I recently moved to Houston and as a big fan of public radio, I was pleasantly surprised to get great music on the weekends from the Pacifica affiliate, KPFT. Saturday has country, cajun, and Rock. Sunday is blues almost all day, with bluegrass after. There's very little music during the week when I can listen, but Wide Open Spaces is before noon and nice jazz late-night.
My biggest complaint is all the left-wing hooie on the station. I understand that's who runs the show but it really gets in the way of the music. The music could be a way to bring the community together as nothing else can.
The station is member supported and governed mostly by a board elected by the listeners. I've donated and can vote. What I see in the candidates are a lot of folks who are sincere but seem to believe listeners will support their politics. I think it's a real turn-off. Listeners want information, for sure, but I think music is the way to get them in the door and listening. I briefly read through the candidate profiles. Briefly because most seemed centered on a political agenda I don't think works. I only saw one that stressed the music.
Rick Heysquierdo does the Saturday morning show, The Lone Star Jukebox. Wonderful stuff you don't hear anywhere else local. Compares very nicely to KNON's Renegade Radio in Dallas. Rick says there is a move among some to turn off the music and go all activist. If that happens, they can kiss my donations adios.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Anyone home.
Not that anyone actually missed me, but I've been real busy.
I'll try to post more in the future.
I'll try to post more in the future.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Guns at political rallies
The bearing of arms at political rallies is a huge mistake on the part of conservatives opposed to President Obama and the democrats. I doubt you'll find a bigger supporter of the 2nd amendment than I, but these actions are clearly meant to intimidate. They have nothing to do with the right to bear arms. Have a rally supporting the 2nd amendment and take weapons there. That makes sense. Bringing guns to a rally where the President is talking about healthcare is just chilling. Just because you have the right to do it does not mean you should. The underlying threat just leaves me cold. Conservative and republican leaders need to speak up and put these people on notice that they are over the line.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
District 9
My son talked me into going to see this.
Sometimes, when I go to a regular priced movie, I feel like I'm in Wiemar Germany, pushing the wheelbarrow full of cash up to the ticket window where I leave half of all my money, with the other half at the concession stand.
If it's a good movie, I don't mind forking over all that cash. Was this a good movie?
It was good sci-fi as such things go. The premise is that aliens came to earth and became stranded over Johannesburg, South Africa. The ship sits there, hovering over the city in a rather unnerving way, until the government decides to force its way in. They discover 1 million aliens in really bad shape. So they rescue them, removing them to a facility that looks a lot like, after twenty years, an apartheid township.
Imagine the bad luck of these aliens to land in South Africa, where they have a lot of experience dealing with people/aliens who look different. Oh, and guess what? Nigerians (not sure why they have picked on that nationality) have moved in to set up black markets among the aliens, who have some super weapons that humans can't use because they are tied to alien DNA. Nonetheless, the Nigerians think if they can just get some of that mojo, they can rule the slum, the country or the world, whatever such people think such an attitude will get them. Mostly survival, I suppose.
If I were South Africa, I would be a little peeved of being portrayed in this way, reverting back to their apartheid roots and all. Softening the political correctness of it is the story that it's not the really the South African people or government doing this to the poor, hapless aliens. The task of of managing this mess has been outsourced to a giant weapons company, who hope to gain the alien weapons technology in a slightly more advanced way than the Nigerians in return for moving this camp away from JHB (I never knew Johannesburg was abbreviated this way. One learns something new everyday.) to a new and improved camp 200 miles away.
It's all neatly packaged for consumption. The big, evil corporation is at fault. The South African government and people can wash their hands of the whole affair. In fact, the government is mentioned only once, as the rescuer from the mothership.
I would like to remind Peter Jackson and other producer/directors that it is governments that set up camps and are responsible for much of man's inhumanity to man (in this case, aliens). I don't think corporations find much profit in it.
I won't go into the plot because it just doesn't seem worth it. My advice: wait until it comes out at the dollar theater or on DVD. Don't take young kids or squeamish women because it is very bloody and gory. If I was Joe Bob, I'd give it 2 thumbs up, with points lost because of the evil corporation cliche. Heads definitely roll. No breasts.
