Open Carry

Proponents of open carry argue that Texas is regressive because it is only one of seven states that does not allow the citizens to openly carry weapons in public. 11 states required permits and 21 others place restriction on those that wish to carry a gun. Therefore, proponents argue that we should too because we are now viewed by others as out of date. Proponents believe that everyone has a right to protect themselves and that open carry is a deterrent to crime. Further, they suggest that an open carry society is a polite society. However, proponents do not mentioned that crime rates have been going down because of the Brady Bill, and in states that have lax gun laws, the crime rates committed with guns have gone up. For example, Florida passed an open carry law in 1987 and the crime rates with guns has significantly gone up.

I find these arguments fallacious and wanting. Since most people are doing it (no matter what it is), I must do it too or I am old fashioned or socially unacceptable if I don’t. This is logically fallacious. Frequently, bravely dissenting is the moral and most effective thing to do. Further, proponents offer no hard evidence and data about the effectiveness of this policy as a deterrent to crime or a means of self protection. Further, they do not tell us how common the practice of open carry is or whether or not the public really want to carry guns. They simply make unsubstantiated claims. Although you do not make this point, I tend to agree with you instinctively that such a policy would cause public intimidation and make it difficult for police officer to effectively carry out their duties, but again we have no hard evidence for what we believe.

The most frequent argument that the proponents of open carry or gun crazies (I have a bias), as you noted, is that they are being denied their constitutional rights under the II Amendment. During colonial times and the early republic, citizens were frequently called up for militia duty and they had to supply their own arms as you note. That is why the second amendment was written. It also did not prevent individuals from using guns for lawful purposes. Proponents of open carry habitually misread the second amendment to promote their agenda.

By the way, the Europeans aren’t doing it. They think that Americans are gun crazy.

http://cypresscorner.blogspot.com/
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The Latino Factor

Forrest Wilder in “The Latino Factor,” an opinion piece on the editorial page of the Texas Observer, explores racial bigotry in Texas judicial elections. He explores the campaign and voter results with the technical help of a social and political science researcher, who is identified as Beatty by Wilder. Specifically, Linda Reyna Yanez not only faced lack of funding in her campaign for judicial office, voter apathy, and republican domination of the office since 1994, but racial bigotry. Her colleague, J.R. Molina, faced the same kind bigotry in his bid for office on the Texas District Court of Criminal Appeal.

Wilder contrasts what he calls the Latino Factor with the Bradley Effect. As result of the Bradley Effect, voters will say they will vote for a candidate of another race because they do not want to appear bigoted but intend to do the opposite. Voters in Texas, especially white rural voters, will vote against a candidate simply on the basis of their racial or ethnic surnames. This is what Wilder terms the Latino Factor. If your first name is Mekisha or Askish, forget it. Mekisha Murray changed her name to Jane to increase business in law firm and win political office.

Beatty found that the whiter and the more rural voters were, the more they simply voted on the basis of racial or ethnic bias and name recognition. The pictured changed in places like the Rio Grand valley and San Antonio. His study only had a .00004 probability of error. Even after controlling variables, such as race, age, homeownership, and income, his percentage result after regression analysis was an unbelievable and highly improbable 39 %.

This data and this particular election voter analysis simply support what is well known by sociologist and historians in Texas. Mexicans and Hispanics have been second class citizens and subject to bigotry and degrading treatment since white Texas immigrants began to dominate the state when they are invited to Texas by Mexico during the Westward Movement and after the Mexican American War. Although almost a majority, Mexicans are still second class citizens in Texas and are generally at the bottom of the socio-economic strata. These two political incidents also raise the question about the judicial elections and whether they are bias. Although judges insists they follow the constitution and legal precedents, can a white judiciary, or almost all white judiciary, voted in by a white electorate dispense justice equitably and without bias? Why are 2/3 of the prison population black or Hispanic? Why have so many a minorities been released on the basis of DNA evidence after decades of imprisonment?

