Spam spam spam spam

There's a spam summit going on in DC right now as the powers that be grapple with The Scourge Of The Internet (tm).

On the first day of the Federal Trade Commission's "spam summit," participants could not even agree on what type of online marketing was unacceptable enough to earn the pejorative tag.

Marketers said that deceptive messages with misleading subject lines like "Re: your account" were to blame, squeezing out more reputable operators who only send messages to consumers who want to hear from them.

Internet providers and consumer advocates said it was the sheer number of messages, not their content, that posed the biggest threat.

"The deception does not mitigate the problem of bulk," said Laura Atkins, president of the SpamCon foundation, an anti-spam group.

Defining spam is trickier than you might think. If they left it up to me, I'd probably be too broad. Not that this would break my heart, but the courts might take a dim view of it.

Personally, I believe that technology will eventually solve this problem, though in the interim it's going to get worse. I read awhile back about a new mail service that only allows mail through from specified senders; everyone else gets an autoresponse that requires them to go to a web page and click a URL to confirm that they're not a spammer. This manual step nullifies bulk mailers. You can specify trusted addresses to spare your friends and desired bulk mailers the annoyance. Can't remember the software's name, unfortunately, but it's brand new.

Sens. Conrad Burns and Ron Wyden said their bill, which outlaws the use of false return addresses, would help track down spammers because it would override the 27 state spam laws already in place.

Without a single national law, "spammers will play one state off another," said Wyden, an Oregon Democrat.

But the Burns-Wyden bill, which so far has won the most support from industry and on Capitol Hill, came in for criticism from providers who said it should include criminal penalties and not override stronger state laws.

All of the proposed bills would prove toothless because they would not allow consumers to sue directly, said Washington State Attorney General Christine Gregoire.

Virginia already has such a law, so I agree with the critics here.

E-mail marketer Bill Waggoner, sporting sunglasses and a ponytail, said that although he did not send messages to customers who did not want them, spam was unavoidable in such an open, global system.

"If you get your e-mail added to the Internet, somebody's going to contact you," Waggoner said. "It's a public deal all over the world."

And some ISPs are blocking all email from notorious spam-relay countries like China until they clean up their act. I must say, I have a lot of sympathy for that approach as well.

Not what I call good community relations

Back in 2000, in better financial times, the city of Houston passed a referendum to fund a new downtown basketball arena. A similar referendum had been defeated before, thanks in large part to well-funded opposition from conservatives (not to mention some personal animus between Houston Rockets owner Les Alexander and Houston Aeros owner Chuck Watson - see here for background on both). The measure passed this time with the support of black voters, who were persuaded to vote for the measure in return for promises from the Rockets that 30% of arena contracts would go to minority-owned businesses.

It hasn't quite worked out the way they expected, and now some local minority groups have filed a lawsuit to halt construction of the arena until this is settled to their satisfaction.

Representatives of the Baptist Ministers Association, NAACP and the Houston Area Urban League told District Judge John Coselli that Alexander had met with them in September 2000 to solicit their support for an upcoming referendum on the arena's construction. In exchange, they said, Alexander guaranteed that minorities would get 30 percent of the arena contracts.

Rockets attorney Mike Goldberg said today that the goal will be met -- but not necessarily the way the minority groups might like.

Goldberg called the request for a temporary restraining order "extortion," saying the plaintiffs want to pick the minority contractors.

Former city attorney Benjamin Hall, who represents the minority groups, said one major contract already has been awarded to a Chicago company with no minority participation, but Goldberg countered that the next contract will have minority representation of 60 percent to 70 percent.

The arena is still under construction but is scheduled to open in September.

About 20 prominent members of the black and Latino communities appeared at today's hearing, including state Rep. Ron Wilson, the Rev. William Lawson, former LULAC director Johnny Mata, Urban League president Sylvia Brooks and former Houston councilwoman Gracie Saenz.

Lots more background on this story here and here. Say what you want about quotas, it sure seems to me that if you're gonna make a promise like that, you really ought to keep it. I don't understand why Les Alexander is playing hardball here - it just seems to me he's alienating potential customers and jeopardizing his new playground in the process. I don't see the upside. If the plaintiffs get their injunction, this will be a huge embarrassment for him. Why is he going to the mat on this? I must be missing something.

Penguin dreams

Ann Salisbury has de-lurked to bring us some good news: Bloom County comics are being rerun for UComics subscribers. The direct link is here, but you need to subscribe first.

Comic historians will find this even more exciting:

We are pleased to announce that we also intend to re-publish the full run of Breathed's 1978-1979 college strip ACADEMIA WALTZ, which has long been unavailable. Details to come!

Did you know that Berkeley Breathed was one of several excellent cartoonists to come out of the University of Texas? He was followed by Sam Hurt, who drew Eyebeam, and Martin Wagner of Hepcats fame. I've never seen the Academia Waltz stuff (rumor has it that Steve Dallas was a character), and am sorely tempted to lay out the ten bucks for a subscription. Thanks, Ann!

Senate regrets its own budget

Well, the state Senate finally passed its not-as-godawful-as-the-House-but-still-pretty-bad budget yesterday, and from all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed you'd think that maybe it didn't have to be that way.

"I wish I could say I was proud of this product. I can't say it. I don't think it is worthy of the state of Texas," declared Sen. Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant, former lieutenant governor and former Senate Finance Committee chairman.

[...]

"Some of these expenses are going to be picked up at the next level, the next level being the county level," warned Sen. Jon Lindsay, R-Houston.

"I think the (health care) providers need to be prepared for an onslaught," Lindsay said. "We're probably going to have a 5 percent ad valorem (property) tax increase ... what I think is an almost certain ad valorem tax increase in Harris County."

[...]

"You've heard a lot of talk about things we're not doing," said Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst after passage of the budget, 26-5. "We've focused on maintaining our core essential services. Is it the best budget in the world? It never is."

Dewhurst pointed out the budget, which is a $4 billion increase over the current budget, fully funds the foundation school program and said state and federal funding for higher education is only 1.3 percent less than it is currently.

Sen. Judith Zaffirini [D-Laredo], vice chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, however, said the cuts to health care run deep, based upon the Legislative Budget Board's estimate of projected needs.

By 2005, she said, more than 17,000 elderly and disabled Texas would lose home assistance, while some 13,500 pregnant women would lose prenatal care and delivery services.

Another 208,700 elderly or disabled Texans who are not in nursing homes would no longer have prescription drug coverage. The Senate also placed stricter assets tests on children receiving Medicaid, which is expected to cut enrollment growth by 298,600.

[...]

The Senate budget also calls for 2.7 million fewer textbooks for public school children, cuts health care supplements for teachers from $1,000 annually to $500 and shifts $220 million of the cost for retired teacher health care to local school districts. For the Houston Independent School District, the cost would be $4.5 million.

"We have basically exploded the population in TRS (Teacher Retirement System) Care," said Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, noting that beneficiaries are using the care at a 14 percent higher rate.

"I think we can do better. I believe the time has come for us to look seriously at revenues," said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, who voted against the bill along with fellow Democratic Sens. Mario Gallegos of Houston, Eliot Shapleigh of El Paso, Juan Hinojosa of McAllen and Gonzalo Barrientos of Austin.

Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, said he'd vote for the bill but said the state's $1 billion rainy day fund should be completely drained to restore funding to pay for HIV/AIDS drugs, college educational training for prisoners, after-school programs and community care for the disabled and elderly.

"This budget doesn't have a pay raise for state employees and in fact asks them to pay a little more for their health care," he said, urging senators who will reconcile the budget with the House to drain the $1 billion rainy day fund.

"I would spend every dime of the rainy day fund," he said. "As they say, it is raining in Texas."

Ratliff took umbrage with Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who has blamed the budget crisis on a "spending party" in the past few sessions.

"I take serious exception," he said.

When the state funded the frail and elderly, community colleges, maternity care and others who will feel "brutal impacts," he said, "I did not consider that a party. I could not bring myself to call it a spending spree."

This budget is a failure of leadership, and by that I mean a failure of Governor Rick Perry and his bizarre fetish about spending instead of revenue. Perry trumpeted his love of education during the campaign, then pushed for education funding to get slashed once he was safely elected and denied all responsibility for it afterwards. Meanwhile, our byzantine and broken tax system ensures that our revenue stream will continue to shrink over time and will continue to place a high burden on homeowners. But hey, at least Governor Goodhair is fighting for his economic development slush fund.

The failure also belongs to our Comptroller, Carole Keeton Strayhorn of the ever-inaccurate revenue projections and mulish insistence that there's no such thing as a Rainy Day. If Strayhorn had given an honest assessment of the hole we're now in back during the 2002 campaign, then maybe (just maybe) we could have had an honest debate about how the state pays for itself and why the well is running particularly dry. Instead, we got assurances that better times were just around the corner, leaving everyone free to indulge in budget-scrubbing fantasies at the expense of reality. (Yes, that's an indictment of Tony Sanchez and his pusillanimous promises, too.) How exactly this woman has a reputation for being good at her job is quite beyond me.

I can't say I'm happy with the job that David Dewhurst has done, but he gets full marks for trying to be serious about this. Given the weasel that we have in the Governor's mansion and the hardline heartlessness of the state GOP, it's hard to see how he could have done any better.

There's not much more that I can say that I haven't already said, so I'll close by noting that four of the five Senators who couldn't bring themselves to rubberstamp this atrocity are Hispanic, and the fifth represents El Paso. Keep that in mind when you hear about the GOP's grand plan to woo Hispanic voters.

Now that's an innovative revenue stream

Tom Spencer points to this article about doings in the Missouri Senate, which contains the following rather amazing proposal to add to the state's coffers:

After defeating the governor's plan, Republicans took up their own blueprint for raising additional revenue. The plan, which would raise an estimated $182 million, is a package of 39 separate proposals.

About two-thirds of the revenue would come from one-time sources, including several changes recommended by Gov. Bob Holden. Other provisions include:

[...]

• Generating $5 million by imposing a 5 percent tax on adult entertainment. The tax would apply to sales of sexually explicit material and services, such as live nude performances and actual or simulated sex acts.

[...]

The adult entertainment tax would apply to fees for bestiality, masturbation and sadistic or masochistic abuse. Sen. Sarah Steelman, a Rolla Republican, distributed a proposed amendment to add lap dances to the services that would be taxed.

Does Rick Santorum know about this? Maybe the Daily Show was right about Santorum's real meaning!

I'm still boggling about "fees for bestiality, masturbation and sadistic or masochistic abuse". I'd hate to be the poor tax compliance officer for that. As for the tax on lap dances, I'm imagining a new strip club policy: Put $20 in the dancer's G-string for the lap dance, and 50 cents in the coin collecter for the Lap Dance Tax. Please try not to drop the coins in the G-strings.

All joking aside, one wonders if this isn't a sneaky way to try to regulate sexually oriented businesses (known around here as SOBs) out of business, especially given that another legislator is proposing a tax on "marijuana and other illegal drugs". You know how there's a line item for ill-gotten gains on 1040 forms, so the Feds can bust otherwise untouchable miscreants for tax evasion? This feels like that to me. Of course, if that's true and the intent is to force these places out of business, a large number of people would be thrown out of work, which would in turn depress state tax revenue. Gotta watch those unintended consequences.

One wonders if Our Fair City, which has its own revenue issues, might consider adopting such a tax instead of continuing its quixotic pursuit of tougher anti-SOB laws. If nothing else, debate over the issue would finally give me a reason to watch Council proceedings on the Municipal Channel.

More Santorum ugliness

Via LeftLeaner, I see that not only are religious conservatives lining up behind Sen. Rick Santorum, they're now aiming their fury at the AP reporter who interviewed him, as if this is somehow her fault:

Joseph Farah, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily.com, has gone so far as to suggest that Ms. Jordan deliberately targeted Santorum.

"It's not Rick Santorum who should be forced from office for clearly stating views that have been considered mainstream for the last 5,000 years. It's Lara Lakes Jordan who should be drummed out of the news profession for scoring cheap political points under the guise of news reporting. Rick Santorum should [not] apologize to anyone. It's the Associated Press for sponsoring this political hit piece," Farah said in a recent WND editorial.

Farah also noted that Ms. Jordan was one of several signatories on a letter to her employer in January attacking the news organization for "rolling back diversity" by not extending benefits to domestic partners.

"It seems Mrs. Jordan's ideological fervor is not reserved only for her private life and her corporate politicking," said Farah. "This woman clearly ambushed Santorum on an issue near and dear to her bleeding heart."

Anyone with reading comprehension skills past the third-grade level can see for themselves that Santorum led the way in this interview. Lara Jakes Jordan followed along and wrote down what he said. I suppose that counts as an ambush in Joseph Farah's world, but I think the rest of us on planet Earth would agree that the Senator eagerly grabbed all the rope that he used to hang himself.

Keep your eye on this, for it's just a matter of time before the standard attack in the wingnut crowd is to call her a slut, just as many attacks on the Dixie Chicks include rude comments about Natalie Maines' weight. (Frankly, after examining the evidence, I don't see how any sane person could call her fat, but hey, what do I know?) It's ugly and demeaning, but hardly surprising.

Nearing the halfway point

We are now five games into our 12-game schedule, and we are still looking for our first win. I think this is going to be harder on me than it will on the kids, who seem for the most part to be having fun. According to my assistant coach, we lost a game while I was in California that we should have won. We blew a large lead, and one of the opponents actually hit a ball over the fence to help his team win. The good news is that the kids weren't crushed by this - they had played well and accepted the coach's words of encouragement.

If anyone took that loss hard, it was one of the team moms, who has helped out in the dugout by keeping track of whose turn it is to bat. Unfortunately, late in the game the batter who made the last out in the previous inning led off. The error was discovered during that at-bat with the count one ball and two strikes, at which time the umpire ruled Batter 1 out. Batter 2 was then told to take his place, inheriting the count of 1-2. He struck out on the next pitch. Team Mom was pretty upset about this, but we've assured her that these things happen, and I think she's feeling better now.

I should note that I was pretty sure when I heard this from my assistant coach that the ruling was incorrect, and having looked it up, I'm quite certain of it:

6.07 BATTING OUT OF TURN.

(a) A batter shall be called out, on appeal, when he fails to bat in his proper turn, and another batter completes a time at bat in his place. (1) The proper batter may take his place in the batter's box at any time before the improper batter becomes a runner or is put out, and any balls and strikes shall be counted in the proper batter's time at bat.

[...]

To illustrate various situations arising from batting out of turn, assume a first inning batting order as follows: Abel Baker Charles Daniel Edward Frank George Hooker Irwin.
PLAY (1). Baker bats. With the count 2 balls and 1 strike, (a) the offensive team discovers the error or (b) the defensive team appeals. RULING: In either case, Abel replaces Baker, with the count on him 2 balls and 1 strike.

So, we had one fewer out that inning than we should have, and this helped keep enough time on the clock for one more inning to be played. What rotten luck. Too late to do anything about it now, too.

Everyone was glad to see me at Friday's game, my first game back. We had a bigger than usual crowd among the players' families as well. Alas, we didn't play our best game. The pitching was off, the defense was off, and we couldn't buy a run until late in the game. Our batters are still too tentative at the plate. They are good at laying off bad pitches and drawing walks, but we've been called out on strikes on hittable pitches too many times. I've pulled guys aside when this happens to talk to them about it, but it's still sinking in.

