I haven't had much of a chance to bring up the Community College Funding Veto and I wish I would have gotten to it sooner but...sickness and a weekend trip (and for some reason thinking I already blogged on it) kind of caused me to overlook the issue.
All I can say about the veto is this: Either Perry is the biggest idiot to ever occupy the Gov's mansion (a possibility) or he's doing something intentionally that's going to make Dewhurst look REALLY good. (less likely)
I will say this however: I agree with Kuff's assessment that this is a HUGE opportunity for State Democrats.
The question to ask now? Are they competent enough not to break their nose walking through a door the Republicans are leaving wide open?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
So much for "not polticizing the war"
The Dems tell the Repubs: Anything you can do I can do better, I can do anything better than you:
(from David Espo of the AP)
InterLeft spin machine turning on in 5...4...3...2...
(Should be at least as much fun as watching the Bloggers O' the Right justify "Staying the course" before that position became untenable.)
(from David Espo of the AP)
House Democratic leaders are intent on sidetracking bipartisan attempts to change course in Iraq at least until fall, officials said Tuesday, rather than allow nervous Republicans to vote for legislation that lacks a troop withdrawal deadline.
Several lawmakers and aides said the goal was to deny members of the GOP rank and file a chance to proclaim their independence from President Bush by voting for a limited measure — after months of backing his policy in an increasingly unpopular war.
Polls have long shown the war to be unpopular, and a survey released during the day by the Democracy Corps, which advises Democrats, reported that 61 percent of those polled want their lawmaker to begin requiring a reduction of troops.
By contrast, the survey found that 35 percent want their representative not to undermine the president.
One strategist, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Democrats had concluded Republicans "want to put some daylight between themselves and the president" and should not be allowed to do so "after voting in lockstep for the past four years." All officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss the issue publicly.
InterLeft spin machine turning on in 5...4...3...2...
(Should be at least as much fun as watching the Bloggers O' the Right justify "Staying the course" before that position became untenable.)
A second grape-filled weekend. (Part One)
Last weekend the wife and I took advantage of some free hotel nights and made a trip back to Texas Wine Country to visit some of the wineries missed on the last excursion.
Time was limited this trip, allowing visits to three "new" wineries and two old favorites. I think I'll start with the new....
Sister Creek Vinyards - Located in an old Cotton Gin in Sisterdale Texas, half of the fun at Sister Creek is spending some time walking around the old building and perusing the wide range of antiques they have on display.
Sister Creek also has a decent wine list, with a couple of good wines, and one that could potentially rank as very good after another year in the bottle (although its drinkable now).
They do grow some grapes on site, but most of their grapes are imported from North of Lubbock, where the nights are cooler in the Summer.
Here are my favorite wines from Sister Creek in order:
1. The 4 Blend Cabernet. - Sold only at the Winery this is a blend of Cabernet Sauvignon and three other wines (hence the name). This wine has the potential to age very well in the bottle if laid down properly, but currently it'd be a good match for your steaks with heavy sauces etc. I caught a lot of vanilla and raspberry in the nose, but was surprised when those tastes were muted on the first taste. The finish to this wine was slightly peppery.
2. Merlot - Not an overly jammy or oaked Merlot, this was very light on the palate and lacked the harshness that's led me away from Merlot of late. I enjoyed tasting this wine very much and plan to serve it to friends once the opportunity arises. It received a Bronze Medal at the San Antonio Wine Festival which was a dissapointment to the winemaker. I agree, it should have done better.
3. Muscat Canelli Reserve - There are two Sister Creek Muscats, the regular variety can be purchased at HEB, Central Market and SPEC's, the Reserve is held back for purchase exclusively at the winery. If you're in the Sisterdale area, I suggest you make a trip by and pick up a bottle (or four). This wine is not the syrupy Muscat of which you are thinking. It's light, sweet, and would pair nicely with spicy foods. It's not a dessert wine as is the Messina Hof late harvest Canelli but its certainly not a dry white either. If you think you're not a fan of sweet wines, give this one a try. (FWIW - you can tell that this is a Texas White by the nose. Ruby Red Grapefruit that's once again muted when the wine is tasted, delicious).
Those three wines aside the other wines at Sister Creek were hit and miss. I enjoyed thier Chardonnay, but not enough to purchase a bottle. They made a big deal of thier Pinot Noir, but it was rough around the edges and reminded me why I'm not a big fan of Texas Pinot. Thier 3-blend Cab was a new release, and in one year it could outstrip the Merlot on my top 3 list. The blends at this winery were very good.
Next we'll take a look at tiny little Comfort Cellars Winery and talk about the good (and bad) wines there.
Salud!
Time was limited this trip, allowing visits to three "new" wineries and two old favorites. I think I'll start with the new....
Sister Creek Vinyards - Located in an old Cotton Gin in Sisterdale Texas, half of the fun at Sister Creek is spending some time walking around the old building and perusing the wide range of antiques they have on display.
Sister Creek also has a decent wine list, with a couple of good wines, and one that could potentially rank as very good after another year in the bottle (although its drinkable now).
They do grow some grapes on site, but most of their grapes are imported from North of Lubbock, where the nights are cooler in the Summer.
Here are my favorite wines from Sister Creek in order:
1. The 4 Blend Cabernet. - Sold only at the Winery this is a blend of Cabernet Sauvignon and three other wines (hence the name). This wine has the potential to age very well in the bottle if laid down properly, but currently it'd be a good match for your steaks with heavy sauces etc. I caught a lot of vanilla and raspberry in the nose, but was surprised when those tastes were muted on the first taste. The finish to this wine was slightly peppery.
2. Merlot - Not an overly jammy or oaked Merlot, this was very light on the palate and lacked the harshness that's led me away from Merlot of late. I enjoyed tasting this wine very much and plan to serve it to friends once the opportunity arises. It received a Bronze Medal at the San Antonio Wine Festival which was a dissapointment to the winemaker. I agree, it should have done better.
3. Muscat Canelli Reserve - There are two Sister Creek Muscats, the regular variety can be purchased at HEB, Central Market and SPEC's, the Reserve is held back for purchase exclusively at the winery. If you're in the Sisterdale area, I suggest you make a trip by and pick up a bottle (or four). This wine is not the syrupy Muscat of which you are thinking. It's light, sweet, and would pair nicely with spicy foods. It's not a dessert wine as is the Messina Hof late harvest Canelli but its certainly not a dry white either. If you think you're not a fan of sweet wines, give this one a try. (FWIW - you can tell that this is a Texas White by the nose. Ruby Red Grapefruit that's once again muted when the wine is tasted, delicious).
Those three wines aside the other wines at Sister Creek were hit and miss. I enjoyed thier Chardonnay, but not enough to purchase a bottle. They made a big deal of thier Pinot Noir, but it was rough around the edges and reminded me why I'm not a big fan of Texas Pinot. Thier 3-blend Cab was a new release, and in one year it could outstrip the Merlot on my top 3 list. The blends at this winery were very good.
Next we'll take a look at tiny little Comfort Cellars Winery and talk about the good (and bad) wines there.
Salud!
Blogging cancelled due to lack of wellness.
In short, I'm sick.
Be back soon. In the intirim, check the links etc. etc.
Also, if anyone knows where I can get a new pair of sinuses....
Be back soon. In the intirim, check the links etc. etc.
Also, if anyone knows where I can get a new pair of sinuses....
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Big Oil Boogyman
If you read the headline and the lead in to today's story on Temperature adjusted gas prices I will admit that it makes the Oil Industry look pretty bad...
(from David Ivanovich of the Chron)
But if you read further you find this little tidbit, buried near the end:
I hate to shock you here but this type of thing happens all the time. Remember the fuel additive MBTE?
(from InTech)
It's not unusual for the Government to mandate something and then, espeically during an election year, turn around and blame the boogeymen for the problems they've created. This is pretty standard operating procedure.
Even during times when there is no competative disadvantage:
I'm sure that the public outcry over this is going to be extreme with both the Bloggers O' the Right and the InterLeft flipping out about Boosh and his "terrible administration letting the oil companies run wild".
But before you freak out, consider this:
I think the bolded portion tells us all we need to know. All that's left now is to sit back and watch bloggers throw themselves into fake seizures of anger.
(from David Ivanovich of the Chron)
...when measuring out a gallon of gasoline, the oil companies assume a temperature of 60 degrees. Gasoline leaves the refinery gate far hotter than that and tends to stay warm, particularly in sizzling towns like Houston.
And at higher temperature — say 90 degrees — that same gallon takes up about 2 percent more space in the fuel tank.
The energy content, however, does not increase. And that means the motorist can drive fewer miles on a tank of gas of what's come to be known as "hot fuel."
But if you read further you find this little tidbit, buried near the end:
But industry executives argued they aren't allowed to adjust for temperature in the U.S., since states have mandated that gasoline be sold by volume.
"Selling temperature-compensated motor fuel at retail would violate current laws and regulations," said Ben Soraci, director of U.S. retail sales for Exxon Mobil Fuels Marketing Co.
Texas and 48 other states define a gallon of gasoline as 231 cubic inches of fuel. (Hawaiians like their gallons a bit bigger, at 234 cubic inches).
Earlier this month, the National Conference on Weights and Measures considered allowing U.S. service station owners to install the temperature adjustment devices on their pumps.
And while a majority of the delegates — including from Texas — approved the proposal, the measure failed to achieve the super majority needed to approve a change.
I hate to shock you here but this type of thing happens all the time. Remember the fuel additive MBTE?
(from InTech)
Washington-In a major environmental protection turnaround, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving to eliminate the leading gasoline additive, methyl butyl tertiary ether (MBTE), due to never-anticipated groundwater pollution problems arising from the use and storage of the additive.
"The administration is providing Congress with a legislative framework which, if fully adopted, will significantly reduce or eliminate MBTE," said EPA administrator Carol Browner. Also, under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rule making to ban the additive from gasoline, she said.
It's not unusual for the Government to mandate something and then, espeically during an election year, turn around and blame the boogeymen for the problems they've created. This is pretty standard operating procedure.
Even during times when there is no competative disadvantage:
Cooley argued that as long as all service station owners use the same unit of measurement in a given market, consumers aren't harmed.
"The idea that temperature adjustment will somehow give people more for their money simply does not take into account the realities of the retail gasoline market," Cooley said.
"If gasoline were temperature-adjusted at the retail level, the intense competition in the market would adjust prices to take that into account as well. In other words, if retailers sell 'larger' gallons, you should expect they would charge more for (those) 'larger' gallons."
Cooley also noted that the energy content of gasoline is affected by a number of factors, including the amount of ethanol added to the fuel, the grade of crude that was used and the process employed at the refinery.
I'm sure that the public outcry over this is going to be extreme with both the Bloggers O' the Right and the InterLeft flipping out about Boosh and his "terrible administration letting the oil companies run wild".
But before you freak out, consider this:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, chairman of the panel and a presidential hopeful, wants gasoline retailers to install devices on their pumps that automatically adjust the amount delivered to account for temperatures different than 60 degrees.
I think the bolded portion tells us all we need to know. All that's left now is to sit back and watch bloggers throw themselves into fake seizures of anger.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Calls to dust off the catapult...
I'm expecting Mrs. White to chime in ecstaticly that critics are calling for her catapult to be used to "fix" the State School system...
(from Lisa Sandberg of the Chron)
The article implies that the only way to deal with this problem is to catapult huge sums of money at it, despite the fact that Texas is already spending over one hundred thousand per year (on average) for EACH student. In light of this fact I think that the question should not be "How much more money does the system want?" (not NEED, there's no more NEED for money here) but, rather "How do we more effectively use the money we're already spending?"
Any way you slice it $110,000 should be an adequate amount to care for the mentally retarded, provided that a majority of said money goes toward the direct care of said students. The reality in beauracracy is never that simple. I'm willing to bet that over half of that money is eaten up in (often redundant) administration costs and salaries. In an age where private-company CEO's are under increased scrutiny for their salaries, its amazing to me that high-level Gov't beauracrats receive a free pass from the same side of the aisle. In a way, those administrators who are sucking up money that should go to the direct care of our less-fortunate are worse than the private market CEO who negotiated a compensation package. Not that either is "good" in that sense (I've long written that CEO compensation is out of hand) but taking money from the helpless is one of the worst transgressions at all, especially if the result is the sorry state of things today.
What the State School system needs is not a multi-million dollar "commission" to recommend changes, it doesn't need more and different administrators and it doesn't need Mrs. White's money catapult, it just needs a leader that's willing to cut the fat and work to ensure that the maximum amount of revenue is directed to frontline positions.
As taxpayers we should demand no less of our Government.
(from Lisa Sandberg of the Chron)
Texas spends about $110,000 annually on each of the mentally retarded residents of its state schools, but entry-level workers who care for them make less than $20,000 a year and start with only two weeks of training.
Critics say low salaries, compounded by inadequate training and poor working conditions, make it hard to attract and keep qualified workers, fostering the type of abuse and neglect that came to light this week.
"If you want quality care ... it's something you have to pay for," said Amy Mizcles, director of governmental affairs for The ARC of Texas, an advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
(snip)
Documents released Monday from nine of the state's 12 schools operated by the Department of Aging and Disability Services show confirmed instances in which hundreds of mentally retarded children and adults were hit, kicked, knocked down, dragged and humiliated by those paid to care for them.
In other cases, residents needing intensive supervision were left on their own long enough to scald themselves, eat cigarette butts or be sexually abused by other residents.
The records show numerous instances in which abusive employees were allowed to remain on the job, working with the same vulnerable population.
"The system is broken and it needs to be reformed. It needs to be brought up to the 21st Century," said Mizcles, of ARC.
The article implies that the only way to deal with this problem is to catapult huge sums of money at it, despite the fact that Texas is already spending over one hundred thousand per year (on average) for EACH student. In light of this fact I think that the question should not be "How much more money does the system want?" (not NEED, there's no more NEED for money here) but, rather "How do we more effectively use the money we're already spending?"
Any way you slice it $110,000 should be an adequate amount to care for the mentally retarded, provided that a majority of said money goes toward the direct care of said students. The reality in beauracracy is never that simple. I'm willing to bet that over half of that money is eaten up in (often redundant) administration costs and salaries. In an age where private-company CEO's are under increased scrutiny for their salaries, its amazing to me that high-level Gov't beauracrats receive a free pass from the same side of the aisle. In a way, those administrators who are sucking up money that should go to the direct care of our less-fortunate are worse than the private market CEO who negotiated a compensation package. Not that either is "good" in that sense (I've long written that CEO compensation is out of hand) but taking money from the helpless is one of the worst transgressions at all, especially if the result is the sorry state of things today.
What the State School system needs is not a multi-million dollar "commission" to recommend changes, it doesn't need more and different administrators and it doesn't need Mrs. White's money catapult, it just needs a leader that's willing to cut the fat and work to ensure that the maximum amount of revenue is directed to frontline positions.
As taxpayers we should demand no less of our Government.
A dubious distinction
Texas is number one in Teen birth rates Nationwide. This is obviously an honor that they would prefer not to have....
(from Melanie Markley of the Chron)
I'm guessing that the gut-shot reactions on both sides of the aisle are going to be similar. Democrats will fall back on the old "Texas (and by extension you) SUCKS!!!" meme and Republicans will blame those mean 'ol illegal aliens which will pretty much guarantee that the issue will go unresolved for another few years.
What WOULD be nice are some real discussions about this matter, about the wisdom of preaching abstinance only sex-education, about whether or not birth control education would work in the face of strong Religious opposition, and what (if any) role culture plays in this trend. The article here mentions that all States (including Texas mind you) are experiencing declines, but the declines in Texas are slower than other States. The article then implies that abstinance based education is the primary driver of this peculiarity.
I'm sure that plays a role but I'm guessing there are other issues involved that, unfortunately, don't have special interests behind it who stand to make money on new textbook sales. That's just a guess on my part.
(from Melanie Markley of the Chron)
A newly released study on the well-being of children says Texas had the highest teen birth rate in the nation in 2004, a ranking that the Lone Star State may not want to brag about.
Texas, like the rest of the nation, had been reporting a dramatic decline in teen births since at least 1990.
But, according to the Kids Count study, which is updated and published annually by the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, Texas now ranks above other states in the rate of babies born to teens 15 to 19, the widest range of ages studied.
(snip)
Culture plays a role, statistics show, because black teens in Texas are more than twice as likely as their white peers to have a baby. And Hispanics are more than 3½ times as likely as Anglos to give birth in their teen years.
However, Robert Sanborn, president of Children at Risk, said that doesn't explain everything, because other states with high minority populations have lower teen pregnancy rates.
He said he's concerned that Texas' sex education curriculum focuses too much on abstinence and provides too little information on other ways to prevent pregnancies.
A 1995 law requires school districts to emphasize abstinence in sex education classes.
"It's a touchy subject," Sanborn said. "We can preach abstinence quite a bit, and there is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't affect some kids, and apparently it's really not working in Texas."
I'm guessing that the gut-shot reactions on both sides of the aisle are going to be similar. Democrats will fall back on the old "Texas (and by extension you) SUCKS!!!" meme and Republicans will blame those mean 'ol illegal aliens which will pretty much guarantee that the issue will go unresolved for another few years.
What WOULD be nice are some real discussions about this matter, about the wisdom of preaching abstinance only sex-education, about whether or not birth control education would work in the face of strong Religious opposition, and what (if any) role culture plays in this trend. The article here mentions that all States (including Texas mind you) are experiencing declines, but the declines in Texas are slower than other States. The article then implies that abstinance based education is the primary driver of this peculiarity.
I'm sure that plays a role but I'm guessing there are other issues involved that, unfortunately, don't have special interests behind it who stand to make money on new textbook sales. That's just a guess on my part.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
A love letter.
We all live for these moments when Mrs. White bears her soul...
(From Juliet of the Chron to her Romeo)
These displays of public affection have got to stop. I mean, seriously, where's your pride Mrs. White?
The cuteness quotiont in this love-letter is bordering on syrup. If you are insulin sensitive you better stay away from this one, the diabetes rate in Houston just doubled.
In all seriousness, I don't have anything against Mayor White. I think his tenure in office has been an improvement over the previous administration although I know that's not saying much. The difference is that I truly believe that Mayor White feels that he's doing the right thing for Houston. I didn't have that feel with former Mayor Brown.
It's also a little disingenous of Mrs. White to act as if Mr. White is the lone stalwart when it comes to honor in fundraising. The issue here is not that "only 11 percent of his contributions do business with the City" but whether or not they do business with the STATE.
You see, Mayor White is going to win big again in the next eleciton. He's going to have zero opposition and he'll probably get around 70% of the vote. This will be held up as a stunning sign of strength by his supporters who feel the need to marginalize every dissenting opinion, no matter how valid. What 70% against an open field says to me is that Mayor White would have been vulnerable had he faced a legitimate candidate. I still think he would have wone, but there are issues in place that can derail his campaign. As it stands now, we'll have to wait until 2010 to see just how damaging those weaknesses turn out to be.
If Houston had a newspaper intent on providing honest analysis and not a starry-eyed Jr. High Student in her first crush we might have gotten some good insight as to who is placing their bets on White for Gov.
Unfortunately that piece of news has been smothered in saccharine.
(From Juliet of the Chron to her Romeo)
Heading into his third and final campaign due to term limits, with no major opposition, incumbent Mayor Bill White is amassing a campaign war chest that could help break precedent and carry him far beyond City Hall.
In the latest campaign filings on the city's new electronic system, White reported raising nearly $2 million, most of it gathered at a single fundraiser in May. The mayor's friends have deep pockets: More than half gave the maximum individual contribution of $5,000, and 10 political action committees forked over the top allowable of $10,000. White, a lawyer and former corporate CEO, now has $3.3 million in the bank, money he could use in future state or federal campaigns.
(snip)
Unlike contributors to past mayoral campaigns, most of White's contributors do not do business with the city. He pledged to hold contributions from city venders to 10 percent, and the latest figures are very close, at 11 percent.
"We don't do anything quid pro quo," the mayor told the Chronicle. "We don't grant special favors or access to people based on political contributions."
Big donors do get special access to the mayor at elite fundraising receptions. They might not benefit from dealings with the city, but at minimum they get an ego buzz from rubbing elbows and an opportunity to discuss their issues with the mayor.
(snip)
A matchup between White and Perry would provide a fascinating contrast in style and ideology. While the governor has a lot more hair than the mayor, White's proven ability to raise money likely would place him on an even financial playing field with Perry.
These displays of public affection have got to stop. I mean, seriously, where's your pride Mrs. White?
The cuteness quotiont in this love-letter is bordering on syrup. If you are insulin sensitive you better stay away from this one, the diabetes rate in Houston just doubled.
In all seriousness, I don't have anything against Mayor White. I think his tenure in office has been an improvement over the previous administration although I know that's not saying much. The difference is that I truly believe that Mayor White feels that he's doing the right thing for Houston. I didn't have that feel with former Mayor Brown.
It's also a little disingenous of Mrs. White to act as if Mr. White is the lone stalwart when it comes to honor in fundraising. The issue here is not that "only 11 percent of his contributions do business with the City" but whether or not they do business with the STATE.
