Voting to Vote

Posted on July 10, 2012 by bvanrysdam

It seems like there’s one political skirmish after another these days. The latest one centers on whether voters should be required to present a photo ID.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot claims that voter fraud is rampant. He recently wrote an Op/Ed piece for USA Today and said.…

“In recent years, my office has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions. Those include a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, a political operative who cast ballots for two people, and a city council member who registered foreign nationals to vote in an election decided by 19 votes. Voter fraud is hard to detect, so cases like these are just the tip of the iceberg.”

I, for one, would be curious to know exactly how long a period of time those convictions took place. Was it one year, five years? And, how many voter fraud cases went to trial that resulted in no convictions? I get voter fraud is hard to detect, but really wonder just how prevalent it is. 90% of an iceberg is submerged, so does that mean there were actually 500 cases in “recent years”?

The other side of the fence will insist this is just a ploy by those terrible Republicans to make it harder for minorities to vote for their favorite Democrat. They will tell you many minorities are afraid to have a photo ID because they don’t trust the government which ironically aligns them alongside the Tea Party (and you thought there was no common ground).

How many people who previously voted without an ID, would not vote if they had to present one? Yes, you can say one less legitimate vote is one too many, but you can make the same argument that one case of voter fraud is one too many. So what is a democracy to do?

There has to be a way to determine how many Texans don’t carry a Photo ID, and how many of them actually bother to vote. Anybody want to place on bet on which number would be higher? The number of voter fraud cases, or the number of people who vote without a picture ID.

And, putting everything to the side for just a moment, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can function in today’s world without a Photo ID. How do you cash a check? Do you live in cash only world? You certainly can’t have a back account. How does one get around? Walk, take the bus? You don’t have to have a Photo ID. to be a citizen of these United States of America, but I gotta believe it would make it much easier on you.

Let’s face it, voter turnout is a joke. We should be encouraging people to go the polls, and not run away from them, but I still don’t have a problem requiring someone to show a little proof of who they are before they vote. I just wish both sides of the debate would actually use some facts when making their case, and not spew out a bunch of speculation and presumptions. I would leave that to the experts like economists and sports bookies.

Getting Lost on the Yellow Brick Road

Posted on June 28, 2012 by bvanrysdam

Listening to the pundits try to make sense of Wall Street is a bit like riding one of those old wooden roller coasters. You begin by starting off slowly. Then you climb a big hill and just as quickly, head screaming back down. In between, you get shook around a lot and end up were you started (if you’re lucky).

Take some recent analysis from the 4^th estate…

The price of gas goes down at the pump. Drivers now spend less money to fill up their tanks. That’s a good thing, right? Wrong! Analysts report consumer spending is down because Americans are losing faith in the recovery. What happens? Stocks tumble on the news of the report. Huh?

Speaking of gasoline, the former president of Shell Oil predicted in December 2011 that gas would cost $5 a gallon in 2012. Gas prices did go up, but have returned to January 2012. Maybe that’s why he is the former president for Shell.

Several large banks get their ratings lowered because of questionable deals with European countries. That’s bad right? Wrong! Stocks go up because investors were already expecting this and like the fact it was done. What happens? Stock prices rise on the news. Say what?

The Supreme Court surprises many people by upholding “Obama Care”. This was not based on commerce, but that the government can tax just about anything it wants. The money experts on Fox and CNBC immediately screamed this would ruin the economy and kill jobs. The market did go down after the ruling was released, but only dropped around 40 points. Wonder what Obama did when the market dropped over 100 points before the announcement was made?

There is a television ad currently airing for a financial services company. Various husbands are getting ready for bed and fretting to their wives about what could happen if the economy goes south (I’m guessing the company doesn’t feel women are smart enough to be worried). The wives offer sound advice saying “it’s all noise” and we should “tune it out”.

I remember a very smart (and wealthy) financial adviser telling me to look at the market as a long term process, and not to focus on a day/week or month. I try to follow that advice, but I have to admit it’s hard to do when all the talking heads sound like the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz giving me directions to find the end of the Yellow Brick Road.

Was it Something I Said?

Posted on June 23, 2012 by bvanrysdam

So here’s the scenario. A media company broadcasts something the Federal Communications Commission deems indecent. The FCC decides to revise its’ policy in response to the broadcast and then fines the media company for it after the fact. Make sense?

The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t think so. In a rare unanimous ruling, the high court threw out the fines and sanctions issued by the FCC. The court concluded that the broadcasters could not have known in advance, the broadcasts would later be deemed indecent and subject to fines. In other words, they said it wasn’t fair to change the rules in the middle of the game.

The indecent broadcasts included a brief display of nudity on ABC’s “NYPD Blue” and several obscenities uttered by Cher and Bono during different awards shows. In case you’re having trouble remembering; The “NYPD Blue” episode “Nude Awakening” aired on February 25, 2003. Yes, the wheels of justice do turn very slowly.