Sometimes, when I go to a regular priced movie, I feel like I'm in Wiemar Germany, pushing the wheelbarrow full of cash up to the ticket window where I leave half of all my money, with the other half at the concession stand.
If it's a good movie, I don't mind forking over all that cash. Was this a good movie?
It was good sci-fi as such things go. The premise is that aliens came to earth and became stranded over Johannesburg, South Africa. The ship sits there, hovering over the city in a rather unnerving way, until the government decides to force its way in. They discover 1 million aliens in really bad shape. So they rescue them, removing them to a facility that looks a lot like, after twenty years, an apartheid township.
Imagine the bad luck of these aliens to land in South Africa, where they have a lot of experience dealing with people/aliens who look different. Oh, and guess what? Nigerians (not sure why they have picked on that nationality) have moved in to set up black markets among the aliens, who have some super weapons that humans can't use because they are tied to alien DNA. Nonetheless, the Nigerians think if they can just get some of that mojo, they can rule the slum, the country or the world, whatever such people think such an attitude will get them. Mostly survival, I suppose.
If I were South Africa, I would be a little peeved of being portrayed in this way, reverting back to their apartheid roots and all. Softening the political correctness of it is the story that it's not the really the South African people or government doing this to the poor, hapless aliens. The task of of managing this mess has been outsourced to a giant weapons company, who hope to gain the alien weapons technology in a slightly more advanced way than the Nigerians in return for moving this camp away from JHB (I never knew Johannesburg was abbreviated this way. One learns something new everyday.) to a new and improved camp 200 miles away.
It's all neatly packaged for consumption. The big, evil corporation is at fault. The South African government and people can wash their hands of the whole affair. In fact, the government is mentioned only once, as the rescuer from the mothership.
I would like to remind Peter Jackson and other producer/directors that it is governments that set up camps and are responsible for much of man's inhumanity to man (in this case, aliens). I don't think corporations find much profit in it.
I won't go into the plot because it just doesn't seem worth it. My advice: wait until it comes out at the dollar theater or on DVD. Don't take young kids or squeamish women because it is very bloody and gory. If I was Joe Bob, I'd give it 2 thumbs up, with points lost because of the evil corporation cliche. Heads definitely roll. No breasts.
Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates That Defined America by Allen C. Guelzo
I'm a huge history buff. My bookshelves are lined with history and it is what I read the most. The American Civil War has always fascinated me but lately I've been more interested in the lead up to the war. Last Christmas, my son gave me this book. It finally made it to the top of the stack and I've just finished it. I have to say it is one of the better books I've read in awhile. I gained a whole new insight on the civil war and Lincoln.
I grew up in the south. One thing you always hear, as a southerner, is that the civil war was not about slavery. It was about states rights, or property rights, or north/south economics, or any number of other excuses. All of which seemed counter- intuitive to me. I don't think any of those issues would have ever led to war. It may have been about all of the above, but the heart of the matter was slavery. This book makes this very obvious.
Never has it been made so clear to me that Lincoln truly believed slavery was evil; slavery was morally wrong. Nor that Douglas' sole concern was to save the union at any cost, even allowing some men to enslave others. The doctrine of popular sovereignty would save the union, thought Douglas. People (at least white men) would be able to choose whether they wanted slavery within the borders of their state or territory. The founders had designed the constitution to skirt the issue because they knew it would destroy us.
Lincoln believed that slavery was opposed to the very idea of natural rights in the founders declaration. Slavery was a throwback to the age of absolute, divine kings. Douglas surely understood Lincoln's distinction between natural and civil rights, but used fear tactics to paint Lincoln as willing to permit freed blacks (not the word he used) to vote and worse, wed white women.
How many times have we heard that Lincoln said (and I'm paraphrasing here) if, to save the union, he would free all slaves, or no slaves. He may have said that, but he didn't really believe it. The house divided speech became a point for Douglas to hammer on during the debates. Lincoln would destroy the union rather than permit slavery. In the end, that is what happened. The election of Lincoln caused the union to dissolve. Lincoln did not want it to happen, but that was the result.