Once again, we got the short end of a bad umpire's ruling. With the bases loaded and one out, our batter struck out and the catcher failed to hold strike three. The runners danced off the bases, everybody started yelling, and the next thing you knew, the batter was running to first even though he was automatically out (since first base was occupied with less than two outs). The catcher threw the ball anyway, and it got away from the first baseman as two runners scored. The umpire then announced that the batter was out (correct) and all runners had to return to their bases (incorrect, since league rules say they can advance at their jeopardy once the ball passes the batter). We argued to no avail, but at least this time the league president was there and he had some words for the ump after the inning. It didn't affect the outcome, but it was still annoying.

Next game is tonight. We'll see how it goes.

Cracks in the armor?

Two stories today highlight issues that I believe will be long-term problems for the GOP here in Texas. First off is this one in which a state House subcommittee rejected a bill that would have imposed a lower cap on property tax appraisals.

The bill replaced a similar bill authored by state Rep. Martha Wong, R-Houston, that would have lowered the cap to 5 percent on homestead appraisals only. [State Rep. Dwayne] Bohac's bill lowered or set a cap on homestead, commercial and apartment property.

Currently, property appraisals on homesteads and apartments can increase by as much as 10 percent each year. There is no cap on businesses.

Bohac is a Republican, also from Houston. The key vote on the House committee was cast by another Republican, Rep. Jodie Laubenberg of Wylie. Laubenberg had no comment on her rather shocking vote, which is a real departure from the lockstep nature of House Republicans.

The problem here for the GOP is that the supporters of this measure are, shall we say, rather zealous about it:

Bohac and others believe that confrontational and vitriolic criticism from supporters of Wong's bill offended some committee members at a March 13 hearing.

"There were hurt feelings, and it was hard for some on this committee to overcome those hurt feelings," Bohac said, "and that's a shame, because taxpayers lose because they couldn't get over personal issues."

About 100 Houstonians stormed out of the March 13 hearing after waiting seven hours to testify. Some in the group shouted down committee Chairman Fred Hill, R-Richardson, and accused the committee of siding with lobbyists and business interests.

At the hearing, Houston radio talk show host Dan Patrick likened committee members to "money changers" and Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt said the county was on the verge of a tax revolt.

"When public officials will do nothing to help ease the tax burden of citizens that are being overtaxed, then they better be ready for protest, because if they thought that was a protest, they haven't seen anything yet," Patrick said Monday.

[...]

"She does not deserve to be seated in office if she is going to put her personal feelings in front of what is in the best interest of Texas," Patrick said of Laubenberg. "She should be ashamed of herself."

Bettencourt believes the assertion that feelings were hurt was a smoke screen. He said Laubenberg's questions on other legislation reflect a basic philosophical difference on tax relief.

He said he cannot explain why she would not follow the lead of House Speaker Tom Craddick, her committee chairman or the Republican Party on tax relief.

"It's an emotional vote against your core principles, what your party believes in. It's a very strong vote against your base," Bettencourt said. "It would be a grave mistake for anyone to go and vote against their core beliefs.

"She's a lightning rod now for tax relief."

I commented on this story back in March when Patrick and Bettencourt threw their temper tantrums. These guys brook no compromise, can't abide any principles that differ from their own, and will probably work to unseat Rep. Laubenberg in the next election; whether it's to a Republican who'll do their bidding more reliably or a Democrat who won't do it at all likely won't matter to them. With friends like these, and all that.

What makes this even more amusing is the pitchfork brigade's charge that the House committee was under the spell of "lobbyists" and "business interests". Well, duh! This is the Texas GOP we're talking about! Of course, one would normally expect "lobbyists" and "business interests" to favor a property tax appraisal cap. After all, this bill would have imposed a cap on commercial property appraisals, so why wouldn't business support it? Logic and rationality are not the strong suits here.

The other story features state GOP chair Sarah Weddington defending her party from charges that they're heartless and uncaring, despite their relentless push for a budget that would deny health care and other services to thousands of sick, elderly, and other needy folks.

In a conference phone call with members of the State Republican Executive Committee, Weddington urged party leaders and grass-roots supporters to encourage Republican lawmakers to hang tough in the face of criticism from Democrats and many newspaper editorial writers.

She said Democrats, during the budgetary debate, have attempted to "make Republicans look like heartless, cruel, mean, ugly people who just want people to die, want people to be thrown out of nursing homes, and that is not the case."

"The fact of the matter is that we want a new philosophy, a new policy toward spending that helps those that really need help, and they have no other options," she added.

"We want to cease and desist helping those who have other options but choose to use government because it's cheaper and it's more convenient. You know, the Democrats want to create a government-funded middle class, and we've got to have the courage to take the hits so that we do what's right by the people of Texas."

I suppose these desperate folks didn't get Weddington's message. The AARP isn't impressed, either, a notion that might normally make a political party think twice.

But never mind that. Let's compare Weddington's statement about how Democrats are making the Republicans look like a bunch of meanies with this statement from her second in command:

David Barton, the party's vice chairman, added that it is important for Republican leaders to warn lawmakers not to "get bent out of shape over (allegations) you're killing elderly people by starving them, or whatever."

The Republicans here don't need any assistance from Democrats on this. They do a fine enough job on their own. Sooner or later, that's going to be a problem for them.

Poincare solved?

A year ago I blogged about the Clay Mathematics Institute and its million dollar prize for solving one of seven longstanding problems. One of those problems is the Poincare Conjecture, which is a statement about how shapes and surfaces can be classified. Today, Tiffany handed me an article from Science magazine (not available online to a non-AAAS member such as myself) which states that a Russian mathematician named Grigory Perelman may have solved it. Here's an statement of the conjecture and how Ricci intends to solve it. For a mathophile like me, this is nearly as big as Andrew Wiles' recent conquest of the Fermat Theorem.

What makes this even cooler is that Perelman's work stems from a groundbreaking idea of William Thurston, who recently commented on this Calpundit post about math education. You get all of the best comments, Kevin!

Anyway, Perelman has a ways to go before claiming his million. The conditions of the prize say that the proof has to have been reviewed for two years first. So stay tuned.

Those unemployment blues

There's a new kid on the Texas Political Bloggers block, a joint effort from Austin called the Burnt Orange Report. They have a post about Texas's depressing unemployment rate, currently at 6.5%, or 6.7% if you adjust for the season. Austin itself is doing better, but the tech industry is still on its knees and average wages dropped by $24 per week between Q1 2001 and Q1 2002.

Over here in Houston, our famed optimism is taking it on the chin from the recent hard times:

A quarter of those interviewed named the economy and poverty as the greatest problems facing Houston-area residents, compared to 8 percent who chose these issues three years ago. And just 39 percent this year rated local job prospects as excellent or good -- a sharp decline from last year's 52 percent and the lowest figure since 27 percent provided this assessment in 1993.

"This year, it seems clear that the generalized optimism about the future -- so typical of Houstonians -- is now also being affected by the deepening insecurities" about the economy, said Stephen Klineberg, the Rice University sociology professor who has directed the annual survey since 1982.

He said this year's findings suggest that growing economic worries may no longer be merely short-term concerns.

For example, the proportion who said the United States is headed for better times in the next few years dropped from 44 percent in 2002 to 37 percent this year. And on a question that Klineberg said taps into "the vaunted Houston ideology" and its "can-do spirit," 82 percent agreed that Houstonians who work hard eventually will succeed. Last year, 88 percent agreed with this premise.

For all the talk about how traffic problems are a high priority for Houston voters, I bet this will be a big campaign issue in the upcoming mayoral race. Too bad, since I think the mayor will have far greater influence over Metro's proposals than over the local economy, not that that will stop anyone from promising large tax giveaways in an effort to attract businesses to relocate here.

RIP, TAWVFCI/OP?MPB&CSR,U!!!

It looks like the University of Virginia pep band, also known as "The Award-Winning Virginia Fighting Cavalier Indoor/Outdoor Precision(?) Marching PEP Band & Chowder Society Revue, Unlimited!!!!", may have finally met its match in the form of rich alumni who've ponied up to fund a traditional marching band:

Yesterday, the university announced a gift of $23.5 million from a pair of longtime benefactors and Virginia football fans, Carl and Hunter Smith of Charlottesville. Although most of the money will go to the construction of a performing arts center, $1.5 million has been earmarked for the endowment of a creature heretofore unknown to Thomas Jefferson's academic village -- a traditional college marching band.

University officials confirmed that the new band, to be run under the auspices of the music and athletic departments, will supplant the infamous Pep Band at all sporting events. Though the new group won't be ready to play until fall 2004, the Pep Band is disinvited effective this coming fall.

Director of Athletics Craig K. Littlepage said the move to a traditional band -- one that will wear uniforms and march in formation -- will complement Virginia's ascension in the ranks of big-time college sports. U-Va. is the only school in the Atlantic Coast Conference that lacks a marching band. "As our football program has evolved, there's a desire on the part of those who support our program to have a band that demonstrates the same pursuit of excellence," he said.

The article references the silly Continental Tire Bowl controversy from last year, in which some tightassed bowl bigwigs pitched a hissyfit over some standard pep band hijinks. Naturally, the AD insists that this had nothing to do with it:

Littlepage said the replacement of the Pep Band has nothing to do with the West Virginia controversy or any other incident.

"It's about the university having a unique opportunity to enhance itself in the performing arts," he said. He added that there's room for only one band on the field.

Oh, please. This is about the university getting a check from some fat cat alumni and being only too willing to say "How high?" when told that they must jump before they can endorse it. Getting a marching band makes you like every other big state school in the country. If you want to conform, that's fine, but don't think it makes you special.

As a longtime scatter band member, I salute my soon-to-be-former colleagues. Their demise makes the already exceedingly dull world of bigtime college football even more colorless. May the University of Virginia some day realize what they've done to their identity.

Bye bye Beelzebud?

Baseball Commissioner Beelzebud Selig is claiming that he will retire when his current term expires. Doug Pappas has a Premium article in the Baseball Prospectus that basically boils down to "I'll believe it when I see it". Selig said many times when he was first installed that he only intended to do the job briefly, but along the way several candidates were strung along and abandoned, one of whom went on to bigger things, according to former Commissioner Fay Vincent:

His reign as commissioner lasted fewer than three seasons before he was undone by a cabal of owners who felt he wasn't pushing management's interests hard enough with the union. As the buildup to the showdown began, several people began expressing an interest in Vincent's job -- including a longtime friend who was president of the Texas Rangers.

But Vincent told him the owners had already picked a successor and urged George W. Bush to stick with the family business. ''If it hadn't been for Bud Selig, George W. Bush wouldn't be president of the United States,'' Vincnet said.

Pappas thinks that with the CBA, the TV contract with Fox, and the Major League Constitution all expiring in 2006 that Selig will either leave before his term ends on December 31, or that he'll wind up as the "interim" Commish again for some period. Let me state publicly that if Bud is serious about stepping down, then I'm available to replace him. I figure my recent experience as a Little League coach is idea training for the Commissionerhood. Get me while you can, guys!

Louisiana Purchase bonds found

Would you believe that our nation's outstanding debts might include bonds from the Louisiana Purchase?

A find by the National Archives suggests that the United States might have shortchanged the investors who financed the Louisiana Purchase 200 years ago last week.

President Thomas Jefferson's purchase from France is recorded as having cost $15 million -- $230 million in today's dollars. The archives has found three apparently unredeemed $2,000 bonds that the Treasury sold to finance the Louisiana Purchase from a cash-strapped Napoleon.

The bonds, then called "stock certificates," were not canceled or stamped, so the Treasury may never have reimbursed the money that Dutch investors paid for them -- a $6,000 saving to the American taxpayer, $86,000 in today's change.

"That's what we think," said Milton Gustafson, the agency's expert on treaties. "But maybe they were just kept as samples."

He said no figure survives for the total repaid. None of the other bonds is known to have survived.

There's no truth to the rumor that Bechtel was awarded a contract in the post-purchase construction.

Riding on a rail

Everyone knows I'm a fan of rail, so Metro's recent announcement about building extensions to the current light rail line as well as a heavy rail line out to the southwest is a Good Thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's going to be a tough package to sell, as it's sure to generate opposition from those who believe the only solution to traffic problems is to pour more concrete, but the nature of how Metro disburses existing funds and how it plans to use those funds for these future projects is a sticking point as well.

Residents of Katy, Missouri City and Humble have the most to lose from Metro's proposal not to renew the street funds past 2009. Through special agreements, they get 50 percent of the one-cent Metro sales tax revenue generated there.

Loss of street money "would affect us," said Johnny Nelson, Katy city administrator. "We rely on it a good deal. We used Metro money to pave the streets around the (Katy Mills) mall. We are planning to use it to build a new north-south thoroughfare."

Metro's transit plan includes more express buses to Katy on the planned Interstate 10 toll road, but no rail line.

"I don't see much in it for Katy at first glance," Nelson said.

Humble's relationship with Metro has been bumpy, including a push by Humble to leave Metro in 1998. Last year Humble received about $4 million from Metro. About $2.5 million was used for road repair and construction -- the city's entire street budget -- while the other $1.5 million was given to the police department for traffic enforcement.

No rail lines are proposed through 2025 on the U.S. 59 corridor that leads to Humble and Kingwood.

"All of the cities recognize rail will be important in the future," [Humble City Manager James] Baker said. "But roads will still have to be maintained."

Under the proposed plan, Humble would receive little in return for the taxes paid, Baker said.

So basically, a big part of Metro's constituency has come to depend on Metro funds for things that I would argue are not really about transportation. They don't want to lose that revenue. I can't blame them for that, but I can blame former Mayor Bob Lanier for getting them hooked on it in the first place:

Payments for street projects began after voters approved a 1988 transit referendum that included a rail system plan. The rail component later died, but the provision calling for a 25 percent annual investment in local roads has lived on.

At first, Metro funded street projects directly. But when Bob Lanier took over as Houston mayor in 1992, he instructed the Metro board to funnel huge sums of money to the city. In 1994, for example, Metro gave away two-thirds of its sales-tax revenue -- $156 million -- to Houston and the other 15 governmental entities.

Lanier created a shell game. He put the city's share of that money in the city's public works budget, then moved an equivalent amount to other departments. Lanier, for example, managed a massive hiring of police officers with the diverted street money. Metro's reserve fund dwindled, postponing plans to start a light rail system.

And so here we are in 2003 with a Metro system that can't do what it was supposed to do. Thanks, Mayorbob.

The plan itself isn't what I would have picked. I don't like the idea of having to exit a train line and hop on a bus to get to Intercontinental Airport - having the rail line go all the way there is preferable - and I think some vision of rail going all the way out the Katy Corridor is needed. Overall, though, I think there's a lot of merit. It's way past time that we started considering alternatives to more freeways. Rail is scalable in a way that roads aren't. Higher ridership on a given rail line doesn't bog the system down. You can simply add more rail cars, and everything continues on the same schedule. That simply isn't true for highways, and it's why adding a viable rail system into the mix is needed.

The main problem that the Metro plan has right now is that none of the mayoral candidates are fully in favor of it. Bill Whiite, who has his own mobility plan, comes the closest. He and Michael Berry would prefer that Metro delay any vote on its proposals until after the 2003 election. I understand where they're coming from, but beyond any concerns that Metro would miss out on the federal funding cycle if a referendum doesn't pass by then, I fear that this issue would get drowned out in the Presidential election of 2004. It's now or never, which if nothing else should force Metro to make its best case.

Urgent assistance needed

Max Power points to this story of what happened when a Business Week reporter decided to respond to all of those Nigerian email scams. Check it out.