You see, Mayor White is going to win big again in the next eleciton. He's going to have zero opposition and he'll probably get around 70% of the vote. This will be held up as a stunning sign of strength by his supporters who feel the need to marginalize every dissenting opinion, no matter how valid. What 70% against an open field says to me is that Mayor White would have been vulnerable had he faced a legitimate candidate. I still think he would have wone, but there are issues in place that can derail his campaign. As it stands now, we'll have to wait until 2010 to see just how damaging those weaknesses turn out to be.
If Houston had a newspaper intent on providing honest analysis and not a starry-eyed Jr. High Student in her first crush we might have gotten some good insight as to who is placing their bets on White for Gov.
Unfortunately that piece of news has been smothered in saccharine.
Mrs. White: Steroid test, even if innocents are falsely implicated
How crazy has the anti-steroid zeal gotten in America? So bad that the concerns of someone being falsely accused are brushed aside...
(from The Chron Ed Board)
I have long been on the record as saying that every practical measure should be taken to prevent children from using steroids. The problem with Mrs. White's argument is that its not practical.
If this testing is implemented then there will be more kids eliminated because of false positives than there will be actual steroid cheats caught in the net. That's my prediction. Not because, as Mrs. White asserts, there are "dangerous chemicals" in supplements, but because the testing that is out there is very unreliable. In almost any other situation Mrs. White would fall on the side of caution. She'd be eminently concerned about the rights of the accused, and she would be harshly critical of the "law and order" types who are willing to sweep with a broad brush those who may be innocent.
Not here however. Here the idea is that Americans must stop doing LEGAL supplements, to avoid testing positive for illegal drugs. That's akin to asking you to stop eating poppy seed muffins because you might test positive for heroin.
The facts are that sports nutrition and science are miles ahead of where they were even 5-10 years prior. Part of these advances are fueled by supplements and advancements in dietary science. Most of these substances have been proven safe by a series of laboratory tests, double-blind, peer-reviewed studies, and years of use by student athletes, without side-effects. Those are facts, and cannot be undone by the scare tactics of the media who want to see nutritional supplements lumped in with steroids.
So why does this group have to give up something that will give them an advantage, while the rest of us (including Mrs. White) grouse about an extra five minutes in the airport line? Ask yourself that.
(from The Chron Ed Board)
Experts disagree over whether laboratories can distinguish between evidence of steroid use and contaminated dietary supplements. However, students need to take the oncoming tests as a signal to stop taking the supplements. Most students need none and should stick to a balanced diet heavy in fruits and vegetables. The reason the supplements cause false test results is because they are widely contaminated with undesirable and unhealthy chemicals, another reason for students to avoid them.
The steroids tests will be accompanied by education about the harm that steroids can inflict. Sen. Janek says the health threats from steroid abuse include stunted growth, high blood pressure, liver tumors and wide mood swings. When a player stops taking steroids, clinical depression can result.
I have long been on the record as saying that every practical measure should be taken to prevent children from using steroids. The problem with Mrs. White's argument is that its not practical.
If this testing is implemented then there will be more kids eliminated because of false positives than there will be actual steroid cheats caught in the net. That's my prediction. Not because, as Mrs. White asserts, there are "dangerous chemicals" in supplements, but because the testing that is out there is very unreliable. In almost any other situation Mrs. White would fall on the side of caution. She'd be eminently concerned about the rights of the accused, and she would be harshly critical of the "law and order" types who are willing to sweep with a broad brush those who may be innocent.
Not here however. Here the idea is that Americans must stop doing LEGAL supplements, to avoid testing positive for illegal drugs. That's akin to asking you to stop eating poppy seed muffins because you might test positive for heroin.
The facts are that sports nutrition and science are miles ahead of where they were even 5-10 years prior. Part of these advances are fueled by supplements and advancements in dietary science. Most of these substances have been proven safe by a series of laboratory tests, double-blind, peer-reviewed studies, and years of use by student athletes, without side-effects. Those are facts, and cannot be undone by the scare tactics of the media who want to see nutritional supplements lumped in with steroids.
So why does this group have to give up something that will give them an advantage, while the rest of us (including Mrs. White) grouse about an extra five minutes in the airport line? Ask yourself that.
Dems standing, in a line....talking.
So I watched the Democratic YouTube Presidential debate thingy last night. I don't know why I felt the need, but I did watch most of it.
Here are my overnight impressions:
Winner: Hillary Clinton.
Let's face it, as the front-runner all Ms. Clinton has to do is not step on herself and she wins these debates. The onus is on the other candidates to chip away at the armour. They didn't, she didn't, she wins.
Potentially damaging moment: Hillary danced a sidestep around the 28 years of Bush/Clinton question but (and this is a big but) if the issue has legs, then that's where the most damage can be done IMO.
Last Place: Bill Richardson
Terrible, terrible performance by Mr. Richardson. His answers were unfocused and rambling, and he didn't look comfortable at all behind the podium.
Potentially damaging moment(s): His call for a permanent UNarmy "peacekeeping force" and his repeated classification of undocumneted immigrants as "Americans" are what will lose him the election. That's all just so much One World Government stuff that the other candidates are going to hammer him on. His Iraqi plan was shown to be ill-concieved, and lacking of any semblance of reality.
Now for the rest:
Barack Obama - Barack said a lot of good things, he just didn't deliver them well. He was "off" considering his talents as a public speaker. He seemed unsure of himself all night long.
Potentially damaging moment: Mr. Obama's response that he would talk to the leaders of Syria, Iran, Cuba and Venenzuela was artfully marginalized by Clinton. She got the best of him there, and made his International position look a little simplisitic. Not a kill shot by any means, but he's got to watch that going forward.
John Edwards - Good job on the "hair" issue, average job almost everywhere else. Those who already supported Edwards will still support him after this, but I don't think he gained any new ground.
Potentially damaging moment: Was beaten like a drum by Obama on the healthcare issue. His "mandated" health care issue was cast in the worst possible light. Also, how wise is it to take Hillary on in regards to women's issues? Again, he's not bleeding, but he got bruised a little.
Now for those who are done, they just don't (or won't) accept it:
Joe Biden - No one looked more like a career politician than did StoveTop Joe. He seemed at times angry, overly confrontational, and very unpresidential. His best moments were in regards to pulling out of Iraq.
Potentially damaging moment: His calling the "gun" questioner mentally deranged smacked of elitism. America wants a President that we can identify with, not one who thinks he's superior to all of us.
Christopher Dodd - Very little face time and even less impact. His brand of Carter era liberalism doesn't work well in an age where liberalism has been re-branded as progressivism.
Potentially damaging moment: To be honest nothing he said was very damaging, but the fact that only very few care is probably the most damaging thing of all.
Mike Gravel - Had one horse (that he wasn't getting a chance to talk) and ran it until it dropped. Had some good one-liners and played well as the yin to the progressive's yang, but I don't think there's any market in the modern Democratic Party for his message.
Potentially damaging moment: Saying that US troops are dying in vain, and died in vain in Vietnam. Just not wise. His "fair tax" proposals are killers as well. Nobody in the Democratic party wants a fair tax, much less a sales tax.
Dennis Kucinich - The man just seems to grow smaller as the debates move forward. He starts off at 5'2" and ends at 3'11". He's the Democratic answer to Ron Paul, he's on the far-far-fringe which makes the other candidates appear centrist in comparison.
Funniest line of the night: Anderson Cooper: "Notice we didn't put anyone to the left of you."
Potentially Damaging moment: Too many to mention. Every thing the quy says is an attack on someone. Although it was interesting to note that he changed his tune on taxes. Traditionally Dennis has pushed for large tax increases to fuel his Socialist agenda, he backed off last night, saying only that he would soak the rich. Whether this will erode his small support base or not remains to be seen.
Final thoughts: As debates go it was fairly interesting. Some of the videos by the questioners were witty and well thought out. For the most part, the questions were answered, but there was still the usual high level of Bush bashing and dancing around questions that were uncomfortable. It would be nice if Anderson Cooper would grow a spine and enforce the time limit, but that's the way these things go sometimes. In the end I don't think much changed as far as standings, except that this is quickly coelescing into a two-person race between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama.
Here are my overnight impressions:
Winner: Hillary Clinton.
Let's face it, as the front-runner all Ms. Clinton has to do is not step on herself and she wins these debates. The onus is on the other candidates to chip away at the armour. They didn't, she didn't, she wins.
Potentially damaging moment: Hillary danced a sidestep around the 28 years of Bush/Clinton question but (and this is a big but) if the issue has legs, then that's where the most damage can be done IMO.
Last Place: Bill Richardson
Terrible, terrible performance by Mr. Richardson. His answers were unfocused and rambling, and he didn't look comfortable at all behind the podium.
Potentially damaging moment(s): His call for a permanent UN
Now for the rest:
Barack Obama - Barack said a lot of good things, he just didn't deliver them well. He was "off" considering his talents as a public speaker. He seemed unsure of himself all night long.
Potentially damaging moment: Mr. Obama's response that he would talk to the leaders of Syria, Iran, Cuba and Venenzuela was artfully marginalized by Clinton. She got the best of him there, and made his International position look a little simplisitic. Not a kill shot by any means, but he's got to watch that going forward.
John Edwards - Good job on the "hair" issue, average job almost everywhere else. Those who already supported Edwards will still support him after this, but I don't think he gained any new ground.
Potentially damaging moment: Was beaten like a drum by Obama on the healthcare issue. His "mandated" health care issue was cast in the worst possible light. Also, how wise is it to take Hillary on in regards to women's issues? Again, he's not bleeding, but he got bruised a little.
Now for those who are done, they just don't (or won't) accept it:
Joe Biden - No one looked more like a career politician than did StoveTop Joe. He seemed at times angry, overly confrontational, and very unpresidential. His best moments were in regards to pulling out of Iraq.
Potentially damaging moment: His calling the "gun" questioner mentally deranged smacked of elitism. America wants a President that we can identify with, not one who thinks he's superior to all of us.
Christopher Dodd - Very little face time and even less impact. His brand of Carter era liberalism doesn't work well in an age where liberalism has been re-branded as progressivism.
Potentially damaging moment: To be honest nothing he said was very damaging, but the fact that only very few care is probably the most damaging thing of all.
Mike Gravel - Had one horse (that he wasn't getting a chance to talk) and ran it until it dropped. Had some good one-liners and played well as the yin to the progressive's yang, but I don't think there's any market in the modern Democratic Party for his message.
Potentially damaging moment: Saying that US troops are dying in vain, and died in vain in Vietnam. Just not wise. His "fair tax" proposals are killers as well. Nobody in the Democratic party wants a fair tax, much less a sales tax.
Dennis Kucinich - The man just seems to grow smaller as the debates move forward. He starts off at 5'2" and ends at 3'11". He's the Democratic answer to Ron Paul, he's on the far-far-fringe which makes the other candidates appear centrist in comparison.
Funniest line of the night: Anderson Cooper: "Notice we didn't put anyone to the left of you."
Potentially Damaging moment: Too many to mention. Every thing the quy says is an attack on someone. Although it was interesting to note that he changed his tune on taxes. Traditionally Dennis has pushed for large tax increases to fuel his Socialist agenda, he backed off last night, saying only that he would soak the rich. Whether this will erode his small support base or not remains to be seen.
Final thoughts: As debates go it was fairly interesting. Some of the videos by the questioners were witty and well thought out. For the most part, the questions were answered, but there was still the usual high level of Bush bashing and dancing around questions that were uncomfortable. It would be nice if Anderson Cooper would grow a spine and enforce the time limit, but that's the way these things go sometimes. In the end I don't think much changed as far as standings, except that this is quickly coelescing into a two-person race between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama.
Monday, July 23, 2007
The details of the case.
The Chronicle is stirring up another HPD hornet's nest with thier story on the tragic shooting of Stephen Guillory but something in the "facts" of this case aren't adding up to me....
(from Mike Glenn of the Chron)
I'm not defending the shooting here, nor am I condemning it. The truth is I don't know enough of the surrounding facts to make a judgement at this time. I do have the following question however:
Why call the police if you could handle the situation on your own?
Of COURSE the police wouldn't let the mother get to her son. She had just called them and issued an assault complaint. It's the job of the police to handle the complaint. I would also argue that, it appears, that Mr. Guillory was charging the officers brandishing a pipe. I wonder what the reaction ofbounty hunter community activist Quannell X would have been had one of the HPD officers been injured due to a blunt trauma to the head?
There will be an investigation in this case which will decide whether or not the shooting was justified. Until then all of this noise from people seeking camera time won't do anything but muddy the waters. There are already commenters on the story blaming Mayor White and Chief Hurtt for this incident. A charge that's as ridiculous as the assertions by Quannell X that his side of the story is the Gospel truth.
(from Mike Glenn of the Chron)
The mother of a pipe-wielding man killed by Houston police said she pleaded with officers not to fire at her son because he had a history of mental health problems.
"I said, 'My son is schizophrenic, don't shoot him. He's bipolar,' " said a grieving Joyce Guillory on Sunday, on the front lawn of her home in the 6600 block of Foster near Yellowstone. "They didn't listen to me. They shot him anyway."
(snip)
Joyce Guillory said she called police after her son struck her during an argument at the home. When officers arrived, they saw him standing in the front yard, brandishing a large pipe.
He appeared agitated, police said, and began moving toward them with the pipe in his hands. Officer T.K. Richardson tried to use his Taser to subdue Guillory but was unsuccessful, police said.
The officers backed away and called for assistance as Guillory began striking an HPD patrol car, smashing out most of the windows and lights.
(snip)
The pipe Guillory was using during the melee broke in half as the backup officers reached the scene. He threw one of the broken sections at them, then began approaching officers T.D. Jackson and R.B. Wieners.
Police said the officers ordered Guillory to drop the pipe, then fired at him. Richardson was struck by one of the officers' rounds. He was treated at an area hospital, police said.
Guillory's mother said she was able to calm her son when he became agitated in the past.
"I could have talked him back in the yard (but) they wouldn't let me get nowhere near him," she said.
I'm not defending the shooting here, nor am I condemning it. The truth is I don't know enough of the surrounding facts to make a judgement at this time. I do have the following question however:
Why call the police if you could handle the situation on your own?
Of COURSE the police wouldn't let the mother get to her son. She had just called them and issued an assault complaint. It's the job of the police to handle the complaint. I would also argue that, it appears, that Mr. Guillory was charging the officers brandishing a pipe. I wonder what the reaction of
There will be an investigation in this case which will decide whether or not the shooting was justified. Until then all of this noise from people seeking camera time won't do anything but muddy the waters. There are already commenters on the story blaming Mayor White and Chief Hurtt for this incident. A charge that's as ridiculous as the assertions by Quannell X that his side of the story is the Gospel truth.
Congratulations Lily!
The Big Winner at the Reliant Series of Dog Shows was an Irish Terrier.
(from Carolyn Feibel of the Chron)
The missus and I made it out to Reliant on Saturday, I've got some pictures that I'm going to try to upload to Flickr this evening.
I have a good time at these shows, and I enjoy donating what I can to rescue charities, but here's one big problem that I have with these shows:
I overheard one lady chewing out children for daring to pet her dogs. "There are thousands of other dogs to pet here, don't pet mine!" she said. Meanwhile the poor little Whippets she was with were BEGGING to be given some attention.
That's the problem with some "dog people" however. Most of the time they're not very good "people people" and they forget the whole "man's best friend" caveat. I understand the need to keep the dogs in cages when they're not performing. As a matter of fact dogs come from ancestors that were cave-dwellers so they are more comfortable in an enclosed setting. But dogs are also social animals that love attention and affection. Leave it to humans to make a mess of that basic principle.
There are no bad dogs, only bad dog owners. Or "dog snobs" as I like to call them.
(from Carolyn Feibel of the Chron)
The top dog Sunday at the Reliant Park World Series of Dog Shows was an orange-colored Irish terrier with wiry fur and spring-coiled legs.
Lily won "Best in Show" Sunday evening, capping a canine carnival that ran four days and involved 2,852 dogs. She lives here in Houston at the Kennel at Champions.
"She's really on a roll," said Cecelia Ruggles, one of Lily's owners. It was 3-year-old Lily's 20th time winning "Best in Show."
The top honor includes $500, a ribbon, a pewter tea set and a tack box for dog supplies.
The missus and I made it out to Reliant on Saturday, I've got some pictures that I'm going to try to upload to Flickr this evening.
I have a good time at these shows, and I enjoy donating what I can to rescue charities, but here's one big problem that I have with these shows:
"They're wealthy people who like to have a good dog," explained Jim Moses, Geneva's handler. "They're dog fanciers."
Moses, 61, said he earns "in the high six figures" by handling and showing dogs for owners across the United States.
"I get to show the dogs, but they get the glory of it," said Nike's handler, Kristin Karboski.
But not all champion dogs have "sugar daddies."
(snip)
Some local visitors to the dog show were surprised to hear about owners jetting cross-country to watch "their" dogs compete — dogs who don't always live with them, or may never live with them. Lily, for example, will probably retire to the home of the breeder in Washington state.
"It's very strange. They can collect the ribbons and not do anything," said Ivanna Wasserman, 21, of Friendswood.
I overheard one lady chewing out children for daring to pet her dogs. "There are thousands of other dogs to pet here, don't pet mine!" she said. Meanwhile the poor little Whippets she was with were BEGGING to be given some attention.
That's the problem with some "dog people" however. Most of the time they're not very good "people people" and they forget the whole "man's best friend" caveat. I understand the need to keep the dogs in cages when they're not performing. As a matter of fact dogs come from ancestors that were cave-dwellers so they are more comfortable in an enclosed setting. But dogs are also social animals that love attention and affection. Leave it to humans to make a mess of that basic principle.
There are no bad dogs, only bad dog owners. Or "dog snobs" as I like to call them.
Noble goal, poorly executed.
Yet another story illustrating the cluelessness of the Federal Government when it comes to health care...
(from the NY Times via the Chron)
In case you missed it: I'm a big supporter of ensuring health care for children. ALL children. I don't think its fair to punish a child because Mom and Dad are lazy, unlucky, negligent, inattentive, undereducated, or for any reason. Children's health care should be a priority for the Country. It's one of those things that I'm OK paying taxes for. Now ADULT health care? That's a different story altogether. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect able-bodied, able-minded people to take enough of an interest in their well-being that they procure health insurance. That being said there should also be a low-cost "safety-net" option for those who find themselves suddenly "right-sized".
Raising tobacco taxes to fund either of these programs is a monumentally BAD idea. Either way its justified, its faulty reasoning. If you want to increase the tax as a deterrent to people smoking then you are funding a long-term program with a temporary funding source. Not only is that short-sighted, its stupid. If the "purpose" of the tax is punitive in nature, then you are singling out a predominately poor segment of society, and funding the Nations health care on thier backs.
Think of that during the next election, when campaign ads tell you that "X" politician is "for the working American".
(from the NY Times via the Chron)
President Bush has threatened to veto what he sees as a huge expansion of the children's health care program, though some Republican senators have deserted him on the issue. The House measure calls for changes the administration will probably dislike even more, including cuts in subsidies paid to private health plans serving Medicare beneficiaries.
Like the bill approved in the Senate Finance Committee, the House bill would increase tobacco taxes to help finance expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program.
The White House says the Democratic proposals would distort the original intent of the child program and adversely affect older Americans happy with the extra benefits they receive from private health plans.
By packaging Medicare with the children's health program, Democrats say, they have built a strong intergenerational coalition that could help overcome a presidential veto. The House bill seems sure to meet resistance from Republicans because it is more costly than the Senate bill and could undermine private Medicare health plans.
In case you missed it: I'm a big supporter of ensuring health care for children. ALL children. I don't think its fair to punish a child because Mom and Dad are lazy, unlucky, negligent, inattentive, undereducated, or for any reason. Children's health care should be a priority for the Country. It's one of those things that I'm OK paying taxes for. Now ADULT health care? That's a different story altogether. I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect able-bodied, able-minded people to take enough of an interest in their well-being that they procure health insurance. That being said there should also be a low-cost "safety-net" option for those who find themselves suddenly "right-sized".
Raising tobacco taxes to fund either of these programs is a monumentally BAD idea. Either way its justified, its faulty reasoning. If you want to increase the tax as a deterrent to people smoking then you are funding a long-term program with a temporary funding source. Not only is that short-sighted, its stupid. If the "purpose" of the tax is punitive in nature, then you are singling out a predominately poor segment of society, and funding the Nations health care on thier backs.
Think of that during the next election, when campaign ads tell you that "X" politician is "for the working American".
Friday, July 20, 2007
Relax MLS fans...
As much as US Soccer proponents would like to convince you that last night's 2-nil All-Star win over Celtic FC is a sign the MLS has "arrived". In reality; not so much.
(from Bernardo Fallas of the Chron)
OK - note to MLS boosters everywhere. Beating an out of shape professional team with a group of your all-stars is exactly what a minor league is SUPPOSED to do. For those of you who really think that these wins prove that the MLS is up to snuff, or is somehow gaining respect Internationally, then why not call for the League to petition for a special invite for the Dynamo into the UEFA Champions Cup?
I don't know about you, but the thought of Houston facing off vs. AC Milan, or Man U or the Gunners doesn't exactly stir up "must watch" feelings of anticipation. Yes, the Dynamo have some good players, they even have a VERY GOOD team, but if they were to butt heads with the Champions of the Major Leagues, the end result wouldn't be pretty. At least not now.
