A public option for the rest of us

Dear Sen. Schumer,

Congratulations on the recent vote to debate health care reform in the U.S. Senate. It is historic on so many levels and I support your efforts with everything I am.

However, the Sunday morning after that vote, I watched you on one of the Sunday morning media shows plead with reform opponents to allow an "opt out" provision of some sort. You said something on the order of: "Just because you don't want the public option, don't make it impossible for me to get it."

This troubles me. If this "opt out" provision comes to pass, millions of Americans will be condemned to continued poor health care options. Those Americans who live in places like Texas and Alabama deserve good health care, too.

I'm a life-long Texan and, in so many ways, damned proud to be one. But I also know our state's miserable record where it comes to human services. I have no illusions, no reason to hope that our state's Republican leadership will embrace health care reform, particularly anything that smacks of a public option. After all, these are the same yahoos who rejected federal stimulus funds because it's not friendly to business and might force Texas to improve and modernize the way it handles unemployment.

Senator, I know who represents Texas in the United States Senate. You do, too. They do not represent me in this matter; nor do they represent the hundreds of thousands of Democrats and Independents in Texas who believe, as you and I do, that this nation cannot afford to continue to pay premium prices for third-rate health care outcomes.

If left up to these senators and political leaders from Texas, there will be no public option or health care reform at all, which will plunge citizens in the South even deeper into poverty.

Please, Senator. You, and other progressive senators, must not give up on a public option that is available to all Americans, and not just to a fortunate few.

Mercury rising: the USGS report tells only part of the story

A new report released last week by the U.S. Geological Survey measuring mercury levels in fish is not the first such warning we’ve had about this. In fact, the report probably understates the seriousness of mercury contamination in America, and certainly in this part of Texas.

According to the report, one of every four fish caught in U.S. rivers, streams and wetlands is contaminated by so much mercury, it is unsafe to eat. That’s sort of like playing Russian roulette with a rod and reel. I mean, given four fish, how do you know which three are safe to eat and which one could leave you with brain damage?

USGS researchers found traces of mercury — a heavy metal that causes brain damage and, when eaten by expectant mothers, birth defects and autism — in every fish it tested. In more than a quarter of those fish, the level of mercury contamination exceeded the levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency as being safe. The fish tested were taken from nearly 300 American rivers, streams and wetland areas.Around here, it’s a lot higher than that. The main source of mercury released into the environment comes from burning low-grade lignite to generate electricity. There have been several studies in the last few years that linked burning lignite coal to extremely high concentrations of mercury in Texas' lakes, streams and marshes.

In 2004, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund released its report, "Reel Danger: Mercury pollution and the fish we eat," which found that 57 percent of the fish sampled in Texas contained unsafe levels of mercury and that 83 percent of both predator and bottom feeding fish, like several varieties of catfish and bass, had unsafe levels of mercury.

Last year, a University of Pittsburgh research group found that fish caught downstream of coal fired electric plants have been contaminated by dangerous levels of mercury. These fish had up to 19 times more mercury than store-bought, farm-raised fish.

Also last year, the University of Texas Health Science Center found the risk of autism is greater for children living near Texas power plants and that the incidence of autism increases as power plants increase emissions of mercury.

This most recent report warning that our lakes and rivers are contaminated with dangerous levels of mercury really shouldn't surprise us. After all, we share our immediate environment with several coal-fired power plants that, in the past, have individually pumped out more than 180,000 tons of airborne solid waste each year.

The new Sandow plant in Rockdale is permitted to emit 300 pounds of mercury annually but the two lignite plants being built near Franklin in Robertson County will combine to generate nearly 1,600 pounds of mercury annually, once they’re on line. The Bremond generating plant is permitted for about 600 pounds annually.

So, we have (or will have) four lignite-burning power plants within about an hour’s drive combining to release more than a ton of mercury into the atmosphere each year — and our state government condones it through its permitting process.

And this doesn’t even count the Limestone plant up in Jewett — about 70 miles away — that has been called the dirtiest power plant in America. The Limestone plant releases 1,800 pounds of mercury each year, more than any other plant in the country. To our shame, Texas is home to five of the nation’s top 10 dirtiest power plants.

I’m not saying that you should never eat fish caught in the Little River, or Lake Sommerville, or Stillhouse Hollow, or Lake Limestone … but, I’d think long and hard before letting my pregnant daughter or granddaughter eat any fish caught in Texas.

Sources on the Web …

The USGS report is here: http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/081909.html
The “Reel Danger” report is here: http://agresearch.umd.edu/cfnap/realmercuryfacts/studies/reel.htm
A similar report from the Pew Trust is here: http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=30683
The University of Pittsburgh report is here: http://www.upmc.com/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/2007/Pages/APHA2007VolzUpstream.aspx
The University of Texas Health Science Center report is here: http://www.uthscsa.edu/hscnews/singleformat.asp?newID=2732

I get it. Why don't you?

So, let me get this straight ...

You like your health insurance company so much, you'd rather pay more than twice as much per person than any other industrialized country for system that routinely fails nearly half of all Americans (well, the half of those not already on some sort of subsidized health insurance program).

Is that right?

