Chronicle Political Cartoons Imbalanced

I couldn't help but comment on the skewed nature of the editorial cartoons retrospective the Chronicle did in the Sunday Outlook section. The selection was representative of the past year, greatly skewed towards criticizing conservatives and Republicans, whilst letting the Democrat Party and liberals mostly off the hook.
 

On the first page, the first cartoon ridiculed Mitt Romney as a cultural and foreign policy lightweight, the second portrayed Texas Republicans as folks who didn't care about the poor, the third portrayed Fox News as not only lacking objectivity but deranged to boot, the fourth portrayed conservative Christians as culturally illiterate, the fifth singled out a conservative candidate for having said something stupid, and the sixth again ridiculed conservative Christians, comparing them to the Taliban.

 

The second page was a bit lighter on lampooning conservatives, but mostly complimentary to liberal points of view. Still, number two was implicitly critical of most conservative supreme court justices, number eight blamed Republicans for the fiscal cliff, and number nine portrayed small government proponents as being hypocrites. It's interesting to note that the closest the Chron cartoons came to criticizing President Obama or Democrats was to zing Obama on security for our Benghazi consulate, but even this criticism was mild. 

 

The first cartoon on page two, though, takes the cake. The cartoon portrays the residents of a supposedly well to do neighborhood as Elitists, living behind their walled community and criticizing President Obama for "dividing America". In all fairness, has there been anybody in American politics that has lived a more insulated, elitist life than our current president? He is the guy, after all, who not only abandoned the Fiscal Cliff negotiations so he could take his vacation in Hawaii, but expected Congress to stay in D.C. and continue working while he frolicked in paradise.

 

I look forward to the Chronicle injecting a little more balance into their humor in 2013. With a target rich environment including the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Attorney General Eric Holder, the Big Three networks, Occupy Wall Street, our academic Elites and scores of whacky advocacy groups, there's laughs aplenty to be had at the expense of the liberal community.

Pete Smith

Cypress

LTE: The Job Market Got Better?

Happy talk

The lead article in the Friday Business section of the Chronicle proclaimed, "Job market ends year in better place" (Page D1). As proof, the article claimed that the number of people applying for unemployment benefits each week has dropped by 10 percent since January to 375,000, the lowest level since June 2008.

This is just happy talk. The real reason for the decrease in applications is very simple. In the past four years, everybody that can be laid off has been laid off. Tens of millions of jobs have been lost and are not coming back, and companies across America are down to a bare-bones staff. In this terrible economy, it was inevitable that unemployment applications would fall.

I wait with bated breath for the next proof that the economy is improving: the falling number of people who collect unemployment, as hundreds of thousands of workers exhaust their eligibility for benefits.

The Obama administration will no doubt portray this as great news.

Pathetic.

- Pete Smith, Cypress

http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Letters-Jobs-judges-boomers-2433604.php

Doin' The French Mistake

There’s a certain irony - and one might say boldness – to producing a movie named “Les Miserables”, given the distinct possibility that this description would apply to your audience, particularly since the umpteen prior cinematic versions all went down ingloriously, and completely, in flames.  This is ever more so likely when the movie in question requires Hollywood stars of no known musical ability to sing their way through most of the movie.  Oh but to be a fly on the wall at the pre-production meetings when this was pitched: “no, I swear Manny, we can pull this off.  Hugh Jackman is going to be great; Russell Crowe will kill it; Anne Hathaway will bring us to tears”.

Hugh was not great; Russell didn't just kill it, but mutilated the corpse; and Anne did in fact bring us to tears – of raucous unintentional laughter.

And so another infamous “Movie Review Without Seeing The Movie” is born.  When they announced last year that this version would be a musical, I initially struck it from my list of prospects.  There was no way the movie would be anything other than a crushing bore, I thought, and lamented that the Money Men had not had the benefit of my wise counsel.  They didn’t, and I was wrong.  After seeing the Trailer, I changed my mind – for all the wrong reasons.  This was going to be a train wreck of epic proportions, and I wanted in on the action.  Now, Schadenfreude is not a sign of good character, but the hell with it.  Earnest Hollywood megastars took a shot and spectacularly screwed the pooch.  There’s no way I was not going to leave this one alone.  

Besides its musical pretentions, the problem is mostly a story that has just not aged well: Les Miserables is the Charlie Brown of movie concepts.  For the sake of this metaphor, the culturally attuned movie fans who love the story of Les Miserables - nearly as much as they love avante garde floral arrangements and invitations to the one time only performance art of Sean Penn as he channels Rigoberto Menchu - are Charlie Brown, eager for the opportunity to finally kick the football.  The Lucy Van Pelt character ready to jerk the ball away - causing Charlie Brown to predictably and ignominiously flop onto his back - is the movie itself.  See, the movie version of Les Miserable will always fail for the same reason the printed version always fails: the story sucks.  What’s different this time is that everybody knows it.

But, onto the plot: In a nutshell, Jean Valjean – a poor soul who occasionally means good - steals a loaf of bread, goes to prison, gets out, and thus attracts the undying attention of Javert, the policeman who devotes his life to making Valjean’s a living hell on Earth.   Valjean atones for the stolen bread even though there was no sensible reason to do so.  He was hungry after all, and he did share.  Into the picture comes Hathaway’s character Fantine, to whose daughter Cosette Valjean becomes a protector and father figure.  This is significant because he is a middle aged man and she a young girl, giving Valjean a creepy pedophilic quality, but then you remember that this story originated in France, the country that not only offers safe haven to many of the world’s most notorious pedophiles - including Woody Allen and Roman Polanski – but showers them with awards and acclaim particularly because they are Pedophiles.  And you are even more highly esteemed if you engage in Sodomy (Polanski) or Incest (Allen).

And how much of a kick would it have been if either Allen or Polanski had directed this movie?  “I need a rewrite”, Woody would say.  “Add a half dozen more scenes of Valjean and Cosette in slightly more, um, romantic surroundings, after the filming of which Allen would be required to retire to his trailer for 15 minutes, coming out afterwards looking refreshed, and much more at peace with the world.  Later, Allen would cause it all to make sense by pointing out that this was post-revolutionary France, see, and Frenchmen were still working some kinks out of the new social contract, all done in his trademark conversational voice-over.

But, I digress.

Another reason this movie fails is that there are too many modern-day variations that immediately come to mind that would cause you – as you sit there squirming in your seat – to question the credibility of the plot, the characters and eventually the flesh and blood actors themselves.  With that in mind, was I producing this movie, I would keep most everything but the setting: same plot, same script, same actors, and same costumes.  The actors would all sing; oh my, how they would sing.  Anne Hathaway would cry: there would be a veritable flood of tears, particularly at completely inappropriate times.  Crowe and Jack man would cry too, along with several lesser characters, regardless of how little sense their crying made.  And not only would Hathaway keep her Big Scene where she gets shorn of her lovely mane, but all of the abuse at the hands of the sadistic Thenardieres as well.  In fact, I would stretch the hair cutting scene out to at least 15 minutes, during which time she would deliver several side-monologues stylistically indistinguishable from Brad Pitt’s incoherent ramblings in the Chanel perfume commercials. 

And, one of the male characters would have a man-purse.

What I would change in its entirety would be the setting.  Pre-Revolutionary France would become modern day America; Valjean would be a simple tourist boarding a plane to fly from New Jersey to Miami, Florida; Javert would be a TSB drudge at the beautiful Camden International Airport; the loaf of bread would be a pocket knife; Fantine would be the Chick who inadvertently brought oranges into Florida; Valjean’s persecution of Javert would cease to be the relentless attentions of a petty authority figure convinced of the righteousness of his cause, and become instead an endless series of TSB pat-downs at security checkpoints, each one more invasive and embarrassing than the last, and with the ever-increasing prospect of injuries that would require Valjean to use laxatives for the rest of his life in order to poop.  Don’t worry sir, I’m a professional.

