... 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)
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The missed opportunity, Part Duex
A couple of posts back, I talked about the opportunity that some Texas publishers missed when they too-narrowly defined what "local coverage" really means.
The post was prompted when Bud Kennedy used the Texas Press Association's list serve to ask a question about reaction members of the community had to presidential election coverage, or lack of it.
I posted my blog entry and sent it to Bud via email, off-list. Unfortunately, it wasn't really "off-list." It was sent to all those 300-some-odd publishers and editors who frequent TPA's editorial list serve. Oops.
I hadn't intended to spark any controversy. Really.
One publisher — a good friend of mine — chided me for posting my blog on the list serve and I accepted it because she was right.
Others allowed as how I might have a point and one even made my argument better than I did.
Others, of course, stuck to their guns and defended Terrell's right to ignore the national elections — or not — the way they saw fit.
Then there was the publisher who cautioned Kennedy against paying much attention to me because I was "full of frijoles." This particular publisher went on to note that, had he even deigned to publish a story about the presidential election, it "probably would have said First socialist/Marist elected president. Instead those comments were made in our editorial on Page 4."
Wow. That's an enlightened oped page I'm glad I missed.
The storm raged for a day or two, then faded away. Bud wrote his column and even quoted me, though he identified my column by the URL rather than the name. A link to the column is here.
The post was prompted when Bud Kennedy used the Texas Press Association's list serve to ask a question about reaction members of the community had to presidential election coverage, or lack of it.
I posted my blog entry and sent it to Bud via email, off-list. Unfortunately, it wasn't really "off-list." It was sent to all those 300-some-odd publishers and editors who frequent TPA's editorial list serve. Oops.
I hadn't intended to spark any controversy. Really.
One publisher — a good friend of mine — chided me for posting my blog on the list serve and I accepted it because she was right.
Others allowed as how I might have a point and one even made my argument better than I did.
Others, of course, stuck to their guns and defended Terrell's right to ignore the national elections — or not — the way they saw fit.
Then there was the publisher who cautioned Kennedy against paying much attention to me because I was "full of frijoles." This particular publisher went on to note that, had he even deigned to publish a story about the presidential election, it "probably would have said First socialist/Marist elected president. Instead those comments were made in our editorial on Page 4."
Wow. That's an enlightened oped page I'm glad I missed.
The storm raged for a day or two, then faded away. Bud wrote his column and even quoted me, though he identified my column by the URL rather than the name. A link to the column is here.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The missed opportunity
Bud Kennedy, a columnist for the Fort Worth Star Telegram, sent a request to publishers of small Texas newspapers for their thoughts on front page coverage of the national elections. If the responses were typical (and I suspect they were), I'm disappointed in my Texas newspaper brethren.
The request was prompted by picketing at the office of the Terrell Tribune, a paper that allegedly led with national stories from the wire in advance then downplayed the national election results on Election Day. I wasn't there. I don't know what pressures Bill and his staff faced that day so I won't comment on that situation.
Besides, that's not what disappoints. What disappoints is that it appears Texas publishers missed a huge opportunity in this election.
This was an historic event, one of the biggest, easiest-to-cover stories of the decade. Everyone in our communities talked about it and everyone had an opinion, regardless of who they voted for or why. To dismiss an event of this significance simply because we had to use a little imagination to tie it to our own back yards or because Tuesdays are a little tough is selling our readers — and ourselves — short.
As many of you know, I edited and published weekly and small daily newspapers in Texas for the better part of two decades. I found that my readers really appreciated local coverage of large state and national issues like pubic school finance, immigration reform and congressional redistricting. The argument of "it didn't happen here" doesn't hold because these issues have an impact on everyone in our communities and, in some cases, a profound impact.
Agreed, had I been publishing a newspaper this cycle, my advance coverage would have been focused on the local elections because our readers could get that news nowhere else. But, by the same token, neither could our readers get news of the local reaction to the results of the national election anywhere else.
To not mention this election and the local reaction to it in a prominent fashion is, in my opinion, the same as if we had completely ignored the events of 9/11. How many of us tore up our front page that Tuesday morning and devoted the rest of that day to covering the local reaction to jets crashing into the World Trade Center? We did in Cameron and, from the standpoint of local color, it was probably one of the best front pages that year. Plus, it sold out on the racks.
Instead of taking the easy way out (“It ain’t local so we don’t pay attention”), why not have prepared some sort of local reaction piece to this historic event?
One of our most under-served market segments, the “minority” community, probably voted in record numbers so they could vote for the first black man to be nominated for president atop a national party, even though they knew their vote wouldn't really make a difference to the Texas electoral vote. Isn’t that a story? Isn’t that a local hook?
And, frankly, that’s part of where this controversy — and opportunity —comes from. Our newspapers, especially those papers serving our more rural areas, serve a dwindling elite. That elite is largely white. Despite years of effort at racial diversification (often halfhearted effort), the people running and working in those newspapers are also largely white. The advertisers who support those newspapers — also likely white — probably don't care that much about our minority communities, though they should because we've all seen the demographic projections.
In Texas (and in this country) our white population is shrinking while our minority populations are growing. At the same time, we're all terrified at how long it might take for the rot of declining circulation and declining ad revenues afflicting the metro papers to trickle down to our Texas towns. To survive, we'll have to reach out to everyone in our communities, not just the elite.
