreement.  The tough part about loving your enemies is that it isn't a recipe for transforming enemies into friends.  It's meant to transform you.  Whether people are your enemies or not is something you cannot change; how you treat them is what you are in control of.  Loving them doesn't change them; it changes you.  Which is what makes loving your enemies so hard; and so necessary.

It's that or turn into a dragon yourself.

But is Christianity going to be a moral exception in the world because it preaches that gays should not marry and transgendered person should not pee in public?  Or is it going to be a moral exception because it continues, after 2000 years, to still tell you to love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you?  Which moral position, after all, calls for a true effort at "living faithfully"?

And since when do Christians need "religious liberty" laws to protect them from their own desire to be bigots?

"The Bible makes claims about what is right and wrong, and those claims are often at odds with what everyday people believe," says Southern Baptist seminary student Joshua Van der Merwe, 24, of Louisville, during a break between conference sessions. "Christians are called to protest and to witness to what the Bible claims to be right and wrong."

Or it calls you to:  "Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God."  It calls you to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, visit the sick and the prisoner, because in doing so you show compassion to Christ himself.  It teaches you to love your neighbor as you love yourself.  It teaches you to not judge, so you won't be judged.  It teaches you that your neighbor is whoever needs your help, and that even a prodigal son is still a son, no matter what.  It teaches you to wake up the house when you find the lost coin and spend it in a celebration; to sell all you have and buy the pearl of great price; to bury your treasure in the ground when you find it; to leave 99 sheep alone and search for the one lost sheep.  It teaches you to love your enemies; because God loves them, and only then can you be in right relationship to God, and so live right and comfortably in the world.

Christianity teaches all manner of absurdities and impossibilities and contradictions.  Christianity challenges you; not the world.   Right and wrong?  Take that up with Job.  Or Jonah.  But don't take it to the world, because the first thing Christianity says to you is:  Who are you to judge?

And when you are allowed to judge, Matthew tells you to take it to your brother in private; and then to some friends, if need be; and finally to the whole community, if you have to.  You don't get to judge; the others do, and only as members of the same community; which, in any version of Christianity, is never the world.  There is nothing in all the letters and words and thoughts of the New Testament, or of the Hebrew Scriptures, that calls upon a Christian to stand in judgment of the world.

Christianity doesn't call me to judge the world; it calls me to be transformed in who I am in the world.  And that is a protest I can get behind; a protest against the world as it is in favor of the basiliea tou theou as explained by Scripture and scripture as explained by Walter Brueggemann.

Of Bathrooms and their patrons

Still crazy after all these years

First, I have to say this whole "bathroom" kerfuffle seems to have started in Houston (sorry).  The former Mayor of Houston pointed that that HERO (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance) came up for a referendum vote (after a protracted court battle that went to the Texas Supreme Court, which forced the referendum) after the Obergefell decision was handed down.  So opponents of Obergefell were hungry for their pound of flesh, and in HERO they found it.  (The terrifying "toilet ad," complete with wide eyed young white girl gazing off camera at a "predator," can still be found here.)  From that little acorn (which turned the tide against HERO) sprang "bathroom" laws across the country, which have morphed from fears of predators to fears of violations of privacy (somehow privacy is not violated when we deny women abortions, but is when we allow transgendered women to use a stall in a public toilet.  No, I don't understand, either.)

So:  sorry about that.

But the real point is, the argument of the opponents, be they the governor of North Carolina or the Lite Guv. of Texas, are crap.  Watch the Ashleigh Banfield interview, if you must, to see Dan Patrick splutter and insist his version of reality, even as she takes it away from him, is still the Truth!  It's bollocks; utter bollocks.

And the lesson of the beam in your eye returns to us, because  the people opposed to allowing the transgendered into bathrooms (who themselves only want privacy in public to use the facilities as the rest of us do.  Do you want public attention when you urinate or defecate?  Neither do I.) do it in the name of avoiding violence are probably, themselves, prone to violence.  Too many arguments about what "they" will do usually cover desires for violence in the ones who see it in others.

But the real argument is to see the transgendered simply as human beings.  Unsurprisingly, that's the Christian argument, too:

In an email sent to The Huffington Post on Saturday morning, Boylan said her “only intention on that show was to be respectful and loving to a person who I knew did not understand me.” She continued, “I hoped if I showed a little kindness, it might make him stop and think, Hmm, well what is the proper Christian response to someone who is vulnerable and in trouble?“

Boylan says she didn’t expect her strategy to work. “I figured that my own humanity is of so little reality to these people that nothing would make any difference,” she noted in her email. But she was surprised that “it appeared to completely shut him down.”

“I can’t explain it,” Boylan said. “Is it possible that for a moment he recognized me as someone human, someone just like him who deserves love and understanding?”

She ended up walking away from the experience with an outlook that translates into what might be some of the best advice we’ve heard in a long time: “Love your enemies. It messes with their minds.”

To which I would only add:  love them anyway.  It's the right thing to do.

Yeah, we think he's pretty stupid, too

Once again, with feeling:  Dan Patrick can't do this.

In a news conference this morning, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick responded to a letter the Obama administration sent to every public school district in the country, which tells schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom and locker rooms that match their chosen gender identity.

The letter warned that schools that do not comply may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid.

"This will be the end of public education, if this prevails," Patrick said. "People will pull their kids out, homeschooling will explode, private schools will increase."

Patrick asserted that it should be up to individual school districts to accommodate students, and schools shouldn't be forced to obey a mandate from the federal government.

He said that he will direct superintendents in Texas not to obey the administration's request.

Patrick pointed out that Obama's threat about pulling funding from schools that do not comply is just that - a threat.

He added that even if the administration follows through and pulls funding, it wouldn't take effect right away, so that's why he's suggesting school administrators stay the course for the last few weeks of this school year.

