OK, I am overly fond of alliteration, but I wanted something distinct from the Sunday Ramble. I hope by now we have all talked to Dad. Of trivia interest, Father's Day was not invented by Hallmark Cards. In fact, there is lively debate amongst grammarians whether the correct term is "Fathers' Day" (plural possessive) or the common Father's Day. I am old enough, old-fashioned enough, to have had my knuckles smacked by obsessive grammar teachers, but I obviously hold with the singular possessive. To my mind, this is my Father's day, as it is also that of yours.
Best I can find, Father's Day was originally put forth by Mrs. John Dodd, a widowed single parent before single parents were cool, in 1909 in Washington state. A tribute to little people having big ideas, Spokane, Wa. is the first officially declared Father's Day I find, June 19, 1910. Calvin Cooolidge was the first President to propose it in 1924. By my time, Hallmark et al was already selling cards, but it was not until a Presidential Executive Order in 1966 by LBJ that Father's Day was federally official.
Last week I mentioned stormwater regulation hearings. My mistake, I thought they were last week, but that was capital improvements presentations. This week there will be three public meetings. June 17 at TxDot HQ on Knickerbocker, just south of the Loop 306 bridge, Wed at Station 618, 618 S. Chadbourne, and Thurs. at North Side Rec. Center on N. Magdalen; all at 7:00 PM. Again, this is a poster child for unfunded mandates. City has no realistic choice but to comply, question is how to do so and how to pay for it. Last week had a lot of paving days for me, I'm hoping I can make at least one of these. This will be a good chance to see our city people at work one on one. It might surprise one how competent they really are nowadays.
The same edition of S-T with the "anonymity" letter I responded to had a submission by Susan Cole advocating San Angelo becoming a "smoke-free" city. I was there the last time this came up. Essentially, San Angelo Council came down on the side of property owners' rights. As it stands, smoking is banned in ALL gov't sites, jail included. Nearly all shopping venues, even convenience stores, ban smoking. I am a smoker, trying to cut down, but I no longer request smoking section in a restaurant, one of the few retail establishments to allow smoking at all, I can last that long.
This has become a "holy war" without recognition of reality. I quote Peter Viereck, " Reality is that which, when you don't believe in it, doesn't go away". The general pop demographic has smokers as roughly 25%. My "barkeep" handle is not by accident, I've tended bar for many years, and I tell you, that demographic reverses in beer-joints. If Ms. Cole really thinks going smoke-free in a bar will increase trade, jump right in. Buy one, pay for the license, payroll, taxes (and you ain't seen taxes 'till you've run a bar), light up the sign, hire the band and wait for the flood of appreciative customers. And wait, and wait, and wonder "what have I done wrong?" I have yet to see a smoke-free bar make the "nut" absent a local ordinance forcing its competition to go "smoke-free" by law.
Yes, I know quitting would be good for my health, but when did this become the job of the "Nanny-state"? Are we next going to require customers to step on a scale before ordering a double cheeseburger? Risk assessment is something America is doing a poor job of. I am healthier than I have any right to be at 55, I eat too much salt (BP 117/73), I smoke but ask Joey G. if I can put my head in a bucket of water for 3 minutes, cost him $50 to discover that. Point is, risks which are individual ought be left to individuals. I promise you, there are enough greedy entrepreneurs out there, if a smoke-free bar were a profitable venture, some greed-head would open one. I add, if said greed-head booked a really good band, I'd pay the cover and go, taking breaks outside as my addiction demanded. Fair's fair.
I am home this weekend for the first time since 1994. Every other two years, I have been at the State Republican Convention. Last two, I was Sd 28 Rules Committee representative. I mention this in connection with one of those state issues with local implications, namely the Trans-Texas Corridor. The state GOP let Gov. (39%) Perry open with a "Let's come together in November" speech, but the Platform Committee spanked him thoroughly over the TTC issue at the Houston Convention.
