". . . like trying to lift water with a knife."

September 13, 2006

Ann Richards, RIP

Former Texas governor Ann Richards died this evening of esophageal cancer at her home in Austin, Texas. She was 73.

I didn't vote for her in either gubernatorial election, but I did think she had one of the funniest (and most accurate) one-liners in the 1988 Democratic National Convention about George H. W. Bush: "Poor George. He can't help it -- He was born with a silver foot in his mouth." (Source).

Posted by: JohnL at 09:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

August 13, 2006

The Substance of Style at McDonald's

Today's Business section in the Dallas Morning News tells the story of Ed Bailey, whose ownership of 61 McDonald's locations in the ultra-competitive Dallas dining market has made him one of the most successful restaurant franchisees in the world.

Mr. Bailey's success as an entrepreneur began in the fashion business. Having first worked as a traveling dress salesman, Mr. Bailey soon opened and ran a successful men's designer clothing store in Cincinnati for 10 years. When he got his first franchise from McDonald's in 1984, he moved his family to Plano (a great place to live!) and was successful enough in the difficult Valley View Mall food court location that he obtained a second franchise within a year. Over the next 22 years, he added 59 more stores to his portfolio.

His story could have ended there as a great tribute to the American Dream lived by so many successful small business owners. But as the article points out, there's a special angle to Mr. Bailey's success. In the early 1990s, Mr. Bailey decided to distinguish his franchises by spending money to make them more aesthetically pleasing at the same time as his corporate management was pushing cost controls:

In 1992, Mr. Bailey opened unit No. 7 at Preston Road and Royal Lane just as McDonald's was entering its low-cost era....

It was the most expensive McDonald's built in the United States that year, with a $650,000 tab. A company-owned unit less than three miles away was the cheapest, costing half as much. The regional vice president chastised Mr. Bailey severely for this perceived folly.

"Two and a half years later, I bought that store because McDonald's wasn't making any money," he says, stating fact more than bragging. "I was doing 40 percent more in sales in basically the same trade area."

Mr. Bailey knew then what Virginia Postrel would later identify as the "aesthetic imperative." In Ms. Postrel's words:

Aesthetics--the look and feel of people, places, and things--is increasingly important as a source of value, both economic and cultural....

Aesthetics shows up where function used to be the only thing that mattered, from toilet brushes to business memos to computers and cell phones. And people's expectations keep rising. New tract homes have granite countertops, so hotel rooms have to have granite countertops too. Family restaurants used to be all about price and food, but now they have to worry about their decor. We've gone from Pizza Hut to California Pizza Kitchen. If you're in business, you have to invest in aesthetics simply to keep up with the competition.

Or, as Mr. Bailey's experience showed, to beat the competition.

For more in the same vein, check out Ms. Postrel's The Substance of Style. And be sure to read the entire Morning News article about Mr. Bailey.

Posted by: JohnL at 09:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

June 05, 2006

Texana - It Ain't Braggin' If It's True

The local paper's Travel section had a couple of nice bits of Texana this past Sunday.

First, a selection of great burger joints easily accessible from the I-35 corridor, recorded here so that I can easily find their addresses in the future (I haven't tried any of these, but invite comments from my readers who have):

Oma's Jiffy Burger, 403 Water St., Waxahachie, TX, 972-937-9190

Health Camp, 2601 Circle Road, Waco, TX, 254-752-2081

Chester's Hamburgers, 9980 W. Interstate Highway 10, San Antonio, TX, 210-699-1222

Chris Madrid's, 1900 Blanco Road, San Antonio, TX, 210-735-3552

Storm's Drive-In, 201 N. Key Ave., Lampasas, TX, 512-556-6269

Alamo Springs General Store & Cafe, 107 Alamo Road, Fredericksburg, TX, 830-990-8004

(For an alternative take with much more detail on some different burger joints, check out the TexasBurgerGuy).

Second, a celebration of the fifth anniversary of the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum in Austin. I haven't had a chance to visit, but my wife did last year and raved about it. One of the museum's original exhibits was It Ain't Braggin' if It's True, which highlighted six prime Texas traits:

Vision

Pride

Friendship

Perseverance

Swagger

Showmanship

What do you think? Would you add or subtract any?

Posted by: JohnL at 03:53 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

May 23, 2006

The Safety Nazis

Well, I've been pretty incommunicative around here recently. Sorry about that, but I've had my hands full with my job, family, and fighting a [so far losing] battle against the safety Nazis in Texas government.

