Tier 1 universities; Money in Richardson politics

The Nightly Build

---

A Good First Step For Higher Education

Emily Ramshaw, in The Dallas Morning News, reports that the Texas House has passed a measure that creates three funding pools for the seven "emerging research universities" in Texas, including Richardson's own UT-Dallas. The bill now goes to the Senate.

This is a good step, but note that funding for the pools is not yet in the budget. Without funding, good intentions will lead to nothing. Encourage your legislators to fund this effort.

---

Following the Money in Richardson

There aren't many issues in the current race for Richardson City Council. The candidates have mostly agreed with each other during the five forums for candidates. The one topic that seems to come up everywhere -- in forums, in campaign literature, on blogs -- is transparency in government. It means different things to different people. An online city checkbook and video streaming of council meetings are often called for, and all candidates support these measures.

Full disclosure of each candidate's supporters is sometimes mentioned, with different sides finding fault with each other. Some Richardson voters (and candidates) see a conspiracy behind the Richardson Coalition, a PAC made up of some of Richardson's most prominent business and political leaders. Talk is loud enough to prompt the Richardson Coalition to publish an editorial titled, "Follow the Money" in which it defends itself against charges of funding the campaigns of candidates it supports. The Richardson Coalition lists the funds it has donated to political candidates in 2007-2009. It's $0.

The PAC does not state how much money it has spent on its own promoting specific candidates, for example the flier it mailed to voters in which it endorsed seven of the seventeen candidates for city council. Such expenditures may not be monetary contributions to candidates, but these expenditures do directly benefit the candidates that the PAC backs. According to reports on file with the Texas Ethics Commission, the Richardson Coalition PAC lists over $27,000 in contributions it received in 2007 and 2008.

After defending itself, the Richardson Coalition PAC goes on to criticize other PACs for being involved in Richardson politics. Specifically, it criticizes the Richardson Fire Fighters Association PAC for making contributions to candidates. According to reports on file with the Texas Ethics Commission, the RFFA PAC lists over $17,000 in contributions it received in 2007 and 2008. The Richardson Coalition PAC says they "will be watching this carefully to insure that this organization does not receive any preferential treatment, regardless of who prevails in the election." Perhaps what Richardson really needs is a non-partisan group watching all the PACs, including the Richardson Coalition, to make sure that money does not have an undue influence on election results. Like the Richardson Coalition urges, voters are well advised to follow the money.

P.S. Early voting begins today. Don't forget to vote.

Richardson forum at Mark Twain

The Nightly Build

---

Last Chance To Do Side-by-Side Comparisons

The fifth and final forum for candidates for Richardson City Council was held today at Mark Twain Elementary. I was not there. (I guess I do have a life after all.) But the comments are on for anyone who was there to report any news that came out of this last forum.

Don McLeroy and SBOE; Richardson Coalition PAC

The Nightly Build

---

For Once, Good News from the SBOE

Terrence Stutz, in The Dallas Morning News Trailblazers blog, brings us the rare bit of good news regarding the Texas State Board of Education. The SBOE has a near-majority of Creationists who have been working for decades to water down science education in Texas by casting doubt on the theory of evolution by natural selection. The chairman of the SBOE, appointed by Gov. Rick Perry, is Don McLeroy, a Creationist dentist from College Station. At a January hearing, McLeroy demonstrated his own lack of a science education by asking, "Isn't the fact that [teeth] fit together so perfectly a weakness of evolution?"

Stutz reports that the Senate might reject Perry's re-appointment of McLeroy as chairman. Confirmation requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Democrats, who control 12 of 31 seats, have signaled they would not vote to approve McLeroy. Hooray! Finally, there's a glint of sunshine on the SBOE. A glimmer of hope that the SBOE might be restored to a body that puts the education of Texas children above personal, religious agendas.

But it's only the beginning of the beginning. McLeroy could still win re-appointment. Or Perry could appoint another Creationist. Regardless, McLeroy would continue to hold his seat on the SBOE. The quality of education in Texas won't be out of danger until Texas voters remove these members from the SBOE entirely: Terri Leo, David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, Cynthia Dunbar, Gail Lowe, Don McLeroy and Ken Mercer.

---

The Giant In Richardson Politics Speaks

So far, the Richardson Coalition Political Action Committee (PAC) has been the unseen giant in the current campaign for Richardson City Council. The PAC is made up of all the power brokers of the Richardson establishment (five former council members, four Citizens of the Year, etc.). It's been accused of throwing its weight around, of being behind numerous nefarious deeds, of pulling the strings of various candidates. But mostly, such scurrilous talk has been in private, in emails, and on the blogosphere. Chris Davis is the only candidate who has bordered on the edge of bringing such accusations out in public. In one forum, she hinted of a conspiracy, suggesting that there is a "coalition" of people in Richardson who want to "go back to the council of old."