I think you see where I’m going with this.  We would play the entire movie for laughs.  We would take the most pretentious story of all time, put it on steroids, feature cameos of Richard Simmons and Lindsay Lohan, and then segue into a real musical, Blazing Saddles, specifically where the movie spills out of the Old West and onto the set with Dom DeLuise and his All-Gay revue doing their Big Number: “Throw out your hands, stick out your Tush, hands on your hips, given them a push; you’ll be surprised you’re doing The French Mistake….Voila!”.  And of course, Slim Pickens would still fall in love with one of the Dancers, and Hedley Lamarr would still catch a cab exclaiming with no small amount of justification “get me out of this movie”.  Hell, tweak Helena Bonham Carter’s hair a bit, and she could jump right into the Madelyn Kahn role as Lilly Von Schtup.

Let’s face it: there’s no way anybody associated with Les Miserables comes out of this one unscathed.  I fully expect whole websites will be devoted to defame the movie, Hathaway, Jackman & Crowe, and these sites will be successful for the same reasons that the Flying Spaghetti Monster lives on, a thorn in the side of Organized Religion: regular folks just love deflating the Establishment, especially when they are taking themselves the most seriously.

And that, my friends, is a notion worthy of a revolution.

The Borking Of Republicans

Regarding "Bork nomination altered judicial selection" (Thursday Page A4, Nation), Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1987 was a watershed moment for Democrats, as they realized that they could demagogue their opposition without restraint and without consequence. As the article documents, Teddy Kennedy set the standard when he infamously proclaimed that “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, [and] writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government......".
 

The reaction of the Media was largely to report the demagoguery as fact. The reaction of Republicans was to squawk for a minute or two, then give up. The result has been a quarter century of a Democrat Party unrestrained by decency or decorum.

 

For one recent illustration, Democrats waited not a minute after the Sandy Hook massacre to politicize the tragedy and demonize anybody who protested their incoherent demands for more gun control. For another, in a speech about the fiscal cliff on Wednesday, President Obama conflated the Sandy Hook massacre and the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, insisting that Republicans' should gain some "perspective" from the tragedy and concede to his agenda on tax increases, as well as "focus on issues like energy and immigration reform".

 

Both incidents were shameful, but inexplicably, our major media outlets generally passed them on without comment, as they have in hundreds of other instances since Bork was vilified in 1987. If we want to understand the "lack of bipartisanship" that the pundits squawk about constantly, unrestrained Democrat calumny is as good a place to start as any.

Democrats And Gun Lust

Not surprisingly, on the heels of the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook school, the newspapers are awash with articles and commentary from all the Usual Suspects that the time has come to control access to guns.  OffHisMeds is more bemused than amused by the reaction, since gun-related violence of a particular magnitude predictably results in such a "call to action".  Why this is so is not clear.  It's as if Liberals suffer some mass amnesia mere weeks after the most recently publicized shooting, whether it's Columbine or Gabby Giffords, acting like their tragic countenances and rendered loin clothes are something new that we have never seen before.  Why exactly do they need a fresh instance of gun violence to make their point?  Is it that they think we as a nation have forgotten the prior instances?

 

OffHisMeds has not.  In fact, he can cite you rote statistics on such events that happened even before he was conscious of the phenomenon, such as Charles Whitman slaughtering dozens from the tower at the University of Texas in 1966.  And it is not that OHM obsesses on such things, it is rather that these crimes are so enormous that right-minded people should have them on their minds, never to forget.

 

Not Democrats, though.  My entire life, they have used the Incident Du Jour - regardless of its nature - to start banging their drums, dusting off their milk crates, working themselves into a high dudgeon and demanding that SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING.  Gays harassed = hate crime.  Check.  Kids picked on in school = Bullying.  Check.  Failing schools = Inadequate funding.  Check.  Mass shooting = Gun control.  Check.

Crank up the Policy Machine boys; there's regulations to enact, people to control, and money to be spent.  Oh yes, and let's not forget: blame the Republicans.

And such it was with dozens of articles, opinion pieces and talk show appearances across the nation.  In virtually every case, Democrat gun control advocates predictably call for a ban on "assault weapons", as they do after every mass shooting, but as in the past, their rhetoric on the matter is driven either by ignorance or a desire to confuse the public. To cite but a few examples:

 

- They routinely overstate the danger of features such as a folding stock, pistol grip or a threaded barrel that can mount a bayonet. While I will grant you that these features have little use for most gun owners, they are cosmetic, not lethal.   It has, however, allowed Democrats, through sheer repetition, to misrepresent these types of features as constituting an "assault weapon".  That's a gross misnomer based on the simple facts available.  For instance, there's not a single instance of a mass shooting - or any crime for that matter - where these features enabled the death of more people.  And I'll go so far as to submit that there was not a single bayonet death in America last year.

 

- They predictably call for limiting the size of the magazine that holds the bullets, but this is a bogus argument as well. A motivated serial killer can swap an endless number of ten round clips, and it takes less than two seconds to do so. Also, larger capacity clips and drums are cumbersome and  notorious for jamming, and in fact this has happened repeatedly in recent mass killings, arguably saving lives.  

 

- For years they have conflated automatic weapons with semi-automatic weapons, incorrectly referring to the latter as "machine guns".  They've also conflated the term "assault weapons" with semi-automatics.  Neither is correct.  Semi-automatics are simply guns that cause another round to be chambered by the kinetic energy of the previous round. The desire of Democrats  to confuse this point is no accident. For but one example, virtually ALL modern handguns are semi-automatic. If they can successfully control semi-automatics by mis-defining them as "assault weapons", they will control virtually 90% of all arms owned or sold in America.

 

There's little doubt that the intention of the Liberal gun control lobby is to deprive citizens of the capacity to control their own destinies. They look at Europe and see what they hope is our future, a thoroughly emasculated public, powerless because they have no guns, and completely dependent on government for their economic security as well. It's no coincidence that President Obama and the Democrats pursue policies designed to promote both.

 

It is also no coincidence that they prefer not to have a conversation about the real meaning, the  constitutional meaning, of an armed public: As George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment so eloquently put it: "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."  The Founding Fathers understood that an armed populace was a check against not just the King of England, but any like him who came later, including King Barack, Prince Harry and Princess Nancy.

Meanwhile, I wait in vain for a conversation on the real cause of the Sandy Hook killings: a young man deranged by some combination of upbringing, surroundings and culture.  Days after the incident we learn that Adam Lanza was the product of a broken home whose father was not part of the kid's life and a mother who was a barfly.  The mother was also a profligate and irresponsible owner of guns and related paraphernalia, leaving all the weapons and ammo accessible to her son, whom she knew to be a nutjob. 

As a student Lanza was a loner and so anti-social as to attract the attention of school authorities at the time.  It will inevitably come to light that he was dosed with Adderall, Ritalin or even a nefarious cocktail of mood-altering drugs to deal with so-called Attention Deficit Disorder or something similar, as an alarming number of the nation's boys are so treated.  

 

In conclusion, the Liberal tendency to exploit national tragedies will never go away.  They react as they do to these things, not because they have forgotten prior and similar instances, but because they have intuited that all such incidents provide an opening of an essentially political nature that can be freshly exploited.  If there is a victim, any victim, there must be a pathology that can be identified with which to flog an evermore weary citizenry, and earnest Democrats must use each and every such event to milk the taxpayer, form commissions, expand the bureaucracy and yet further control the movements of the public.

It is also worth noting that Democrats - or at least the people that speak for them - don't even have the decency to wait until the bodies are in the graves before they start assigning blame.  The real irony is that most of the pathologies that plague society were authored by Liberalism, putting them in the enviable position of profiting not only from the efforts to control these pathologies, but from their proliferation.  But expanding on that theme will have to be the subject of a future post.

Plenty Of Upside For Repubs On The Pot Vote

Regarding "Tweet declares pot OK" (Tuesday Nation Page A3), Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper Tweeted his approval of the state referendum rather than address it in a more official capacity so as to avoid controversy, but I say, let the Establishment embrace a nationwide initiative to legalize pot.  On the one hand, you will please pot smokers, the overwhelming number of which are Democrats.  You will also please Republicans who have already realized that, once pot is legalized, an overwhelming number of Democrats will never bother to vote again.

Pete Smith
Cypress

The Toll Road Shuffle

Regarding "Wider road means big headaches" (Tuesday Front Page), I was disturbed to read that once the Highway 290 project is completed, the existing four inbound and four outbound lanes will be improved to: four inbound and four outbound lanes. 
 