In the future I could see a scenerio play out where the MLS champion is very competative with the top teams in the World. It will involve a lot of growing the game domestically however, and yes, Beckham's success in the league will have a lot to do with that. The MLS is here to stay. By all accounts they are profitable, they have a good core group of players, and their fans seem to be content with the product on the field. They need to grow the fan base sure, and they will have to find a way to pay top stars more if they ever want to be truly competitive.
Nice headline as well:
All I'm going to say about that headline is this: Can you imagine the outrage (and immediate retraction and apology) had the team been from Mexico and the headline had read: "MLS All-stars steal machismo in 2-0 win"
Scottish culture must not be in the Chron "Stylebook"....
(from Bernardo Fallas of the Chron)
As long as big-name international soccer clubs are willing to come to the United States in their preseasons and get shoved around by makeshift teams of All-Stars with plenty to prove, you can be sure that Major League Soccer will keep inviting them.
Whatever works to earn a little more notoriety at home and abroad, right?
The MLS All-Stars stretched their winning record against some of the world's most popular teams to 4-0 with a 2-0 victory over storied Scottish club Celtic FC before a sellout crowd of 18,661 and with David Beckham in attendance Thursday at Dick's Sporting Goods Park.
OK - note to MLS boosters everywhere. Beating an out of shape professional team with a group of your all-stars is exactly what a minor league is SUPPOSED to do. For those of you who really think that these wins prove that the MLS is up to snuff, or is somehow gaining respect Internationally, then why not call for the League to petition for a special invite for the Dynamo into the UEFA Champions Cup?
I don't know about you, but the thought of Houston facing off vs. AC Milan, or Man U or the Gunners doesn't exactly stir up "must watch" feelings of anticipation. Yes, the Dynamo have some good players, they even have a VERY GOOD team, but if they were to butt heads with the Champions of the Major Leagues, the end result wouldn't be pretty. At least not now.
In the future I could see a scenerio play out where the MLS champion is very competative with the top teams in the World. It will involve a lot of growing the game domestically however, and yes, Beckham's success in the league will have a lot to do with that. The MLS is here to stay. By all accounts they are profitable, they have a good core group of players, and their fans seem to be content with the product on the field. They need to grow the fan base sure, and they will have to find a way to pay top stars more if they ever want to be truly competitive.
Nice headline as well:
De Rosario, stars steal Celtic pride in 2-0 win
All I'm going to say about that headline is this: Can you imagine the outrage (and immediate retraction and apology) had the team been from Mexico and the headline had read: "MLS All-stars steal machismo in 2-0 win"
Scottish culture must not be in the Chron "Stylebook"....
Thursday, July 19, 2007
A cold, dark day in River Oaks...
Tough day for Houston's Inner Loop Disgustingly Wealthy set....
John O'Quinn forced to pay back $37.5 Million in fees.
Step One - Go to Dave Maggard, ask for all of that money back.
Step Two - Sell cars....
Oops.
Dan Duncan caught with gun in the air...
Note to the elite: When in Russia hunting, be sure to bribe the RIGHT officials.
I'll leave it to you to decide what kind of man shoots animals from a helicopter, poses next to stuffed lions, and claims his ignorance and his guides incompetence in his defense.
John O'Quinn forced to pay back $37.5 Million in fees.
Step One - Go to Dave Maggard, ask for all of that money back.
Step Two - Sell cars....
Oops.
Dan Duncan caught with gun in the air...
Note to the elite: When in Russia hunting, be sure to bribe the RIGHT officials.
I'll leave it to you to decide what kind of man shoots animals from a helicopter, poses next to stuffed lions, and claims his ignorance and his guides incompetence in his defense.
Two things you don't want together in the same story...
'exposed' and 'social security numbers'
(from Dwight Silverman's Tech Blog via the Chron)
Bloggers are all over this story as well (including this one now it seems)
Welcome to your new position Mr. Wilson. Lesson 1 - Damage control.
I wonder who will be the first blogger or journalist to blame Wilson for this? I've got my picks written down, how about you?
FWIW: This is probably one of those instances where the "blame game" isn't going to do anyone any good. There will be blame, especially when you consider former Secretary of State Williams is heading up the GOP Texas fundraising efforts I'm sure the blame will be thrown around hot and heavy.
Before I get into that game I have a couple of questions I want answered first:
1. How long has this database been in place?
2. Who pushed for it to be implemented?
If the answers to those questions involve Williams then I think you have your man, but if the answers involve the Lege and a time pre-dating Williams SOS tenure, then I would think he gets a pass on this.
Wilson's job now is to lock down (or expunge) the sensitive information before its too late.
(from Dwight Silverman's Tech Blog via the Chron)
PC World reports that an online database operated by the Texas Secretary of State is exposing sensitive personal information -- including Social Security numbers -- in searchable documents online.
The story, which looks at the state's SOSDirect Web site, says the president of a fraud prevention company was able to obtain private information about some well-known Texans, including former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Troy Aikman.
(snip)
Peisner said he was able to access the database using a fake name and a credit card number -- each search costs $1 -- and that hackers would be able to access the numbers easily using stolen credit card numbers. He said there are "literally hundreds of thousands of documents where social security numbers [are exposed]."
Gaining access to someone's Social Security Number is a major tool for identity thieves.
There's no immediate indication on the SOSDirect site as to how you can ask to have personal information expunged. I've got a call in to the Secretary of State's office seeking more information.
Bloggers are all over this story as well (including this one now it seems)
Welcome to your new position Mr. Wilson. Lesson 1 - Damage control.
I wonder who will be the first blogger or journalist to blame Wilson for this? I've got my picks written down, how about you?
FWIW: This is probably one of those instances where the "blame game" isn't going to do anyone any good. There will be blame, especially when you consider former Secretary of State Williams is heading up the GOP Texas fundraising efforts I'm sure the blame will be thrown around hot and heavy.
Before I get into that game I have a couple of questions I want answered first:
1. How long has this database been in place?
2. Who pushed for it to be implemented?
If the answers to those questions involve Williams then I think you have your man, but if the answers involve the Lege and a time pre-dating Williams SOS tenure, then I would think he gets a pass on this.
Wilson's job now is to lock down (or expunge) the sensitive information before its too late.
Going to the Dogs
Today marks the beginning of the Reliant Park World Series of Dog Shows held this weekend at, you guessed it, Reliant Park.
The "Series" is actually the combined confirmation shows of the Houston, Galveston and Beaumont Kennel clubs, with each crowning their Grand Champion on different days. The one that you typically see televised on the Animal Planet is the Saturday, or Houston Kennel Club portion of the show.
Confirmations are neat, but if you're REALLY in the mood for something more "upbeat" then don't miss flyball. That's where I'll be for most of Saturday morning, moving over to the confirmation rings later in the day.
Another nice thing is that there will be several rescue groups there taking donations. Considering the recent media blitz of terrible dog stories, I can assure you that these organizations would welcome any donation you can spare. There are obviously a lot of dogs out there who need loving homes.
You might want to especially look at Pit Bull Rescue Groups who are fighting an uphill battle against groups and politicians who want to eliminate the breed in an attempt to rectify years of human abuse.
"They're just dogs" is what they'll say, which makes calling for their destruction all the more obscene. It's not up to man to decide when to extinct a breed, especially if the underlying reason is because we've been stupid in dealing with them.
Go out and show your support. And if you're looking to get a dog then be sure to check out the meet the breed (.pdf) seminars, or maybe multiple breed seminars if you are looking at adopting a mix.
The "Series" is actually the combined confirmation shows of the Houston, Galveston and Beaumont Kennel clubs, with each crowning their Grand Champion on different days. The one that you typically see televised on the Animal Planet is the Saturday, or Houston Kennel Club portion of the show.
Confirmations are neat, but if you're REALLY in the mood for something more "upbeat" then don't miss flyball. That's where I'll be for most of Saturday morning, moving over to the confirmation rings later in the day.
Another nice thing is that there will be several rescue groups there taking donations. Considering the recent media blitz of terrible dog stories, I can assure you that these organizations would welcome any donation you can spare. There are obviously a lot of dogs out there who need loving homes.
You might want to especially look at Pit Bull Rescue Groups who are fighting an uphill battle against groups and politicians who want to eliminate the breed in an attempt to rectify years of human abuse.
"They're just dogs" is what they'll say, which makes calling for their destruction all the more obscene. It's not up to man to decide when to extinct a breed, especially if the underlying reason is because we've been stupid in dealing with them.
Go out and show your support. And if you're looking to get a dog then be sure to check out the meet the breed (.pdf) seminars, or maybe multiple breed seminars if you are looking at adopting a mix.
You know the one about consultants?
The Texas Department of Transportation probably paid a lot of money for this report...
(From the AP via the Chron)
The sound you hear in the background is the automotive lobby gearing up the mantra that CAFE standards are just a backdoor way to increase taxes on the little guy. Anyone who didn't realize that increased MPG on cars would result in lower gas taxes doesn't have a firm grasp on mathematics, which probably goes a long way towards their employment in the public sector in the first place.
But, back to the report.
I see two things wrong with this that you might have noticed:
1. The assumptions made in the report are that Toll Roads should be revenue generators. - Previously the whole justifications for toll roads was that they were user funded infrastructure that would revert to public roads after the construction bonds were paid off. This new way of thinking is obviously a nod to the wave of toll road privitation that's currently sweeping the State. If toll roads can be proven as revenue generators, then the asking price for said assets can be inflated. IN THEORY. Why this won't work in practice is a whole blog posting in and of itself. Needless to say, the idea floated in the report of having toll roads pay for other (non-toll?) projects is disengenuous due to the fact that the 'plan' is to sell the asset before any revenues could be realized.
2. The "miles driven" tax will kill the poor and middle class. Don't believe me? Take a look at the debate over planning that's hit Houston of late. If "new urbanism" takes root in the City center (and I believe it will) then what you'll see is a relocation of the poor and middle class to the suburbs and exburbs out of necessity. 'Mixed use' is really code for "the poor and uneducated need not apply" not matter how fancy they try to gussy it up and no matter how shiny the presentation. Again, don't believe me? Do you see any room for Wal-Mart or Target in the "master plans"? Nope. What you see are so many boutique retail locations that are typically priced well out of the reach of the poor and middle class. Add to that the ever-increasing tax burden that will be realized due to rising property values, and you have the Europeanization of Houston where the well-heeled occupy the city center, and the poor and middle-class are left to fend for themselves in the suburbs and exburbs. Who's going to be piling up the miles then? Probably not the inner city elite.
There's a running joke in the business world regarding consultants. You pay them a lot of money and they either point out the obvious, or provide you with a deliverable that's so far out of whack you wonder if they did any industry analysis.
Looks like TX-DOT got the latter here.
(From the AP via the Chron)
The state's best chance for keeping up with demand for new and improved roads is to build more toll roads with higher fees, according to an external audit of the Texas Department of Transportation.
Among other recommendations, the audit by Dye Management Group and Deloitte Consulting suggests the state replace the existing gasoline tax with a fee based on miles traveled per vehicle.
The 20-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax, which has traditionally paid for roads, is no longer adequate, partly because of high construction costs and cars with better gas mileage, according to the audit.
"Right now, toll rates are set at the lowest possible level, just enough to capture the costs of the roads themselves," consultant Peter Mills said. "We believe they should be priced to reflect the value — including the time saved — they bring to the drivers who use them."
The audit, which has cost more than $3.5 million, was presented to the Texas Transportation Commission on Wednesday. It's part of the agency's sunset review — a comprehensive assessment that state agencies go through every 12 years.
The sound you hear in the background is the automotive lobby gearing up the mantra that CAFE standards are just a backdoor way to increase taxes on the little guy. Anyone who didn't realize that increased MPG on cars would result in lower gas taxes doesn't have a firm grasp on mathematics, which probably goes a long way towards their employment in the public sector in the first place.
But, back to the report.
I see two things wrong with this that you might have noticed:
1. The assumptions made in the report are that Toll Roads should be revenue generators. - Previously the whole justifications for toll roads was that they were user funded infrastructure that would revert to public roads after the construction bonds were paid off. This new way of thinking is obviously a nod to the wave of toll road privitation that's currently sweeping the State. If toll roads can be proven as revenue generators, then the asking price for said assets can be inflated. IN THEORY. Why this won't work in practice is a whole blog posting in and of itself. Needless to say, the idea floated in the report of having toll roads pay for other (non-toll?) projects is disengenuous due to the fact that the 'plan' is to sell the asset before any revenues could be realized.
2. The "miles driven" tax will kill the poor and middle class. Don't believe me? Take a look at the debate over planning that's hit Houston of late. If "new urbanism" takes root in the City center (and I believe it will) then what you'll see is a relocation of the poor and middle class to the suburbs and exburbs out of necessity. 'Mixed use' is really code for "the poor and uneducated need not apply" not matter how fancy they try to gussy it up and no matter how shiny the presentation. Again, don't believe me? Do you see any room for Wal-Mart or Target in the "master plans"? Nope. What you see are so many boutique retail locations that are typically priced well out of the reach of the poor and middle class. Add to that the ever-increasing tax burden that will be realized due to rising property values, and you have the Europeanization of Houston where the well-heeled occupy the city center, and the poor and middle-class are left to fend for themselves in the suburbs and exburbs. Who's going to be piling up the miles then? Probably not the inner city elite.
There's a running joke in the business world regarding consultants. You pay them a lot of money and they either point out the obvious, or provide you with a deliverable that's so far out of whack you wonder if they did any industry analysis.
Looks like TX-DOT got the latter here.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The Life
At first glance you may not see any link between the Michael Vick dog fighting indictment and the local dog fighting bust that took place yesterday, beyond the obvious "dog fighting" story that is.
But if you look a little closer at the details you notice that a singular trend runs through both of these stories, one that should be addressed by communities Nationwide.
I'm referring to "the Life" that elusive mix of gambling, prostitution, drinking, and bling that has caught up a large portion of our youth. And this is not just a "black" thing as some would have you believe, this is a "youth" thing in America. Kids are being raised bereft of any semblance of morality, the heroes that we are putting in front of them are "stars" like Michael Vick, Pac-Man Jones, Russell Crowe and various rappers, and then we recoil in horror when we see stories like these play out.
What type of brutality are we talking about?
(from the Chron)
I've already heard that several people are repeating Clinton Portis' mantra "It's just Dogs". Except that it's NOT just dogs. What we are seeing here is the result of years of societal mismanagement of schools, of parents shirking thier responsibilities, and of children growing up without leadership and direction.
I'm not calling for a return to the "good ol' days". I'm calling for us to move to the "good NEW days". I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. To accomplish that we have to be truthful with ourselves. As I said before, this isn't a "black/white" thing, it's not a "Democrat/Republican" thing, its not an "America/Rest of the world" thing, its a humanity thing. Maybe we've spent so much time worrying about everyone else that we've forgotten to take care of ourselves.
Should we be surprised? Today in the media you're more likely to hear a story about how a parent is "aghast" that school district X taught little Johnny or Laura that homosexuality is OK than you hear about parents sitting their child down and discussing with them thier belief systems. We've given over the development of the next generation to the machine. The same machine that mommy and daddy are too busy protesting to spend any quality time with thier children. We scream and hollar and shake our fists at the halls of Government, then at the same time we ask them to care for, and nurture our children for increasingly large portions of the day, allowing us to go find "fulfillment" in our jobs, in our protests, at baseball games, happy hours etc.
Is it any wonder that, now that we've let this problem grow, that our proposed answer is to eliminate the innocent? (in the form of breed bans) The criminals here are the men and children who TRAINED these dogs to fight, not the dogs. Yet we direct the majority of our ire at the "pit bull", refusing to take a hard look in the mirror at what we've allowed to fester, often in the back door of luxury. (The Houston dog-figthing ring was right next to Downtown).
And where is PeTA in all of this? Too busy searching for headlines at the circus while the REAL animal abuse is taking place right under thier noses every day. This fact probably goes a long way to explaining thier lack of credibility with mainstream America. If you think teaching an elephant to stand on its back legs is the moral equivilent to putting two dogs in a cage to maul each other to death then you really need to crush your tin-foil, your reception sucks.
But if you look a little closer at the details you notice that a singular trend runs through both of these stories, one that should be addressed by communities Nationwide.
I'm referring to "the Life" that elusive mix of gambling, prostitution, drinking, and bling that has caught up a large portion of our youth. And this is not just a "black" thing as some would have you believe, this is a "youth" thing in America. Kids are being raised bereft of any semblance of morality, the heroes that we are putting in front of them are "stars" like Michael Vick, Pac-Man Jones, Russell Crowe and various rappers, and then we recoil in horror when we see stories like these play out.
What type of brutality are we talking about?
(from the Chron)
"In or about April 2007," the indictment said, "Peace, Phillips and Vick executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well by various methods, including hanging, drowning, and slamming at least one dog's body to the ground."
I've already heard that several people are repeating Clinton Portis' mantra "It's just Dogs". Except that it's NOT just dogs. What we are seeing here is the result of years of societal mismanagement of schools, of parents shirking thier responsibilities, and of children growing up without leadership and direction.
I'm not calling for a return to the "good ol' days". I'm calling for us to move to the "good NEW days". I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. To accomplish that we have to be truthful with ourselves. As I said before, this isn't a "black/white" thing, it's not a "Democrat/Republican" thing, its not an "America/Rest of the world" thing, its a humanity thing. Maybe we've spent so much time worrying about everyone else that we've forgotten to take care of ourselves.
Should we be surprised? Today in the media you're more likely to hear a story about how a parent is "aghast" that school district X taught little Johnny or Laura that homosexuality is OK than you hear about parents sitting their child down and discussing with them thier belief systems. We've given over the development of the next generation to the machine. The same machine that mommy and daddy are too busy protesting to spend any quality time with thier children. We scream and hollar and shake our fists at the halls of Government, then at the same time we ask them to care for, and nurture our children for increasingly large portions of the day, allowing us to go find "fulfillment" in our jobs, in our protests, at baseball games, happy hours etc.
Is it any wonder that, now that we've let this problem grow, that our proposed answer is to eliminate the innocent? (in the form of breed bans) The criminals here are the men and children who TRAINED these dogs to fight, not the dogs. Yet we direct the majority of our ire at the "pit bull", refusing to take a hard look in the mirror at what we've allowed to fester, often in the back door of luxury. (The Houston dog-figthing ring was right next to Downtown).
And where is PeTA in all of this? Too busy searching for headlines at the circus while the REAL animal abuse is taking place right under thier noses every day. This fact probably goes a long way to explaining thier lack of credibility with mainstream America. If you think teaching an elephant to stand on its back legs is the moral equivilent to putting two dogs in a cage to maul each other to death then you really need to crush your tin-foil, your reception sucks.
Much ado about nothing.
There's nothing funnier than watching the Country's trained animal act strut around as if they are sacrificing something for the cause....
(from Anne Flaherty of the AP via the Chron)
"bleary-eyed" I love it. Reading this kind of breathless reporting you'd almost think that the Senators were having to *gasp* suffer a little. It's what they "owe" to the troops after all. Which could go a long way to explaining why Congress seems so out of touch with the average American on EVERY issue. In war soldiers often suffer from sleep deprivation, they have to sleep outside exposed to the elements, in Iraq they are facing extreme temperatures, seldom know for sure if the person approaching them is an enemy or not, and our Senate gets their warm fuzzies by setting up cots in the air conditioned comforts of the Capitol.
I'll bet you a dime to a donut hole they had breakfast catered in this morning. All at taxpayer expense of course.
Any Senator who uses this "sleep-over" as a campaign tool should be run out of office on a rail.
(from Anne Flaherty of the AP via the Chron)
Senate Democrats staged an all-night debate on the Iraq war in a dramatic attempt to wear down Republicans who refuse to vote to begin to bring troops home by fall.
Republicans responded with a yawn — agreeing to stay around as Tuesday turned to today and respond to any votes that might be scheduled even though they remained steadfast in their opposition to the Democrats' anti-war legislation.
"This is nonsense," said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.
Added Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., of his Democratic colleagues: "I bet I can stay up longer than they can."
And so he did, speaking on the floor after even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had retired a little after midnight, to a cot set up in a parlor adjacent to his office.
"bleary-eyed" I love it. Reading this kind of breathless reporting you'd almost think that the Senators were having to *gasp* suffer a little. It's what they "owe" to the troops after all. Which could go a long way to explaining why Congress seems so out of touch with the average American on EVERY issue. In war soldiers often suffer from sleep deprivation, they have to sleep outside exposed to the elements, in Iraq they are facing extreme temperatures, seldom know for sure if the person approaching them is an enemy or not, and our Senate gets their warm fuzzies by setting up cots in the air conditioned comforts of the Capitol.
I'll bet you a dime to a donut hole they had breakfast catered in this morning. All at taxpayer expense of course.
Any Senator who uses this "sleep-over" as a campaign tool should be run out of office on a rail.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Never let the facts get in the way of a good witch hunt.
Hey, it's just taxpayer money right?
(from Gary Scharrar of the Chron)
Now, I'm not sure which "experts" have told Dewhurst what he wants to hear, but there's overwhelming evidence that steroid tests don't know a supplement from a steroid.
Let's review:
1. Miguel Tejada - Remember him? Guy tested positive for Dianabol, claimed that he got it from spiked multi-vitamins.
2. Guillermo Coria - Coria is suing Universal Nutrition claiming that his postivie steroid test was caused by ingesting their multi-vitamin product.