I get it, I get it. You like your doctor. You like your therapist. You abhor the thought that some bureaucrat in Washington might tell you that you can't get a certain prescription drug or medical procedure or that you can only consult certain doctors ... I get it.

But you don't get it because your insurance company does that now. Your insurance company routinely tells patients which procedures they can have and which ones they can't, which doctors they can consult and how often. Your insurance company routinely bases prescription drug coverage on which big pharma companies they have contracts with.

In fact, your health insurance company is in the business of denying your claim, in assuring you get the cheapest drugs rather than the drugs you need, and in making sure you stay away from expensive medical procedures, even when they could save your life. If you’ve never had this happen to you, you are either extremely fortunate, have a premium policy or you are much more well off than you realize.

In other words, we already put up with most of the things you say you don't like about health care reform.

Oh, I get it. You don't want to pay for "socialized medicine" or for all those poor people. But, you already do. Roughly 40 percent of Americans have some sort of government subsidized health insurance whether it's because they are government employees, on Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip or eligible for VA benefits. And, despite the occasional hiccup, most of those people seem to appreciate that coverage.

And, we subsidize the truly indigent because we won't turn them away from treatment of the last resort — the emergency room. (And, don't think for a minute they eventually pay for that treatment — taxpayers pay for it in the form of taxes to our cities and counties.)

In reality, we're not talking about making anyone change insurance companies (meaning you can avoid the dreaded government bureaucrat) or doctors (unless your current insurance company forces you to change) or limiting coverage (other than the limitations your insurance company already imposes).

In reality, this debate about the value of social medicine versus private insurance we're having is really about making sure everyone in this country has some way to afford needed health care.

In reality, our entire economy is hostage to the concept of employer-provided health insurance. It hamstrings entrepreneurship because people are locked into their jobs because that's the only way most of us can afford any health insurance whatsoever — good or bad.

It hampers small businesses because small companies can't afford to offer the same kinds of benefits (read: health insurance) as the mega-corporations and some mega-corporations (can you say: GM?) have experienced some rather catastrophic problems as a direct result of legacy health insurance costs.

In June, Pres. Obama asked why, if the free market was all that, insurance companies should fear the competition of a public option?

As long as insurance companies are for-profit, our health care delivery system will be no better than Cuba's (and you can make the argument that theirs actually provides for all their citizens). The bill the U.S. House passed last week is the best hope our country has ever had to ensure the vast majority of our citizens enjoy this particular liberty.

Letter to the Editor

Our local daily paper published a letter to the editor in reaction to the outcome of a trial of a child molester.

The piece was a screed against defense attorneys, basically consigning the profession to Dante's 9th Circle (well, assuming the author understands the allusion). I had to respond ...

Our court system is designed to find justice. That search depends on the prosecution adhering to rules of evidence to make sure that the guilty are punished and the innocent are freed. It's the duty of the defense lawyer to make sure the prosecution -- the government -- follows the rules.

We don't live in some third-world country where summary judgment is delivered at the end of a noose simply because someone is accused of a heinous crime. Nor is this the dark ages when a despot ruler could imprison or execute someone for no reason. We live in a country of laws. Under our system of justice, everyone is entitled to a vigorous and competent defense. Everyone. How else can justice be served?

By all accounts, Mr. Jacobsen's defense attorney did exactly what he was supposed to do ... and Mr. Jacobsen got exactly what he deserved.

The decline of Chrysler and the GOP

My Dad drove a Chrysler whenever he could. He was also a Republican — and damned proud of it — back when it wasn't cool to be a Republican in Texas.

Those two character traits have left me with a certain cognitive dissonance. How would he have reacted to what's going on right now? Two of his life's most important — possibly even iconic — brands are on the brink of oblivion.

Dad didn't always drive a Chrysler product, and he wasn't a straight-ticket Republican, either. But he learned about Chryslers and Republicans at his parent's kitchen table. Chrysler New Yorkers and Pylmouth Furys (and, in later years, even the occasional Colt, Neon, or, in Dad's case, Sebrings) dominated the driveways of our family gatherings.

That's not to say there wasn't the occasional Ford or Chevy around — I drove Volkswagens of various stripes throughout most of my formative years — but, in my family, there was always something magical and desirable about Chryslers.

Maybe it was the pushbutton transmission, or the futuristic look, imbued with the promise of finned rocket ships and personal jet packs and blasters, only a 1950s Chrysler could attain.

If we thought about it at all (I can't speak for my cousins but, truthfully, my brothers and I didn't think about it, not very often) we all thought Chryslers were cool and all those other cars were what you drove if you couldn't drive a Chrysler.

No, Mr. Buick, we'd really rather drive a Chrysler, thank you very much.

Politically, well, Dad felt betrayed by Richard Nixon. He supported the man to the bitter end. I don't know how his brothers regarded Nixon but it would not surprise me if they were solid Nixon Republicans because, in 1969 — which is where my brain goes when I consider my Dad's politics — everyone over 30 supported Nixon, right? Right?

To be fair, I'm not precisely sure my Uncle David completely supported Nixon. His son, Jon, is decidedly left-of-center — you might even call him militantly liberal — and they say the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree. But the rest of the family ... well, they were, and still are, pretty conservative.