How is it that the long-delayed improvement of 290 will result only in the expansion of the HOV/Toll lanes?  That question is answered almost before it's asked: the disturbing trend in road improvements in Houston has been to expand lanes that generate revenues at the expense of everything else.  And while the spokespeople for the project make all the politically correct noises about engineering the expansion solely around transit lanes because it "encourages greater use of high occupancy vehicles", nobody is fooled.  This is a money-grab, pure and simple, and 100% funded by increasingly put-upon taxpayers and toll road Users.

 

You don't need to take my word for it: the article frankly states that the Hwy 290 expansion was under-engineered because they eventually intend to "create a tollway along Hempstead Highway......as traffic volume warrants."  To the drivers who use the recently improved I-10 West corridor: enjoy the additional free lanes.  It's looking to be the last time that's ever going to happen in Houston.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress

------------------------------------------------------------------
Road (expansion) weary
Regarding "Wider road means big headaches" (Page A1, Tuesday), I was disturbed to read that once the U.S. 290 project is completed, the existing four inbound and four outbound lanes will be improved to: four inbound and four outbound lanes.

How is it that the long-delayed improvement of 290 will result only in the expansion of the HOV/Toll lanes? That question is answered almost before it's asked: The disturbing trend in road improvements in Houston has been to expand lanes that generate revenues at the expense of everything else.
And while the spokespeople for the project make all the politically correct noises about engineering the expansion solely around transit lanes because it "encourages greater use of high occupancy vehicles," nobody is fooled.

This is a money-grab, pure and simple, and 100 percent funded by increasingly put-upon taxpayers and toll-road users.

Pete Smith, Cypress
 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/Letters-Road-weary-being-scammed-Texans-4109754.php
 

What's In A Name?

I've always wondered when and why the Chronicle stopped capitalizing "Tea Party".  So I did a little research and discovered that the Chron and numerous other media outlets stopped capitalizing at the same time the AP did in 2010, from which I assume that most took their cue from the AP.  The AP Stylebook rationalized their decision in 2010 by claiming that the Tea Party is a "movement", not an organization, and that they might consider capitalizing the term if and when the Tea Parties band together and "form a national entity".

 

How nice of them.

 

This rationale deserves some serious scrutiny.  Hundreds of newspapers, news services and magazines do capitalize the term, and the recurring explanation as to why is that the Tea Party is an organization, or at least enough of one to deserve not being confused with the mundane practice of serving tea.  This common sense approach apparently doesn't resonate with the AP, but it is interesting to note that the diminution they exercise is applied to the conservative Tea Party and the Tea Party alone.  It's also interesting to note that virtually all conservative-leaning media organizations - such as the Washington Times - capitalize Tea Party, while the bulk of liberal-leaning ones - such as the Washington Post - do not.  There are also a number of liberal-leaning exceptions that capitalize, such as the New York Times.

 

The AP's decision is a strange one to apply to what is arguably the most significant and newsworthy development in American politics in at least 50 years: a spontaneous grass-roots political movement with a coherent philosophy that actually influences elections.  Agree with the Tea Party or not, there's no denying their legitimacy.

 

Not that the AP isn't going to try.  It's liberal bias is well-documented, with the bulk of their stories about conservative organizations like the Tea Party negative in tone, as are their references to the Tea Party in related stories.  And while it is true that media outlets like the NY Times are as hard on conservatism as the AP, they at least are fair-minded enough to argue their point based on substance, as opposed to "style".

 

I believe the Chronicle should do likewise.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress

Igor Say: Tea Parties, Bad!

OffHisMeds read with interest "GOP making progress in bid to reinvent party" in the Saturday Chronicle.  Therein, NY Times columnist David Brooks touts the efforts of Liberal Repubs to "reclaim" the party by advancing the notion that the Republican Party is on the ropes, allegedly because they are in thrall to groups like the Tea Party.  If you remember David Brooks, you know why his claims are suspect.  Brooks is, of course, the frothing-at-the-mouth Liberal who proclaims himself a conservative - or at least allows other to make that claim on his behalf - so he can have a credibility otherwise unsustained by his journalism.  What he is, is a doctrinaire Lib riding the same Trick Pony that David Gergen did before him.  See, the Times just loooooves folks who have any kind of conservative resume that they can subvert to The Cause, all while not having the decency to at least describe them as "former" conservatives.

 

Meanwhile, Brooks' latest claim that the Repubs lost not just the presidency but the faith of the American people doesn't pass the smell test, seeing as how Republicans still dominate the House of Representatives by 50 seats, control 26 state legislatures and 29 governorships.

 

Those numbers don't stop Brooks from extrapolating from Obama's narrow victory a repudiation of everything conservatives stand for. According to Brooks the "ideological extremes of the party have begun to self-ghettoize", by which he means the Tea Parties who "have a tendency to migrate from mainstream politics.......to ever more marginal oases of purity". The racialist terms he uses to describe conservatives were hardly accidental, but they were essential to prop up his thesis that America has kicked the Republican Party to the curb.
 

I have a much less nuanced explanation, albeit one that would have deprived Brooks of yet another opportunity to equate the Tea Parties with racism, bigotry and extremism: 1) In Mitt Romney, the Republican Establishment insisted on a candidate indistinguishable from President Obama, not the least because ObamaCare was a virtual twin of Romney's health care plan as governor of Massachusettes; 2) Romney was a relentless triangulator, changing his political positions to suit the audience he was speaking to, a quality that is innately unattractive to folks expecting their candidates to show some personal conviction; 3) Not only did Romney not embrace the Tea Parties, he barely acknowledged their existence.  The result was that Republicans didn't like him, and he lost.  

 

Romney was certainly somebody's candidate.  He trounced Obama amongst Independents, a constiuency that Brooks previously claimed would not embrace Romney unless he presented "moderate" views.  Brooks would thus be stupefied if challenged to explain the contradiction to his premise that Romney lost because he embraced radical conservative causes, not that there was much likelihood of that happening.  His environment at the Times is pretty well insulated from reality, including any reasonable analysis regarding the Tea Party phenomenon.
 

Brooks is not alone in advancing the Bad Tea Parties narrative in the media. In the past two weeks, we've heard the same thing from Jack Krugman, EJ Dionne and various other liberal pundits. I believe the truth is something else entirely: The Tea Parties are a grass-roots reaction to the berserk government spending that threatens our national survival. These folks are decent, patriotic and tolerant. They are also willing to sacrifice short-term political gain for the sake of principle.
 

As to the advice of Brooks et al, the philosopher Virgil famously said "beware Greeks bearing gifts". If the Republican Party wants to "reinvent" itself, instead of listening to Democrat partisans, it should try expanding its base by fielding principled candidates who stand for something, instead of somebody even squishier than Mitt Romney.

Newt Was Solid On The Poor

A few points regarding your Dec 8 editorial "Newt's Proposal", wherein the Chronicle lambastes Newt Gingrich for proposing that poor children as young as nine be allowed to work.  First, what's wrong with that?  I had my first job delivering papers at age nine, and did yard work year-round starting at age six.  I made money, learned how to work and have benefited from that experience my entire life, just as Newt suggests poor children would.

My second point is that the statistics you cite from Charlie Blow of the New York Post to refute Gingrich's claim that our poorest children "have no habits of working and have no one around them who works" defy not just common sense, but readily available government statistics.  Counter to Blow's astonishing claim that "three quarters of poor adults.....work", the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the civilian labor force participation rate currently stands at 64 percent.  It defies common sense that the poor would show greater employment rates than the general population.

Blow further explodes his own credibility when he states that "among children in extreme poverty, nearly one in three lives with at least one working parent".  That reference to "nearly" is too clever by half, since HHS statistics show that ONLY one in three children in extreme poverty lives with a working parent.

The real statistics that Blow manipulates don't prove Gingrich's opinion that a lack of role models leads to a life of unemployment and crime, but they do validate his premise that the vast majority of poor children lack sufficient role models.  The coincidence of the expansion of our welfare state and the destruction of the two-parent family amongst black folk is proof of that.

