Got this email from work the other day:

Dear [Company Name] Employee:

It is with deep sadness we regret to inform you [Employee Name] suddenly died yesterday in a car accident while leaving work. We mourn his loss and our deepest sympathies go out to his family.

For the [CompanyName] family we will be having grief counselors available at the 538 Bldg on Tuesday, February 20th. There will be 4 sessions beginning at 9:30 am, and again at 10:30, 11:30 and 12:30. Each session can accommodate up to 15 employees. To be held in the HR Conference Room, 3rd Floor.

Grief is a normal process that proceeds from feelings of sadness and pain to healing and wholeness. You are invited to participate in one of the sessions.

Should there be any questions, please feel free to contact me.

[HR Person]

Though I didn't know "EmployeeName", it's still a sad email to receive. I've had worse though. Ever get an email from someone after they've died?

It was a cold and wet day, but the south entrance to the capital building in Austin was crowded. Overhead, a plane circled with a banner that read, “Face it. Coal is Filthy.” The irony was not lost on me.

There are certain requirements for a large gathering of progressives, particularly rallies and parades. These include t-shirts with a slogan; a bad folksinger on guitar; at least one person in a bizarre costume and if food is served, a vegetarian entrée. The Stop the Coal Rush Rally had all of the above.

There was one talented folksinger named Bill Oliver, who had the crowd singing along with him and cheering. The chorus he had us singing:

Clean Coal
It’s a Dirty Joke
Don’t make me laugh
Don’t make me choke

Each verse to this song started, "On a bad hair day in Texas…"

This was obviously a reference to our governor, who attempted to fast track 17 new dirty coal plants. Governor Perry was nicknamed "Good Hair" by the late great Molly Ivins for his Ken doll coif.

There were many moving speeches from politicians, students and citizens of the small towns closest to the proposed plant sights. One of the first speeches came from Representative Charles “Doc” Anderson of Waco, who submitted a bill to place a moratorium on all permits for six months. This delay would give those researching the environmental impact enough time to complete their studies.

Jacob Bentliff, a student at the University of Texas, spoke with extraordinary passion. Not only did he explain in a way that all could understand why the coal plants were a bad choice for Texas, he told the crowd what steps they were taking at U.T. to conserve energy and provide clean sources of power. He and the students in his group were leading a effort to get solar panels installed on the roof of every campus building. Jacob’s final warning was "…coal is not the only option, it is the deadliest."

There was one celebrity among the speakers. Annie Nelson, wife of singer Willie Nelson, spoke about their efforts to move the country to biofuel. According to Annie, Texas now has more biodiesel than any other state.

Some of the speakers speculated as to the reasons TXU might have for fast tracking these plants. Theories posed included the possibility that TXU wants to get these plants approved and grandfathered into to any new caps on global warming emissions, reduce the costs by building multiple identical plants, lock out competition by controlling market share and sell of excess capacity a la Enron. It was also pointed out that while coal is the cheapest method for producing energy and natural gas one of the most expensive; TXU having both natural gas plants and coal plants would be able to sell the coal-produced energy at natural gas prices.

Another interesting twist to the story lies in the claim in the TXU commercials that they will be reducing their emissions by 20%. They have yet to explain how these reductions would be achieved. However, it should be pointed out that any reductions made to the emissions from these new plants will be more than offset by the pollutions and emissions from the trains required to move the coal from the mines to the plants. Each plant will require an entire trainload of coal a day.

A group of physicians also spoke about the effect on the health of the citizens downwind of these plants. Risks to health listed included asthma and bronchitis. Deaths related to coal plant pollution for Dallas alone averages to 369 deaths a year. I have been told that if you want to do anything in The Colony, get the kids involved. Children are among the most vulnerable to the pollution produced by coal plants.

Our children are at risk from power plant pollution:

• Over 25 million children in the U. S. live in counties that violate national air quality standards for the common pollutants ozone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide;
• Cases of asthma have rapidly increased, more than doubling in the past two decades. Six percent of U.S. children have asthma;
• Thirty-five million of our children live within 30 miles of a power plant —a distance within which local communities may reasonably be affected by a power plant’s smoke plume; an estimated 2 million of these children are asthmatic and are particularly susceptible to these pollutants;
• 72,000 of our schools are within 30 miles of a power plant;
• Average health risks to children due to exposure to power plant combustion wastes could be up to 10,000 times higher than EPA’s allowable risk levels for cancer and other illnesses.

* Source: Physicians for Social Responsibility http://www.psr.org/site/DocServer/ChildrenatRisk.pdf?docID=529

This is not an issue we can afford to ignore. Your health and the health of your children are at risk. Write your state senator and/or state representative. Send a message to the governor and the lieutenant governor that as Jacob Bentliff said, "Coal is not the only option. It is the deadliest."