In the end, Douglas won the Illinois senate seat in 1858, although it was more a matter of the strange allocation of legislators than an actual majority of votes. But the damage had been done. Lincoln's ability to enunciate the abolitionist cause, disseminated by the publication of the debate transcripts, made him the advance front runner for the Republican nomination in 1860. The damage done by the split between the northern and southern democrats, whom Douglas alienated by the same popular sovereignty stance, ensured Lincoln would win the north and the election.
The issue of slavery, which the south had tried so hard to silence since the revolution, was out of the bag. The only solution was war.
I recently went on vacation with my girlfriend, Kathy. We went to Memphis and then to the Chattanooga area, touring the Chickamauga battlefield. Kathy is a smart woman but her interests don't necessarily revolve around history or the civil war. I was more interested in the ebb and flow of battle but she seemed to need a basic understanding of the cause. Oh sure, she knew it was about slavery, but why couldn't we just talk it out. She is a liberal sort of person and believes that people should always be able to solve their differences without resorting to violence. Is that naive? Maybe. I'd like to think it's possible, too.
In Memphis, we went to the National Civil Rights Museum at the location of the Lorraine Motel, where Martin Luther King was killed. The museum was a timeline of the struggle for civil rights in this country. What struck me was that the violence, at least the organized violence, was on the part of the whites resistant to change. MLK led the blacks in peaceful protest, taking the blows and letting the immorality of the oppression and persecution become obvious to all. So, it is possible to work change peacefully, even when violence is being perpetrated.
In the case of America in the early nineteenth century, it was different. The south had used secession as a block to any discussion of the end of slavery. In the early days of the Republic, discussion of slavery was banned from Congress. The subject could not even be brought up. I think the founders, particularly those like Adams, Franklin, and even the slaveholder Jefferson, realized the danger and thought it best to have unity while the young nation gained it's balance. They knew it was unsustainable. It was hoped, perhaps beyond reason, that a peaceful solution could be arrived at in the future. It was not to be. The south would not accept change and the longer it was put off, the worse it was to become.
Perhaps the founders were a bit delusional in this regard. I've always been fascinated by the what-ifs of history. It is unlikely the states would have ever agreed to the constitution if there had been a firm date for emancipation embedded in the document. It had been a divisive compromise to outlaw the importation of slaves past 1808. Outright abolition at that stage probably would have guaranteed continuation of the Articles of Confederation. I wonder if slavery would have flourished longer under the Articles or withered away? Without the constitution, there would have been no union to fight over. However, there would have been no check on states ability to continue importing slaves or abolishing slavery.
What is more evil? War or slavery? By and large, free people seem to believe the latter.
I'm a huge history buff. My bookshelves are lined with history and it is what I read the most. The American Civil War has always fascinated me but lately I've been more interested in the lead up to the war. Last Christmas, my son gave me this book. It finally made it to the top of the stack and I've just finished it. I have to say it is one of the better books I've read in awhile. I gained a whole new insight on the civil war and Lincoln.
I grew up in the south. One thing you always hear, as a southerner, is that the civil war was not about slavery. It was about states rights, or property rights, or north/south economics, or any number of other excuses. All of which seemed counter- intuitive to me. I don't think any of those issues would have ever led to war. It may have been about all of the above, but the heart of the matter was slavery. This book makes this very obvious.
Never has it been made so clear to me that Lincoln truly believed slavery was evil; slavery was morally wrong. Nor that Douglas' sole concern was to save the union at any cost, even allowing some men to enslave others. The doctrine of popular sovereignty would save the union, thought Douglas. People (at least white men) would be able to choose whether they wanted slavery within the borders of their state or territory. The founders had designed the constitution to skirt the issue because they knew it would destroy us.
Lincoln believed that slavery was opposed to the very idea of natural rights in the founders declaration. Slavery was a throwback to the age of absolute, divine kings. Douglas surely understood Lincoln's distinction between natural and civil rights, but used fear tactics to paint Lincoln as willing to permit freed blacks (not the word he used) to vote and worse, wed white women.