Finally, the Chronicle does its readers no favor by misrepresenting Gingrich's suggestion that children as young nine be encouraged to work.  There was nothing mandatory about his proposal, nor was he proposing that they be underpaid or abused.  You can fault him for some hyperbole, but his argument is essentially sound.  The Chronicle does little to advance the debate by demonizing everything he says on

the matter.

Pete Smith

Our Educrats Get Schooled

Read with interest the article "Online classes not always a money-saver" in the Houston Chronicle this past Sunday.  OffHisMeds has written before, at length, and generally with disdain about our educational Elites, particularly those at the university level.  There exists not a more coddled and insulated group in society, at once cognizant that even a cursory scrutiny would reveal that they rarely earn their keep, whilst simultaneously contemptible of the people who pay for their existence.  This explains, by the way, why the Education Establishment regularly submits a scholarly study that rationalizes their own existence, proclaiming higher education not only an astonishing bargain, but the birthright of every American regardless of their ability to pay, the future indebtedness of as-yet unborn generations be damned.

 

It's been a great run since the end of WWII.  Salaries were high, hours were short, tenure was a religion, accountability was non-existent, and the actual methods by which professors could earn ever more money for ever less work were seemingly exhausted only by one's imagination, or rather lack thereof: Expense accounts, subsidized housing, stipends, performance bonuses, conferences, exchange programs, state grants, federal grants, private grants, COLA, sumptuous benefit and retirement packages, sabbaticals......the list went on and on.

 

And things went on swimmingly until student loan debt started some years back to approach levels greater than that of all consumer debt.  The people writing the checks started asking questions.  No longer could our Professoriate simply demand more money from increasingly cash-strapped state governments or through ever more generous student loan programs, and the usually reliable contributions from the federal government became less so.   The double digit generational rise in the cost of education was soon unsustainable.

 

In this environment it was no surprise that on-line college courses would become so popular.  High quality instruction for a much lower price.  What's not to like?  It was also no surprise that most of the online courses available through Texas' major universities would be as expensive - or even more so - than their more conventional counterparts. As has been illustrated repeatedly in the past generation, our education establishment has shown about as much restraint in controlling the cost of the services they provide as the federal government has, which is to say: none.

 

Texas is by no means unique.  Nationwide, the inflation-adjusted price of a four year university degree has more than doubled in the past 25 years, and for a markedly inferior product. Along comes online education, and the predictable reaction of our Educrats - as reflected in the article attached - is to a) overprice it, and b) talk it down, and c) dither.  But as much as our universities would like to think otherwise, they are no longer the only game in town, and their reluctance to develop cost-effective online programs is not only a slap in the face to families on a budget, but will put these same schools at a distinct competitive disadvantage in the future.
 

Gone are the days when universities could coast along with the status quo, continue to inflate their prices and simply expect state and federal governments to cover the difference with evermore taxpayer dollars and evermore heavily subsidized college loans. High quality, inexpensive online classes are the future, and Texas' schools need to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

 

Best they should lead.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Educators don't get it

Regarding "Online classes not always a money-saver" (Page B2, Sunday), it's not surprising that most of the online courses available through Texas' major universities are as expensive - or even more so - than their more conventional counterparts. As has been illustrated repeatedly in the past generation, our education establishment has shown about as much restraint in controlling the cost of the services they provide as the federal government has, which is to say: very little.

The inflation-adjusted price of a four-year university degree has more than doubled in the past 25 years, and in my eyes at least, for an inferior product. Along comes online education, and the predictable reaction of our educrats is to a) overprice it, and b) talk it down, and c) dither.

But as much as our universities would like to think otherwise, they are no longer the only game in town, and their reluctance to develop cost-effective online programs is not only a slap in the face to students on a budget, but will put these schools at a distinct competitive disadvantage in the future.

Gone are the days when universities could coast along with the status quo, continue to inflate their prices and simply expect state and federal governments to cover the difference with ever more taxpayer dollars and evermore heavily subsidized college loans. High-quality, inexpensive online classes are the future, and Texas' schools need to lead, follow or get out of the way.

Best they should lead.

Pete Smith, Cypress

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/Letters-Online-classes-George-Will-Hamas-4094642.php

Let The Punishment Fit The Crime

OffHisMeds is of the opinion that, in fining Detroit Lion Ndamukong Suh $30,000 for kicking Matt Schaub in the groin, the NFL did little to fix the problem of dirty hits in football games. 

"Donkey Kong" Suh is of course the prototypical dirty player, racking up more cheap shots over the course of a game than do most teams.  And like his namesake in the video game, given the opportunity, he would drop barrels on the heads of his opponents, if only he could figure out a way to get them onto the field. 

The NFL equivocated on the issue of subjecting Suh to yet another suspension, claiming they could not adequately determine his intent in lashing backwards with his leg straight into Schaubs nuts.  Hey NFL, try this: Look at the replay, particularly the sequence just prior to the strike as he is in midair.  Notice that his eyes are locked onto Schaub's package like a Wild Weasel lighting up an Iraqi anti-aircraft battery.  Note that he starts the kick still with eyes on the target.  Note the bullseye.

Any questions?

Blinders on, the NFL brass has clearly not thought through the consequences of their inaction.  It's hard not to conclude that if Suh can constantly get away with a puny fine for his attempts to injure his opponents, the rest of the league is going to follow his example.  There's clear evidence this is already happening.

For the past couple months, and several times every week, quarterbacks and receivers get knocked out of games by helmet to helmet hits that draw a simple penalty and little else.  Offensive linemen have perfected the "low blow" to a defender's knees, such as the one that New York Jets guard Matt Slauson put on Brian Cushing. His punishment for ending Cushing's season? A piddling $10K fine. Teams have done the math, and they have reached the same conclusion that New Orleans' headhunters did with their "bounty" scheme: the price for knocking impact players out of the game is worth paying. Unlike New Orleans, though, nobody else has been so stupid as to post rewards for injuring opponents. No doubt, the NFL considers this progress.

 

Simply put, there are no teeth in the penalties, and eventually, the result is going to be an on-field injury resulting in paralysis, major brain damage or a potentially career-ending injury like Cushing's. And perhaps even someone's death. With all the scrutiny the NFL is under due to the hundreds of former players either crippled or rendered senseless over decades of such abuse, you'd think they would be doing more to prevent it. The simple truth, though, is that they are not. Maybe the NFL is confused as to how to fix the problem. Maybe they're worried that acknowledging the problem exists exposes them to more liability.   Maybe some of the rules makers are themselves former players who've taken too many hits to the skull, thus clouding their ability to reason.  That last reason is not easily discounted, considering that - at this point - the NFL has roughly the same chance of avoiding a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit as Wylie Coyote does of a happy outcome any time he takes a delivery from Acme Products.

How can they not see the disaster they are courting?  How can they not comprehend that if they continue with their present course, not only will it cost them billions, but ruin the game in the process?  The average career span for an NFL player is three years.  Including not just the players but their extended families, that's a whole lot of existing and future litigants, once the trial attorneys pop their cherry. 

And the mortal pity of this fine mess is that there are simple rules that - if implemented - would solve the problem and increase fan interest:

 

1) A 25 yard penalty for "egregious" personal fouls.

 

2) A penalty box. All personal fouls result in the player being ejected anywhere from five minutes to one quarter. This can be reviewable and assessed any time during the game so as to not slow down play.

 

3) Probation for repeat offenders, with escalating fines and suspensions. This probation could be carried over to the next season.

 

4) Suspensions that fit the crime: a minimum 6 game suspension when you knock an opposing player out for the season with a dirty hit, up to an entire season. It seems only right that dirty hits ought to have at least the penalties that are imposed for substance abuse.

 

5) No pay during any and all suspensions, whether they are for a quarter, a game, or multiple games. Plus, the team would sacrifice TRIPLE that amount either to charity, or to a fund supporting disabled NFL players.

 

OffHisMeds doesn't expect the NFL to embrace any of the above, because - let's face it - they're pretty much all complicit, including the players with their "guy's code". It's instructive that a day after Matt Schaub ripped Suh for kicking him in the groin, he changed his tune and said "I didn't even feel it, and I'm moving on". Matt may not value his health, but his fans do. Just consider how much our enjoyment of football was affected when Albert Haynsworth stomped his ankle in 2011, knocking him out for most of last season and killing any chance for long-suffering Houston football fans to watch their team make a Superbowl run.

