Eat! Drink! Kayak! (don't drown)

A little blog time off while I'm off trying to keep my head above water.

(OK, I'll be on a river but you know)


Maybe an update here and there, if our mobile Wi-Fi experience works out.

Hypocrisy on Hypocrisy

Good ol' Mrs. White, never one to let bold faced hypocrisy get in the way of a good rant...

For the first time Congress has a good chance of passing legislation to permit the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco, the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

One of the major components of bills moving forward in the House and Senate is a ban on flavored cigarettes, which attract young people to an addictive habit that will damage their health and shorten their lives.

The most widely sold flavored cigarettes are those containing menthol. Its minty taste and soothing effect mask the bitter edge of tobacco for neophyte users. Menthol is the choice of 75 percent of African-American smokers. The lung cancer rate among black males who smoke is 50 percent higher than in their white counterparts. In addition, research indicates that the additive, which is used in a quarter of all cigarettes sold in the United States, might result in deeper penetration of carcinogenic smoke into the lungs, and makes it harder for users to quit.

Given those facts, one would expect menthol cigarettes to be a prime target of the proposed legislation. Instead, they are exempted from the ban, a testimonial to the power of the tobacco lobby and the industry's hold on legislators from tobacco-producing states. Rep. Mike Ferguson, R-New Jersey, recognized the obvious inconsistency in targeting all flavorings but the one that has a chokehold on the cigarette market and offered an amendment to include menthol. It was defeated. The judgment of the legislation's authors was that tobacco regulation could not pass unless menthol was exempted.

(snip)

Arguing that a substance with a proven public health risk is best left unregulated by the government is a puzzling line of reasoning. Just as off-target is the claim by opponents of the legislation that the FDA is already overtaxed. In fact, the agency would be expanded to carry out its new duties through fees paid by tobacco companies.

Even with its defects, the legislation will break significant ground. It will give the FDA more authority in packaging of products and eliminate efforts to portray "lite" cigarettes as less harmful. It would establish a tobacco products scientific advisory committee and standards to protect public health.

As hypocritical as the tobacco companies arguments are, its just as hypocritical to lambaste an industry for producing a product that is a health danger and then, in the same arguement, rely on said health risk to fund the public largesse.

Sadly, there's a lot of that going around now, especially in Gov't. Our prevailing thought seems to be that, if we hate something with enough strength, then taxing it into oblivion to fund the things we really like (or in the case of some, find cool) is somehow ok. It's base, selfish thinking that doesn't provide any long-term solutions to problems, and only compounds them as we come to rely on revenue from activities we are trying to abate. See: Gas Company Tax, State Lotteries, Gas-guzzler tax, et al.

This is what happens when the chattering class makes observations based on illogical, emotional arguments designed to impact the marginally cohenrent who were elected by revealing to the citizenry one card in a legalized game of three-card monte.

Shifting the tax burden

At a snail's pace...

(from Liz Austin Peterson of the Chron)

Companies that build environmentally friendly facilities in Harris County could get a sizable property tax break under a proposal to be considered by Commissioners Court today.

The plan would offer up to a 100 percent tax abatement for 10 years on whatever amount a builder spends to become certified under the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, program.

It's one of two significant changes included in the latest version of the county's tax abatement guidelines, which the court must adopt every two years.

The plan also calls for an abatement of up to 80 percent for companies that build facilities in certain low-income areas and hire people who live there.

Commissioner Sylvia Garcia said the county really wants to encourage "green" building.

"Providing the incentive will go a long way to get more people on board with doing more that's environmentally friendly and more efficient for everyone," Garcia said Monday.

The environmental tax abatement would apply only to new commercial construction that meets the national green building council's certification standards. It is meant to compensate companies for the added cost of meeting those standards.

You tell me, does this seem worth it?

For example, a $10 million new building that was built to platinum standards would be eligible for a $1 million tax abatement, he said. At the county's current property tax rate, that could save $6,300 per year.

"If a company spent an extra million dollars to make a building green, then we feel that they should not have to pay taxes on that million dollars," said David Turkel, director of the Harris County Community Services Department.