How many times have we heard that Lincoln said (and I'm paraphrasing here) if, to save the union, he would free all slaves, or no slaves. He may have said that, but he didn't really believe it. The house divided speech became a point for Douglas to hammer on during the debates. Lincoln would destroy the union rather than permit slavery. In the end, that is what happened. The election of Lincoln caused the union to dissolve. Lincoln did not want it to happen, but that was the result.
In the end, Douglas won the Illinois senate seat in 1858, although it was more a matter of the strange allocation of legislators than an actual majority of votes. But the damage had been done. Lincoln's ability to enunciate the abolitionist cause, disseminated by the publication of the debate transcripts, made him the advance front runner for the Republican nomination in 1860. The damage done by the split between the northern and southern democrats, whom Douglas alienated by the same popular sovereignty stance, ensured Lincoln would win the north and the election.
The issue of slavery, which the south had tried so hard to silence since the revolution, was out of the bag. The only solution was war.
I recently went on vacation with my girlfriend, Kathy. We went to Memphis and then to the Chattanooga area, touring the Chickamauga battlefield. Kathy is a smart woman but her interests don't necessarily revolve around history or the civil war. I was more interested in the ebb and flow of battle but she seemed to need a basic understanding of the cause. Oh sure, she knew it was about slavery, but why couldn't we just talk it out. She is a liberal sort of person and believes that people should always be able to solve their differences without resorting to violence. Is that naive? Maybe. I'd like to think it's possible, too.
In Memphis, we went to the National Civil Rights Museum at the location of the Lorraine Motel, where Martin Luther King was killed. The museum was a timeline of the struggle for civil rights in this country. What struck me was that the violence, at least the organized violence, was on the part of the whites resistant to change. MLK led the blacks in peaceful protest, taking the blows and letting the immorality of the oppression and persecution become obvious to all. So, it is possible to work change peacefully, even when violence is being perpetrated.
In the case of America in the early nineteenth century, it was different. The south had used secession as a block to any discussion of the end of slavery. In the early days of the Republic, discussion of slavery was banned from Congress. The subject could not even be brought up. I think the founders, particularly those like Adams, Franklin, and even the slaveholder Jefferson, realized the danger and thought it best to have unity while the young nation gained it's balance. They knew it was unsustainable. It was hoped, perhaps beyond reason, that a peaceful solution could be arrived at in the future. It was not to be. The south would not accept change and the longer it was put off, the worse it was to become.
Perhaps the founders were a bit delusional in this regard. I've always been fascinated by the what-ifs of history. It is unlikely the states would have ever agreed to the constitution if there had been a firm date for emancipation embedded in the document. It had been a divisive compromise to outlaw the importation of slaves past 1808. Outright abolition at that stage probably would have guaranteed continuation of the Articles of Confederation. I wonder if slavery would have flourished longer under the Articles or withered away? Without the constitution, there would have been no union to fight over. However, there would have been no check on states ability to continue importing slaves or abolishing slavery.
What is more evil? War or slavery? By and large, free people seem to believe the latter.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Angry people at townhall meetings.
My politics run pretty middle of the road. I like to think I'm progressive, because I think there is a lot of room for reform in our government at all levels. My liberal friends cringe at my labeling myself progressive, because they think I'm conservative. I remind them that a conservative wants to preserve the status quo. I don't want to do that. I'd like to see most of our civil institutions turned on their ear. They call me libertarian in a tone they usually reserve for Baptist televangelists or, God forbid, George Bush republicans. I'm really not like that.
It's my own fault. I've called myself libertarian many times. Any caveats after that are lost in the shrill stuttering that indicates I wish people to starve in the streets or endorse a wild west code of justice. I'm afraid my Christian upbringing precludes callous disregard for the poor or vigilantism. I always try to show them how reasonable I can be, but I don't think it helps.
I do think both our political parties do us a disservice, as the current debate over health care demonstrates.
First, a confession. I voted for Barack Obama. I had hoped that he would solve problems in a deliberative, smart manner. I don't believe he has done that. Seems to me that by turning his promises over to Congress, he has just pushed politics as usual, and he said he wouldn't do that. So, I am dissappointed but not surprised. After all, he was/is a politician.