 

Bottom line, workplace behavior in the NFL should be no different than any place else, with proper allowances made for the inherently violent nature of the game.  If you want to get the problem under control, start hitting players and owners in the pocketbook.

And make an example of Donkey Kong Suh.

George F. Will Digs Too Deep For A Metaphor

OffHisMeds read a hysterical opinion piece titled "Hostess brought down by sweet labor deals", that featured - to my great amusement - George F. Will going completely off his rocker. While his piece is ostensibly a commentary on berserk unions destroying yet another corporation - and along with it thousands of union jobs - his disgust resides not with Hostess or the unions, but with the Baby Boomer generation that he alleges reveres Twinkies.

Will departs from his main topic early, in the second paragraph accusing Baby Boomers of "acute narcissism".  He concludes that we (Boomers) must see troubling portents in Hostess's demise, putting the following words in a little thought balloon over our heads: "if an 82-year-old brand can die, so can we. Is that even legal?". But wait, he's not done. In paragraph three Will portrays Boomers as people "wooed by advertising", who "plight their troths to brands in marriages that often are more durable than boomers’ actual marriages".  

From that point, though, it gets weird.  

In paragraph six, he suggests that the Boomer obsession with Twinkies almost made Hostess a candidate for a GM-style bailout because the demise of Hostess was "big in what matters most — in boomers’ minds". He then immediately contradicts himself by describing Boomers as "a generation of food scolds.....who considered Twinkies and other sugary things sinful".
 

I'm on the ropes now, equally distracted not only by my narcissism but a heretofore unrealized fidelity to snack cakes that is simultaneously bigger than marriage yet still leaves me pathologically conflicted and ashamed. I'm also awash in tears of laughter. I gamely struggle to the end of Wills' piece, but none of it makes an impression. I read and re-read the first half of his article, and I laugh and then I laugh again. 

 

After I calm myself, I reflect on Wills' particular pathology when it comes to the regularity with which he disses his fellow Americans, and most typically implicitly conservative groups such as Boomers.  I conclude that he feels forced to do it mostly to lend an apparent credibility to his words that would appease the editors and peers with whom he associates, almost all of whom are Liberal.  Beyond that, the only conceivable reason is some internal clock of his that mandates that - out of fairness - 20% of his energies must be devoted to trashing Republicans and Conservatives.  This time it was the Boomers turn, no doubt because he had too recently trashed The Tea Party, Suburbanites or Libertarians. 

 

Either that, or he is in fact the Snuff-pinching elitist we've always suspected him of being, and life would have no meaning without the opportunity to visit upon the shoulders of the Great Unwashed the ignominy they so richly deserve.

 

As a Boomer, I appreciate the opportunity to laugh at other people, no doubt one of my many Boomer faults.  I am thankful to George F. Will for writing this piece and giving me the opportunity to do so, guilt-free.

Like Rats On A Sinking Ship

The opinion piece "Finding compromise between Republicans and evangelicals" (Sunday Outlook) was striking, not just for the blatantly political character of the message, but it's conclusions regarding the direction of the Republican Party, whose interests Pastor Robert Jeffress claims to have at heart. Jefress opines that in order for the Republican Party to remain politically relevant and for Evangelicals to advance their moral agenda, they should embrace Democrat policies on issue like ObamaCare and higher taxes. On this, two observations:
 

1) Republicans - and, I believe most Evangelicals - believe that there is an explicit moral component in opposing ObamaCare and higher taxes, specifically, that it is wrong to pursue such selfish policies because they saddle future generations with a crippling debt, destroying not just their prospects for a good life, but perhaps their very existence.

2) With his give-and-take approach, Jefress pursues an explicitly political agenda, something that is - or ought to be - anathema to Christians of all stripes. Jesus said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's"; He didn't say "compromise with Caesar on taxes so you can have your way on gay marriage".

It's strange to think that any conservative Christian should so embrace the philosophy of Secularists, given that these same folks have spent decades reviling Evangelicals not just for their beliefs, but for any effort on their part to organize themselves politically. It's hard not to conclude that Jefress - by embracing ObamaCare and higher taxes - desires not only to be politically relevant, but to sell out some core Christian beliefs in the process.

All in all, a bizarre epistle from a man of God.

Union Suicide In The Age Of Obama

So, Twinkies drivers made $120,000 per year AFTER they accepted an 8% pay cut. That's not including benefits, by the way.   Just so we're clear, that's Twinkie drivers: as in, the guys who delivers Twinkies.  Check it all out right here:

http://www.investingchannel.com/article/120224/Hostess-Mediation-Fails-Liquidation-To-Proceed-Furious-Laid-Off-Workers-Now-Turn-On-Labor-Union

OffHisMeds will spare you his opinion of this union member or his brethren, other than to say that they live in some alternate universe incomprehensible to decent folk. 

He will, however, observe that, if this is the so-called "concession" that the Teamsters made so as to keep Hostess viable, it is no wonder that this country is going to hell in a handbasket.  I generally take no pleasure in the prospect of 18,500 people losing their jobs, but when those 18,500 are extremely overpaid people who purposely work to destroy their own livelihoods on the off chance they can extort even more moolah from their employers, I say, good riddance.

One can only assume that the AFL-CIO thought the Obama Administration was going to impose itself in some way, and it looked like that might happen when the judge overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings ordered Hostess back to the table before pursuing their Chapter 11 dissolution.  It's instructive that less than 48 hours later he caved, and granted Hostess their right to self-destruct, a reassuring sign that there is some limit even to President Obama's powers to transfer OPM (Other People's Money) to his union chums.

Sorry, Baker's Union.  There will be no taxpayer-funded "Government Motors" style bailout for you.  Obama didn't want to go down in history as the Twinkie president.   

The Selling Of Texas

Read an article today titled "Lake deal taps new funding for water" in the Houston Chronicle.  This story is yet another indication of the lengths politicians will go to sell public assets for private gain. In this instance, the East Texas River Authority wants to sell 47% of the water rights of Lake Columbia to a private equity firm for about half of the funding necessary to convert it into a reservoir, approximately $160 million.  The equity firm would then be free to sell their 47% of the water rights. 

 This is an increasingly tiresome theme in the past generation. Whether it's Rick Perry pushing the Trans Texas Corridor and selling the toll rights for 50 years to a Spanish conglomerate, or Sempra Energy out of California wanting 3.2 million gallons of water a day from Lake Conroe to run a natural gas fired power plant, our state's assets are increasingly forfeit to an increasingly corrupt political culture.

 

Beyond the numerous instances of politicians lining their pockets, the number one cause for this trend is berserk public spending that has bankrupted government at all levels. Simply put, the private sector has been invited in because there is no more money that can be confiscated through taxes and there is no further credit to exploit. Private funding and the fire-sale pricing on our natural resources are simply other means for the Usual Suspects to remain politically viable today while saddling future generations with more and more debt, the irony of course being that - even as we go downhill - there's still money to be made.

 

Meanwhile, OffHisMeds is once again left to wonder why it is that more people aren't in jail, or at least rejected by Polite Society.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A tiresome theme

The story "Lake deal taps new funding for water" (Page A1, Friday) is yet another indication of the lengths politicians will go to sell public assets for private gain. In this instance, the East Texas River Authority wants to sell 47 percent of the water rights of Lake Columbia to a private equity firm for about half of the funding necessary to convert it into a reservoir, approximately $160 million.

This has become an increasingly tiresome theme. Whether it's Texas Gov. Rick Perry pushing the Trans-Texas Corridor and selling the toll rights for 50 years to a Spanish conglomerate, or Sempra Energy out of California wanting 3.2 million gallons of water a day from Lake Conroe to run a power plant, our state's assets are increasingly hostage to a corrupt political culture.

The No. 1 cause for this trend is berserk public spending that threatens to bankrupt government at all levels. Simply put, the private sector has been invited in because there is no more money that can be confiscated through taxes and there is no further credit to exploit.

Private funding and the fire-sale pricing on our natural resources are simply other means for the usual suspects to remain politically viable today while saddling future generations with more and more debt, the irony of course being that, even as we go downhill, there's still money to be made.

