Trey Garrison

I remember when "Trey Garrison" (or is it Norman Asa Garrison III?) used to write for the late, unlamented "Dallas Blog", a rightwing blog run by Tom Pauken, chairman of the Texas Republican Party from 1994 to 1997, among other party positions and appointed government position. Both Pauken and Garrison were provocative and usually wrong. Garrison also wrote very occasionally for "The Dallas Morning News" and "D Magazine." But I lost track of Garrison long before the time that "Dallas Blog" itself ceased to be active about 2016.

"The Dallas Morning News" catches us up on what Trey Garrison has been up to:

“Trey Garrison came to us as a libertarian writer expressing carefully couched opinions about everything from diversity to rural life to running marathons,” said Mike Wilson, editor of The News. “His last op-ed for us ran almost nine years ago. Hatewatch has done good work exposing his overtly racist and misogynistic views. We haven’t missed him and will never have him back.”

If you care to read more about Trey Garrison, feel free. I'll just leave Mike Wilson's quote speak for itself.

"I'm pro-life and I voted for Beto O'Rourke"

Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa penned an op-ed for The Dallas Morning News explaining why she voted for Beto O'Rourke for US Senator from Texas. I love Destiny, and not just because she was the only one who begged me "Please don't go" when I quit blogging in 2010. She's probably one of the few writers who could successfully coax me to come back. She's a terrific writer, but she is also open-minded enough to consider alternative viewpoints. How else could a pro-life feminist consider voting for Beto O'Rourke?

Anyway, so here I am back at the keyboard. Read her op-ed, then come back here and read my open letter to Destiny.

McCain's Memoirs

Senator John McCain was one of the most interesting, puzzling, confounding politicians of our generation. I'm not going to go through all the details. That's what Wikipedia is for. But consider these facts. In 2004 McCain was talked about as a vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket with John Kerry. In 2008, McCain himself picked Sarah Palin for his own vice presidential candidate. How can the same politician be both of those things? Like I said, confounding.

This is the kind of politician that I'd like to hear off-the-record explaining what he was thinking. But that just doesn't happen. Politicians are never off-the-record, at least not when they are still in office. Because John McCain died in office, he'll never get to write his memoirs free from the obligations of future political campaigns. That's a shame. On the other hand, perhaps I hold out too much hope for learning what made him tick from his memoirs. A politician's memoirs may be written after he no longer needs to worry about facing the voters, but there's another judgment he's campaigning for at the end of his life: his legacy. I guess that's why political memoirs are so often disappointing. McCain's probably would have been, too. We'll probably never know how he himself balanced the puzzling contradictions in his political career. How much was principal? How much craven political opportunism? Which was which?

Dichotomous Thinking

It might not seem like it, but I often try to understand how people that I otherwise recognize as intelligent and educated can hold beliefs that I consider to be, for lack of a better word, wacko. What's the difference in how their mind works and how mine does that might explain the different beliefs we hold?

John Ehrenreich, in a Slate article ("White Evangelicals' Continued Support of Trump Feels Surprising. It Shouldn't.") offers a theory predicated on fundamental differences in how conservatives and liberals see the world. These differences are probably set very early in life and individuals (myself included) are probably powerless to do much about them. It's just the way we see the world.

Ehrenreich:

Conservatives also show a greater tendency than liberals toward dichotomous thinking and have a stronger need for certainty and cognitive consistency. ("I don't do nuance," George W. Bush famously told Joe Biden.) ...

Dichotomous thinking, a trait associated with conservatism, is equally central to evangelical thought: God and man, saved and unsaved, Christianity and secularism, abstinence or the devil, male and female, life begins at conception and not at some nebulous time between then and when consciousness and rationality emerge. There is no room for ambiguity.

I guess what I'm saying is that "I do nuance."