I'm not a fan of Obamacare because I think there are smarter ways to reform the system that don't require more government and that won't create perverse incentives and unhealthy, unforeseen consequences.
Back to the town hall meetings. I don't know if the people doing the protesting are spontaneous or organized. I don't think it matters, because either way, that is politics. It can be spontaneous or organized. What I do know is that seems to be quite uncivil. I think civility is important. I also think the correct information is important.
The inclusion of end of life counseling in the public option insurance plan does not mean euthanasia is on the recommended list for those with expensive illnesses. It just means taxpayers are going to spend money to help people with the issues that arise when you are on your deathbed. You can argue about the merits of whether such services should be required to be in a health insurance policy, but I don't think calling it a prescription for government sponsored euthanasia is meant to be anymore than a straw man to throw a match on and watch burn.
Unfortunately, the democrats should not be surprised their opponents employ such a tactic. The whole hurry up and get it passed quick before anyone has a chance to read it strategy kind of guarantees the opposition will be ugly. The democrats believe health care reform is critical but polls have shown that it doesn't seem to be a high priority with Americans, who also seem to be pretty happy with what they personally have. It is recognized there is a problem when folks die in emergency waiting rooms waiting to see a doctor, but there may be more practical solutions than forcing everyone without insurance to buy something congress prescribes.
If Obama had taken the lead, arriving at a well thought out plan with true reform built in, instead of letting congress draft a plan that does not do anything to control costs, maybe the process would have been smoother. Just saying...
It's my own fault. I've called myself libertarian many times. Any caveats after that are lost in the shrill stuttering that indicates I wish people to starve in the streets or endorse a wild west code of justice. I'm afraid my Christian upbringing precludes callous disregard for the poor or vigilantism. I always try to show them how reasonable I can be, but I don't think it helps.
I do think both our political parties do us a disservice, as the current debate over health care demonstrates.
First, a confession. I voted for Barack Obama. I had hoped that he would solve problems in a deliberative, smart manner. I don't believe he has done that. Seems to me that by turning his promises over to Congress, he has just pushed politics as usual, and he said he wouldn't do that. So, I am dissappointed but not surprised. After all, he was/is a politician.
I'm not a fan of Obamacare because I think there are smarter ways to reform the system that don't require more government and that won't create perverse incentives and unhealthy, unforeseen consequences.
Back to the town hall meetings. I don't know if the people doing the protesting are spontaneous or organized. I don't think it matters, because either way, that is politics. It can be spontaneous or organized. What I do know is that seems to be quite uncivil. I think civility is important. I also think the correct information is important.
The inclusion of end of life counseling in the public option insurance plan does not mean euthanasia is on the recommended list for those with expensive illnesses. It just means taxpayers are going to spend money to help people with the issues that arise when you are on your deathbed. You can argue about the merits of whether such services should be required to be in a health insurance policy, but I don't think calling it a prescription for government sponsored euthanasia is meant to be anymore than a straw man to throw a match on and watch burn.
Unfortunately, the democrats should not be surprised their opponents employ such a tactic. The whole hurry up and get it passed quick before anyone has a chance to read it strategy kind of guarantees the opposition will be ugly. The democrats believe health care reform is critical but polls have shown that it doesn't seem to be a high priority with Americans, who also seem to be pretty happy with what they personally have. It is recognized there is a problem when folks die in emergency waiting rooms waiting to see a doctor, but there may be more practical solutions than forcing everyone without insurance to buy something congress prescribes.
If Obama had taken the lead, arriving at a well thought out plan with true reform built in, instead of letting congress draft a plan that does not do anything to control costs, maybe the process would have been smoother. Just saying...
Hello
Greetings from Rixtex. You've chosen to subject yourself to my random thoughts about a myriad of subjects: current events, history, movies, books, food, whatever. Really, anything that pops into my mind and I care to share. You are welcome to respond but you have to keep it civil.
I've lurked in the blogosphere long enough.
Time to share!
I've lurked in the blogosphere long enough.
Time to share!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)