Pete Smith, Cypress

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/Letters-A-tiresome-theme-4071511.php

Government Motors

The subject of government intervention in private markets - solely to the benefit of Democrat constituencies - has been much on OffHisMeds' mind since Obama's re-election, particularly with the fresh round of reports about the failure of GM and Chrysler in the wake of the first bailout of the auto industry. In the annals of government run amok, the bailout of GM and Chrysler in 2010 stands out, mostly because of the appallingly unfair way in which he went about it. Rather than let the normal bankruptcy process run its course, Obama mandated that the assets of the corporations be given substantially to the United Auto Worker pension funds. This was unprecedented in the history of bankruptcy proceedings, largely because Obama - by executive fiat - ignored the clear intent of bankruptcy law that mandated that creditors were to be compensated in a particular order.
 

Obama didn't just step on fairness, he trampled it. And what he did was not just innovative, it was illegal. Had he not stuck his nose into the process, creditors would have been remunerated in this order: debtors, bondholders, preferred stock holders and lastly, common stock holders. Unions would have received nothing, just as the thousands of other bankrupt private sector unions that preceded them would have received nothing. The reason this was "fair" was because everybody understood before they invested in GM or Chrysler that this was the pecking order. The risk was known.
 

Obama's actions resulted in every one of these investor groups getting screwed, with common stock holders getting completely screwed. This last point did not resonate with the Media, who failed to report that millions of common folks - most of them former GM employees - had invested heavily in GM Common through their IRAs and 401Ks. For all intents and purposes, Obama took the billions that stockholders had invested, and outright gave it to the UAW. What's ironic about that is that the UAW - along with the federal government - was the primary reason that those corporations failed in the first place, with an hourly labor rate (pay and benefits) equalling $70 per hour, or $145,000 per year. Layer that with the byzantine work rules that allowed thousands of UAW employees to collect full pay while not working, and you've got a prescription for failure.
 

And fail they did.
 

Even after the bankruptcy, UAW pay and bennies is still $56 per hour. By comparison, the average hourly rate for pay and bennies in the rest of the private sector is just $29 per hour. This not only explains why taxpayers losses will eventually exceed $25 billion on the original bailout, but guarantees endless additional bailouts in the future. The endless taxpayer bailout is of course the price "Government Motors" will have to pay in order to get investors to purchase their common stock. See, the new class of investors are not moms and pops pointing some percentage of their modest IRA at auto stocks, the new class of investors are the Chinese, who are notoriously fickle when it comes to somebody screwing with their money.
 

The transfer of wealth from equity holders to a bunch of greedy union members was substantial, and Byzantine. For example, the UAW pension fund ended up with 46% ownership of Chrysler; the balance was a giveaway to Fiat. At GM, the government retains 30% ownership and the UAW pension fund only 18%, but the potential is there for that percentage to be ramped up, assuming this new arrangement fails to cover the UAW's sumptuous benefits plans.
 

Finally and damningly, the stocks are in the toilet and to all appearances will remain there. GM's per share price is 40% below the IPO, as clear an indication as to what the market thinks of Government Motors' prospects, despite the explicit government guarantee of their investment. GM's imminent bankruptcy is widely predicted in the coming year.
 

My Democrat friends upon reading this will not be affected. Their mouths will be agape in some combination of annoyance and incomprehension, but they will steadfastly avoid the truth of the matter. At least until NBC, CBS or ABC tells them to think otherwise.
 

Here's something for them to contemplate: if over the course of the last 50 years the UAW had pursued reasonable labor agreements - unabetted by an interventionist government - and if they had provided good labor value for a reasonable rate of pay, there would now be at least 5 million auto related jobs in America instead of 2 million. And they ought to consider just for second the ten million retirees who had invested in auto company stock that lost some $500 Billion due to the knavery of the Democrats and the UAW.
 

Chances are they actually know some of those folks.

The Hockey Strike

To my NHL-loving family members and friends Up North: Sorry to say, no hockey for you this season. So as an alternative, may I recommend soccer? Like hockey, it is played with two goals. The similarities pretty much end there. Soccer will take a little getting used to, since it is played for long periods of time without a single shot on net, much less a score. This is mostly because of the size of the field, or "pitch", as they call it. A soccer pitch is roughly the size of two WalMart Supercenters laid end-to-end. Since it takes the players literally minutes to run from one end of the field to the other, the announcers create the illusion of excitement by speaking very rapidly in a loud voice.

When there is an actual score, the announcer will scream the word "goal", and stretch it out for anywhere from one to three minutes, depending on how long he can keep his breath. The fans and players all celebrate for several minutes, often breaking out into little dances and other strange rituals. Frequently players and fans will also roll on the ground in apparent convulsions, as if possessed. All of this time comes off the play clock. Otherwise, soccer games would never end.

During the numerous lulls in the action, fans eat, drink and socialize. Many of them have small grills and actually cook meals in the stands, and it is not uncommon for them to bring their dinner - mostly chickens and small pigs - "on the hoof", and slaughter them right there at their seats. This is called "Barbacoa".

Soccer bonus: while there aren't many fights on the field, there are literally dozens of them in the stands. And, players who inadvertantly score on their own team - called an "Own Goal" - are murdered. Riots before, during and after the games are common, and add to the excitement.

So, there you have it. Soccer is not hockey. Soccer is not perfect. But Soccer is everywhere, and the season never ends. Enjoy.

Whichever Way The Wind Blows

It's the Thursday after the Tuesday of the 2012 elections, and along with the rest of the Media my local paper is awash in stories diagnosing the terrible state of the Republican Party.  Now,  that's a curious conclusion given that Repubs continued to dominate the House of Representatives and picked up more governorships as well.  This article was typical though: "Advocates for immigration reform say party needs to step up, deliver" (Thursday Front Page).  In their usual irritating style, my local paper - The Chronicle - changed the article's title once it got embedded on their website, so on their behalf, I apologize for the confusion.

 

The article's author used the occasion of President Obama's re-election to once again - along with all the Usual Suspects - admonish Republicans to cave in to Democrat policies or be doomed to irrelevance.   And this is by no means limited to immigration: there are seven other articles or opinion pieces in the Thursday edition of the Chron that conclude that voters also rejected the Republican position on women's issues, gay marriage, health care and the economy - all on the basis of Obama's sub 2% victory, fueled largely by his domination of the Hispanic vote.
 

Let's focus on immigration. If you look at this issue strictly based on politics, it makes perfect sense for Democrats to promote Illegal Immigration through America's hyper-generous social welfare programs. Once Immigrants cross the border, their numbers count in our census and exert a proportionate influence on our Electoral College and the allocation of Congressional districts. That is why California - to name but one example - is the electoral colossus for Democrats that it is, and will be for generations.
 

Open to question is whether this is good for anybody. The bulk of our Immigrants come from Mexico, as many as the next eight countries combined. But why is it that these folks feel the need to flee their own country? Mexico is as blessed as America with arable land, natural resources and weather, but they have never developed the civil society that America has.  Their country is in thrall to narco-terrorist cartels whose poisons flow over our borders by the ton every day, with much of that carried by Illegal Immigrants.
 

Isn't it curious that America has devoted so little in resources to helping Mexico solve our collective problems? You'd think that if we can justify spending a trillion dollars over a dozen years to transform Iraq and Afghanistan, that we could scrape together a fraction of that to transform our next door neighbor. And surely it is better for Mexicans to live in Mexico, regardless of the consequences for American politics? Instead of inviting them to live in America, we ought be fighting to make their country one worth living in.
 

Looked at from that perspective, the chairs could fairly be turned on Democrats.  If they are in fact the party of compassion, why so little concern for the 110 million Mexicans left in Mexico?  Do they propose that all of them should be allowed to come to America, or only enough to preserve their political fortunes?

These are the questions I would like my local newspaper to ask.  I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen though.

Stock Markets & Elections

Re: "Fretful Wall Street extends sell-off" (Friday Business Page D4), for the umpteenth time in the past two days I've read that the precipitous drop in the stock market in the days after President Obama's re-election was caused by investors who "turned their focus back to Europe’s problems and the so-called fiscal cliff". 