If no one else, minorities in our communities watched this election closely ... and too many of our community newspapers discounted them and this elections' importance by giving it little or no coverage. Really, that’s a shame.
Texas publishers missed a huge opportunity.
The request was prompted by picketing at the office of the Terrell Tribune, a paper that allegedly led with national stories from the wire in advance then downplayed the national election results on Election Day. I wasn't there. I don't know what pressures Bill and his staff faced that day so I won't comment on that situation.
Besides, that's not what disappoints. What disappoints is that it appears Texas publishers missed a huge opportunity in this election.
This was an historic event, one of the biggest, easiest-to-cover stories of the decade. Everyone in our communities talked about it and everyone had an opinion, regardless of who they voted for or why. To dismiss an event of this significance simply because we had to use a little imagination to tie it to our own back yards or because Tuesdays are a little tough is selling our readers — and ourselves — short.
As many of you know, I edited and published weekly and small daily newspapers in Texas for the better part of two decades. I found that my readers really appreciated local coverage of large state and national issues like pubic school finance, immigration reform and congressional redistricting. The argument of "it didn't happen here" doesn't hold because these issues have an impact on everyone in our communities and, in some cases, a profound impact.
Agreed, had I been publishing a newspaper this cycle, my advance coverage would have been focused on the local elections because our readers could get that news nowhere else. But, by the same token, neither could our readers get news of the local reaction to the results of the national election anywhere else.
To not mention this election and the local reaction to it in a prominent fashion is, in my opinion, the same as if we had completely ignored the events of 9/11. How many of us tore up our front page that Tuesday morning and devoted the rest of that day to covering the local reaction to jets crashing into the World Trade Center? We did in Cameron and, from the standpoint of local color, it was probably one of the best front pages that year. Plus, it sold out on the racks.
Instead of taking the easy way out (“It ain’t local so we don’t pay attention”), why not have prepared some sort of local reaction piece to this historic event?
One of our most under-served market segments, the “minority” community, probably voted in record numbers so they could vote for the first black man to be nominated for president atop a national party, even though they knew their vote wouldn't really make a difference to the Texas electoral vote. Isn’t that a story? Isn’t that a local hook?
And, frankly, that’s part of where this controversy — and opportunity —comes from. Our newspapers, especially those papers serving our more rural areas, serve a dwindling elite. That elite is largely white. Despite years of effort at racial diversification (often halfhearted effort), the people running and working in those newspapers are also largely white. The advertisers who support those newspapers — also likely white — probably don't care that much about our minority communities, though they should because we've all seen the demographic projections.
In Texas (and in this country) our white population is shrinking while our minority populations are growing. At the same time, we're all terrified at how long it might take for the rot of declining circulation and declining ad revenues afflicting the metro papers to trickle down to our Texas towns. To survive, we'll have to reach out to everyone in our communities, not just the elite.
If no one else, minorities in our communities watched this election closely ... and too many of our community newspapers discounted them and this elections' importance by giving it little or no coverage. Really, that’s a shame.
Texas publishers missed a huge opportunity.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Monday, September 29, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
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.
Thursday, March 22, 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.
Monday, February 12, 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.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Perry’s orders are out of bounds
You might almost feel a bit of sympathy for Rick Perry. Almost.
After all, it isn’t often that the leader of one of this nation’s greatest states get his hand slapped by both the legislative and judicial branches of government, all in the same week.
Last Tuesday, State District Judge Stephen Yelenosky rebuked Gov. Perry’s executive order to “fast track” the permitting process for a clutch of new coal-fired electrical generating plants.
Then, the very next day, the House Public Health Committee repudiated Perry’s mandate that all sixth-grade girls be vaccinated for the human papilloma virus. Since the bill the committee was considering had 90 sponsors, it’s probably a lock for passage when it goes to the House floor for debate.
It’s as if Perry had said, “Hey, guys … let’s go this way! Talley Ho!” and the state’s legislators and judges turned around, looked at him askance and replied, “And, who are you, exactly?”
And, really, that’s as it should be. In these two cases, at least, Perry overstepped his authority, and the folks against whom he trespassed told him so.
On the one hand, the state’s judiciary ruled the governor can’t just set aside processes and procedures, designed to curb the damaging excesses of big polluters, simply because the permitting rules take danged near one year to observe. On the other, legislators took serious umbrage at Perry’s decision to bypass the legislative process in favor of a flat mandate for a health issue that probably deserves a great deal of public debate.
You have to wonder a bit at Perry’s “fast track” order, especially after the furor raised in rural Texas by the proposed Trans Texas Corridor. I agree we’ll need the power in the not-too-distant future (just like we’ll need to address our highway system) but is this really the best way to go about it?
And, why are we in such a hurry?
And, do we really want to return Texas to the bad old days when power plants belched thick, black smoke into the air, refineries pumped toxic sludge into our bays and trucks drove through our residential streets spraying DDT to control mosquitoes?
I don’t think so. While the process to permit a new power generating plant can be expensive and excruciating, that process is there for some very good and very sound reasons.
Besides, the plants will probably get approved anyway. It’s Big Bid’ness, after all. This just gives us all a chance to get used to the idea.