And now the Nigerian scammers have met the Raving Atheist. If that's not a death blow to this industry, nothing will be. Very funny in that obsessive Make Money Fast Hall of Humiliation way. Via Frankenstein.

A film shows in Brooklyn

Man, the Bull Durham story sure has legs. There will be a 15th anniversary screening after all, at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, on Wednesday, April 30. You folks in Brooklyn ought to check it out if you can. As would have been the case with the original celebration at the Hall of Fame, before the un-American coward Dale Petroskey put the preemptive kibosh on it, this event will be nonpolitical in nature:

Brooklyn won out because aside from having a more than respectable baseball history, the borough is well connected. Mr. Robbins's publicist, Dan Klores, a board member at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, suggested it as a place to screen the film. Tickets, which cost $10, will go on sale today. Mr. Robbins, Ms. Sarandon and the director, Ron Shelton, plan to attend. Karen Brooks Hopkins, president of the Brooklyn Academy of Music, said the event was not meant to be political. "I don't think that people in Brooklyn will mix politics and arts," she said. "I think the film stands on its own merits."

The details of the anniversary celebration are in the works, but Mr. Robbins said he did not want a question-and-answer session after the movie. The most political part of the evening may just be that some of the revenue will be donated to the Cooperstown Food Bank.

Mr. Robbins had responded to the Hall of Fame president in a letter that he did not think "baseball was a Republican sport." But asked about the controversy yesterday, he seemed to take inspiration from the film's suggested clichés for ballplayers giving interviews ("I'm just happy to be here; hope I can help the ball club,"), saying he was just looking forward to a night of baseball and film in Brooklyn. "This has nothing to do with politics," he said. "We're just going to screen the movie and enjoy the movie."

On the other hand, as Eric McErlain noted, the article mentions elsewhere that there is talk of showing the movie in conjunction with political events, an outcome that I find wholly fitting and more than a bit exciting. I say we give that idea 110%.

"Today Show" followup

Well, if TAPPED is willing to believe that Tim Robbins got cut off by The Today Show in mid-interview, maybe I should believe it, too. Did anyone reading this actually see what happened? I'd love to hear from you. Meanwhile, Avedon points to an Official Response from The Today Show about this incident. The plot thickens...

UPDATE: Mark Evanier is willing to buy the explanation that The Today Show always cuts to local stations at set times, with a proviso:

Standard Broadcasting Procedure would then be for the host, following the break, to say something like, "Our apologies to Tim Robbins for a technical error that cut him off." On the other hand, we don't know that this wasn't said. I just think it's funny that, intentional or not, Robbins got cut off while he was going after Corporate America on NBC, just like a Saturday Night Live sketch in which Tim Robbins got cut off while he was going after Corporate America on NBC. (ed. note: see this prior post for more context)

I note that Evanier has gone Movable Typing in addition to migrating to a new domain name. Now if he'd only set up a blogroll...

Not all diplomats speak diplomatically

Wow.

US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Elizabeth Jones was asked to comment on [Newt] Gingrich's recent harsh criticism of her department's Middle East diplomacy.

"Newt Gingrich does not speak in the name of the Pentagon and what he said is garbage," US Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Elizabeth Jones told the Publico daily.

"What Gingrich says does not interest me. He is an idiot and you can publish that," she added.

She should expect a visit from Dick Cheney's goon squad any minute now. Too bad, we could use more of that kind of candor.

Never give up, never surrender

As I predicted, Tom DeLay hasn't let an unfavorable ruling and tepid-at-best support stop his drive to redraw Congressional districts in Texas. At this point, the best strategy for Democrats is probably to try and run out the clock on the Legislative session, which ends on June 2. After all, if there's no time to "fix" the school finance system, something which was a major Republican campaign issue last year, then I hardly see how there's time to debate a divisive and partisan issue like redistricting. (Never mind the fact that we still don't have a budget passed yet.) Make no mistake, though - Tom DeLay is completely impervious to such logic. He won't rest until he gets what he wants.

Never a good sign

Those crackpots at Judicial Watch have taken a break from trying to prove that Vince Foster was murdered and have turned their attention to Houston and the death of former Enron executive Cliff Baxter.

Judicial Watch, a self-described "public interest group that investigates governmental corruption and abuse," says crime scene photos of John Clifford Baxter's death Jan. 25, 2002, and other information have not been made fully public, its lawyer Todd Hutton said Thursday.

Baxter, 43, who resigned from Enron in May 2001, was found shot in the head in his car near his Sugar Land home, with a .38-caliber pistol in his lap.

Sugar Land police and the medical examiner's office, which performed the autopsy, called the death a suicide.

The Harris County attorney's office and the medical examiner's office said Thursday the county has already provided Baxter's two toxicology reports to Judicial Watch.

Medical examiner spokesman Rudy Flores said, "We haven't amended the cause of death. It is not unusual procedure to do a supplemental toxicology report."

[...]

"The collapse of Enron and the death of Baxter raise questions. He was due to testify and we can speculate it would have been information that those involved did not want public," Hutton said.

"We question if there was a rush to judgment on his cause of death," he said.

I suppose given the Houston Police Department Crime Lab scandal it's easy to see coverups and botched evidence under every rock around here, even if this case wasn't handled by HPD. All I know is what I've said before about JW - they're cranks and publicity hounds, and if they are occasionally onto something legitimate it's a blind-squirrel-finding-acorns kind of thing.

Tom Coleman indicted

Former "Lawman of the Year" Tom Coleman was indicted on three counts of lying under oath for his made-up testimony during the Tulia drug trials. If convicted, he faces 10 years in jail and a $10,000 fine. I call that a good start.

The latest on that coercive baptism story

Once again, Ginger is on top of developments in the story of US Army Chaplain Josh Llano, who reportedly traded water for baptisms. After receiving numerous complaints about Llano's reported activities, the Army investigated, and yesterday they cleared Llano of any wrongdoing.

The Army determined that Josh Llano, 32, did not coerce any soldiers into conversion as an April 4 Miami Herald article indicated. The article generated numerous complaints that led the chaplain chief, Maj. Gen. Gaylord Gunhus, to call for an inquiry.

Lt. Col. Eric Wester, spokesman for the Chaplain Corps in Virginia, said the Army also disputes the article's contention that Llano's pool was the only such source of water during a shortage at Camp Bushmaster.

The article said thousands of Army V Corps combat support troops were filthy and that Llano's "pristine" pool offered soldiers a chance to be "clean for the first time in weeks."

"The implication that soldiers were without water for hygiene or other purposes was false," Wester said.

"All needs for water were met before this chaplain was offered water to provide for immersion purposes."

Mark Seibel, the Herald's managing editor, defended the article in a report about the Army's findings.

That article is here, via Arguing with Signs, which also has a link to this story and the following quote from Mark Seibel that's not found in the Chron account:

"I don't think the story suggested coercion," he said. "That's just how some people want to read it. ... We stand by the story as it was written. He made the remarks that he made, and Meg was not the only person who heard them."

I'm with Bryan on this one. The original story wouldn't have generated such a huge negative response had it not been crystal clear that coercion was implied. I don't know what happened but if the Army's findings are correct, then this story was an injustice. The onus is on the Herald right now.

Not to say that I think Llano is completely in the clear here. I agree with Ginger about this bit:

Wester said Llano does not recall saying, "It's simple. They want water. I have it, as long as they agree to get baptized."

Those are weasel words. Does Llano mean that the sentiment was accurate but the wording was off, or does he mean he never said anything like that and moreover never would say anything like that? The former requires a clarification, the latter that the reporter not produce a tape recording that contradicts him. I'll grant that this quote does not come from Llano directly, and thus may once again be possibly inaccurate, but the question remains: what exactly did he say, and what did he mean by it? I'm willing to cut Llano some slack here, but until he says on the record what his words and intentions really were, I won't completely dismiss the possibility that the Army is covering its rear end. Hey, Mark Seibel, how about producing one of those other people that heard Llano's remarks along with your reporter and having them give their accounts? Until one of those things happens, Llano has the benefit of my doubt but the case isn't closed.

Sex and the Senator

The national GOP is coming to the defense of Sen. Rick Santorum, who is currently in some hot water for his repellant remarks about gays and "deviant" behavior.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist defended Sen. Rick Santorum on Wednesday as a "voice for inclusion and compassion" while the White House remained silent on the Pennsylvania Republican's remarks about homosexuality.

Frist, of Tennessee, and Pennsylvania's senior Republican senator, Arlen Specter, rallied to Santorum's side after all of the leading Democratic presidential contenders condemned him for comparing gay sex to incest, bigamy and polygamy in an interview published Monday.

"Rick is a consistent voice for inclusion and compassion in the Republican Party and in the Senate, and to suggest otherwise is just politics," Frist told The Associated Press.

Specter said he accepted Santorum's assurance that the remarks to the AP "should not be misconstrued in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles."

"I have known Rick Santorum for the better part of two decades, and I can say with certainty he is not a bigot," Specter said.

Somewhere, Trent Lott is wondering why no one loves him as much as they love Rick Santorum. Andrew Sullivan gets it right in noting that what Santorum says goes far beyond mere distaste for homosexuality:

[W]hat Santorum is proposing is far more radical. It is not simply that we should have public standards for morality, but that this can and should be imposed even on people in their private homes. He would not simply assert a social norm; he would enforce it with the power of the state. That's why he not only believes that sodomy laws should be constitutional. He believes they should exist. And if they exist, they should be enforced.

I suppose it's never occurred to a good upstanding Christian family man like Rick Santorum that his doctrine of majority-enforced sexual morality could ever be used against him. As Atrios notes, Santorum has a large family. I wonder how Rick Santorum would feel if a more malevolent form of the Zero Population Growth movement gained popularity and succeeded in passing laws that forbade any woman from bearing more than two children. What sort of effect would such a thing have on the sex life of someone who believes that birth control and abortion are morally wrong? I suppose that's the nice thing about believing you'll always be in the majority - you never have to think about such theoretical miscellania.

Redistricting is optional

The story so far: Tom DeLay has continued to push for congressional redistricting in Texas to get more Republicans in Congress. He's drawn up a map that would likely shift five seats from Democrats, who currently have a 17-15 edge, to the GOP. This map, which was supposed to be confidential has been circulating around the state amid charges that it was stolen from one of DeLay's legislative aides. Democratic Rep. Martin Frost has a copy and has been demanding that DeLay make it public, while DeLay has charged that one of Frost's aides was behind the alleged theft. The DPS is investigating the theft, meaning that there are now two active investigations that have resulted from the question of redistricting.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, state Attorney General Greg Abbott has ruled that the new Congressional boundaries that were drawn in 2001 by a three-judge panel are valid through 2010 unless the Legislature chooses to replace them. DeLay had been agitating for Abbott to declare that only the Lege could set the boundaries and that the districts that were in place for the 2002 election were good for that election only. As the Senate is unlikely to tackle redistricting as things now stand, this throws a bucket of cold water on DeLay's wishes.

Even if the Lege eventually takes this question up (perhaps in 2005), DeLay's mysterious map is unpopular on several fronts. House Speaker Tom Craddick doesn't like it because it splits up Midland and Odessa. Minority groups are opposed; the advocacy group MALDEF has said that if the issue comes up before the Lege they will push for the creation of two more Hispanic-majority districts, using a similar argument that DeLay has used to justify a more GOP-friendly landscape:

Texas gained two more House seats in 2000 because of its 1990s population boom. Both those seats went to Republicans, but 60 percent of the state's growth came from Hispanic population growth. Texas' Hispanics went from 4.4 million in 1990 to 6.7 million in 2000.

So, it looks like things will stay as they are, but never assume that Tom DeLay will let this issue rest. As long as he's in power, he'll keep pushing it.

Our Governor the weasel

Following the revelations that Governor Goodhair's ultra-secret budget proposals would have made a complete mockery of most of his campaign promises, our one and only Guv is now denying all responsibility for it.

"That was a lot of different people's ideas that were being pitched up," Perry said. "I never saw that document. It never got to my desk."

The draft budget released Tuesday by Perry's office showed that his administration was considering making almost $3 billion in education cuts and $1.3 billion in Medicaid cuts that were contrary to his campaign promises last year.

"Don't read too much into it. It was a draft document that was a working document," Perry said.

I get such a warm and tingly feeling knowing that we have strong and principled leadership in Austin. Don't you?

Hispanic voting in Houston (again)

This article about the ongoing National Conference of Black Mayors gathering in Houston talks about how the growing proportion of Hispanic voters in the state's population will make it challenging for cities like Houston and Dallas to elect their second black mayors. Interesting enough, but the bit that I want to talk about is this:

In the past three high-profile mayoral runoffs [in Houston] involving black candidates, a majority of Hispanic votes went either to white or Hispanic candidates, according to exit polls and other post-election analysis.

· In 1991, Anglo businessman Bob Lanier got more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote when he defeated Turner in a runoff.

· In 1997, Anglo businessman Rob Mosbacher got 54 percent of the Hispanic vote in his loss to Brown.

· In 2001, Cuban-American Orlando Sanchez took about 72 percent of the Hispanic vote in his loss to Brown.

Hispanic voters in Houston and in Texas have been a lot like a highly touted minor league baseball player: Lots of potential but no real results yet. Other than (maybe) Sylvia Garcia's victory in last year's County Commissioner's race, I can't think of an election in Houston/Harris County or in Texas where the Hispanic vote carried a candidate to victory. It's bound to happen eventually, but it ain't happened yet. Hispanic turnout is still low compared to blacks and non-Hispanic whites, and Hispanic voting preferences seem to mirror those of whites, making the concept of a "Hispanic voting bloc" more of an artificial construct than a predictable monolith.

The candidate who would seem to benefit the most from any increased Hispanic voting clout is Orlando Sanchez, but I have a few doubts. I've wondered before if he will get the same level of Hispanic votes in 2003 that he did in 2001. If he does, he'll be in a good position, though he'll still have to build on what he did in 2001 to win. If not, he may actually have trouble making it to the runoff, especially if Boy Wonder Berry succeeds in his attempt to peel away conservatives. I don't have a feel for it right now, perhaps because Sanchez hasn't officially announced his cnadidacy yet (his web page appears to be offline right now, presumably because it's still under construction for this year's race). Has Sanchez been reaching out to Hispanic voters? Has he worked on voter registration drives? Will he get a boost from party switching City Council member Gabriel Vasquez? Your guess is as good as mine.

Petroskey apologizes, sort of

While I was out of touch on the Left Coast, Hall of Fame president Dale Petroskey issued a non-apology apology to Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon for his cowardly and un-American retraction of an invitation to Cooperstown to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the movie Bull Durham. Hesiod and Eric McErlain, whom I doubt agree on much else, have both rightfully called Petroskey's "apology", which admitted no real wrongdoing and was faxed to Robbins and Sarandon instead of delivered personally, a sham. It's clear by now that Petroskey doesn't care at all about any of this and will simply ignore anyone who disagrees with him. What a complete and utter disgrace.

Bear in mind that Petroskey has had no qualms about inviting Republicans to speak at the Hall, such as former Reagan staffer Ken Duberstein, who spoke about the upcoming Presidential election in 2000 (how that relates to baseball eludes me, I must confess), and chief Bush flack Ari Fleischer, who spoke last January about the War on Terror (again, not my idea of a baseball-related topic). Really, at this point the mystery is how Robbins and Sarandon ever got invited to speak in the first place. (Thanks to Peter Jung for the links.)

On an end note, I present the following without comment, as I didn't see the show in question and couldn't find a mainstream press story confirming it. If anyone who saw this episode of The Today Show could say whether it's an accurate account of what happened, I'd appreciate it.