Up to now, the PAC has been silent regarding the election. Now, the giant has spoken. The PAC, in a mailer, is going public with its recommendations for City Council.

• Place 1
  • The PAC recommends Bob Townsend, calling him a "steady hand." I agree. There's nothing in his past or his vision for the future that calls for a change.
  • Bill Denton, who would make a fine candidate for an open seat, has not made any case for change at all.
• Place 2
  • The PAC recommends Mark Solomon, saying "his record of dedicated service" demonstrates both his competence and ability and to do the job. I agree.
  • The PAC rejects the other candidates because of their inexperience, not because of their visions for Richardson. I agree.
• Place 3
  • The PAC recommends John Murphy, crediting him with keeping Richardson's finances in good shape, keeping government growth in check while still providing excellent services. I agree.
  • The PAC gives its first "Not Recommended" rating to Chris Davis, saying that her service as executive assistant to our Dallas County Commissioner is a serious conflict of interest. I agree there, too. Chris Davis ought to address that conflict by pledging to resign her position with the Dallas County Commissioner if elected to the City Council. The PAC also charges Davis with unspecified "unethical, mean-spirited and untrue negative attacks against opponents." I consider these charges themselves to be unethical and mean-spirited. The PAC gravely undermines its own reputation by spreading unspecific, unsourced rumors.
• Place 4
  • The PAC recommends Gary Slagel, crediting him with leading Richardson through the collapse of the "tech boom" and calling on him to help lead us through the current economic downturn. I agree that Slagel's experience is valuable and good reason to keep him on the Council.
  • The PAC accuses Diane Wardrup of making "untrue, negative attacks" and distributing "illegal flyers." It makes a gratuitous attack on her, quoting unnamed "co-workers" saying unflattering things about her. Like the unsupported rumors spread by the PAC against Chris Davis, I condemn the PAC's methods here.
  • The PAC dismisses Tom Bache-Wiig as being "new to the scene." I agree. He needs to prove himself with more involvement in civic affairs before being ready for City Council. Why the Council saw fit to use the little space it devoted to Bache-Wiig to say he's had 14 jobs in 28 years is unexplained. It should not have been mentioned.
• Place 5
  • The PAC recommends Bob Macy, praising his "maturity and stability." Here I differ with the PAC. Bob Macy may be a genial man, and he may have served the city well in past volunteer positions, but his performances at the forums gave no confidence in his command of the issues or his ability to lead.
  • The PAC's recommendation here looks even more contrived in discussing the incumbent Pris Hayes. The PAC says she has "performed honorable service" during her term on Council, but says "some fresh ideas would be welcome." The PAC provides no examples of Pris Hayes' ideas that the PAC finds to be stale and offers no examples of fresh ideas of Bob Macy. Why the PAC has to use strained logic in recommending Macy over Hayes is more understandable when you see Bob Macy's name listed on the PAC's Web page titled "Who Are We." Leaving out this connection in its recommendations is irresponsible.
• Place 6
  • The PAC recommends Steve Mitchell, who is running unopposed. I agree.
• Place 7
  • The PAC recommends Amir Omar, singling out his strong support for a "Senior Tax Freeze". For that reason, I cannot recommend Omar. A tax freeze for seniors may be good politics now, but it is bad public policy in the long run. Sooner or later, Richardson will have to fix the distortions it will inevitably cause in the distribution of the property tax burden.
  • The PAC gives its second "Not Recommended" rating to Dennis Stewart, apologizing to the voters of Richardson for its past support of Stewart. Here, I'm inclined to agree with the PAC. Stewart made personal attacks on Omar at one forum, including an attack on the spelling of his name. Simultaneously, Stewart wrapped himself in the flag. Stewart, a former policeman, is endorsed by the Richardson Fire Fighters Association. The PAC omits to mention its recently published editorial criticizing union PACs for contributing to city council election campaigns. The PAC has no business denouncing another PAC for involving itself in city politics while doing so itself. Unfortunately, I can make no recommendation in this race. I don't like the politics of Stewart and the Richardson Coalition PAC and don't care for either the senior tax cap proposed by Stewart or the senior tax freeze proposed by Omar.