3. Novdex XT - You may not have heard of this supplement, but its perfectly legal, over the counter, and it works. At heart its an estrogen reducer, but it also can slightly raise the serum levels of free testosterone in the bloodstream. The problem is that drug tests can't discriminate between an individual legally taking this, and an individual illegally ingesting Boldenone.
And those are just three examples off the top of my head. I'm sure with some deeper digging I could find hundreds more.
This issue is TOTALLY unrelated to the other steroid issues I have brought up in the past. In the past I've been concerned with steroid use by healthy adults (specifically males) who are making well-informed decisions. Here were talking about potentially punishing kids, and wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a program whose results might just tell us who has been ingesting multi-vitamins. Anyone who wants to beat this testing will be able to with relative ease. It's not much of a secret in the steroid community how to beat said tests. Soon it won't be a secret in High School's either. Especially if we thrust flawed testing down their throats.
Let's be clear here: I'm not arguing that Texans should blindly accept thier kids being on steroids, quite the contrary. I believe that every effort should be taken to keep kids off of drugs. What I'm against is implementing a program of dubious quality as the "be all, end all" solution to what is currently a very small problem. Even if you're just putting a band-aid on a small cancer, its still a cancer, and left untreated it will grow.
Steroid use by children is not something that any of us want to see grow any larger than it currently is because we were too lazy to implement some real testing.
Just so some politicians can beat the campaign drum in 2010.
(from Gary Scharrar of the Chron)
Gov. Rick Perry said Monday the state should not launch a new steroid testing program for high school athletes until University Interscholastic League officials are confident of its results.
But Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said he sees no reason to delay the random tests despite concerns that certain dietary supplements might trigger positive results.
"I am going to encourage the UIL to continue to go forward," Dewhurst said.
"Those who have been on supplements need to tell the coach right there and so, at least, we have a record that they've been taking a supplement," Dewhurst said.
A positive steroid test would trigger a medical review, with the student able to make a case that dietary supplements caused the positive showing, he said.
Dewhurst also said experts have told him that testing laboratories "are sophisticated enough to differentiate between illegal steroids and over-the-counter supplements."
But that's not so, said Andrea Wickerham, vice president of the country's largest drug testing company.
"When there is a positive drug test, it is positive. Can the lab discern the source of that testosterone? Can they tell by looking at it chemically whether it came from an injectable steroid or an oral steroid or a dietary supplement? The answer is 'No.' The lab can't, nor should they have to," said Wickerham, an executive for The National Center for Drug Free Sport.
Now, I'm not sure which "experts" have told Dewhurst what he wants to hear, but there's overwhelming evidence that steroid tests don't know a supplement from a steroid.
Let's review:
1. Miguel Tejada - Remember him? Guy tested positive for Dianabol, claimed that he got it from spiked multi-vitamins.
2. Guillermo Coria - Coria is suing Universal Nutrition claiming that his postivie steroid test was caused by ingesting their multi-vitamin product.
3. Novdex XT - You may not have heard of this supplement, but its perfectly legal, over the counter, and it works. At heart its an estrogen reducer, but it also can slightly raise the serum levels of free testosterone in the bloodstream. The problem is that drug tests can't discriminate between an individual legally taking this, and an individual illegally ingesting Boldenone.
And those are just three examples off the top of my head. I'm sure with some deeper digging I could find hundreds more.
This issue is TOTALLY unrelated to the other steroid issues I have brought up in the past. In the past I've been concerned with steroid use by healthy adults (specifically males) who are making well-informed decisions. Here were talking about potentially punishing kids, and wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a program whose results might just tell us who has been ingesting multi-vitamins. Anyone who wants to beat this testing will be able to with relative ease. It's not much of a secret in the steroid community how to beat said tests. Soon it won't be a secret in High School's either. Especially if we thrust flawed testing down their throats.
Let's be clear here: I'm not arguing that Texans should blindly accept thier kids being on steroids, quite the contrary. I believe that every effort should be taken to keep kids off of drugs. What I'm against is implementing a program of dubious quality as the "be all, end all" solution to what is currently a very small problem. Even if you're just putting a band-aid on a small cancer, its still a cancer, and left untreated it will grow.
Steroid use by children is not something that any of us want to see grow any larger than it currently is because we were too lazy to implement some real testing.
Just so some politicians can beat the campaign drum in 2010.
"Death Tax"
Who says that illegal immigrants aren't contributing to our economy?
(from James Pinkerton of the Chron)
Yes, yes there's the "well they shouldn't be here in the first place" argument and you're not going to get any beef from me on that front. The line regarding false Social Security cards pretty much says it all.
What this REALLY illustrates to me is that the "they just want to be Americans" line that the pro-immigration forces dust off occasionally is just so much bunk. Anyone seriously contending that those who enter America illegally are just wanting to buy into our 'more perfect union' are either: a) delusional or b) dishonest.
This story also illustrates just how futile the "pathway to citizenship" arguement is. Overwhelming numbers of illegal immigrants have little to no desire to become Americans. Do they want a job? Yes. Do they want a better quality of life? Yes. Do they care if they can vote in our elections? No. That dream is the carrot at the end of the stick for the Democrats, many of whom have Karl Rove-like dreams of a "permanent majority" stoked by an influx of voters from foreign lands who were "helped" into Americanism by angry white folks with signs. "Vive le Democrats!"
All of this mumblemuck that's coming from inside the beltway really just confuses what the immigration issue is all about. When you strip away all of the false morality, and all of the emotional clap-trap you are left with one, singular truth:
Immigration policy is an economic platform when handled correctly.
Americans tend to mess this up when they start to view it under the light of "human rights" or "xenophobia" (a current fave-rave buzzword of the InterLeft). This is when the economic necessity of immigration takes a back seat to the desires of one party to tip the electoral balance in their favor. It's when a Corporatist President with a 28% approval rating is still somehow slightly relevent in discussions, despite the fact that he's made a mess of almost every other complicated issue he's touched.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The immigration goal of America should be on feeding the workforce with guest workers. It should not be on trying to recruit a gaggle of new citizens from a pool of people who want no part of the manifest destiny. America is a big, cultural soup. We should quit trying to add ingredients that don't belong in the recipe.
However: I bet this article generates howls of rage from the Bloggers O' the Right. It's patently obvious its purpose was to do just that, and not to inform.
(from James Pinkerton of the Chron)
Mexican consular officials here estimate that 1,400 to 1,500 bodies are returned home to Mexico each year from the Houston area, and 30 percent of the families can't afford to pay. The repatriating of deceased Mexican citizens has been an emerging issue in recent years. In 2006, 6,186 Mexican citizens were returned from the U.S., a 37 percent increase from the 4,515 in 2004.
As America's Mexican immigrant population continues to surge — and age — those stats will likely increase.
At the heart of this trend is a strong tradition of national identity.
(snip)
Following traditions, however, can be expensive.
Houston funeral directors said fees to prepare a body and ship it on a commercial airline to Mexico start at $3,500, and $4,000 for shipping remains to Central America.
Gregory Compean, owner of Compean Funeral Home in south Houston, said he has shipped at least 63 bodies to Mexico this year, four to El Salvador and three to Guatemala.
Besides a lack of money, families of deceased immigrants frequently run into obstacles that can make getting their loved ones home even more lengthy and difficult.
''The problem of immigrants not being prepared, not ready, is very common," said the Rev. Miguel Solorzano, pastor of the St. Charles Borromeo Church in north Houston. ''They have not saved any money for the death of a family member."
Compean also said the use of a false Social Security card will prevent county officials from issuing a death certificate, since the application forms are compared with a database.
Yes, yes there's the "well they shouldn't be here in the first place" argument and you're not going to get any beef from me on that front. The line regarding false Social Security cards pretty much says it all.
What this REALLY illustrates to me is that the "they just want to be Americans" line that the pro-immigration forces dust off occasionally is just so much bunk. Anyone seriously contending that those who enter America illegally are just wanting to buy into our 'more perfect union' are either: a) delusional or b) dishonest.
This story also illustrates just how futile the "pathway to citizenship" arguement is. Overwhelming numbers of illegal immigrants have little to no desire to become Americans. Do they want a job? Yes. Do they want a better quality of life? Yes. Do they care if they can vote in our elections? No. That dream is the carrot at the end of the stick for the Democrats, many of whom have Karl Rove-like dreams of a "permanent majority" stoked by an influx of voters from foreign lands who were "helped" into Americanism by angry white folks with signs. "Vive le Democrats!"
All of this mumblemuck that's coming from inside the beltway really just confuses what the immigration issue is all about. When you strip away all of the false morality, and all of the emotional clap-trap you are left with one, singular truth:
Immigration policy is an economic platform when handled correctly.
Americans tend to mess this up when they start to view it under the light of "human rights" or "xenophobia" (a current fave-rave buzzword of the InterLeft). This is when the economic necessity of immigration takes a back seat to the desires of one party to tip the electoral balance in their favor. It's when a Corporatist President with a 28% approval rating is still somehow slightly relevent in discussions, despite the fact that he's made a mess of almost every other complicated issue he's touched.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The immigration goal of America should be on feeding the workforce with guest workers. It should not be on trying to recruit a gaggle of new citizens from a pool of people who want no part of the manifest destiny. America is a big, cultural soup. We should quit trying to add ingredients that don't belong in the recipe.
However: I bet this article generates howls of rage from the Bloggers O' the Right. It's patently obvious its purpose was to do just that, and not to inform.
Monday, July 16, 2007
The steroid debate.
I've had a few posts on here regarding steroids and the debate surrounding their use. Here's a fairly interesting piece by HBO regarding some of the hysteria that surrounds them:
I cannot stress the "healthy adult males" portion of this strongly enough. But, while steroids may not personally be for me, I fail to see how they can possibly be criminalized, espeicially when you take into consideration the fact that many of their dangers aren't supported by the science out there.
Just another example of the media creating reality that matches their perception of an issue.
I cannot stress the "healthy adult males" portion of this strongly enough. But, while steroids may not personally be for me, I fail to see how they can possibly be criminalized, espeicially when you take into consideration the fact that many of their dangers aren't supported by the science out there.
Just another example of the media creating reality that matches their perception of an issue.
Animal Lies
Nothing brings out the Animal activists like having the circus come to town...
Ahhhh the Circus Fun for children, wonderful memories of childhood, wellspring of a bunch of nutters running around lecturing us on the "mistreatment" of animals.*
This Wall Street Journal Op/Ed pretty much sums up the position AGAINST the animal rights nutters:
Which is why the first comment on Kristen Finan's (relatively harmless) v-log post about the Circus made me sigh.
Commenter craig is trying to frame his argument using lies and half-truths, while ignoring the reality that's inconvenient to his argument. I responded on Kristan's V-log, but just in case she doesn't want to deal with that mess I will expound further here.
I present to you the following: (which craig curiously omits from his version of the "facts")
The Ringling Center for Elephant Conservation. - A center that's doing more than just searching for headlines through frivolous lawsuits the Elephant Center is actually leading the way in terms of breeding and species preservation. There have been news reports on this, they have won numerous awards from several legitimate conservation groups, and they've just given birth to their 20th calf.
That's a far sight better than most elephant groups that are "PeTA approved".
One thing that is NOT mentioned by any of the so-called animal rights activists is the fact that what they loathe (namely: the elephants performing) is what provides the funding for such a conservation effort to exist. Ringling Brother's, Barnum & Bailey are driven to sustain the species BECAUSE they have a financial interest in them. If only the environmentalists could understand what the conservationalists have known for years.
So next time you hear someone decry the "mis-treatement of the animals" remember that its those performances that are funding one of the main cogs of the machine that is trying to save the species.
It should also be noted: There has not been one documented case of elephant abuse that has been substantiated against Ringling. ALL of the cases you see are the result of smaller shows (called "mud shows" in the circus industry) that actually DO, at times, mistreat the animals and Ringling gets blamed for it.
I have no problem with those who just don't like the animal acts. To each their own. I DO have a problem with people who lie about the facts just to forward their agenda.
*Full disclosure: The wife spent two years working for RBBB circus and travelled the country with them. She was a dancer and rode said elephants for a living. While I have severe problems with certain aspects of the RBBB business model, I've been backstage and seen the elephants, and the tigers etc. What I've seen are happy, healthy animals that get the highest quality of veternary care, often better than the humans working the show receive.
Ahhhh the Circus Fun for children, wonderful memories of childhood, wellspring of a bunch of nutters running around lecturing us on the "mistreatment" of animals.*
This Wall Street Journal Op/Ed pretty much sums up the position AGAINST the animal rights nutters:
Ladies and gentlemen, children of all ages, it would take a company in the business of juggling fire and whispering with tigers to summon the courage for such an act of derring-do as we are about to see. In ads scheduled to appear in newspapers around the country today, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus will be taking on animal-rights activists and their snarling campaign against the "Greatest Show on Earth."
Ringling Bros. is not easily provoked. For years, just about anywhere the circus went, a gaggle of activists tagged along. Their attention-getting antics were a sideshow in their own right. In Seattle last year, a woman was arrested for indecent exposure after displaying herself in a cage wearing nothing but painted-on tiger stripes.
Circus executives saw the headaches and public-relations skirmishes as just another cost of doing business in the modern world. But Ringling Bros. persisted, and, luckily, the old-style circus, even in this age of Cirque du Soleil, still draws record crowds. The "Greatest Show on Earth" has been an American institution since 1919.
But then the activists pushed too far. In a case that attracted media attention across the country, animal-rights groups filed charges in California accusing Mark Oliver Gebel, one of the circus's best known performers, of "elephant abuse."
Mr. Gebel, son of famed animal trainer Gunther Gebel-Williams, grew up in the circus and took over the family business when his father died. Citing a peculiar California law against the mistreatment of elephants, the Humane Society charged Mr. Gebel with grievously mistreating a pachyderm performer just before it entered the ring by nicking it with a hook-shaped training instrument called an ankus.
The accusation would have been funny had the stakes not been so high. An inspector for the Humane Society reported seeing a "nickel-sized bloody spot" behind the elephant's left leg, though the purported injury was not visible after the elephant had been hosed off a short time later. But never mind: The alleged "piercing of the elephant's hide" was all the animal-rights groups thought they needed. Last month a jury laughed the case out of court, acquitting Mr. Gebel after just two hours' deliberation.
Which is why the first comment on Kristen Finan's (relatively harmless) v-log post about the Circus made me sigh.
Commenter craig is trying to frame his argument using lies and half-truths, while ignoring the reality that's inconvenient to his argument. I responded on Kristan's V-log, but just in case she doesn't want to deal with that mess I will expound further here.
I present to you the following: (which craig curiously omits from his version of the "facts")
The Ringling Center for Elephant Conservation. - A center that's doing more than just searching for headlines through frivolous lawsuits the Elephant Center is actually leading the way in terms of breeding and species preservation. There have been news reports on this, they have won numerous awards from several legitimate conservation groups, and they've just given birth to their 20th calf.
That's a far sight better than most elephant groups that are "PeTA approved".
One thing that is NOT mentioned by any of the so-called animal rights activists is the fact that what they loathe (namely: the elephants performing) is what provides the funding for such a conservation effort to exist. Ringling Brother's, Barnum & Bailey are driven to sustain the species BECAUSE they have a financial interest in them. If only the environmentalists could understand what the conservationalists have known for years.
So next time you hear someone decry the "mis-treatement of the animals" remember that its those performances that are funding one of the main cogs of the machine that is trying to save the species.
It should also be noted: There has not been one documented case of elephant abuse that has been substantiated against Ringling. ALL of the cases you see are the result of smaller shows (called "mud shows" in the circus industry) that actually DO, at times, mistreat the animals and Ringling gets blamed for it.
I have no problem with those who just don't like the animal acts. To each their own. I DO have a problem with people who lie about the facts just to forward their agenda.
*Full disclosure: The wife spent two years working for RBBB circus and travelled the country with them. She was a dancer and rode said elephants for a living. While I have severe problems with certain aspects of the RBBB business model, I've been backstage and seen the elephants, and the tigers etc. What I've seen are happy, healthy animals that get the highest quality of veternary care, often better than the humans working the show receive.
Why Metro's Problems Start at the Top.
Frank Wilson's "solution" for solving Metro's "Hispanic Gap"...
(from Rad Sallee of the Chron)
In the intirim, how many qualfied applicants that weren't either Hispanic or Female were turned down just because of race?
Is it any wonder that Metro has problems defining themselves with leadership such as that?
I'm not saying that Metro shouldn't address the problem, but what that should have been limited to is evaluating the hiring process to ensure that no discrimination is present. If Hispanics don't want to work there, then they just don't want to work there. Forcing a square peg into a round hole won't help much.
Could the REAL problem be that Metro has an image problem due to their drastic cutbacks in bus service to predominently minority neighborhoods? I think so. These are the types of image problems in the community that Metro increasingly will have to deal with should they continue focusing on real estate development and not on moving people around the City.
Rhetoric aside, people are taking increasing notice that New Urbanism is really just the European model revisited and repackaged. Move the poor and minority crowd to the edges, and cater to the upscale and those with disposable income.
Sounds like Houston's "master plan" to me how about you?
Now if we could just get more of those poor saps to move the rich around we'd be all right...
(from Rad Sallee of the Chron)
Hispanics are the fastest-growing population group in Houston and the nation. But not at the Metropolitan Transit Authority.
Despite aggressive outreach programs, Metro has made glacially slow progress in hiring Hispanics.
In 2005, the most recent estimate available, Hispanics made up 30 percent of the area population, but they still are just 16 percent of Metro's work force.
(snip)
"We had 250 spots open for operators (drivers)," Wilson said. "I told HR and operations that they could not hire anybody but women and Hispanics until we righted the imbalance, or at least we had to make a good-faith effort to do so.
"We advertised in the newspaper and on the radio. We went to every job fair. We created job fairs. We went on Spanish-speaking television. Finally, they came back to me and said, 'Frank, we just can't get it done.' "
The result, Wilson said: "We hired 10 Hispanics and, I think, one woman."
In the intirim, how many qualfied applicants that weren't either Hispanic or Female were turned down just because of race?
Is it any wonder that Metro has problems defining themselves with leadership such as that?
I'm not saying that Metro shouldn't address the problem, but what that should have been limited to is evaluating the hiring process to ensure that no discrimination is present. If Hispanics don't want to work there, then they just don't want to work there. Forcing a square peg into a round hole won't help much.
Could the REAL problem be that Metro has an image problem due to their drastic cutbacks in bus service to predominently minority neighborhoods? I think so. These are the types of image problems in the community that Metro increasingly will have to deal with should they continue focusing on real estate development and not on moving people around the City.
Rhetoric aside, people are taking increasing notice that New Urbanism is really just the European model revisited and repackaged. Move the poor and minority crowd to the edges, and cater to the upscale and those with disposable income.
Sounds like Houston's "master plan" to me how about you?
Now if we could just get more of those poor saps to move the rich around we'd be all right...
UH experiencing student decline.
Drop in students "worrisome" to Board of Regents...
(from Matthew Tresaugue of the Chron)
The article goes on to provide a laundry list of excuses made by University leaders as to why attendance is down. None of which addresses the TRUE problems that UH faces today.
1. No school spirit. - I applaud the University's efforts to try and make the campus one that has a sizable live-in population. They will need to control crime, and it would help if they could expand the facilities, but the fact remains that Sam Houston State University in Huntsville has a better quality of Student Life on campus than does the U of H. Additionally, there's no sense of belonging for the "system" campuses such as Downtown, Cinco Ranch, Clear Lake and Victoria. As an alumnus of the Downtown campus I can attest to the fact that there is ZERO effort to reach out to those students and make them feel like they are part of the UH "family", even on extended terms.
Even when those students try to reach out there is a very strong element of the alumni who slap them down. I can remember being told that I was "not a true Cougar" because I chose to attend the Downtown campus (due exclusively to their better scheduling for night students) instead of quitting my job and attending UH Central. The end result of this is my ambivilance regarding UH athletics, and donating to the University. I don't wish them any ill but I won't pay to go watch their product either. I'm more interested in seeing a game at Rice Stadium, which is far superior to Robertson BTW, than I am trekking down to UH to watch them beat Unkown U in the (sub)Conference USA b-league.
2. The University has lost any sense of "value". - One of the dangers of deregulating tuition was always the inability of school administrators to understand the market value of their product. I wasn't (and still am not) a big fan of tuition de-regulation. I believe it was one of the worst policies passed by the Republican majority in Texas. At Houston you had a group of administrators that are out of touch with their target market, and who price the product too high as a result of that. UH thinks that they are in competition with aTm and UT-Austin, in reality they are competitors with UT-El Paso, aTm-Corpus Christi and other Regional Universities. They would do well to remember that and price accordingly. Of course, the State would do better to realize that Public Universities are just that, a CORE part of the State's mission. (but that's another post.)
Overall the article is a good read but, as with many articles on UH, it glosses over the core problems with the University and just focuses on toeing the line fed out by the adminstration. One thing not mentioned: The loss of Jay Gougue is going to loom very large in the future direction of UH. His loss left some very big visionary shoes to fill.
(from Matthew Tresaugue of the Chron)
The room at the University of Houston is filled with red and white balloons and smiling admissions advisers. A jumbo screen shows images of its Pulitzer Prize and Heisman Trophy winners, engaged students and fancy new laboratories.
