The disappearing middle

Posted on by

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has rolled out a health plan that would help provide universal child care. The proposal would create a federal program that establishes a network of public and family-run centers.

The care would be free for families with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level (about $51,500 for a family of four) and those earning more would pay a subsidized fee based on their income, with no households shelling out more than 7 percent of their income.

Experts estimate  her child care initiative would cost the federal government $700 billion over 10 years which begs the question, how do we pay for that?

Tax the wealthy! (Please raise your hand if you think that will work) Other than being a far-fetched idea, it sounds eerily like another campaign promise regarding a certain border wall (whose going to pay for it? Mexico!).

While I applaud anyone trying to improve health care, fixing the immigration system and tackling any of the other hundreds of issues facing our country (roads, education, trade), throwing out ideas that are dead on a arrival are of very little help. This may play to her base (very much like the border wall plays to Trump’s base), but has about as much of a chance of working as me winning the lotto.

It feels that, when it comes to politics, the pendulum swings from left to right (or right to left depending on the year). Playing to the hard core case leaves out a very important segment of America, those in the middle looking for common ground and solutions that have a chance.

I would like to see the pendulum slow down and little and let America catch her breath.

News that is not fit to print?

Posted on by

The Houston Chronicle printed an interesting story on Why the media stayed quiet as Houston integrated it’s counters. The article talked about how Houston media basically buried any negative integration stories in an attempt not to inflame protests and riots.

The author (Mike Snyder) wrote “today, ignoring or playing down a major news story like the integration of lunch counters would be unthinkable”. In a more recent example, Snyder pointed out that The New York Times delayed publication of an explosive story about warrantless wiretapping for a year in response to concerns about national security expressed by President George W. Bush’s administration.

What I think the author missed was that the major media outlets at the time were owned by either the Jones or Hobby family who were very much part of the community. I don’t think you would see this happen in today’s world of consolidation and big corporate media.

That being said, it’s still worth reading about how the times continue to change.

Open mouth insert foot (repeat)

Posted on by

“I never worked for Russia”

Let those words sink in for a moment. They were not said by Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn, but by President Trump. Even knowing Trump’s disdain for the media (with the exception of Fox News), it was an extraordinary thing to say.

I am reminded back to the days of Nixon and Watergate when he quipped “I am not a crook” which, according to Time magazine, became one of the Top 10 Unfortunate Political One-Liners (others making the list was Clinton’s “”I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and George H.W. Bush’s infamous “Read my lips: no new taxes”). The line instantly caught fire and one could arguably say was the beginning of the end of the Nixon White House.

As I so often like to point out, I am not implying Trump is guilty and this not about whether or not Trump colluded with the Russians. I’ll let the Mueller team figure that out, but it’s about an American president actually having to deny they worked for a foreign and to a large degree, adversary.

Trump supporters will say it’s because the media is obsessed with the investigation (and they would be right). They will also remind you there is no direct evidence linking Trump to conspire to rig the election (and they would be right again), but Team Trump continues to step in it.

Remember these lines…

  • “Truth isn’t truth” – Rudy Giuliani
  • Spicer was giving “alternative facts” – Kellyanne Conway
  • “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock” – Anthony Scaramucci

In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter what Trump or his team says. It seems most American’s fall into three categories. You support him, you hate him, or you hold your nose at what he says and hopes he keeps nominating conservative appointees.

Still, one has to wonder how long this ride can last before the train flies off the rails.

Fear and loathing on the border

Posted on by

We have crisis on the border.

That is the message the White House is delivering in an attempt to win the perception game on the proposed border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

President Trump recently visited the border joined by fellow republicans including Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. Ted Cruz and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The rhetoric of really bad people including terrorists and/or members of vicious gangs coming across smuggling drugs and making our country less safe continues to ratchet up.

While I do agree the border and immigration are issues that have to be addressed, I am struck by the tone of trying to convince America that we need a wall. It sounds as if Texas, and especially the border, is a really dangerous place right now that no one should want to be a part of.

It seems to me that if a business was looking to relocate, the last place they would want to move to is somewhere that is so dangerous, the U.S. is willing to implement a partial shutdown of the government. And what about the tourism industry. What family would want to visit towns like El Paso, McAllen or Brownsville?

It has been pointed out by opponents of Trump’s proposal, that the facts are simply not there to support his claim, but I think in the case (as is too often the case), the facts really don’t matter. It’s about tone, innuendo and scaring people into believing something is real (anybody remember Joe McCarthy and the fear of “Reds Under The Bed”?).