Independent school districts are INDEPENDENT.  The Lite Guv. has no authority over them, except as a voting member of the Senate.  And he's being disingenuous to say public schools only get federal dollars for free lunches for poor students.  Student loans, PELL grants, etc., all affect public schools, too.  We call those public schools "universities," and Texas has a lot of them.  And yea, Dan Patrick thinks he can make this happen, and it's a good thing:

The result of forfeiting the $10 billion currently flowing from the U.S. government to schools and public universities in Texas could leave thousands of college students without a way to pay tuition, grind to a halt a majority of research taking place on the campuses, and leave low-income children without support for meals. 

State colleges in Texas are more dependent than ever on the federal government, since the state government has cut appropriations year after year.   As Huffington Post noted:  "Experts widely believe most public colleges [in Texas] could not survive without federal funding."  Dan Patrick is a braying jackass.

Besides, people are already pulling their kids out of public schools when they can.  Public schools don't close because the enrollment goes down, and private schools don't open to take up the slack and any spare tax dollars laying around.  Parents who don't like Obama's directive under Title IX will have to find the wherewithal to afford private school, a private school that will accept their special snowflake, or the time and energy to homeschool.

Patrick has gone so far as to say Texas schools will just do without federal funds subject to Title IX.   Again: not his call.  He isn't the education czar for the state of Texas, and the idea he's going to find  the $10 billion Texas could lose is absolutely laughable.  As Lite Guv., all he really does is preside over the Senate.  He may rally his Senate loonies in the next session, but the House is, by comparison, much more pragmatic; and support for giving up $10 billion in federal education funding is not going to be all that popular in 2017.

Of course, if he keeps this up, it might energize the college age voters Bernie has been inspiring, and get them to turn out in Texas and vote against such stupidity for once.

So this is his 15 minutes on the national stage.  (And I do appreciate the White House telling Patrick to sit down and shut up.  Because honestly, if you can get beat down by CNN, your 15 minutes are over.)

Consequences of a Brown Planet

The commenter on the panel on Diane Rehm this morning said it:  Sanders can't win large numbers of votes in states with large numbers of African Americans in them.  Sanders' support is largely young and white, and that is a racial as well as generational divide.  Those who are "fed up" and white should matter; and the panel is going on to casually talk about voters who like Sanders, and like Trump, and they never notice because it's not about race because it's never about race.

In very local news this morning, the largest school district in the state (and one of the largest in the country) is working on renaming schools named for Confederate generals and the President of the Confederacy.  A former local TV reporter who now works as a "consultant" was even quoted (on tape) saying that the school board had created racial tension by raising this issue and working to rename these schools.  Of course, when whites are aggrieved, racial tensions are created.  As long as they are happy, racial tensions are illegitimate.

I heard this argument 50 years ago; it hasn't gone away.

I don't blame Sanders for this, not directly.  But he dismissed the South because it didn't vote for him; and who in the South didn't vote for him most of all?  Non-white voters; and even to label them that broadly is to set "white" as normative.  But it's not about race because it's never about race.

We built this country on racism.  People came here because they chose to, but people came here from Africa because we forced them to; and dependent upon that system, we wrote it into our Constitution.  we removed it less than 100 years later, but the foundation was laid, the damage was done.  It is still our hidden wound; it is still our original sin.  And, as predicted, our minorities are becoming majorities.

And even our "liberals" aren't handling that very well.  Even millennials are easily prompted on comment boards to rail against "racism" that they perceive is being stirred up where there wasn't any racial tension before.  Because it's not about race, because it's never about race.  And when it is about race, it's because you're doing something wrong; to white people.

(Un)Sound Bites

I would leave theology to the seminaries (especially since "theology" is a specifically Christian concept arising from the Greek roots of the early church).  And this way you don't have to take religion out of theology.

I would prefer, instead, a broader appreciation of philosophy of religion.  Mostly because most people who think they understand philosophy and religion, understand neither (the link being just the latest case in point).

But also because it's a better way to teach Christianity without proselytizing, and the understanding of Christianity is fundamental to understand Western culture (just as understanding Hinduism is central to Indian culture, or Buddhism to Asian cultures).

Fun with numbers

I don't think we can build enough of these fast enough....

I like playing around with numbers.  Josh Marshall raises a pertinent point about the Trump love-in currently going on among the GOP on Capitol Hill:  what about the promise to deport all the "illegal aliens" within 18 months?

There are numerous problems with, legally as well as morally.  But let's consider logistics a minute:  how do you arrest, detain, and deport 11 million people with 18 months?

Remember when Hurricane Rita followed on the heels (so to speak) of Hurricane Katrina, and people along the upper Texas coast panicked and all decided to drive to Dallas?  And the 250 miles or so stretch of freeway was bumper to bumper the whole way?  That was probably a few hundred thousand people (well, figure fifty-two cars per mile, more or less, with at least two people per car, you still only reach about a quarter of a million.)

So what transportation system do you use to move 11 million people?  Interstate freeways?  Passenger rail?  Jets? Busses?  Lines of trucks filled with people?   Look at the refugees fleeing Syria.  Amnesty International in February of this year reported over 4.5 million refugees had fled to 5 countries.  Now double that number, and add half again, and move them in 18 months.  I know you know it can't be done, but think about it for a minute.

Then think about how many people would be needed to round up 11 million people, man the facilities where they are housed, operate the transport system, and man the departure points.  Because I said I love numbers, I looked up the number of prisoners in all jails in the U.S.  As of 2014, it was just under 3 million.  The number of people employed in corrections at all levels of government, is just over 1 million.  So if you ramp up the number of detainees to 11 million (and where do the facilities comes from to house them until they can be physically deported), you'd need at least 4 million more employees just to handle detention and, let's be generous, transportation (I don't know how many employees in "corrections" are actually guards, I suspect no small number of them are administrative personnel).  And that guesstimate doesn't even take into account the number of people you would need to round up 11 million people and get them to those facilities.

And what cooperation can be expected from the countries taking these people?  Do we just dump them out like so much refuse at a landfill, and let the receiving countries worry about the logistics on their end?  Again, Europe dealing with the Syrian refugees is an object lesson in mass migration.