In fact, Dad's oldest brother's family attained the Bush campaign rank of Pioneer — or was it Ranger? Jon's sisters — two of 'em, anyway — tend to hold right-of-center opinions and my younger brother remains a proud ditto-head to this day. Staunchly conservative, all of 'em.

Dad was proud to be a Republican. He was as proud to represent Republicans from Bell County to the state convention, back when there were maybe 125 Republicans in Texas, as he was of his 1969 Plymouth Fury III powered by the fabled 457 Police Interceptor, the one my Mom called an old lady car because it was metallic blue and only old ladies drove cars that color.

Still, Ronald Reagan knocked the luster of the Republican shine for Dad when Reagan co-opted social conservatives in order to assure the defeat of Jimmy Carter. For the first time in his life, Dad broke with the Party. He couldn't bring himself to vote for a Democrat, despite the fact that he sorta liked Carter, a fellow preacher, so he voted for John Anderson.

Further, Dad was anything but sold on Bush II's so-called compassionate conservatism and preemptive war, though you will find few who hurt more for the victims of 9/11 or who was more of a patriot. Still, as a scholar of the Establishment Clause, Dad was quite disturbed when everyone sang patriotic songs in church the Sunday following 9/11. And he was the preacher; he selected those hymns.

That, combined with his up-close-and-personal experience with America's medical care delivery system, soured him on Republicans and prompted him to look hard at nationalized health care. In fact, before he died, Dad said if he had to be pigeon-holed, he would say he was a Conservative Socialist, whatever that is.

Today, only 21 percent of Americans describe themselves as Republicans and the venerable Chrysler Motor Company hangs by a slender, frayed thread. The car company might not last the summer and, unless some prophetic leader emerges soon to lead it from the wilderness, the GOP may disappear, at least as a national party, by the next presidential election.

I can't help but think that Dad would be very put out with the Republican's purge of political purity and profoundly disappointed with the implosion of a once-proud US manufacturer.

And, even though I never cared for Chryslers (ironically, I drive a Buick) and seldom ever vote Republican, I, too, am saddened.

(Cross-posted at http://open.salon.com/blog/richard2456)

Republicans can't deliver the votes

... so why should we pay attention to them?

There has been a fairly steady drumbeat from the right asserting that the Democrats really aren't much interested in being bipartisan.

This is a problem, they say, because the health care debate is important and, at least, ought to represent all portions of the political spectrum.

I heard one of the chatterboxes make that claim the other morning on the television thingy and, frankly nearly spilled my coffee and here's why.

A couple of months ago, President Obama asked the Democrats to work with Congressional Republicans on the stimulus bill. Republicans insisted they could not vote for the bill if certain issues weren't addressed — specifically tax cuts (their answer for everything).

Well, tax cuts were added to the bill. In fact, one-third of the package consisted of tax cuts of one form or another. Tax cuts aren't "direct spending" so aren't as stimulative as, say, building another bridge or wifi tower but, okay ... if that's what it takes to win your vote, fine.

Not one Republican voted for the bill. Not one.

With that kind of track record, why should Democrats defer to Republicans on anything? If you're not going to vote for it, even after we change it up to answer your concerns, why should we pay attention to any of your concerns?

In general, I'm a middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I like consensus and try to avoid conflict, when I can. Pres. Obama made a big deal about his desire to cross party lines and get things done and I really liked that. I think most of this nation felt the same way.

But, if the last 100 days have shown anything, they've shown that Republicans don't really want to get anything done, not if that means Obama will get credit. And, with all the Party Purity Purges going on right now, I'm not sure Republicans can be a Loyal Opposition.

That being said, I was gratified to hear, from the NTY this weekend that the administration has pretty much given up on bipartisanship.

That's not true. It saddened me. I think healthy debate provides the creative friction that makes our democratic republic function. Without it, we are in danger.

Here's the deal: if Republicans — any Republicans — can deliver some votes on major, controversial legislation, we (meaning the rest of the country) should listen to them and grant them input into the process of rescuing this country.

That's what it is about: votes. Deliver the votes — any votes — or shut up.

Until then, until some conservative prophet appears to lead them out of the wilderness, we should pay them no more heed than we do any other extremist political fringe group.

(Cross-posted at http://open.salon.com/blog/richard2456)

Krugman's crystal clear vision

Paul Krugman continues to amaze me. His ability to focus on the core of the problems confronting us is, to me, incredible. Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/opinion/24krugman.html?em

Torturous Logic

So torture was effective.

That's what our former Veep says, and a host of high-ranking intelligence officials back him up.

What we don't know is if we could have gotten the same (or similar) information using less harsh techniques.

The beef, as I see it, is this: even if the methods we used were effective in gaining "high value" intelligence, at what cost?

I maintain that our standing in the world's community — my "good word" — is much more important than an immediate resort to torture (according to what we're learning, we didn't even try more conventional interrogation techniques).

It's not worth it.

Senate repudiates Perry

Tia Rae just reminded me that the Texas Senate voted last week to accept the half-billion stimulus dollars for unemployment insurance that Perry eschewed.

The measure must still face the Texas House and a potential veto — not that there is any certainty any of that will derail it — so I think my comments about Perry's stand on the state's unemployed remains.