What the court did not do is free “over the air” broadcasters from the regulations that other media outlets (Cable, The Internet, etc.) are free from. While that argument may be compelling, the government still controls the airwaves and can dictate different rules, even if many viewers don’t realize they are switching back and forth between a cable channel and a broadcast channel. It appears that, for now, broadcast outlets (television and radio) will still have to adhere to the current policy.

In case you were wondering, the infamous Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction was not part of this ruling. That case is currently making its way through the judicial process. The government has appealed a lower court’s ruling that threw out the fine in that case.

In regards to the case just wrapped up by the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy said “it is unnecessary for the court to address the constitutionality of the current policy” which means we might get to relive the Super Bowl half-time show from Reliant Stadium all over again. Anybody want to place on bet on how that ruling will come out?

Now granted, the faster technology moves, the harder it is for laws and regulations to keep up. Social standards can also change, causing even more confusion as to what is, and what is not acceptable. Still, it seems like we just wasted a bunch of money. In the last month, the Government has lost its case against John Edwards, Roger Clemens and now this. With a record like that, they very well might end up replacing the Astros for last place.

Expensive Free Speech

Posted on June 8, 2012 by bvanrysdam

There’s been a lot of attention focused lately on Super PAC’s and their influence in this year’s elections. Their impact has been debated from the hallowed halls of Congress to the late night comedy news programs ever since the Supreme Court opened the door to a new form of free speech.

Politicians and Super PAC’s are not allowed to work/collaborate with each other (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), but there is another surprising area which could cause a conflict of interest. Not between the candidates and the Super PAC’s, but with the broadcasters who air their advertisements and the revenue they generate.

Broadcasters are required by law to accept all advertising from any candidate running for a national office, but they don’t have to accept any Super PAC advertising. The dilemma is broadcasters can make a ton more money airing Super PAC ads vs. a candidate’s ads.

How so? Super PAC’s have to buy advertising at the going rate. Politicians, by law, can purchase broadcast time at a thing called the “Lowest Unit Rate”. Candidates are charged the lowest rate that any commercial advertiser paid for a spot of the same class. Broadcasters can’t bump up the rate on a candidates spot, but they can charge whatever they want to air the Super PAC’s ads. CBS President Les Moonves told a conference back in March that, “Super PAC’s may be bad for America, but they’re very good for CBS”.

That’s all well and good for CBS, except broadcasters are responsible to ensure ads they broadcast are truthful and not misleading (interestingly enough, this rule does not apply to candidates running for federal office, who can say whatever they want in their ads and broadcasters can’t do anything about it).

According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, from the Iowa caucus through the Wisconsin primaries, over half of the 41.1 million dollars were spent on 19 ads containing deceptive or misleading claims. What could happen to broadcasters who aired those ads? They could be fined, or even get the death penalty (lose its broadcast license), but that is not likely to happen.

So can the media be trusted to substantiate claims made in Super PAC advertisements at the risk of losing revenue? I’m afraid we all know the answer to that question.

Democracy Makes My Head Hurt

Posted on May 25, 2012 by bvanrysdam

Egypt recently took another step towards democracy. The country just held elections to determine its next President. It’s an exciting time, listening to citizens take pride in the right to vote.

In the movie “American President”, Michael Douglas (who plays President Andrew Shepard) said “America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship”. Johnny Cash once said; “I love the freedoms we got in this country, I appreciate your freedom to burn your flag if you want to, but I really appreciate my right to bear arms so I can shoot you if you try to burn mine”.

Let’s face it; democracy is not easy. Consider these hot-topic issues dominating the news…

The right of the church to exercise their belief vs. the right of women to have access to birth control?
The need to build the Keystone Pipeline vs. the right of property owners who say they don’t want it on their land?

“In Egypt we’d like to bring a new form of democracy where all can work together and in spite of our differences” said Abdul Mawgoud Rageh Dardery, who won a seat in the Egyptian parliament.

Work together? That does not sound like the democracy being practiced in America today. Both parties seem more interested in appealing to the base and would rather point out everywhere we disagree rather than focus on what we do agree on (we do still agree on something right?)

How do we put compromise back into the vocabulary? In the good old days, politicians would enter a “smoke-filled room”, haggle, twist arms until both sides felt a little pain and made a little gain, but those days, like VHS tapes and the Walkman, seem like a long time ago.

Dalia Ziada, the Executive Director of Ibn Khaldun Center for Democratic Studies in Egypt said “Time by time, democracy fixes itself”. I for one, hope she’s right.

