Smart vs. pleasant

Posted on November 10, 2016 by bvanrysdam

“My number one priority is making sure president Obama’s a one-term president.”
— Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky

“We all want what’s best for this country. That’s what I heard in Mr. Trump’s remarks last night. That’s what I heard when I spoke to him directly. And I was heartened by that.”
— President Barack Obama

I believe you can judge a person not when they’re winning, but when they’re losing. How they respond tells a whole lot about their character. That’s why I was pleased to hear President Obama take the high road when meeting with reporters after the Trump/Clinton election.

It may just have been rhetoric and maybe he really doesn’t believe what he says, but tone matters. Back in 2008, Sen. McConnell felt it was in the best interest of the country to do whatever he could to not allow Obama a second term. You can argue that, blocking Obama would be in the best interest for the country, but do you really want to say it like that? Could we at least put some lipstick on the pig?

I may have missed it, but I don’t recall the kind of bombastic language this year by presidential candidates in the past elections. Deplorable and nasty soon became buzz words for both parties to rally around. I realize the country is divided, but maybe it’s because of our tone of discourse. Maybe if we step back, listen (now there’s a concept) and work at addressing our issues in a calmer manner we can get more things done. I understand not everyone will be able to do this, I’m just saying it would be nice to see a little more of it.

I think Elwood P. Dowd in the film Harvey summed it up best when he said; “In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.” Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.”

Changing the station

Posted on November 8, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Having spent most of my adult life in talk radio, I always like to keep up with what’s happening on the airwaves. People come, people go and there is the usual craziness, but then I came across two stories that make me glad I have no part of that industry anymore.

The first comes from Miami and WAXY (790 The Ticket). It seems Dan Le Batard is furious with management because they told him not to talk about a penis surgery story. Le Batard supposedly went on a rant, challenging the station to fire him.

“Nothing matters to me more, than you don’t control what comes out of my mouth,” Le Batard said, “and we’ve got someone going crazy locally right now, saying they’re gonna yank us off the air if we continue to talk about this. And what I’m telling you right now is: fire me. Not only never do that again, fire me now if you want to control me that way. NOW…. yank me off the air now. Fire me now, cancel my contract now…. because this is infuriating…. you do not control what comes out of my mouth.”

Nice to see him take a stand on such an important issue.

And then there’s St. Louis talk host Bob Romanik.

In recorded ads played this week on AM station KZQZ, sandwiched between ads for local St. Clair County “Freedom Coalition” politicians, Romanik referred repeatedly to County Board Chairman Mark Kern as a cross-dresser and “faggot.”

The ad, which has Tiny Tim’s 1968 recording of “Tiptoe Through the Tulips” as background music asks

“Have you also been lying about your sexuality and sex life? … Mark ‘Sweetcakes’ Kern, not a wolf in sheep’s clothing but a very small man in women’s clothing. You have now earned a new name. … To all the people of St. Clair County, you’ll be known as Mark ‘The Faggot’ Kern, a faggot forever.”

According to the St. Louis Dispatch, At least one listener complained. Romanik responded on his talk show Tuesday that anyone who thinks he doesn’t have the right to speak his mind can “kiss my red, white and blue, hairy, stinky old ass. … I can question anybody’s sexuality.”

Romanik, who claims he is not perfect, pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud in 1999, admitted to defrauding two banks of about $1.5 million to build topless nightclubs in the metro-east. He was ordered to serve 20 months in federal prison.

Fortunately, there is a solution to all this; turn off the radio.

What the hell was she thinking?

Posted on November 2, 2016 by bvanrysdam

The longtime Democratic strategist Donna Brazile was shown the door at CNN (technically she resigned, but the saying “don’t let the door hit you in the ass when you leave” comes to mind).

Brazile, who enjoyed offering her opinions on politics like Kim Kardashian likes selfies, was a mainstay for the network for many years. While you might not agree with her opinions, most reasonable people could respect her intelligence and knowledge of current events. So what happened?

Brazile informed/leaked/tossed a bone to the Clinton campaign about a question they could expect during a Democratic primary debate. CNN claims no one from their channel tipped her off, and suggested it came from TV One host Rolando Martin who co-moderated the debate or someone affiliated with Martin.

Not mincing words, CNN president Jeff Zucker reportedly called her actions “unethical” and “disgusting” In an editorial meeting.

This calls into question the practice of news organizations hiring partisan operatives. Their loyalties are not to the network, but more to their parties and candidates. While they may have educated opinions, that’s all they are; opinions.