Still, it's appropriate to point out that not all of our state's politicans are whack-jobs.

Who's the traitor now?

For nearly six years, my friends and I were routinely denounced as unpatriotic because we disagreed with Pres. Bush over the conduct of war in Iraq.

We believed it was a mistake, that the idea of a pre-emptive invasion ran counter to the fundamental respect of national sovereignty and that no country can export democracy at the point of a gun.

We believed that the erosion of our civil liberties under the guise of fighting some never ending War on Terror made us neither safe nor free.

For expressing these beliefs, we were branded as unpatriotic and accused of hating our country.

So, why isn't the super-patriotic, Republican, America-love-it-or-leave-it crowd up in arms over Texas Governor Rick Perry's threat last week to have this state secede from the Union "... if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people ..."

I beg your pardon?

How patriotic is that? Isn't this traitorous talk, especially from a man who represents the political party that led us down the primrose path of unfettered free market capitalism then ginned up a foreign war so fat cats could pig out on no-bid contracts and the military industrial complex could sell us more expensive weapon systems?

If not traitorous, it's at the very least seditious, right? Right?

There was this fella from West Texas who lived in a compound with a handful of fellow travelers and who, back in 1997, stood off the Texas Rangers for several weeks. He claimed that Texas had the right — and duty — to secede from the Union because of high taxes. Then-Gov. Bush sent in the Rangers and had him quashed but what Perry said last week sounds an awful lot like the bile separatist Richard L. McLaren spouted. (Lest we forget, McLaren is now serving a life sentence in a Texas prison.)

Wasn't Perry the same man who let Tom DeLay (a Washington politician) dictate a purely partisan, controversial, incredibly divisive mid-decade redistricting policy designed to further his goals in Washington?

(Just in case you've forgotten, Mr. DeLay had to resign in disgrace from Congress for things related to that little stunt and four of the five Texas Democratic representatives to Congress who were targeted in those efforts are still in office. Oh, and prison isn’t completely out of the question for him, either.)

Perry doesn't speak for me, in this. He has violated one of the prime tenants Texans hold for our Governor: “Please Don’t Embarrass Us!” Come on ... this guy was re-elected with 39 percent of the vote and, quite likely, would have lost had there not been four people on the ballot.

Perry doesn't speak for the thousands of Texans whose unemployment will run out — or the small businesses in Texas who will soon have to pay higher unemployment taxes because the state is running out of money — because he thinks it is somehow un-Texan to have an effective, compassionate social safety net.

Perry — and the rest of the Republican right — is completely out of step. Neoconservative thought has been thoroughly discredited. Most Americans believe it was that unfettered, free market capitalism that got us into this economic mess. And, most Americans think maybe we ought to try some of that "European Socialism," especially if it comes with health care, a decent social safety net, good public transportation and a shot at a college education for our kids.

Perry is appealing to the worst of the Texas Republican Party ... and, it’s scary how many people actually seem to approve of what he’s said. Fortunately, that may be the only group paying attention to him.

If recent opinion polls are any gauge, most Texans — Republicans, Independents and Democrats — are tired of him, too.

Cross posted at Open Salon here http://open.salon.com/blog/richard2456

Our moment in time

"This is our moment. This is our time."

The blogosphere is littered with allusions and odes to Tuesday night. I can't offer anything more profound than President-Elect Obama's own words.

In fact, I get choked up just contemplating what happened. I'll be merrily working along, flip over to the "news" page on my browser and see a story that refers to what happened. Without warning, I'll tear up and start sniffling.

"What happened." As if. As if it wasn't anything much. As if the world didn't change, and change in a more profound fashion than it did that June Sunday afternoon in 1969 when a human being walked around on another planet.

Last night, I read Thomas Friedman's NYT column "Finishing Our Work." If you haven't read it, do. It's lovely. I read the first graf out loud to Tia Rae and choked up. Again. Something I just can't seem to stop doing.

In fact, I just called the column up to make sure I got the headline and noted the first graf ... again, again, I teared up.

Thomas is correct. As much as Southern revisionists might disagree, the American Civil War, the Late Great Unpleasantness, as I'm told my paternal great-grandmother called it, finally ended Tuesday evening at 10 p.m. Central Standard Time.

My young nephew, Jerran, won't know a time that a black man wasn't president and it will be as natural to him as satellites, laptop computers and HiDef. My new cousin, Isaac, will look back at this and wonder what all the fuss was about.

And, I can't help but wonder at what my Father might say and think about this. He was, after all, a classic, conservative Republican (albeit more in the Goldwater mold rather than that of Regan) but, in the early 1960s, he helped integrate the public schools in the little Texas Gulf Coast town where we lived. In fact, he had little use for bigots of any stripe.

Part of my wonder at this remarkable period in our history is that Barak Obama didn't run to be our first black president. He seldom talked about it. And, we didn't elect him for that, either ... well, I didn't, nor did any of the people I know. We elected him to be our president, plain and simple and natural as that.

(Okay, maybe, as one of the talking heads said last night, we elected him "savior" but that's more an indication of the last eight years — or 28 years — and our current dire straits than anything he tried to do.)

So. It's done. That chapter is closed and a new one begins.

This is our moment. This is our time. We've been desperate for this for a long, long time. Let's do something with it.