So, a "non-green" building will cost $9 Million, and a "green" building will run $10 Million, give or take a hundage or two right? The average annual savings is expected to be $6,300. At that rate it will take almost 159 years for the extra investment to "pay off". (those calculations don't include inflation and appraisal creep, which could knock the time in half)

Still, you're looking at 70 years before you could potentially begin to see a ROI on a $1 Million dollar investment. That's money that could be spent in R&D, Marketing, and a host of other costs (extra employees) that could help grow a stable business.


Any takers?

Staying classy

You know they're all thinking it...

(from Harvey Rice of the Chron)

A former city councilwoman was jeered Monday after she criticized the voters who unseated her May 10 for defying them by voting for the largest development ever proposed for Galveston Island.

Speaking at the swearing-in ceremony for four newly elected council members, defeated incumbent Dianna Puccetti said, "When I was growing up, my dad commented on more than one occasion, Galveston always shoots itself in the foot. Well daddy, I know you're listening, they did it again."

Her remarks were greeted with a loud chorus of groans and hoots, forcing Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas to call for order.

Puccetti abstained when the old council was asked to vote to confirm the election results before the new council members swore their oath of office.

Wow.

I would argue that, with her attitude, it was far and away time that Puccetti vacate the premises. Unfortunately that type of hubris isn't always on the surface. Most of the time its more nuanced.

When I was elected to the Houston City Council in 2001, I took this knowledge with me and continued to pursue the bridge. Through this entire process, Rep. Green and his office kept the project alive.

A couple of Saturdays ago, with the assistance of federal and state funds, Rep. Green, the neighborhood's residents and I cut the ribbon to the bridge to Manchester.

What would have happened if my Manchester bridge project had started when I took office six years ago? I didn't have the knowledge of processes when I took over office. Manchester would have been short-changed by term limits.

It's really just the same message, just worded better.


Yet the latter's continued election to public office will be greeted with thunderous applause instead of a chorus of boos because the PR was a little better.

The Government we deserve.

Why not just let him write them for you?

(Thanks, Kuff)

Ladies and gentlemen, the epitome of a "softball" question...

(from the "Dean Becker" interview of C.O. Bradford)

Dean Becker: You know the crime lab here has been shut down for the fourth time in six years for incompetence, corruption, you name it, and you were police chief during one of those shut downs but you're not some CSI scientist and by virtue of the fact that it keeps on failing long after you left I'm not assigning blame to you. My good friend Attorney Jeff Blackburn and his Texas Innocence Project keep getting people released from prison because of bad lab work done all over this state. And I'm asking you, sir, what can we do to protect the innocent from false evidence and lazy dry labbing techniques?

Clarence Bradford: Thank you. When I became police chief, Mayor Bob Lanier appointed me police chief in 1996, I continued to rely on the same crime lab, the DNA section supervisor who two previous police chiefs have relied on because I don't have a science or biology degree, so I relied on that person. Now we've learned subsequently that that person had been doing a poor job all along and was doing a poor job then. The crime lab has been a problem, it has been documented since 1980. It continues to be a problem today, in my view, and it will continue to be a problem until we establish an independent process, a process that the crime lab is independent of the police department, independent of the district attorney's office and where scientists are allowed to do their work and evidence speaks for itself. It must be independent, in short, for this reason. To get the proper resources that are needed for the crime lab and the proper scientific oversight, we need to have a laboratory that is independent of the police department and the district attorney's office.

Quite possibly the most poorly framed question in Houston political history.

nEw York

Good riddance...

(from Ford Gunter of Houston Business Journal)

Two of the big "E" logos from Enron Corp. are heading for the Big Apple.

An anonymous New York buyer has purchased them for an undisclosed sum from Lou Congelio, who bought the iconic letters in 2002 at Enron's bankruptcy auction.

Each logo, which feature an E angled backward, first stood for prosperity and growth in Houston, then as a symbol of corporate scandal at its worst.

Congelio displayed the logos as decorative art work in the offices of StanandLou Advertising, a Houston-based firm he co-founded in 1988.

"This was a unique opportunity to own a piece of pop culture during one of the most turbulent times in our city's history," Congelio said. "The 'crooked E' became an instant symbol of corporate greed and corruption."

The letters will be shipped the week of May 19.

Sha-na-na-na, na-na-na-na, hey-hey-hey, goodbye.


Does New York wanting something from Houston mean we are finally "world class"?

It's all because of that pocket park I'm sure.

Remember the Wolf Development/pocket park scandal?

Sure you do.