“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” a CNN spokeswoman said Monday. “We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.”

While not surprising, it continues the narrative that what we see on so-called “news” channels, really isn’t news. It’s a bunch of talking heads who enjoy trying to be the smartest person in the room.

Governing in the dark

Posted on September 13, 2016 by bvanrysdam

There’s a lot of dirty business that takes place with Municipal Utility Districts (better known as MUD districts). The Houston Chronicle recently reported on the power these districts have to levy taxes, sell bonds and make home-owners lives miserable.

Now there is a decent argument to be made on why MUD districts are needed. They provide valuable infrastructure to communities that are unincorporated and help in the development of new neighborhoods. That being said, citizens might be better served if some of the rules governing them were changed.

For example, I live in Montgomery County Mud District #84. Recently residents became concerned because the bills they were receiving were much higher than normal. One homeowner posted on NextDoor.com that their Aug. 2016 water bill was $363 with the sprinklers turned off (bills usually run between $80 – $110 during summer months).

Obviously, that kind of increase causes people to ask questions. One resident did some research and discovered that none of the board members lived in Montgomery County. So how could they serve you ask? Because each board member owns exactly .1148 acre, which according to chapter 54 of the Water Code, allows them to sit on the board and make decisions.

Satellite images of where the properties owned by the board members are located show what looks to be a carefully thought out and pre-arraigned agreement. The property sits right next to the water plant, all tucked together in nice and neat parcels. Can you say buddy-buddy?

Location of property owned by MUD 84 board member.

Close up image of properties owned by MUD 84 board members.

Now to be clear and fair, this is not illegal and is actually a common practice. Developers need to issue bonds before construction begins (who wants to move into a neighborhood with no water or sewer system), but there are some steps that can be taken. One, require a board member to actually live in the county for one full year. Setting up little plots of land for people to buy so they can be on the board just does not pass the smell test, even if it is totally innocent.

Another step is for board members to be more visible. Want to ask them a question? Good luck with that. Home owners are required to turn into super-sleuths to uncover their identities, let alone get in touch with one. I’m sure that as in any public (or in this case, semi-public office), it can be a thankless job, but there has to be something appealing to be on the board, or why would anyone do it in the first place?

MUD districts like Montgomery MUD #84 hire companies like Wheeler & Associates to handle the tax and collection services and Municipal District Services to collect bills. Both website offers lots of information on tax rates and how to pay bills, but try to find information on board members. And, don’t bother looking at the Home Owners Association website, you find anything there either. No you need to contact Schwartz, Page, & Harding (legal representation for MUD 84) regarding the identities of the MUD 84 board.

Again, no one disputes the need for MUD districts, they serve a very important function, but could we have some level of accountability and/or transparency?

Taxes in Texas

Posted on August 8, 2016 by bvanrysdam

There is always a lot of talk about taxes in Austin. One of the selling points politicians like to make is reminding people we have no state income tax (other states with no state income tax are Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming).

That sounds really good, until you ask yourself how Texas pays the bills without one. The answer is sales and property taxes. Texas has the 12^th highest sales tax in the nation at 8.17 percent (Tennessee is the highest with a 9.46 percent).

Texas also has a higher-than-average effective property tax (Fifth highest in the nation). This has gotten the attention of Austin lawmakers who are crying foul and looking to find ways to have municipalities cutback on their tax rates, but education officials say not so fast. Thanks to Austin cutting back on funding for education, schools and other government entities look to property tax to fill the gap.

A 2010 report from the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute found funding for education in Texas to be “antiquated”. The study group was co-chaired by Dan Patrick, now Texas’ lieutenant governor.

While an argument can be made on both sides of the issue of state income taxes, one thing seems to be very clear, not having a state income tax hurts the poor. Why? Because a state income tax is based on what a person earns. Sales taxes are considered regressive because they don’t change based on a person’s income. Someone making $15k a year pays the same tax for a gallon of milk as someone who makes $150k annually.

If you look at taxes paid as a percentage of income on the poorest to the wealthiest, Texas ranks fifth in the nation for having the most regressive state tax system. The poorest 20 percent pay 12.6 in taxes compared to the middle class (8.8 percent) and the top 1 percent (3.2).

Much like the federal tax system, the Texas tax system needs some fixing. It’s a simple question; how do we want to collect money to pay for state services. The answer? Well that’s a little harder.

Nobody’s right, if everybody’s wrong

Posted on July 6, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Dear Facebook friends…

I get it. You’re pissed off. You show your disgust toward Hillary Clinton and her lack of trust concerning emails, and other matters of judgement. You are outraged by what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth and his lack of civility.