All told, I agree with the Richardson Coalition PAC on five recommendations, disagree on one and offer no recommendation on one. But I strongly disagree with the PAC's reasoning and tactics in several of the recommendations. So, although our recommendations may align more often than not, I cannot endorse or recommend the Richardson Coalition PAC itself.

FrontBurner comments

The Nightly Build

---

No One Was Ever Civil On FrontBurner

This week, FrontBurner decided to turn off commenting (for now). Everybody, it seems, now is talking about the comments sections of blogs and online news articles. Even FrontBurner itself seems to have referenced its new no-comments policy in every other blog post since. Ironically, today Wick Allison himself links to an article on The Atlantic about the price of oil and the recession, saying "in this case, the comments are worth reading." (I'd link to the FrontBurner blog post itself but I'd have to go to FrontBurner to get the link, which I don't do anymore because I read the articles on my RSS reader. I only went to FrontBurner itself for the comments.)

People are not just talking about commenting. Some people are doing something about it. At least two sites have sprung up volunteering to be the home of FrontBurner comments (LodoWick and Trey Garrison).

Why this spontaneous show of support for what Gordon Keith calls sniping, snarking, and snarling pettily at each other? (By the way, Gordon Keith himself is not one of those supporters, which I'll get to later.) Bethany Anderson gives the best reasons why FrontBurner's decision was the wrong one.

"Don't discount the power those comments had. They corrected instantly when erroneous information got out. They gave you instant feedback. And, more importantly, they gave you a relationship with your readers."

That's lost to FrontBurner now. But, apparently, even Bethany Anderson can stand only so much commenting. Yesterday, she said "OK, OK, Enough Already".

"So really, enough with the 'Frontburner sucks.' No, it actually didn't suck. It was quite fun there for a while."

Umm... I think what people are saying is that FrontBurner sucks *now*. (OK, maybe some people recognized FrontBurner as being sucky all along, but they are not the ones we're talking about here.) There's irony in Bethany Anderson commenting about FrontBurner's no-comments policy and then commenting about other readers commenting, saying that other readers should quit commenting. That makes me dizzy so I'll stop there.

Gordon Keith turns the tables completely and says FrontBurner doesn't suck, we all suck. Talking about comments on The Dallas Morning News, he says:

"If you read the comments after an article or blog post, you know what I am talking about. It devolves so quickly you wish your ancestors had remained monkeys - at least the shit-slinging back then was more honest. You walk away asking 'wow, are people really this mean and petty?' Yes, they are."

This from a man who admits he works on a "vulgar medium," talk radio. But he says he is "being PAID to do it" which, through some unexplained mechanism, justifies his being vulgar. (Isn't being paid to do something vulgar pretty much the epitome of vulgar?) Like many of FrontBurner's own blog items, the value in Gordon Keith's blog item is found not in the original piece, but in the comments. Reader "Craig" lays out the alternatives:

1. No moderation/editing
2. Moderated comments
3. No comments

With the first you get "hooting and hollering like the baboon enclosure at feeding time." With the second, you get "allegations of censorship." With the third, you lose a "sense of community." That's all the choices there are. Take your pick. There's no perfect solution.

My preference? Option 1, until traffic reaches a level that separating the wheat from the chaff becomes impossible. Then Option 2, with a light hand on the censor's pen. I can't ever see a situation that calls for Option 3, the nuclear option. It's the publishing world's equivalent of mutual assured destruction -- sure, you can kill all the evil commenters, but you'll be killed in retaliation by your customers going elsewhere to find community.

At heart, FrontBurner understands this, which is why Wick Allison promised to turn commenting back on when they get around to implementing an acceptable means of moderation. The lag time it takes them to roll this out this will be an indication whether they have what it takes to survive the 21st century publishing business or whether they are a doomed, relic print publishing company that only dabbles in online.

P.S. Perhaps I should add that one reason the Ed Cognoski blog exists is because I got tired of having my comments deleted by a heavy censor's hand at Dallas Blog. Here I can say what I want. Readers can read what I write or not, as they choose, not as the censor chooses. Not coincidentally, I seldom read Dallas Blog any more. Win-win for both of us, I'm sure.

Richardson council race

The Nightly Build

---

Everyone Is Still Civil After Four Forums

Tuesday evening, the League of Women Voters of Richardson hosted the fourth forum of candidates for Richardson City Council. Sixteen candidates in the six contested races answered questions submitted by the public. None of the candidates broke new ground. No new issues emerged. The audience was well-behaved. If this election is any indicator, Richardson is a contented community. Property taxes are not an issue. Illegal immigration is not an issue. Ethnic diversity is not an issue. East side versus west side is not a divide. Business owners versus homeowners is not a divide. No, the biggest "issue" seems to be whether or not Richardson should put its checkbook online. And all the candidates, all of them, are in favor of that.