For those unfamiliar, TTC would be a toll replacement of I-35 and Southeast Texas highways. Without going into details available on a Google search, it would have sold taxpayers a "details are secret" contract with a Spanish company to replace I-35, would have led to unprecedented use of eminent domain takings, and among other things, would have cost travelers about $60 to go from Austin to Dallas, truckers more, and guess who would have eaten the truckers' costs?
Now I have made the point that without a similar commitment to a West Texas N/S highway, this TTC benefits no one west of Austin. San Antonio Express-News June 5, Texas Atty Gen GregAbbott ruled that the TX-DOT/TTC people actually had to reveal to Texas voters the contract.
Lots more to that shabby story, but it can be found by Googling "TTC", I leave that to the reader. Point is, the Express-News is opining that TX DOT has lost "trust" with the voters by spending $9 million of tax money to promote the secret contract. Now in TX DOT terms, $9 mil ain't much, about what Sherwood Way will cost. For comparison, the latest MetroPlex Mixmaster interchange was $256 million. The point is, Sherwood Way or the Mixmaster was spent on concrete and asphalt the public might benefit from. The $9 million was tax funded lobbying for a private firm that will net 10, not nine, but 10 figures left of the decimal point over a 50 year contract. If Cintas wanted to spend $9 million promoting it, OK, but not my tax money.
It is very possible that this TTC is dead. It will not be because "money buys politics", if that were the case East Texas farmers would be moving already and paving contracts let for bid. Little people, lots and lots of little people, killed this monster.
Point is, "trust" is essential to good gov't. Translated locally, City Council is doing a B+, A- job of explaining things to voters. Capital improvements meetings, the upcoming stormwater meetings, if you go to the trouble of showing up, they will try to explain the details. Capital improvements came in a little later than planned, but this is the first time since the Charter election, I give credit for being thorough and making good effort.
School Board, not so much. A new bond is truly needed. The new bond, at least Prop One, has a new direction from the one we blew off 2 to 1 a year back, but SAISD is doing a poor job in hard times of selling the bond. Once more with the "vision" thing. The existing Cental campus, honest to God, influenced high school architecture nationwide for thirty years. It was sold to a skeptical, drought-ridden, penny-pinching electorate. Where is the effort on this one? Folks, you need to get out front. You chose an "interesting" Presidential race to compete with. If you wait for a last minute surge, you find out how George McGovern felt on the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November, 1972.
All sorts of things have interfered in the normal selling of a school bond. We had a six-way race for police chief, then an FLDS custody case that set records for international press coverage, the longest running Presidential Party Primary season since primaries took the place of "smoke-filled rooms", gas prices over the moon. Voters will parse out the property tax bill and find the SAISD component of that bill to be the biggest part. You are not going to sell this on a basis of "trust us, we will spend it well".
That's a shame, because SAISD has listenened to voters. Maintenance has been much improved, less than where we want to go, but still being improved. I believe that message has been heard, and I believe staff is working hard on it. Problem is, you don't have to convince me, you have to convince about 6,500 voters. Git'er done. Lose this bond and we have real problems right here in River City.
Showing posts with label blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blog. Show all posts
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Anonymity Redux
The following, for those who may no longer read the Standard-Times, was printed there June 13. With the kind permission of the S-T, we reprint it here. The points have really been made in other articles here, hope I am not being repetitive, but for the record. I am going with the full submission, some few phrases were deleted by S-T in interest of space, but nothing which changes the substance of the letter, in my opinion.
Keep anonymity on Web postings
6/08/08 (published June 13)
Saturday, June 7 edition of the Standard-Times, since the usual exerpts of online comments were non-existant by decree, printed an opinion by Mr, Griffin, congratulating the S-T for banning anonymous comment, if and when the online comments are reinstated.
Mr. Griffin, I dissent, and not for personal reasons. Anonymity in public comment has a long and noble history. For my part, though I used the handle “barkeep” out of habit, I have self-identified for nearly as long as I have posted.