Don't Trust Anyone Over Thirty

A blogger I've admired for over a decade (I think it's been that long; my memory might fail me) has recently decided to scrub the Internet of all of her old opinions. I know, I know, foolish quest. The Internet is forever. Anyway, she posits a new law: "Nobody should be allowed to put any of their dumbass thoughts or feels on the internet until at least 30."

When I was young, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, the campus anti-war movement had a rallying cry, "Don't trust anyone over thirty." I'm well past that milestone now, but I still think there's a nugget of wisdom there.

Wars are still started by old men but fought and died for by young men.

National debt is still piled up by old men but inherited by the next generation.

And absolute gun rights are enshrined and defended by old men but we bury the child victims that result.

Don't trust anyone over thirty. Still sounds good.

Jade Helm 15 Redux

Remember Jade Helm 15? Maybe you don't, at least if you're a relatively sane American not given to conspiracy theories. To refresh your memory, Jade Helm 15 was a series of joint military exercises conducted in the US southwest in 2015. The right wing went batshit crazy accusing Barack Obama of all sorts of evil motives. According to Wikipedia,  

 

Jim Shea of the Hartford Courant's wrote that the conspiracy theories included: a "psychological operation aimed at getting people used to seeing military forces on the streets" so that they do not realize when an invasion actually takes place.

Well, Jade Helm 15 came and went without a military coup. You might think that the right wing crazies will be ever vigilant against any new signs of the US military on the streets. Just kidding. In fact, President Donald Trump now wants the US military to conduct a grand military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC. The generals are against it. The Democrats in Congress are against it. The Republicans in Congress are against it. The mainstream press is against it. You know who isn't against it? The right wing crazies. Apparently, being against military putsches isn't some kind of general principal with them, so important that they will protest the first signs of military on our streets. They are only against such operations if the black guy is in charge.

May I Have a Word: Shithole

Our current president has so normalized aberrant behavior that hearing him describe African countries as "shitholes" comes as no surprise. Republicans don't bat an eye, offering no comment (as long as he signs their tax cuts for the rich, they'll tolerate anything from him). Democrats are scandalized, not by his choice of language, but by his racism. And the White House itself flip-flops faster than one can keep up with, first offering no denial, then, wait for it, Trump himself denying he used vile and racist language. In other words, just another day at this White House.

Matt Schlapp: Trump absolutely didn't say Haiti was a shithole but if it turns out he did say it he was 100% right and he meant it in a beautiful, compassionate way and if you don't acknowledge Haiti as a shithole then really, you're the monster. And the media is the real enemy. https://t.co/2e6rL41kGE

— Jonathan V. Last (@JVLast) January 12, 2018

American Self-Centeredness

It's often claimed that Americans have little knowledge of the rest of the world. It's the source of jokes. You know, like the report of the American tourist in Japan surprised by how many American brands he sees all around: Toyota, Sony, Nikon. Today we have evidence of self-centeredness in the White House (as if more evidence on that front is needed).

In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 29, 2017

Here's the context for that quote: a world map from the University of Maine's Climate Change Institute showing today's temperatures in relation to average temperatures from 1979-2000. Regions colder than average are shown in blue. Regions warmer than average are shown in red.

When our president can't see farther than the end of his nose, our country is in great peril.

May I Have a Word: Racial Resentment

Before the election, racial resentment closely predicted who was going to vote for  [Trump], and after the election, it absolutely nailed who had voted for him.
So what is it? If the nation elected its president on that basis more than any other factor, shouldn't we know better what racial resentment is? Can't we just call it racism?

-- Jim Schutze

No we can't. Nothing gets a racist to plug his ears and say, "Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you" faster than to use the word racist to describe him. Racists have managed to make even the word "racism" politically incorrect, even when applied correctly, that is, to racists. You see, racists believe that if their racism can be defended with anecdotal evidence, then, ipso facto, it's not racism. Against black people? Point to a black criminal. Against Hispanics? Point to an immigrant without correct documents. Against Muslims? Point to a terrorist who shouts "Allahu Akbar." It can't be racist to be against blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims if one can point to a bad black, Hispanic, or Muslim. (Or alternatively, point to a single good one: "One of our attorneys is a Jew" as Roy Moore's wife infamously put it.)