Besides making opening and closing statements, the candidates answered six questions, including two "lightning round" yes/no questions.

1. How will Richardson be different in ten years?
2. What three areas would you cut if tax revenues drop?
3. Do you think the city is acting transparently?
4. Do you support staggered terms for city council? (yes/no)
5. Do you support the red-light camera program? (yes/no)
6. What do you propose doing about the 12,000 outstanding warrants at Richardson's municipal court?

Diane Wardrup showed the most dedication by celebrating her 36th wedding anniversary with her husband and the voters of Richardson. Dennis Stewart gets honorable mention for celebrating his 35th wedding anniversary the day before at a city council meeting.

Jimmy Schnurr made the best recovery of the night. After appearing hesitant, flustered and confused in his opening statement, he confidently came back at the next opportunity to explain that his wife was in the audience for the first time and when he looked up and saw her, "she took my breath away."

Sheryl Miller took the first jab. In her opening, she accused the incumbent, John Murphy, of filing his financial report late. Murphy, unbloodied, stayed good natured and ignored the criticism.

Looking ahead ten years, John Murphy and Bob Townsend both pointed to estimates of population growth in Richardson, both in residents and in the even larger daytime workforce. Gary Slagel talked up UT-Dallas as an economic engine that will change Richardson. Jennifer Justice said the school's growth will make Richardson a "college town" in ten years. Chris Davis said that Dallas development is marching up Central Expressway and will soon reach Richardson's southern gateway, which is due for redevelopment in the next ten years. Diane Wardrup foresaw Richardson's population aging and a consequent demand for more single-family homes for seniors, an odd statement given that Richardson is land-locked, built-out, and virtually all seniors in Richardson already own their own single-family house. Bob Macy played up the Richardson Regional Medical Center as a "jewel" that will become even more important to Richardson as its population ages.

The candidates were all over the map concerning where to cut if tax revenues drop. Sheryl Miller had the most original answer, saying, "if tax revenues drop, that would be terrific." Chris Davis would save money by insourcing. John Murphy would save money by outsourcing. Gary Slagel said we should either insource or outsource, depending on the function, as well as leverage technology to become more productive. Bob Macy would look at cutting festivals that don't make money. Pris Hayes would look to refinance bonds at lower rates. Sheryl Miller said cut the pork; John Murphy said the word pork and Richardson's budget don't go together ("We're never going to have a Cowboys stadium in Richardson"). The incumbents generally identified personnel costs as making up the majority of the budget, so cuts, if needed, would have to come from there. Murphy and Slagel offered hiring freezes and attrition as ways to control personnel costs.

Transparency in government seems to be the recurring issue in this election, but even that doesn't seem to favor anyone in particular or challengers over incumbents. All of the candidates are more or less in favor of video-streaming council meetings and publishing the city checkbook online. Sheryl Miller said it's not a cost issue or a technology issue, accusing the council of not wanting voters to know where the money goes. John Murphy claimed that none of the top 50 cities in Texas yet have an online checkbook, but he's in favor of having Richardson be first. Bob Townsend is in favor, too, wanting a quality product that provides information in a useful manner. Thomas Volmer said we have too much information already and need to improve the usability of what we have. Dennis Stewart pointed out that candidates talked about cutting costs earlier, but now championed new programs that all cost money.

All the candidates except John Murphy and Thomas Bache-Wiig are in favor of having staggered terms for city council, with not all places elected in the same year.

All the candidates except Thomas Bache-Wiig and Thomas Volmer are in favor of continuing Richardson's red-light camera program.

The one question that seemed to catch the candidates unprepared was the last question regarding increasing collections on the 12,000 outstanding warrants in Richardson's municipal court. None of the candidates would confirm the number. Bob Townsend drew first response and admitted being "stunned" at the number. Bill Denton said he was "like Bob" and said he didn't know how to increase collections from people with outstanding warrants. Thomas Bache-Wiig injected humor by noting people beginning to leave the forum and saying "most of them are walking out right now." Mark Solomon seemed to be on top of the issue, noting that the city collects $12 million per year from municipal court and has the highest collection rate in the area. Jimmy Schnurr proposed "getting aggressive" with a warrant "roundup" that would pay for itself. Pris Hayes cited an example elsewhere where offenders were lured to a location by a promise of having won a boat, only to be arrested when they arrived. Bob Macy suggested public humiliation, saying that if a police officer shows up at an offender's place of employment, "they cough up." John Murphy suggested considering outsourcing collections on a percentage basis. Thomas Volmer suggested repurposing the city's red light cameras to systematic plate scanning to identify drivers with outstanding warrants.