That development is paying off in Spades for Wolf...

Hanover Co. plans to break ground this fall on a high-rise apartment building in Wulfe & Co.'s new BLVD Place development in the Galleria area.

Hanover made the project official this week after Wulfe President Ed Wulfe said in September 2007 that it was "pretty definite" that the Houston-based company would be the project's residential developer.

Hanover and equity partner MetLife Inc. purchased 1.5 acres in Wulfe's 21-acre mixed-use development at Post Oak and San Felipe for the luxury project.

It's who you know.

Hey, he said it...

So much for neutral reporting...

(from Rad Sallee of the Chron)

Talking about Metro's proposed "consent agreement" with the Chron...

•The agreement is to be in effect until Metro "abandons" the project. That's a grim thought, but I guess they have to cover all the bases.

It's a grim thought unless you're not a fan of light rail, then it's a happy thought.


I wonder how that's addressed in the much-ballyhooed Chronicle style manual?

Build it and they "won't" come?

That seems to be the case for the new Port of Houston ship terminal...

(from Bill Hansel Jr. of the Chron)

The gleaming new $81 million cruise terminal at the Port of Houston will open soon, but don't expect throngs of passengers, streamers or cracking champagne bottles.

Or a ship, for that matter.

Port officials haven't yet secured a deal with any cruise operators, and officials say ships probably won't start setting sail from the Bayport berth until fall 2009, even though the facility should be finished by the end of this summer.

"That is the primary next season we are looking at, although there is a chance of a vessel earlier," said Wade Battles, managing director of the Port of Houston Authority.

Nice, one year of costs with no revenues.


Maybe a demand analysis BEFORE constructing the thing would have been in order?

A bad week for the Least Common Denominator

First its oil prices now they turn their attetion to messing up our food commodities as well...

(from David S. Herszenhorn and David Stout of the NY Times)

The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to approve a five-year, $307 billion farm bill, sending it to President Bush for what is expected to be his futile veto.

The 81-to-15 Senate vote, like the 318-to-106 House vote on Wednesday, attracted broad bipartisan support and received far more than the two-thirds that would be needed to override Mr. Bush’s veto, should he keep his pledge to wield his pen.

(snip)

In the House chamber on Wednesday, longtime critics of farm subsidies in both parties echoed Mr. Bush’s complaints about the current bill.

“Where’s the beef?” asked Representative Ron Kind, Democrat of Wisconsin, standing in the House floor next to a poster showing sharp increases in commodity prices — 126 percent for wheat, 57 percent for soybeans, 45 percent for corn. “Where’s the real reform?” he said.

Some critics have also pointed to earmarks in the bill, including a tax break for racehorse owners added by the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and $170 million to benefit the salmon industry inserted by House Democrats from the West Coast.


(snip)

Although the legislation is universally known as the farm bill, it actually directs far more money to feeding the poor than it does to helping farmers — about $209 billion for nutrition programs like food stamps, according to the Congressional Budget Office, compared with $35 billion for agricultural commodity programs.

(snip)

“With this legislation we will help families facing high food prices,” she[Pelosi -ed.] said.

No, it won't help families facing high food prices, at least not working families and members of the middle class. You know, that group that's called "wealthy by some of the Least Common Denominator because they earn a salary and own a home?

That's right...Anyone making above the cut-off level for food-stamps (currently the limit is around 26K for a family of four) doesn't get any help at all. In case you're wondering that would be two parents working 40 hours per week at $6.25/hour. So we're now excluding homes that have two wage earners earning the minimum wage.

That's correct, if parent one makes $10 and parent two makes $8 per hour and they both work 40 hours per week, and assuming they have two kids, none of whom work to provide income for the family, then they don't qualify.

According to the Least Common Denominator they are "too rich" to need to worry about high food prices. They're also not a part of the newly minted "hard-working families" class of people that we've been told are the "true America".


Meanwhile we continue to dedicate increasing amounts of our foodstocks to biofuels at the expense of our nutritional needs. Commodity prices continue to rise, and we continue to funnel Billions of dollars to farmers to not plant crops or subsidize them during a time of windfall profits.


Hmmm...sounds like someone else the Government is trying to tax into submission does it not? Watchout American Farmer, you're next.




We get the Government we deserve.


And no, I'm not singling out one party over another. Both parties are doing this to us.