That brings us to Richard Spencer. As Jim Schutze says, he's a racist who doesn't rely on euphemism. He's also on The Dallas Morning News's short list for "Texan of the Year." He sounds much like what I imagine Adolph Hitler must have sounded like to Germans in the 1930s.

"Because, for us as Europeans, it is only normal again when we are great again. Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!"
-- Richard Spencer

Hitler had electoral success then. So too do Richard Spencer's preferred candidates today. Allowing him, the politicians he supports, and the racist next door shame you into dropping the word "racism" from your vocabulary is already a minor victory for racism. Call racism what it is: racism.

Tax Cut and Jobs Act

Congress passed and the President will sign the "Tax Cut and Jobs Act." The "Tax Cut" is assured. The "Jobs" are an act of faith. All Republican senators voted in favor of the bill. All Democratic senators voted against it. What does this tell us about the state of American politics?

It tells us that Republicans are in favor of small government. Their governing philosophy is that by cutting taxes, they'll starve government of revenue and benefit cuts (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act in particular) will inevitably follow.

It tells us that Democrats are in favor of government benefits. Their governing philosophy is to pay for those benefits through taxes. Those taxes are needed to pay government benefits (again, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act).

The tension lies in the fact that the voters have a foot in both camps. Voters like both the benefits and the tax cuts. That way might lie ruin, but there we are.

May I Have a Word: Uggianaqtuq

According to the New York Times:

The Inuit have a word for changes they are seeing to their environment: uggianaqtuq. It means "to behave strangely."

Tragically, according to Vox:

The Trump administration is backing away from calling climate change a national security threat, a move that contradicts nearly three decades of military planning.

Behaving strangely, indeed. 

May I Have a Word: Just Joking

When Al Franken defended his boorish behavior towards a woman on a USO tour, his defense was that he intended it as a joke that, in hindsight, was never funny. Donald Trump "jokes" repeatedly, for example encouraging rough treatment by police when arresting suspects. Or at least that's how his apologists explain his statements: just joking. Most people don't accept the "just joking" defense (and for the record I don't either), but I read something today that explains where it comes from:

Humor is often a kind of aggression. Being laughed at is aversive and feels like an attack. Comedy often runs on slapstick and insult, and in less refined settings, including the foraging societies in which we evolved, humor can be overtly sadistic.

Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works

So, yeah, many people find cruelty to others to be funny. For them "just joking" is not just a defense. It's the simple truth of what those people find to be "funny."

Introducing Donald Trump

Searching the archives of this blog, I notice that there is no mention of Donald Trump. Maybe that's not surprising, as I took an extended hiatus from 2010 to 2017. In any case, it's time to rectify that. In case you didn't know (i.e., in case you have been living under a rock for that last two years), Donald Trump is a bully, a blowhard, a narcissist, a compulsive liar and a political know-nothing. It doesn't surprise me that such people run for political office. It doesn't surprise me that they occasionally even get elected (I'm thinking of you, Louie Gohmert). What does surprise me is that 46.1% of all American voters knew all that about Donald Trump and still said, "Yeah, that's who I want running the country."

DART's "not so good thing" - Update

An anonymous poster submitted a comment to an old article (read here) regarding Rep. Angie Chen Button's role as a DART board member in DART's $900 million cost overrun in 2008. DART is still reeling from that. I don't know about a Button-Jeffus connection the anonymous poster refers to nor the requirements for a conflict of interest charge, but if what he or she says is true, this particular situation doesn't pass the smell test.