On the whole, the questions highlighted how similar the candidates are on the issues. Where they offered different answers, it didn't so much highlight differences in government philosophy as it demonstrated how all of them are good at brainstorming solutions to problems. I'm beginning to think that Richardson will be in good hands with a council made up of any combination of these candidates.

Correction: In the original post, I wrongly attributed the statement, "most of them are walking out right now" to Bill Denton. In fact, Thomas Bache-Wiig made the remark.

Stephen Hawking; Texas SBOE; FrontBurner comments

The Nightly Build

---

News of His Death Exaggerated

The famous physicist Stephen Hawking was taken to hospital Monday and was reported to be "very ill." On Tuesday, he was reported to be resting comfortably and his family is looking forward to his complete recovery, according to a statement issued by Cambridge University.

How did local media cover the story? Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, headlined his thoughts, "Stephen Hawking: obit editorial material?" When readers objected to "yack[ing] up someone's obituary before they're dead", Dreher deftly laid off responsibility on his co-workers: "Keven said we should take this to the blog. She was right to do so, because (as Nicole put it), part of this blog's raison d'etre is to show readers how we do our jobs."

Discussing the guidelines the paper uses to decide which figures merit an obit editorial is a fair subject for this blog.

Assigning writers to prepare obit editorials well in advance for significant public figures who may merit an obit editorial is sensible.

But asking the blog, whether a particular person who takes ill merits an obit editorial should he die, is in bad taste. That's true whether or not it's consistent with the purpose of the blog.

Now that we've settled that it's too early to talk about Stephen Hawking's obituary, is it too late to ask that The Dallas Morning News revive its Science section?

P.S. Kudos to Trey Garrison, who caught Dreher explaining that whether or not a famous person's death merits an editorial often comes down to a "matter of space and timing." "You did that on purpose" Garrison said.

---

Terri Leo on the Defensive

The Texas State Board of Education recently took votes to decide the standards for science textbooks used in Texas schools. Conservatives on the SBOE have long championed language that requires textbooks teach "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories such as evolution. Scientists have no objection to teaching strengths and weaknesses, but some do object to non-scientists like the SBOE members using such language to push schools to teach non-scientific notions such as Creationism, or its pseudo-scientific variant, intelligent design.

The recent SBOE votes on new standards were mixed. Creationists were unsuccessful in retaining the old "strengths and weaknesses" language in the science standards. But the Creationists were successful in inserting similar language requiring Texas students learn "all sides of scientific evidence." Again, there's nothing wrong with that, provided that Creationism and intelligent design are not passed off as scientific.

Will Lutz Terri Leo, a Creationist member of the SBOE, goes on the attack in an op-ed column in Dallas Blog (naturally!). Or is she on the defensive? She objects to recent moves in Austin to shift some responsibilities away from the SBOE. SB 2275, for example, would take away from the SBOE authority over curriculum and texbooks.

Leo defends the SBOE and its anti-scientific actions. She says it is popularly elected (as if scientific questions are best answered by popular vote). She says the SBOE holds public hearings at which all sides are presented (she doesn't say expert opinion is consistently ignored by some members). She says the SBOE has accomplished much (like suppressing environmentalism and multi-culturalism in schools).

But it's what she doesn't say that is the tell-tale sign that she and the Creationists on the SBOE are on the defensive. She doesn't bring up evolution or intelligent design at all. Perhaps the SBOE has finally gone too far, their attempts to push Creationism in public schools have finally gotten the public's attention, the legislature is finally saying enough is enough. It's time to put science curriculum and textbook decision back in the hands of experienced educators and scientific experts and take it away from ideological politicians like Terri Leo.

P.S. Texas voters can end this educational travesty once and for all by voting to remove these members from the SBOE as their terms expire: Terri Leo, David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, Cynthia Dunbar, Gail Lowe, Don McLeroy and Ken Mercer. Do it for the sake of quality science education in Texas.

Correction: The Dallas Blog article was apparently written by Will Lutz, not Terri Leo. See the comments for more information.

---

"Shut up he explained"

Wick Allison, publisher of D Magazine announced on its FrontBurner blog today that henceforth, reader comments will be disabled.