Retired NBA player Tim Hardaway is the subject of some controversy today after his homophobic statements to commentator Dan Le Batard.

"Well, you know, I hate gay people," Hardaway said in response to Le Batard. "I let it be known I don't like gay people. I don't like to be around gay people. I'm homophobic. It shouldn't be in the world, in the United States, I don't like it."

I hope that in the coming days Tim Hardaway will learn some things about gays and lesbians. He was at least honest about his feelings, though he didn't have the good sense to be politically correct about it and dodge the question. Because of his ignorance, I hope that he's not demonized too much, because unfortunately there are still too many people in this country who are homophobic. Too much backlash and vitriol from this incident could make him into a "martyr" for the anti-homosexual crowd. As a young punk, I was once like Mr. Hardaway, until I matured and came to know some gay people, and somewhere along the way, something clicked.

Mr. Hardaway has actually, in my humble opinion, helped the situation by opening up a debate with his very frank words. Hopefully many Americans will take the time to examine why they feel the way they feel about gay people, regardless of whether they approve of homosexuality.

There will be three council seats up for election on May 12 now that gas station owner and long time councilman Mike Nowels resigned from his place 3 seat.

Though the office of Council Member is non-partisan, Nowels is a Republican, and the council leans strongly that way. It would be a good time to get a progressive on the council. If you would be interested in running, please contact me. ses(at)whosplayin(dot)com.

Veterans' needs are reportedly $16 billion greater than President Bush projects for 2012.

The proposals for the 2008 budget have proven one thing - the need of the Administration to balance the budget is being placed on the backs of our wounded veterans, including those who will be returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.

According to a February 13th AP article, "Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter."

Although it's only 10 days into the month, we already have our first few nominees for the Texas Dim Bulb Awards.

First on my list of nominations is U.S. Congressman John Carter (R-TX31) for using taxpayer funds to perpetuate a false rumor on his official website regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's transportation arrangements. It's one thing to print a story when you don't have all of the facts. It's deception when that story is then debunked, and you don't remove it. In fact, it's probably a violation of house rules for John Carter to use his official site for this, though I am not sure.

Here's a snippet:

Contact: Lindsey Willis (202)225-3864
Carter Shames Pelosi for Using Troops' Much-Needed Resources

Washington, DC, Feb 8 - House Republican Conference Secretary John Carter today issued the following statement regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s request for a military C-32 jet:

"It is shameful enough that the Speaker requested the use of a lavish jet to suit her prima donna lifestyle on the taxpayer dime to the tune of $420,000 for a round trip home to San Francisco," said Congressman Carter. "Now, she has even further crossed the line by teaming up with Congressman Murtha and all but threatening to cut the Pentagon’s funding if her demands are not met."

This has of course been debunked, but that didn't stop the congressman from posting his idiocy 3 days later.

Other nominees:
David G. Knape, 62, of Lubbock, TX set bike path traps. More...
Ex-DEA Agent Barry Cooper of Big Sandy, TX promotes video showing how to hide illegal drugs and avoid getting busted
El Paso County Commissioner Luis Sarinana got busted for disorderly conduct, drinking beer near a culvert. He shouted profanities and was rude to the responding Sheriff's deputy. Read the official police report

Post your own nominees by submitting a comment, or emailing ses (at) whosplayin (dot) com

School vouchers are a hot topic today, with many voucher proponents spending the day lobbying the Texas Legislature in favor of the programs.

What are vouchers? Well, the idea, also sometimes called "School Choice" is fairly simple, and the intention is to get children a better education. The typical proposal is something like this:

• A parent is dissatisfied with a public school's performance in educating their child. Sometimes, the school itself is rated poorly on performance on standardized tests.
• That parent applies for and receives a government grant of a set amount of money per student, to be used to pay for tuition at a private or parochial school. Typically this amount is somewhat close to the average amount spent per student in the public schools
• Since the government pretty much sucks at getting anything right, the private school education is much better. Plus, parents get the added benefit of knowing that their children are being brainwashed indoctrinated in whatever philosophy, politics, or religious teachings the parent approves of, but is too lazy to teach at home.

When I first started hearing about voucher programs years ago, I thought they were a good idea. That was in my conservative days. Now I realize that although the intentions are good, and we all want to have good educational achievement for ALL Texas students, the voucher idea is fundamentally flawed, and could lead to the eventual unintended destruction of our public school systems.

The idea of "school choice" as they like to call it, is based on the fallacy that the free-market will prove out the best ideas and provide the best education due to competitive market forces. This fallacy is a common thread among those that believe government is inherently inefficient and can't do anything right. The problem is that the free market is not a very good provider of what economists call "Public goods". I stongly believe that education has become a necessary public good in our society. Every citizen is entitled to a basic education, currently K-12. This is most efficiently provided though the commonwealth of each school district.