 

I've got a couple of problems with this conclusion, not the least of which is the glib assertion that investors decided to stop paying attention to matters that affect their money simply because there was an election going on. Secondly, the explanations offered are facile in the extreme. Is there a shred of evidence that Europe's travails and the fiscal cliff are the reasons the market tanked by 434 points in the past two days?

Investors didn't just discover that Europe teeters on the brink, or that America faces the one-two punch of tax increases and spending cuts come Jan. 1st. Markets don't turn on anecdotes, and markets never take a millisecond off from moving money efficiently, which means this information had no additional relevance the day after the elections than it did the day before. Clearly what investors were reacting to was the one indisputable fact at their disposal: President Obama won re-election, and they didn't like it.

Pete Smith
Cypress

The Right Side Of Immigration

Re: "Advocates for immigration reform say party needs to step up, deliver" (Thursday Front Page), on the occasion of President Obama's re-election, Republicans are once again admonished by the Usual Suspects to cave in to Democrat policies or be doomed to irrelevance.  And not just on immigration: there are seven other articles or opinion pieces in this issue of the Chron that conclude that voters rejected the Republican position on immigration, women's issues, gay marriage, health care and the economy - all on the basis of Obama's 2% victory.

 

Let's focus on immigration.  If you look at this issue strictly based on politics, it makes perfect sense for Democrats to promote Illegal Immigration through America's hyper-generous social welfare programs.  Once Immigrants cross the border, their numbers count in our census and exert a proportionate influence on our Electoral College and the allocation of Congressional districts.  That is why California - to name but one example - is the electoral colossus for Democrats that it is, and will be for generations.

 

Open to question is whether this is good for anybody.  The bulk of our Immigrants come from Mexico, as many as the next eight countries combined.  But why is it that these folks feel the need to flee their own country?  Mexico is as blessed as America with arable land, natural resources and weather, but they are also in thrall to narco-terrorist cartels, and their poisons flow over our borders by the ton every day, much of it carried by Illegal Immigrants. 

 

Isn't it curious that America has devoted so little in resources to helping Mexico solve our collective problems?  You'd think that if we can justify spending a trillion dollars over a dozen years to transform Iraq and Afghanistan, that we could scrape together a fraction of that to transform our next door neighbor.  And surely it is better for Mexicans to live in Mexico, regardless of the consequences for American politics?  Instead of inviting them to live in America, we ought be fighting to make their country one worth living in.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress

Pot Calls Kettle Black, Then Doubles Down

Re: "Democrats more likely to support compromise" (Friday Opinion), EJ Dionne takes his usual tack, which is to criticize all things Republican.  This go-round he's making the case that Democrat politicians are more bi-partisan than Republicans, stating that "while polls find that six in 10 Democrats regard themselves as moderate or conservative, nearly three-quarters of Republicans say they are conservative."

 

What is delicious about his conclusions is that Dionne cannot help but filter reality through those special and very partisan glasses he wears.  Here are a few examples:

 

1) Dionne ties himself in knots to avoid using the dreaded "L" word - liberal - to describe any portion of the Democrat electorate.  This is not an isolated phenomenon.  It is well documented that many liberal Democrats flee from the term, and prefer to call themselves moderate, or progressive.

 

2) To jigger the statistics where he needs them to be, Dionne then lumps "moderate" and conservative Democrats into a 60% majority, bestowing a centrist tinge to the Party that is unsupported by the facts these past four very controversial years. 

 

3) Dionne repeatedly throws in references to the Tea Party so as to - in his mind at least - marginalize Republicans, but makes no reference to Occupy Wallstreet's connections to the Democratic Party.  These are not coincidences, since it is key to his argument that only those who can be portrayed as moderate are capable of compromise. 

 

Finally, he cites an April 2011 Pew survey that "found that 69 percent of Democrats supported the idea of their own side making compromises" compared to only 50% of Republicans.  But given the meltdown of our economy due to berserk spending mostly authored by the Democratic Party, reasonable people might conclude that a Democrat's propensity to compromise might not be because they are inherently more reasonable people, but because they had come to the realization that their party has been on the wrong track for quite some time.  It would also explain the 2010 Republican sweep of Congress and the rise of the Tea Party.

 

The phenomenon is called "Reagan Democrats".  Dionne should look it up.

Advertising For Welfare Recipients

Re: "Food stamp aid OK’d with 2 dissents" (Thursday Page B1), it's distressing that Pols like Mayor Parker and Councilman Ed Gonzalez actually believe that any and every expansion of welfare spending is not only virtuous, but that it actually promotes economic growth.  Clearly, there has to come a point when even they would agree that some level of welfare dependency is bad for the soul and kills the economy. 

 

But I might be giving them too much credit.  I say this because - despite the berserk expansion of food stamp and other welfare benefits in the past three years - they still intend to go after another $142 million per year that the Food Research and Action Center says is due to Houston residents, assuming they can sign up all the people that the study shows theoretically qualify for benefits.  They don't even pay lip service to the notion that poor folks might benefit more from a job so as to lift themselves up.  There's "money on the table", as Gonzalez put it, and Houston needs to pick it up.

 

Kudos to Councilpersons Pennington and Brown for being voices of reason on this matter, and shame on Parker and the rest not only for the latest tiresomely predictable money grab, but their failure to even think about the consequences.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress

The AP Quotes Themselves

Re: "Obama appears to have upper hand in tight race" (Monday, Page A5), this article reports that "President Barack Obama is poised to eke out a victory" over Mitt Romney for the presidency, "according to an Associated Press analysis".  What I find most interesting about this article is that it was authored, not by a person, but by: the Associated Press.

 

It's a curious journalistic practice at best when a news organization like the AP quotes itself in the third person as the supposedly reputable source of the analysis.  Kind of makes you think they couldn't find a more impartial source to come to the same conclusions.  What takes it from curious to questionable is the fact that this "analysis" comes courtesy of a news organization that openly supports Barack Obama, and has repeatedly skewed its coverage in his favor. 

 

What makes it laughable is that the AP seems to think there's no level they can stoop to in presenting their opinions as news that would cause them to lose credibility, an ever-diminishing virtue amongst the ranks of so many in our Media.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress

The UN Lurks On Texas Elections

Regarding "Abbott’s threat against foreign poll observers stirs backlash" (Page B1, Thursday), it is interesting to note who created the controversy in the first place, and it wasn't Attorney General Greg Abbott.  As the article details, United Nations-affiliated groups like OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) were approached to interfere with Texas' elections at the invitation of a variety of Democrat front groups who claimed Texas' recently passed Voter ID laws would suppress voter turnout.  Three things stand out:

 

1) The Texas law has been put on hold by federal courts and will not be enforced for the 2012 elections.

 

2) The front groups promoting the presence of OSCE included Project Vote, an affiliate of ACORN.  ACORN was itself the perpetrator of the biggest voter fraud scam in America, convicted in 2010 of registering thousands of phony voters in over a dozen states throughout the union.

 

3) Secretary of State Hope Andrade's contention that OSCE's presence was merely part of a "valuable information sharing program" is contradicted by the available facts.  There is little dispute that OSCE came at the behest of the Democrat front groups, and her own director of the elections division, Keith Ingram, described the OSCE team as "observers".  

 

The 11th hour claim by OSCE and their supporters that they were merely here to learn does not pass the smell test.  

 

Pete Smith

Cypress

LTE: Bring it on

Regarding: "New scoreboard could aid Super Bowl bid" (Tuesday Sports), if Houston hopes to host a second Superbowl, they better commit to that scoreboard, and it better be soon.  Prior to the modern era, if you wanted to land a Super Bowl, you needed one thing: A vacationland setting.  However, 8 of the last 12 awards have gone to teams with new stadiums; the others have gone to Tampa, New Orleans and Miami (2).  Miami, by the way, has hosted the big game 10 times.

 

By those measures, San Francisco should be a shoo-in to win the 2016 award, since they're the only finalist with a brand new stadium and a vacationland venue.  That leaves Houston competing with the aged Sun Life stadium in Miami for 2017, and while we ain't Miami, we offer a vastly superior venue.