On the other issue, I have to admit a grudging respect for Perry while at the same time wondering at his incredible hubris. If his heart’s in the right place (and, on this issue, I believe it probably is), that decision took a lot of courage. There are few orders he could issue more likely to profoundly upset his base than one mandating a vaccine, that controls the spread of a sexually transmitted disease, be given to sixth-grade girls.
On top of that, we’re Texans, by gum! We don’t kowtow to just anyone. I mean, who is this guy to tell us how to raise our kids!? (Never mind that the vaccine will also likely prevent the most common form of cervical cancer in a tremendous number of women and, like the power plants and highway, be approved anyway.)
Perry must miss his days as lieutenant governor. The Governor of Texas barely has the authority to blow his nose on his own, much less make sweeping, unilateral changes to environmental and public health policy. Texas may be one of the greatest states in the nation but everybody knows its governor is among the weakest.
The lieutenant governor is the state’s most powerful elected official and even he has to bow to the appearance of a legislative process. But, even then, the lieutenant governor is only as powerful as the Senate allows, which it usually does (for modern examples, see Bob Bullock, Bill Hobby, et al.).
Oh, uhh ... as I recall, the Senate curtailed the lieutenant governor’s power those two years Perry held the post.
Instead of side stepping the rules, Perry should encourage vigorous public debate on issues that are sure to be controversial. This is laudatory and well within his purview as governor. Anything else smacks of overweening pride and behind-the-scenes deal making.
This column was syndicated Feb.2, 2007.
After all, it isn’t often that the leader of one of this nation’s greatest states get his hand slapped by both the legislative and judicial branches of government, all in the same week.
Last Tuesday, State District Judge Stephen Yelenosky rebuked Gov. Perry’s executive order to “fast track” the permitting process for a clutch of new coal-fired electrical generating plants.
Then, the very next day, the House Public Health Committee repudiated Perry’s mandate that all sixth-grade girls be vaccinated for the human papilloma virus. Since the bill the committee was considering had 90 sponsors, it’s probably a lock for passage when it goes to the House floor for debate.
It’s as if Perry had said, “Hey, guys … let’s go this way! Talley Ho!” and the state’s legislators and judges turned around, looked at him askance and replied, “And, who are you, exactly?”
And, really, that’s as it should be. In these two cases, at least, Perry overstepped his authority, and the folks against whom he trespassed told him so.
On the one hand, the state’s judiciary ruled the governor can’t just set aside processes and procedures, designed to curb the damaging excesses of big polluters, simply because the permitting rules take danged near one year to observe. On the other, legislators took serious umbrage at Perry’s decision to bypass the legislative process in favor of a flat mandate for a health issue that probably deserves a great deal of public debate.
You have to wonder a bit at Perry’s “fast track” order, especially after the furor raised in rural Texas by the proposed Trans Texas Corridor. I agree we’ll need the power in the not-too-distant future (just like we’ll need to address our highway system) but is this really the best way to go about it?
And, why are we in such a hurry?
And, do we really want to return Texas to the bad old days when power plants belched thick, black smoke into the air, refineries pumped toxic sludge into our bays and trucks drove through our residential streets spraying DDT to control mosquitoes?
I don’t think so. While the process to permit a new power generating plant can be expensive and excruciating, that process is there for some very good and very sound reasons.
Besides, the plants will probably get approved anyway. It’s Big Bid’ness, after all. This just gives us all a chance to get used to the idea.
On the other issue, I have to admit a grudging respect for Perry while at the same time wondering at his incredible hubris. If his heart’s in the right place (and, on this issue, I believe it probably is), that decision took a lot of courage. There are few orders he could issue more likely to profoundly upset his base than one mandating a vaccine, that controls the spread of a sexually transmitted disease, be given to sixth-grade girls.
On top of that, we’re Texans, by gum! We don’t kowtow to just anyone. I mean, who is this guy to tell us how to raise our kids!? (Never mind that the vaccine will also likely prevent the most common form of cervical cancer in a tremendous number of women and, like the power plants and highway, be approved anyway.)
Perry must miss his days as lieutenant governor. The Governor of Texas barely has the authority to blow his nose on his own, much less make sweeping, unilateral changes to environmental and public health policy. Texas may be one of the greatest states in the nation but everybody knows its governor is among the weakest.
The lieutenant governor is the state’s most powerful elected official and even he has to bow to the appearance of a legislative process. But, even then, the lieutenant governor is only as powerful as the Senate allows, which it usually does (for modern examples, see Bob Bullock, Bill Hobby, et al.).
Oh, uhh ... as I recall, the Senate curtailed the lieutenant governor’s power those two years Perry held the post.
Instead of side stepping the rules, Perry should encourage vigorous public debate on issues that are sure to be controversial. This is laudatory and well within his purview as governor. Anything else smacks of overweening pride and behind-the-scenes deal making.
This column was syndicated Feb.2, 2007.
Monday, January 2, 2006
EDITORIAL: It's time to fix how we pay for schools
At last. Someone has finally come up with a sane and practical way to look at the debate on how we pay for public education.
Last week, John Sharp told Texas newspaper publishers that the problem of school funding is so complicated by interest groups who want to reform the way we educate our children along with the way we pay for it, the effort is as pointless as "watching a cock fight while a nuclear war is going on outside."
That analogy is quite apt.
The Supreme Court recently found that the way we pay for our school system is unconstitutional because it amounts to a statewide property tax. The court didn't order the Legislature to consider vouchers or to increase per student spending. It didn't really speak to how Texas educates its students or what it teaches them. It said that the way we pay for public education is unconstitutional and ordered the Legislature to fix it. By June 1. Or else.