America exists in part due to anonymous writing. Prior to the Declaration of Independence, many of the “Founders” published screeds under psuedonyms, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Franklin, etc. Most of what are now the Federalist Papers, (I call them the user's handbook to the Constitution) were originally written under false names to insure the ideas, not the personalities were foremost in the readers' minds.
To this day, our society recognizes the utility of anonymity. “Whistelblowers”, be they governmental or corporate, are protected from disclosure and potential retribution. Most states have press “shield laws”, giving reporters protection from being forced to disclose sources. Rape victims are protected from public disclosure of their identities when they testify. Do these grants of anonymity sometimes result in exaggeration, even false accusations by the protected parties? Sure do, and I'd hate to be on the wrong end of such an accusation, but we have decided as a society that there is more value to encouraging those “in the know” to speak out than demanding all public comment be for attribution.
I agree, there was a problem with the gosanangelo comments. Especially as to the FLDS matter and the Police Chief race, many comments went “over the top”, were either slanderous, unsubstantiated, or just plain “Yeah, well your Mother dresses you funny” silly.
I have looked at the Scripps-Howard policy as to anonymity and breach of privacy. As best I can discover, of the 19 newpapers in the chain, only the Standard-Times found it necessary to put its readers in a “time-out” corner by suspending comments. Only the Standard-Times suffered a wholesale release of user profiles in the closing days of a hot political race. Any open online forum will attract loons, limiting them is the job of the online moderator. Enforcing the rules already written would be a good start. We might try limiting to one or two posts per day, I prefer two. That's less than a chatroom, but allows a post, look at the response, then reply specifically.
My point here is that this suspension is more the fault of the sponsor than of the participants. Any sports referee will tell you, don't “let them play” for three quarters and then try to regain control of the game in the fourth.
Honestly, my opinion, we have a pretty good local paper with some outstanding reporters. This episode has been poorly handled, and as some of the comments on our www.conchoinfo.org Blog show, it will take some time to regain trust. It would help if the newspaper took full responsibility for its part in this mess, and treated its readers like adults.
Jim Ryan
Keep anonymity on Web postings
6/08/08 (published June 13)
Saturday, June 7 edition of the Standard-Times, since the usual exerpts of online comments were non-existant by decree, printed an opinion by Mr, Griffin, congratulating the S-T for banning anonymous comment, if and when the online comments are reinstated.
Mr. Griffin, I dissent, and not for personal reasons. Anonymity in public comment has a long and noble history. For my part, though I used the handle “barkeep” out of habit, I have self-identified for nearly as long as I have posted.
America exists in part due to anonymous writing. Prior to the Declaration of Independence, many of the “Founders” published screeds under psuedonyms, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Franklin, etc. Most of what are now the Federalist Papers, (I call them the user's handbook to the Constitution) were originally written under false names to insure the ideas, not the personalities were foremost in the readers' minds.
To this day, our society recognizes the utility of anonymity. “Whistelblowers”, be they governmental or corporate, are protected from disclosure and potential retribution. Most states have press “shield laws”, giving reporters protection from being forced to disclose sources. Rape victims are protected from public disclosure of their identities when they testify. Do these grants of anonymity sometimes result in exaggeration, even false accusations by the protected parties? Sure do, and I'd hate to be on the wrong end of such an accusation, but we have decided as a society that there is more value to encouraging those “in the know” to speak out than demanding all public comment be for attribution.
I agree, there was a problem with the gosanangelo comments. Especially as to the FLDS matter and the Police Chief race, many comments went “over the top”, were either slanderous, unsubstantiated, or just plain “Yeah, well your Mother dresses you funny” silly.