"Many of our commenters have been thoughtful and intelligent, but as months turned into years, Gresham's Law took hold. Comments became increasingly intemperate, irrelevant, and illiterate. Some good people hung on, but many good people left. The concept of user-generated content is fine -- for other Internet sites. But for ours, it has not been a successful experiment."

Like no one could see that coming. FrontBurner, which prides itself on being a "snarky celebration of ignorance," becomes overwhelmed by ignorant, snarky readers. Poetic justice. Hoist on his own petard and all that.

Are there alternatives? Allison hints that, in time, FrontBurner may be technologically capable of allowing comments from invited participants. Perhaps FrontBurner will consider a system like Yahoo! Groups, which can be set to require comments from new readers to be approved before being posted. Readers who demonstrate their ability to be thoughtful would be approved to post directly. Or perhaps FrontBurner will consider a system like Slashdot's, where reader comments are rated and, by default, only the highest rated are visible. Or perhaps FrontBurner is just not interested in readers' opinions. This latest action is the equivalent of Wick Allison sticking his fingers in his ears and saying, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. I can't hear you!" Which, come to think of it, is a snarky celebration of ignorance, as well.

Immigration and housing

The Nightly Build

---

Sell Those Surplus Houses to Immigrants

Scott Burns, the onetime financial news columnist for The Dallas Morning News has nothing but good advice when it comes to personal finance, but his batting average is more spotty when it comes to his opinions on financial matters for the nation. In late 2006, he was warning of a coming recession (a solid hit). In late 2007, he recommended voters consider Mike Gravel and Ron Paul for their parties' Presidential nominations (a swing and a miss). Then, just before the 2008 election, he predicted the rise of a third party in 2012, a party pledged to cutting the federal debt (a strikeout).

Yesterday, in a column in The Dallas Morning News, he made a recommendation that, in baseball terms, would be a call for a bench-clearing brawl. It's a way of ending the decline of housing prices. The idea is credited to economist A. Gary Shilling and real estate developer Richard S. Lefrak.

"Their suggestion: Don't think about artificially low mortgage interest rates and other stopgaps. Instead, eliminate the oversupply of houses. And, by the way, don't spend a dime of taxpayer money doing it. How can this be done? Simple: Open our borders to immigrants who can buy a home in the U.S. Let a million immigrants a year do this for two years, and the entire oversupply of homes and condos will be absorbed."

Reader "Doris J" cries, "What a nightmare." Reader "dhp8" channels Patrick Henry, "I would rather have a housing crisis than allow more illegal immigrants in the US." More rationally, reader "A friend Lynn" says, "Interesting in theory, but what are these 2 million people going to do when they get here get on the welfare rolls, with unemployment running at over 8 percent nationally."

Ay, that's the problem. Our nation is suffering, not just from a surplus of houses, but from rising unemployment. Increased immigration solves the former but exacerbates the latter. The result could be a wash economically and a disaster politically, as the anti-immigrant faction would go ballistic (maybe literally, yikes!).

Maybe in a perfect world, one in which we had rational immigration policies that encouraged more immigration of young, bright, entrepreneurial, ambitious people from all nations, we would be able to welcome a million new home buyers to our shores every year. Maybe in that world our existing housing crisis would not look so forbidding. But we don't live in that world. And moving us from this world to that is going to take someone of even more remarkable political skills than Barack Obama. Don't expect him to put Scott Burns' idea in his batting order anytime soon.

TEA parties; Richardson election blog

The Nightly Build

---

Chit-Chat at the Tea Party

In the last couple days, there's been lots of discussion about the "TEA Parties" (Taxed Enough Already, clever, no?) held across the country on April 15 (Tax Day, get it?) OK, not lots. Manufactured media events tend to flare and die quickly. So, before this one is history (is it already too late?), let's recap how a few of DFW's writers covered it.

Steve Blow, who is usually best advised to stay away from substantive issues and did just that on this one (he covered it from his office window at The Dallas Morning News), nevertheless made this snarky observation on The Dallas Morning News Metro blog:

"The view out my window now are periodic clumps of sign-carrying folks headed to the tea party tax protest at Dallas City Hall. They're all coming from the DART and Trinity Railway Express stop at Union Station. These folks do not like taxes but apparently they do like tax-funded transportation."

Jim Mitchell, with a little more investigative digging than Steve Blow (he asked readers for help), made this salient point:

"I'm willing to bet that the federal tax burden, i.e., income tax, is a shrinking percentage of all taxes paid. So instead of tea party folks railing against the federal government, they might be better served to rail against state and local governments for new taxes, higher taxes or fees as this NYTimes story shows. Gee, If you're going to declare war on taxes, it might help to have the right enemy."