Great moments in headline writing

Streets here not as deadly as they seem, on page one of the Metro section of today's Chron. Next week, a headline about how the smog isn't so bad once you get used to it.

In case you're curious, by the way, the story is about auto-pedestrian fatalities - Houston ranks a not-as-bad-as-we-thought 41st nationally, with 2.71 pedestrian deaths per 100,000 population for the three-year period 1998-2000 - and not street crime. It's moderately hard to believe we have enough pedestrians to account for that many pedestrian deaths, but there you have it.

Senate targets uninsured drivers

The good news is that our Lege is attempting to deal with the fact that as many as 26% of drivers in Texas are uninsured. The bad news is that they've picked a dumb way to do it.

[Sen. Teel Bivins, R-Amarillo, author of Senate Bill 422] said the Texas Department of Transportation will send notices seeking proof of insurance to randomly selected drivers.

While the department is allowed to include in the sample a random selection of drivers with previous records of no insurance, it otherwise will not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of income, geography, sex, race or age, according to the bill.

Drivers receiving the notices must show within 30 days proof of coverage, which must be verified by the department. Those who falsify the "proof" could be fined between $500 and $1,000.

The penalty for driving without proof of liability will rise to between $350 and $500. It is currently between $175 and $350.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, I may some day get one of these notices, which will then require me to prove that I'm not uninsured. As someone who's never been an uninsured motorist, I find that rather annoying. Why should I have to prove my innocence?

The solution that I've always favored for this problem is to tack a surcharge onto gasoline, which would then go into an uninsured motorists' pool. Since all drivers buy gasoline, this would naturally force those with no insurance to cover some of their costs, which in turn would reduce the burden on the rest of us. I'd also require insurers to reduce auto rates by a commensurate amount, since they would draw from this pool of money to pay claims arising from damage caused by uninsured motorists. It's less intrusive and ensures that everyone pays something. I'd also increase the penalties for driving while uninsured, and require proof of at least six months' worth of coverage to dismiss a ticket for failing to produce proof of insurance at a traffic stop. Regardless of the merits of SB 422, I'm not sure why no one has proposed those reforms.

Our Governor the liar

Earlier I noted that Governor Perry lost a battle to keep drafts of budget proposals secret. Now we see why Perry wanted to do this: his initial budget proposals broke nearly all of his campaign promises.

At a debate at Rice University, Perry bragged that public education funding has increased $6 billion over four years.

"We must continue those trends and continue to put every new dollar that we can into the public school system in the state of Texas so that we can try to mitigate the effects of Robin Hood," Perry said, referring to the public school finance system.

But Perry's draft budget cut $2.9 billion from the Foundation School Program, the basic allotment to public school districts. Such a cut would force local districts to pick up more of the costs of public education.

The document is not clear, but the cut also likely would eliminate part or all of a $1,000-a-year payment to teachers to help them purchase supplemental health insurance.

[...]

Perry on the campaign trail also promised to increase pensions for retired teachers. Perry's budget writers, however, wanted to double their premiums for health insurance to raise $435 million. The budget also would have increased the retired teachers' annual health insurance deductibles from $240 a year to $500.

The average pension of a retired Texas teacher is $2,000 a month.

In the area of human services, Perry's budget would have eliminated Medicaid simplification, a measure he bragged about signing during the campaign. Rescinding the law would save $1.3 billion, his budget writers said.

They also proposed cutting the Children's Health Insurance Program by at least $81 million. Perry on the campaign trail had promised to do "everything in our power to enroll more children" in the program.

I can't say I'm shocked by this. I never believed that Perry or Dubya really gave a damn about education funding except for the warm and fuzzy photo ops that they afford. When push came to shove and good times dried up, I knew they'd gut education and not lose sleep over it. I can only hope that there's a political price for him to pay for this, but given that the next election he'll face is in 2006, I'm not holding my breath.

Home again

Well, that was the longest day of travel not involving passports that I've had in awhile. The flight out of Oakland was delayed for two hours, as the originating flight from Houston had a medical emergency and had to make an unscheduled landing. Later, we wound up circling the airport for another hour because there was no place to land. But we finally made it.

I should be back to a mostly normal schedule starting tomorrow. See you then.

Online Estonia

Here's a nice little article about the former Soviet republic of Estonia, which is now one of the most Net-connected places on earth:

Dubbed E-Stonia by some, the country ranked No. 8 out of 82 countries in putting the Net to practical use in a recent World Economic Forum report. The country ranked No. 2 in Internet banking and third in e-government.

Last month, the government launched a one-stop home page for online state services. Estonians can use it to digitally sign government forms or legally binding contracts with other people.

The government also set up a site called "Today, I'm Deciding" to let citizens offer their own opinions on legislation. It's got a chat room where they can debate the merits of bills or offer up legislation of their own.

One suggestion offered on the site, which is continually monitored by a webmaster in the prime minister's office, called for easing restrictions on carrying swords in public.

Student fraternities, which use ceremonial swords in college rituals, proposed the change and left hundreds of online messages in support. The campaign succeeded.

Sure would be nice to have that kind of responsive government here, wouldn't it? Of course, it would help if we had a higher percentage of our citizenry involved in the process, but that's another rant for another day.

Best quote in the story:

"If a Frenchman loves to sip wine with his friends and a German enjoys his beer, then an Estonian likes to sit behind his computer on a dark evening, surfing the Net and at the same time talking on his mobile phone," Estonian communications executive Toomas Somera once said.

Rock on, dudes.

Sunny thoughts from his own domain

Kevin Drum is the latest Blogspot refugee and Movable Type convert. Update your bookmarks and leave him a comment on his spiffy new site.

The good old days weren't always good

In the comments to this post, Jeff Cooper says

I'm surprised to see you so cynical about [baseball's] "golden age." After all, one of the defining characteristics of that period is that the Yankees were in the World Series almost every year (and usually won it).

It's certainly true that the immediate post-WWII era was a great time to be a Yankee fan. I read Peter Golenbock's Dynasty many times as a kid, and I can relate some of those stories as if I'd experienced them myself. That helped me get through the lean times of the 80s and early 90s, let me tell you.

That said, even if the Yankees go on another championship drought I'd still rather be a fan today than back then. For one thing, if I'd moved away from New York like I did when I went off to college, I'd never get anything more than wire reports on games, plus the occasional Saturday afternoon national telecast and maybe a regional broadcast when they played the Rangers. With cable and the Internet, I can follow my team as closely as I want, as if I were still on Staten Island.

Heck, even when I was growing up in New York I'd suffer separation anxiety. Every time the Yankees visited the West Coast, I'd have to wait until the afternoon paper came out to find out if they'd won or lost. What kind of way to live is that? Let's not even talk about the offseason, which is gloomy and grey enough as it is.

I agree with those who say that there's no better time than now to be a baseball fan. I can follow my team wherever I am. I can keep up with minor leagues, college teams, even baseball in Japan, if I want to. Statistics, analysis, profiles, box scores - it's all there for me.

Some people will try to tell you that today's players aren't as good as those who played when they were kids. (Note: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Jeff is making this claim.) I say baloney. The talent pool is deeper than ever, and the best players are setting new standards. We overvalue players from the past for the same reason that we overvalue old movies - we only remember the few great ones that are worth remembering. We forget that for every Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays, as for every "Casablanca" and "Rear Window", there were dozens if not hundreds of mediocrities that have long since slipped into a deserved obscurity. Today's undistinguished masses, like movies that star Jennifer Lopez, are right there in front of us where we can't conveniently overlook them, and this warps our perspective.

I'm a student and a fan of baseball's history. I look on baseball's past with fondness and admiration. I believe baseball is adding to its lore, not living off of it, and I believe that overhyping the glory of the past is counterproductive. The best is yet to come, and I believe that will be the case for a long time.

Welcome to San Francisco. Do you have a reservation?

The watchword of this trip so far has been"reservations". Several things we thought we were going to do - a tour of Alcatraz, a tour of the Scharffen Berger Chocolate factory, a group dinner - have all not happened because we didn't make reservations in time. Fortunately, Plan B in each case turned out to be at least as good. I'll put in a plug for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, one of those Plan Bs, which we visited on Thursday. Next time we'll leave earlier and have dinner in Carmel.

Today we're off to see the A's-Rangers game. My count of major league stadiums visited will increment to six. I've got to work on that one.

More later. Have a great weekend.

Eating their own

Via Left Leaner comes this story about ads attacking GOP Senators who opposed President Bush's latest mega tax cut. The ads are run by a conservative GOP group, the Club for Growth.

"Not only is this a defeat for the president, it is a defeat for the Republican Party," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club For Growth, a conservative tax cut group.

Moore compared Voinovich, Snowe and Houghton to countries that refused to support military action in Iraq.

"Why are his so-called allies in the House and Senate so eager to impede economic progress? These 'Franco Republicans' are as dependable as France was in taking down Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein," Moore said.

I'm just speechless. If you want to know why "moderate" Republicans are an endangered species, there's a data point for you.

On the road again

We're off for a few days in San Francisco to visit friends. I'll likely have limited access to a computer during that time, so there won't be much new here until we return on Tuesday. Please visit some of the fine blogs on the right, and I'll see you again soon.

Take someone out to the ballgame

Early season attendance numbers for baseball are down from last year, which in turn were down from 2001. Three teams, including the Astros, have drawn their smallest-ever crowds at their new ballparks this season.

It's early, and I do believe attendance will bounce back - some sign of economic recovery, plus an end to active combat for the military, would certainly help. Sports overall are doing poorly right now - ratings for the NCAA Tournament and the Masters were both down. I don't expect those represent trends any more than this does.

Naturally, in times like these, you can count on Beelzebud Selig to totally not get it:

Viewed from one angle, the sport never has recovered from the 1994 players strike. That season, the average major-league game drew 31,612 fans.

In the nine seasons since, average attendance never has reached that level. It topped 30,000 per game in 2000 and 2001 but dropped back to 28,168 last season.

Selig emphasizes the drops were a result of the economic disparity that left small-market teams like the Royals and Minnesota Twins with virtually no hope of competing. He points out that baseball is as appealing as ever in cities with competitive clubs, like, say, Seattle, which is expected to draw more than 3 million fans to Safeco Field for a fourth straight season.

That would be because cities like Seattle, which ten years ago were pointed to as being typical problems, have teams that have invested in their players and aggresively marketed to their fans. They've justifiably reaped the rewards for doing so. Selig is still stuck in anti-marketing mode, in which he declares that certain teams cannot compete, then claims that the lack of fan interest in those teams proves him right.

Even Selig can be right about some things, though:

Selig laughs when he hears fans talk about the game's golden era. The average big-league game drew a bit more than 14,000 fans in the 1950s, and until the late 1970s, drawing 1 million fans was the benchmark for a good year.

That number increased to 2 million in the 1980s and then to 3 million as the new ballparks opened in the 1990s.

In their last season in Boston, which I believe was 1953 (don't have time to check right now), the Braves franchise drew about 300,000 fans for the entire season. Even Montreal draws that many in a month. The "golden age" was a lot more myth than reality.

UPDATE: In the end, attendance in 2003 was just shy of 2002 levels, which as noted in that post was good news and bad news.

For your convenience

We all know how some Republicans have reacted to criticism of President Bush during the Iraq invasion. Here for your convenience is what various Republicans said about President Clinton during the Kosovo bombing. Just something to keep in mind. Thanks to Peter Jung for the tip.

Woe is the WNBA

The WNBA has postponed its draft as the league and the players' union attempt to hammer out a labor agreement, with the league threatening to cancel the 2003 season if no such agreement is reached by Friday. Say what you want, this is not about millionaires looking to get richer:

The league proposes to spend at least $8.624 million on player salaries for its 14 teams, with a 3 percent cost-of-living raise and a salary cap of $616,000 per team.

It wants to cut the rookie minimum from $30,000 last season to $25,000 and increase the veterans' minimum from $40,000 to $41,200.

The union wants a $750,000 salary cap for each team, with minimums set at $48,000 for veterans and $33,000 for rookies. Players made an average of $46,000 last season, excluding benefits, according to the union.

The sides appear to be within shouting distance of each other. I'm a Comets season ticket holder, so I certainly hope this will get resolved in time. Frankly, I don't think there will be another season if this one gets canned. The league's long-term viability is still questionable, and I just can't see it surviving a work stoppage like this.

The good, the bad, and the strange

The good news is we scored 10 runs in our game tonight. The bad news is that the other guys scored 13. The strange news is that we scored 10 runs without ever once making contact with the ball. Every single one of our at-bats resulted in a walk or strikeout, thus sending the Rob Deer Fan Club into paroxysms of joy.

Not as much joy for our guys, though the two five-run rallies (teams are limited to five runs per inning up until the final frame) had everyone jumping and hollering. The other guys brought in their best pitcher after that, a ten-year-old Mariano Rivera who blew heat past everyone. A couple of them who were called out on strikes were pretty upset about it afterwards. Unlike the last ump, this one had a fairly realistic strike zone, one that was almost too small for this level. Both players complained that Strike Three was outside, and they took it hard. I spent some time smoothing their ruffled feathers, but since this all happened in the last inning there wasn't a chance for them to get out on the field and get over it.

Unfortunately, we'll be missing the next two games due to travels. I feel bad about that, like I'm abandoning them. I hope they have some better luck in my absence.

We did do some good things in the field, including a great grab of a line drive by our shortstop, who had started on the mound. We also did a better job of handling third strikes, though there were fewer strikeouts because these guys hit the ball a lot.

I'm preaching a steady diet of optimism, encouragement, and get-em-next-time. I do hope we get some results, because that sort of thing can only go so far. We'll see how it is next week when I'm back.

Four simple rules for electing our Mayor

I'm not exactly sure what we're to make of this op-ed piece in today's Chron. It outlines four "ground rules" that are supposed to produce "leadership that will protect and advance our city over the long term". Frankly, they sound like idealism to me, but let's take a look and see, shall we?

Be nonpartisan.

Until recently, Houston benefited from a tradition of nonpartisan politics. Our leader should be elected upon his or her ability to serve Houston, not based upon political party affiliation. There are those who wish to abandon this tradition to further a state or a national agenda. If that results in Houston's having anything less than the finest leadership possible, then our city's good would be sacrificed for the benefit of someone else's objectives. This cannot be permitted to happen.

Nonpartisanship is like the weather - everybody talks about it, but no one does anything about it. At least, no one is willing to do anything about it until the other guy does, which amounts to the same thing.

The two announced candidates, Bill White and Michael Berry, have both said the usual stuff about being a mayor for everyone and so on. Both have tried to reach across party lines and have succeeded to some extent. Of course, these are the two candidates who are perceived to have no natural base of support, so draw your own conclusions.

I can't speak for Sylvester Turner, but Orlando Sanchez ran in 2001 as Mister Republican and he did pretty well. I don't know if he'll do that again in 2003 or if he'll try the mayor-for-everyone routine, as he hasn't officially kicked off his candidacy. He does have some former Lee Brown strategists on his staff, and it's interesting to note that Berry has picked up endorsements from Republicans who are pissed at Sanchez for that. How ironic it would be if Sanchez lost support for not being partisan enough to someone whose initial rhetoric is from the uniter-not-divider school.

Bottom line is that like it or not, a candidate without some partisan backing is going to be sitting out the runoff. So what's next?

Do not be influenced by ethnic, racial or religious factors.