The university, clearly, is trying to make a positive first impression, and so far, so good on a recent morning. Every seat is taken by prospective students and their parents, and they appear rapt.
But first impressions do not always last: Fewer students are attending UH than three years ago. The enrollment slump is a growing concern among campus leaders, and the numbers raise questions about the effectiveness of efforts by the aspiring research institution to recruit and retain more students.
After peaking at 35,180 students in fall 2004, the university's enrollment has slipped by 2.4 percent. The 846-student decrease contrasts with 2 percent growth in enrollment statewide over the same period.
The article goes on to provide a laundry list of excuses made by University leaders as to why attendance is down. None of which addresses the TRUE problems that UH faces today.
1. No school spirit. - I applaud the University's efforts to try and make the campus one that has a sizable live-in population. They will need to control crime, and it would help if they could expand the facilities, but the fact remains that Sam Houston State University in Huntsville has a better quality of Student Life on campus than does the U of H. Additionally, there's no sense of belonging for the "system" campuses such as Downtown, Cinco Ranch, Clear Lake and Victoria. As an alumnus of the Downtown campus I can attest to the fact that there is ZERO effort to reach out to those students and make them feel like they are part of the UH "family", even on extended terms.
Even when those students try to reach out there is a very strong element of the alumni who slap them down. I can remember being told that I was "not a true Cougar" because I chose to attend the Downtown campus (due exclusively to their better scheduling for night students) instead of quitting my job and attending UH Central. The end result of this is my ambivilance regarding UH athletics, and donating to the University. I don't wish them any ill but I won't pay to go watch their product either. I'm more interested in seeing a game at Rice Stadium, which is far superior to Robertson BTW, than I am trekking down to UH to watch them beat Unkown U in the (sub)Conference USA b-league.
2. The University has lost any sense of "value". - One of the dangers of deregulating tuition was always the inability of school administrators to understand the market value of their product. I wasn't (and still am not) a big fan of tuition de-regulation. I believe it was one of the worst policies passed by the Republican majority in Texas. At Houston you had a group of administrators that are out of touch with their target market, and who price the product too high as a result of that. UH thinks that they are in competition with aTm and UT-Austin, in reality they are competitors with UT-El Paso, aTm-Corpus Christi and other Regional Universities. They would do well to remember that and price accordingly. Of course, the State would do better to realize that Public Universities are just that, a CORE part of the State's mission. (but that's another post.)
Overall the article is a good read but, as with many articles on UH, it glosses over the core problems with the University and just focuses on toeing the line fed out by the adminstration. One thing not mentioned: The loss of Jay Gougue is going to loom very large in the future direction of UH. His loss left some very big visionary shoes to fill.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
A man's home is his Castle
At first I wasn't going to say anything in regards to the Borris Miles shoots copper thief incident, figuring that this was just another case where a good guy shoots a bad guy and that would be that.
Oh sure, I figured there would be the usual gun ownership debate and one of the Bloggers O' the Right would muster up little bit of false outrage over Miles' "Castle Doctrine" vote. I also figured that this would spark some lame attempt to explain away the no vote nothing would change and life would go on.
But now (unbelievably) there's rumblings that some of the Bloggers O' the Right are suggesting that Miles should be brought up on charges....
This, of course, has the InterLeft all frothed up in artificial outrage:
(from the comments of Off the Kuff)
Of course, were this a Republican Politician, the InterLeft would be taking double doses of Alka Seltzer to whip up enough mouth froth to express the correct amount of rage in regards to "a gun culture ran amok." Could you imagine if Dan Patrick would have pulled that trigger? They'd be trying to burn him in effigy.
Both sides can just spare me the false outrage, and the false sense of moral superiority. You show me a politician that doesn't have some level of hypocracy in his/her beliefs and I'll show you someone who's unelectable.
I'm OK with Mr. Miles. He's the type of Democrat I wish there were more of. And I'm rooting for him to beat any charge that's even rumored to come down from this. Not because I've got some partisan crush on the man, but because I believe that Americans should have the right to protect their belongings, with deadly force if need be. I also have to pay respect to this morning's post for consistencies sake where I said this:
Had this idiot not decided to take that which wasn't his, this situation would have never occured, there wouldn't be this much fake outrage, and the criminal wouldn't have been shot in the leg.
And Borris Miles wouldn't have the decision in front of him whether or not to attempt to explain his "no" vote on the Castle bill to a group of people who have already made up their minds. To date I've seen nothing from him explaining the vote, and he's starting to get pummled Nationwide for his apparent double-standard.
I, for one, would love to hear WHY he voted 'no' on the bill, or at least the public reason to replace "my party told me I'd better if I want re-election".
I suspect the latter is the REAL reason why. Re-election depends a LOT on Party support, and he lost some of that during his art episode.
Boris' apparant distrust of the commoner aside I do think that criminal charges are a bit much and certainly hope it doesn't come to that.
Oh sure, I figured there would be the usual gun ownership debate and one of the Bloggers O' the Right would muster up little bit of false outrage over Miles' "Castle Doctrine" vote. I also figured that this would spark some lame attempt to explain away the no vote nothing would change and life would go on.
But now (unbelievably) there's rumblings that some of the Bloggers O' the Right are suggesting that Miles should be brought up on charges....
This, of course, has the InterLeft all frothed up in artificial outrage:
(from the comments of Off the Kuff)
Wait... so the criticism from Rorschach is that he DIDN'T kill the guy? Every story has clearly said that Miles shot at the guy in response to having a knife thrown at him. The Texas Penal Code clearly provides the right to the use of force in order to defend one's self.
Of course, if this were a Republican politician, there would probably be a graphic on the front page of Lone Star Times with that politician's face superimposed over John Wayne's face with all of the right wing moonbats cackling over how some scumbag got what he deserved
Of course, were this a Republican Politician, the InterLeft would be taking double doses of Alka Seltzer to whip up enough mouth froth to express the correct amount of rage in regards to "a gun culture ran amok." Could you imagine if Dan Patrick would have pulled that trigger? They'd be trying to burn him in effigy.
Both sides can just spare me the false outrage, and the false sense of moral superiority. You show me a politician that doesn't have some level of hypocracy in his/her beliefs and I'll show you someone who's unelectable.
I'm OK with Mr. Miles. He's the type of Democrat I wish there were more of. And I'm rooting for him to beat any charge that's even rumored to come down from this. Not because I've got some partisan crush on the man, but because I believe that Americans should have the right to protect their belongings, with deadly force if need be. I also have to pay respect to this morning's post for consistencies sake where I said this:
While I'm sure that there are some of the anti-police persuasion out there who will make the argument that the cop is lying, what is NOT in doubt is that this entire chain of events was caused by the plaintiff in the suit deciding to steal some merchandise from the store. Had said shoplifting not occured, then there wouldn't have been the chase, there wouldn't have been the whole "car as battering ram" scene and there wouldn't have been three slugs lodged in the body of the shoplifter. So if you want to sue anyone for negligence, it should be the idiot who decided to commit the crime in the first place.
Had this idiot not decided to take that which wasn't his, this situation would have never occured, there wouldn't be this much fake outrage, and the criminal wouldn't have been shot in the leg.
And Borris Miles wouldn't have the decision in front of him whether or not to attempt to explain his "no" vote on the Castle bill to a group of people who have already made up their minds. To date I've seen nothing from him explaining the vote, and he's starting to get pummled Nationwide for his apparent double-standard.
I, for one, would love to hear WHY he voted 'no' on the bill, or at least the public reason to replace "my party told me I'd better if I want re-election".
I suspect the latter is the REAL reason why. Re-election depends a LOT on Party support, and he lost some of that during his art episode.
Boris' apparant distrust of the commoner aside I do think that criminal charges are a bit much and certainly hope it doesn't come to that.
The insanity of the legal system episode # 3492574
See if you can follow me here...
Guy shoplifts from Dillard's.
Off-duty police officer pursues perp.
Perp gets into car and tries to run over said officer.
Officer shoots perp 3 times.
Perp sues Dillard's for negligence?
(From Cindy George of the Chron)
If this was an innocent bystander that was shot and injured then I could see there being a lawsuit to try and set things right, but the Perp?
While I'm sure that there are some of the anti-police persuasion out there who will make the argument that the cop is lying, what is NOT in doubt is that this entire chain of events was caused by the plaintiff in the suit deciding to steal some merchandise from the store. Had said shoplifting not occured, then there wouldn't have been the chase, there wouldn't have been the whole "car as battering ram" scene and there wouldn't have been three slugs lodged in the body of the shoplifter. So if you want to sue anyone for negligence, it should be the idiot who decided to commit the crime in the first place.
That our legal system is even entertaining any thought otherwise proves that the wheels of justice are really in need of a tune up. Law THEORY is one thing. It's ok to debate things like this in a classroom setting, but Law PRACTICE shouldn't go anywhere near this. Granted, keeping the theorists away from the practical side of life would solve a LOT of problems in this world, but this one should be a no brainer.
At least, that's my theory. *grin*
Guy shoplifts from Dillard's.
Off-duty police officer pursues perp.
Perp gets into car and tries to run over said officer.
Officer shoots perp 3 times.
Perp sues Dillard's for negligence?
(From Cindy George of the Chron)
A legal question is emerging in the lawsuits filed on behalf of a shoplifter who was shot three times by Harris County Deputy William Wilkinson outside a Dillard's in Humble three years ago.
The legal tangle includes a federal case on appeal and a new state court lawsuit about the shooting injuries of Robert Barkley. Barkley pleaded guilty to theft; an aggravated assault charge was dismissed.
Barkley's lawyer, Randall Kallinen, believes private employers, not just police agencies, should be liable for an off-duty officer who hurts somebody when he or she springs into official action. Kallinen says that when Dillard's directed Wilkinson to pursue Barkley into the parking lot, the store overstepped by taking a government action.
When Barkley ran out of the store, Wilkinson followed. Barkley jumped into his car and tried to drive away. In Wilkinson's account of the incident, Barkley tried to ram him with the vehicle and pinned him between parked cars. The deputy opened fire.
If this was an innocent bystander that was shot and injured then I could see there being a lawsuit to try and set things right, but the Perp?
While I'm sure that there are some of the anti-police persuasion out there who will make the argument that the cop is lying, what is NOT in doubt is that this entire chain of events was caused by the plaintiff in the suit deciding to steal some merchandise from the store. Had said shoplifting not occured, then there wouldn't have been the chase, there wouldn't have been the whole "car as battering ram" scene and there wouldn't have been three slugs lodged in the body of the shoplifter. So if you want to sue anyone for negligence, it should be the idiot who decided to commit the crime in the first place.
That our legal system is even entertaining any thought otherwise proves that the wheels of justice are really in need of a tune up. Law THEORY is one thing. It's ok to debate things like this in a classroom setting, but Law PRACTICE shouldn't go anywhere near this. Granted, keeping the theorists away from the practical side of life would solve a LOT of problems in this world, but this one should be a no brainer.
At least, that's my theory. *grin*
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
New York Times weighs in on Texas Wines.
Brought to my eye by Kevin Whited:
The Frugal Traveller in Fredericksburg...
(Matt Gross of the NY Times)
All in all that's a very fair assessment of the Texas wine industry. Yes, there are challenges presented by the Texas climate which makes wine tasting an adventure at times, but there are also jewels hidden within each winery that makes it all worthwhile. I've blogged before about Henri, the Frenchman from Becker Vinyards. I've also talked about the wines mentioned in this story, so none of this was new to me. It was also a far sight from the ignorant snark that I found on Kristen2go:
(from a commenter using a fake name obviously)
As you can see, maybe the worst sources of information regarding Texas Wines are Texans.
The fact is the Texas wine industry will never compare to that of California and France, but that doesn't mean that you won't find some drinkable, or even excellent wines scattered about the State. You just have to be willing to look, and to be brave when tasting.
And get rid of the notion that sweet=bad. That's not always the case.
Salud!
The Frugal Traveller in Fredericksburg...
(Matt Gross of the NY Times)
And in Fredericksburg, that path leads not only to old German buildings but to something I’m a little more into — wine. Folks outside Texas may not know it, but the state is the country’s fifth largest wine producer, and the Hill Country is the epicenter of viticulture, with about two dozen vineyards and wineries, more than a third of them surrounding Fredericksburg itself.
It’s easy to scoff, of course — I mean, come on, Texas wine? — but that doesn’t mean Texans aren’t doing their darnedest to make a decent bottle. Perhaps the most successful is Becker (464 Becker Farms Road, 830-644-2681, www.beckervineyards.com), located, like every vineyard I visited, way down a country lane. The place is no secret. When I arrived, the tasting room, a sunny space with white-stone walls and spindly cast-iron chandeliers, was full of tourists mispronouncing “claret” and puzzling over even stranger terms like gewürtztraminer and viognier.
The viognier’s inaugural vintage had been highly praised by a celebrity sommelier, Andrea Immer, while the gewürztraminer had a dry, melony quality that reminded me of something I once quaffed in Malaysia. (You can taste six wines free; after that, they’re a dollar each.) Becker’s reds, too, showed some spark, especially a bold cabernet-syrah and the easy-drinking Iconoclast cabernet sauvignon ($10.95). Neither was overly fruity.
Outside on the veranda, a wine waiter, Henri de Lobbe, a bald Frenchman with a thick mustache, was pouring more samples for tourists, and I asked him what Texas vineyards were like when he moved here in 1975.
“Very few,” he said, “and very bad.” Now, he added, things were much better — that cabernet-syrah, for example, was the “grandpappy, the big dog” of Becker’s offerings. Better yet, it was on sale — $18.95, $6 less than usual. I took advantage of this bargain, and also threw in a bottle of the Iconoclast.
(snip)
Todd Smajstrla, talked about the problems facing the state’s wine makers and drinkers. For one, he said, the state is too hot — those warm days may build sugars in the grapes, but cool nights are needed to create acidity for balance.
And while Texans — who consume virtually all the state’s wine— tend to like sweeter drinks, he said the winemakers’ tastes aren’t necessarily more sophisticated. Their mentality, he said, was often “I’ve got money, I like Silver Oak — I’m going to make some Silver Oak!”
All in all that's a very fair assessment of the Texas wine industry. Yes, there are challenges presented by the Texas climate which makes wine tasting an adventure at times, but there are also jewels hidden within each winery that makes it all worthwhile. I've blogged before about Henri, the Frenchman from Becker Vinyards. I've also talked about the wines mentioned in this story, so none of this was new to me. It was also a far sight from the ignorant snark that I found on Kristen2go:
(from a commenter using a fake name obviously)
Asking what your favorite Texas winery is, is kind of like asking what your favorite infectious disease is. Blecch!
As you can see, maybe the worst sources of information regarding Texas Wines are Texans.
The fact is the Texas wine industry will never compare to that of California and France, but that doesn't mean that you won't find some drinkable, or even excellent wines scattered about the State. You just have to be willing to look, and to be brave when tasting.
And get rid of the notion that sweet=bad. That's not always the case.
Salud!
New Anti-Terror Plan: Read the Tea Leaves.
Or maybe Tarot cards...
(From E.A. Torriero of the McClatchy-Tribune via the Chron)
Translation: Budget talks are coming up for 2008 and I want my piece of the pie dangit!!!
Not that I don't think there could be an attack. OF COURSE their could be. Anyone who thinks that al-Quaida isn't sitting around just dreaming up stuff to do hasn't been paying attention to the news lately.
But you've got to come to the table with something stronger than "Father's Intuition" which is how this reads.
One of the positives that I take from the impending end of the Bush Presidency (besides the obvious) is that Chertoff will no longer be the head of the Department of Homeland Security.
That alone should be good for lowering the terror level a muppet or two.
(From E.A. Torriero of the McClatchy-Tribune via the Chron)
Fearing complacency among the American people over possible terror threats, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in Chicago on Tuesday that the nation faces a heightened chance of an attack this summer.
"I believe we are entering a period this summer of increased risk," Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board in an unusually blunt and frank assessment of America's terror threat level.
"Summertime seems to be appealing to them," he said of al-Qaida. "We do worry that they are rebuilding their activities."
Still, Chertoff said there are not enough indications of an imminent plot to raise the current threat levels nationwide. And he indicated his remarks were based on "a gut feeling" formed by past seasonal patterns of terrorist attacks, recent al-Qaida statements, and intelligence he did not disclose.
Translation: Budget talks are coming up for 2008 and I want my piece of the pie dangit!!!
Not that I don't think there could be an attack. OF COURSE their could be. Anyone who thinks that al-Quaida isn't sitting around just dreaming up stuff to do hasn't been paying attention to the news lately.
But you've got to come to the table with something stronger than "Father's Intuition" which is how this reads.
One of the positives that I take from the impending end of the Bush Presidency (besides the obvious) is that Chertoff will no longer be the head of the Department of Homeland Security.
That alone should be good for lowering the terror level a muppet or two.
Meet Ratatouille
Here's stray dog #2 that's currently taking up temporary residence on the compound. Ratatouille tagged along after Rocky, and I'm starting to think they had this thing all worked out:
Rats: OK, Rocky, here's the deal. You play the friendly loner who just needs some love, go up to the house over there, look cute for the lady and bang! We're both in.
Rocky: Okay Rats. I'm on it
Rats is some kind of terrier mix, although I'm not sure what exactly. his hair COULD be white with tan ears under all of that dirt. We're going to give him a good washing tonight and try to place him with a shelter.
The problem that's present with Rats is that he hasn't been neutered, so he's about to get his little terrier teeth knocked out by my Rhodesian. She's been pretty accepting of Rocky, and Jones (my Rottweiler mix) has actually been VERY good with both of them, which was very suprising.
We tried to place Rats with a Terrier rescue group but they really only deal in purebreads. The lady was very nice (she's a vet) and helped us out with some flea medicine, a de-wormer and other stuff so that we didn't have to float that cost on our own.
So for the next few days our home has transformed into the "Club Med" for local dogs. I'm off work Friday, when we take both dogs to our vet to scan them for microchips. We're kind of busy, and very tired, but overall its been worth it. If nothing else than for the unscripted comedy that we've witnessed over the past couple of days as the dogs learn to interact with one another.
Still, for the sanity of my Rhodesian (and his well-being) Ratatouille has got to go soon.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Why I'm not buying an iPhone.
Dwight of the Chron has been busy following the ferver surrounding the release of the iPhone so I won't go into all of the hype and hullaballoo surrounding the gadget except to point out the obvious:
1. It's Apple - which automatically means that the geek segment of society puts too much value on it and its potential impact - hint, its still a PHONE you're talking on. It won't cure cancer.
2. It's expensive - As are all Apple products really. And while they're GOOD products on a whole, they're typically not worth the extra money you pay for the logo. Never mind that MOST (not all, settle down Dwight) Apple proponents are the same people who are bitching at big oil for "excessive profits".
Hmmm...
The "cheapest" model is $500. For $300 less you can get a phone that offers more features. It just doesn't have the "status meters" of an iPhone. (which opens up the whole "need your phone to get dates" can of worms. - you know who you are Mr. Downtown techno-businessman)
3. My Samsung BlackJack does more for less. - As mentioned, about $300 less. - And yes, I have it through AT&T, which is the SAME network you iPhone devotees are signing up to. Plus I have true bluetooth, SMS/MMS messaging, and I don't have to deal with Apple Safari.
Not that I have anything against those of you who are shelling out your cash to get the latest new thing in the tech world. As I said, Apple is a good company that makes good technical products which also happen to possess a certain flair of design. If you are willing to pay the premium for that, and the status bump that goes along with it, then I think that's grand.
Me and my (now hopelessly out of style) BlackJack will be fine over here in the tech slow lane.
1. It's Apple - which automatically means that the geek segment of society puts too much value on it and its potential impact - hint, its still a PHONE you're talking on. It won't cure cancer.
2. It's expensive - As are all Apple products really. And while they're GOOD products on a whole, they're typically not worth the extra money you pay for the logo. Never mind that MOST (not all, settle down Dwight) Apple proponents are the same people who are bitching at big oil for "excessive profits".
Hmmm...
The most expensive iPhone model could deliver profit margins of more than 55 percent for Apple Inc
The "cheapest" model is $500. For $300 less you can get a phone that offers more features. It just doesn't have the "status meters" of an iPhone. (which opens up the whole "need your phone to get dates" can of worms. - you know who you are Mr. Downtown techno-businessman)
3. My Samsung BlackJack does more for less. - As mentioned, about $300 less. - And yes, I have it through AT&T, which is the SAME network you iPhone devotees are signing up to. Plus I have true bluetooth, SMS/MMS messaging, and I don't have to deal with Apple Safari.
Not that I have anything against those of you who are shelling out your cash to get the latest new thing in the tech world. As I said, Apple is a good company that makes good technical products which also happen to possess a certain flair of design. If you are willing to pay the premium for that, and the status bump that goes along with it, then I think that's grand.
Me and my (now hopelessly out of style) BlackJack will be fine over here in the tech slow lane.
What's in a name.
I'm guessing some lawyer thinks Millions of dollars provided that name is Syvette Wimberly.
(from Mike Tolson of the Chron)
A quick Googling of my name reveals that I share monikers with Pipi Longstockings.
Knowing that I possess the same given name as a young tart with annoying red pigtails is certainly sucking the joy out of my life. It's causing ruinious injury to my psyche, and I think this definatly qualifies as humiliating and embarrassing.