The idea is as ludicrous as a child's idea fantasy, as realistic as believing Santa Claus brings all those Christmas presents.  It's completely indefensible.  It makes as much sense as declaring the moon is made of green cheese, and we will outfit a mining operation to solve our green cheese shortage.

And yet, as Josh says, Trump hasn't retracted it, and nobody in the GOP is talking about it.

Surely the people are sheeple!

There are two points with the Sanders campaign that continue to rankle, the more so that both come from the candidate himself, not from his most ardent supporters anonymously posting on the intertoobs.

First, there's the issue of super delegates:

Ironically, Sanders’ recent assertion that Clinton will not garner the majority of all delegates before the convention rests on the existence of superdelegates, whose numbers raise the mathematic ceiling for clinching the nomination. This is where his logic turns on itself — one cannot complain about the existence of superdelegates, and then use their existence to claim that the convention will be contested. Indeed, if the party awarded superdelegates proportionally according to the state-by-state results, which Sanders seems to advocate, Clinton would maintain a comfortable majority of delegates.

Thus under any formulation, Clinton will have the clear majority of electoral votes and pledged delegates — not to mention superdelegates. The only conceivable way she could lose is for superdelegates to ignore the electoral results, and move en masse to Bernie Sanders. It would hard to characterize that as either logical, or consistent with any version of democracy one can conjure. And it directly contradicts Sanders’ call for allocating superdelegates according to the popular vote in each state.

Then there's the problem that "the poor don't vote" (except, as North Patterson points out, Clinton won in states with far too much income inequality) and "the corporate media," which have their root in the same problem:

Almost worse than the Green Lantern view of the world, is the absolute certainty in the correctness of their belief. If only the main stream media wasn't standing in the way, we would see the truth. The Truth! If only the scales would fall from our eyes, if we could break out of our delusion, we would of course believe exactly as they do, we would see The Truth! Again, back to the point about a lack of self examination, self awareness, humility. No one in good conscience, or with clear thought could disagree, it's instead an indicator of your delusion, misinformation from the media and so on. All votes where Bernie loses are somehow corrupt, because of course everyone would vote for Bernie when they see the truth.

I have come around to hold that while there are some people that are truly badly informed, most people have a pretty good sense of what they believe and want. To hold otherwise is to deny them agency. If you want to move them, then you are going to have to engage in the hard and slow work of talking to them, convincing them of a different view. That will require treating them with respect, and taking into account their belief systems, priorities, concerns, etc. Along the way you may even change yourself, and will likely have to give up something in order to get something else. In other words compromise. I thought the presidents recent commencement speech at Howard University very eloquently made this point.

In the meantime, I am waiting for non-believers to be called sheeple.

When Sanders was dissing the poor for not voting for him, he might as well have called them "sheeple."  He did everything but that.

Patterson makes one more point worth noting, just before his discussion of super delegates:

Yet another problem for Sanders among Democrats was his relationship to the party — specifically, that he has never been a member.

Certainly, that should not — and did not — preclude him from seeking the party’s nomination. But political parties do not exist simply to conduct plebiscites. Their underlying purpose is to promote a sustained approach to governance which requires a cadre of people to keep the party machinery running. Most often, these are not cynical self-promoters, but committed folks who believe that their party‘s general philosophy is best for society. Superdelegates are people, too. (emphasis added)

Sanders is not famous, as I've noted before, for emulating Ted Kennedy's successes in Congress.  He caucuses with the Democrats, but he doesn't have his fingerprints on any major legislation, and he hasn't used his seniority and experience to push through any laws in his career.  (If I am wrong I will gladly take correction on this point.)  A party exists to express a general philosophy which provides what a group of people consider to be essential to the common good.  In the same way a church exists to express a general religious attitude which provides what a group of people consider to be the right alignment with their ideas of the divine, or even just the universe (spare me the tedious discussions of how science "replaces" religion, discussions which fundamentally misunderstand both science and religion.  Yeah, too many of those on the internet already.).

Is that expression perfect?  Does the church always agree with me?  No.  To some extent I have to bend; to some extent I have to bend the church.  I suspect the vast majority of people, based on church affiliation or voting patterns, don't really like to bend all that much.  Maybe that's a cultural thing, maybe it's a sociological thing; either way, it's a simple truism.  And the easiest response to that failure to satisfy any one person's deepest longings, is to damn those who disagree with you; call them "sheeple," or just say they are uninformed and if the "corporate media" or the "establishment" would just get out of the way, then everyone would agree with me!

Funny how it's never about trying to agree with "them."

Lite Guv Dan Patrick is an Ass

Our text for today comes from the Texas Tribune, in an article that is a model of good journalism.  Herein we learn that:

Two other school board trustees said Tuesday they were surprised the issue had escalated like it had, noting Scribner had been discussing it with them for months and that it stemmed from a non-discrimination policy updated in 2011.

“The controversial policy was enacted five years ago,” said trustee Matthew Avila.

That policy was updated again in 2012 to add protections against gender-based harassment, Scribner told meeting attendees Tuesday before the board took public comment.

“This policy is nothing new,” he said, reiterating his support for the rules. “I am proud of the guidelines that we’ve developed and I’m proud that we’re able to support this policy to provide our educators with a framework to make all students — all students, whether they are transgender or not … comfortable and confident in the learning environment.” 

As has been my experience with school boards and school districts, the emphasis is on the children, not on the parents.  There are parents complaining about this rule being implemented without public input; but that's not how the system works.  Parents don't get to micromanage every detail of district policy:

[School district superintendent Kent] Scribner announced the now-controversial bathroom policy at the school board’s April 19 meeting, where there was no related discussion, according to a Fort Worth Star-Telegram report. The board was not asked to vote on the policy because it is an “administrative guideline,” which is a policy that superintendents can implement without official board approval. 

So there is not only no valid path for the public to demand input before this policy is implemented, there is no valid reason for the Lite Guv to demand Scribner's resignation.  Let me explain.