I have looked at the Scripps-Howard policy as to anonymity and breach of privacy. As best I can discover, of the 19 newpapers in the chain, only the Standard-Times found it necessary to put its readers in a “time-out” corner by suspending comments. Only the Standard-Times suffered a wholesale release of user profiles in the closing days of a hot political race. Any open online forum will attract loons, limiting them is the job of the online moderator. Enforcing the rules already written would be a good start. We might try limiting to one or two posts per day, I prefer two. That's less than a chatroom, but allows a post, look at the response, then reply specifically.
My point here is that this suspension is more the fault of the sponsor than of the participants. Any sports referee will tell you, don't “let them play” for three quarters and then try to regain control of the game in the fourth.
Honestly, my opinion, we have a pretty good local paper with some outstanding reporters. This episode has been poorly handled, and as some of the comments on our www.conchoinfo.org Blog show, it will take some time to regain trust. It would help if the newspaper took full responsibility for its part in this mess, and treated its readers like adults.
Jim Ryan
Monday, June 02, 2008
Standard-Times Time-out
As it happens I had just last week written the Standard-Times my quarterly subscription check, so I shall continue to find my daily supply of fishwrap on the lawn most of the summer. After Sunday's column I can't think of a reason I should continue to fund the enterprise. No, that's unfair, the local paper is always worth reading. My very first published editorial was in the Raleigh NC News and Observer, an unabashedly liberal paper whose ownership included some of the archtects of FDR's New Deal. That goes back a ways, JFK was still President when my first editorial got ink.
I would have been pleasently surprised to find a Sunday lead editorial giving us the sincerely apologetic straight story on how the "outing" of anonymous posters happened. The explanation so far provided lacks in timeliness, details or sheer believability. What I was not prepared for was to find myself and my fellow readers lectured to, admonshished like naughty children and essentially put on "time out" and probation!
I quite agree with editor Archuleta, the quality on online posts is on the decline, but whose fault is that? Look, anonymity was never an issue for me. I "outed" myself when I took Archuleta's seat on the City Charter Review Committee just to put aside any ethical concerns about advocating for that Committee's recommendations.
Those posters who trusted the Standard-Times to abide by its privacy policy, those people who expessed opinions they would otherwise have been reluctant to state for attribution, people who have legitimate concern over possible retribution on the job or in the marketplace, those are the people with a complaint. At its best, the online comment site did attract loons and irresponsible comments. In a typical "thread" from a given story with enough interest to go "hot", let's say 50 comments, I would usually see maybe half that were worth the time to read, but so what?
One soon learned to skip lightly past the sillier tin-foil hat wearing authors, perhaps take them in for amusement. Sadly, a lot of the folks whose commentary I became accustomed to looking forward to have vanished, and who can blame them? I don't know how the Standard-Times can ever regain the trust of its readers. I suspect the San Angelo Police Dept. is experiencing a bit of difficulty developing new "confidential informants" in drug cases. Similarly there, only the desperate or the deranged would put their lives on the line and trust that organization not to put their identity on the front page. Trust once betrayed is exceedingly difficult to regain, be it a marriage, a church, or a newspaper.
What I do know is that everything the S-T has done so far has been just about precisely wrong. The "leak" of user profiles had been out there for 10 days, was being actively discussed by posters whose feelings of betrayal were evident in their comments before the S-T ink-on-dead-trees edition acknowledged it. Then the article revealing it used the "outed" user profiles to out one of the high profile Police Chief candidates, compounding the betrayal of anonymity. Assuming that article should have been written and published (two separate actions, BTW), It should have gone beyond identifying Davis and mentioned that all the candidates were using online anonymity to post, if not directly, certainly through surrogate spokespersons. I caught this incident fairly early, an SAPD source gave me a heads up that lists of user profiles were circulating in the Dept. by Thursday noon, but by the time I knew about, the barn door had been shut.
Amazingly, the S-T seems still to maintain its IT people don't talk to its reporters, who have to go to out-of-paper sources for information. While S-T passes blame to "new employees" in a Tennessee division of Scripps-Howard, a check this weekend shows the other papers in the chain are managing to keep their online comments services up and reasonably well moderated. Tells me we do have a problem, and that problem is somewhere in the Harris St. building.