I'll be in the bunker 'til it's over

I just got finished running all my traps. The CNN electoral map. The poll of polls poll. HuffPo. WaPo. Stanley Fish.

It looks like Obama has a clear field for the rest of the week. Even Joe Scarborough said there is no way McCain can win. Barak would have to lose and it would take an "October Surprise" of historic proportions for that to happen.

That's what scares me. Democrats have this way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (does anyone remember 2000? 2004?) and they (we) seem pretty good at it. In fact, this election has been ours to lose from the beginning. For a while there (April, May), we seemed determined to self destruct.

For the last few weeks, Tia and I have stayed in the safety and comfort of the echo chamber. You know, the liberal, elite media ... the outlets mentioned above plus Salon.com, NYT, MSNBC prime time (Chris, Rachel and Keith; Keith may be a blow hard but he's OUR blow hard), Jon and Steven.

From now through next Tuesday, I'm going to be very careful that no unauthorized (considering our sources, perhaps I should use air quotes here) news source finds its way into our home.

We'll just stay in the bunker 'til it's all over.

Can McCain find honor?

We were in the liberal echo chamber last night and saw the video of an embarrassed John McCain forced to defend Barak Obama.

He should be embarrassed.

Gawd, I hope he figures out what's been happening at his rallies. His silence condones the tone of these terrified hate mongers, and it looks like they are all who attend any more.

Baltimore Sun editorial yesterday said what I wrote below, but did it much better.

Have a little shame

It shouldn't surprise me, I suppose. After all, I live in rural Texas.

But, when an election official in my hometown told me that an awful lot of folks who identify themselves with the Democratic Party simply could not bring themselves to vote for a black man, I was taken aback. And disappointed.

After all, we've gotten past all that, haven’t we? Haven't we?

Well, perhaps I'm just naïve … because we haven't.

Many of these people should know better — should, at the very least, feel a little shame for uttering those words out loud ... and, I cleaned the statement up a bit for consumption in a family newspaper.

But, I suspect too many of them feel it's perfectly natural to distrust a black man in power, though I'm at a loss to explain why anyone should feel this way.

Over the last couple of months, I've wanted to look at my conservative friends (and I have many of them), pat them gently on the cheek and, in my best baby-talk voice, ask, "What's the matter, does the mean black man scare you?"

I think he does. I think Barak Obama’s obvious intelligence, grace and poise terrifies an awful lot of rural Texans. His very existence challenges the prejudices they learned growing up, then perpetuated at their own kitchen tables.

This week, I got an email from another close (conservative) friend bemoaning the fact that, unless the stories about his “character and past associations” don’t surface soon, Obama will win the election.

He may not have meant it that way but those are code words for “the color of his skin.”

It also appears to be the only real topic at the most recent rallies for the Republican presidential ticket. They can’t talk about the economy or the war so they indulge in race baiting. My friends, that’s plain scary.

No, I’ve heard neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin actually say the words “terrorist,” or “black man” or “Obama” in the same sentence but the angry vitriol spewing from those attending the rallies is enough to make sane people fear violence. And that neither of the candidates (and that would be John McCain, the war hero, and/or Sarah Palin, the devote Christian) slapped down those bigots yelling the racist and discriminatory slogans is unprecedented. Even the conservative arm of the mainstream media is appalled.

Desperation will allow otherwise reasonable people to commit heinous things but McCain’s lack of a reaction is tantamount to encouragement. When the ostensibly reasonable people at the top of the ticket of a major national political party tacitly encourage race-baiting and violent language toward any ethnic group, it won’t be long until we see actual acts of violence toward that ethnic group. Especially in places like rural Texas where we’re not even a couple of generations removed from Jim Crow and the mob.

I’d expect this from the tattered remains of Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat party, or from supporters of Gov. George Wallace’s aborted presidential run, not from someone like John McCain. Is he really so desperate?

It’s one thing to disagree with a politician’s stand on the issues. Frankly, if you’re really paying attention, you won’t agree fully with everything ANY politician says … if you do, you’re lying to yourself or that politician is lying to you.

Further, it’s perfectly acceptable to vote against a politician you disagree with — heck, I could make the argument that it’s your civic duty to get out and actively campaign against the candidate.

But, have the decency to admit to yourself, if to no one else, why you’ll cast your vote the way you will.

And, if that reason has more to do with the color of a person’s skin than it does with that person’s political philosophy, be very ashamed.

Democracy is pretty cool; register to vote

There’s a world-changing election coming up in about a month. But, if you aren’t registered to vote, you can’t take part.

Citizenship in this country is not simply a given. It comes with certain fairly simple obligations. Among them are serving on a jury, when asked, and voting. Registering to vote is the first step.

Monday is the deadline if you want to vote in the next election. If you aren’t registered to vote and you haven’t registered by Monday, your voice won’t be heard.

And, it’s crucial that your voice be heard, and not only because of the presidential race.
Make no mistake, that’s an important vote but some of the races further down the ballot are just as critical.

For example, Texans will cast ballots for one of two representatives to the United States Senate. John Cornyn, a former Texas Attorney General, is running for his second term against an upstart war hero by the name of Rick Noriega. Right now, it’s a surprisingly close race. With a narrow partisan division in Congress, I’m not overstating the case at all when I say who we elect as our Senator will alter the shape of the U.S. Senate.