Under the Texas Constitution, most of the government officials in Texas are directly elected.  This means the Lt. Governor, the presiding officer of the Texas Senate, is elected directly by the people, not by the Senators.  The Attorney General is directly elected (which is why an indicted A.G. facing a federal fraud suit can't be forced to resign).  The list goes on and on, but none of these elected officials has the authority to force the resignation of any of these other elected officials.

Now we come to Texas school districts.  They are "independent school districts (ISD's), created by legislation (enacting the Constitutional provision for them) and then left to run the schools in accordance with state law.  The voters living in that school district pay school taxes set by the ISD Board, members of whom are elected by the voters living in that ISD.  The role of the Board is oversight (compliance with state law, basically), set policy for the district, and hire the Superintendent, the chief administrative office of the district.   As elected officials, the Board answers only to state law and the voters.  They do not answer to the Lite Guv., the Guv., the AG, the Land Commissioner, or any other elected state official.  The Superintendent answers to the Board that hired her/him.

Dan Patrick lives in Houston.  He doesn't pay taxes in  Forth Worth ISD, vote there, or have anything to say about the policies set by that ISD.  He's an ass, to boot.

And so we return to our text:

Embattled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton helped Patrick’s cause Tuesday, telling Fort Worth ISD Board President Jacinto "Cinto" Ramos that he has legal concerns with the policy.

“I have strong concern that this policy violates provisions in the Texas Education Code that give parents an unequivocal right to information regarding their children and is motivated by a misguided view of federal law,” Paxton told Ramos in a letter. “I sincerely hope you will assess these deficiencies in the transgender policy and more as the board deliberates.”

That is what lawyers call "bafflegab."  It isn't a legal opinion, and all it does is point to some vague requirement that parents be informed about their children's education.  Well, this policy has been in place for five years, and is available on the district's website.  As for the "misguided view of federal law," that's a shot at Loretta Lynch.  And frankly, coming from a guy being sued by the federal government for violating federal law, it's a bit rich.  Too rich.  Patrick said, at his press conference, that FWISD is violating state law.  He hasn't, so far as I know, specified what that law is.  (I have since heard his words, and he cited the "Texas Education Code."  So he's taking his legal analysis from Paxton's.  Patrick is not a lower, he's actually a former radio talk show host.)  He is advocating a law similar to North Carolina's; but you can't violate a law that isn't on the books yet; so I still don't know what he's talking about.  Nor is Patrick winning friends in the major metropolitan school districts of Texas:

El Paso Superintendent Juan Cabrera said he began exploring the possibility of adopting such a policy last summer, when he directed school district lawyers to study current guidelines. For now, he said the district follows certain local and federal guidelines that say schools should accommodate the bathroom needs of transgender students however possible.

“We’re a very progressive city and progressive school district and we want to afford all of our children every right and accommodation that they deserve,” he said.

Asked if he would seek board approval for such a policy, Cabrera said it depends.

If it’s a matter of student safety, “I absolutely have the right to implement administrative regulations to make sure they all feel safe,” he said. “I’m not going to subject myself to political will if I think safety of the children” is at stake.

You will notice that "safety" is the linchpin issue here, and the safety of transgendered students is important as the safety of all students.  The position of the DOE and the DOJ has been fairly clear on this issue, and Patrick and Paxton lose that argument very quickly.  Which may be why Patrick will end up doing no more than holding angry press conferences.  He may be able to get a "bathroom bill" through the Texas Senate in 2017; but the Speaker of the House, who is more pragmatic, may well kill the idea until it is clear the Federal courts won't cost Texas a lot of wasted money trying to defend the indefensible.

I would be remiss if I didn't include this lengthy quote recounting the counter-press conference to Patrick's in Fort Worth:

In a pre-emptive press conference held before Patrick spoke, supporters of the district's transgender bathroom policy also lobbed accusations of misplaced priorities, accusing Patrick of making something out of nothing. They derided Patrick for what they described as his “fake outrage,” calling him a shameless bully."This policy does nothing to improve a student's chances of graduating," he said.

“There is no news here,” said Steve Rudner, chairman of Equality Texas. “The only news here is that the lieutenant governor has decided to pick on an already bullied group of kids. It’s shameful and it’s despicable."

The dueling news conferences were held in advance of a school board meeting where the new guidelines were not on the agenda but were addressed during a packed and rowdy hourlong public comment period. Supporters of the new guidelines thanked Scribner and the board for protecting transgender students while opponents expressed outrage that the board did not take public comment on them. They also called on Scribner or the board to repeal the guidelines and start over, with some echoing Patrick's call for the superintendent to step down.

“I don’t understand why these rules were implemented behind closed doors without a vote from the board,” said Nicole Hudgens, a policy analyst with the conservative group Texas Values. “Why is there an attempt to break up the family here? Because that is what you’re doing.”

Dallas resident Paula Ellis, a 53-year-old transgender woman, meanwhile, told the board she avoided using the bathroom while in school, describing it as “painful and difficult.”

“Thank you for your efforts to ensure that all of our kids are safe,” Rev. David Winn said, urging opponents to “remember that Jesus spent the majority of his time with outcasts.”

On that last comment, let the people say:  "Amen!"

Why We Fight

Okay, the first thing about this movie is Patty Hearst.

Yeah, you gotta be at least THIS old to get this film.

Patty Hearst, if you can remember the '70's, is the perfect symbol of the violence of that era (it wasn't really all John Travolta and the reinvention of the BeeGees).  The heiress to a fortune, kidnapped and brainwashed into violence and bank robbery, and the question was:  was she responsible for what she did because of her captivity and suffering and, well, mental breakdown?

The jury said:  Yes!

But that's the same issue with "Bucky," the infamous winter soldier, except now we find out he's been brainwashed so thoroughly that a series of Russian words, said in the right order, will send him into both a fighting frenzy, and make him the puppet of whoever says the magic words.  So:  Patty Hearst with a metal arm and a serious desire to destroy things.