In conclusion, Forrest Wilder and political scientist Beatty provide hard evidence of bigotry in Texas and give us much food for thought.

http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2906

Dictator Craddick

Much political commentary has been written about the dictatorial style of Tom Craddick. He is also considered by critics to be a clever and wily politician. A telling incident which suggests this is the investigation of Delay and Craddick on diversion of campaign funds by Attorney General Earl. If true and it probably was, Craddick was able to cover his tracks and get away with it. No political commentator or observer that I have read or researched seems to praise the transparent and collegial style of Tom Craddick. When interviewed by Evan Smith of Texas Monthly on PBS, Craddick denied the accusations of his critics and appeared to be passive and as gentle as a lamb. He feigns innocence well.

Craddick was elected speaker of the house during the Republican takeover in 2002 and has managed to gain reelection because of his political skills and has been able to concentrate his power over successive terms. As a result of his dictatorial power, there was considerable controversy over his reelection to another term of the office during the last legislature and, with more democrats in the house, there certainly will be a greater fight in January to unseat powerful and dictatorial Tom Craddick. According to my sources, he will be the longest serving speaker in history. Originally, speakers in the 19th century severed only one two year terms. Only one served twice and only one served a third time. The frequent reelection of speakers began during the latter part of the 20th century.

The speaker is what his title suggests. He chairs the legislature and keeps order. That means he can shut a legislator up if he is out of order. I don’t find this a particularly undemocratic process. Craddick’s real power comes from controlling committee appointments and granting chairmanships to his cronies. Thus, legislation he wants to put in place and come up does because of his connivance with his cronies and political allies. Now this is not democracy but autocracy as well as corruption. On second thought, maybe this is just politics.

I am not sure that the Texas legislature, given its composition, is always for the little guy. In January when the legislature session begins, the rotunda, the balconies, and the halls of the legislature will be crammed with lobbyists, some of whom will be “little guys,” but no individual private citizens. Considered the fact that big energy will get to build five new dirty coal plants in Texas. This is not good for the health of the little guy. However, it’s not all bad. The little guy did benefit in 2001 from legislation pushed by the CFL-CIO although Governor Perry did veto many of its bills. Bills were passed to improve Texas workers compensation. A School Insurance Health Plan was passed, and the salaries and benefits of state employees were increased, especially correctional officers. The phone companies were also defeated in their effort to establish a statewide contract for telephone service. So I think that it is a mixed picture. Sometimes the little guy wins and more often the corporations win.

I think that Texas is a great state too, but evil lurks here and there.

http://cypresscorner.blogspot.com/

The Wrong of Way

Pat Choate has thoroughly researched the political and legal means by which three time republican governor, Rick Perry, has deviously acquired the power to privatize public transportation infrastructure in Texas, following the example of President Bush to transfer the commission of public projects to private corporations. Although Bush initially pushed for the partial privatization of Social Security, the privatization of Social Security was happily a failure, especially given the current failure of the world economy. Bush was, however, successful in the transfer of many public projects to independent contractors and Perry was also successful in getting for TxDOT the power to issue sole source agreements without transparency to independent corporate or group contractors. Thus, began the Trans Texas Corridor- a 4,000 mile interconnected toll road through Texas- controversy.

How did Governor Perry pull this off and what are its implications for Texans? First, Governor Perry had to change 10 laws. For example, a law had to be written which granted to TxDOT the authority to give private organizations the right to develop Texas transportation infrastructure. Second, he needed to amend the Texas Constitution, which he did by putting Proposition 15 on the ballot. The passage of the proposition allowed the creation of the Texas Mobility fund. The fund could be use for the construction, reconstruction, acquisition, operation, expansion of Texas highways, bridges, and other mobility projects. Third, Mike Kruse, the republican representative from Round Rock, advanced before a naïve legislative house the Driver Responsibility Law, which appears to be simply a law further cracking down on drunk drivers. That’s what Texas voters believed. The bill was passed in the House 146-0 and in the senate 31-0. No one seemed to notice that it contained provisions for monies that were diverted to the governor. Lastly, Rick Perry, Dewhurst, and Craddick managed to raid the State Texas Employee and Teacher Retirement System. Now the republican establishment had all it needed to privatize the state transportation system. Texas Turnpike Commissioner Russell was able to boast that the Proposition 15, which amended the constitution, gave all the authority that was needed to privatize transportation infrastructure. He could have said all the laws have been put in place and all the financing which gives us all the authority and power that the private sector needs to make “a killing.”