Here’s another example of how important it is that you cast a vote. The people we put on the Court of Appeals and Texas Supreme Court will determine how much access — if any — you have to our state’s legal system. The phrases “tort reform” and “frivolous lawsuits” are merely code words for a bench weighted in favor of the defense of big corporations. Of course, “access to the courts” is usually a code phrase for the opposite position.

Vote a certain way in those obscure judicial races and we’re telling the courts that we’d rather see to the financial health of the business community, even if that means individual liberties are curtailed. Vote another and we’re telling them that our right to redress our grievances before the legal system is more important than a few more dollars of profit on the balance sheets of our state’s big manufacturers.

Which brings up the second step of being a full-fledged citizen and that is casting an intelligent vote. As I noted, those judicial races are pretty obscure. Few of the names involved are familiar — and, too often in judicial races, those that ARE familiar are suspiciously familiar.

Further, ideological purity is dangerous when installed in a courtroom. Along that path lies “legislating from the bench,” another one of those code phrases that can mean whatever the heck you want it to mean except that judges of both political parties are guilty.

This, combined with some frankly misleading political advertising, makes it very difficult for the average voter to become educated about a given race, especially judicial races.

So, how do you become educated? Well, that presidential election will suck all the air out of the room as far as the national press is concerned. If you can’t figure that one out, you aren’t trying.
For the rest, this paper is probably your best source for the county and local statehouse races. The Sunday issue of your regional metro daily is also a good source.

If that doesn’t work for you, the next best source I know of for non-partisan information about elections is the Texas League of Women Voters (www.lwvtex.org). They’ve published a 16-page guide to the elections, an awful lot of it concerning the judicial races.

But, before anything else, you have to register to vote. It’s probably a bit late to request an application by mail but they are available at almost any county, state or federal office. Your post office, for instance, or the County Clerk’s office. Put it in the mail for postmark by Monday, Oct. 6. You should get your voters registration card back in plenty of time for the election.

Then, read up on the election and join the rest of your fellow citizens at the polls. It’s called democracy and it’s pretty cool.

How to be a patriot

Let’s face it. Americans like to see things blow up. That’s one of the reasons we all flock to Fourth of July fireworks displays.

Where at all possible, rural Texans like to have a hand in blowing things up. That’s one of the reasons many Texans, especially those who live in towns the size Kyle and Buda used to be, really like the Fourth of July.

We can buy our own star shells and mortars and Roman candles and bottle rockets to light up our own patch of sky and show those folks the next ridge over what a real fireworks display looks like.

But, Kyle and Buda aren’t all that small, any more. Hays County certainly isn’t. A hundred houses have sprouted out of what were lonely, out of the way fields a couple of years ago.

Which brings up the other issue. Hays County is so parched you could start a brush fire just by giving a pasture a harsh look.

The vastly increased population and the dry conditions make random, spontaneous displays of amateur rocketry a bit problematic for the folks who respond to out-of-control pasture fires.
Now, patriotism means all sorts of things to all sorts of people but it’s very likely we can all agree it means more than simply flying the flag on the Fourth of July, wearing a red, white and blue shirt and cooking off star shells.

Cleansed of all the jingoistic trappings, patriotism means being a responsible citizen, which means observing the law, even if that means refraining from exercising your “right” to lighting off fireworks.

Remember, neither Kyle nor Buda allows citizens to shoot off fireworks in the city limits. No, not even sparklers. That’s the law.

This year, due to the harsh, dry conditions previously noted, Hays County Commissioners have banned aerial fireworks. That’s the law, as well.

So, be really patriotic this Fourth of July. Instead of risking a brush fire that, this year, might just burn down someone’s brand new home, take advantage of the lavish (but safe) fireworks displays both Buda and Kyle intend to sponsor.

It’s the patriotic thing to do.

This was originally published as an editorial in The Hays Free Press.

Taking the food off your table

If you’re a vegetarian, you might want to skip this one … but, then again, maybe not.

Pres. Bush’s new energy policy mandating minimum levels of annual biofuel production is likely to have unintended consequences on the price of beef.

For one thing, it’s driving up the price of corn because most ethanol in the United States is produced from corn.

That’s real good news for the folks who grow corn and soybeans and the like for a living, many of whom have struggled merely to survive the last decade or so.

It’s real bad news for cattle producers and those of us who maintain that we didn’t climb to the top of the food chain to eat broccoli.

Here’s why: with the spike in the price of corn comes a corresponding increase in the price of beef. And pork. And any other commercially-grown food animal or bird fattened on corn and soy feed.

The more that corn is diverted to biofuel, the higher the demand. The higher the demand, the less is available for cattle production and the more expensive meat products become.

Talk about a double whammy (as opposed to a double cheeseburger).

The cost of fuel is driving up the price of all food products at the consumer level ... and, alternative fuels are actually taking food off our tables.

Now, this piece has been approached with tongue planted firmly in cheek but the issue of using a pervasive, staple food source to power our cars does have some profound implications for global hunger.

Not only will your ribeye steak get more expensive, more folks in sub-Sahara Africa will go hungry.

