Monthly Archives: November 2006

Just a Thought

Leave a reply

Why the hell is Mayor White so worried about what janitors for private businesses make here in the City of Houston, when he can’t even give city employees a cost of living increase? He’s seeing to it that janitors get raises of up to $2.00 an hour and health insurance, but he can’t be bothered to budget some of that budget surplus he was supposed to give back to the taxpayers (before he gutted the revenue limits) for his own employees?

Why is the mayor so busy trying to help out SEIU, and encouraging, instead of fighting them, in regards to unionizing city employees? With one hand, he holds back on employee raises and benefits, and stokes resentment against the city — perhaps chasing employees into the arms of the union; with the other he twists the arms of private businesses to give in to union pressure, thereby giving SEIU a track record of “success” to tout to the very employees they are trying to recruit.

Why would a mayor “renowned” for his business accumen go so far out of his way to advance the cause of a union that doesn’t do anything for the city? Is White colluding with the SEIU in order to duplicate Tammany Hall here in Houston?

If you think “that’s politics; who cares?” just remember what Tammany Hall was most famous for:

Corruption.

The Tammany Society was formed in New York City in 1786. Initially a social organisation, it became increasingly political and by the middle of the 19th century had become a significant force in city government. Although controlled by wealthy men, the organization attracted the support of the working classes and the immigrant population.

Let’s repeat that, shall we? Only try it with some local flavor….

The Tammany Society Greater Houston Partnership was formed in New York City Houston in 1786 1989. Initially a social business organisation, it became increasingly political and by the middle of the 19th century first decade of the 21st century had become a significant force in city government. Although controlled by wealthy men, the organization attracted the support of the unionized working classes and the illegal immigrant population.

I don’t know if this shoe fits, but it sure looks like a good match. If so, who will be Houston’s Samuel Tilden?

UPDATE: Just recieved in e-mail. Spaminate the city employees!

City of Houston employees are preparing for upcoming negotiations. But before we can sit down at the bargaining table, it’s important that we decide which issues will be discussed at the bargaining table.

To help make sure we win a contract that improves our lives and our jobs, we all must complete the bargaining survey.

It only takes a few minutes to make sure your voice is heard during negotiations.

Visit www.organizehope.com to complete the bargaining survey online and help build a better future with HOPE.

***PLEASE NOTE: DO NOT FORWARD THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR WORK EMAIL ACCOUNT.***
It is against City of Houston policy to forward non-work related emails.

Don’t you just love that last part?

Traffic and Transportation

Leave a reply

From Instapundit:

IN THE MAIL, AN INTERESTING BOOK ON TRAFFIC: Ted Balaker and Sam Staley’s The Road More Traveled: Why the Congestion Crisis Matters More Than You Think, and What We Can Do About It. They argue that traffic congestion does much more harm than is generally appreciated, and that municipalities’ programs aimed at making traffic worse in order to encourage people to use mass transit are deeply mistaken. They also argue that fixing traffic problems is easier and cheaper than is popularly thought. I’ve read the first several chapters and it’s very interesting; I hope it gets a broad readership. Interesting tidbit: If you exclude New York, America has more telecommuters than mass-transit commuters.

I have to wonder what this has to say about problems similar to Houston’s . I may have to do a bit of book shopping this weekend…

A New Force?

Leave a reply

Instapundit links to an article at The Economist, pointing out that the margin of victory in some Democratic wins was less than the number of votes obtained by the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, it then veers off into the “conventional wisdom” that any Republican voting for the Libertarian Party is just shooting themselves in the foot:

And acting as a spoiler is dubiously effective at achieving one’s goals. In theory, it could pull the Repubicans towards the Libertarians, but in practice, it may just elect Democrats, pushing the nation’s economic policy leftwards.

Well, there’s always that fear. The problem is, if we constantly give in to it, nothing will ever change. We have an electorate that is about as restless as it has ever been. We’ve always had a looney left or and a whacko right; but now that the left is about to be unleashed. Hopes that the Democrats won’t be as stupid as the Republicans were have got to be on a par with opium dreams–come on, they’re the Democrats, you know, the ones that almost handed this election back to the Republicans? Will it scare conservatives and centerists back into the Republican fold? That’s what the Republicans have to be hoping today, as they play musical chairs and put new faces to the front.

There’s only one way to get any change in the status quo: break one of the national parties. I had hopes two years ago, that it was going to be the Democrats that would break first, as the last of the “Libermans” gave up the rear-guard action and decided the only sane choice was to split the party. Instead, it’s going to have to be the Republicans. Fiscal and legal conservatives have two enemies in the Republican party: greedy politicians and the religious fanatics. The first is what got us conservatives into this hole, and the second doesn’t care how much power it gives to the government, as long as (their version of ) the bible is law.

I wish it were still possible to build a national party from the ground up in this country, but the truth is, only about 1 person in 100 has enough desire for change to strike out in entirely new directions, and can combine that with enough will to make a change. If that one person wants to influence 50 of the remaining 99, he or she is going to have to already be in a position of leadership. Much as it pains me to admit is, Joe Blogger down the street isn’t going to get it done. But such people of influence are already part of the current Dem/Rep power structure; they generally don’t see any benefit in being revolutionaries and overthrowing the established order.

The only way to bring these people forth is for it to be clear that they will have followers. And as long as the voters continue to deliver votes to a political class that’s all struck from the same mold, discontent, no matter how strong, will continue to be judged within current boundries; a perceived lack of followers ensures a lack of leaders. Therefore, I judge voters for the Libertarian Party in the recent race as not being counterproductive, but registering their discontent. They are asking for a leader to emerge who will not be just another face, telling the same lies.

Will they get one?

Houston Voters Approve

1 Reply

Yep, with nearly half the votes counted, every one of the propositions is on the way to an easy victory. Only one of them is below 60% approval. G, which will blow the Revenue cap off, has 64%, and H, which will add “$90 million for police” has over 70%.

Clearly the groups that proposed the revenue cap originally are going to have to reorganize and establish themselves as permanent political forces, if they wish to protect what they gained.

Did You Vote?

1 Reply

Already done with my civic duty. I can definately say that my choices were very simple. Since I wrote off the Republicans and despise the Democrats, my choice for every race was simple: I voted a straight Libertarian ticket. They’re not the Jacksonian party, but they’ll do until we get one. Or maybe we should just go take over the Libertarians?

Exit Polling… or Exit Pulling?

1 Reply

You decide.

U.S. exit polls have been wrong before. In fact, according to the Edison-Mitofsky report, they have shown a consistent discrepancy favoring the Democrats in every presidential election since 1988. And while the 2004 discrepancy was the highest ever, they were almost as far off in 1992. More specifically, the “within precinct error” (WPE) reported by Edison-Mitofsky showed differences favoring the Democrat of 2.2 points on the margin in 1988, 5.0 in 1992, 2.2 in 1996, 1.8 in 2000 and 6.5 in 2004.

Bear in mind that the average loss in a mid-term is 6 in the Senate, and 25 in the House. If you take the average error in those presidential elections, you get 3.54%, an amount that anyone will tell you is “within the margin of error.” And so it is — for a single election. But the error is consistantly one-sided, and in 16 years, no polling organization seems to have figured out how to correct for it. You think that would be a high priority, wouldn’t you?

How odd that that it hasn’t been…