Why “a killing”? Indiana has taken a lead in the privatization of transportation infrastructure. Twenty four other states have similar projects and other states, including Texas, have been encourage to do the same by the US Department of Transportation at the instigation of the general policies of the administration on privatization. Further, the projects are being outsourced to Australian and Spanish/Australian firms as well as others. America is solving the global unemployment problem. Remember we are a generous people. Toll roads are also new. It will only cost you $ 1.54 cents a mile to use these nice new roads during rush hour. That’s what it will cost in Indianans. Maybe Rick Perry can get us a discount. Denis J. Enright, an investment consultant, estimated that the government could save 30 percent of cost and get 32 percent more value if it performed the service itself. This stands to reason. Private corporations and businesses must make a profit. The federal government allowed the drug companies to write Medicare Part D and economists have noted that the government could have put the plan in place at a much cheaper cost as well maintained cost.

Well! No wonder the game was finally exposed and the result has been public resistance to toll roads, especially since many citizens will lose their land because the government will claim eminent domain. Does not the current financial crisis and the auto industry crisis tell us that private industry acts in its own interest and for profit with no regard for the common good of the people? They give us recession and a huge tax bill for bailouts. We give them immunity and bailouts for incompetence. So much for privatization and government irresponsibility for the public good.
https://acconline.austincc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_2897_1%26url%3d

Proposition 2: Suspension, Abolition, or Maintenance

Although I’ve heard and read very little or nothing about Texas or local politics in recent months-I am tempted to say over the last two years- because of the election, I have seen signs for months urging voters to vote for Proposition 2, and last week I saw a sign urging voters to vote against it. Since I couldn’t vote on the proposition while voting two weeks ago, I decided to investigate the propositions this week and have vowed always to be prepared when I go to the polls.

I consulted KVUE website (http://www.kvue.com/news/top/stories/101708kvue_prop2-cb.121983946.html) and a proposition 2 website (http://www.stopdomainsubsidies.com/?page_id=6). Steve Alberts, a respected newscaster for KVUE, reported the facts of the story without advocacy at 6:21 PM on October 17^th, 2008. My second website is an advocacy website for the proposition and shows a pro-advocacy bias. The audience, of course, is Austinites. Proposition 2 bars the city from giving developers tax abatements according to the agreements of the City Council of 2003. If repealed, the present existent abatement agreements would no longer be honored by abatement sales tax or any others in the future.

The classical argument between big national business and small and local businesses has ensued. The Austin Chamber of Commerce is against the proposition and has collected $ 250, 000 to advertise and lobby against Proposition 2. On the other hand, five hundred small Austin businesses, such as the Alamo and Opal Divine’s, are for Proposition 2. The arguments of big business are standard. National chains and corporations bring capital and jobs to Austin. Further, they attract investment and other corporations, thus growing the economy. Austin mayor Will Wynn worries that the city’s bond rating would be affected and there would be millions of dollars worth of law suits. However, Brian Rogers realized that the agreement would cost 65 million dollars and saw it as a bad deal. He initiated and won the law suit and regarding this matter and got a ruling that the city could walk away from agreements at any time without recourse from the businesses involved and without damages. So Will Wynn is fibbing and manipulating the public like a good politician. However, a citizen can see his legitimate worry over bond ratings and the growth of the city through investment and national corporate involvement for the general economic welfare of the city. Big business is good for the city of Austin.

On the other hand, citizens, small businesses, and other proponents argue that home grown businesses are being hurt and also create jobs without getting large government tax breaks. They feel that it is a pity to subsidies a high end and upscale shopping center like Domain. Opponents argued that Domain, Endeavor Development, and Simon Properties, the largest such entity in the world, is unnecessary. Proponents feel that distributive justice is not being served. Does this sound like the conflict between the republicans and democrats or the same basic ideological debate?