The Legislature must stop worrying about the peripheral issues and make the school finance infrastructure constitutional. Those peripheral issues - vouchers on one hand and increased per student spending on the other - cannot be addressed until this state overhauls the tax code and reduces its dependence on property tax.
But the folks who want to use tax reform as a springboard to education reform muck up the works and make it impossible for the Legislature to accomplish anything regarding tax reform. Several failed special sessions and two regular sessions attest to this failure. We must save those battles for after we put a constitutional tax system in place.
Sharp pointed out that our tax code worked pretty well in the late 1950s and early 1960s but it is completely inadequate to the task of keeping up with our global economy and high stakes development. That's why, aside from the court mandated deadline, it's critical that the Legislature develop a tax code that is fair, makes sense, promotes our economy and doesn't balance that budget on the backs of our senior citizens, shrinking middle class and chronically poor.
Further, that deadline is important. Should the Legislature fail to come up with a constitutional plan, the court could shut off state money to the schools and do it in June. Sharp noted that, since she is locked in a bitter election campaign with Gov. Perry, Carole Strayhorn, the current Texas Comptroller, would very likely cooperate with that court order and that would create incredible havoc.
Now, the Legislature could duck the whole issue. It could put another band aide on the problem (like redistribution, the so-called "Robin Hood" plan) by throwing enough money at the problem that the court looks the other way for a couple of months.
But, that's not going to solve anything. That's not doing the job we hired them to do. Indeed, that approach guarantees continued ideological strife, taxpayer stress, expensive special Legislative sessions and legal battles.
That's not good public policy. It's not good tax policy.
The Legislature must divide the issue of how we pay for education from all the other issues, then take the deadline imposed by the Texas Supreme Court seriously.
"Don't let them do it half-way," Sharp urged. "Make them stick to this deadline."
It's past time for our leaders in Austin to quit squabbling like a bunch of spoiled 5 year olds and show some backbone and leadership.
This article was published Jan. 2, 2006 as an editorial by The Cameron Herald
Last week, John Sharp told Texas newspaper publishers that the problem of school funding is so complicated by interest groups who want to reform the way we educate our children along with the way we pay for it, the effort is as pointless as "watching a cock fight while a nuclear war is going on outside."
That analogy is quite apt.
The Supreme Court recently found that the way we pay for our school system is unconstitutional because it amounts to a statewide property tax. The court didn't order the Legislature to consider vouchers or to increase per student spending. It didn't really speak to how Texas educates its students or what it teaches them. It said that the way we pay for public education is unconstitutional and ordered the Legislature to fix it. By June 1. Or else.
The Legislature must stop worrying about the peripheral issues and make the school finance infrastructure constitutional. Those peripheral issues - vouchers on one hand and increased per student spending on the other - cannot be addressed until this state overhauls the tax code and reduces its dependence on property tax.
But the folks who want to use tax reform as a springboard to education reform muck up the works and make it impossible for the Legislature to accomplish anything regarding tax reform. Several failed special sessions and two regular sessions attest to this failure. We must save those battles for after we put a constitutional tax system in place.
Sharp pointed out that our tax code worked pretty well in the late 1950s and early 1960s but it is completely inadequate to the task of keeping up with our global economy and high stakes development. That's why, aside from the court mandated deadline, it's critical that the Legislature develop a tax code that is fair, makes sense, promotes our economy and doesn't balance that budget on the backs of our senior citizens, shrinking middle class and chronically poor.
Further, that deadline is important. Should the Legislature fail to come up with a constitutional plan, the court could shut off state money to the schools and do it in June. Sharp noted that, since she is locked in a bitter election campaign with Gov. Perry, Carole Strayhorn, the current Texas Comptroller, would very likely cooperate with that court order and that would create incredible havoc.
Now, the Legislature could duck the whole issue. It could put another band aide on the problem (like redistribution, the so-called "Robin Hood" plan) by throwing enough money at the problem that the court looks the other way for a couple of months.
But, that's not going to solve anything. That's not doing the job we hired them to do. Indeed, that approach guarantees continued ideological strife, taxpayer stress, expensive special Legislative sessions and legal battles.
That's not good public policy. It's not good tax policy.
The Legislature must divide the issue of how we pay for education from all the other issues, then take the deadline imposed by the Texas Supreme Court seriously.
"Don't let them do it half-way," Sharp urged. "Make them stick to this deadline."
It's past time for our leaders in Austin to quit squabbling like a bunch of spoiled 5 year olds and show some backbone and leadership.
This article was published Jan. 2, 2006 as an editorial by The Cameron Herald
Friday, August 12, 2005
THE RAGGED EDGE: Lighten up on the dress code
Okay, I'm going to rant for a few minutes. Don't say I didn't warn you.
I think I've just about had it with the CISD dress code. The following story may be exaggerated for effect but, if there is even the tiniest shred of truth to it, I give up.
According to some students (and at least one school employee), several girls here in Cameron were sent home from picture day last week because they had exposed their collarbones. Not their bare shoulders. Not their midriff (though cheerleaders seem to get away with ignoring that particular regulation). They got sent home because the collarbone below their neck was exposed. It is, they were told, a new part of the dress code.