"So why," you might ask, "do you think the government can do this more efficiently and effectively?" Well, there are many reasons, and this is ground that has been covered by many others much better than I can, but let me just list a couple of reasons:

• Private non-parochial schools must make a profit. Public schools do not. This means money that could be educating is instead enriching shareholders. Pressures to keep earnings up will inevitably cause cost-cutting which will manifest itself in the classroom.
• Public schools by law must educate everyone, regardless of mental or physical disabilities. They've developed procedures and methods through their years of experience to deal with these students so that their needs are met educationally and socially. Private schools are typically not equipped. In larger "markets", private schools might emerge for special needs children, but suburban and rural communities would be left out. These children cost more to educate, so there is an economic disincentive for private schools to accept them.
• Free markets fluctuate. What's hot one year is not the next. Businesses fail and go bankrupt all the time. Public schools have a fairly predictable and steady load of students to educate, and thus are able to plan and build facilities efficiently over the long term. If public schools had to compete with private schools, administrators might find themselves with under-utilized facilities that they are still paying for. Or if a private school went under, or suddenly became unpopular, public schools may simply not have enough space.

I really wish I could do this topic more justice, because we'll be hearing more about it from well-intentioned, but wrong-thinking people in the coming months. Luckily, there are several other good resources I can point you to:

• McBlogger's OH YEAH, That's why Vouchers Suck
• Capitol Annex's "80th Legislature: Vouchers Are Not 'Civil Rights'"
• Musings' "Say NO to vouchers Today"
• Texas Federation of Teachers' Virtual Rally: Tell Legislators to Oppose Vouchers!
• Texas Kaos: Anti-Voucher Rally Day

Let everyone know what YOU think about Vouchers or "School Choice". Use the Comments!

In my recent posting "Universal Healthcare: You're soaking in it" I explained in general terms what I believe a single-payer universal healthcare system is, and how it utilizes the free market to provide the care, while leveraging the power of government to lower administrative overhead and negotiate fair payment to providers as a substitute for insurance companies.

Today John Edwards introduced his plan for Universal coverage, and you can read all about it. (opens as PDF).

I like some of his ideas, but I wonder if it goes far enough, and whether it really saves much money, since it still ends up with a public-private partnership where government pays premiums (if I read it correctly). Hopefully soon, I'll get you an analysis of it, along with a critique. At first glance, I'd say it's a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's as good as *my* plan.

In the mean time, if any of you has any thoughts about Edwards' plan, I'd love to hear them.

This month's Texas Dim Bulb Award, by popular choice, goes to Texas Governor Rick Perry and his good friend Ted Nugent to perform at his inaugural ball on January 16th.

The rocker, known as a hunting and gun rights advocate, crossed all lines of decency during the performance by:

• Wearing a cut-off t-shirt with the confederate flag. (A symbol offensive to many Texans - especially racial minorities)
• Shouting insults about non-English speakers and foreigners in general
• Using "machine guns"* and skulls as props
• Screaming out "George W. Bush"
• Singing his 70's hit "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang"

Perry spokesman Robert Black downplayed the incident, but confirmed that the Governor himself had invited Nugent:

"Ted Nugent is a good friend of the governor's. He asked him if he would play at the inaugural. He didn't put any stipulation of what he would play," Black said. He added that "Most people had a really good time and enjoyed the show."

Rick Perry: For this and many other stupid, politically motivated, self-serving, self-promoting, mean-spirited, short-sighted and idiotic actions over the years, including your "politically convenient" switch from the Democratic Party to Republican Party when it was convenient, you are January's recipient of the Texas Dim Bulb Award. You are hereby granted honorary non-citizenship, and all true Texans are encouraged to ostracize you and publicly ridicule you until such time as you should move to Arkansas or Alabama or some other place more worthy of your B.S. You have brought shame upon the Great State of Texas, and upon your Republican Party. Now Git! Adios, Mo-Fo!

Ted Nugent: Since you've only lived in Texas for about 2 years, and most people know you as the "Motor City Madman", you're almost not qualified for this award, since most real Texans wouldn't even consider you a Texan. Just go on back to Michigan, where I'm sure you'll find more English-speakers to suit your taste. I hope that you'll find a welcoming audience in downtown Detroit who will embrace you with your Confederate rebel flag shirt in only the way that Detroit natives can.

The Texas Dim Bulb Award is given to Texas residents who are an embarrassment to the state and its fine citizens. They dishonor our collective heritage and contribute to the negative stereotypes that sometimes make our beautiful Texas into a laughingstock.

For this reason, recipents of the Texas Dim Bulb Award are deemed as honorary foreigners, and hereby stripped of any and all privileges pertaining to their Texas residency.

To nominate someone for a Texas Dim Bulb Award, email webmaster (at) whosplayin (dot) com

Michael Burgess wrote this letter to a constituent who expressed support for H.R.6, the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007 (Which Burgess voted against). His letter is in the yellow, my rebuttal in the white.