Wrapped around that is the problems of duty and loyalty and who is in charge.  The action of "Civil War" is predicated on the stories in "The Avengers" and "Age of Ultron" and "The Winter Soldier", "Captain America," and even "Ant-Man."  So basically if you don't know those, you won't watch this.  Which should be a weakness (and, in a way, it is), but nobody seems to notice.

(By way of contrast and aside, I can still tell you most of the story line of the much maligned "Batman v. Superman," a movie often unfavorably compared with "Civil War."  But that's because the former tells a story complete in itself (Aristotle would be so happy) while CW tells a story that assumes you know all the characters, all their relationships, their backgrounds (especially Paul Rudd's character), or you don't need to know (Spider-Man.  And by the way, when did Aunt May ever look like Marisa Tomei? Not that I'm complaining....).  It's that assumption that allows the story to start in 1991 in Siberia (you find out where later), jump to 2016, and then bounce around from Cleveland to New York to Berlin to Queens to....well, I lost track at some point.  I also lost track of the story, though I know what happened, who it happened to, why it happened, and how important it was to the plot.  I've read reviews that said major plot points or characters could have been left out, which leaves me wondering:  "What movie did you watch?"  I honestly don't see how you remove the Sokovia Accords, Zemo, or even Spider-Man, without damaging the story line (yes, I've seen reviews suggesting all three are superfluous).  But I also have a hard time recalling the story line.  It's a bit of a blur, actually.)

The problem of who is in charge, for example.  Nick Fury ran SHIELD in order to protect Earth from non-terrestrial threats, the kind that appeared in the first Avengers movie.  He was still trying to to that in "Ultron," although, as I say, Stark created that threat.  Hydra created the Winter Soldier (and destroyed SHIELD), and Thor (in a wholly unrelated story line) fought off some dwarves, or something (I only vaguely remember that one, either).  But what matters is that, since no one can obsess over chasing down the Hulk (who doesn't appear here at all, though most of the Avengers do), the government must obsess over controlling the Avengers.  Whose major crimes seem to be protecting people from alien invasions or whatever technological monster Tony Frankenstein...er, Stark...cooks up.

I mean, when you really get down to it.

It's supposed to reflect, somehow, the problem of superpowers and the nations that aren't superpowers, and while there is an African king from a fictional country who has a cool black suit and the stamina of Captain America, no one says "When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled."  Which is probably as African a proverb as "May you live in interesting times" is a Chinese curse.  (Not so much, IOW.)  I couldn't help thinking of it, though, even as I thought that reining in the superpowered people is an idea handled better in "Kingdom Come," and that the real issue here is society v. individuals.  Basic Romanticism, in other words; even if Steve Rogers is nobody's idea of a Byronic hero.

You see, the issue in this film is that William Hurt, as the Secretary of State (who apparently has a military record, which is a really interesting blurring of the lines between military and diplomatic worlds. Oh, yeah, Colin Powell; except Hurt seems far more ruthless), really wants to control the super guys.  Which kinda seems sensible, since collateral damage is their worst offense, and that can be pretty bad (see the movie; there's more than one person pissed with the Avengers over the fallout from "Ultron").  But is the cure worse than the disease?  Maybe it is, because the urge to control is levied against the good guys, not the bad guys.  It's the good guys who wind up prisoners; and that in itself is an interesting lesson in who "bad guys" are; because we like to think only bad people are in prison.

"Lord, when did we see you?"  Well, when you visited me in prison, for one thing.  Remember that one?  Yeah; start to see my point now?

Who is in charge, and what are they doing with that power?  Hurt's character uses the power of the United Nations to control the good guys.  Why?  Largely because he can; because they operate in the open at all times.  He can't get the bad guys, so he'll do the next best thing.  And Tony Stark, still reeling from the revelation that his weapons created death and destruction, is still trying to cope with the power (money, corporation, technology) that makes him both rich and, in a fancy red metal suit, powerful.  He crooks his knee to the powers that be because he knows how power works.  Steve Rogers, on the other hand, only knows how to be a good American.  He follows orders, but not when they stop making sense.  And his friend is Patty Hearst, which means his friend is now wholly responsible for what he does.  Maybe.

But the interesting thing, I realize this morning, is the consistency of the character of Captain America throughout these movies.  SHIELD crashed and burned because it was a huge secret agency bent on being in control, and that very desire for control undermined it's legitimacy (taken over as it was by the force it sought to oppose.  The more you oppose something, the more you come to resemble it.)  Steve Rogers was hardly a reluctant warrior in "Captain America," but he was a volunteer in a war that was fought by a citizen's army.  America didn't not have a standing army before World War II, and didn't plan to have one afterward.  The Pentagon was built as an archive, not a permanent HQ for a permanent, standing military (that's the reason it survived 9/11 as well as it did.  It was build to hold tons and tons of paper.)  The citizens of America were reluctant to enter World War II until Pearl Harbor, and then they only wanted to win and go home (watch "The Best Years of Our Lives," and not the pivotal moment for one of the characters is dismantling the bombers he flew in for the war).  So Captain America is not an Ayn Rand libertarian (not my idea, Amanda Marcotte's at Salon) or a confused liberal or a closet authoritarian.  He's loyal to his friend from Brooklyn (his best line in "Captain America" is when he tells Red Skull "I'm just a kid from Brooklyn."); what he's not loyal to, is whoever holds the power and claims to be the legitimate authority.

Partly because that's what the people in SHIELD said; partly because Cap understands that the power of war, the power to direct force against a target, is a power that should only be used when the fate of the nation is involved.  It should not be used to decide the fate of the nation, to extend its power, to improve its standing in the world.  William Hurt's Secretary of State wants to use the UN to control the Avengers and then use them as he, and the U.S., see fit.  Tony Stark, ever the weapons manufacturer (he hasn't really changed since he was demonstrating weapons systems just before he was kidnapped, in "Iron Man"), is good with that.  Captain America, the throwback to a pre-Pentagon, pre-CIA/NSA world, is not.