The only response I could come up with was ???????.
Our district already has a reputation for draconian enforcement of a rather draconian dress code that seems to be re-interpreted every two or three months. I'd lay odds that we can trace at least part of our sharp decline in enrollment to this.
Last year, for example, our kids were banned from wearing hoodies (hooded sweatshirts), of all things, because the garment seemed to let some of the boys get around the stricture against baggy pants and un-tucked shirts.
What have we become, some kind of crazed fashion Nazis? Let's just wrap these kids up in shapeless, one-size-fits-all orange coveralls and call it done, shall we?
Let's consider those baggy pants for a moment. That particular garment sparked much of the silliness that now passes for a dress code at Cameron.
Some school trustees and parents don't like baggy pants but what they really, really dodn't like is the fact that some white kids have started wearing these pants. They are fashionable among young Hispanic and black men but we can't really have white kids wearing them, can we?
Listen, I don't much care for them, either. I think they look silly. You can't run in them and you can't climb into a pickup truck wearing them because the crotch hangs around your knees. But, that's no reason to ban them. In fact, a sharp lawyer might be able to make the case that banning this kind of clothing is discriminatory.
The fact is, folks didn't like long hair on guys back when I went to high school and wasted a lot of time trying to ban the custom. Sharp lawyers across the south tied school boards up in knots over that one.
On the other hand, school officials didn't seem to mind that most of the girls wore micro-mini dresses so short that they would be considered positively scandalous by today's standards.
Times change and fashions come and go. So what?
If you don't like baggy pants, don't wear them. If you really don't like baggy pants, don't let your kids wear them. But, friends, this is a fashion issue. It's probably even a cultural issue. It is not a school issue.
My mother-in-law, a veteran teacher with years of service teaching at inner city schools, once warned that it is very dangerous to challenge the creativity of teenagers. They have a lot more time - and motivation - to figure out ways to defeat school rules they consider inconsequential and ultimately meaningless than administrators have to figure out ways to enforce them.
We publish the Thorndale Champion so I'm occasionally on that campus and see pictures of their kids all the time. Barely half of them dress in a fashion that would meet the letter of our dress code. Yet, that district has been ranked by the Texas Education Agency as "recognized" for three consecutive years. The year before this incredible run, TISD was rated "exemplary."
When was the last time that CISD earned "recognized" status as a district? (Never.)
Thorndale has a pretty simple dress code and doesn't waste a whole lot of time or energy enforcing it. Here it is: Don't show underwear; don't wear ratty jeans, flip flops, tank tops or t-shirts that promote alcohol, drugs or tobacco. They don't like baggy pants either but don't get all bent out of shape about it as long as there's no visible underwear involved.
That's about it.
Violators don't get sent home; nor are they sent to some sort of punishment class. Instead, the principal makes the offender exchange his or her clothing for a horrid lime green t-shirt and a pair of ugly gray shorts. All it takes is one day in that outfit for a Thorndale student to see the light. The school has very, very few repeat offenders.
Some claim that a strict dress code, strictly enforced, instills discipline and teaches citizenship. This may be true, in the Marines or at a Catholic school or with a sane and consistent policy. I posit that aggressive enforcement of an unreasonable dress code that doesn't let kids learn about life by making poor fashion choices, or allow for cultural differences or differences in body type, creates as many discipline problems as it solves.
Enforcing this dress code is sapping our resources and instilling in our kids a sense of resentment and contempt for school rules. That's much more dangerous, in the long run, than the occasional bare midriff or un-tucked shirt.
Our school officials should worry less about what our kids are wearing and more - a whole lot more - about what they're learning.
This column was published Aug. 11, 2005 in the Cameron Herald.
Friday, April 23, 2004
The Ragged Edge: Follow the money to tax reform
If you think that there is no connection between campaign contributions and the drive to change the way we fund Texas' public schools, think again.
An editorial we published in our April 8 edition asserted that only a few school districts are clamoring to reform the way Texas finances public education but that Texas Legislators are beholden to these districts for votes and campaign contributions.
A new report states plainly that these few school districts also have tremendous clout with Texas' political leadership. Last week, Campaigns for People, an Austin-based political action committee, released a study indicating that the districts that stand to benefit the most by dismantling the so-called "Robin Hood" school finance system are also those whose citizens donated most generously to political campaigns. This study draws its conclusions through information gleaned from campaign finance reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission.
Indeed, the report points out that campaign contributions from people living in the top 10 wealthiest school districts accounted for almost 28 percent of all campaign contributions to all candidates in the 2002 election.
House Speaker Tom Craddick was the chief beneficiary of this largess. Nearly 31 percent of his campaign contributions came from within these school districts. Donors from only two wealthy school districts - Austin and Highland Park -- accounted for over 15 percent of all the money Craddick raised to finance his 2002 re-election bid.
These districts took care of Gov. Rick Perry as well. In all, he raised over 25 percent of his 2002 war chest from people living in the top 10 wealthiest school districts.
Of course, these districts represent some of the wealthiest communities in Texas so it's probably not too surprising that they also contributed to re-election campaigns at higher rates than the rest of the state. Still, when you look at the numbers this way, and you recognize that many of these same districts are the ones hollering the loudest for school finance reform, it's got to make you wonder.
Now, I'm not diving back into this issue because I'm opposed to reforming the way we finance our public schools; nor do I think holding a special session or three to address the issue is a waste of time.