Mr. XXXXXXX XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Little Elm, Texas 75068

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for expressing your support for H.R. 6, the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

As you may know, Congressman Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia) introduced H.R. 6 on January 12, 2007 as part of the House Democrats 100 Hours agenda. Specifically H.R. 6 prohibits energy companies from receiving a domestic manufacturing tax deduction -- thereby making it more expensive for them to do business in the U.S. and more likely that we will need to import foreign oil. The bill also violates contract sanctity by coercing energy companies to re-negotiate faulty leases issued by the Clinton Interior Department in 1998 and 1999 that did not include price-thresholds, above which royalty relief would not apply. This provision accounts to a "taking" by the federal government, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The portion of the 5th amendment you refer to is this: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The bill does not amount the the "taking" of private property. The cases in question are LEASES of public property, for which the government has a compelling interest in receiving due compensation. Contracts which are "faulty" may be considered unconscionable, which can render them void. I don't claim to know why government officials neglected this in '98 and '99, but I do believe that the government should have the power to force renegotiation of contracts where there is evidence that the contract was "faulty" as you say. Not just on a whim, when the market changes, or we need the money, but when mistakes are made. BUT... We are NOT coercing the renegotiation of these contracts. The bill says in very plain English that we are ALLOWING the renegotiation. The Government simply will not extend any other leases to a company that has not renegotiated the leases in question. This is something that any business in the free market can do: choose who to do business with, and under what terms. Your argument is weak and simply unfounded. They got a sweetheart deal, and our government has honored and will continue to honor the deal, but we're stopping the gravy train. If the oil companies want to do business with us, they will have to renegotiate these leases.

In June 2006, the House passed "The Deep Ocean Energy Resources (DOER) Act" (HR 4761). A key provision in this bill required the leaseholders to renegotiate their lease to add price thresholds or be subject to a substantive fee. This provision would recapture the royalty fees without violating contract sanctity. The bill also creates a new fee for both producing and non-producing leases, in addition to the bonus bids and royalties that they already pay to the federal government.

Yeah, and how did that HUGE bill work out? Oh, that's right: It died in the Senate. you tried to make it sound like DOER was law and this bill was redundant. That is called deception.

The bill repeals royalty incentives put in place under last Congress' Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to encourage energy production in hard-to-reach and technologically-challenging places such as ultra deepwater Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska. Unlike the 1998-1999 leases, under every provision of EPAct 2005 where royalty relief is granted, the Secretary of the Interior is granted authority to set price thresholds based upon market price. Under today's energy prices, producers would not and do not receive royalty relief from these provision. Instead, these provisions provide energy companies with the price certainty they need to make billion-dollar investments in American energy.

Uh - Yeah. That's what they meant to do. Mike, I'm sure you know about the free-market, right? ExxonMobil's profits just came in today at $39.5 Billion, setting an all time record for a U.S. publicly traded company. The oil industry does not need "royalty relief" of any sort. Under today's prices, there may be less incentive for them to explore or drill, but believe me, they'll do it anyway because it's in their best long-term interest.

Finally, the bill creates a new "Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve," but does not specify how these funds would be used. The future may hold a fleet of duel-fueled vehicles powered by efficient engines such as electric vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles and homes and businesses powered purely by solar and wind power. But our economy today is based on the availability of a cheap and stable energy supply; most of which is currently supplied by fossil fuels. To ensure our energy independence, I believe that we must ensure the continued supply of conventional energy sources, as well as simultaneously developing alternative energy sources, like wind and hydrogen fuel cells. Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to decrease our dependency on foreign oil or to promote clean energy sources.

You are technically correct in that the bill does not specifically authorize or appropriate funding for any specific energy efficiency or renewables projects. But to say that it "does nothing" is simply incorrect. It creates a fund, from which future projects that your committee will vote on individually may be funded. This is about fiscal responsibility as much as it is about efficiency and sustainability. You should appreciate that, but apparently you don't.

As a Member on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, I will advocate for policies that put America on the road to energy independence.

OK, Dr. Burgess, you're on the spot. You said that H.R.6 doesn't provide specifics - I want to hear your big ideas now. WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING? WHAT ARE YOU FOR? GIVE ME A SPECIFIC ANSWER. I have a dozen or more specific ideas, and I'm just a regular guy. You as a congressman MUST have some inkling of what to do. And don't give me any bullshit about "how are we going to pay for it" because according to the CBO, H.R.6 just gave you $14,000,000,000 over the next 10 years to work with.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the U.S. House of Representatives. Please feel free to visit my website (www.house.gov/burgess) or contact me with any future concerns.

Sincerely,

Michael C. Burgess, M.D.
Member of Congress

Keep emailing us nonsense, and we'll keep posting it. Stay in touch, will you?