I do sympathize with people who have lost loved ones by people who are here illegally, but not anymore than those who lost a loved one in mass shooting. Both are wrong and both issues need to be fixed.

The Republican Party has always flown the “We Support Business” banner, but in this case, they may be more Chicken Little running around yelling the sky is falling and we all know how that turned out.

We The People (except you)

Posted on by

How far has American come in terms of tolerance? Consider this, a group of Tarrant County Republicans will vote this week on whether or not to remove Tarrant County Republican Vice-Chair Shahid Shafi. His crime? Being Muslim.

Shafi, a trauma surgeon and Southlake City Council member, is having his position challenged because he doesn’t represent all Tarrant County Republicans. They point out that Islamic ideologies do not align with the U.S. Constitution even though Amendment I says…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

According to the Texas Tribune, Dorrie O’Brien, one of the precinct chairs, said she wants to boot Shafi out, not because he is Muslim, but because she questions whether he supports Islam or is connected “to Islamic terror groups”. I guess she is also unaware of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees ‘equal protection under the law’ which basically ensures a person to be innocent until proven guilty.

Ironically, the argument O’Brien is making is the same the KKK made against Catholics. The Klan pointed out that since Catholics had to put the pope first, they could not put the country’s interests ahead of the pope who would be the de facto leader (the same argument was made when JFK ran for president).

The good news in all of this is several high ranking Texas Republicans are standing with Shafi including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush and former House Speaker Joe Straus.

It looks like there is common ground to be found in politics. Unfortunately, it takes something this extreme for it to happen.

A river runs through it

Posted on by

There is an interesting development (literally) brewing in Kingwood. Romerica Investments, LLC has applied for a permit to develop wetlands, flood plain, and floodway in the area around Barrington and River Grove Park in Kingwood into a resort area.

We are just 18 months from Hurricane Harvey with the area still recovering in certain areas. There is really no need to rehash the amount of damage, but deciding to move forward with this project has to make you scratch your head.

The promotional video shows tranquil waters lapping along the banks aided by an uplifting and dramatic music bed that has the feel of total luxury. The plan is to develop a mixed use featuring a commercial and residential district along with a marina.

I guess they are hoping people won’t remember what the San Jacinto Bridge at Highway 59 looked like after some of the water receded.

Concrete barriers that were moved by Hurricane Harvey flood waters.There are also plans to expand Woodland Hills Drive to accommodate the additional traffic, but as anyone who drives in Kingwood will tell you, traffic can already be brutal and adding thousands of more people will just make it worse.

I  don’t know what the chances of this project even getting off the ground are (the Sierra Club requested a public hearing with all surrounding businesses, residential areas and other entities that may be affected by the proposal, up or downstream), but given the recent history, I would be surprised if anybody would think this is a good investment for either the community or the investors.

Traditional radio turns a deaf ear to streaming music

Posted on by

Bridge Ratings, who provide station-based on-demand music streaming data, released some interesting analysis. They report that traditional radio missed 40 percent of the most-streamed music by their listeners in December 2018.

According to their data, over 80 percent of Americans stream music in an average month. Unlike traditional methods of music research such as phone surveys, auditorium testing, etc., on-demand streaming accurately measures how much a song is being listened to.

Bridge Ratings points out that radio listeners who stream have different tastes than radio non-users or radio “lite-users”, but the research begs the question; could over-the-air radio stations perform better in the ratings if they play more of the music being listened to via the internet.

This chart compares each format’s “hit-delivery” with its 2017 performance…

(How to read: Urban radio missed or underplayed nearly 50% of the songs that were most-streamed by the format’s P1 or heavy listeners. Country radio missed 26%)

As anyone who has ever listened to traditional radio knows, increased commercial loads are reducing time spent listening, a key factor when calculating ratings. This increase in advertisers are causing more and more listeners to go to streaming sources for their music.

Factor in they are not hearing songs they like on the radio and you can start to see a formula for trouble. According to Bridge Ratings…

We know from our own experience over the past four years, that an increasing number of commercial radio programmers are using on-demand streaming research in some form to better-align their music playlists and to properly reflect the tastes of their listeners. Yet, there are far more programmers who do not believe in the data and do not use it either on its own or in combination with other forms of research they may be comfortable with.

It could turn out that streaming and not video will kill the radio star.

What is the justice in this?

Posted on by

 

A really bad story is coming out of Waco.