Houston has thrived because it has offered opportunity to all who come here, regardless of ethnic, racial or religious background. This is an important tradition that should make every Houstonian proud. Houston's citizens should support and vote for the person they feel will become the best mayor -- not discriminate for or against a candidate because of extraneous factors. We should elect a mayor to unite us, not divide us. We need to work together for the betterment of our city, if we are to succeed.

Each candidate has at least some credibility across racial and ethnic lines. There's certainly the potential for some ugliness here, especially if Sanchez draws support from nominally Democratic Hispanic voters and opposition from Democratic Hispanic politicians as was the case in 2001, but I doubt it'll be more than a subtext.

Emphasize the long term.

This election should select a leader who has the experience, intelligence and vision to understand how decisions today will affect our city for many years to come. Voters should select the candidate who understands that our quality of life affects our long-term economic well-being. Short-term thinking is not appropriate here.

At the risk of drawing a snarky comment from Kevin, I'm going to point out that an officeholder who knows he'll be moving on in six years has no strong reason to think beyond those six years. Our system of term limits are a disincentive to long term thinking, a commodity that's rare enough already. Besides, how many CEOs have made millions by focusing on the next quarterly report? Politicians are no different in this regard.

Select the best leader -- it is not a horse race.

Some people seem to regard an election as an opportunity to place a bet on a likely winner, not a hallowed process to select leaders to guide us through difficult times. Houston will have the best leaders when we stop wasting time and energy trying to guess who is most likely to win and start working to educate ourselves on who should be elected. It is not too much to ask that each person in Houston rise to the highest standard, fulfill the most important responsibility as citizens, and demonstrate that we cherish the privileges of our democracy. Obviously, not everyone will agree on the best candidate -- but surely it is not too much to ask that each of us inform ourselves and vote for who we honestly feel will make the best mayor.

And here we finally cross the line into patronization. I don't know about you, but I approach each election with one of two goals in mind: Vote for the best guy, or vote against the worst one. That sometimes means voting strategically - I was prepared to vote for either Brown or Bell in 2001, depending on how the runoff was likely to go. I make no apologies for it, because I'm still aiming for what I believe to be an optimal result. If this is intended to be a message to the behind-the-scenes power brokers, then call a spade a spade. Otherwise, it's a bit insulting to imply that people vote for any reason other than to elect the best candidate.

Backing away slowly

Via Avedon, I see that Dale Petroskey is starting to back away from his disinvitation of Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon to the Hall of Fame for a celebration of the movie Bull Durham.

[I]n the radio interview, when [asked] if he knew for a fact that Robbins and Sarandon would have used the Hall of Fame as a platform for antiwar statements, [Petroskey] admitted that he did not.

Asked if he simply could have called Robbins and Sarandon to get an assurance that they would keep politics out of the event, Petroskey agreed he could have done that.

"If I had to do it over again, I probably would have picked up the phone and called them,'' he said.

"That's an admission of making a mistake,'' Russo said.

Petroskey, a former White House assistant press secretary under President Reagan, said, "Well, I make mistakes, you know.''

Yes you do, and this was a doozy. The question remains, what will you do to make it right? Just a suggestion: Re-extend the invitation to Robbins and Sarandon, apologize profusely, then resign. It's great that you're willing to admit you're wrong, but until we see some kind of act of contrition it doesn't mean squat.

Meanwhile, Robbins continues to walk the moral high ground:

Robbins, when asked in a telephone interview to respond to Petroskey's statements, said, "I don't buy his backpedaling on this issue.'' He noted that the Hall of Fame had invited the current White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, to speak at the Hall a year ago and that the news release announcing Fleischer's appearance quoted Petroskey as saying the Hall would hear Fleischer's "perspective on life in the White House and the current political scene, which of course includes the war on terrorism.''

In that instance, Robbins said, "Where was the discussion about baseball?''

Indeed. Just further evidence that Petroskey's problem with the actors was not that they'd have political opinions but that they'd have the "wrong" opinions.

And what would Robbins and Sarandon have done if Petroskey had called them and asked them to refrain from political comments while they were in Cooperstown?

"I don't know,'' Robbins said. "If someone had asked us a direct question, I might have said: 'This isn't the time or place. We can't talk about it.' But I might also have answered a direct question with a direct answer. This is, after all, America. But, look, I'm a big baseball fan. I would have found it a ridiculous assumption to think I was going to Cooperstown to make a political speech. Some of us can separate our political views from our social life."

Game, set, match, I'd say.

On a side note, I realized today that I hadn't read the full text of both letters before, just the quoted bits. Robbins' original response to Petroskey contains some confrontational and openly political paragraphs that had been missing from excerpts elsewhere, not that this changes anything. Thanks to Bureaucrat By Day for the link.

On a different note, The Long Letter has a letter to Tim Robbins asking him some questions about another movie, Bob Roberts. Check it out.

So why do you read him?

Kevin Drum has had enough of Glenn Reynolds:

Glenn's schtick has always been a bitter and cynical one, but the end of the war seems to been a watershed for him. Like Rush with his "stack of stuff," Instapundit has turned into nothing more than a clearinghouse for bile, with post after endless post explaining that anyone who disagrees with him is really motivated by a seething hatred of America and a desire to see everything that is good and true torn limb from corrupt limb. The level of rage and contempt that it takes to continue extracting pleasure from banging out this kind of stuff on a daily basis baffles me.

Which leads me to an obvious question: Why are you still reading him? It looks to me like Kevin feels his intelligence is being insulted and his time is being wasted. So why bother? There are plenty of interesting non-lefties out there to broaden one's perspective. Why reward someone who holds you in such contempt? I don't get it.

Sunday, sunny Saunday

It's a beautiful day outside. Laundry is almost finished, income tax filing will be done later, and the dog needs a bath. I'll see you Monday.

Herskowitz on the Hall

Longtime sports columnist Mickey Herskowitz weighs in on the Hall of Fame controversy. He meanders a bit too much to really make any points, but there's one item worth mentioning:

[Hall of Fame President Dale] Petroskey resented having his political background creep into the argument. He spent two years as an assistant press secretary under Ronald Reagan, but "nobody mentions the 11 years I worked at National Geographic."

Yo, Dale. You brought politics into this. It's 100% your fault, so take your medicine and quit whining. Actually, how about apologizing and trying to make up for it? Resigning would be a good start, but I'd be willing to forgive and forget if I saw evidence that you understood why you were so totally wrong. So far, no such luck.

As for National Geographic, it's a nonpartisan institution. You know, like the Hall of Fame is supposed to be. Apparently, despite the 11 years you spent there that concept never really sank in for you. Too bad, that.

Can't win 'em all

We finally played our first game today, but alas, we lost by the score of 9-4. We did some good things and some not-so-good things, and we've identified a few areas for improvement for Game 2, which will be Monday evening.

I thought our pitchers did well. They didn't walk a lot of guys, and they kept their cool. It helps that the strike zone in this league is big enough to drive a Ford F-350 through, but they had decent control and I was pleased with them.

The big strike zone is great when they're up. When we batted, we didn't do a lot of hitting. We did most of our scoring in one inning, helped by a traditional Little League rally of a dropped third strike, a couple of walks, and a seeing-eye single. Most of our at-bats would be satisfying to followers of the Three True Outcomes doctrine - walk, strikeout, or home run - except for the home runs. We'll have to work on our strike zone judgment, and on being more aggressive with good pitches.

We did do a few good things in the field. Our catcher had a lot of action, as the opponents ran at every opportunity. They did reach on dropped third strikes a few times, but overall he did a great job. I think he'll really develop back there. Both guys who played second base got to field a ground ball and tag the runner coming from first. The defense was about what I expected it to be.

Items to work on: Awareness of the strike zone. Running on passed balls and dropped third strikes, and reacting faster when they run. Outfield play - they hit three balls to right field and none to left, probably because batters are more likely to swing late and thus hit to the opposite field.

The opposing team was better than us - I'd be willing to bet almost all of them played last year. They were well-versed in strategy - they knew that at this level, aggressive baserunning is a winner. Definitely a talking point for the next game. I do think we're not so far away from them, and with some improvements I'll like our chances against them next time.

Next game is Monday, then I'll miss two games due to travels. I'm already thinking about lineups and pitchers.

Texas v. The Disabled

About 30 members of American Disabled For Attendant Programs Today protested in front of Governor Perry's office yesterday, with six of them being arrested for criminal trespass after Perry refused to meet with them.

The group [...] had sought assurances from Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick that services for disabled Texans would not be cut in the upcoming budget.

"They refused to meet with us today. They refused to give us a commitment and so we refused to leave," said Jennifer McPhail, 31, as she was being led to a bus by Department of Public Safety officers assigned to the Capitol.

Fellow members of ADAPT, meanwhile, kept their vigil outside the governor's office, saying they also were willing to be arrested if they could not speak to the governor.

Nineteen of those protesters who chose to stay in the building were issued summonses for criminal trespass on the spot and allowed to leave the Capitol. They were given dates to appear in court over the next two months, according to the Associated Press.

Jose Lara of El Paso, is a quadriplegic who has movement only in his right arm, from the elbow to the fingers. He lives with his 87-year-old mother, who cares for him because he is unable to care for himself.

Lara is among 60,000 disabled Texans who will have to fend for themselves if they lose their Texas Department of Human Services and prescription medication benefits under proposed budget cuts.

"If they cut this program I won't be able to make it," he said. "I won't be able to get up."

Perry had apparently offered to meet with them next week, an offer they rejected because they fear that next week will be too far in the budget process. (Remember, the House has already approved a budget, though it still has to go through the Senate and be certified by Comtroller Strayhorn.)

Dewhurst said he has met with many groups of disabled people this session.

"I think the Senate's record over this session has been a continued commitment to doing what's right, to providing the essential services for the people of Texas without raising taxes on the hardworking people of Texas," said Dewhurst.

Craddick was unavailable for comment Thursday.

Sen. Judith Zaffirini, vice-chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the committee's top priority is finding more money to serve people with disabilities.

She said people with the most critical needs, such as those who are bedridden, will be served. She added that the committee is looking for money to be able to serve those who are less severely disabled, such as those who need help getting in and out of bed or their wheelchairs.

I've already praised David Dewhurst for the good work he's done so far, but he and Senator Zaffirini, among many others, aren't seeing the whole picture here. The price of not looking for new revenue sources is screwing people who need help, whether it's these folks or mentally handicapped folks or uninsured children or the elderly. You can't fit over $60 billion worth of need into a $58 billion or less budget. Something has to give, and the way things are headed, it'll have to give again in 2005.

If there really were a priority placed on funding the needs of people who desperately depend on government support, we'd be doing more than just cutting nearly non-existent fat from the budget and closing the occasional tax loophole. We'd be committed to making the tax system fair, representative, and sufficiently broad based so as not to overburden any particular group. We might consider extending the franchise tax to include limited liability partnerships, which would thus cover law firms, for example.

State leadership has made a choice about who will feel the brunt of our budget woes. I will keep on saying that it's a bad choice until it sinks in.

Off the CUF

I have been informed by commenter David in this post that the New York City Center for an Urban Future, known as CUF, has a blog called "Off the CUF". It's visible on the front page, and there's an archive of past items here. They have some interesting articles there, so stop by and check it out.

Pfc. Jessica Lynch, made for TV

NBC is set to make a movie out of the ordeal of rescued American POW Pfc. Jessica Lynch, even though her family has not sold her story to them.

"Like the rest of America, we shared in the collective thrill of witnessing the heroic and dramatic rescue of Private First Class Jessica Lynch. Her inspiring story is one that provides a message of hope despite great odds," the network said in a statement.

I'm not a made for TV movie kind of guy, so I'll be skipping this one. I do hope the movie takes the time to talk about the nine dead American soldiers who were recovered in the same operation that rescued Pfc. Lynch, at least seven of whom were in her unit and one of whom, Pfc. Lori Ann Piestewa, was the first female American soldier killed in action. I can't say I have a lot of faith that the moviemakers will do so in a manner that doesn't cheapen their deaths, however.

Is this the right room for a disagreement?

The fine folks at Disagreement, Inc are looking for "Democrats or Greens from Texas (or even better, Houston) that are interested in trying out the group blog thing" to help round out their roster. If you'd like to give blogging a whirl, bop on over and drop Alex Whitlock a note. It's fun, it's free, it's the Next Big Thing - what are you waiting for?

A letter to the Hall of Fame

Dear Mr. Petroskey:

I'm a lifelong baseball fan. I've lived and died with the Yankees from the days of Horace Clarke and Ron Blomberg, the never-a-dull-moment era of the Bronx Zoo, the long dry spell of the 80s when we went through managers faster than Hootie Johnson goes through Bryl-Creem, and finally the glorious revival of Joe Torre and Brian Cashman. Nothing brings a smile to my face faster than the realization that there's a game on and I have no pressing matters to stop me from watching.

I believe that baseball is sacred, and the Hall of Fame is its cathedral. There are many Halls of Fame in the world, but only one that needs no extra descriptive words to make clear which one you mean. There's Cooperstown, and there's everywhere else.

Which is why I was terribly disappointed to hear that you have taken it upon yourself to speak for my Hall of Fame (for surely it belongs to all of us) and decreed that you cannot allow the celebration of a great baseball movie because you do not approve of some things that its stars have said recently. In doing so, you have assumed that one of the great American institutions cannot abide the even greater American institution of free expression.

You, Dale Petroskey, have decided that the Hall of Fame is only for people who agree with you. You, Dale Petroskey, have foisted your own personal politics on a place that transcends politics. You, Dale Petroskey, have decreed that what you want is more important than the Hall itself.

You, sir, are wrong.

If Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon had chosen to take a celebration of the movie Bull Durham and turn it into a soapbox for their views, it would not have diminished the Hall in any way. It would have diminished them for being crass and opportunistic. I believe their remarks in response to your banishment demonstrate that they understood this, but even if they hadn't, it is they who would have suffered as a result. Not the Hall of Fame, which is above such petty matters.

By your actions, you have proven to be the crass and opportunistic one. Long after you have gone, when the Hall of Fame has celebrated its first century and welcomed untold new members and visitors, people will remember what you did. They will remember that you clearly demonstrated how unsuitable you are for the role that you now occupy. They will know that in the end, you had no faith in the enduring magic of the Hall.

That will be your legacy. I hope you fully appreciate it, and I hope you never get a chance to expand on it.

Sincerely yours,

A true baseball fan

UPDATE: I actually sent this letter, as is (without the HTML tags), to info@baseballhalloffame.org. I will print any response I get, but I'm not holding my breath. Other contact information can be found at Eschaton. Others who have commented include Eric McErlain, Jeff Cooper, Daily Kos, and Doug Pappas. Will Carroll of the Baseball Prospectus has excised the term "Hall of Fame" from his vocabulary.

UPDATE: Slacktivist has his own letter up.

A cause we can all get behind

TBogg is mad as hell, and he's not going to take it any more. He's started a petition in response to the awful news (warning: multiple obnoxious popups) that JLo and Ben Affleck are signed on to do a remake of Casablanca. I think all of us, wherever we are on the political spectrum, can agree that this is an abomination of Biblical proportions and that it Must Be Stopped. Please do what you can to prevent this disaster from infecting multiplexes across America.

Having said all that, I feel compelled to note that the mainstream press does not appear to have taken notice of this, even though the mere mention of the words "JLo" and "Ben Affleck" are usually enough to induce palpitations. Oddly, a Google search reveals variations of this story in French, Italian, German, Danish, Romanian, and Portuguese. Were it not for the appearance on a British page as well, I'd be wondering darkly if this weren't some kind of dirty trick being played on us Americans by a bunch of peacenik foreigners. You decide, I guess.