Virginia Postrel has already posted a good wrapup, and I can't describe the situation better than Tim Rogers at D Magazine. Seriously. Go read those before you continue, or it might not make sense.

Back? OK. I would only add that Reason's Hit and Run recently referenced a Baby Blues cartoon that perfectly describes the current trend of protecting our kids out of their childhoods.

As I've written before, I'm a board member for The Texas Pool (whose website I happened to design and author during my copious free time).

For four and a half decades, the pool has operated without any diving board injuries that would have been prevented by the new regulations. When looking at the cost-benefit analysis of the new FINA-derived standards, it seems that our benevolent state government believes even one potential injury sometime in the future would be too many. That of course disregards the many risks that responsible individuals take and allow their kids to take every single day. I put my kids at greater jeopardy every time I drive them to school. Or let them ride their bikes to school. Or even let them walk across the busy street to school.

But what really cranks me is that this regulation was slipped through on the sly. There was no public comment and no public record in the Texas Register of any kind of justification for the retroactive application of the new depth and spacing standards to existing diving facilities. Also, the standards come from a set of rules governing competitive diving. It's HARD to hit the bottom of a 10-foot pool unless you dive with a really good form, and kids doing cannonballs is hardly good form (I doubt most of them ever get below 5 or 6 feet).

So how can you begin to fight the professional government inflicted on us by the late 19th-century progressives? Our approach is really two phases (possibly three): (1) ask the State Department of Health to reconsider their decision not to include a grandfather clause for existing facilities, (2) ask our state legislators to overrule the administrative agency, and apply a grandfather clause, and (3) initiate appropriate litigation, contingent on finding an interested pro bono firm.

This would be a great opportunity to try out an "Army of Davids" approach. I can't really take the time to research the epidemiology of diving board/pool depth injuries and in any case don't have ready access to a university library with medical or sports injury journals. But from everything I've read to date, there's no real evidence of significant danger, even from a 3-meter diving board, when the diving well is at least 10 feet deep (as is ours). Most injuries occur in less than 5 feet of water.

Would any of my intrepid readers like to take on a pro bono research project? I already have some leads (authors, journal and article titles). I'm totally serious. If so, contact me at john.lanius@gmail.com.

I will be blogging more, on this and other things.

Posted by: JohnL at 09:06 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 4 kb.

May 16, 2006

Photoblog - An Afternoon at the Pool

On Sunday, I gave my wife some quiet time for Mother's Day by taking the kids down to our neighborhood pool. It's a nonprofit, open-membership community pool, and I've been on its Board of Directors for 2 years now (we were members for several years before that). It happens to be called The Texas Pool on the Creek. Can you guess why? (Click for larger).

Board membership entails lots of maintenance work, especially as the opening of swim season approaches (we open May 27). One of the benefits of board membership is free access to the pool throughout the year. We drained the pool this week for some maintenance work, and began refilling it on Sunday. The kids have a great time running and sliding down the deep end slope into the slowly rising waters:

And tormenting each other (humorously):

It was a very good day.

(Do the pictures look too blue? I haven't mastered Photoshop Elements yet).

If you live in the Dallas/Plano area, we still have plenty of memberships available, and you can register online. Check it out.

Posted by: JohnL at 09:13 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 2 kb.

November 08, 2005

Vote Against Proposition 2

This is for my Texas readers. I'm post-dating it to stay at the top of my blog until after Tuesday's elections. Texans are heading to the polls on Tuesday, November 8, to vote on nine proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution.

Proposition 2 would amend the Texas Constitution with the following text (from HJR 6):

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Before we get into the actual black-letter meaning of the amendment, let's look at the intent. This is designed to keep any sort of gay marriage or similar legal arrangement such as civil unions, from being accorded any legal status in Texas.

While I hope that gays may someday legally marry, adopt and otherwise enjoy the equal protection of the laws and the same privileges and immunities as heterosexual couples, there are two very good reasons for all Texans -- including those opposed to gay marriage -- to vote AGAINST this amendment:

First, Texas already forbids same-sex marriages by statute.

Second, the plain text of the amendment lends itself to a construction outlawing all marriage. Read clause (a) closely. It defines marriage as only a "union" between a man and a woman. What kind of union? Physical? Are straight couples only married when in fact they are engaged in sexual congress? OK, maybe that's a silly argument. But look at clause (b). Neither Texas nor any political subdivision of Texas may "create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

What does "identical" mean? Exactly the same as? Isn't the only thing identical to marriage, marriage itself?

