Seattle Times article about gun bill is not, or is no longer true.

Update: 02.21.13, the referenced Bill has now been pulled.

Does Texas Need to Spend More Money On Mental Health?

This long-winded, Chicken Little, the sky is falling Dallas Morning News article goes on and on about how Texas ranks 49th in mental health spending without citing one example of why more money needs to be spent. The closest they come is in assuming that because there are more people in Texas now than 10 years ago, there are more people who need mental health services. Isn't it possible that when people come to Texas, conditions are so good that their depression lifts and they don't need it? Or, that people who are motivated to move to Texas are more mentally fit to begin with? Or, the native Texan is simply more clearheaded than people in other states, as evidenced by the fact that, in Texas, there are more Republicans in elected office than Democrats?  http://dallasne.ws/VbRcWr

What Happens when Guns are Banned/Unbanned

In an article published by the Wall Street Journal, former Washington D.C. prosecutor, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro writes about the effect a gun ban had on that city. Read the whole thing here.   Besides the descriptions of the lengths to which the D.C. police went to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, creating many injustices and human rights abuses along the way, the article also tells of the effect the gun ban had when it was implemented and when it was, partially, lifted. The two paragraphs that illustrate this are reproduced below.

BANNED

UNBANNED

It is my view that the proposed Federal legislation concerning guns is nothing more than a veiled attempt to disarm the American people. It does nothing new to address the actual problem. It is only a rehash of past legislation. The Leftist politicians who consider us to be children and want to take away our rights and liberties "for our own good" could accomplish that task so much more easily if we were defenseless.

Hey, Bud Kennedy. I beg to differ.

In a scorn filled, contemptuous column entitled " Texas sheriffs' boasts about guns nothing but hot air " Bud Kennedy denigrates Texas sheriffs in general then zeroes in on Collin County Sheriff Terry Box to portray as the wood whittling, domino playing, hayseed politician intent on hoodwinking his much smarter constituents.  It is somewhat of a brain twister, trying to understand how a dumb hick persuaded the smart voters of Collin County to return him to office for 37 years but I reckon cognitive coordination isn't one of Bud's strong points. Bud must feel that, as a good Progressive, he is duty bound do battle with anyone who offers resistance to the ongoing, and so far, futile effort of the Left to disarm the American people.

Kennedy makes the assumption that Sheriff Box is stating that he won't enforce federal gun laws only as a ploy curry votes in the next election. I take the Sheriff at his word; that it is his deeply held belief that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.  Add that sentiment to the undeniable fact that federal laws go unenforced all the time, and couple it with the very real prospect that the sheriff and his deputies will be the ones charged with enforcing any new laws, he then, is only stating what flows logically from those conditions; that Federal gun grabber laws will go unenforced in his jurisdiction.

Don't believe me? Then take a look at the illegal alien statutes, a panoply of federal laws that go mostly unenforced by local cops, ...and the Feds, and the President.  This is so widespread that some cities pass ordinances that specifically forbid local law enforcement to take action based upon them, then proudly pronounce themselves "Sanctuary" cities.

According to this, story, a county sheriff has the power to defy federal coercion.  But even if a sheriff doesn't have the legal right to not enforce laws he views as unconstitutional, as a practical matter, if he doesn't like it, if it doesn't serve an enforcement purpose, it will not be enforced.  The unofficial precedent for not enforcing an unpopular law was established when Officer Oop decided that no real crime had been committed and let somebody walk.

From the cop on the beat on up to the highest officials in the law enforcement infrastructure, they all have tremendous latitude when it comes to enforcement of individual statutes. Bud Kennedy's huffing and puffing notwithstanding.

Is the Star telegram attempting to groom Wendy Davis for bigger things?

Today there was a fawning article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram entitled "Is Senator Wendy Davis poised for a statewide race?".  About halfway through, there is a paragraph that links two freshman Tarrant County state representatives, Jonathan Strickland R-HD 92, and Giovanni Capriglione R-HD 98, with Davis.  The reporter, Dave Montgomery, stated that she was teaming up with Stickland on a companion bill, and was a Senate sponsor of Capriglione's bill.

It seemed odd that two Tea Party backed, freshman Republicans, who had defeated, or run off, a long serving incumbent would make common purpose with a Democrat who had gone out of her way to garner Republican antipathy in the last session.  So, I decided I would check.  It was easy enough to go to the Texas Legislature online and find out if Wendy Davis had indeed had anything to do with the legislation of these representatives.

Of course, the first person I checked on was my own representative, Jonathan Stickland.  He has written and filed five bills so far.  Representatives Krause and Sheets are listed as co-authors of the military family bill, HB 202   No mention of Davis on this page but I wasn't expecting it.  The article stated that she was the author of a companion bill.

Then I went to Senator Davis' webpage and looked up her legislation expecting to find a companion bill as stated in the article.  I did find a companion bill, but not for Stickland's legislation.  Wendy Davis has authored exactly one bill, SB 178,  which turned out to be the companion to Capriglione's bill, HB 524.  That's all, she has not co-sponsored a bill, co-authored any bills, or authored any other bill besides that lonely one.

So, I guess you could say that the Star-Telegram got it one quarter right.  They said she wrote a companion bill for Stickland, and was a Senate sponsor for Capriglione.  What can the officially verified through Texas Legislature online is that she did nothing for Stickland, and wrote a companion bill Capriglione. There is no such category as "Senate Sponsor".

If the Star-Telegram is going to try to foist a liberal Democrat upon the citizens of Texas, it should at least get the details right.