It's not a waste of time. Wealthy schools are right to beef about this and rural schools have been watching their state-sponsored revenue stream steadily dry up over the last few years. The current plan isn't really working for anyone. It was, at best, a band aide applied to our tax structure in order to get out from under a Texas Supreme Court mandate. We need to find a more permanent fix, not another crazy-quilt patchwork cobbled together because of political expediency.
My biggest heartburn is with the idea that any system devised at the behest of people from wealthy school districts will be entirely fair to small rural schools or to middle class taxpayers.
Everybody, it seems, insists that our property taxes be reduced, despite the fact that Texans have one of the lowest state and local tax burdens in the United States. The Tax Foundation, a non-profit Washington group, found that Texas ranks 46th nationally. Only Tennessee, Alaska, Delaware and New Hampshire pay lower state and local taxes than Texans.
Further, high property taxes don't seem to be deterring anyone (who can find a job there) from moving to Richardson or Plano or Alamo Heights. These school districts maintain tremendously high growth rates. If low property taxes were such a draw, more folks would be moving to Granger or Buckholts or Zapata.
If we cut property taxes, we'll have to find some other source (or series of sources) for the balance of the $26 billion required to pay for our public education system. You're kidding yourself if you believe that there will actually be more money in education's pot, after all the dust settles. There won't. It's entirely possible that there will be less.
In fact, few of the financing schemes I've heard about actually end Robin Hood. Most of them establish a sort of Super Robin Hood plan that ships all property tax money off to the state for redistribution.
You'll also be kidding yourself if you believe that middle class taxpayers will have a lower tax burden when this is all over. Our property taxes may see a small cut but most of us will pay more in sales and "sin" taxes than we saved. Even the most ardent supporters of tax reform acknowledge this.
So, once the Legislative shell game has run its course, our schools won't have any more money than they do now and most Texans will have a higher tax bill. Does that sound right?
I don't know what the answer is. I think it was former Gov. Ann Richards who said you can't really "fix" school finances; all you can hope to do is manage them.
Our tax system needs to be reformed but it's just not right to "manage" the state's education budget on the backs of rural schools and middle class taxpayers.
This column was published April 22, 2004 in the Cameron Herald.
Thursday, March 4, 2004
Ragged Edge: Gay Marriage, a moderate perspective
The topic of gay marriage is divisive, emotional and freighted with bigotry (on both sides of the issue).
Further, I'm not convinced this is the best time to hold this particular national debate. I mean, what's the hurry?
But, since Rev. Dan Darby took up one corner of the debate last week ("Gay marriage: a Christian perspective"), I'll stake out another.
First of all, I'm just parochial enough that the whole idea of gay marriage leaves me a bit uneasy. However, I learned at my parents' knee that it is my place to neither condemn nor condone cultural differences and personal choices. It's not our place to judge personal behavior.
My parents (a preacher and a teacher) preached tolerance to (and sometimes at) my brothers and me so I grew up with an appreciation for and recognition of personal differences.
While I'm not convinced that we should mainstream gay marriage, I'm very distressed at the idea that we would consider amending our Constitution to discriminate against certain of our citizens simply because some of us are uneasy - or downright hostile - about certain lifestyles.
There are so many facets to a marriage: love, commitment, affection, devotion, sharing of experiences, mutual support, sharing of financial obligations, etc. It seems to me that the State only has an interest in one of those things - the sharing of financial obligations, specifically to provide for children.
The document that the State uses to formalize a relationship between two people is simply a legal contract. Its purpose is to delineate the responsibilities of the parties involved. From a purely civil perspective, a marriage license is no different from any other legally binding contract.
What this contract does not do is sanctify, edify or in any other way make this relationship holy. The State cannot sanctify a marriage. We reserve that to God and His terrestrial representatives.
Frankly, I'm not sure we really want to walk down a path that ends with State being able to tell an adult with whom he (or she) can or cannot enter into a legal contract.
Aside from mutual support (in all its permutations), the primary purpose of a marriage (both civil and Biblical) is to provide for children. Since gays and lesbians are able to adopt children, the State should allow them to enter into a contract that provides for the support of those children. Indeed, they should probably be obligated to enter into such a contract.
I know, I know ... the Bible says certain things regarding marriage and those who are adamantly opposed to this idea can ferret out chapter and verse to support their contention that gay marriage is unholy, disgusting, unnatural and represents a clear and present danger to the Republic.
The simple fact is, you can look in the Bible - particularly the Old Testament - and find justification for all sorts of things our society no longer condones including several forms of polygamy, the execution of women who have lost their virginity out of wedlock, the murder of children who tease old men and several passages that grant men permission to keep mistresses ... as many mistresses as they can afford.
However, you cannot turn to the New Testament and find a verse where Jesus taught we should judge other people. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.
Never mind that our secular government shouldn't meddle in religion - and vice versa. Never mind that our secular government should be able to find room for all sorts of cultural, choice and religious lifestyles. Biblical prohibitions against gay marriage are no more relevant to our secular society than Biblical exhortations to murder girls who lose their virginity before they get married.
This country was founded on certain principals, among them that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who are we to allow the tyranny of the majority to impose its will on the few who are simply trying to live that American Dream? Aren't all of our citizens entitled to a life free from bigotry and religious persecution?