Daniel Daugherty, on Unfair Park, reports that the event at Dallas City Hall agitated every right-wing cause there is:

"Folks were told to show up and protest President Obama and the budget and the stimulus plan and federal taxes, only they brought signs and shirts invoking everything from welfare spending ... to their opposition to national health care and gun control. And plentiful among the crowd were signs invoking Jesus and demanding the U.S.'s withdrawal from the United Nations."

Unfair Park reader "jason" noted something about the crowd itself:

"I was shocked and proud of the diversity of the crowd. It was all over the map, from
Over the hill white people with blonde hair to
Over the hill white people with brown hair to
Over the hill white people with gray hair to
Over the hill white people with no hair"

I guess angry white people need a place and time to vent, too. Trey Garrison did some major league venting, from promoting the protests on his blog (including that cute icon of the black man holding a gun to the head of a blue man holding a bag of money, captioned "Socialism"), to live blogging and twittering the protest in Plano, to encouraging everyone to bring their cameras and send their photos and videos to him. Good luck with trying to use that material to nurse that anger and expand the protests.

By the way, Gov. Rick Perry's pro-secession comments at one TEA Party have generated a life of their own. Funny how it's the spontaneous utterances that catch fire while the scripted events are quickly forgotten. Apologists for Perry just extend the embarrassment. Rush Limbaugh, thinking he's helping his cause, says Perry is not a "fringe kook." The majority of DFW media commentary seems to see Perry as the gift that keeps on giving.

---

Another Perspective on the Richardson Races

Hey, there's another blog covering the Richardson City Council elections, and the person behind it said he she was inspired by yours truly to serve his her community. He She doesn't explain why he she chose to blog.

The blogger behind "Conserve and Protect -- A Conservative's Take on Richardson Politics", gives his her endorsements for the seven positions on the council and, no surprise probably, he she and I agree on only two. One is the place where the incumbent is running unopposed, but hey, at least we agree that Steve Mitchell deserves another term. The other is that frustrating Place 7, where we both have reservations about both candidates. Dennis Stewart is running an ill-advised negative campaign and Amir Omar is pandering to senior citizens. This is one race where I wish there were a third option. In any case, even though we disagree more than we agree, I welcome Conserve and Protect to the blogosphere. More news is good news.

Bonus points for whoever first tells me the significance of "565".

Richardson candidates forum

The Nightly Build

---

My Trip to the Mosque

I thought I was going to a forum for candidates for Richardson City Council, but the mosque stole the show. The forum was held in the gymnasium. (Who'd have thought Allah was a basketball fan?) Our moderator missed no opportunity to talk up the mosque. (It's not just a mosque but a community with public services and a school and great relations with the city and neighborhood, thank Allah.) After a round of introductions and a single question, we broke for thirty minutes to allow those who desired to move to the mosque itself to pray. (Men over here, women over there, please.) Afterwards, before the forum could resume, we had twenty minutes of awarding plaques. (Thank you, retired police chief Larry Zacharias and retiring council member Rhea Allison and this mosque board of directors member and that mosque board trustees member.) By the time the program ended two and a half hours after it began, I estimated the candidates had only a total of five minutes each to talk to the voters. Not a single one ran over their allotted time.

In their introductions, the experienced campaigners had the presence of mind to thank the American Muslim Alliance and the Dallas Central Mosque for hosting the forum. Jennifer Justice added the nice touch of opening with "As-Salamu ‘Alaykum." John Murphy one-upped that by recalling his attendance at the ground-breaking for the mosque a decade ago. Dennis Stewart then one-upped that by recalling his days with the Richardson Police and how they took preventive steps to defend the mosque against potential violent backlash after the 9/11 attacks.

As for the questions the candidates answered, I'm afraid to report that there wasn't much of substance there. There was time for only three questions:

1. What does transparency mean to you?
2. How do you spend your typical day?
3. What one nice thing can you say about your opponent?