Newspapers across the country are realizing the old fishwrap on the lawn model is trending toward buggy-whipdom. A recent NPR interview revealed the San Francisco Chronicle, heart of the Hearst chain, is losing a $million a WEEK. I believe the ink version of the Standard- Times is down to about 25% of households. When I was a young man, no one with pretensions of caring about "things" would have admitted to not reading the paper, and a hefty chunk of them paid for morning and afternoon editions.
I don't know how significant online revenues are to the S-T overall, but I know that online edition is a revenue source. As treasurer of two local issues SPACS, I have made out checks to pay for those annoying ads. Commercial advertizers want to see numbers of "hits" and "pageviews" to justify the ad rates. One can safely predict a sharp drop there during this "cooling off" month.
My co-author makes the case well that anonymous comments have a justifiable place in public discussion. Often exactly the people with real knowledge are in a position vulnerable to pressure from employers or commercial partners, and unlikely to risk comments for attribution. This reality justifies whistle-blower statutes granting anonymity and/or legal blocks to workplace retribution.
I hope during this period the S-T will re-examine the no anonymous posts policy announced by Mr. Archulteta. Allowing anonymity does not necessarily result in a slanderous free-for-all, that's where moderation comes into play. Set rules, keep them simple, and ENFORCE them.
I would have been pleasently surprised to find a Sunday lead editorial giving us the sincerely apologetic straight story on how the "outing" of anonymous posters happened. The explanation so far provided lacks in timeliness, details or sheer believability. What I was not prepared for was to find myself and my fellow readers lectured to, admonshished like naughty children and essentially put on "time out" and probation!
I quite agree with editor Archuleta, the quality on online posts is on the decline, but whose fault is that? Look, anonymity was never an issue for me. I "outed" myself when I took Archuleta's seat on the City Charter Review Committee just to put aside any ethical concerns about advocating for that Committee's recommendations.
Those posters who trusted the Standard-Times to abide by its privacy policy, those people who expessed opinions they would otherwise have been reluctant to state for attribution, people who have legitimate concern over possible retribution on the job or in the marketplace, those are the people with a complaint. At its best, the online comment site did attract loons and irresponsible comments. In a typical "thread" from a given story with enough interest to go "hot", let's say 50 comments, I would usually see maybe half that were worth the time to read, but so what?
One soon learned to skip lightly past the sillier tin-foil hat wearing authors, perhaps take them in for amusement. Sadly, a lot of the folks whose commentary I became accustomed to looking forward to have vanished, and who can blame them? I don't know how the Standard-Times can ever regain the trust of its readers. I suspect the San Angelo Police Dept. is experiencing a bit of difficulty developing new "confidential informants" in drug cases. Similarly there, only the desperate or the deranged would put their lives on the line and trust that organization not to put their identity on the front page. Trust once betrayed is exceedingly difficult to regain, be it a marriage, a church, or a newspaper.
What I do know is that everything the S-T has done so far has been just about precisely wrong. The "leak" of user profiles had been out there for 10 days, was being actively discussed by posters whose feelings of betrayal were evident in their comments before the S-T ink-on-dead-trees edition acknowledged it. Then the article revealing it used the "outed" user profiles to out one of the high profile Police Chief candidates, compounding the betrayal of anonymity. Assuming that article should have been written and published (two separate actions, BTW), It should have gone beyond identifying Davis and mentioned that all the candidates were using online anonymity to post, if not directly, certainly through surrogate spokespersons. I caught this incident fairly early, an SAPD source gave me a heads up that lists of user profiles were circulating in the Dept. by Thursday noon, but by the time I knew about, the barn door had been shut.