(Look it up: when a class of people are subjected to unfair treatment, it's persecution. When that persecution is justified because of religious beliefs, it's "religious persecution.")
I've known a few - a very few - openly gay men and women. I can't say that I can call more than a bare handful of those friends. However, none of them are ogres bent on destroying the moral fabric of this country. They are simply people - sinners like the rest of us - who want to be accepted for who and what they are.
It's okay to be uneasy about all this and to question how best to protect our society from too-rapid change.
But it is just plain wrong to allow our Constitution to be sullied with words of hate, fear and discrimination.
This column was published March 4, 2004 by The Cameron Herald and was part of a package of personal columns which won a First Place from the Texas Press Association.
Further, I'm not convinced this is the best time to hold this particular national debate. I mean, what's the hurry?
But, since Rev. Dan Darby took up one corner of the debate last week ("Gay marriage: a Christian perspective"), I'll stake out another.
First of all, I'm just parochial enough that the whole idea of gay marriage leaves me a bit uneasy. However, I learned at my parents' knee that it is my place to neither condemn nor condone cultural differences and personal choices. It's not our place to judge personal behavior.
My parents (a preacher and a teacher) preached tolerance to (and sometimes at) my brothers and me so I grew up with an appreciation for and recognition of personal differences.
While I'm not convinced that we should mainstream gay marriage, I'm very distressed at the idea that we would consider amending our Constitution to discriminate against certain of our citizens simply because some of us are uneasy - or downright hostile - about certain lifestyles.
There are so many facets to a marriage: love, commitment, affection, devotion, sharing of experiences, mutual support, sharing of financial obligations, etc. It seems to me that the State only has an interest in one of those things - the sharing of financial obligations, specifically to provide for children.
The document that the State uses to formalize a relationship between two people is simply a legal contract. Its purpose is to delineate the responsibilities of the parties involved. From a purely civil perspective, a marriage license is no different from any other legally binding contract.
What this contract does not do is sanctify, edify or in any other way make this relationship holy. The State cannot sanctify a marriage. We reserve that to God and His terrestrial representatives.
Frankly, I'm not sure we really want to walk down a path that ends with State being able to tell an adult with whom he (or she) can or cannot enter into a legal contract.
Aside from mutual support (in all its permutations), the primary purpose of a marriage (both civil and Biblical) is to provide for children. Since gays and lesbians are able to adopt children, the State should allow them to enter into a contract that provides for the support of those children. Indeed, they should probably be obligated to enter into such a contract.
I know, I know ... the Bible says certain things regarding marriage and those who are adamantly opposed to this idea can ferret out chapter and verse to support their contention that gay marriage is unholy, disgusting, unnatural and represents a clear and present danger to the Republic.
The simple fact is, you can look in the Bible - particularly the Old Testament - and find justification for all sorts of things our society no longer condones including several forms of polygamy, the execution of women who have lost their virginity out of wedlock, the murder of children who tease old men and several passages that grant men permission to keep mistresses ... as many mistresses as they can afford.
However, you cannot turn to the New Testament and find a verse where Jesus taught we should judge other people. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.
Never mind that our secular government shouldn't meddle in religion - and vice versa. Never mind that our secular government should be able to find room for all sorts of cultural, choice and religious lifestyles. Biblical prohibitions against gay marriage are no more relevant to our secular society than Biblical exhortations to murder girls who lose their virginity before they get married.
This country was founded on certain principals, among them that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who are we to allow the tyranny of the majority to impose its will on the few who are simply trying to live that American Dream? Aren't all of our citizens entitled to a life free from bigotry and religious persecution?
(Look it up: when a class of people are subjected to unfair treatment, it's persecution. When that persecution is justified because of religious beliefs, it's "religious persecution.")
I've known a few - a very few - openly gay men and women. I can't say that I can call more than a bare handful of those friends. However, none of them are ogres bent on destroying the moral fabric of this country. They are simply people - sinners like the rest of us - who want to be accepted for who and what they are.
It's okay to be uneasy about all this and to question how best to protect our society from too-rapid change.
But it is just plain wrong to allow our Constitution to be sullied with words of hate, fear and discrimination.
This column was published March 4, 2004 by The Cameron Herald and was part of a package of personal columns which won a First Place from the Texas Press Association.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
The Ragged Edge: Politics and religion don't mix
Let's be clear on this. I believe with all my strength that there is no place for politics in religion and no place for religion in politics.
The very worst chapters of human history were written when these two very powerful spheres of culture collided. Theocratic states -- countries either run by a religion or so bound up in religious law that secular and theocratic doctrine become confused -- have generally been intolerant of people who do not firmly and zealously hold to the beliefs of the majority religion.
This intolerance has ranged from oppression of women and denial of citizenship to non-believers, to torture and outright genocide. Indeed, many of the worst atrocities ever committed by mankind have been committed in the name of one religion or another.
That's why this democracy was founded on the very clear understanding that our government has no business messing around with church business and churches should stay out of the government's business.
I bring up this point because there as been a recent trend -- a trend illustrated by several letters published in this newspaper -- that political ideology and religious beliefs should go hand-in-hand.
This trend has been growing for a number of years but intensified after the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. In the span of 24 hours, it seemed that you couldn't be patriotic unless you are also a Christian. Never mind that this country has always been a haven for a cacophony of religious voices ... and a place for non-believers as well.