A plea deal was offered to Jacob Anderson, a former Baylor University fraternity president who was accused of rape. The deal, which was offered by prosecutors, allowed Anderson to plead no contest to a lesser charge, thus avoiding any jail time (he does have to pay a $400 fine).

I was not there to be a witness to this alleged event and understand there was some conflicting evidence and statements made making the district attorney’s office offer the deal. What caught my eye was reading that Hillary LaBorde, who was assigned to prosecute the case, emailed the victim saying…

she didn’t think they would win the case if it went to trial, explaining that Anderson was an “innocent-looking young defendant” and a first-time rapist. “Our jurors aren’t ready to blame rapists and not victims.”

Two things here, why would you even say something like that to a victim of sexual assault (Anderson pleaded no contest to third-degree felony charge of unlawful restraint and receive deferred probation).

Second, have we made so little progress in our society that jurors are not ready to blame rapists, especially innocent-looking young defendants? I guess the #MeToo movement still has a way to go in Waco.

“I’ve been at this a long time and I’ve never seen anything like this,” the victim’s attorney, Vic Feazell, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. “It stinks to high hell.”

As a final slap in the face, neither LaBorde nor McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna attended Monday’s hearing, according to the Texas Tribune.

It seems prosecutors care more about their record and don’t want to take on case that will make them look bad if they lose, but sadly in this case, they still look bad.

Government and social media

Posted on by

As is usually the case, the law is trying to keep up with technology. The question of what constitutes a public forum is being debated and its impact could affect everyone from your locally elected dog catcher to the president of the United States.

A case has been making its way through the courts involving Deanna Robinson and the Hunt County Sheriff’s Office. Robinson learned she had been blocked from commenting or liking posts after criticizing them on their Facebook page. This was not the first run-in Robinson has had with the agency. In 2015, Robinson was confronted by a Hunt County deputy and a Child Protective Services representative looking to remove her then, 18-month old son from the home.

The case was finally dismissed and charges were dropped, but that hasn’t stopped the bad blood between them. Robinson filed a lawsuit in Feb. 2017 where she lost the case in a North Texas trial court. She has appealed and oral arguments will be heard today in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. (There is a similar case pending in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals between President Trump and a group of citizens who have banned from his Twitter account)

The sheriff’s office contends that by blocking Robinson, they are enforcing Facebook’s conduct rules. Under the terms of agreement, Facebook states…

 Combat harmful conduct and protect and support our community:

People will only build community on Facebook if they feel safe. We employ dedicated teams around the world and develop advanced technical systems to detect misuse of our Products, harmful conduct towards others, and situations where we may be able to help support or protect our community. If we learn of content or conduct like this, we will take appropriate action – for example, offering help, removing content, blocking access to certain features, disabling an account, or contacting law enforcement. We share data with other Facebook Companies when we detect misuse or harmful conduct by someone using one of our Products.

So, can being critical of a governmental agency be considered harmful conduct? Not knowing what the exact post said could play into this decision. Context is important and if the post used obscene language, or was threatening, you could see why a person would be blocked (although you could have simply deleted or hide the comment). But, if the post just offered a negative opinion, you could argue your First Amendment rights are being violated.

In light of more and more governmental agencies turning to Facebook and Twitter to communicate with their constituents, the outcome could have far reaching implications as to the future use of social media.

The tangled web of American history

Posted on by

Today is National Repeal Day.

On January 16th, 1919, Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment, outlawing alcohol and the following year, Congress passed the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote.

In a strange way, these two events were connected to each other. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union had been promoting prohibition for many years, believing alcohol was the cause of many social ills facing our nation. In those days, a man controlled the household money and could drink away the family’s life savings with the wife having little recourse to stop him.

Another factor that played a large role in all of this was World War I. Many women became involved in the war efforts, working in factories, running the house with husbands at war, allowing them to earn their own money and even great freedom.

All of this led America into the Roaring Twenties where consumerism took off. Advances in printing found magazines entering more and more homes, offering a plethora of manufactured goods just waiting to be gobbled up. Sensing a growing market, many companies began to market directly at women, thus giving them an even greater voice to advance their status.

Fast forward thirteen years and America found itself in the Great Depression. Because of Prohibition, organized crime grew with gangsters taking control of big cities. Both men and women struggled to survive. Many Americans were looking for something to cheer about and their thoughts soon turned to drink.

Franklin D. Roosevelt called for a repeal during the 1932 presidential campaign. He won the election in a landslide and Prohibition was dead one year later. On December 5th, 1933, Utah (being the final state needed for a three quarters majority) the 21st Amendment was ratified repealing Prohibition.