Amazingly, the S-T seems still to maintain its IT people don't talk to its reporters, who have to go to out-of-paper sources for information. While S-T passes blame to "new employees" in a Tennessee division of Scripps-Howard, a check this weekend shows the other papers in the chain are managing to keep their online comments services up and reasonably well moderated. Tells me we do have a problem, and that problem is somewhere in the Harris St. building.
Newspapers across the country are realizing the old fishwrap on the lawn model is trending toward buggy-whipdom. A recent NPR interview revealed the San Francisco Chronicle, heart of the Hearst chain, is losing a $million a WEEK. I believe the ink version of the Standard- Times is down to about 25% of households. When I was a young man, no one with pretensions of caring about "things" would have admitted to not reading the paper, and a hefty chunk of them paid for morning and afternoon editions.
I don't know how significant online revenues are to the S-T overall, but I know that online edition is a revenue source. As treasurer of two local issues SPACS, I have made out checks to pay for those annoying ads. Commercial advertizers want to see numbers of "hits" and "pageviews" to justify the ad rates. One can safely predict a sharp drop there during this "cooling off" month.
My co-author makes the case well that anonymous comments have a justifiable place in public discussion. Often exactly the people with real knowledge are in a position vulnerable to pressure from employers or commercial partners, and unlikely to risk comments for attribution. This reality justifies whistle-blower statutes granting anonymity and/or legal blocks to workplace retribution.
I hope during this period the S-T will re-examine the no anonymous posts policy announced by Mr. Archulteta. Allowing anonymity does not necessarily result in a slanderous free-for-all, that's where moderation comes into play. Set rules, keep them simple, and ENFORCE them.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Email from San Angelo Ex-Pat
Sir:
I originally sent this to one of your partners in crime, but believe now I should have sent it to you since you as Webmaster solicited input from the huddled masses. Anyway...
I am a San Angelo ex-pat. I was born and raised there, moved away and back a number of times for reasons of no great import now, and currently reside in the DFW Metroplex (or MetroMess, as some describe it). I am retired and working diligently on becoming an obstreperous grizzled old fart, and doing rather well at it (according to those who know me).
Over the years I have had occasion to describe San Angelo to a number of folks, and in summary I deem it to the Largest Small Town In The United States. In terms of population some might consider it to be a city. In terms of attitude, atmosphere, and governance it clearly is not. It is a small town. I see this every time I visit, and when I'm driving there and hit Bronte I say to myself, "Self, remember where you're going. It ain't Dallas. Slow down. Put your gun in the trunk. Be civil. Smile more.".
This is not a bad thing. I have long maintained that God put some of the best people on His Good Green Earth in San Angelo, and I love 'em all... or at least, most of 'em. However,...
I read the Standard-Times Web page every day in a feeble attempt to keep current with the happenings there, and find your site to be a very worthy addition to my sourcing. I must say over time I have been at times amused and at other times distressed.
I have read of the monetary issues regarding the school district and of the deterioration of SACHS, from which I graduated in '65.
I was there when a significant part of the water supply system cratered.
I read statistics related to average pay in the area and wonder how anyone can live even reasonably well on such. If the area counts on burgeoning local job growth that is call center based, it must be acknowledged these are in general not well paying and rather crappy jobs to boot.
I noted in one of your blogs that someone considered nuclear power to be a potential godsend for the area (someone please explain the economics, licensing, waste disposal, cooling, and site location realities to this person. It ain't gonna, nor should it, happen.).
I read about the benefits of corn-based ethanol processing plants in the area when in reality the program is simply a sop for corn growers and processors like ADM. If one looks at the numbers it's a disaster, with both Republicans and Democrats proving themselves to be whores regarding the issue.
I read of water sourcing ills and proposed solutions like energy-intensive desalinization and pipelines to more reliable sources than currently available (like the Mississippi River). Face it, guys, you live in a semi-arid area that is doomed to become ever drier as population grows and farmers continue to draw down the water table with their irrigation. Then there's the issue of long-term projections of rainfall...