UPDATE: Great comment by Mike:

J.Lo and Ben are the tabloid press equivalent of Saddam's Iraq with the papers playing the role of the Bush Administration. They do plenty of horrible stuff that's actually true, but for some reason, the papers have the need to make up stuff that's even worse.

Indeed.

Silver Linings Dept.

Among the many items that have been cut or threatened to be cut by our slash-and-burn Legislature this year has been school textbooks. This has led to at least one oddly satisfying outcome:

A social studies textbook that identifies Ann Richards as the current governor will continue to be used in Texas schools if lawmakers cut $382 million for updated material from the state budget, a group of educators said Wednesday.

Richards has not been governor since January 1995. The current governor is Rick Perry.

Somehow, pretending that the governors who succeeded Ann Richards don't exist makes this otherwise glum possibility a bit easier to take.

All good things

Thus endeth the Rice Owl baseball team's winning streak at 30 games, as they dropped a 7-5 decision to Lamar. As someone noted on the Rice fan forum, a winning streak at the end of the season beats one in the middle of the season. Rice now stands at 33-2, ranked #1 in all polls. Go Owls!

Budget update

I haven't had much to say about the state budget lately, but in the last few days we've had some interesting developments. There's a fight brewing between the Lege and the Comptroller, as the House Appropriations Committe approved a budget that included $500 million from the Rainy Day fund to help close this year's $1.8 billion gap, and Carole Keeton Strayhorn is none too happy about it.

"I have repeatedly expressed my concerns about raiding the Rainy Day Fund, one-time funding sources and delaying payments. When it gets down to 'lick-log' time -- certifying the budget -- I will not abdicate my responsibility," she said. "I will be one tough grandma watching out for Texas."

Gag me. Strayhorn doesn't have a whole lot of credibility with me right now, given that she insisted on sunny revenue numbers before the election, then abruptly changed her mind afterwards. Now we hear that we can expect a second consecutive year of lower sales tax receipts, it's a fair question to ask when we'll ever start to look around for, you know, other sources of revenue so we don't have to cut our already decimated budget even more in 2005.

Honestly, I don't quite understand Strayhorn's obsession about the Rainy Day fund. I'm not the only one, either:

Strayhorn, speaking to students at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, again defended her desire to protect the $1 billion Rainy Day Fund from legislative spending. "It is there for a true emergency source of cash," she said.

[...]

During a question-and-answer session, one student pressed Strayhorn about her stance and suggested the sagging economy and Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have helped to create an emergency.

"It's about as rainy as it's ever going to get," he said.

Strayhorn stood her ground.

"When you don't have a surplus," she said, "I feel very strongly that you need a Rainy Day Fund."

Well, I'd say that when you have surpluses you don't really need a Rainy Day fund. It's when you have, you know, a Rainy Day, that you need such a fund. Maybe it isn't pouring out, but I can sure feel some drops. How much worse is it going to get?

Here's a test of Republican resolve: Close a gaping loophole in our silly tax system that will help alleviate our cash crunch but piss off a major donor.

The legislation would prohibit businesses from avoiding the state's main business tax, called the franchise tax, by changing from one type of legal structure to another, such as from a corporation to a partnership. Under current state law, partnerships are not subject to the franchise tax.

The practice is known as forming a Delaware sub because companies incorporate on paper there and in other states where taxes are lower and then organize into a virtually tax-free partnerships here.

In Texas, Dell Computer Corp., SBC Communications and some large newspapers are organized this way and avoid Texas franchise taxes.

Wilson's bill would bring in $166 million in fiscal year 2004, $239 million in 2005 and $277 million by 2008, according to the comptroller's office.

Can they do it? After all the talk about belt-tightening and all of the hits social services have had to take, I hope no one scrounges up too much sympathy for Dell and SBC.

One small piece of good news is that Governor Perry can't hide behind some made-up privacy concerns to keep the public drafts of his budget secret from the public.

Responding to requests from The Associated Press, the San Antonio Express-News and the Austin American-Statesman, the governor's office said in February that draft budget copies and other related materials should be kept private because of exceptions in the Texas Public Information Act.

Disclosing the documents would discourage the "frank exchange of information among government staff and agencies," Perry's office said in requesting an attorney general's opinion.

Not even the Republican Attorney General bought it. Perry will be releasing the papers Real Soon Now, as well he should.

Clear Channel to end pay-for-play

Hot off the presses, as it were:

Clear Channel Communications Inc. on Wednesday said it would cut ties with music promoters who are paid by record labels to trumpet songs to radio stations, saying the long-standing practice gives the appearance of "pay for play."

Clear Channel, the top U.S. radio station owner, has been a lightening rod for criticism of the industry that so-called independent promoters use payments to influence what songs are played on radio stations.

Under the practice, which has been scrutinized by lawmakers, independent promoters charge music companies to tout their records. They then pay radio companies for often-exclusive access to station programmers and early information about their playlists.

Clear Channel, which is based in San Antonio, Texas, and operates about 1,200 stations, said it will stop working with these promoters when existing deals run out this summer to avoid the appearance that its playlists are influenced by payments.

In a statement, Clear Channel President and Chief Operating Officer Mark Mays said the company recognizes that "these relationships may appear to be something they're not."

"We have zero tolerance for "pay for play,' but want to avoid even the suggestion that such a practice takes place within our company," he said

I'm not sure how much effect this will really have - it certainly won't affect "classic rock" and other non-new-music-playing stations. It won't affect me, since the only Clear Channel outlet I ever tune to is a demographically appropriate classic rock station. And frankly, I'm way too cynical to think that Clear Channel is doing this for any reason other than to beat back the long overdue rising tide of radio re-regulation. But as always, I'll take my victories where I can.

On a side note, on my way back from lunch I heard a guy call in to the classic rock station to request "Freebird". What, they don't play it often enough?

Let me introduce you to your "delete" key

I'm on a mailing list for a local pub. Apparently, the mail they sent out last night tripped a couple of antivirus filters. Unfortunately, the standard behavior of many corporate antivirus software installations is to send a reply to the message originator informing them of the virus and the action taken to protect them. When the originator is a mailing list with "reply-to" set to "all", the end result is a bunch of these messages going to people who don't understand why they're getting them, which in turn leads to "why am I getting this mail?" and "please remove me from this list" messages which also go to everyone since "reply-to" is still set to "all". We're at 25 such messages and counting, and it's not yet 8 AM.

Sigh. There are days when I'd like to meet the person who invented email and smack him a good one.

Score one for Ronnie Earle

Ronnie Earle, the Hardest Workin' Man in Texas Politics, scored a victory today when State District Judge Mike Lynch ruled that the Texas Association of Business must answer questions before a grand jury about its advertising campaign from the 2002 election.

[Judge Lynch] said the group does not have to release the names of its corporate members or donors unless prosecutors show that the names are relevant to the criminal investigation. But the judge said the group will have to provide details about the advertising campaign, including the amount and date of the corporate donations and the type of businesses financing the effort.

"The fact that a question inadvertently reveals a donor or member does not render it objectionable as long as the question is otherwise within the scope of this order," Lynch wrote.

So if my layman's reading of this is correct, the DA can ask questions about the group's members, just not who they are, and if someone in attendance puts two and two together and figures out a name, that's the way it goes for TAB. I guess that's a reasonable middle ground. Any lawyers out there want to expand on this?

Thanks again to Alfredo Garcia for the tip.

That coercive baptism story

Just about everyone has blogged about this story, which features an Army chaplain who controls a 500-gallon supply of water and will let dirty soldiers take a bath only if he baptizes them first. Not surprisingly, it's generated a huge outcry in the blog world, and justifiably so.

And it looks like the Army has received the message:

A newspaper article about Josh Llano, 32, generated numerous e-mails and phone calls, said Lt. Col. Eric Wester, a chaplain and spokesman for the Chaplain Corps based in Virginia.

Wester said the article, and the response, got the immediate attention of the corps' chief, Maj. Gen. Gaylord T. Gunhus, who has requested that top chaplain officials looked into whether the article was accurate.

"The chief was immediately concerned about the nature of this article and negative reflection that it casts," Wester said. "The question then arose to what degree is the information in the article accurate. The content of the article clearly raises immediate questions."

[...]

Wester would not say what punishment, if any, could be taken if Llano indeed did do what the article described. He said the chief wants more information before any action is taken.

He said Gunhus' response can be read two ways.

"It's good in the sense that it shows his commitment to the standards we have about free exercise of religion," Wester said. "It's bad because it's bringing very negative public perception on Army chaplaincy."

[...]

"It's very important and absolutely critical chaplains uphold the highest standard in terms of respect for not only performing rites and sacraments of their own faith, but providing for religious needs of all in that area of operation," Wester said.

Stay tuned, I guess. Thanks to Ginger for the catch.

DH and DST

I've decided that daylight savings time is a lot like the designated hitter. They're both relatively recent inventions, they both artificially alter a well-established system, and they both generate an irrational amount of fear and loathing.

Personally, I like both of them. I'd rather spend an extra hour in the darnkess than watch the average pitcher take a turn at bat. I grew up with the DH - hell, I remember Ron Blomberg - so it's always been the natural order of things to me. This may be my fifteenth season in a National League city, but that hasn't altered my opinion. You can take all your sacrifice bunts, your silly double switches, and your pinch-hitting-by-a-utility-infielder. I'd rather watch Edgar Martinez.

As for DST, I get up to go to work a little after 5 AM. Were there no DST, I'd be waking up to sunshine in June and July. It's infinitely nicer to have that sunshine after dinner, when I can enjoy it. I can almost understand the anti-DH arguments, but I'll never grok the anti-DST logic. Time zones and our 24-hour clock are equally artificial, so why does a little tinkering with it bother you? Spring forward, people, it's good for you!

(Note: the link to te DH article at Mike's Baseball Rants may be blogspotty, so if you wind up someplace weird, look for the April 7 entry entitled "Boxing Pandora".)

Doctor! It hurts me when I do this!

Just what the City of Houston needs, another rathole to throw its money down.

The city of Houston Legal Department is asking for more money to preserve the city's sexually oriented business law, which it beefed up five years ago but has been unable to enforce because it's been tied up in court.

The city has spent $450,000 to uphold changes to its ordinance, designed in part to restrict where the businesses can locate.

Now the city wants another $40,000 to see the case through the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which is expected to rule within two months whether the distance requirements are legal.

Well, at least they're fighting for a law that's had a real effect, right?

City leaders are dismayed that the ordinance -- approved by an entirely different City Council -- is basically useless. Nearly 30 adult entertainment clubs have set up shop while the law has been challenged.

"Not only are we spending hundreds of thousands to fight it, but it doesn't seem to be living up to its purpose," Councilwoman Annise Parker said.

The changes were enacted in 1997 to keep the businesses 1,500 feet from a residential area, school, church, park or day-care.

Some of the clubs appealed, and a federal judge said the requirement -- which doubled the previous distance of 750 feet -- was unconstitutional. The city appealed to the 5th Circuit.

Well, okay, but now that the city is fighting it has to keep fighting, right?

On Monday, Ross Allyn, a lobbyist for several of the clubs, informally proposed dropping the lawsuit if businesses in existence before the 1997 changes are grandfathered in under the old rules.

He maintains the city could end its expensive litigation and have an enforceable law. It would also likely put 26 new adult entertainment venues out of business.

Well, okay, but surely the end is in sight, right?

The city expects the 5th Circuit to uphold its law. But both sides agree that whatever the court rules, it will likely be appealed.

That sound you hear is me banging my head against the wall.

A few notes: As observed in the article, the clubs' settlement offer probably would not be the end of litigation, since there have been about 30 new clubs opened since the law was passed, and they are not a part of this lawsuit. There's no guarantee that they'd sue, though, and I think the city would be on firmer ground here since after all these clubs came into existence after the law was on the books. Finally, if you think this whole thing is pointless, one person you shouldn't blame is Lee Brown, for the law was passed (and the lawsuit was filed) before he was elected. The blame goes to former Council member Helen "Ross Perot In Drag" Huey.

Naughty spam and eager lawyers

Via Howard Bashman comes this article about the possible "hostile work environment" ramifications of unwanted pornographic email.

"You have to provide a workplace that's free of sexual harassment. That right is so clearly established that no employer could say, 'I didn't know I had to do that,' if they're on notice about sex spam," said Michael Modl, an attorney who specializes in workplace harassment claims at the Madison, Wis., law firm of Axley Brynelson.

The legal arguments have not yet been tested in court, but scholars say the combination of lucrative damages and porn spam's steadily increasing volume will make lawsuits drawing on at-work porn spam inevitable. Statistics compiled by analysts at antispam-software company Brightmail show that pornographic solicitations represent the fastest-growing category of unwanted e-mail ads, doubling as a percentage of spam in the last few years.

Many of those messages come with images linked to outside Web sites, images that are displayed automatically in the preview panes of popular e-mail clients such as Microsoft's Outlook, potentially exposing even cautious e-mail users to offensive pictures and to various security issues. Microsoft has said it plans to tweak the image default settings in a pending version of Outlook to prevent pictures from showing up on a computer screen without the consent of the user. The move is necessary to curtail spam, the company said, without specifically mentioning porn.

I've seen a lot of this sort of thing in my job. There are a number of reasonable things a corporation can do to curtail spam, some of which are more expensive than others. I looked at Brightmail awhile back, and while I've no doubt they're good, they ain't cheap. All filter solutions impose some risk of rejecting legitimate mail - the filters at Tiffany's workplace are tuned to reject anything with swear words in it, which has caused quite a few unintended bounces - and all of them require the time of one or more technicians. The first few times these cases get litigated, juries are going to have to decide what a "reasonable" effort by a company to block offensive mail is.

One thing that isn't often mentioned in this context is user training. Someone has to find your email address in order to abuse it. Filling out web forms, giving it to vendors, posting to newsgroups - there's all sorts of ways for your address to get harvested, and I guarantee that many employees don't know about them. I can imagine an affirmative defense of "We gave you all kinds of training about appropriate use of email, it's your own fault spammers found you".

Hans Bader, an attorney at the Center for Individual Rights, has criticized "hostile environment" laws as violating free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Logically, he said, mass e-mail should not count as sex discrimination because spammers don't know the sex of the person who reads it.

Bader said that courts, especially state courts, still take an expansive view of sexual harassment, but he predicts that will change over time as courts become more sensitive to free speech concerns.

"It's ironic to treat gross e-mails as sex discrimination against women, since that assumes that women are especially sensitive and mentally frailer than men are--if it offends them equally, there is no discrimination," Bader said. "Yet that is what sexual harassment law does now in many jurisdictions--it bans sexual speech because people think women are uniquely offended by it. It is based on sexual stereotypes."

Now this guy is just wrong. First of all, I think he's the sexist for assuming that blocking porn spams is designed to protect women. Many of my male coworkers are offended by ads for penis enlargement and incest videos. Is it impossible, or even unlikely, that some men might eventually litigate against an employer that paid no heed to their complaints? Besides, the issue is not who is more offended by porno spams, it's how a company deals with the concerns of its employees. In addition, someone who claims that unwanted commercial email is somehow a free speech issue is someone who's never had to support an email system. You do not have the right to use my resources to sell your products. Finally, and no doubt somewhat ironically, there would be much less reason to be concerned about the potential of these lawsuits if we had better anti-spam laws on the books. Too bad this guy opposes such legislation.