Who you gonna call?

The movie actually turns on personal grievance and private motivation.  T'Challa sets out to avenge his father's death.  Tony Stark, in the end, wants to avenge his parent's deaths.  Notable reasons to fight, or we'd all have turned against Batman some time ago.  Cap fights to save his friend.  His loyalty is concrete, not abstract; he fights for his friend from Brooklyn, not for some vague notion of justice and the American Way.  And for this, in many of the reviews I've read, he is wrong; he is the outlier, the Ayn Rand disciple, the loose cannon.

Let me just pause and say how sad that analysis is.

Vengeance is really a poor reason to fight.  The movie concludes with that:  T'Challa realizes he can't resurrect his father, and his desire for justice by killing his father's killer, is not a desire for justice at all.  Tony finds out who killed his parents, and he wants only and eye for an eye.  By that point one might feel sorry for Tony, but it's hard to feel sympathy for him.  Captain America defends Patty Hearst/Bucky because he is Cap's friend, and Cap is loyal, above all, to his friends.  After all, he's not America, or the savior of the world (how'd that work out last time you tried that role, Tony?), or even the king of a fictional African country.  If he seeks justice, it is only the justice of a fair shake for his friend who is still, despite his deeds, a friend.

He's just a kid from Brooklyn.  And if we really aren't that country anymore, then we really have lost something valuable and precious.

And Bernie's not gonna take it anymore!

Somewhere in the Great Beyond, Paddy Chayefsky cleared his throat meaningfully.

“The American people are sick and tired of establishment politics and economics, and by the way, a little bit tired of corporate media as well,” Sanders told Maddow in an interview taped in Burlington, Vermont.

Maddow pressed Sanders for specifics on how he would change the media if he were president.

“What’s the solution to corporate media?” she asked.

“We have got to think of ways the Democratic party, for a start, starts funding the equivalent of Fox television,” Sanders answered.

Of course, MSNBC is a corporate media outlet that is widely seen as a Democratic version of Fox News because of the perceived sympathies of many of its political talk shows.

Sanders went on to argue that “pressure has got to be put on media” to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races.

He then claimed that bringing that pressure to bear would be difficult, since corporate ownership makes it harder for news outlets to cover issues in a way that conflicts with the interests of top executives.

“MSNBC is owned by who?” Sanders asked.

“Comcast, our overlords,” Maddow responded with a chuckle.

“All right, Comcast is not one of the most popular corporations in America, right?” Sanders said.

“And I think the American people are going to have to say to NBC and ABC and CBS and CNN, ‘You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.’”

I really have seen this movie.




Howard Beale ended up fronting a "reality show" before we had reality shows (damn but Chayefsky was prescient!).  And he was about as effective as Jerry Springer or Morton Downey, Jr.  And if you don't remember both of those names, my point stands as taken.  You can't lead the American horse to water, and you cannot make it think; at least not thoughts it is unwilling to think.  To imagine that CNN and NBC and all the others media outlets are somehow denying the American public the meaningful public discourse they want to have is to talk like an adolescent on the internet.  It's sheerest moonshine.  Consider Pacifica Radio, which fulfills every dream of discussing serious issues that Bernie Sanders could wish for.  Amy Goodman is barely identifiable as a public figure (she deserves more recognition), and most of Pacifica programming, after the one attempt at a takeover years ago now, has returned to music, and away from any meaningful content.   And still Pacifica struggles to stay on the air. Whither Air America?  Victim of a nefarious corporate conspiracy?  A delicate flower choked out by the weeds of Clear Channel (who is now failing badly)? Or just not able to attract that many listeners?

You can talk all you want about "the real damn issues facing this country."  What you can't do is make anybody listen.

I don't think Bernie has figured that out yet; which, at age 74, makes him a very sad figure, indeed.

Mother's Day 2016

No more of those left to give....

Obama speaks, you listen:

"You have to go through life with more than just a passion for change—you have to have strategy," Obama said, saying that what is needed is "not just awareness but action, not just hashtags but votes." In the end, showing up on Election Day is what matters. "People try to make this political thing really complicated,” Obama said. “You know what? Just vote. It's math. If you have more votes than the other guy, you get to do what you want."

Sorry, Bernie.

"Change requires more than righteous anger," Obama added, specifically criticizing those who try to shut down political rallies.  "Don't do that," Obama said. "No matter how ridiculous or offensive you might find the things that come out of their mouths. Because as my grandmother used to tell me, 'Every time a fool speaks they are just advertising their own ignorance.'"

Yup; and, yup.

A film by Ken Burns*

So I saw the movie (about which more later), and in addition to my usual "What movie did those reviewers watch?" reaction (again; more later), I drove home listening to this story on NPR.

Which made me think:  the other side of movies like this is that they are still movies.  The superheros never have bad intelligence, and the only surprises are the ones the bad guys spring which cause the good guys to inadvertently hurt people (again, more later.  I know, I know!).  So it's never the good guys actually being bad guys because they raid a house that didn't have drugs, or where the kids are scared because the SWAT team is dressed like something from a FPS video game.

At worst the good guys are just misguided, or misunderstood, which is certainly the subtext of "Civil War."  Most of the collateral damage of "The Avengers" was due to an alien space invasion prompted by a Norse God with delusions of grandeur and a bad childhood.  But it still shows up in "Civil War" as a reason to rein in the good guys.  True, the next Avengers' movie featured a villain created by Tony Stark (be careful what you wish for!), but Tony doesn't take the blame for that one (!), and instead agrees the good guys need to be locked up somewhere if they don't play ball (Tony, of course, plays ball.  Good corporate elitists always do!).  And the damage in "Winter Soldier" was because the super-secret agency set up to protect us all went rogue (wait, wasn't that the plot of "Age of Ultron"?  Hmmmmm.....), and fell in spectacular (and destructive) fashion.