We may soon face a choice: corn for meat or corn for fuel.

Suddenly, vegetarianism may become a more attractive option.

This was published as an editorial in the Hays Free Press

Public's right to know depends on press freedoms

I've worked as a reporter and editor for small-town Texas newspapers for over 15 years.

During that time, I've dealt with many sensitive or highly controversial topics, and even a confidential source or two, but never has a local prosecutor asked me to testify in front of a grand jury - or any jury - or to relinquish my notes or unpublished photos, or to reveal the name of a confidential source.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that few local prosecutors have ever tried to compel a reporter to testify or turn over stuff like that.

There are a lot of reasons for this. One is few local reporters ever get credible information from someone demanding confidentiality. And, even when they do, few of the people who publish small-town newspapers ever use information like this, and certainly not without independent confirmation.

Another reason is, most prosecutors work very hard to develop their cases and resort to compelling testimony from the press only as a last resort.

That's why a bill working its way through the Texas Legislature establishing guidelines for such things sounds like so much “inside baseball” to most people who read weekly and small daily newspapers - and to most of the people who work at them.

But, it's not just some esoteric debate fit only for policy wonks. Not any more.

Over the last few years - and especially the last year - there have been several high-profile cases that illustrate the peril reporters invite when they offer confidentiality to a news source.

I don't have to detail those cases here - the Valerie Plame case and the BALCO steroids investigation have gotten tremendous coverage - but they seem to mark the end of an admittedly uneasy truce between the news media and the government that has existed since the end of the Watergate era.

Quite suddenly - at least, at the glacial pace of jurisprudence - the unspoken agreements and policies that have for years moderated relationships between the working press and prosecuting attorneys has begun to morph dangerously - at least from a standpoint of press freedoms.

Should journalists have at least some protection against subpoenas seeking to compel testimony or the surrender of notes and tapes?

In Texas, reporters will risk jail time if they refuse to hand over their notes and unpublished photographs or reveal sources to whom they have promised confidentiality. That threat, which was seldom ever invoked, is now very real.

Open government advocates, press associations and citizen-driven public policy groups in Texas say yes, there should be some sort of protection for reporters. County and district attorneys in Texas, along with other law enforcement officials, say no, there shouldn't.

Prosecutors' arguments boil down to: It is a citizen's duty to give truthful testimony when asked. Why should journalists be any different?

Advocates of the bill respond this way: The government has all kinds of incredibly persuasive tools to compel cooperation. It is important that the press have some protections - even if those protections are strictly limited - else it is little more than another arm of the government. If so, this creates a chilling effect on the ability of the public, for which the press is a surrogate, to criticize the government and look into governmental corruption.

The Texas Free Flow of Information Act (SB966 sponsored by Senators Rodney Ellis and Robert Duncan, and HB 382 by Rep. Aaron Pena and HB 2249 sponsored by Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale) seeks to strike a balance between these two positions.

It grants very specific and limited protections for confidential sources, work derived from confidential sources and related notes, and sets out a three-pronged test that, when met, allows a prosecutor to compel testimony.

Simply, it codifies the relationship that most of the press in Texas already has with most of the county and district attorneys in Texas.

When people have access to a free and unfettered flow of information, they make better decisions and can hold officials accountable. Allowing reporters a limited ability to protect confidential sources only strengthens the public's ability to get good information and that strengthens our democracy.

This is good legislation and deserves support.

This column was syndicated to Texas newspapers April 2007.

Access to public information unearthed TYC scandal

If you ever needed an example of the importance of our state's open government laws, you need look no further than the current scandals rocking the Texas Youth Commission.

Last month, the Texas Observer broke the story about how TYC officials ignored, then tried to cover up evidence that administrators at the Pyote unit in West Texas molested several boys in 2004 and 2005.

The Dallas Morning News broke its coverage Feb. 19, two days later and, the next thing you know, everyone knew about it.

Texans exploded in anger and the revelations touched off a legislative firestorm. The more the story came into focus, the more the vastness of the problem became apparent, the more enraged everyone became.

The governor appointed a special master and a new administrator. Last week, Texas Rangers, DPS troopers and attorney general staffers staged an unannounced occupation of TYC offices statewide. Newspapers carry tales of new, horrible discoveries every day.

There are allegations of physical abuse, extortion, and over 750 instances of sex abuse.

Certain TYC officials had managed to keep it buried - even though the Texas Rangers investigated early allegations - but, once people started digging, it just all spurted out like pus from a gangrenous sore. It shows no sign of abating any time soon.

And it all came to light because Texas has laws protecting your right to know what your government - and its various, labyrinthine agencies - are doing in your name.

A handful of diligent reporters heard a tip then used the Public Information Act to unearth all the documents, records and emails they needed to build the story. Then they started asking questions. Lots of them.

Before long, a different group of very powerful people started asking some rather pointed questions of their own.

And that shows no sign of abating either. Thank God and, apparently, it's about time.

We can't tolerate this kind of criminal behavior against people put in the state's care. Never mind that these juveniles are serious trouble, many of them. As individuals, they are very nearly helpless in the clutches of the State. No matter what they've done to earn their time in the TYC, they shouldn't have to fear physical or sexual abuse at the hands of the people who control their fate.

