Thursday, July 10, 2008
Oops!!!!
A man returned to his Harris County home from the airport. While unpacking his suitcase he finds a bag with a white, powdery-type substance. He has no idea what this could be and he isn't responsible for it being there. He then does what any decent citizen does, calls the police. The police arrive and determine the substance isn't cocaine. Unable to test substances they call Hazmat out. Two big hazmat trucks arrive and the street is blocked off. Neighbors are gathering on the sidewalk asking the officers and rescue personnel what is going on. Since the situation is unfolding and the substance unknown, nobody can give an answer. The homeowner is understandably embarrassed about all this attention. His wife is contacted (who is still out of town) and asked if she put anything in his suitcase. She says no. Hazmat personnel suit up, go into the house and test the substance. The result; crushed laxative tablets! Come to find out, the wife crushes her laxatives and bags them for easy travel. Imagine that poor man's further embarrassment to realize the police and hazmat blocked off his street for laxatives. The police will probably be back at that house when the wife returns home.
Zombie Dog!!!
This movie was made in Houston by a group of friends and a filmaker. Because two of the people in this are friends of ours, I just had to share it.
From the 4th of July
After I got off from work, my wife had me stop by a cul-de-sac in a Fort Bend County neighborhood where they had purchased about $200 worth of fireworks.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
For All To See
Today, the Houston Chronicle has posted the salary of just about every public servant in the Houston-Harris County Metrolplex. Now, the initial reaction of many public servants is anger. Common courtesy tells us that it is impolite to ask what people make. However, since public servants' salaries are paid for with tax dollars, that money has to be accounted for.
One has to ask the question. Why did they do this? The caption underneath the photographs reads "are your tax dollars well spent?" I'm not referring to an elected official, or the head of Metro, HISD, or the Toll Road Authority. I'm referring to the lay people who get up everyday, work an 8 hour shift and come home. Look at some of the "peons" and you'll see how little they make. Take for example K, an assistant clerk and his 2007 yearly salary was $19,115. So, is the chronicle asking is that tax money well spent? I have a theory, and just a theory. Public servants make easy targets. While their positions put them under a lot of scrutiny they are held to a higher standard. However, what the chronicle, and a large portion of the public fail to understand is that if you compare the work habits of public servants and private workers, you'll find remarkable similarities. It also exposes the hypocrisy of the chronicle and a large number of the public. When a public servant leaves his/her post to run through a drive thru window to get a quick meal, it's reported as "taxpayer waste." When a reporter or sales clerk does it, it's no big deal. When a public servant's email is scrutinized, it makes news. I bet you half my salary that all work emails have the same issues, especially reporters' emails. For many people, it is easier to open others' closets and expose their skeletons while keeping their own doors nailed shut. There is also a tendency to think that public servants do not have mortgages, families, and bills to pay. The tone of many chronicle (and other news organizations) is that public servants should work harder for less money and benefits. They have another article about paid overtime for the Houston Police Dept. and the Sheriff's Dept. The news wants people to be outraged at the amount of paid overtime. Now, if these overtime programs ended today, there would be far less officers on the street. There would be fewer patrols, peoples' reports would be left unwritten, and response times would increase dramatically. Now, many people are thinking "oh so what, if you don't want your name and salary to be public record, go to the private sector!" Yet, these same people would have a coronary if their full names and salary were posted for all to see. So, in the interest of fairness, let me ask a question. Is that money you spend on the chronicle well spent? Is that time you spend watching TV news well spent?
One has to ask the question. Why did they do this? The caption underneath the photographs reads "are your tax dollars well spent?" I'm not referring to an elected official, or the head of Metro, HISD, or the Toll Road Authority. I'm referring to the lay people who get up everyday, work an 8 hour shift and come home. Look at some of the "peons" and you'll see how little they make. Take for example K, an assistant clerk and his 2007 yearly salary was $19,115. So, is the chronicle asking is that tax money well spent? I have a theory, and just a theory. Public servants make easy targets. While their positions put them under a lot of scrutiny they are held to a higher standard. However, what the chronicle, and a large portion of the public fail to understand is that if you compare the work habits of public servants and private workers, you'll find remarkable similarities. It also exposes the hypocrisy of the chronicle and a large number of the public. When a public servant leaves his/her post to run through a drive thru window to get a quick meal, it's reported as "taxpayer waste." When a reporter or sales clerk does it, it's no big deal. When a public servant's email is scrutinized, it makes news. I bet you half my salary that all work emails have the same issues, especially reporters' emails. For many people, it is easier to open others' closets and expose their skeletons while keeping their own doors nailed shut. There is also a tendency to think that public servants do not have mortgages, families, and bills to pay. The tone of many chronicle (and other news organizations) is that public servants should work harder for less money and benefits. They have another article about paid overtime for the Houston Police Dept. and the Sheriff's Dept. The news wants people to be outraged at the amount of paid overtime. Now, if these overtime programs ended today, there would be far less officers on the street. There would be fewer patrols, peoples' reports would be left unwritten, and response times would increase dramatically. Now, many people are thinking "oh so what, if you don't want your name and salary to be public record, go to the private sector!" Yet, these same people would have a coronary if their full names and salary were posted for all to see. So, in the interest of fairness, let me ask a question. Is that money you spend on the chronicle well spent? Is that time you spend watching TV news well spent?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Only One Side of the Story
It's not often I criticize KPRC news coverage, but sometimes it happens. In this story, channel 2 boasts that you'll only see it on their station. Some guy was video taping a driver who couldn't stay in his lane. Now, obviously there is a problem with this driver, he is a danger. Eventually an HPD officer pulls him over, then lets him go. The caller is outraged;
"We're paying the police officer's salary and they're letting drunks go!"