And the good Mr. Blaine takes his party somewhere else because of BYOB-phobes. I don't blame him.
Ah, the theatre, large and small, attendant in all this. It is entertaining, and I have touched on only a small portion of it.
Of course, I have no all-consuming answers for the ills of the Pearl On The Concho. I'm smart, but I ain't that smart. I love the place and always will. It's just that at times I find the whole thing amusing, especially when I read of things like ASU's now sucking up to the Texas Tech way of doing things and this being portrayed as being a Big Fat Hairy Deal when the area has infinitely more important issues than a local college's affiliation. I knew Drew Darby a thousand years ago. I'm still looking for him to do something significant, if he's so influential.
But then, what the hell do I know?
Peace, my new friend. Forgive my ranting.
San Angelo Ex-Pat
I originally sent this to one of your partners in crime, but believe now I should have sent it to you since you as Webmaster solicited input from the huddled masses. Anyway...
I am a San Angelo ex-pat. I was born and raised there, moved away and back a number of times for reasons of no great import now, and currently reside in the DFW Metroplex (or MetroMess, as some describe it). I am retired and working diligently on becoming an obstreperous grizzled old fart, and doing rather well at it (according to those who know me).
Over the years I have had occasion to describe San Angelo to a number of folks, and in summary I deem it to the Largest Small Town In The United States. In terms of population some might consider it to be a city. In terms of attitude, atmosphere, and governance it clearly is not. It is a small town. I see this every time I visit, and when I'm driving there and hit Bronte I say to myself, "Self, remember where you're going. It ain't Dallas. Slow down. Put your gun in the trunk. Be civil. Smile more.".
This is not a bad thing. I have long maintained that God put some of the best people on His Good Green Earth in San Angelo, and I love 'em all... or at least, most of 'em. However,...
I read the Standard-Times Web page every day in a feeble attempt to keep current with the happenings there, and find your site to be a very worthy addition to my sourcing. I must say over time I have been at times amused and at other times distressed.
I have read of the monetary issues regarding the school district and of the deterioration of SACHS, from which I graduated in '65.
I was there when a significant part of the water supply system cratered.
I read statistics related to average pay in the area and wonder how anyone can live even reasonably well on such. If the area counts on burgeoning local job growth that is call center based, it must be acknowledged these are in general not well paying and rather crappy jobs to boot.
I noted in one of your blogs that someone considered nuclear power to be a potential godsend for the area (someone please explain the economics, licensing, waste disposal, cooling, and site location realities to this person. It ain't gonna, nor should it, happen.).
I read about the benefits of corn-based ethanol processing plants in the area when in reality the program is simply a sop for corn growers and processors like ADM. If one looks at the numbers it's a disaster, with both Republicans and Democrats proving themselves to be whores regarding the issue.
I read of water sourcing ills and proposed solutions like energy-intensive desalinization and pipelines to more reliable sources than currently available (like the Mississippi River). Face it, guys, you live in a semi-arid area that is doomed to become ever drier as population grows and farmers continue to draw down the water table with their irrigation. Then there's the issue of long-term projections of rainfall...
And the good Mr. Blaine takes his party somewhere else because of BYOB-phobes. I don't blame him.
Ah, the theatre, large and small, attendant in all this. It is entertaining, and I have touched on only a small portion of it.
Of course, I have no all-consuming answers for the ills of the Pearl On The Concho. I'm smart, but I ain't that smart. I love the place and always will. It's just that at times I find the whole thing amusing, especially when I read of things like ASU's now sucking up to the Texas Tech way of doing things and this being portrayed as being a Big Fat Hairy Deal when the area has infinitely more important issues than a local college's affiliation. I knew Drew Darby a thousand years ago. I'm still looking for him to do something significant, if he's so influential.
But then, what the hell do I know?
Peace, my new friend. Forgive my ranting.