Walter Olson, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who runs the Overlawyered.com site, predicts that trial lawyers will find porn-spam lawsuits to be a growth industry.

"Once an employee complains, and asks the employer to install blocking, the liability risk in not doing so grows more acute," Olson said.

Frankly, I can't see too many companies getting nailed by this. There's already a lot of sensitivity to sexual harassment, and there are legit reasons besides "hostile workplace" concerns to battle the scourge of spam. I'll be more than a little surprised if such lawsuits become commonplace. I can see a high-profile case or two being decided for the plaintiff, but I can't see this becoming a bonanza.

Some days you win, some days you lose...

...and some days it rains, as Nuke LaLoosh once said. Today it's raining, and our opening game has been postponed. Rats!

According to the email I received that informed me of the rainout, it's the coaches' job to figure out when the game can be rescheduled. That's more complication than I bargained for. I'll have to speak to one of the league guys about that and get some clarification.

We'll have a practice on Thursday, which will serve as a last tuneup for our new opening game on Saturday. I stayed and watched a couple innings of another game last Saturday after the team pictures were taken, and there are a few things I want to point out, such as reminding everyone of the dropped third strike rule - I saw two batters reach base the same inning that way. A little more work for the pitchers, especially the guys who didn't get to throw last time, would also be nice.

I'm really disappointed. I was ready for today, and now I've got to wait until Saturday. It's a letdown, but that's how it goes.

An unexpected power of blogging

This is an amazing story about how someone was saved from a bad relationship thanks to one of his blog readers. Wow. Via Electrolite.

Sidebar question: If old media types are still writing feature articles about blogs a year or so from now, do you think this story will be cited as an example of their capabilities?

The National Anthem

For you history buffs, the story of playing the Star Spangled Banner at baseball games.

The first indisputable record of the playing of "The Star Spangled Banner" for a Major League game was for a unique World Series. The premature series in 1918 featured Babe Ruth and the Boston Red Sox winning their last Series against the even more hapless Cubs. A year earlier the World Series had been unaffected by the United States' entry into the World War. But following the completion of the 1917 season, players enlisted and were drafted into the armed services. At the height of the 1918 season, baseball was classified as a non - essential occupation. Consequently, the government cut the season short, requiring the end of regular season play by Labor Day and the completion of the World Series by mid - September.

The playing of "The Star Spangled Banner" can first be verified by a New York Times report of the 1918 World Series. In the inning-by-inning recap of the first game, the report of the bottom of the seventh - inning notes that as the Cubs came to bat the band delayed play by playing "The Star Spangled Banner.'" Players and fans stood in civilian salute, most holding their caps over their hearts, while Red Sox' third baseman Fred Thomas, a Great Lakes sailor, assumed "the military pose" (NY Times, 9/06/1918, p. 14). The pre - game ceremony on that afternoon had been minimal. While the managers and umpires were exchanging line - up cards at home plate and going over the ground rules, a huge horseshoe of roses was presented to Cubs manager Fred Mitchell, and a big bouquet of roses was handed to Cubs third baseman Charles Deal.

They stood up before the start of the bottom of the seventh, eh? I wonder if that's a possible explanation for the seventh inning stretch. Probably not, since it was played before the game at Fenway later in that World Series, but hey, you never know.

(Speaking of the seventh inning stretch, did you know that the lyrics we all sing to Take Me Out To The Ballgame are really just the chorus to that song? I didn't.)

Our expanding prison system

Some poor schmuck has just become our nation's two millionth inmate. I'm willing to bet there was no prize for this distinction.

This article contains a truly puzzling segment:

In a one-day head count conducted June 30, 2002, the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the federal government held 1,355,748 prisoners, accounting for two-thirds of the nation's incarcerated population, according to the annual survey by the department's Bureau of Justice Statistics. Local, municipal and county facilities nationwide held 665,475 inmates on that day.

Statisticians at the agency, which has been tracking the nation's prison population since 1977, had acknowledged it was only a matter of time before this benchmark was reached. But underlying the decades-long growth trend is a twist: The federal prison numbers are rising rapidly, but the growth rate in state prisons is slowing. While the federal prison system expanded by 5.7 percent between 2001 and 2002 -- adding 8,042 inmates -- state prisons grew by just 0.9 percent, or 12,440 new inmates. The rate of increase among the federal prison population has outpaced the states' since 1995.

It took me quite some time to make sense of the numbers in these paragraphs, and I had to seach Google News to find other versions of this story to figure it out. This article contained the key:

The federal government accounted for more inmates than any state, with almost 162,000, according to a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, part of the Justice Department. That number includes the transfer of about 8,900 District of Columbia prisoners to the federal system.

OK, 8000 is about 5.7% of 154,000, bringing us to 162,000. That leaves about 1,290,000 for the states, so now the 0.9% growth based on 12,440 additions fits. When I first read this story, I thought the 1,355,748 number represented all federal inmates, while the 665,745 figure meant all state prisoners. I hadn't realized that the distinction was between "prison" (i.e., convicts serving their sentences) and "jail" (i.e., arrestees awaiting trial/arraignment/bail/etc). Now I realize the 1.3 million total lumped federal and state inmates together, so I'd have had to infer the federal versus state prison totals from the growth rates given. Easy enough if you remember "part over whole equals percent over 100", but more work than I'd bargained for when I started reading.

Morales pleads innocent

Missed this last week, but former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales pleaded not guilty to the mail fraud and conspiracy charges against him stemming from the tobacco lawsuit settlement. No word in this article when the trial is set to start, so I guess I'll have to keep my eyes open.

March traffic report

March was my second-best month for traffic, beating out last December by a nose at just over 6500 visitors. It actually started out slowly, then got a strong boost when Sean-Paul blogrolled me.

The visible counter on the lower right rolled past 50,000 right after April began. That counter was installed immediately when this site came online, when my old blog was still active. At this rate, I expect to have had about 70,000 visitors in my first full year on this site.

As always, thanks to everyone for visiting and for coming back. The top referrers and search engine queries for March are beneath the More link.

Aggregators, collections, indices, etc
======================================

725: http://radio.userland.com/newsAggregator

159: http://www.technorati.com/

138: http://blogdex.media.mit.edu/

97:  http://www.weblogs.com/

81:  http://radio.xmlstoragesystem.com/rcsPublic/

67:  http://www.popdex.com/

57:  http://ranchero.com/software/netnewswire/

52:  http://www.dansanderson.com/blogtracker/

Weblog referrers

================

697: The Agonist

616: Electrolite

501: TAPPED

465: Daily Kos

280: Amish Tech Support

196: Atrios

122: Matthew Yglesias

97:  Tom Spencer

96:  Calpundit

90:  Owen Courreges

84:  Garden Spot

72:  Ted Barlow

66:  Cooped Up

62:  Coffee Corner



Top search terms

================

#reqs: search term

-----: -----------

   85: delma banks

   76: pro war cartoons

   58: prime number algorithm

   57: dan morales

   56: hooters airline

   52: women of enron

   46: ron kirk

   46: debbie clemens

   43: marnie rose

   39: wicked weasel

   37: hooters airplane

   29: mastercard moments

   29: shari daugherty

   27: girls with glasses

   26: welcome to north korea

   23: ut hacker

   21: talk like a pirate day

   21: dr marnie rose

   21: stan goff

   19: redneck neighbor

A few shoutouts

I've seen a bunch of new URLs in my referral logs lately, so I'd like to take a moment and mention them.

Disturbing Trends, from New Zealand.
Ezra Klein, who watches C-Span so I don't have to.
Byrd's Brain, by Not That Robert Byrd.
Maximum strength Painpill, from the University of Chicago.
Zizka's Vanity Site.
She Sells Sanctuary, which always puts that song by The Cult in my head.
The Yes/No Interlude, whom I need to add to the Texas Political Bloggers list.
Gorilla-a-Gogo, now on my short list of Best Blog Names.
The Cheesesteak, whose index page photos are making me hungry.
Carl With a K, who is Not Just Another Hollywood Liberal.
The Lofty, another college student blogger. There are days when I wonder if I'd have ever graduated if blogging had been available in the 80s. I killed a pretty impressive amount of time writing a once-a-week sports column in college, after all.
If all those college bloggers don't make you feel old, try Dodona, who is a New York City high school student.
Unknown News, not quite a blog but interesting anyway.
The mostly techy phpMP.

Thanks for reading and for linking. I do appreciate it.

UPDATE: Naturally, a day later I find another one, Prairie Point, and he's a fellow Texan.

Are we going to have gambling or not?

Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn thinks video gambling would be a peachy way to raise revenue without imposing taxes. She continues to deride proposals to delay payments until the next budget cycle as "irresponsible". Senate Finance Committee Chairman Teel Bivins (R, Amarillo) thinks she's all wet.

"It looks to me like it's a legitimate (accounting) mechanism that's getting a bum rap," Bivins said from his Capitol office, where reporters gathered for the latest war of words between Republicans on the budget. "I'd rather vote for a payment delay than a games bill."

[...]

Bivins defended the delayed-payment maneuver as an idea the state employed in 1991 and 1993 with no disastrous effects. He said he voted for the delays then and also voted to pay the bill back in 1995.

For the 2004-2005 budget cycle, Bivins proposes delaying $845 million in the Foundation School Program, $369 million in the Teacher Retirement System, $17.5 million for the Employee Retirement System and $376 million in motor fuels tax.

"When I poll on this question, I have enough votes to enact these," he said of the Senate.

While I have sympathy for the claim that pushing back payments for a few days is just playing a shell game, I'll say again that the only reason people like Teel Bivins suggest it is because our state budget is artificially constricted by the need to be balanced by an arbitrary date. Do you pay all of your credit card bills in full on time every single month? In essence, Bivins wants Texas to carry a balance in the hopes that revenue flow will be a bit better next year.

Of course, it's more than a bit disingenuous of Governor Perry and crew to be so appalled by the proposed use of this rather standard tactic in this Legislative session. None of them were concerned when our previous Governor did the same thing in better times. They're committed to cutting the budget at any cost.

As for Strayhorn's idea, haven't we learned the lessons of our initial foray into state-sponsored gambling yet?

Get me to the church on time

Congrats to Sean-Paul and Tatiana for their wedding celebration today!

On supporting the troops

Dwight Meredith provides a wish-I'd-said-that moment:

If we think that the Iraqi people can distinguish our efforts against Saddam from ill will towards the people of Iraq while the bombs are dropping the bullets flying, why do we think that our soldiers cannot distinguish between support for the administration’s policy and support for the troops?

Indeed.

Ronnie Earle, the hardest working man in Austin

As if investigating Tom DeLay's political committee TRM and secret legislative meetings weren't enough, Travis County DA Ronnie Earle is back in court arguing that the Texas Association of Business should not be allowed to hide its donor list from a grand jury investigation.

At Earle's request, a Travis County grand jury is investigating a $2 million campaign that TAB ran last year to help 20 Republicans win House seats. The effort helped give the GOP a majority in the House, and that led to the election of Republican Tom Craddick as speaker.

State law bans the use of corporate money to politick directly for or against a candidate. Donations to candidates by individuals or political action committees must be disclosed.

TAB has admitted that it used corporate donations to fund its advertising. But it argues that the donations were legal and are not subject to disclosure because the advertising discussed candidates' positions on business-related issues and did not specifically advocate the election or defeat of anyone.

TAB claims that its First Amendment rights to free speech and free association will be violated if it has to surrender a list of its corporate donors to the grand jury.

This case has implications in two lawsuits that I noted in November.

I have to say that I want the judge to rule in Earle's favor, not because I'm a "sore loser" (as the TAB claims Earle is) over last November's election, but because I think that politics should be open and not secret. I think that TAB should be free to raise money and run issues ads, as long as those ads identify TAB as the creator of the ad, and the source of TAB's money for those ads is publicly available. Basically, I don't think corporations should have the same rights as individuals do here. I believe the public interest in knowing who's paying for whose election overrides the interest of TAB's memberships to pay for advertisements anonymously.

For the record, I used to favor McCain/Feingold-style campaign finance reform. I've since come to the conclusion that attempting to limit political money is like building sandcastles to slow down the tide. I'll settle for knowing who's paying for what in a timely manner.

I recognize that there's all sorts of slippery slope potential in there, but I don't think what's being advocated by Ronnie Earle is particularly broad. And frankly, if there were stonger laws in place that protected consumers' privacy, I'd be a tad more sympathetic to the bidnessmen here.

There are some good quotes which are not in the Chron story here and here. Once again, thanks to Alfredo Garcia for the heads up.

Tulia's other problem

Now that all of the Tulia drug bust convictions have been vacated, Swisher County has another issue to think about: getting its ass sued off.

Minutes after a judge ruled Tuesday that the convictions of 38 defendants should be overturned, the county commission held a special closed session to try to head off costly civil suits by offering cash settlements to those who were improperly imprisoned.

"The decision was not about the guilt or innocence of any of the defendants," County Judge Harold Keeter said in a written statement after the meeting. "It was about protecting the taxpayers of this county and bringing closure to a situation that has disrupted and occupied our citizens for 3 1/2 years."

The settlement amounts offered range from $2,000 for those who served no time up to $12,000 for the 13 who are still in prison.

It was estimated the deal would cost the county $250,000.

Twelve grand for four years in prison? I don't think so. Let's start with four years' worth of lost wages, and go from there. And if that puts Swisher County in the red, let them appeal to the state of Texas, which was happy to name Tom Coleman "Lawman of the Year" when they thought he was one of the good guys. I don't care how they get the money, but twelve grand for four years in the joint just doesn't cut it.

Speaking of the pokey, Tom Coleman may find himself there as a result of this:

Rod Hobson, a Lubbock attorney who was appointed special prosecutor for the hearings ordered by the appellate court to review the convictions, said there is more work to be done.

"We are considering all options in this case," he said, "including seeking a criminal indictment from a grand jury."

One possible criminal charge is perjury, lawyers involved in the case have said. Coleman testified at length during the hearings and, the lawyers said, changed his story more than once.

Damn straight. Without Tom Coleman's make believe testimony, none of this would have happened. He's got to pay for it.

Thus endeth spring training

Ready or not, Monday is the first game for the Mustang Twins. We had a pretty good last practice yesterday, and the boys were all excited about getting their uniforms, but I've got some concerns. Part of it is just that I don't know what the rest of the competition is like. I fear that as there had been a draft for players by the coaches and that this team had been put together without a coach, this team may not be as talented as the others. Not that I care about winning a league title or anything like that, but I am concerned that not being competitive will ruin the fun for the kids.

I hope I'm wrong about that, but I'll find out one way or the other on Monday. More immediately, I'm concerned about a couple of kids in particular. This team has some less-talented kids with good self confidence, and some more-talented kids who seem to lack self confidence. One barely stands in the batter's box because he fears getting hit by a pitch. Unfortunately, in a 9- and 10-year-old league with kids pitching, one cannot credibly say that he has nothing to worry about. The tack we've taken is to point out that he'll always have enough time to duck out of the way. So far, that's been the case, so maybe that will help him.

Another has a strong thowing arm and has been slated to do some pitching, but lately has been frustrated by an inability to throw strikes. He asked me after this practice if I'd not pitch him instead. I've told him to keep working at it and that I'd like him to try again later in the season. Frankly, we need all the arms we can get.

If it sounds like I'm feeling negative, I'm really not. I've thoroughly enjoyed this experience, and I think we'll have fun regardless of what else happens. I'm more worried about hurting someone's feelings than the outcome of any given game. All I can do is try to project confidence and hope the kids follow my lead.