Until I stop laughing. Then we can all realize that if you mistake me (an overweight 34 year old guy) for the actress that portrayed Pipi Longstockings, then that says more about you than it does me.
On another note: I wonder how Ms. Wimberly would feel if people said "I just KNEW that couldn't be you." I think that would be more grounds for a "mental anguish suit than the other.
Or maybe that's what's been happening?
(from Mike Tolson of the Chron)
She may not be a star, but Laura Madden has made a name for herself in pornographic movies. The problem is it's not her own.
When she embarked on her career in 2004, Madden, 25, selected the stage name Syvette Wimberly. She has appeared in a dozen or so hard-core videos under that name, including Irresistibly Delicious, Innocence and Dominance and others inappropriate for mention in a family newspaper.
But Madden's nom-de-sex did not spring from her imagination. It belongs to an old classmate at Kingwood High School, and the real Syvette Wimberly is none too happy about the attention that has come her way from people wondering why she was appearing in 18 and Hitchhiking.
So unhappy, in fact, that she recently filed suit against Madden and Vivid Entertainment Group, a major producer of adult films, asking that they no longer use or publicize the name and demanding damages for inflicting "humiliation, embarrassment, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, mental anguish and anxiety."
"The purpose of the lawsuit is to get her to stop using this name," said Wimberly's attorney, Caj Boatright. "We're not out looking for millions of dollars."
A quick Googling of my name reveals that I share monikers with Pipi Longstockings.
Knowing that I possess the same given name as a young tart with annoying red pigtails is certainly sucking the joy out of my life. It's causing ruinious injury to my psyche, and I think this definatly qualifies as humiliating and embarrassing.
Until I stop laughing. Then we can all realize that if you mistake me (an overweight 34 year old guy) for the actress that portrayed Pipi Longstockings, then that says more about you than it does me.
On another note: I wonder how Ms. Wimberly would feel if people said "I just KNEW that couldn't be you." I think that would be more grounds for a "mental anguish suit than the other.
Or maybe that's what's been happening?
Meet Rocky
Rocky joined the clan last night, although I'm not quite sure at this point its official. He's been running stray up and down our block for about the last week. Yesterday the Wife took notice of him and brought him out a bowl of water to drink because it was hot.
When I finally walked outside from talking on the phone you can see what sight I was greeted with. That's my wife's lap, that's Rocky. Hail and welcome to the family.
Nearest I can tell Rocky is part Chow Chow (note the splotches on his toungue) part Whippet or Greyhound I'm not sure which. He has been neutered which tells me that he was someones pet, and he's actually pretty good on a lead. Very nice dog, albeit, VERY scared. Has instantly bonded with the Wife which means that if anyone tried to approach, they got growled at. Eventually I was allowed into this inner circle, probably because Rocky had figured out I was holding the treats.
So we finally were able to take a brush to the dog and get it to where fur stopped falling out whenever we pet the dog, and he actually looked a LOT better after minimal grooming.
The good news is that he got along with my dogs from the get go, so now there are three in the backyard all sniffing each others butts and generally deciding what the pecking order should be.
I placed a call out to Harris County Animal Control, but since Rocky's not a vicious dog a deputy told me to not hold my breath. I'm not sure yet if we're going to try and find a shelter, try and find the owner, or just keep the dog. The Wife is making hints that the latter option could be preferred.
Why do I have a feeling I'm going to lose this battle?
Monday, July 9, 2007
Darn the bad (Oliver) Luck!!
Oliver's got his knickers in a knot over Jerome Soloman's piece regarding The Big Three and which one has the "best" General Manager.
You see, besides being an also-ran former Houston Oiler who most (though not all) fans don't remember, Luck is also the General Manager of the Houston1836 Dynamo Soccer Franchise.*
There were two complaints. One from a reader:
And the complaint from Luck himself: (very non-confrontational in the wording btw.)
And so the question is asked: ARE the Dynamo a Major-League sports franchise?
The answer? A resounding 'NO'.
Not that they aren't champions, not that they don't try hard, put players on the National Team etc. The reason MLS stands for "Minor League Soccer" is their relation to the rest of the sport as its played Worldwide. There is no question that the NFL is the highest caliber of American football played anywhere, the NBA is the best professional basketball league, and Major League Baseball is the best of its type Worldwide. MLS is an inferior product to almost any other Nation's professional soccer league. England, Italy, Argentina, Mexico, Germany, Spain, Russia, Holland and numerous other Countries have better quality leagues than does the MLS. The MLS is where developing players (Thiago), past their prime stars (Beckham) and American Nationals unwilling to play overseas (Donovan, Ching et al) get their reps in for league play. Throw in a mix of some minor Soccer Countries (hello Canada) and you have the makings of a Minor League Soccer Federation right here in the good ol' US of A.
News flash to MLS fans: You're product is inferior to the rest of the world. That doesn't mean that its not fun, or that its not REAL soccer (it is) but its certainly not Major League.
Other Cities seem to have come to terms with this and are able to appreciate their teams for what they are. When a player gets good and "graduates" to the European leagues, they understand that them's the breaks when you root for a Minor League team. Only in Houston, where our inferiority complex leads us to poor decision making (see MetroRail) is there any serious discussion as to whether the "M" in MLS is Major or Minor.
Either way its professional football, played at the highest level available in the USA. That the USA only rates a Minor League says more about our indifference to the beautiful game than it speaks to the lack of quality in the league.
But no, there's NO WAY that Luck belongs in the same conversational strata occupied by Morey, Pupura and Smith. (Ok, I'll hear arguments regarding his equivilency to Pupura)
*Also known as the Houston Dynamo Football Club for those readers across the pond.
You see, besides being an also-ran former Houston Oiler who most (though not all) fans don't remember, Luck is also the General Manager of the Houston
There were two complaints. One from a reader:
While I applaud the Chronicle for increasing your coverage of soccer in recent months, I was disappointed to see that your lead story (and accompanying articles) this morning about the `Power Trio' of general managers failed to include any mention of the Houston Dynamo. While I recognize that soccer is still fighting to gain recognition as a major sport in the United States, we, in Houston, are much further along than the rest of the country.
And the complaint from Luck himself: (very non-confrontational in the wording btw.)
Re: your `report card' for the city's three major sports team that will run in Sunday's Chronicle: What will it take for our local soccer franchise to be considered on par with the Astros, Rockets and Texans?
And so the question is asked: ARE the Dynamo a Major-League sports franchise?
The answer? A resounding 'NO'.
Not that they aren't champions, not that they don't try hard, put players on the National Team etc. The reason MLS stands for "Minor League Soccer" is their relation to the rest of the sport as its played Worldwide. There is no question that the NFL is the highest caliber of American football played anywhere, the NBA is the best professional basketball league, and Major League Baseball is the best of its type Worldwide. MLS is an inferior product to almost any other Nation's professional soccer league. England, Italy, Argentina, Mexico, Germany, Spain, Russia, Holland and numerous other Countries have better quality leagues than does the MLS. The MLS is where developing players (Thiago), past their prime stars (Beckham) and American Nationals unwilling to play overseas (Donovan, Ching et al) get their reps in for league play. Throw in a mix of some minor Soccer Countries (hello Canada) and you have the makings of a Minor League Soccer Federation right here in the good ol' US of A.
News flash to MLS fans: You're product is inferior to the rest of the world. That doesn't mean that its not fun, or that its not REAL soccer (it is) but its certainly not Major League.
Other Cities seem to have come to terms with this and are able to appreciate their teams for what they are. When a player gets good and "graduates" to the European leagues, they understand that them's the breaks when you root for a Minor League team. Only in Houston, where our inferiority complex leads us to poor decision making (see MetroRail) is there any serious discussion as to whether the "M" in MLS is Major or Minor.
Either way its professional football, played at the highest level available in the USA. That the USA only rates a Minor League says more about our indifference to the beautiful game than it speaks to the lack of quality in the league.
But no, there's NO WAY that Luck belongs in the same conversational strata occupied by Morey, Pupura and Smith. (Ok, I'll hear arguments regarding his equivilency to Pupura)
*Also known as the Houston Dynamo Football Club for those readers across the pond.
Olive Oil and the Lone Star State.
Interesting piece today in the Chronicle regarding Spanish company Groupo Sos' plans to harvest olive oil from Texas trees.
(from Jenalia Moreno of the Chron)
The "small olive oil industry" has been the subject of a post here and Groupo Sos would be well served to speak to the proprietor of the orchard there to learn a little bit about the difficulties that surround Olive tree farming in Texas' weather patterns.
Hopefully this will inspire you tro try out some of the local stuff before buying a conglomerates product. It will probably taste better, be healthier for you, and you could learn a lesson from the tour.
(from Jenalia Moreno of the Chron)
Texas is the new frontier for olive oil, the world's "green gold."
The state already has a small olive oil industry, but now that Spanish food giant Grupo Sos plans to plant olive trees in Texas, it could take off.
"We could have Texas olive oil in a few years," said Jesús Salazar, president of Grupo Sos, which bought Houston's American Rice and its Freeport plant in 2004 for $41 million.
Grupo Sos pumps out 15 percent of the world's olive oil a year, making it a leader in the global industry, Salazar said. It operates out of Spain, the world's top olive oil producer.
The "small olive oil industry" has been the subject of a post here and Groupo Sos would be well served to speak to the proprietor of the orchard there to learn a little bit about the difficulties that surround Olive tree farming in Texas' weather patterns.
Hopefully this will inspire you tro try out some of the local stuff before buying a conglomerates product. It will probably taste better, be healthier for you, and you could learn a lesson from the tour.
The continuing debate over the soul of Houston.
Mike Snyder of the Chron pens a fluff piece about Andres Duany, Mrs. White's fave rave urban planner of the moment...
Duany is a "New Urbanist" which substitutes for "visionary" in the official Chron stylebook one can surmise from this story, and from Mrs. White's fawning gibberish on Sunday:
In the days since Tory Gattis and Joel Kotkin released their version of Houston future, the Chron has busily been releasing a constant stream of editorials and columns and outside opinions telling readers why "Opportunity Urbanism" is a bad thing and "New Urbanism" is the wave of the future.
Kevin and Anne over at BlogHouston point out some of the more obvious flaws in the New Urbanists argument
The issue that I take with the New Urbanists is that their ultimate goals are actually indicative of very poor planning and short-sightedness that's typically reserved for people who don't have a good understanding of complexity.
Before we go any further, let's establish a couple of things between us:
1. Parks and greenspace are GOOD things. - What I'm not going to debate here are the merits of parks and nature. I support on-going efforts by conservation groups to beautify Houston, and yes, I believe that there should be checks on out of control development in the suburbs.
2.There are good ideas in BOTH future models, ideas that should be cultivated, but not to the exclusion of everything else.
Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue in Houston should the approximately 2.5 Million people who reside in the suburbs make the choice to move inside the loop? You can build as many "walkable communities" as you want to and the logistics just aren't there. The idea that suburb living is a BAD thing is ridiculous. Yes, the suburbs don't line the pockets of Urban architects such as Duany and Peter Brown, but that doesn't mean that they aren't important signs of a city's vitality.
Now add to this 2.5 million people the new construction that would be required to house them all. Where, are you going to build the structures to accomodate them? If a developer so much as sniffles these days there's a "historic society" ready to jump in line and protest any futher development.
90% of all new condominium development in Houston is being built to house the upper 30% of income earners. The middle 30% and the remaining poor don't factor into the plans of Duany and Brown, they have no place in the "livable city" that is held up as the future model for Houston. What's happening now is that an upwardly mobile working class is finding homeownership affordable in the suburbs. What they are lacking is a viable mass transportation plan to ease automobile and transit costs.
Why is this? Because Metro doesn't exist to move people from place to place, they exist to spur development. It's why a light rail train was constructed Downtown and its why bus service has not been increased 50% as promised in Metro Solutions 2003. Because Metro is failing in its mission, the opponents of any and all mass transit are given a bigger soapbox than they deserve.
One thing is for certain: The future of Houston shouldn't be decided by a small group of psuedo-intellectuals whose livelihoods are directly tied to the development of the Urban core. Houston deserves to have a REAL debate on the issues, not just the Chron sending out their attack dogs to over-promote the option that they feel is just. Houston already made that mistake on light rail. We know now that the debate was was rigged from the start.
Based on the flurry of columns, news stories and opinion pieces are we now looking at a case where history is repeating itself?
You tell me:
(from blogHouston citing the original leaked Chron memo)
Just substitute "rail referendum" with "new urbanism" and you get the idea.
Andres Duany bends over a table in a makeshift studio in Houston, sketching rapidly with a black marker on tissue-thin sheets of white paper. Colleagues from his planning team lean in to hear as he pours out ideas.
His subject is alleys.
"This is an alley I've wanted to do all my life," Duany says, tossing one crumpled sheet after another to the floor as his vision takes shape in his head and on the page.
Expressing so much passion about a space where people stash their garbage might seem a bit obsessive. But in the New Urbanist design model that Duany is bringing to Houston, every inch of space in a development — the street grid, the sharpness of curves at intersections, the width of sidewalks, the placement of trees and parking — is meticulously planned.
Duany is a "New Urbanist" which substitutes for "visionary" in the official Chron stylebook one can surmise from this story, and from Mrs. White's fawning gibberish on Sunday:
To Kotkin's and other views of Houston's needs and qualities, another voice, that of architect and city planner Andres Duany, deserves to be heard.
Rather than praising Houston's model, Duany is more likely to criticize some of its results. For Duany, in Houston to coordinate the planning and design of three residential and mixed use projects, diversity is the highest value: diverse designs and land uses combined in a walkable, urban village.
In the days since Tory Gattis and Joel Kotkin released their version of Houston future, the Chron has busily been releasing a constant stream of editorials and columns and outside opinions telling readers why "Opportunity Urbanism" is a bad thing and "New Urbanism" is the wave of the future.
Kevin and Anne over at BlogHouston point out some of the more obvious flaws in the New Urbanists argument
How is something diverse if it's an either/or proposition? The correct headline would replace "or" with "and." Not everyone fits into the cookie-cutter mold of wanting to live in a highly urbanized area, and that's what makes Houston so vibrant and energetic. There is growth in the Greater Houston area precisely because we have so many choices.
(snip)
All that Duany promotes is anti-diversity. Duany, Councilmember Peter Brown, and the Chron's editorial board want to take away diversity by taking away living choices. Right now the market -- not the government -- is responding to the many different wants of consumers: suburban housing, townhomes, city lofts, inside the Loop, outside the Loop, etc. That's diversity.
And Duany seems to blame suburbanists for the plight of the urban poor. Nice try, but don't blame folks who moved away to find a better living environment. Dig a little deeper to figure out why people moved to the suburbs, and go from there.
The issue that I take with the New Urbanists is that their ultimate goals are actually indicative of very poor planning and short-sightedness that's typically reserved for people who don't have a good understanding of complexity.
Before we go any further, let's establish a couple of things between us:
1. Parks and greenspace are GOOD things. - What I'm not going to debate here are the merits of parks and nature. I support on-going efforts by conservation groups to beautify Houston, and yes, I believe that there should be checks on out of control development in the suburbs.
2.There are good ideas in BOTH future models, ideas that should be cultivated, but not to the exclusion of everything else.
Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue in Houston should the approximately 2.5 Million people who reside in the suburbs make the choice to move inside the loop? You can build as many "walkable communities" as you want to and the logistics just aren't there. The idea that suburb living is a BAD thing is ridiculous. Yes, the suburbs don't line the pockets of Urban architects such as Duany and Peter Brown, but that doesn't mean that they aren't important signs of a city's vitality.
Now add to this 2.5 million people the new construction that would be required to house them all. Where, are you going to build the structures to accomodate them? If a developer so much as sniffles these days there's a "historic society" ready to jump in line and protest any futher development.
90% of all new condominium development in Houston is being built to house the upper 30% of income earners. The middle 30% and the remaining poor don't factor into the plans of Duany and Brown, they have no place in the "livable city" that is held up as the future model for Houston. What's happening now is that an upwardly mobile working class is finding homeownership affordable in the suburbs. What they are lacking is a viable mass transportation plan to ease automobile and transit costs.
Why is this? Because Metro doesn't exist to move people from place to place, they exist to spur development. It's why a light rail train was constructed Downtown and its why bus service has not been increased 50% as promised in Metro Solutions 2003. Because Metro is failing in its mission, the opponents of any and all mass transit are given a bigger soapbox than they deserve.
One thing is for certain: The future of Houston shouldn't be decided by a small group of psuedo-intellectuals whose livelihoods are directly tied to the development of the Urban core. Houston deserves to have a REAL debate on the issues, not just the Chron sending out their attack dogs to over-promote the option that they feel is just. Houston already made that mistake on light rail. We know now that the debate was was rigged from the start.
Based on the flurry of columns, news stories and opinion pieces are we now looking at a case where history is repeating itself?
You tell me:
(from blogHouston citing the original leaked Chron memo)
I propose a series of editorials, editorial cartoons and Sounding Board columns leading up to the rail referendum, with this specific objective: Continuing our long standing efforts to make rail a permanent part of the transit mix here.
Just substitute "rail referendum" with "new urbanism" and you get the idea.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Bad soccer coverage leads to bad fan commentary
The Chron's soccer coverage has been rocky of late.
Of course, to be fair, coverage of the beautiful game in the American press is decidedly less than beautiful.
Stories like this:
(from Bernardo Fallas of the Chron)
which omits the fact that Brazil did the exact same thing the Americans chose to do, brings out incorrect fan reaction such as this:
(from serial American Soccer basher Eguzki)
The fact is a LOT of the American soccer media wanted the US Soccer Federation to commit resources to Copa America because its in their Hemisphere. The REAL challenge for the USA will be in the Conferations Cup in 2009, a World wide tournament that they qualified for by winning the Gold Cup (over Mexico) this year.
Did the US Men's Soccer team get swept out of Copa America? You bet. They were disorganized in the attack and had severe defensive lapses against teams that were much better than they in both talent and experience. They also had several players on the pitch who were earning their first caps, or whose cap count was in the single digit range. All in all it wasn't a bad place to break in some new talent. In a tournament with no pressure, and no benefit save that which was already attained in the Gold Cup (the 2009 Conferations Cup berth). Sure, it would have made the media happy to see America lose to Argentina with their "A" team. (and that would have happened, Argentina is playing the best football in the world right now.) Here's the rub though, even if Donovan, Ching et al. had been there, the tone of the articles, espeically from the Chron, STILL would have been overwhelmingly negative.
What the US team has done since the last World Cup is take away the American media's ability to crap on them repeatedly.
Looking at it that way the tournament was a success.
Still, 0-3 result or no, America still has this to gloat about:
(from Chron commenter Jose Carlos)
You stay classy Mexico.
Of course, to be fair, coverage of the beautiful game in the American press is decidedly less than beautiful.
Stories like this:
(from Bernardo Fallas of the Chron)
I have a big problem with the United States winning the CONCACAF Gold Cup only to turn around and take a Team USA Lite to Copa America, behind the European Championship the most prestigious international soccer tournament out there.
Let's be blunt. It's a wasted chance at earning some respect and testing your team against the Argentinas and Brazils, something the Gold Cup doesn't offer.
In taking a B team, the Americans risk their chances at putting together a good tournament and, just as important, continue to build credibility and respect around the world.
which omits the fact that Brazil did the exact same thing the Americans chose to do, brings out incorrect fan reaction such as this:
(from serial American Soccer basher Eguzki)
Learning experience is the favorite excuse of all the losers in the world, loosing 4-1 is no learning experience, unless your goal is failure of course.
A learning experience is using your Gold Cup team as a foundation, add a few young hungry players and a couple of not so young but good players with little international experience go against Argentina and tie the game or lose the game with a score of 1-0, 2-1, 3-2, but almost creating a new team from scratch and loosing 4-1 is no learning experience, it is call failure.
The fact is a LOT of the American soccer media wanted the US Soccer Federation to commit resources to Copa America because its in their Hemisphere. The REAL challenge for the USA will be in the Conferations Cup in 2009, a World wide tournament that they qualified for by winning the Gold Cup (over Mexico) this year.
Did the US Men's Soccer team get swept out of Copa America? You bet. They were disorganized in the attack and had severe defensive lapses against teams that were much better than they in both talent and experience. They also had several players on the pitch who were earning their first caps, or whose cap count was in the single digit range. All in all it wasn't a bad place to break in some new talent. In a tournament with no pressure, and no benefit save that which was already attained in the Gold Cup (the 2009 Conferations Cup berth). Sure, it would have made the media happy to see America lose to Argentina with their "A" team. (and that would have happened, Argentina is playing the best football in the world right now.) Here's the rub though, even if Donovan, Ching et al. had been there, the tone of the articles, espeically from the Chron, STILL would have been overwhelmingly negative.
What the US team has done since the last World Cup is take away the American media's ability to crap on them repeatedly.
Looking at it that way the tournament was a success.