 

With 34 teams in the NFL and the average lifespan of an NFL stadium trending less than 34 years, in the future, new stadiums will monopolize the selection process.  Hopefully Houston scores one more shot in 2017.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress

------------------------------------------------

Bring it on

If Houston hopes to host a second Super Bowl, we better commit to that scoreboard, and it better be soon. Prior to the modern era, if you wanted to land a Super Bowl, you needed one thing: a vacationland setting. However, eight of the last 12 awards have gone to teams with new stadiums; the others have gone to Tampa, New Orleans and Miami (twice). Miami, by the way, has hosted the big game 10 times.

By those measures, San Francisco should be a shoo-in to win the 2016 award, since it is the only finalist with a brand-new stadium and a vacationland venue. That leaves Houston competing with the aged Sun Life stadium in Miami for 2017, and while we ain't Miami, we offer a vastly superior venue.

With 34 teams in the NFL and the average lifespan of an NFL stadium trending less than 34 years, in the future, new stadiums will monopolize the selection process. Let's hope Houston scores one more shot in 2017.

Pete Smith, Cypress

 

http://www.chron.com/opinion/letters/article/Letters-Reflecting-on-the-Texans-scoreboard-3985843.php

Italy's Chickens Have Come Home To Roost

Regarding "7 quake experts convicted for failing to warn of risks" (Page A4, Tuesday), in a bizarre move, Italian courts convicted those scientists of manslaughter for failing to predict earthquakes that resulted in the death of hundreds of people.  The article points out the absurdity of holding people criminally responsible for such an inexact science, where the outcome is anything but certain. 

 

If Italian prosecutors want to pursue real malpractice in Italian society, I recommend they start with the politicians and financial ministers that convinced the Italian people that it was OK to fund their lavish welfare state with an orgy of debt.  Those chickens have now come home to roost, and Italian society teeters on the brink of collapse.

 

When that collapse happens, they won't be measuring the number of deaths in the hundreds, and unlike earthquake science, there's no lack of evidence as to the malpractice.  Fortunately, Italy's criminal justice system is geared up to prosecute the perpetrators.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress

Political Correctness In The Age of Biodiversity

Just read "Strong Navy is necessary for U.S. security" in the Sunday Chronicle, and oh, how I laughed.  Many thanks to Juan M. Garcia III, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for manpower and reserve affairs for an inadvertently humorous piece that tells us almost nothing as to how we can maintain a strong navy, other than to deploy a "Great Green Fleet" fueled in part by bio-fuels and other enviro-friendly technologies. There was one passage in particular that I found sublime: "We have tripled our solar energy use and we are exploring wind, geothermal and hydrothermal power. These initiatives will give us a fighting advantage in the next war, and may help avoid the next war altogether."

 

It's nice to know that the Navy has rediscovered the advantages of wind, albeit that Garcia was talking about windmills as opposed to sails, but it boggles the mind as to how Green technologies could be deployed to any particular fighting advantage on a ship. And how exactly could it be used to help avoid the next war altogether? Would some future enemy unilaterally disarm in the face of our awesome commitment to Gaia? Why do people write such things? Can they just not help themselves?

 

We must be thankful, I suppose, that Mr. Garcia didn't find any particular military advantage in Biodiversity, or sundry other of the fashionable catchwords of the day; but then, he may simply be holding them in reserve to be the gist of some future articles extolling the manifest virtues of political correctness.

Smug Anti-Houstonianism

Regarding "Houston goggles’ have inspired author", I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at the meeting when Chron Editors heard author Justin Cronin's pitch for his front page article (and the accompanying interview in Sec G). Maybe then I could comprehend why they chose to give him a forum to: a) flack his book on the front page as if it was news; b) gig Houston for all the things allegedly wrong with it, replete with all the cliches lurking in the brainpan of an East Coast Elitist; c) gleefully rationalize his dubious commitment to his financial obligations because it allowed him to write his books.

 

The smug delivery and endless Elitist East Coast digs were particularly irritating. Let's review them, shall we? We'll start with his opening sentences in the "Goggles" piece:

"Fellow Houstonians, let’s face it. To the uninitiated, ours is a city that takes some getting used to — a 600-square-mile architectural free-for-all, with rivers that run brown and sometimes backwards, trees like something out of Dr. Seuss, high-rises that sprout like weeds on a coastal shelf so flat you could flick a marble and watch it roll for a week."

How many things are wrong with this sentence? First of all, they aren't rivers, they're bayous. Would it be too much to ask of Cronin that he pay enough attention to get this detail right? Second, they run backward only from the perspective of an ignorant East Coaster. Trees out of Dr. Seuss? I suppose he's referring to some of the indigenous flora, but his claim is incoherent. I can't think of a single tree or bush that looks like it doesn't belong in Houston, much less any that look like they only belong in the fantastical world of Seuss. Further to his point, I've been all over the country and nowhere exists the volume and variety of all of America's favorite trees such as Oak, Pine and Elm, and they are a righteous compliment to the more exotic types. Bottom line, Houston is an arboreal paradise, particularly when compared to the mean and pathetic canopy of Philadelphia.

The less said about the last sentence the better, except to remark that both the "sprout like weeds" and "coastal shelf" cliches have not only been done to death, but been done to death by East Coast Elitists that had preceded Professor Cronin. He doubles down with the descriptive malpractice in the next paragraph when he proclaims "A friend of mine once remarked, 'You don’t move to Houston for the view.'" Clearly neither of them has in their time here picked up on the long standing Houston appreciation for both irony and fighting words, likely because they both hailed from some illiterate and pestilential hellhole like Philadelphia, and burdened by the self-esteem issues that cause outsiders to make such statements.

Cronin is big on overstatement, particularly on another cliche-ridden topic: Houston's heat. My former home town of Detroit and Philadelphia both have a period of a few weeks where the temperature and humidity rival that of a Houston summer. In fact, I stepped off a plane from Detroit in August of 1985 and the 100 degree temperature struck me not at all. It was as hot and humid back in Detroit. Granted, that weather lasts for almost five months in Houston, but who doesn't know that before they get here? And why Cronin thinks moving to Houston in the summer would affect your mental health is anybody's guess.

His biggest East Coast Diss of Houston, though, was captured in this sentence: "(Houston) took some getting used to. But eventually I began to see what was interesting, distinctive and sometimes even beautiful about my new hometown. (My wife and I call this phenomenon 'getting your Houston goggles on.')" As Left Handed compliments go, it is East Coast cliche that not only borders on parody, but flogs it into submission: it is simultaneously precious, smug and ignorant, and would be applauded by the denizens of the parties he's clearly used to attending, none of whom have ever been to an ice house.  And how anybody could fail to appreciate Houston's beauty is beyond me, much less insist that they can mostly only see it once they've put on their "Houston goggles".  Those scary aforementioned trees are everywhere in an almost berserk abundance, and yet there is symmetry. Our bayous are unique in an American city, hundreds of miles of genuine Nature running straight through the concrete canyons.

 

As to the allegedly chaotic architecture in this city, that has been much overstated. It was never jarring and absolutely faded to insignificance within a week of getting here.  And relative to skylines, in America, I've seen 'em all, and Houston's downtown skyline is top three in the country. 
 

Thankfully, the rest of the article as well as the interview were a blurb for his book and a recitation of his personal faults, including taking a book advance he was certain he could not repay, his relief that he could welsh on his contractual obligations but protect his house, and the amazing implication that he dogged it during his years as a Rice professor.
 

As a transplant myself, it's hard not to take exception to the idea that Houston of all places "takes some getting used to". In 1985 I stepped off a plane from Detroit, fell in love and never looked back.  I also had no notion of inflicting a Northerner's xenophobia on my adopted town, a product of my upbringing, no doubt, but also an ethic that I see runs straight through the marrow of Texas and Texans.  Sure, Houston has its warts, but almost none of them are the type Cronin describes. And beyond the physical differences with the likes of Philly, the social vibe is head and shoulders above most other cities in America.  But that's a topic for another day. 

With the exception of a tenuous morality when it comes to meeting his financial obligations, I'm sure Mr. Cronin is a good person, and I wish him well with his "Triptych" of vampire novels. That said, I hope to never again read the baloney that was extruded on the front pages of Sections A and G from last Sunday, or at least not so much of it in one sitting.