This awful circumstance is exactly what our open government laws were intended to uncover. It's a shame that not everyone really understands importance and intent of those laws.

According to an Associated Press story published Sunday, a handful of Texas newspapers recently conducted an informal public records audit and the results weren't encouraging.

Reporters went to nine local agencies across the state and asked for copies of the community's emergency response plans. Congress mandated that these plans be available to the public so, except for some very narrowly defined security information, confidentiality wasn't an issue. Indeed, in the wake of the state's struggle to absorb evacuations that resulted from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, public scrutiny of local emergency response plans is entirely appropriate.

But, of the nine requests, three were denied completely. Three other requests were granted, but only after a great deal of information was redacted. At only three of the nine agencies were reporters granted full access to the emergency plans, as the law requires.

That's sad. All it took was for someone to shine a little light on the cesspool the TYC had become to uncover the abuses of that system Š but someone had to shine that light.

Who knows what might be found buried in local emergency response plans? Perhaps we'd simply find that our public officials are doing a good job preparing for the worst.

Perhaps not, but it doesn't matter. When any government official or agency decides it's okay to determine what's good for us to know and what isn't, that constitutes an abuse of our state's open government laws and an abuse of public trust.

As the TYC scandals point out, government simply works better when the people's business in conducted in the public.

This column was syndicated to Texas newspapers March 2007.

Record votes a clear path to good state government

If it's good enough for Craddick, it's good enough for the rest of us!

Folks in the Austin press corps got a big chuckle in January when Tom Craddick pushed his fellows to record how they would vote in his effort to be re-elected Speaker of the Texas House.

You see, Craddick has been a staunch, behind-the-scenes opponent of record votes in the Texas House but, when his political power was threatened, he jumped on the bandwagon - temporarily, at least - because it gave him a way to intimidate recalcitrant legislators.

The rhetoric and debate leading up to that vote was a bit dizzying. Suddenly, some of the same people who de-railed last session's record vote legislation were heard arguing forcefully in favor of record votes!

It's too bad those arguments were disingenuous. Neither Craddick nor any other House leader has any intention of actually putting into law a measure that would require all substantive votes taken in the Texas House of Representatives be on the record. In their opinion, the concept is too much trouble, good only as a tool of intimidation not as a method to ensure transparency.

Here's the issue: There is nothing in the law that requires Texas legislators to state, on the record, how they voted on important legislation. And, unless the issue is forced, legislators won't go on the record with their votes.

In just one example from the 2005 session, representatives voted to exempt themselves from a bill requiring candidates to file campaign contributions and expenditures electronically - but not their future challengers. But, you can't tell who voted how because the vote wasn't recorded.

Now, before you say that all you expect of a Texas Legislator is that he votes his conscience, know that whether or not a vote is on the record has a profound impact on the outcome. A motion to table that bill - essentially killing it - appeared headed to easy passage until a record vote was requested. Suddenly, the vote flipped, and the motion to table failed.

In other words, Texas legislators often have one set of ethics when the vote is on the record and another when it's not.

Sadly, many legislators believe this issue is important only to the media. The disdainful comments legislators made during committee hearings make that clear, and the same comments make it clear many legislators don't take this very seriously.

It's true, the media - specifically newspapers - have pushed very hard over the last two or three sessions for this kind of legislation, not because it makes our jobs easier - though, in some ways, it does. Newspapers are in favor of this legislation because it makes it easier for citizens of Texas to hold lawmakers accountable.

Ironically, legislators are all in favor of accountability (especially for educators) but not so much where it comes to their own actions.

As it did in 2005, the Texas Senate will likely approve some type of legislation mandating record votes. But, unless they can pass the House State Affairs Committee in the next week or two, none of the several bills filed will make it to the House floor for debate and that means the fate of this legislation rests in the hands of nine state representatives (see sidebar).

Texas is one of only 10 states that does not have some sort of requirement that votes on major legislation be on the record, and it's easier to find out how your U.S. Congressman or city council member voted than your state representative or senator.

Good government advocates all across the state - including the League of Women Voters and nearly every citizen advocacy group you might name - have called for this kind of legislation in Texas.

Indeed, in the run-up to the Speaker's vote, 80 Texas legislators voted in favor of record votes, at least on the Speaker's race. That some of the same people who've quashed previous attempts to mandate record votes are among these 80 legislators merely adds to the irony.

Texas legislators must end the hypocrisy of using voice votes to avoid accountability. If it's important that folks back home know how legislators voted in the Speaker's race, it's important for them to know how they voted on other important issues.

Texas House State Affairs Committee
Chairman: David Swinford (R-Amarillo)
Vice chair: Ken Paxton (R-McKinney)
Committee: Corbin Van Arsdale (R-Houston), Wayne Christian (R-Center), Jessica Farrar (D-Lindale Park), Byron Cook (R-Corsicana), Dan Flynn (R-Canton), Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound) and Marc Veasey (D-Ft. Worth)

Of this committee, all voted in favor of having a record vote for Speaker of the House, except Jessica Farrar and Marc Veasey who were only two of 16 legislators to vote against Rep. Tom Craddick for Speaker of the house.

This opinion column was syndicated February, 2007.