Here’s what chaps my ass; the people who only choose to point out many and varied character faults in the candidate they don’t favor. I don’t expect you to be “fair and balanced”, but by only posting the negative points of the candidate you don’t like, you are missing what I believe most American’s are feeling right now.

How did we get to this point and more importantly, how do we get out of it?

Truth be told, both parties have given us very flawed candidates to choose from. The expression “shooting fish in a barrel” comes to mind when coming up with reasons not to vote for either Clinton or Trump. There are enough of debauched illustrations of both candidates to give late night talk show hosts material for years to come.

Don’t like Clinton? I get it, but does that mean you would vote for Trump? By the way, what happened to Governor John Kasich? I see recent polls showing him beating Clinton by a healthy margin. Would you rather lose the White House based on the principles of insulting everyone who scares you and promising to build a wall paid for by Mexico rather than elect a person who may be viewed as moderate (insert gasp here)?

And what about the Democrats? Clinton is such a weak candidate, she was defeated by a black man with a Muslim name eight years ago and barely beat out a Jewish socialist in this year’s primary. And let’s not forget the great judgment she showed using a private email while secretary of state, or wearing a $12,495 Armani jacket during a speech about inequality. I am sure that instills a lot trust in her judgement.

Clinton and Trump are probably the most unlikable candidates to run for president since David Duke in 1992 (and even that may be a push). Was this the best the we could do?

I think it’s time we all did a little soul searching on how both parties brought us to this point. If there is one thing we can all agree on, it looks like no one will be a winner this November.

In the public interest?

Posted on April 5, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Scrooge would be proud

Something interesting is taking place in the world of journalism. The world is buzzing about the release of the Panama Papers which reveled prominent world leaders hiding millions of dollars in offshore accounts and avoiding paying taxes.

(It was also hard to believe there was gambling going on at Rick’s Place in Casablanca).

The fallout has already begun with Iceland’s Prime Minister resigning after the leaked documents showed his wife owned an offshore company with big claims on collapsed Icelandic banks. More resignations are expected as the U.S.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) reveal more names from the more than 11.5 million documents leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

This poses an interesting question for ICIJ and other journalists. Is it ethical to use stolen materials to publish a story, even if it is in the public’s interest to do so?

Back in 1971, Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers which showed how the Johnson administration systematically lied, not only to the public, but to congress as well about the Vietnam War.

Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage and theft of government property, but the charges were later dropped after prosecutors investigating the Watergate Scandal learned that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.

Much like the Panama Papers, Ellsberg took the papers and released them to the N.Y. Times. At the time, Ellsberg said:

I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision.

The Times v. United States is generally thought of as a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint. Its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents.

There is big difference between classified documents and documents from a business, but the point ends up being the same; should the press use material that was stolen and not authorized?

The press faced a similar question when former CIA employee Eric Snowden leaked classified information from the National Security Agency to journalists with stories appearing in The Guardian and The Washington Post. Snowden has been called a hero, whistleblower, patriot and traitor.

I am all for outing the bad guys, but do two wrongs make it right? I guess that, once again is determined by what side of the fence you are sitting on.

Sucking the oxygen out of the room

Posted on April 5, 2016 by bvanrysdam

Like many Americans, I am watching the primary season with great fascination. After months of campaigning, candidates taking swings at each other (and in some instances, their wives) and generally looking very tired (I still have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to be president) the road to the White House continues.

It seems that the one constant is reporters asking the candidates, ‘what do you think of what Donald Trump said/did’? I understand why they ask the question. Talking about The Donald pumps up the ratings. Viewers/readers/listeners are drawn to anything related the TV reality star like the proverbial moth to a flame. I get that.

What I don’t get is why the other candidates (especially Cruz and Kasich) answer the questions. If I was offering advice, I would have them respond with something like, ‘thank you for your question, here is my plan to fix/improve (insert topic here).

The conversation is being dominated by what Trump says, what Trump does and what Trump wants, which is great for Trump, but not so great for the others. They need to tell us why their ideas are right for America.

Reporters and editors might not like this, and you do run the risk of getting less airtime and coverage, but how much value do you think they are currently getting talking about an opponent. It makes sense when your opponent attacks you and mentions you by name, but I would otherwise steer clear.

I am reminded of Mitt Romney during a debate at the last presidential election. The reporter chided Romney for not answering his question. Romney’s reply? ‘You can ask the question any way you like and I can answer it any way I like’.