"Ed, I ran across this article while doing some research on Rep. Button. I did some checking into this Garland Council meeting and found this shocker: The guy questioning Button about the $900M shortfall (Jeffus) shows up on Button's payroll to the tune of over $60K in 2008 alone [Texas Ethics Commission filings and streaming video obtained from Garland City Secretary's Office]. This raises a question: A Dart Board representative works for the council that appointed them right? So was there a conflict of interest going on in 2008 with a sitting council member being on the payroll of a sitting board member the council appoints? Is there a statute of limitation for conflict of interest violations?"

Health Care End Game - Update

With full awareness of the immodesty of saying, "I told you so", I couldn't help but look back with much satisfaction on a post I made last August, titled "Health Care End Game" and subtitled, "Spoiler alert: How it will end." Now the end has come. That old post was remarkably prescient. Close vote. No GOP support. Budget reconciliation. The one prediction that failed was the expectation that if reconciliation were used (it was), then some form of the public option would be in the final bill (it wasn't). Still, I give my prognostication a solid B+.

Richardson Water Rates

Do the rates promote conservation?

At Monday's Richardson city council meeting, resident David Chenoweth suggested (Section 5, Part 3, beginning about 28:30) that the city's water rates do not promote conservation. Does he have a point? I think so, at least enough of a point that someone at city hall ought to review the situation and decide just what we're trying to accomplish with the rates. According to the city's Web site, the water rates are:

Minimum $7.00 plus per each 1,000 gallons consumed

$2.95 for 1,000-11,000 gallons
$3.19 for 11,001-20,000 gallons
$3.33 for 20,001-40,000 gallons
$3.87 for 40,001-60,000 gallons
$4.05 for 60,001 and over

At first glance, it looks progressive, that is, the bigger consumers of water pay higher rates. But David Chenoweth pointed out that that $7.00 minimum charge skews things quite a bit. For example, if you conserve and use only the barest minimum of water for a month, say 1,000 gallons, you'll pay $9.95 for that 1,000 gallons. Say your neighbor uses four times as much water as you, 4,000 gallons. His total bill will be only twice as big as yours, a total of $18.80. That's only $4.70 per 1,000 gallons, less than half your effective rate of $9.95 per 1,000 gallons. For even bigger consumers of water, that $7.00 minimum charge gets spread over many more gallons, bringing their effective rate per 1,000 gallons ever lower. Eventually, at 35,000 gallons usage, it bottoms out at $3.37 per 1,000 gallons (remember, the extreme conserver paid $9.95 per 1,000 gallons). It's not until 40,000 gallons usage that those higher rates for big users take over and the rate per 1,000 gallons starts creeping upward again. Here is the same table again, only this time showing the effective rate per 1,000 gallons.

$9.95 per 1,000 gallons for 1,000 gallons
$6.45 per 1,000 gallons for 2,000 gallons
$5.28 per 1,000 gallons for 3,000 gallons
$4.70 per 1,000 gallons for 4,000 gallons
$4.35 per 1,000 gallons for 5,000 gallons
$4.12 per 1,000 gallons for 6,000 gallons
$3.95 per 1,000 gallons for 7,000 gallons
$3.83 per 1,000 gallons for 8,000 gallons
$3.73 per 1,000 gallons for 9,000 gallons
$3.65 per 1,000 gallons for 10,000 gallons
$3.59 per 1,000 gallons for 11,000 gallons
$3.41 per 1,000 gallons for 20,000 gallons
$3.38 per 1,000 gallons for 30,000 gallons
$3.37 per 1,000 gallons for 40,000 gallons <--- lowest rate
$3.47 per 1,000 gallons for 50,000 gallons
$3.54 per 1,000 gallons for 60,000 gallons
$3.60 per 1,000 gallons for 70,000 gallons

The council members understood what was happening here. City Manager Bill Keffler quickly identified that minimum $7.00 charge as being responsible for the high unit price paid by conservers of water. He said that there's a minimum $7.00 charge just because it costs something to connect people to the water system no matter how little water they use. That's true enough. But so what? If the primary goal is to conserve water, then the city should eliminate that minimum charge. The rates for usage can be adjusted upwards to keep the change revenue neutral in total. If the goal is conservation, then residents should be charged only for the water they use and the effective rate should go up with increased usage, instead of down as the current structure has it.