San Angelo Ex-Pat
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Hiatus
It's been a while since we've posted here. It's not that there aren't important issues out there. I have been busy working for a living and doing research. Expect to see articles on water, economic development, elections, the city charter, etc. in the near future.
Sorry I have been so slow in posting lately. Will try to do better.
Sorry I have been so slow in posting lately. Will try to do better.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Objectives and Reasons
I keep getting asked "When are you going to run for office?" Quick answer is "I'm not." The question is becoming so frequent, I need to give an explanation.
I first got involved actively in politics during the last sales tax campaign. Built the website and did a number of ads and articles. It was a great learning experience. After reflecting on the campaign and digesting the results, ConchoInfo.org was born.
I got involved because I wanted to make a difference. One of the first articles posted was this one by Jim Ryan, one of our other bloggers.
There were two big lessons I learned from the sales tax campaign. First was that information is critical to any issue. Complete information. Information that people can use and understand. That's much more than a laundry list of facts. That includes some analysis and explanation of how these facts are connected, and what the real impacts are. That is my primary goal with this site.
My second lesson was on preparation. In the sales tax campaign the side with the best preparation won. I learned that if an issue is important, you don't wait until it's on the ballot or makes the news to start researching it. Be proactive. Get prepared. Get informed.
Combine these lessons with my belief that truth is essential to freedom, and you have the reason why ConchoInfo exists. It is a very small, open information, volunteer think tank that concentrates on San Angelo and the Concho valley. We look at issues at all levels of government, and provide facts, analysis and some opinions. We also supply ideas as the mood strikes us. This is important to me. ConchInfo needs to be an outside, objective observer, analyzer, and chronicler of the issues we face here. It needs to be totally independent. That is the main reason I don't run for office.
I first got involved actively in politics during the last sales tax campaign. Built the website and did a number of ads and articles. It was a great learning experience. After reflecting on the campaign and digesting the results, ConchoInfo.org was born.
I got involved because I wanted to make a difference. One of the first articles posted was this one by Jim Ryan, one of our other bloggers.
There were two big lessons I learned from the sales tax campaign. First was that information is critical to any issue. Complete information. Information that people can use and understand. That's much more than a laundry list of facts. That includes some analysis and explanation of how these facts are connected, and what the real impacts are. That is my primary goal with this site.
My second lesson was on preparation. In the sales tax campaign the side with the best preparation won. I learned that if an issue is important, you don't wait until it's on the ballot or makes the news to start researching it. Be proactive. Get prepared. Get informed.
Combine these lessons with my belief that truth is essential to freedom, and you have the reason why ConchoInfo exists. It is a very small, open information, volunteer think tank that concentrates on San Angelo and the Concho valley. We look at issues at all levels of government, and provide facts, analysis and some opinions. We also supply ideas as the mood strikes us. This is important to me. ConchInfo needs to be an outside, objective observer, analyzer, and chronicler of the issues we face here. It needs to be totally independent. That is the main reason I don't run for office.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Changes
It's Christmas, and the ConchoInfo BLOG has recently been given a couple gifts.
If you haven't noticed, we now have another blogger - Allie Devereaux. She brings a fresh perspective to the issues that affect the area. I look forward to her continuing participation.
The second gift was from Google, which hosts our blog on blogger.com. They have updated their blogging software and interface. The two most visible changes are the ability to add category labels to posts, and in the way the archive index is arranged. You can now open a month and see the articles from that month.
Have a great Christmas, and stay with us in the new year.
If you haven't noticed, we now have another blogger - Allie Devereaux. She brings a fresh perspective to the issues that affect the area. I look forward to her continuing participation.
The second gift was from Google, which hosts our blog on blogger.com. They have updated their blogging software and interface. The two most visible changes are the ability to add category labels to posts, and in the way the archive index is arranged. You can now open a month and see the articles from that month.
Have a great Christmas, and stay with us in the new year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)