Now, all of a sudden, according to some, you can't be a Christian if you are also a Democrat.
'Democrats believe in abortion and no Christian can hold to that.' Besides, every good right-wing Republican knows that all Democrats are godless.
Excuse me, all liberal Democrats are godless. Those other Democrats are simply confused.
Baloney. That's not only wrong-headed, it's dangerous, divisive and completely against the spirit of our country and Christ's teaching.
There is a sharp difference between secular law and religious doctrine. Secular laws -- the laws passed by the federal and state governments -- are meant to apply to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. There's even tolerance built into our secular laws to allow for different religious beliefs.
Religious laws apply only to those who believe in that particular sect of that particular religion. To believe and act in any other way smacks of sanctimonious self-righteousness.
Though some of our laws are grounded in the Judeo-Christian foundation of this country -- in fact, there is a distinct correlation between most common law and Christian doctrine -- the U.S. Constitution does not recognize any religious law as the law of the land.
This is so for the very simple fact that one person's religious law is another person's idiocy.
For example, there are some (actually most) religious doctrines that teach that taking any life is against the Word of God. In fact, the set of laws most revered by Christians in this country include a frank prohibition against taking a life. As I recall, there are no exceptions to the Commandment: "Thou shall not kill."
Indeed, many of the same people who would carve the Ten Commandments on the walls of every public building in the land cite that Commandment as grounds to deny women the legal right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, the right to retain control over her own destiny.
Yet, many of those same people also support capital punishment, state-sponsored execution.
So, which religious laws should we observe? The ones that tell us what food we can and can't eat? The ones that tell us to take unruly, disrespectful children out to the edge of town and smash their heads against rocks?
Who will play Solomon and decide which of God's Words we must observe and when it's okay to safely ignore them?
Politics and religion make a dangerously volatile mixture. Our government is an instrument of secular life, not a tool to compel conformity according to some religious principle.
The Constitution specifically protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
We can't afford to let the narrow religious beliefs of a vocal few -- no matter how right and moral they believe they are -- dictate to the rest of us how we should feel, what we should believe, which laws we should pass or overturn and how we should vote.
It would be un-Christian and un-American.
This was published in the Cameron Herald in January, 2004.
The very worst chapters of human history were written when these two very powerful spheres of culture collided. Theocratic states -- countries either run by a religion or so bound up in religious law that secular and theocratic doctrine become confused -- have generally been intolerant of people who do not firmly and zealously hold to the beliefs of the majority religion.
This intolerance has ranged from oppression of women and denial of citizenship to non-believers, to torture and outright genocide. Indeed, many of the worst atrocities ever committed by mankind have been committed in the name of one religion or another.
That's why this democracy was founded on the very clear understanding that our government has no business messing around with church business and churches should stay out of the government's business.
I bring up this point because there as been a recent trend -- a trend illustrated by several letters published in this newspaper -- that political ideology and religious beliefs should go hand-in-hand.
This trend has been growing for a number of years but intensified after the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. In the span of 24 hours, it seemed that you couldn't be patriotic unless you are also a Christian. Never mind that this country has always been a haven for a cacophony of religious voices ... and a place for non-believers as well.
Now, all of a sudden, according to some, you can't be a Christian if you are also a Democrat.
'Democrats believe in abortion and no Christian can hold to that.' Besides, every good right-wing Republican knows that all Democrats are godless.
Excuse me, all liberal Democrats are godless. Those other Democrats are simply confused.
Baloney. That's not only wrong-headed, it's dangerous, divisive and completely against the spirit of our country and Christ's teaching.
There is a sharp difference between secular law and religious doctrine. Secular laws -- the laws passed by the federal and state governments -- are meant to apply to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. There's even tolerance built into our secular laws to allow for different religious beliefs.
Religious laws apply only to those who believe in that particular sect of that particular religion. To believe and act in any other way smacks of sanctimonious self-righteousness.
Though some of our laws are grounded in the Judeo-Christian foundation of this country -- in fact, there is a distinct correlation between most common law and Christian doctrine -- the U.S. Constitution does not recognize any religious law as the law of the land.
This is so for the very simple fact that one person's religious law is another person's idiocy.
For example, there are some (actually most) religious doctrines that teach that taking any life is against the Word of God. In fact, the set of laws most revered by Christians in this country include a frank prohibition against taking a life. As I recall, there are no exceptions to the Commandment: "Thou shall not kill."
Indeed, many of the same people who would carve the Ten Commandments on the walls of every public building in the land cite that Commandment as grounds to deny women the legal right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, the right to retain control over her own destiny.
Yet, many of those same people also support capital punishment, state-sponsored execution.
So, which religious laws should we observe? The ones that tell us what food we can and can't eat? The ones that tell us to take unruly, disrespectful children out to the edge of town and smash their heads against rocks?
Who will play Solomon and decide which of God's Words we must observe and when it's okay to safely ignore them?
Politics and religion make a dangerously volatile mixture. Our government is an instrument of secular life, not a tool to compel conformity according to some religious principle.
The Constitution specifically protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
We can't afford to let the narrow religious beliefs of a vocal few -- no matter how right and moral they believe they are -- dictate to the rest of us how we should feel, what we should believe, which laws we should pass or overturn and how we should vote.
It would be un-Christian and un-American.
This was published in the Cameron Herald in January, 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)