Still, 0-3 result or no, America still has this to gloat about:
(from Chron commenter Jose Carlos)
For THE LAST TIME FIRST PENALTY GOAL THAT U.S.A MADE WAS NO FOUL THE TRUST ME AND ASK A REAL PROFFESIONAL AND HE WILL TELL YOU. SECOND GOAL WAS A REAL GOAL SO FOR ME WAS MEXICO 1-1 U.S.A GOING TO OVER TIME.BUT NOPE IT DIDNT HAPPEN THAT STUPID REFERY PROBABLY SAID "GOSH I SHOULD LET U.S.A WIN SO THEY CAN GIVE ME A GREEN CARD' SO HE LET U.S.A WIN.DEAMB! WHAT A GIFT, BUT TRUST ME U.S.A IS NOT BETTER THAN MEXICO AND TRUST ME DOES TWO MEXICANS DIDNT WISH THEY WERE AMERICANS.MEXICO HAS ALREADY WON 4 GOLD CUPS SO U.S.A TEAM FANS YOU CAN TALK ALL THAT MESS THAT U.S.A IS BETTER THAN MEXICO BUT ALL IM SAYING IS KEEP TALKIN KEEP WISHIN BUT MEXICO IS THE BEST, AND HOPE TO BECOME FIFA 2010 WORLD CHAMPIONS
AND BELIEVE ME U.S.A SHOULD STAY AT BASKETBALL,BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL IF THEY WHANT TO LEARN SOCCER PLEASE GO TO EUROPE AND LEARN THATS THE REAL DEAL OVER THERE AND IS NOT SOCCER IS FUTBOL THATS THE REAL NAME
You stay classy Mexico.
Good luck Marvin.
My well wishes, thoughts and prayers go out to Marvin Zindler and his family on the heels of announcment that he has inoperable pancreatic cancer that's spread to his liver.
If ever there was a Houston icon, it's Marvin Zindler.
God Bless.
Marvin Zindler, Eyewitness news
Buyer Beware
I'm having a hard time getting my head around the complaints of residents in Kemah regarding the Roller Coaster.
Here's the summary version from Ruth Rendon's Chron story:
Now, here's where the homeowners lose me:
I would venture that most of these people understood what they were moving in next too when they bought their houses. Kemah has been working toward Amusement Park status for a while now. Their (publically stated) end game was to closely resemble Coney Island.
So now you want to come in and gripe about a roller coaster?
It also sounds like Fertitta and Co. made some of the homeowners above market offers that were refused. Basically what we are dealing with here is "angry upper class people with signs" syndrome. Or, the unique ability of people to get themselves into a mess, and then blame "X" entity for their mess.
Of course, you could bring up all of the taxes that the Boardwalk businesses add to the Kemah coffers, but those arguments would probably fall on deaf ears. Right now the residents are saying they want the Boardwalk gone, and Fertitta (for all his faults) is getting lambasted this time mainly due to his past actions and not due to anything he did wrong here.
Let the buyer beware.
(I can't believe I just supported the guy who ruined Grotto)
Here's the summary version from Ruth Rendon's Chron story:
The tranquil view of Galveston Bay that Tim and Hahn Tran enjoy from their front porch is the perfect antidote to the ups and downs of life. But there's apparently not much they can do about the roller coaster in their backyard.
Only 200 feet from their back door, nine stories high when completed, is the Boardwalk Bullet. And there are only a couple of weeks left before the Bullet comes to life with thundering cars and screaming riders.
The Trans and other neighbors near the town's entertainment district said they had no idea it was coming until they figured that the heaps of lumber being brought to the site were for a roller coaster.
"They kept adding lumber and lumber," Tim Tran said. "It's so huge. It's a monster."
The coaster — clearly visible to motorists traveling on the Kemah-Seabrook bridge — takes up about an acre on the southern end of the Kemah Boardwalk near Bay Avenue and Fourth Street.
Now, here's where the homeowners lose me:
"When we bought this house, we knew about the surroundings," Tran said of the home he purchased about two years ago. "The noise is bad. Every time they go upside down on the 'Inverter' (a ride) the kids scream. It's loud, but I'm more concerned about the vibrations (from the roller coaster)."
I would venture that most of these people understood what they were moving in next too when they bought their houses. Kemah has been working toward Amusement Park status for a while now. Their (publically stated) end game was to closely resemble Coney Island.
So now you want to come in and gripe about a roller coaster?
It also sounds like Fertitta and Co. made some of the homeowners above market offers that were refused. Basically what we are dealing with here is "angry upper class people with signs" syndrome. Or, the unique ability of people to get themselves into a mess, and then blame "X" entity for their mess.
Of course, you could bring up all of the taxes that the Boardwalk businesses add to the Kemah coffers, but those arguments would probably fall on deaf ears. Right now the residents are saying they want the Boardwalk gone, and Fertitta (for all his faults) is getting lambasted this time mainly due to his past actions and not due to anything he did wrong here.
Let the buyer beware.
(I can't believe I just supported the guy who ruined Grotto)
Taking it one step too far.
And some socialists progressives wonder why people don't like them...
From a recent comment left on Kristen Finan's V-log post regarding the weather museum...
(from commenter "craig")
For those of you who don't know, Finan's v-log is pure fluff. It's escapism that's caught some flack, but is actually fairly interesting and well-done (after the bad rap number that she kicked the v-log off with).
It's probably NOT the time to start up the "global warming" debate.
Who in the hell gets "concerned" for a dog's future becuase the owner isn't a global warming proponent anyway? I mean, really. I doubt Frank's stance on the matter has anything to do with the future of Radar. It's not like he was going to try and drain the dogs blood to fuel his car after all.
Or do people like this REALLY believe that everyone who disagrees with them is evil?
It reminds me of thosecorporatists Neo-Conservatives who term liberalism a mental disease.
No its not, it's a political outlook with which you happen to disagree.
The demonization of ones opponents is hardly new. The Right did the same thing at the end of the Clinton Presidency.
It was stupid then, and its even more stupid now. Especially consiering the Democrats claim to be the party of inclusion. Reality is they are getting more and more exclusive by the hour.
FWIW: It doesn't matter much that Billingsly was part right. There's certainly evidence showing that global warming is occuring, but there is NO scientific proof showing a causal link between human activity and the phoenomenon. There are certainly a lot of THEORIES from leading scientists but nothing concrete as of yet.
From a recent comment left on Kristen Finan's V-log post regarding the weather museum...
(from commenter "craig")
I remember hearing Radar's old reticent handler Frank Billingsley on a TV show one time express his feeling that there was no real science to support the contention that human activity had anything to do with global warming. At that point I became concerned about Radar's future. At least it looks like he, Radar, has found a comfortable home there at the John C. Freeman Weather Museum which is good to know.
Posted by: craig at July 5, 2007 10:06
For those of you who don't know, Finan's v-log is pure fluff. It's escapism that's caught some flack, but is actually fairly interesting and well-done (after the bad rap number that she kicked the v-log off with).
It's probably NOT the time to start up the "global warming" debate.
Who in the hell gets "concerned" for a dog's future becuase the owner isn't a global warming proponent anyway? I mean, really. I doubt Frank's stance on the matter has anything to do with the future of Radar. It's not like he was going to try and drain the dogs blood to fuel his car after all.
Or do people like this REALLY believe that everyone who disagrees with them is evil?
It reminds me of those
No its not, it's a political outlook with which you happen to disagree.
The demonization of ones opponents is hardly new. The Right did the same thing at the end of the Clinton Presidency.
It was stupid then, and its even more stupid now. Especially consiering the Democrats claim to be the party of inclusion. Reality is they are getting more and more exclusive by the hour.
FWIW: It doesn't matter much that Billingsly was part right. There's certainly evidence showing that global warming is occuring, but there is NO scientific proof showing a causal link between human activity and the phoenomenon. There are certainly a lot of THEORIES from leading scientists but nothing concrete as of yet.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Aside from the obvious.
An item in the Al Gore III drug case kind of caught my eye today...
(from The AP via the Chron)
This was all that ran through my mind when I first read this:
What?
It's now official. The wealthy have access to better cars than the working class does. I challenge you to get a REGULAR Prius up to 100.
(from The AP via the Chron)
Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius about 100 mph on the San Diego Freeway when he was pulled over at about 2:15 a.m., Sheriff's Department spokesman Jim Amormino said.
This was all that ran through my mind when I first read this:
What?
It's now official. The wealthy have access to better cars than the working class does. I challenge you to get a REGULAR Prius up to 100.
South America to US Soccer: Don't get better
At least, not on our time...
(from the Chronicle news services)
Nevermind the fact that ALL International teams will do this from time to time:
So despite the media and CONMEBAL's incessant screaming, there's nothing wrong with what the US is doing. Especially considering they are competing in a tournament held outside of CONCACAF, their home region.
Moneyshot quote of the week: (from Mexico coach Hugo Sanchez)
I doubt Argentina, one of the strongest, most creative sides in the World, are too concerned about playing El Tri. Call it a hunch.
Aside: This is why they call it the beautiful game:
Freddy Adu could be the creative star that I've been talking about.
(from the Chronicle news services)
The Americans were eliminated before they even played their final group stage game today against Colombia when Brazil beat Ecuador 1-0 Wednesday night.
The South American soccer federation was not pleased that the United States left Landon Donovan, DaMarcus Beasley and other top players off the team it sent to the Copa America.
"We like for the continent's most important competition to be respected with the best players," CONMEBOL general secretary Eduardo Deluca told the Associated Press in a telephone interview Wednesday.
(snip)
Deluca said the Americans "opted to send a team with some players who aren't their regulars. That doesn't please us."
However, he said the organization hopes for continued U.S. participation.
The U.S. and Mexico are the two invitees from North America. Mexico has regularly been a top contender and lost in the finals of the 1993 and 2001 tournaments.
"Mexico is always a candidate to win the Copa. It's in the race. It's one of the best," Deluca said.
Nevermind the fact that ALL International teams will do this from time to time:
Like the United States, Brazil also was short some stars, including Ronaldinho and Kaka, who asked to be rested.
So despite the media and CONMEBAL's incessant screaming, there's nothing wrong with what the US is doing. Especially considering they are competing in a tournament held outside of CONCACAF, their home region.
Moneyshot quote of the week: (from Mexico coach Hugo Sanchez)
"We're gaining recognition and respect," Mexican coach Hugo Sanchez said. "I'm sure that whoever we face, whether it's Argentina or Paraguay, neither of them want to play against Mexico."
I doubt Argentina, one of the strongest, most creative sides in the World, are too concerned about playing El Tri. Call it a hunch.
Aside: This is why they call it the beautiful game:
Freddy Adu could be the creative star that I've been talking about.
Time for an Intervention.
I like Mayor White as much as the next guy. I may disagree with him on certain issues, and I'm not partisan enough to be willing to gloss over his most egregious errors or view everything he does as sinister as some bloggers are, but this Love affair with Hizzoner by certain MSM bloggers is starting to get a little disconcerting.
So: to Matt and Miya.
Stop now before we all come down there and take away your computers for a week. This "joke-a-day" Mayor-Log (a Mlog?) is really starting to look odd. (for lack of a better word)
It's for your own good.
So: to Matt and Miya.
Stop now before we all come down there and take away your computers for a week. This "joke-a-day" Mayor-Log (a Mlog?) is really starting to look odd. (for lack of a better word)
It's for your own good.
Food control.
You heard it here first: The next step in the so-called "war on childhood obesity" will be food bans.
It seems that kids like their junk food too much.
(From Martha Mendoza of the AP)
Stories like these (non-scientific, filled with tons of speculation) are unfortunately what many in America are using to back up their "facts" in debate these days. I call it the "mirror never lies" syndrome, where opinions similar to our own are held up as fact while those different are dismissed as wrong. They're not wrong because the facts don't support them, but they're wrong because we think they're wrong, and now we have someone (probably without an expertise in that field by the way) propping up our belief system. It's an ego boost.
Where this gets dangerous is when public policy-makers start to rely on this type of report. It's when legislation or a political movement is started, and solid "fact" is replaced by "common-sense" and then relabelled fact. This group think dynamic is currently the reason a majority of Americans seem to think that Global Warming is caused exclusively by man, that America's support of Isreal actually is a cause of the violence in the Middle East, and its the stuff that drive the Big Business/Government conspiracy theories that are prevelent these days.
It's also the reason that I think food ban legislation will be the next big battle fought in American politics. On the one side you'll have the crowd who thinks that the only "reasonable" path is to eliminate certain foods, to punish the companies that make them, and to file massive lawsuits against the executives for criminal negligence. On the other side you'll have a group that's concerned about the fact that millions of working poor and middle class will lose their jobs if these companies fail. They'll oppose legislation that criminalizes market response, and they'll be crucified for it in the media.
Ultimately the end game to all of this obesity talk has been to garner increased control of the American food chain. You add to that the recent Chinese processing scares and you have a perfect food storm developing that's going to have far-reaching implications into how we live our daily lives.
So enjoy that bag of potato chips while you can. There will be legislation in the next 10 years to make producing it a crime.
It seems that kids like their junk food too much.
(From Martha Mendoza of the AP)
Last year a major federal pilot program offering free fruits and vegetables to school children showed fifth graders became less willing to eat them than they had been at the start. Apparently they didn't like the taste.
_In Pennsylvania, researchers went so far as to give prizes to school children who ate fruits and vegetables. That worked while the prizes were offered, but when the researchers came back seven months later the kids had reverted to their original eating habits: soda and chips.
_In studies where children tell researchers they are eating better or exercising more, there is usually no change in blood pressure, body size or cholesterol measures; they want to eat better, they might even think they are, but they're not.
(snip)
The challenges to changing the way children eat are as numerous as the factors that have prompted the obesity epidemic in the first place.
The forces that make kids fat "are really strong and hard to fight with just a program in school," said Dr. Philip Zeitler, a pediatric endocrinologist and researcher who sees "a steady stream" of obese children struggling with diabetes and other potentially fatal medical problems at The Children's Hospital in Denver.
What does he tell them?
"Oh God, I haven't figured out anything that I know is going to work," he said. "I'm not aware of any medical model that is very successful in helping these kids. Sure, we try to help them, but I can't take credit for the ones who do manage to change."
Stories like these (non-scientific, filled with tons of speculation) are unfortunately what many in America are using to back up their "facts" in debate these days. I call it the "mirror never lies" syndrome, where opinions similar to our own are held up as fact while those different are dismissed as wrong. They're not wrong because the facts don't support them, but they're wrong because we think they're wrong, and now we have someone (probably without an expertise in that field by the way) propping up our belief system. It's an ego boost.
Where this gets dangerous is when public policy-makers start to rely on this type of report. It's when legislation or a political movement is started, and solid "fact" is replaced by "common-sense" and then relabelled fact. This group think dynamic is currently the reason a majority of Americans seem to think that Global Warming is caused exclusively by man, that America's support of Isreal actually is a cause of the violence in the Middle East, and its the stuff that drive the Big Business/Government conspiracy theories that are prevelent these days.
It's also the reason that I think food ban legislation will be the next big battle fought in American politics. On the one side you'll have the crowd who thinks that the only "reasonable" path is to eliminate certain foods, to punish the companies that make them, and to file massive lawsuits against the executives for criminal negligence. On the other side you'll have a group that's concerned about the fact that millions of working poor and middle class will lose their jobs if these companies fail. They'll oppose legislation that criminalizes market response, and they'll be crucified for it in the media.
Ultimately the end game to all of this obesity talk has been to garner increased control of the American food chain. You add to that the recent Chinese processing scares and you have a perfect food storm developing that's going to have far-reaching implications into how we live our daily lives.
So enjoy that bag of potato chips while you can. There will be legislation in the next 10 years to make producing it a crime.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Who writes this stuff?
Quite possibly the worst lead to a story seen from the Chron in quite some time....
...and it took three people to write it apparently.
(from Paige Hewitt, Eyder Peralta and Mike Tolson of the Chron)
As the commenters (correctly) pointed out, the second paragraph is terrible. The rest of the article (especially the lead) isn't much of an improvement.
I'm not sure if this is a case where an editor did a poor job fusing together three reports or if the reporting itself was bad, but this should have never seen the light of day.
It was just hard to read:
Wow. It's like jumping into a cold, convaluted vat of bad on a Winter morning.
...and it took three people to write it apparently.
(from Paige Hewitt, Eyder Peralta and Mike Tolson of the Chron)
In the dim light just before dawn, long before most of the passengers aboard the Carnival cruise ship Ecstasy were awake, David Ritcheson maneuvered his way up a tower near the bow that held radar and other electronics gear.
His makeshift promontory provided a great view, but the teenager from Spring had not come for that. There was little to see but water anyway. Only one thing was on Ritcheson's mind Sunday morning after he wriggled up some cables to reach the top — whether to jump off.
Ecstasy's passengers said Monday after docking here that security staff tried to coax Ritcheson down. So did one of his friends. Nobody understood the point of his ascent.
"David!" yelled one of his buddies. "What the (expletive) are you doing?"
As the commenters (correctly) pointed out, the second paragraph is terrible. The rest of the article (especially the lead) isn't much of an improvement.
I'm not sure if this is a case where an editor did a poor job fusing together three reports or if the reporting itself was bad, but this should have never seen the light of day.
It was just hard to read:
Passengers, a few of whom saw the event but most of whom repeated what crew members told them, said Ritcheson, 18, started his climb on the front end of the ship about 6:15 a.m. Minutes later, they said, security staff began negotiating with him. Some said Ritcheson lowered himself to the deck, but after talks that lasted perhaps an hour, he decided to jump.
Wow. It's like jumping into a cold, convaluted vat of bad on a Winter morning.
The Dangers of breed-specific bans.
RickG over at LoneStar Times asks whether its time to ban the ownership of pit bulls.
The question comes on the heels of this tragic story...
(from Kevin Moran of the Chron)
Terrible story, and one that gives more ammunition to those who want to punish animals for the stupidity of human owners. I'm just glad the kid is going to live, and that the physical injuries will heal. I'm sure the mental images will take longer to assuage than the bite marks will.
Which brings us back to our friends over a LoneStar Times, and their call for a breed ban.
Odd that they don't repeat that same call when people are shot or wounded by Gun violence.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." You hear that refrain all the time from those who don't want any restrictions placed on the right to own firearms. Yet those same people are now calling for a severe limitations on the rights of dog owners.
The real debate should be why we let people own dogs without any licensing or training requirements, especially breeds that have a genetic predisposition to more violent behavior.
Don't kid yourself if you don't think that certain breeds aren't more prone to violence. If you think that, and you own one of these breeds, then you are part of the problem, and part of the reasons that pundits such as Rick can suggest that you lose the right to own a dog of your choice. All of this because thugs are allowed to fight these dogs, or own them as a status symbol and not a "pet".
Add to all of this the fact that there's no logic in a breed ban. For one thing there is not established "Pit Bull" breed. A Pit bull TYPE dog can have several characteristics. It can be an American Staffordhsire Terrior, a Dogo Argentino, a Cane Corso, a Mastiff, and several other breeds. They are also mistaken for American Bulldogs quite often. Is the answer to destroy all of these breeds, to run them all into extinction because we don't want to take responsibility for owning them?
When man chose to domesticate the dog he took on the responsibility of caring for the dog as well. As responsibility that has been shirked for the most part with the pit-bull type breeds. Now that we've let things get out of hand, we have decided that the best thing to do is wash our hand of it, and just extinct our mistake. The nuclear option if you will.
A more equitable answer would be to tightly restrict ownership to qualified individuals who can line breed the more aggressive qualities out of the animals and punish severely those who circumvent the law.
We currently require registration and safety classes to own a gun and to drive a car. Shouldn't pet ownership require some education as well? Espeically if you want to own a breed whose historical purpose was of an agressive nature?
I own a Rottweiler/Boxer mix. When I purchased Jones I spent almost $1,000 getting him trained so that I wouldn't be on the news explaining why my dog just went nutso on some child. I socialized Jones, got him to be good around children (even when they tug on his ears, or accidentally startle him) and REALLY worked on his protection skills so that he bit ONLY if attacked. Besides that he's taught to bark and corner.
Owning a dog of this nature is a big responsibility. You can't just chain them to a post in the back yard and expect the dog to self-regulate.
We have a responsibility to the dogs we own to not put them in that position. Killing off thousands of animals, especially in an environment where there's a cry if we distrub the habitat of a dung beetle, shouldn't even be an option that's seriously on the table.
It's disturbing to me that the option is being put on the table by the same crowd that refuses to grant small concessions in the gun ownership debate.
Same principle after all.
And for those of you wondering: Yes, I feel that permits and training for gun owners, including background checks, conceal and carry classes, and trigger locks are the tenets of responsible gun policy as well. And NO, I don't support banning guns either.
Should possession of these animals be banned?
What harm would come to society if these dogs no longer existed? Is there some organism on the food chain (other than 6 year old boys) which would propagate to unhealthy proportions without the culling skills of pit bulls?
I am not swayed by pit bull owners who say these dogs are just like other dogs, but are discriminated against. The problem with this argument is that it is false. Even the simplest of research reveals that studies consistently find that a single breed of dog is responsible for more attacks than any other. Guess what that breed is?
The question comes on the heels of this tragic story...
(from Kevin Moran of the Chron)
A 6-year-old Houston boy spent three hours in surgery Sunday after being bitten in the face by a pit bull, his father said today.
"They stopped counting (stitches) at about 200," Brandon Palomo said, referring to repairs surgeons did on the face of his son, Logan Palomo, between noon and about 3 p.m. Sunday.
Logan was visiting his mother at her northwest Harris County home late Saturday when the dog bit him two or three times in the face, the father said.
The boy was listed in good condition at Memorial Hermann Hospital-The Medical Center today, a spokeswoman said.