So does it matter if they mean well?  The sheriff on NPR seemed to think so, although she put the blame for bad PR on inadvertent violence and poor leadership and discipline.  (Jawohl!)  But do good intentions count for something?  Or is failure not an option, but standard equipment?  And what does "failure" mean?

That's also a question the movie raises.  But it does it in the usual good guy/bad guy terms:  the former mean well even if shit happens, the latter mean only to make shit happen.  Is it always that simple?

*I saw it at the Alamo Draft House.  If you were there, you'd get the joke.  Sorry, it's a weakness.

Our Man on Their Side

Speaking of not knowing how things work:

"What I want you to do is save your vote — you know, you don't have to vote anymore. Save your vote for the general election, okay? Forget this one. The primary is gone," Trump said. "Save your vote for the general election in November, and we're going to show you something, and then you're going to show me something, okay?"

Now, the problem with this advice is:  Donald Trump hasn't won the GOP nomination yet.  Yes, he's the "presumptive" nominee; but he doesn't have the delegates he needs to clinch the nomination at the convention (which still counts, even if it is largely a 3 day photo op).  And yeah, he later walked it back with a Tweet; but is this how he will conduct international diplomacy?  Say one stupid thing, then correct it on Twitter later?

And then there's this:

On CNBC this morning Trump suggested that one strategy he'll use for reducing the national debt is having bond holders accept "haircuts". To be clear what that means, he'll try to get people who own US Treasury bonds and are owed X to accept X/2, or some reduced amount of what they are owed.

That's called defaulting on a debt obligation.

As JMM goes on to point out:

To be clear, this will never happen. But the fact that Trump is proposing it shows that when it comes to macro-economics and global economics Trump is a huge ignoramus who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the US Treasury. It's an amazing suggestion. Not just stupid but something suggested by someone who simply knows nothing about how the economy works.

This is the guy some Bernie supporters think we should elect, if only by default, in order to teach the country a lesson about not voting for Bernie.  I don't know why they don't just go all the way and support Trump.  He seems like their kind of guy.

And to catch up with yesterday:

"She's been the total enabler. She would go after these women and destroy their lives," Trump said, according to NBC News. "She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler, and what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful."

Trump told the crowd that "nobody respects women more than me" before adding that "nobody in this country, and maybe in the history of the country politically, was worse than Bill Clinton with women."

"Have you ever read what Hillary Clinton did to the women that Bill Clinton had affairs with? And they're going after me with women?" he asked the crowd, according to NBC News.

I know there is some concern that the Democrats will "blow this" (isn't there always?).  But I'm not sure the Dems need to do much more than reinforce the impression that Trump is a loudmouthed boor; and otherwise, stand aside.

Never interfere with a man busy punching himself in the face.

Whine and Cheese Festival continues....

Want some cheese with that whine?

In a Friday letter, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) accused Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz of stacking committees at the July national convention with supporters of Hillary Clinton.

That "I" is getting bigger and bigger every day.  Why is Bernie determined to be their man on our side?

The Fire Next Time

More on Texas burning:

The warehouse that turned into a four alarm blaze and took over 200 firefighters to control, was storing over 500 gallons of pesticide, which is now presumably in the ground water and the creek that runs through the neighborhood.  Residents are being warned to stay out of the creek until tests can be done, tests which may help determine just what the hell was burning in the first place.

And I do mean neighborhood.  The fire started in an auto repair shop, spread to a house, and from there to the factory/storage area.

Firefighters couldn't get in touch the the owners of the building, so they had no idea what kind of fire they were fighting.  Propane tanks were exploding like missiles into the air.  No documents on what chemicals were on the site, or should be on the site, or had been on the site, were available.  Under state law (remember West, Texas?) that's still just fine.

I expect a hue and cry from local officials about this.  I also expect absolutely nothing to happen on the state level.  In other news Austin is about to vote on a referendum as to whether Uber and Lyft drivers have to be fingerprinted (a security measure) in order to drive strangers around town for pay (you know, like taxi drivers).  Word it the measure is going to pass, if only because Uber spent about $10 million on advertising, and that saturation has prompted a backlash.

So what, you say?  Well, a state rep. has promised to introduce a bill in the next session of the Lege to ban cities from requiring such measures of companies like Uber and Lyft, because the free market (with help from the Lege, of course) should make such decisions.  Except, of course, the free market won't make the decision of who to investigate and arrest for rape, murder, assault, etc., and won't do much for the victims of such assaults (who do have a reasonable expectation of NOT being victims of crimes, and that the government will do what it can to make that expectation efficacious.).

Which is why I don't think much will be done about who gets to store what chemicals where, and what everyone needs to know about it.  Hell, it ain't like firefighters are part of the free market, is it?

I'll retire to Bedlam....*

*I could link to news stories for all this, but....shit.

This Is How You Do It

I am shamelessly cribbing this from Charlie Pierce (and saving you the click):

And it's a mindset that believes that less government is the highest good no matter what. It's a mindset that says environmental rules designed to keep your water clean or your air clean are optional, or not that important, or unnecessarily burden businesses or taxpayers. It's an ideology that undervalues the common good, says we're all on our own and what's in it for me, and how do I do well, but I'm not going to invest in what we need as a community. And, as a consequence, you end up seeing an underinvestment in the things that we all share that make us safe, that make us whole, that give us the ability to pursue our own individual dreams. So we underinvest in pipes underground. We underinvest in bridges that we drive on, and the roads that connect us, and the schools that move us forward. And this is part of the attitude, this is part of the mindset.


We especially underinvest when the communities that are put at risk are poor, or don't have a lot of political clout and so are not as often heard in the corridors of power. And this kind of thinking—this myth that government is always the enemy; that forgets that our government is us—it's us; that it's an extension of us, ourselves—that attitude is as corrosive to our democracy as the stuff that resulted in lead in your water. Because what happens is it leads to systematic neglect. It leads to carelessness and callousness. It leads to a lot of hidden disasters that you don't always read about and aren't as flashy, but that over time diminish the life of a community and make it harder for our young people to succeed.