Team Picture Day is tomorrow. I'll try to post a photo after I get one.

It's not just Big Media that doesn't get it

I'm with Ginger on this one: This has got to be the least clueful article written about blogs that I've ever seen.

Cheryl Currid is of course not writing about blogs from a media perspective but from a business perspective, so I suppose she can be forgiven for not knowing some of the big names. Not mentioning that Movable Type has a commercial license is a more serious omission, the sort of thing that says to me "she didn't do any actual research before she wrote this". We won't even mention the fact that she gave no real suggestion how a blog could be profitably used in a business environment, let alone an example of such a business. Too much information, I guess.

And after all that, she basically admits that she doesn't know what she's writing about when she says that she thinks blogs are "weird". That'll sure get those purchase orders flowing.

Blogs are nonstandard technology. From my perspective, blogs are weird. They can contain inconsequential chatter, prone to individual, not corporate communications, and come out of left field. But that's exactly the direction from which other tsunami business technologies have come.

Is it just me, or does this paragraph sound like something a broker might have said about tech stocks in 1997 or so? "Yeah, I have no idea how Salon.com plans to turn a profit, but by God the Internet is gonna be the Next Big Thing, so you better get on board now!"

Some more info in DeLay and TRM

A couple of newspaper articles to supplement what we've read so far about Travis County DA Ronnie Earle's investigation into Texans for a Republican Majority, Tom DeLay's political committee. First, from the DMN, a recapitulation of what we know so far, plus a couple of juicy quotes. I love this one:

Bill Ceverha, of Dallas, the treasurer for the account that reported to the ethics commission in Austin, said he knew little about how much corporate money was raised or where it went.

"You've just asked me something that I don't know anything about," he said.

Mr. Ceverha was one of three men chosen by Mr. Craddick to oversee his transition as speaker.

Guess you can't expect a treasurer to know what happens to the money. Thanks to Alfredo Garcia for the tip.

Next, in the Austin American-Statesman, this slightly older article which has some information on John Colyandro, the TRM official who testified before the grand jury. Each article I've seen so far says that Colyandro was given immunity to testify, usually a sign that some wrongdoing was going on. Colyandro gives a different spin on this:

"I, John Colyandro, cooperated enthusiastically with the district attorney," he said.

A document filed by prosecutors on Friday indicated that they offered Colyandro immunity after he had refused to testify, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Colyandro said he had been willing to testify without immunity, but prosecutors offered it. He said he answered every question at the grand jury proceeding but declined to discuss his testimony.

Officials with the district attorney's office said Saturday that they could not comment on grand jury proceedings.

So either he thinks there was nothing wrong, or he's covering his butt as best he can. Who knows? There are a few mind-numbing details about what the crux of this investigation supposedly is. It's pretty easy to see why stories like this generally peter out quietly after they first hit the papers - it's all a bunch of arcane rules that no one really understands. The NCAA is a model of clarity next to this.

I expect we'll hear about it if and when the grand jury returns an indictment. Until then it's all speculation, since the proceedings are secret. As always, stay tuned.

Blogging candidates followup

Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias, and Jesse all have some things to say in response to this post about blogging candidates. Take a moment and check them out.

Moderation followup

Greg Wythe responds to my piece on moderates and extremists. Check it out.

Congrats to Matt

Congratulations to Matthew Yglesias, who has been named a Writing Fellow at The American Prospect. There's quite a few writing pros who have become bloggers, but Matt's the first (though surely not the last) example of a blogger becoming a professional, at least as far as I know. I join the many commenters on Matt's site in offering my best wishes and saluting TAP for their good taste.

Hart and Capozzola

My first reaction to the news that Gary Hart has a blog was "Wow! It's so cool that a possible Presidential candidate can reach voters this way!"

My second reaction was that my first reaction was at least slightly nuts. For all of the boosting that folks like Jeralyn Merritt have given to a Hart 2004 candidacy, I think the fact that he's started blogging is a sure sign he won't run.

Why do I think this? Simple. It's not just that every word that he and his staffers write will be scrutinized by opponents for gotcha material, it's that everything he links to will also be tied to him. I guarantee that at some point someone will read a juicy quote from Hesiod or Atrios or someone like that to Candidate Hart and then ask him in a stern and moralistic tone if he "supports" such a thing, since after all his very own web page links to it. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if they follow a link from one of those pages and try to tie that to Hart. There are enough dumbass blog-ignorant reporters, anchorpeople, and telepundits out there who wouldn't know or care enough to make any distinctions about that. You can't control anything that goes on outside your own blog's borders, and I think that's too big a liability for a serious candidate for national office. The potential for distraction and Wurlitzer-made scandal is too great. And, not to put too fine a point on it, Gary Hart will have enough of this sort of problem if he runs. He doesn't need to add to it.

That's what my head says, anyway. My heart still loves the idea of a candidate who blogs, though I concede it can't be just any candidate. I think an unheralded dark horse could leverage the power of blogging into an inexpensive and direct way to reach people, perhaps even more effectively than some kinds of old media advertising. Perhaps blogging could help such a candidate tap into a well of volunteers more easily. Perhaps a pioneer could ride the likely publicity that will follow from this novelty into a lot of free old media exposure.

Perhaps we'll find out, if Jim Capozzola really is serious about taking on Arlen Specter in 2004. Rittenhouse, who admits he has zero name recognition, is in a totally different place than the well-known Hart. He can only gain from any attention that could be paid to his writings, and it's not hard to imagine a little-guy-takes-on-the-establishment storyline, like what Victor Morales got in 1996 when he drove around Texas in his pickup truck campaigning against Phil Gramm, though one would hope with a happier ending for Capozzola.

So, while the anarchy of blogging would seem to be a detriment to an already-established candidate, I'd be willing to believe that it could be a boon to an unknown. Will you help us find out, Jim?

Finally, maybe, some justice in Tulia

At long last, the 13 residents of Tulia who are still in jail as a result of the scandalously botched drug bust from 1999 may soon be set free:

A judge reviewing four of the cases for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said Tuesday he will recommend that all the convictions resulting from the bust be vacated because of the conduct of the lone undercover officer working for the Panhandle Drug Task Force.

"It is stipulated by all parties and approved by the court that Tom Coleman is simply not a credible witness," said retired state District Judge Ron Chapman of Dallas.

Chapman said he will recommend that the appeals court grant new trials to all 38 defendants, most of whom are black -- a fact that led to charges the sting was racially motivated.

However, Ron Hobson, a special prosecutor assigned to help Swisher County with the cases, said that because the state had stipulated that Coleman was not credible, it will not try the defendants again.

"If the appeals court sends them back, we'll dismiss them," he said. "It would be foolish for us to go forward."

This is great news, and long overdue. Major kudos to Ron Hobson for being more interested in justice than in results, a trait not shared by some prosecutors.

When I first noted this story, a bit from an article in Texas Monthly jumped out at me. Here's the relevant quote, which you can see in that earlier entry as well:

WHAT BECAME OF THE OTHER players in the sting? Officer [Tom] Coleman—presented with an Outstanding Lawman of the Year award by [then-Attorney General John] Cornyn following the busts—has since been fired from two narcotics postings and has gone to ground in Waxahachie; his lawyer deflects the media inquiries that still regularly come, from Court TV to the London Independent.

I'd sure like to ask John Cornyn what he thinks of Tom Coleman now.

Play ball!

And so another great season of baseball has begun. The Astros won their opener and got a first game home run from Jeff Kent. The Yankees are now 2-0, winning yesterday without Derek Jeter. Will Carroll of the Baseball Prospectus thinks Jeter might be done for the season:

The official diagnosis is dislocated left shoulder. Where have we heard this before? Phil Nevin, of course. Digging through the list of injuries, there are some frightening comparables. Nevin is clearly negative, as is Danny Bautista. The best comparables however are other shortstops--Alex Gonzalez (Florida version) and Rafael Furcal. Neither of these play in the same way nor have the body type of Jeter, but they'll do for our purposes. Furcal is a switch hitter, but all three players injured the left (non-throwing) shoulder. Both Gonzalez and Furcal were forced to have surgery after having previous problems with lax shoulder capsules. Jeter had some problems in his acromioclavicular joint in late 2001. Where Jeter's injury differs is in the mechanism; Jeter absorbed a football-type collision, while both Gonzalez and Furcal had the injuries occur during dives.

The outlook is not good. I cannot find a situation where a player was able to come back in-season from this type of injury. Furcal's injury happened pretty late in the season, so that makes timing this pretty difficult, but looking at the others, things can't be stated positively. The best-case scenario is that after reduction (having the dislocated bone "popped back in"), there would be no ligament or labrum damage. In this case, it's possible that Jeter could be back in as little as four weeks. The worst case, of course, is similar to Nevin or Gonzalez, where Jeter would be done for the season. What the most likely case is won't be known until the results of imaging are in some time Tuesday. Brian Cashman will have to trust Enrique Wilson, commit to Erick Almonte, or hit the phones quickly. ("Hello, Billy? Yeah, yeah, you're the best-looking GM in the game. About that Tejada kid...")

The article is behind BP's Premium wall, so I'm just linking to the main BP site. I sure hope this injury isn't as bad as Carroll surmises.

Meanwhile, the #1 ranked Rice Owls won their 26th straight game, blowing out crosstown rival Houston Cougars 11-0 on a one-hitter. The Owls are nine triumphs away from breaking the collegiate record (held by the UT Longhorns) of 34 straight wins. Oddly enough, though, the Owls streak is only the second-longest in Texas this year. Division III Texas Lutheran lost for the first time since last April to end a 31-gamer. (That would be my alma mater who beat them, by the way.)

Finally, my Little League team (the Mustang Twins) plays its first game on Monday. Team picture day is Saturday. I'll have more on those items shortly.

UPDATE: John Manuel was pretty impressed by Rice as well.

UPDATE: Edited to include a link to BP, per the request of Will Carroll.

Ellsberg v. Brown

Go check out this transcript of what Daniel Ellsberg had to say to Aaron "Tracks Of My Tears" Brown recently. You tell him, Daniel!

Link via Blah3.

Failure of imagination

I see that ol' Hootie Johnson might have a trump card to play in his ongoing battle with Martha Burk:

Though Augusta National has yet to meet the demands of Burk, who is the chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, she already has declared victory. There is still a way for Johnson, the chairman of Augusta National, to turn the tables.

Invite a woman. On the club's terms. Not just any woman.

Anna Nicole Smith.

She's blonde. She's a bimbo. She's at home with rich old white guys. An invitation to her would put an exclamation point on the foolishness of the symbolic war that Burk has declared on Augusta National. Let's see Burk and her followers try to spin that into a victory.

That's very clever, and would certainly help to demonstrate the silliness of this whole episode, but anyone who can't see how this could be spun as a victory for Martha Burk is suffering from a severe failure of imagination. Allow me:

"The National Council of Women's Organizations would like to congratulate Hootie Johnson for finally recognizing that women have a place at Augusta National. We're still not sure why it took him so long, but we feel confident that now that he's seen the light it's only a matter of time before women are as well represented at Augusta National as they are in all other spheres of American society.

We would also like to applaud Hootie's inspired choice of Anna Nicole Smith as the first woman to be granted membership at Augusta National. We are hard pressed to think of anyone more suitable to join that august institution. Rarely can one find all of the qualities of a club so completely encapsulated in a single member. We wish Hootie and Anna Nicole all the best, and we hope that their relationship is as warm and cordial as Anna Nicole's relationship with her stepchildren is."

See? Easy as pie. Next!

Tuba lips and guitar nipples

I got this fascinating article about injuries, mostly of the reptitive-stress type, that professional musicians often suffer from a mailing list I'm on for the Rice MOB. Though I've played the alto sax for 25 years (once again, for longer than Mikey has been alive), I'm basically just a Sunday hacker, so the worst injury I've ever suffered is teeth marks on my lower lip.

(NB: To play the saxophone, you curl the lower lip over your teeth, stick the mouthpiece in your mouth, and lightly rest your upper lip and upper teeth on top. This is called the embouchure, which I've just realized is (gasp!) a French word. Guess that means I'll have to start calling it Freedom Mouth or something like that. But I digress. Anway, do this sort of thing for a few hours and you'll get a nice impression of your choppers inside your lower lip. Aren't you glad you know that now?)

One thing this article doesn't touch on is the hazards faced by marching bands. Band uniforms tend to be made of wool/polyester blends, so when it's hot outside it's really hot in those clothes. Other bands regularly deal with cold, rain, snow, and the occasional rogue football player. Wearing a tux on stage is a lot safer, I must say.

This post may or may not have been written by F. Bacon

I see from my referral log that this post about Michael Drosnin and his moronic Bible Code has served as a starting point for this longer and more elegant post about the persistent belief that Francis Bacon was the actual author of Shakespeare's plays. Take a moment and check it out, it's well worth it.

Moderation in defense of extremism

If we do not hang together, then we will surely hang separately. -- Benjamin Franklin

I suppose I ought to join in with pretty much everyone else and comment on Kevin Drum's piece about extremism versus moderation. There's already been a whole lot said (see here for some links to responses, plus some other responses from Left in the West, Ezra Klein, and Unlearned Hand), so I'll keep this brief.

I included that Ben Franklin quote here because I want to keep everyone's eyes on the prize here, which is sending Team Bush packing in 2004. It ain't gonna happen unless we're all pulling in the same direction. The set of people who agree completely with Kevin's post can't unelect Bush without the full cooperation of the set of people who think Kevin has his head up his butt, and vice versa. Once we've got a President we like and more control of Congress we can argue passionately about all the stuff we disagree on. Until then, we're just making it easier for the guys we really disagree with to do the things we really dislike.

A point that several people have made is that the conservative fringe works with the conservative mainstream, while the liberal fringe works against the liberal mainstream. That's true to a certain extent, though it's easy to get bogged down in definitions over what's "mainstream" and what's "fringe" to see it all clearly sometimes. What is clear is that the conservatives have a well-defined set of values that pretty much all of them believe in and support, regardless of what their primary mission is. It doesn't matter if you're talking about the Christian Coalition, the NRA, Grover Norquist, the Heritage Foundation, whatever, they all believe in and advocate the same things: Lower taxes. Second Amendment rights. Free market deregulation. School vouchers. The death penalty. Abortion restrictions. Religion in the public square. They all work together to achieve results that they like.

Conservatives do two things really well that liberals need to focus on. One is supporting each other through a set of shared core values - what I call a brand identity that makes it easy to transfer support from one group to another. Liberals (and this is just my opinion, I have no actual data at hand to back this up) tend to focus more on their own individual causes. The other is making all their positions sound mainstream whether they are or not, as Kevin noted here.

In terms of transforming their beliefs into legislation, conservatives have the advantage of being in total control of the Republican Party. Oh, sure, there are some "moderate" and even maybe sorta "liberal" members of the Republican Party out there, but when was the last time any of them defied Tom DeLay on a vote? Kos has noted this several times, and I'm starting to agree with his conclusion that Democrats ought to target "moderate" House Republicans since they never vote with us on any issue of substance anyway. Liberals, on the other hand, are forever competing with DLC types for the "soul" of the Democratic Party. Except, of course, for those who've bolted for the Greens on the illusion that this will somehow make the Dems see things their way. We can't even figure out what our messages are supposed to be, let alone communicate and implement them.

We'd better figure it out, though. 2004 will be here before you know it. And with all due respect to our Green friends, 2004 had better damn well be about winning elections. So please, let's hang together. The alternative is too gruesome to contemplate.