But perhaps that's too radical. Perhaps the council feels there's a fairness issue here (although Bill Keffler did not say so in his response to David Chenoweth). Perhaps the council wants everyone to pay that $7.00 because that's the cost of just maintaining the pipes, before any water runs through them at all. Fair enough. Then, they should at least adjust the rates so that the unit rate per 1,000 gallons bottoms out at much less than 35,000 gallons usage per month. Lower the rate for the first 11,000 or 20,000 gallons and increase the rate for usage over 20,001 gallons. Again, adjust the rates to keep the change revenue neutral, but set the rates so that the bigger users pay more, not just in absolute dollar amounts, but in the effective rate per 1,000 gallons as well.

All this is dependent on the assumption that the goal is to conserve water. Bill Keffler implied that was the goal of the rate structure, but there are two reasons why that might not be the only careabout driving the rate structure. First, council members may want to actually favor the bigger users of water for various reasons, or at least not be seen as penalizing them. More importantly, the city contract with the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) guarantees the city will buy from NTMWD a given amount of water each year. Conservation below that contracted minimum won't result in any cost savings for the city at all. There might be more global reasons why water conservation would still be a Good Thing™, but the city council might not care as much if it doesn't save the city any money directly.

In summary, David Chenoweth did have a point. The city's goals in this area ought to be reviewed and clarified, then the water rates themselves ought to be reviewed and adjusted if necessary to better impact the city's goals.

Pete Sessions' Blimp

Know anybody with a blimp job in north Texas?

Or even in Illinois, for that matter? Well, there's money earmarked in the federal budget by north Texas' own Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) for blimp research and development in Illinois. Because of the furor stirred up by the health care debate, a recent news story about Pete Sessions didn't get the attention it deserved. According to a Politico story on 7/30/2009,

"Rep. Pete Sessions - the chief of the Republicans’ campaign arm in the House - says on his website that earmarks have become 'a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people.'

Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps.

What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf."

What's this? Pete Sessions? Earmarks? Blimps? for Illinois? Aide? Lobbyist? Criminal record? That's right. Enough keywords to fuel a silly season story for weeks (my apologies to bloggermouse for yet another reference to "silly season"). Except the health care silliness (e.g, "death panels") has starved other stories of oxygen. But one person at Pete Sessions' town hall meeting in Irving did manage to get to the microphone and ask about his sending $1.6 million dollars to Illinois for blimp research. According to Sessions Watch, this is how Pete Sessions addressed the issue (or not):

"The appropriators had it for over a year before they brought it to the floor. The appropriators knew that the United States Army and Air Force is in fact looking for the opportunity to take massive amounts of weight from the United States to the theater. Blimps are much like the hydroplanes that the Marine Corps went to where they've got hovercraft. And they spend seventy-eight thousand gallons taking two tanks overseas on an aircraft. This would accomplish sixteen tanks for three gallons. The forty thousand dollars that was spent on the engineering study before they asked for it was looked at by the Air Force and the Air Force is interested in this and you watch what happens. Thank you so very much."

So, I take it that Pete Sessions thinks that his own earmarks are good, although he doesn't use the word earmark in his reply. He also doesn't use the words lobbyist, aide, criminal record, or Illinois, either. Nevertheless, according to Sessions Watch, "The overwhelmingly pro-Sessions audience greeted this statement with wild cheers and applause, on a par with the kind Oprah Winfrey gets when she tells her audience, 'Look under your chairs...!'"

Ain't politics grand?!?

Ted Kennedy, 1932-2009

To Sail Against the Wind

Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) died today after a year-long battle with brain cancer. I found the following blog post in the archives that I think stands up as well today as the day it was written, May 20, 2008.

