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

Power of myth

All of a sudden, the debate regarding Evolution/Creationism has flared up here in Texas.

I don't understand why we're still having this argument.

Actually, I do. Too many Christians can't wrap their heads around the fact that they can't wrap their heads around the Mind of God. So, they try to stuff God into a box that that they CAN understand.

A lot like the guy (and it probably was a guy) who wrote the book of Genesis. This fella told a story and tailored it to fit his audience. Since his audience was unfamiliar with the scientific method, he used allegory to answer some of life's fundamental questions.

This technique is tremendously effective and perfectly valid to help a male-dominated, pre-industrial society struggling with issues of identity and survival, hunting desperately to learn what caused the thunder and lightening (and, by the way, horribly threatened by the "pagan," female-dominated cultures around them).

An all-powerful — and slightly capricious — Jehovah seemed to fit the observed facts pretty well, and completely validated their patriarchal culture to boot. But, it was a story — a recitation of myth and legend — told in a way that gave comfort to the intended audience.

Myth is powerful ... but it isn't necessarily literal.

Go ahead and say it. It's okay.

A brief item on Tuesday's National Pubic Radio program, "Morning Edition," sparked my interest.

It seems British Muslims have exited the non-existent War on Christmas saying they don't expect Christmas to be toned down on their account.

As one human rights official said, people should "stop being daft about Christmas." He added, "It's fine for Christ to be star of the show."

Daft. That's a good way to put it.

A couple of years ago, the culture warriors decided that Christmas was under attack because some people prefer to wish their friends a happy holiday rather than a merry Christmas and their mouthpieces on the conservative talk show circuit picked up the battle cry.

Today, there are scores of publications and hundreds of websites devoted to the conflict; some organizations have raised a surprising amount of money to prosecute this "war."

But, before you climb on that sterling white charger to defend Christmas from the infidels, remember that the word "holiday" is simply a contraction of the phrase "holy days." That's really rather appropriate because many of the world's religions have some sort of feast or festival during the last week or so of the calendar year.

So, wishing someone "happy holidays" isn't anti-Christian, it's simply being inclusive. It might even be Christ-like.

Here's another little tidbit to conjure with: the early Christian Church was pretty danged good. They often encountered cultures that welcomed the Christian message but resisted giving up their native pagan feasts. That's why Christ's Mass (uh, Christmas) is celebrated near the Winter Solstice (a high holy day for many pagan religions practiced in Europe 1,500 years ago) rather than when most Biblical scholars say Christ was born, in the spring.

Another element of the War on Christmas is born in timidity and intolerance. Contrary to what culture warriors believe, Nativity scenes have been banished from many county courthouses, not because of any inherit hostility toward Christians but because our Constitution says the government may not favor one religion over another.

If those governmental Nativity scenes were a bit more inclusive ... or, if the governments in question would allow other religious-based dioramas, they'd be fine.

However, culture warriors won't tolerate any of that, so most county judges and town mayors simply bow out of the fray.

Of course, some people can't see any of this. Rather, they see one person's insistence on a more secular seasons' greeting as an attack on their rights to a merry Christmas.

Go ahead. Wish your friends and family a merry Christmas. Really. It's okay.

Just don't be daft and claim a conflict where one doesn't exist.

(Note: a mofidied version of this article was published as an editorial in the Hays Free Press [Kyle, Texas] on Dec. 12, 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.

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.