Heads I Win…Tails You Lose

Posted on May 24, 2012 by bvanrysdam

I am more than a little confused by the Republican Primary race for the U.S. Senate. The two leading candidates are David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz. To help make their case, both candidates have gone out of state and brought in former Governors Mike Huckabee and Sara Palin to tell us who we should vote for. Do they really think Texans are that dumb they can’t decide for themselves? Wait, don’t answer that yet.

Texans do have other choices. Also running is some guy holding up empty suits in the air impersonating George Zimmerman from the Men’s Warehouse and a sportscaster whose political career is quickly catching up to his pro football career. Sadly, they don’t seem to be drawing as much attention.

Here’s what I really need help with. Can we please come up with a clear and defined system of scoring to determine who exactly the most conservative candidate is? Is it the one brave enough to stand up to President Obama (oh wait, that’s all of them), the one with the guts to defy Presidents Bush’s order to delay executing an illegal immigrant for killing teenage girls, or the person who has the gumption to go tell the Washington Insiders to get the hell out of our state (except for you Mike Huckabee, you’re all right).

I am conservative

Ted Cruz brags that his dad was tortured while demonstrating in Cuba in one of his many ads, but it makes one wonder how he will translate that skill into action? Is he implying that he’s ready to be tortured when he enters the hallowed halls of the United States Senate? I heard it was a rough place, but had no idea it was that bad. (And yes Ted, I do care about Chinese tires, but I can’t thank you enough for picking that lady to deliver the line for you.)

Hey, me too!!

David Dewhurst meanwhile is touting the fact that he and not Governor Rick Perry has been the leading force behind leading the state in job growth, maintaining a balanced budget and, uh; sorry, but I can’t remember what the third one was. He also has just released an ad announcing to the world that he is a life-long business man all while being a politician since 1998. I have to say, coming out of the womb as a business man is pretty impressive.

All this hyperbole makes it really hard to make an intelligent decision, so I guess I’m going to have to rely on my back-up plan; flipping a coin…again.

Where’s the Service?

Posted on April 20, 2012 by bvanrysdam

I’m thinking President Obama isn’t sleeping well lately. It’s not the economy, or the war in Afghanistan, or even Mitt Romney that has him worried; it’s his Secret Service (or lack thereof) that has to be keeping him up at night.

First, there was the prostitution scandal. Agents were in Columbia preparing for the President’s trip when they decided to stiff (insert rim shot here) a working lady on her fee. Now there is Secret Service Agent David Chaney acting like a pre-pubescent teenager posting photos of him allegedly guarding Sara Palin with the comment “I was really checking her out, if you know what I mean?”

Who out there thinks it’s a good idea for a Secret Service Agent to have a Facebook page, and then post pictures from work? Seems like that’s a no-brainer, so how does someone like David Chaney rack up nearly two decades working for what has to be the most scrutinized government agency.

The Secret Service is responsible for protecting the President, but who’s responsible for adding simple common sense to the Secret Service?

The Changing View of Memorial Park

Posted on December 16, 2011 by bvanrysdam

A dear old friend of mine is not doing well these days. I’m speaking of one of the largest urban parks in the United States, Houston’s Memorial Park. This year’s historic drought has severely impacted much of Texas and Memorial Park has not been immune from its effects.

I often like to go for a run around the Seymour Lieberman Exercise Trail (a 2.93 mile run that is used by nearly 3,000,000 health fanatics every year). You could not help but see the telltale orange tag on numerous trees that needed to be removed. The full impact of this did not hit me until I finally saw what the park looks like with the trees cut down.

The gaping holes I saw were much worse than I ever imagined. It was as if an insane maniac with a chainsaw, hell bent on destruction, was let loose to do appalling damage. These trees have survived hurricanes, ice storms and high winds, but finally succumbed to lack of water. In all, over 5,000 trees (mostly red oak and pine) are scheduled to be taken down and removed.

During a recent run, I thought of the history the trees were witness to. Before becoming a park in 1924, the area was known as Camp Logan and site of a horrific riot in 1917 that resulted in the deaths of four soldiers and sixteen civilians. In the end, a total of nineteen men would be executed, and forty-one were given life sentences. It’s hard to imagine such violence took place where people now seek tranquility from the big city hustle and bustle.

Thankfully, the trees have also seen happier moments such as Arnold Palmer winning the 1957 Houston Open Golf Tournament (collecting a purse of $7,500), at the 18 hole Memorial Park Golf Course which opened back in 1936, along with countless picnics, family reunions, art festivals and people simply seeking refuge in a little bit of nature.

So where do we go from here? Henry David Thoreau said it much better than I ever could when he wrote these words in A Succession of Forest Trees…

“Though I do not believe that a plant will spring up where no seed has been, I have great faith in a seed. Convince me that you have a seed there, and I am prepared to expect wonders.”

I for one, hope we have faith in new seeds and that future generations can expect new wonders for one of Houston’s magnificent gems.