Bud Kennedy; Propagandist

In this article, I use an assumption.  The assumption is that Bud Kennedy is a Leftist propagandist.  The reason I believe this to be correct is; he is a journalist for a mainstream newspaper, he has survived and prevailed for many years working for said newspaper, which I think would not have happened unless he was a committed Leftist. Conservatives don't stay, and lukewarm Leftists don't get promoted in the mainstream newsroom. Also in his writings, that I have intermittently scanned over the last few years, I've never detected a wisp of conservatism. From what I have observed he is a full bore, proud Leftist. This is not to say that Kennedy is stupid, he is very intelligent and also very competent in his craft.  But his Leftist worldview long ago overwhelmed his common sense, if he ever possessed any.

 I believe he is a propagandist because he throws seemingly unrelated facts into an article.  Unrelated until one realizes those facts serve a broader purpose and message such as the one examined below.

On May 29, Bud Kennedy wrote an article entitled "Tea Party's vision comes to fruition in Tarrant elections".  In one paragraph he referenced Jonathan Stickland. This is a screen shot of it.

I received an e-mail from Jonathan today rebutting the inferences made in that paragraph and I would like to use this incident to show how this particular journalist works as propagandist.  Attempting to plant ideas and opinions in the minds of readers without the them knowing it. 

I have deconstructed the paragraph in question and broken it down into the two parts which I think are the real messages.  These messages are; Jonathan Stickland is the spiritual brother of disgraced politician Tom Delay.  And Jonathan Stickland is an anti-Semite who equates Jewishness with evil. This is not saying the reader comes away with the exact verbal messages written above but that the readers gets this seed of doubt in the subconscious. That's the goal of propaganda.

 Jonathan Stickland is the spiritual brother of disgraced politician Tom Delay.  In his rebuttal e-mail, Jonathan Stickland wonders why Kennedy referenced a job he once had as a pest control technician instead of his present employment.  It does seem odd. To answer this question, one must look at the situation from the viewpoint of a propagandist and consider the propagandist's  goal.  Facts of a situation; a politician (Stickland) who at one time supported his family as a pest control technician.  Goal; use these facts to make the most damaging link possible.  Question; which disgraced, conservative politician has been linked, again and again, to his business in pest control?  Answer; Tom Delay.  We can wait for another time to debate whether or not Tom Delay was railroaded, but the fact is, in the popular culture, Tom Delay is known as the former bug killer turned crooked politician who's been tried and convicted of being crooked. The fact that Stickland once did this too foreshadows future misbehavior. This is my explanation for Kennedy's odd reference.

Jonathan Stickland is an anti-Semite who also believes Jewishness equates with evil.   A close reading of the paragraph shows Kennedy does not say that Stickland said, or even knows, that Straus is Jewish.  He, Kennedy, simply throws in the fact of Straus' Hebrew extraction. The reason he used that fact and the reason he constructed that sentence the way he did was so that the word "Jewish" would be juxtaposed near the word "Christian", which was spoken by Stickland.  This is in order to link, in the reader's mind, the word "Jewish" and the word "Christian" with Stickland's words about evil, the implication being that Stickland, the subject of the paragraph, is an anti-Semite.  Then, the cherry on top of the propaganda sundae , the word "evil" twice repeated by Stickland no less, plants in the idea that, Stickland not only is an anti-Semite, but he also believes Jewishness equates with evil.   The fact that so many people became concerned about Stickland's "anti-Semitism", see rebuttal e-mail,  proves how effective this ploy was.  And Kennedy plays along with this mis-perception when he doesn't even mention, in his June 2 update, the fact that he, not Stickland, brought up Straus's ethnicity.  This type of character assassination of Conservatives by Leftists, has been going on since the end of World War II.  And it has been wildly successful until the last few years.

Intelligent and competent propagandists never tip their hand, and they never use untrue statements.  The propagandist arranges true facts and cultural stereotypes in such a manner that a false and, in the case of Conservatives, damaging subconscious impression is left in the mind of the reader.  And if the propagandist is clever enough, the reader is completely unaware of it.  We are barraged by thousands of these messages every day and they build up.  The only way to combat them is to arm one's self with knowledge, consider the political leanings of the author and/or news entity, and never ever rely for one's information, or opinions, on a single source.


Note: This is my take on this subject.  If anyone would like to point out mistakes in logic, reason, or facts, please do so. I believe that the beginning of wisdom starts with the acknowledgement of one's own ignorance. Joel Downs

A Political Masterstroke at the RPT Convention

Someone came up with an extremely clever way to save Joe Straus from embarrassment today. A silent walkout had been planned for his speech and many people were on board for it. There had been much loud talk about it. A Tea Party group was giving away "Oust Straus" stickers in the exhibition hall. A yellow flyer was even handed out to the convention attendees in anticipation of his speech.

However, immediately before he spoke, it was announced that all the Republican candidates, incumbents and newly nominated, were being  "introduced" and then they walked out on the stage. As soon as they all had assembled,  Joe Straus strode briskly out in front and said a few words without the usual build up.
UPDATE: Subsequent conversations with people who know show  the candidates thought they would be off the stage before Straus made his speech.

The genius in this move was the fact that most of the convention attendees had voted for those very candidates, and to walk out would imply disapproval of him or her. So every one, that I could see, stayed put.  There were a few catcalls but Straus's speech was so short, it didn't have time to grow into an organized howl.  If most people were like me, they were dumfounded and a little bit amused at the way they had been outfoxed. It was one of those "How simple! Why didn't I think of that?" moments.

This won't change anyone's mind about Straus but at least he didn't lose as much face as he could have.

Well played, Joe.

UPDATE; I have become aware of a video made by a convention attendee. It shows the camera holder exiting the arena and about 10-15 people chanting in the hallway. A good shot of the candidates coming out on stage can be seen at minute 0-1:27, and the number of protesters can be seen beginning at minute 5:19.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gC4T_3O0UM