However, the argument of the proponents of the debate do make some cogent points which make reasonable the suspension of subsides at least in the short term. Tax abatements can help the economy. In this case, proponents argue that because of budgetary problems the city has cut 50 positions, raised the solid waste fees, has a problem with fees for road construction, and has instituted a rolling closure of public libraries, the abatement agreement should be amended. I add that the economic crisis will make thing worst for the city. Perhaps, this is not the time to give a 65 million dollar tax break to a luxury mall.

Not This Time

The editorial board of The Texas Observer claims that it is non- partisan, but it espouses liberal causes. This is clearly evident from the editorials in the most recent edition, which deal with the local reactions to the national election in Houston, Dallas, and the South in general in all its lead articles. For example, the titles are “Turning Houston Blue,” “Blue Day Rising,” and “Not This Time.” It seems that the national campaign is taking up all the oxygen and local and state news not being covered. I did not even know that there was a Senate raise going on until last week when the ad campaign of Senator Cornyn was analyzed on NPR. He is so confident that he will win that he has a cowboy ad that says nothing. His race has only been mentioned two times since, but every stumps speech of McCain and Obama is aired on NPR. They make the same talking points again and again ad nauseam. So for all practical purposes there is no state and local news until after the election.

But to get back to the point. Let me say that the Texas Observer is an echo chamber for the few liberal democrats, its audience, in a “red hot state.” According to the most recent demographic statistics, there are a hundred thirty-five liberals in the state, most of whom reside in Austin.

I have chosen to review “Not This Time” because it deals with southern racism. George Ripps interviews Gerald Britt in this article. Ripps and Britt claim that McCain and Palin are appealing to latent Southern racism. The only “proof” or evidence for this argument is that Palin said that Barack Obama does not “see America like you and I.” In other words, he sees America as a black man and exotic academe. Britt thinks, and presents no evidence for it, that the polls are higher for Obama because of the “Bradley Effect.” Those polled say they will vote for Obama because they do not want to appear racist. Ripps and Britt make two other points. Obama has not discussed racial issue because it would appear to the general public that he had an Afro-American agenda. Obama is inhibited because he can never appear as black as Hillary and Palin can appear female.

Lastly, Britt and Ripps comment on Obama’s passed-white mother and grandmother/black father, Indonesian primary education, and Harvard Law Degree. This clearly proves that Obama is dangerous and exotic. In brief, Britt, the president of public policy at Central Dallas Ministries, is expressing his opinions from his personal observation and his knowledge about how PR works. Many commentators have made these points. The article shows little use of evidence and logic and the opinions are based on the authority of Britt and Ripps. However, they do reflect the feelings of the local ministry in Dallas about racist biases. Britt and Ripps conclude that the public will not be fooled. “Not This Time.”

The Feminization of Texas and the Energy Crisis

Michael Ennis in his article ‘Drill Team” intertwines several themes, specifically the history of the legislation on offshore drilling, the introduction to it as a campaign issue by McCain, the interaction over the issue by the candidates and their “flipflaps,” given poll numbers, a serious discussion of the oil problem over the course of next twenty years, and a “true picture” of the oil reserves in the U.S. It is interesting that American favor offshore drilling two to one, when McCain brought up this bogus during the spike in gas prices. Now that the price of oil is down below 90 dollars per barrel and all bets are off, in my opinion, on energy independence and alternative sources of energy. Ennis also mentions that the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming has more oil than all the reserves of Saudi Arabia. Since this statement was in the Texas Monthly, I have no reason to doubt it. But just as in the case of L.A., it is impossible to level these states and establish a huge oil field. By the way, the oil offshore would take ten year to reach the consumer and would only amount to a small addition to our oil supply.

So what does this have to do with Texas? Texas would have to decide whether to drill more offshore. But the connection that Ennis makes to Texas is that Texans have stopped buying the Ford F. series of pickups, which has been a best seller in Texas for over 31 years. Remember everything in Texas is Rouged and Big. Instead Texans are buying the Honda Civic which is Pretty. In other words, the gas crisis has feminized Texans and caused a cultural earthquake. I might mention that the article is a quick and dirty way of learning about the energy crisis and the candidate’s political duplicity.

https://acconline.austincc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_2897_1%26url%3d