The first question, about transparency in government, held out the promise of some fireworks. Sheryl Miller came out with guns blazing, declaring "Richardson's bankrupt" and city hall doesn't want you to know and blaming it all somehow on the Sherrill Park golf pro. John Murphy, as usual, parried Miller's attack deftly, declaring the city is financially sound and "not one dollar made it into my pocket." Bob Townsend said, if transparency means televising city council meetings, the city looked into it but decided it was cost prohibitive. One by one, the challengers took him and the rest of the incumbents to task, calling for streaming video, open checkbooks, plain language meeting agendas and a code of ethics. The force of the attack diminished as the long line of candidates talked to the question one by one, until Bob Macy had to object to the implication that "we're not doing a good job now." You'd have thought he forgot for a moment that he was the challenger. Even Pris Hayes thanked him for his comments. Dennis Stewart said that up until this election campaign, "no one has been beating down the door" for more transparency. As a couple of the incumbents pointed out, Richardson has been taking advantage of technology to gradually make more and more city business available online. Finally, Mayor Steve Mitchell said the city simply had to provide some kind of streaming video and an open checkbook online. As he is running unopposed and didn't have to make any kind of commitment at all, I'll take that as a promise likely to be kept no matter who is elected in the other places.

If the first question fizzled out, the second question seemed designed more for comic relief than serious discussion. One by one, the candidates told us how early they got up in the morning and how productive they were. Mayor Mitchell was up twice during the night last night dealing with his young kids. Amir Omar gets to bed at midnight and is up at four to train for marathons. Tom Bache-Wiig is up at 5:30 every morning to read the Bible, then run two and a half miles. John Murphy has his alarm clock set permanently at 5:00 AM and eats Cheerios and a banana for breakfast ("... OK, and a pancake once in a while ... that's transparency"). By the time we reached the end of the row, I expected one of the candidates to claim he never slept at all.

If the second question was comic relief, the third question anticipated the "they lived happily ever after" phase of the election. The candidates all sounded sincerely complimentary as they said nice things about one another. Even Diane Wardrup, who accused Gary Slagel of ethical violations in a questionnaire for The Dallas Morning News, tonight said, "Gary has served the city well for 22 years." I almost looked forward to another prayer break. As-Salamu ‘Alaykum.

ExxonMobil CEO compensation

The Nightly Build

---

Liberty, Justice and the General Welfare

Trey Garrison is adorable. Somewhere in life, he imprinted the notion that if it's legal, it's meritorious, and if it's illegal, even more so because the law just interferes with free markets. The notion that laws and regulations create the conditions necessary for free markets to operate most efficiently is beyond his ken.

Today, Garrison defends the oil companies against Ed Housewright, who thinks that pay raises like ExxonMobil's CEO's 34 percent hike to $22.4 million "fuels the public's disdain of oil companies." On his own blog, Garrison gets ugly:

"Exxon Mobil has posted record shattering profits for itself and earned solid outstanding profits for its shareholder, while continuing to hire and pay employees far above the industry median at all levels, so if the board thinks Rex Tillerson deserves $22.4 million in compensation, it's none of your business, Ed Housewright."

I'm reminded of the line author Ring Lardner gave to one of his characters as a sure-fire conversation-ender: "Shut up he explained." Garrison is not going to change. Somewhere along the line he imprinted the notion that free markets are an end in themselves and not also a means to prosperity. Liberty is just one of the guiding principles on which our nation was founded.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Garrison has taken the "liberty" part to heart, using it to trump the notions of "justice" and "general welfare". His philosophy was probably influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the shapers of the "Chicago School" of economics. If so, he may be interested to learn that one of the founders of this free-market theory, Richard Posner, now a federal judge of the 7th Circuit, is not so sure anymore that the free market isn't, in fact, broken. In Slate, Eliot Spitzer reviews a recent legal opinion by Posner:

"The two issues Judge Posner examined - setting CEO compensation at major companies and determining the fees to be paid to mutual fund-management companies on the base of trillions of dollars of mutual-fund investments - are central to the governance of our financial system. It is remarkable that a leader in Chicago School thought would acknowledge that the market is so broken that it can't be properly trusted on those two critical issues. Yet that is exactly what Judge Posner has concluded."

It turns out that we all have an interest in how the free market works and when, just possibly, it's broken, an interest in fixing it. So, how boards of directors police compensation practices (or fail to) in publicly traded companies is everyone's business. At least everyone who cares about liberty, justice, and the general welfare. And if that's not good enough for Trey Garrison, consider this. Anyone with a pension plan or 401K plan or other portfolio holding stock index funds, and that's millions of us, is a part owner of ExxonMobil. Count me in on that. That makes what the CEO makes quite literally our business.

By the way, in another post, Trey Garrison is promoting the anti-tax rallies taking place all across Texas today. In it, he snidely uses the title Stasi for the United States Department of Homeland Security. Stasi was the name of the secret police organization of East Germany. Sometimes, Trey Garrison's adorability wears thin.