Terrible story, and one that gives more ammunition to those who want to punish animals for the stupidity of human owners. I'm just glad the kid is going to live, and that the physical injuries will heal. I'm sure the mental images will take longer to assuage than the bite marks will.
Which brings us back to our friends over a LoneStar Times, and their call for a breed ban.
Odd that they don't repeat that same call when people are shot or wounded by Gun violence.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." You hear that refrain all the time from those who don't want any restrictions placed on the right to own firearms. Yet those same people are now calling for a severe limitations on the rights of dog owners.
The real debate should be why we let people own dogs without any licensing or training requirements, especially breeds that have a genetic predisposition to more violent behavior.
Don't kid yourself if you don't think that certain breeds aren't more prone to violence. If you think that, and you own one of these breeds, then you are part of the problem, and part of the reasons that pundits such as Rick can suggest that you lose the right to own a dog of your choice. All of this because thugs are allowed to fight these dogs, or own them as a status symbol and not a "pet".
Add to all of this the fact that there's no logic in a breed ban. For one thing there is not established "Pit Bull" breed. A Pit bull TYPE dog can have several characteristics. It can be an American Staffordhsire Terrior, a Dogo Argentino, a Cane Corso, a Mastiff, and several other breeds. They are also mistaken for American Bulldogs quite often. Is the answer to destroy all of these breeds, to run them all into extinction because we don't want to take responsibility for owning them?
When man chose to domesticate the dog he took on the responsibility of caring for the dog as well. As responsibility that has been shirked for the most part with the pit-bull type breeds. Now that we've let things get out of hand, we have decided that the best thing to do is wash our hand of it, and just extinct our mistake. The nuclear option if you will.
A more equitable answer would be to tightly restrict ownership to qualified individuals who can line breed the more aggressive qualities out of the animals and punish severely those who circumvent the law.
We currently require registration and safety classes to own a gun and to drive a car. Shouldn't pet ownership require some education as well? Espeically if you want to own a breed whose historical purpose was of an agressive nature?
I own a Rottweiler/Boxer mix. When I purchased Jones I spent almost $1,000 getting him trained so that I wouldn't be on the news explaining why my dog just went nutso on some child. I socialized Jones, got him to be good around children (even when they tug on his ears, or accidentally startle him) and REALLY worked on his protection skills so that he bit ONLY if attacked. Besides that he's taught to bark and corner.
Owning a dog of this nature is a big responsibility. You can't just chain them to a post in the back yard and expect the dog to self-regulate.
We have a responsibility to the dogs we own to not put them in that position. Killing off thousands of animals, especially in an environment where there's a cry if we distrub the habitat of a dung beetle, shouldn't even be an option that's seriously on the table.
It's disturbing to me that the option is being put on the table by the same crowd that refuses to grant small concessions in the gun ownership debate.
Same principle after all.
And for those of you wondering: Yes, I feel that permits and training for gun owners, including background checks, conceal and carry classes, and trigger locks are the tenets of responsible gun policy as well. And NO, I don't support banning guns either.
The heart of Houston
Mrs. White is at it again, this time she's upset about the Katy Freeway expansion not making room for Metro.
Her rant:
Odd that there's no blame laid on Metro's shoulders in this rant, especially when you take into consideration the fact that Metro refused to take control of the old rail right-of-way when it was offered several years back. There could have been a "corridor" made out of that, but Metro has decided that they want to take away traffic lanes to make up for their lack of good judgement several years prior. Nevermind the fact that Metro just received news that their plan for commuter rail down Hwy 290 was flawed and so (it seems) is their I-10 commuter rail plan.
The real, ugly truth here is that Metro is now looking for scapegoats to lay blame in an effort to hide the past mistakes they made while chasing the holy grail of the "red line" downtown toy train. Mrs. White, seemingly, is quite happy to take the lead on this and is giving Metro a pass for their past short-sightedness.
Not that any of this should surprise you. This IS Houston after all. A City that's rife with glitter but whose core value system is devoid of any semblance of soul. This is a city where an at-grade light-rail train designed for the NFL championship game is more important than designing a commuter system that will, you know, move people, a city where contracts for enriched water take precedence over issues such as police staffing and paving the roads. A City that has no problem investing millions into a downtown park while thousands go homeless. Houston is a City that allowed a bar named Hemingway's to operate here without having a basic daiquiri on the menu for goodness sake.
Houston is what it is. It's led by people who have a better grasp on the superficial than they do on the nuts and bolts that make a city run smoothly. Because of that you get editorials like this, where real substance and the mistakes of the past are ignored in lieu of taking pot shots at those with opposing political views.
I think a good first step to remedying this is for us all to agree that Peter Brown has no business lecturing us on what the common man REALLY wants.
If we can start there, then there's probably hope for all of us.
Other eyes:
Houston Strategies: Responding to Brown and Crossley.
Agreed.
Peter Brown: Slugfest of slogans.
Not that Brown could stand to gain from that or anything....
Her rant:
What comes first, the completed Katy Freeway with toll lanes or advance planning to make sure there's room for a light-rail line?
Judging by a draft operating agreement for the roadway that doesn't mention rail, precious little planning has gone into figuring out how commuter trains would fit into the scheme of things on the expanded westside freeway.
Rather than being an integral part of an overall transit plan for the corridor, rail, if it is built there, will be tacked on as an afterthought. That's a surefire formula for project delays and added construction expenses.
Metro has already contributed $10 million to strengthen the freeway's overpasses to support rail lines, an investment agency President and CEO Frank Wilson calls a downpayment for future rail. The proposed operating agreement between the Texas Department of Transportation, the Harris County Toll Road Authority and Metro calls for four toll lanes down the middle of the freeway, leaving no room for rail. That would mean rail lines would either consume existing traffic lanes or be built on frontage roads.
Odd that there's no blame laid on Metro's shoulders in this rant, especially when you take into consideration the fact that Metro refused to take control of the old rail right-of-way when it was offered several years back. There could have been a "corridor" made out of that, but Metro has decided that they want to take away traffic lanes to make up for their lack of good judgement several years prior. Nevermind the fact that Metro just received news that their plan for commuter rail down Hwy 290 was flawed and so (it seems) is their I-10 commuter rail plan.
The real, ugly truth here is that Metro is now looking for scapegoats to lay blame in an effort to hide the past mistakes they made while chasing the holy grail of the "red line" downtown toy train. Mrs. White, seemingly, is quite happy to take the lead on this and is giving Metro a pass for their past short-sightedness.
Not that any of this should surprise you. This IS Houston after all. A City that's rife with glitter but whose core value system is devoid of any semblance of soul. This is a city where an at-grade light-rail train designed for the NFL championship game is more important than designing a commuter system that will, you know, move people, a city where contracts for enriched water take precedence over issues such as police staffing and paving the roads. A City that has no problem investing millions into a downtown park while thousands go homeless. Houston is a City that allowed a bar named Hemingway's to operate here without having a basic daiquiri on the menu for goodness sake.
Houston is what it is. It's led by people who have a better grasp on the superficial than they do on the nuts and bolts that make a city run smoothly. Because of that you get editorials like this, where real substance and the mistakes of the past are ignored in lieu of taking pot shots at those with opposing political views.
I think a good first step to remedying this is for us all to agree that Peter Brown has no business lecturing us on what the common man REALLY wants.
If we can start there, then there's probably hope for all of us.
Other eyes:
Houston Strategies: Responding to Brown and Crossley.
I honestly hope that's not a call for government subsidies for upscale mixed-use development. I know he says "mixed-income", but these projects are always upscale, with a smattering of "affordable" units thrown in for show. And, of course, once one developer is receiving subsidies, they all start asking for them. Let's please not open this Pandora's Box.
Agreed.
Peter Brown: Slugfest of slogans.
"New public-private financial tools are necessary to facilitate pedestrian friendly, mixed-use, mixed-income development, with ample middle class housing choices. This should be a fundamental public policy."
Not that Brown could stand to gain from that or anything....
Monday, July 2, 2007
The 290 Wine Corridor.
Have you ever run the "Texas wine gauntlet"?
If you haven't, then you should. Just remember to designate a driver.
The "wine gauntlet" is the name I've given to State Hwy 290 From just east of Johnson City to Fredericksburg. There are six wineries along that stretch of road just begging for you to stop by and do a tasting. At around winery number four, if you aren't suffering from acute palate fatigue, you'll be very glad you designated that driver. At Fredericksburg you'll be very glad they have so many good restaurants serving good, filling German food. You'll be hungry.
The winery that starts the guantlet is Texas Hills, just to the East of Johnson City. I've blogged about this winery before, about the tasting room that's well laid out, about their sensible tasting fee that's waived if you buy a bottle (you'll buy a bottle) and the personable owner who's orignally from the Houston area. I've also talked about their wines, many of which are great bargains at the price point. Especially the "Kick Butt" Cab. This Cabernet is one of the best in Texas, and holds its own with any wine from other regions at $25.00 per bottle. You might even think its full depth of flavor, its subtle smokiness, and its well thought out tannin profile are worth more than that.
My wife and I bought three bottles from Texas Hills, we took some pictures, and then headed down the road to Woodrose Winery for stop #2. Woodrose Winery is a fairly new winery owned and operated by Mike Guilete. They are currently in the process of turning the property into a fully functional resort and winery, with their tasting room being complete, and the Bed & Breakfast scheduled for completion in 2008. Woodrose wines have a totally different taste profile than those of Texas Hills. Mr. Guilete's talents lie in blending sweeter wines and that is realized in his "Three Dog White", a blend of Chenin Blanc, Sauvignon Blanc and Chardonnay. Woodrose also makes a very tart White Merlot, which is my rose of choice. (being that I'm not a fan of White Zinfindel) While you're at Woodrose be sure to try out the Port-style wines as well. Bring a little dark chocolate and prepare to be awed.
Three more bottles purchased and registration to the mailing list (something we did at every winery that had one) and off we went (1/2 mile down the road) to Torre di Pietra where their 2005 Primitivo forever changed the way I viewed wine. Allison Cook has previously talked about wines that can alter your tasting Universe. Typically her wines of this type are in the $100+ dollar range. For me the experience cost $40 per bottle, and was a vanilla-green peppercorn bomb that widened my eyes when I had my first taste. They also have two very good ports, several tasty reds, a fun sweet white called "Dirty Girl" and a Spanish inspired tasting room that makes it worth your while to stop in. Torre di Pietra has a tasting fee, and an additional charge to try their Port-style wines. But it's worth it.
I'll admit, it was six bottles this time, cost be damned. Maybe it was all the wine we had sampled and our inhibitions were lowered, but we packed up the Subaru and headed down the road (again about a 1/2 mile) to Becker Vinyards. It was at Becker that we met Henri. First off, Becker has a very long wine list, they only charge a couple of bucks for a tasting (one fee waived for each bottle purchased) and Henri puts on a show. You've seen some of their wines in stores. You may have even had their Iconoclast Red. But there are several wines on thier tasting list that you can only get at the winery. This includes their Barbera, a varietal that's primarily used as a mixing grape in Europe, but which I predict will become the next "Pinot Noir" if more Vinyards catch the trend. You will not leave here without trying the Port. Henri will not let you.
So, yes, we bought about 8 bottles here. They had THAT many good wines. It was at this point I realized that we had sampled a LOT of wine. We decided to wait a minute and nibble on some crackers, drink some water and generally allow our palates a few moments to shake off the cobwebs. We then drove down the road (about 1 mi.) to Grape Creek winery. It's not really fair to judge Grape Creek right now on their quality of wines. They got hit severly by disease, and they are currently importing all of their grapes. The good news is that they've replanted, and are expecting to harvest in 2008. They can still produce a couple of quality sweet wines however. Their Reisling is servicable as is their Grand Rogue, a Sangiovese and Merlot mixture left with enough residual sugar to keep the wine pleasantly sweet.
Two more bottles to the collection, and we finally wound our way the last 5 or so miles to Fredericksburg. It was there that we parked and walked about four blocks to The Fredericksburg Winery. By this time we probably had the taste profiles of 100 or so wines running through our minds, and lingering on our palates. Still, we were bound and determined to see this thing through. What we didn't realize was that the tasting flight at Fredericksburg was an event unto itself. It's free and it can involve up to 15 wines, depending on whether they like you or not. Fortunately for us, we were well liked by the wine maker, so we got the tasting flight and then some for good measure. There were two very good desert wines that we purchased and the wife stocked up on their sweet wines so all and all it was a good last stop. Six more bottles and we called it a day.
So to recap. In one afternoon on a 30 mile stretch of 290 we visited six wineries, sampled approximately 100 different wines, purchased 28 bottles of wine, six wine glasses, ate untold number of crackers, drank liters of water in a desperate attempt to salvage our palates, ate some very good German food and walked around Fredericksburg.
We can't WAIT to get the chance to do it again.
Salud.
If you haven't, then you should. Just remember to designate a driver.
The "wine gauntlet" is the name I've given to State Hwy 290 From just east of Johnson City to Fredericksburg. There are six wineries along that stretch of road just begging for you to stop by and do a tasting. At around winery number four, if you aren't suffering from acute palate fatigue, you'll be very glad you designated that driver. At Fredericksburg you'll be very glad they have so many good restaurants serving good, filling German food. You'll be hungry.
The winery that starts the guantlet is Texas Hills, just to the East of Johnson City. I've blogged about this winery before, about the tasting room that's well laid out, about their sensible tasting fee that's waived if you buy a bottle (you'll buy a bottle) and the personable owner who's orignally from the Houston area. I've also talked about their wines, many of which are great bargains at the price point. Especially the "Kick Butt" Cab. This Cabernet is one of the best in Texas, and holds its own with any wine from other regions at $25.00 per bottle. You might even think its full depth of flavor, its subtle smokiness, and its well thought out tannin profile are worth more than that.
My wife and I bought three bottles from Texas Hills, we took some pictures, and then headed down the road to Woodrose Winery for stop #2. Woodrose Winery is a fairly new winery owned and operated by Mike Guilete. They are currently in the process of turning the property into a fully functional resort and winery, with their tasting room being complete, and the Bed & Breakfast scheduled for completion in 2008. Woodrose wines have a totally different taste profile than those of Texas Hills. Mr. Guilete's talents lie in blending sweeter wines and that is realized in his "Three Dog White", a blend of Chenin Blanc, Sauvignon Blanc and Chardonnay. Woodrose also makes a very tart White Merlot, which is my rose of choice. (being that I'm not a fan of White Zinfindel) While you're at Woodrose be sure to try out the Port-style wines as well. Bring a little dark chocolate and prepare to be awed.
Three more bottles purchased and registration to the mailing list (something we did at every winery that had one) and off we went (1/2 mile down the road) to Torre di Pietra where their 2005 Primitivo forever changed the way I viewed wine. Allison Cook has previously talked about wines that can alter your tasting Universe. Typically her wines of this type are in the $100+ dollar range. For me the experience cost $40 per bottle, and was a vanilla-green peppercorn bomb that widened my eyes when I had my first taste. They also have two very good ports, several tasty reds, a fun sweet white called "Dirty Girl" and a Spanish inspired tasting room that makes it worth your while to stop in. Torre di Pietra has a tasting fee, and an additional charge to try their Port-style wines. But it's worth it.
I'll admit, it was six bottles this time, cost be damned. Maybe it was all the wine we had sampled and our inhibitions were lowered, but we packed up the Subaru and headed down the road (again about a 1/2 mile) to Becker Vinyards. It was at Becker that we met Henri. First off, Becker has a very long wine list, they only charge a couple of bucks for a tasting (one fee waived for each bottle purchased) and Henri puts on a show. You've seen some of their wines in stores. You may have even had their Iconoclast Red. But there are several wines on thier tasting list that you can only get at the winery. This includes their Barbera, a varietal that's primarily used as a mixing grape in Europe, but which I predict will become the next "Pinot Noir" if more Vinyards catch the trend. You will not leave here without trying the Port. Henri will not let you.
So, yes, we bought about 8 bottles here. They had THAT many good wines. It was at this point I realized that we had sampled a LOT of wine. We decided to wait a minute and nibble on some crackers, drink some water and generally allow our palates a few moments to shake off the cobwebs. We then drove down the road (about 1 mi.) to Grape Creek winery. It's not really fair to judge Grape Creek right now on their quality of wines. They got hit severly by disease, and they are currently importing all of their grapes. The good news is that they've replanted, and are expecting to harvest in 2008. They can still produce a couple of quality sweet wines however. Their Reisling is servicable as is their Grand Rogue, a Sangiovese and Merlot mixture left with enough residual sugar to keep the wine pleasantly sweet.
Two more bottles to the collection, and we finally wound our way the last 5 or so miles to Fredericksburg. It was there that we parked and walked about four blocks to The Fredericksburg Winery. By this time we probably had the taste profiles of 100 or so wines running through our minds, and lingering on our palates. Still, we were bound and determined to see this thing through. What we didn't realize was that the tasting flight at Fredericksburg was an event unto itself. It's free and it can involve up to 15 wines, depending on whether they like you or not. Fortunately for us, we were well liked by the wine maker, so we got the tasting flight and then some for good measure. There were two very good desert wines that we purchased and the wife stocked up on their sweet wines so all and all it was a good last stop. Six more bottles and we called it a day.
So to recap. In one afternoon on a 30 mile stretch of 290 we visited six wineries, sampled approximately 100 different wines, purchased 28 bottles of wine, six wine glasses, ate untold number of crackers, drank liters of water in a desperate attempt to salvage our palates, ate some very good German food and walked around Fredericksburg.
We can't WAIT to get the chance to do it again.
Salud.
(D)amaged Goods
I'm a little late commenting on Kristen Mack's rundown of Democratic hopes in Harris County for 2008, but I thought I'd weigh in anyway.
First: Her thesis...
And who were those candidates?
Of those four Garcia, Mincberg and Ryan are all credible candidates. Now the question I have is this: WHO in their right mind green-lighted the trial balloon for C.O. Bradford, what drug were they on, and do they still have their job?
The award for understatement of the year goes to Ms. Mack for this beauty:
Sure, and the Grand Canyon is a little ditch in the ground.
Yeah, yeah I know, the InterLeft will be wound up in high gear letting us know that Rosenthal, NOT Bradford is responsible for the crime lab mess. They'll have to UNTELL their insistence that it's Lanier and Lucia's fault first, but fortunately for them the voters have a short memory. They might have a little more trouble undoing the damage from the pay-raise problem, the K-mart kerfuffle, and then there's the whole matter of the police department literally falling apart around Bradford's ankles in the latter days of his term. Granted, most of this was due to the incompetence of Brown, but Bradford is still going to have to overcome the (accruate) perception that he was a willing accomplice to Brown in most of the decisions that are causing Mayor White so many headaches now.
All that being said, I still think this is just a trial balloon by the (D)'s to get a feeling for how strong they are heading into 2008. If a significant minority is willing to support a candidate as compromised as Bradford, imaging the support they might get from a CREDIBLE candidate?
It kind of tells you what a pathetic job the Republicans have done running things that Bradford even gets a mention without laughter drowing out his name.
First: Her thesis...
Democrats in Harris County have been eyeing Dallas County since last November, when their counterparts recaptured every countywide seat. The locals hope to mirror that success here.
"I've had extensive conversations with Dallas about what their strategy was," Harris County Democratic Party Chair Gerald Birnberg said. "I believe we can replicate that here in Harris County and intend to do so."
Beyond the basics — targeting the grass roots, identifying voters and turning them out — the party has focused on recruiting candidates to run.
And who were those candidates?
Here's what the Democratic ticket will look like next year, according to Birnberg:
Former Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford will take on GOP District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal. Houston City Councilman Adrian Garcia is eyeing a challenge to incumbent Sheriff Tommy Thomas. And former Houston City Councilman Vince Ryan will run against County Attorney Mike Stafford.
Former county Democratic Party Chair David Mincberg will run for county judge against whomever emerges from the GOP primary. The incumbent, Ed Emmett, is in. District Clerk Charles Bacarisse continues to test the water.
Of those four Garcia, Mincberg and Ryan are all credible candidates. Now the question I have is this: WHO in their right mind green-lighted the trial balloon for C.O. Bradford, what drug were they on, and do they still have their job?
The award for understatement of the year goes to Ms. Mack for this beauty:
Bradford, who served as police chief in Mayor Lee Brown's administration, still has some battle scars.
Sure, and the Grand Canyon is a little ditch in the ground.
Yeah, yeah I know, the InterLeft will be wound up in high gear letting us know that Rosenthal, NOT Bradford is responsible for the crime lab mess. They'll have to UNTELL their insistence that it's Lanier and Lucia's fault first, but fortunately for them the voters have a short memory. They might have a little more trouble undoing the damage from the pay-raise problem, the K-mart kerfuffle, and then there's the whole matter of the police department literally falling apart around Bradford's ankles in the latter days of his term. Granted, most of this was due to the incompetence of Brown, but Bradford is still going to have to overcome the (accruate) perception that he was a willing accomplice to Brown in most of the decisions that are causing Mayor White so many headaches now.
All that being said, I still think this is just a trial balloon by the (D)'s to get a feeling for how strong they are heading into 2008. If a significant minority is willing to support a candidate as compromised as Bradford, imaging the support they might get from a CREDIBLE candidate?
It kind of tells you what a pathetic job the Republicans have done running things that Bradford even gets a mention without laughter drowing out his name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