---

Jarrett Rush, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, breaks the news that Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor. Rush's short blog post focuses on his and his generation's impression of Kennedy, not as the effective senior senator from Massachusetts, but as a punchline of late-night comedians.

Others of a slightly older generation remember Ted Kennedy challenging President Jimmy Carter to fight for universal health insurance. Kennedy inspired the Democratic mid-term convention in Memphis in 1978 with a passionate speech:

"There are some who say we cannot afford national health insurance. ... Sometimes a party must sail against the wind. We cannot afford to drift or lie at anchor. We cannot heed the call of those who say it is time to furl the sail."

Today, thirty years later, Kennedy's goal is still unfulfilled, the country still adrift. Voters have the best chance in generation to elect a President and a Congress who can do something about that. The wind is shifting.

Councilman fears "onerous" open records requests

Wants extra credit for answering public's questions

Monday evening, the Richardson City Council held a public hearing on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2009-2010. There was much discussion about overtime expenses, car allowances, staff salaries and other areas to keep costs under control. New councilman Bob Macy's budget concern seemed to be the cost of answering the public's questions and open records requests as required by state law. My transcript of his remarks (Item 5 Part 2 beginning 29:10):

Bob Macy: "Uh I have a comment to, to, I'd like to bring up. The uh, we have a lot of, I'm glad that we have people that come up in front of us to have comments and they take their time to look into situations and make recommendations and, uh, I, I'm complimentary about that but I also think we need a line item or a budget item to keep track of the time that the city staff has to, to, work with and prepare results, prepare answers to the questions that come up, and uh, I don't know what the magnitude of that would be. Bill, I don't know, do you have any kind of recommendation on what kind of a magnitude a budget item would be for that?"

[Bill Keffler's answer not transcribed]

Macy: "Well, do you think maybe, uh, that there ought to be some accountability on that because it's taking time from your staff that, I mean, they're hired to do a certain job so when they take time to answer these questions it ought to be something they can charge to or get credit for in addition to their regular job."

[Bill Keffler's answer not transcribed]

Macy: "I'm hearing that you don't think we need a line item, a particular item."

[Bill Keffler's answer not transcribed]

Macy: "I'm just, uh, putting out the notion that we ought to have a budget item for that. If you think it's not necessary or not advisable, that's fine."

[Bill Keffler's answer not transcribed]

Macy: "Is there a level that it becomes onerous, I mean, you know, is too much? Do we have any kind of control on, you know, when it's normal and when it gets to be, you know, out of reason?"

[Bill Keffler and rest of council's answers not transcribed]

Love that Bob.

Lockerbie Bomber & Health Care

What do these have in common?

If you guessed that freeing the terminally ill Lockerbie bomber was due to Great Britain having socialized medicine, you'd be thinking along the same lines as David Smith, who published just that assertion in the Dallas County Republican Examiner. (Never heard of Examiner.com? It's more competition for The Dallas Morning News' online product.) David Smith lists no professional medical background of any kind in his bio, but according to him:

"The Scottish system issued a death sentence on this man because its Socialized health care system could not 'work him in.' And this is, once again, my point--that this will be the end product in our system if we allow such a Socialized, or public option, or government-run, government-mandated system of co-op's to become the system here."

It's ironic that this right wing commentator is simultaneously upset that Great Britain showed compassion for a terminally ill prisoner (by releasing him) and didn't show compassion for a terrorist bomber (by not giving him better medicare care). David Smith might want to learn a lesson from the epic FAIL of Investor's Business Daily, which also passed judgment on Britain's National Health Service (NHS). In a now infamous editorial, IBD said:

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K. where the National Health Service would say the quality of life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Well, as Steven Hawking himself subsequently pointed out, he is British, he does get his health care from the NHS, and he is here today to rebut IBD because of that care:

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."