So it doesn't matter how hard you work, how responsible you are, or how well you raise your kids—you can't set up a whole water system for a city. That's not something you do by yourself. You do it with other people. You can't hire your own fire department, or your own police force, or your own army. There are things we have to do together—basic things that we all benefit from. And that's how we invested in a rail system and a highway system. That's how we invested in public schools. That's how we invested in science and research. These how we invested in community colleges and land grant colleges like Michigan State.


But volunteers don't build county water systems and keep lead from leaching into our drinking glasses. We can't rely on faith groups to reinforce bridges and repave runways at the airport. We can't ask second-graders, even ones as patriotic as Isiah Britt who raised all that money, to raise enough money to keep our kids healthy. You hear a lot about government overreach, how Obama—he's for big government. Listen, it's not government overreach to say that our government is responsible for making sure you can wash your hands in your own sink, or shower in your own home, or cook for your family. These are the most basic services. There is no more basic element sustaining human life than water. It's not too much to expect for all Americans that their water is going to be safe.

And in a city still gerrymandered into state and federal republican districts, a city in which traditionally bidness rulz and people suck hind tit, the new African American Mayor of Houston shows he knows how to speak their language and still make his point: 

We are a growing, developing city with three million more people estimated to move into our region over the next 15 years.  We are competing not just against Dallas, San Antonio and Austin; not just against New York, Los Angeles or Chicago, but against Vancouver, Berlin and Singapore. We are an international city, speaking 142 languages, with 92 consulates and two international airports within our city boundaries.

We must be sure that the growth and prosperity reach all Houstonians.  Unfortunately, that is currently not the case.  We are becoming two cities in one:  a city of many contrasts.  There are signature parks like Hermann, Memorial and Buffalo Bayou, and there are neighborhood parks desperate for swings and playground equipment. There are neighborhoods with abundant retail, grocery and transit options, but there are also neighborhoods with food deserts, little or no retail and a dependence on public transit.  There are areas that enjoy opportunity but oppose the addition of new multi-family housing.  And then, there are communities where blue tarps from Hurricane Ike still dot the rooftops of single-family homes and many apartment complexes stand abandoned and open to criminal activity.  I want to thank Councilwoman Stardig for being a champion in removing abandoned buildings and all council members for working to restore neighborhoods.

The revenue cap works against creating one Houston with opportunity for all and the ability to address pressing needs like flooding, transportation and mobility, parks and added green space, affordable/workforce housing and  homelessness. Some may look at the homeless individuals on our streets and just see nameless faces.  I, on the contrary, see mothers, fathers and children suffering from mental illnesses, substance abuse and other very personal issues.  My administration will resist the temptation of ineffective fixes such as putting these people in jail. We will instead commit our energy to the long-term solutions that have helped our city lead the nation in addressing homelessness.

Let me tell you about George Aluoch, a homeless gentleman, who had been coming to the Houston Public Library Carnegie Center almost every week for six months.  This homeless, dirty, unshaven man was an aircraft mechanic with years of experience with the Aerospace Center and the former Continental Airlines. A bad break happened and George ended up with nothing and on the streets.  Library staff helped him edit his resume and apply for jobs.  When he didn’t have money to print the resume, they printed it for him.  They assisted in every way they could.  George recently returned to the Carnegie Center to let them know that he had been offered a job and a signing bonus for a position in Oklahoma with an aircraft support company that provides services to aerospace and defense industries.  He showed them his Greyhound ticket and said, “It’s over, and I am ready to go.” Library staffers Erika Arrington and Paula Loredo and their immediate supervisor is Cylenthia Hoyrd are here today.  I want to thank them for treating Mr. Aluoch with dignity and respect.

Merely maintaining our momentum is not enough.  I will work with the private sector, faith-based organizations and other nonprofits to achieve a long-term goal of effectively housing Houston’s homeless.  We will do it, not for the NCAA Final Four or the Super Bowl, but because we are Houston, and we are a city of hope and opportunity.
....

When I was elected mayor, there were many who said I was coming into office at the worst time.  They said the City is broke, has huge pension problems; the streets are in horrible condition, and the city is divided.  They did not envy me.  Now and then I ask myself what the Allen Brothers would say to those same people.  What would Sam Houston or those who laid the blueprint for the medical center or the port or Johnson Space Center say to those people?  I don’t know exactly what they would say, but I do know what Eddie and Ruby Turner would say, “Life is not fair, but you have to navigate through it and tomorrow will be better than today.”  Though they did not graduate from high school, they knew the importance of education.  Whether it was Encyclopedia Britannica or something else, they purchased books from every salesperson who knocked on the door.  When I had to give a report in school about my summer vacation, I traveled through the pages of those books and wrote my paper as if we had actually gone.  Facing challenges is our life’s story; creating opportunities is the reward.

The revolution ain't waiting for the Millenials to grow up and take over, and it ain't looking for the senator from Vermont to lead it into battle.  Just sayin'..... 

It's burning down in Texas

This is actually in my neighborhood.  The school that was affected has been evacuated, and it's only a few blocks from the church I used to serve.  I saw the smoke earlier this morning (about 10:30) and would have pegged for being much further from the school than it was.

Then again, the plume of smoke hung over the area like Sauron slowly dissipating from Barad-dur.  Sorry, but that's the image it brought to mind.  Fire is a particularly hellish presence on earth.

Now the question is:  what the hell were these materials doing being stored in such a heavily residential area?

I should be surprised, but I'm not.  When I lived in a parsonage, a fire broke out across the creek from us, on the back side of the cemetery.  It was a facility which had an illegal LP gas tank for fueling fleet cars and trucks for the company located there.  Had the tanks been caught up in the blaze, they could have exploded, taking a city block or so with them.  (This article tells me the fire is very close to the church/parsonage, because the cleaning company is the one that had the illegal LP tanks.)

Welcome to Texas.