First off, I'd like to toss a quarter in this guy's face and say "here's a refund now shut up!"
Second, he does not know what exchange went on between the officer and driver. Many times, have officers pulled over someone driving like this assuming they were drunk. Upon actually contacting the driver (which the guy filming did not), sometimes it is learned the driver has other problems (too old, cell phone, medical condition, etc). However, the guy who called it in is absolutely convinced the driver was drunk and that's all there is to it.
Then, channel 2 goes to its embedded lawyer, Brian Wice who says;
"He (the officer) was there and we weren't," Wice said. "The fact that that officer ultimately concluded based upon their experience, training and expertise that no further investigation was needed, while somewhat dismaying to the Good Samaritan and maybe to some of us, ultimately that's a decision that we don't have the right to second guess."
Thank you Mr. Wice.
However, that doesn't seem to satisfy channel 2. At the end of the video the reporter says the driver was "20 feet from his home." That certainly does not excuse drunk driving. Many people have been arrested for DWI on their home streets. What channel 2 didn't do, was find the officer who actually made the stop and ask if the guy was drunk or not. The spokesman isn't going to know. A simple question to the actual officer who made the stop can either put this to rest, or open a can or worms.
"We're paying the police officer's salary and they're letting drunks go!"
First off, I'd like to toss a quarter in this guy's face and say "here's a refund now shut up!"
Second, he does not know what exchange went on between the officer and driver. Many times, have officers pulled over someone driving like this assuming they were drunk. Upon actually contacting the driver (which the guy filming did not), sometimes it is learned the driver has other problems (too old, cell phone, medical condition, etc). However, the guy who called it in is absolutely convinced the driver was drunk and that's all there is to it.
Then, channel 2 goes to its embedded lawyer, Brian Wice who says;
"He (the officer) was there and we weren't," Wice said. "The fact that that officer ultimately concluded based upon their experience, training and expertise that no further investigation was needed, while somewhat dismaying to the Good Samaritan and maybe to some of us, ultimately that's a decision that we don't have the right to second guess."
Thank you Mr. Wice.
However, that doesn't seem to satisfy channel 2. At the end of the video the reporter says the driver was "20 feet from his home." That certainly does not excuse drunk driving. Many people have been arrested for DWI on their home streets. What channel 2 didn't do, was find the officer who actually made the stop and ask if the guy was drunk or not. The spokesman isn't going to know. A simple question to the actual officer who made the stop can either put this to rest, or open a can or worms.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Michelle Obama Opens Her Mouth...Again
Lone Star Times has this little piece about an excerpt from a Michelle Obama speech. According to the post, she was talking about the issue of gay marriage and said;
"It’s not just about positions that you take. It’s also about the leadership that you provide on these issues. Barack has the courage to talk to skeptical audiences, not just friendly ones. That’s why he told a crowd at a rally in Texas that gays and lesbians deserve equality. And you can imagine in Texas that that crowd got a little quiet."
The way I see it, she's stepped in it again. While trying to portray all of Texans as yokels, she used the crowd who wanted to hear her husband speak, as an example of the "backwoods" mentality of Texans. So, what does that say about her feelings in regards to her husband's own supporters.
"It’s not just about positions that you take. It’s also about the leadership that you provide on these issues. Barack has the courage to talk to skeptical audiences, not just friendly ones. That’s why he told a crowd at a rally in Texas that gays and lesbians deserve equality. And you can imagine in Texas that that crowd got a little quiet."
The way I see it, she's stepped in it again. While trying to portray all of Texans as yokels, she used the crowd who wanted to hear her husband speak, as an example of the "backwoods" mentality of Texans. So, what does that say about her feelings in regards to her husband's own supporters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