Could Texans really be about to abolish the legal institution of marriage altogether? I know some libertarians -- not me -- who would be delighted at that prospect.

Certainly section 2 of the House joint resolution could be used by a creative lawyer to argue that the Legislature knew that it was incumbent on couples (of whatever kind) to get their affairs in order as to guardianship, survivorship, etc., as they were about to obliterate all the legal privileges appurtenant to marriage.

I know the right wingers will say this isn't what they meant. But they should have been more careful drafting the amendment's text.

One very real potential casualty of this amendment could be common-law marriages. Like most Western states, Texas has a fairly short statute of limitations for the formation of a common-law marriage. But since common-law marriages are not formalized by a license, I would read this amendment to forbid any family or probate courts from recognizing the entitlement of the common law spouse to their share of the community property.

This is just a needless, largely symbolic, and ugly mess. One driven by bigotry and closed-mindedness. I hope (without much optimism) that my fellow citizens will keep this abomination from becoming part of the Texas constitution.

If you are registered to vote, PLEASE VOTE. And vote AGAINST Proposition 2.

Update: Be sure to check out the discussion in my comments. Here's my explanation of the legal futility of the proposed amendment to prevent "activist judges" from imposing gay marriage:

Third, this is all a red herring, because the status quo under both Texas and federal law is that gay marriage is and remains illegal and need not be given full faith and credit, even if permitted in other states. This is the case NOW. Prop. 2 will do NOTHING to change this, and in fact may undermine long-customary common law marriages (to the detriment of the abandoned common--law-wife, typically). You may call that FUD, but have you read the plain text of the amendment? It is sloppy and unforgivably vague. Which means everything will end up in court, which is what the amendment is supposed to prevent.

Fourth, speaking of court... the same federal constitutional challenge that would lead to a change in the status quo (see 3) would also lead to an invalidation of the proposed marriage amendment. The supremacy clause of the US Constitution would bind Texas, if activists manage to win an extension of marriage rights as a basic liberty under the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments. Think of all the dead-letter miscegenation laws that were on the books in the South after Loving v. Virginia.

I think Virginia Postrel sums it up much more elegantly:

Since Texas already defines marriage by statute as the union of one man and one woman, Prop 2 is nothing more than a gratuitous attempt to build Gov. Rick Perry's social-conservative voting base by attacking gays. Supporters say an amendment is necessary to control "activist judges." But the only judges the amendment would bind are Texas state judges. Texas state judges, including the state's Supreme Court, are elected by Texas voters. Texas state judges are quite conservative. They are, to put it mildly, highly unlikely to find a right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution.

(Voting guide for all nine amendments beyond the jump):
more...

Posted by: JohnL at 10:00 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 1142 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Sorry -- I'm for the amendment myself. Beyound the religious argument (which for me is very strong) there is also the "what is best for our society?" question. I believe that the side effects would be very bad for our society as a whole and for our children in particular. While we disagree on this, I hope we can still be friends. One should be able to disagree without being disagreeable, eh? Robin Juhl

Posted by: Ranten N. Raven at November 06, 2005 10:43 PM (+oX0z)

2 "It's for the children" is always a useful, empty, statement. Even if banning same sex marriage would somehow help "the children," the wording on this amendment could do awful things to marriage in Texas.

Posted by: Owlish at November 07, 2005 02:08 AM (rzugH)

3 I make a simple statement of my belief, and you call it "a useful, empty statement?" That is not exactly nice. The line of legal definition must be drawn somewhere. Consider abortion: If you read Roe v. Wade, you'll see that the court actually said that the state had a legitimate interest in regulating abortions in the final trimester. But the line was not clearly drawn. Now, it's considered a woman's right to have her baby killed when partially born. All from same ruling. Once marriage open up, we will soon have Heinlein-style multiple partner marriages. There would soon be every possible premutation. While that's fun to read about, I don't think it good for society and for children. Once it's acknowleged as a "good thing" via legal recognition, then the schools must teaach that "it's a good thing." Even for those styles of marriage that might prove disasterous, there is no opportunity for schools to descriminate against them. All are equal before the law, just as schools must now teach that all abortions are good. That's how I see it, in a nutshell. You can certainly disagree, oh Owlish one. But I hope you at least recognize that it's my honest belief, not some convenient "useful, empty statement." Robin Juhl

Posted by: Ranten N. Raven at November 07, 2005 06:07 AM (+oX0z)

4 There have been various public policies, that have been supported by people as "for the children," for instance the War on Drugs, that had unintended consequences. Such as, it's easier for a teenager to get access to marijuana than to alcohol. So, yes, saying "It's for the children" to me is trying to get people to vote for your side, without making the rational argument for why I should be on your side. So you don't like the idea of same sex marriage, and think it will lead to other arrangements being called marriage, which will be bad. Ok, that's an argument. Seems like a weak one to me, but ok. The point is, Proposition 2 won't just ban gay marriage, and gay civil unions. The wording is such that it seems to prevent the state from recognizing any marriage. Which is, I suspect, an unintended consequence you would not want.

Posted by: owlish at November 07, 2005 08:27 AM (rzugH)

5 [Deleted at request of commenter].

Posted by: Mallorie Royo at November 07, 2005 05:29 PM (2Mr7s)

6 Owlish: I didn't set out to change your mind to my side. I simply stated that I was on the other side, what motivated me, and expressed the hope we could all still be friends. Also, I don't believe the text of the amendment threatens marriages under existing law. That argument reminds me of Microsoft's approach to fighting for market share: FUD. Create "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt" in the minds of managers when they think of other products. I can't change your mind; you can't change mine. But I hope we can keep from hurling "Moonbat!" and "Wingnut!" at each other. Mallorie: Only God can judge us, true. As a Christian, I believe that giving in to homosexual urges is on a par with giving in to adulterous urges. Both old & new Testaments seem to regard them in the same light. But we are all sinners. "Sinful feelings?" Get them all the time. Lust and greed are sins I fight daily, hourly, minute-by-minute, even. It is not my place to judge, for I have legions of my own sins. You ask how this could harm me and mine, though.... You point out that you do not flaunt your sexuality, and in fact mute your behavior near families because it might make them uncomfortable. This is gracious behavior, to be concerned with the feelings of others. But, if the state recognizes your union as a "good thing" that is on a par ith the marriage of that mom & dad, why should you? Your marriage would be as good as theirs. They can kiss, hold hands, etc. You may continue to mute your behavior, others would not. "We're here; we're queer; get used to it!" is an old chant now. You don't seek adoption? Why not, once married? Your marriage would be as good as any other's. The two gay guys across town? Why can the state descriminate against them? There would be no legal reason to do so. What would schools be required to teach? That hetrosexual monogamy is society's prefered norm, the standard to which we should aspire? No, they must treat all marriages equally. Gay activists who don't respect families' feelings would make sure of that. Sex education classes would get even more..."interesting." If any two people can get married, why not any three or any five or any twelve? (That's why I mentioned Heinlein: his stories included families that had multiple husbands and multiple wives.) What legal reason is there to stop such marriages? None, if any two adults have a right to marry, so do any three, etc. The Mormans may soon get polygamy legalized again. I don't seek to convince you, just to inform you of my belief: I don't believe that direction is good for society. Yes, I know: Owlish and our kind host disagree. After tomorrow, we an all go back to being allies on many other questions.

Posted by: Ranten N. Raven at November 07, 2005 09:20 PM (+oX0z)

7 First, I want to thank everyone for remaining civil. Second, I know Owlish personally, since long before I knew he was gay. Everything I knew about him as a person before he came out would have led me to believe that he would make as good a husband and father as I am today. So why can't he? He didn't decide to "become" gay. It's who he is. Third, this is all a red herring, because the status quo under both Texas and federal law is that gay marriage is and remains illegal and need not be given full faith and credit, even if permitted in other states. This is the case NOW. Prop. 2 will do NOTHING to change this, and in fact may undermine long-customary common law marriages (to the detriment of the abandoned common--law-wife, typically). You may call that FUD, but have you read the plain text of the amendment? It is sloppy and unforgivably vague. Which means everything will end up in court, which is what the amendment is supposed to prevent. Fourth, speaking of court... the same federal constitutional challenge that would lead to a change in the status quo (see 3) would also lead to an invalidation of the proposed marriage amendment. The supremacy clause of the US Constitution would bind Texas, if activists manage to win an extension of marriage rights as a basic liberty under the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments. Think of all the dead-letter miscegenation laws that were on the books in the South after Loving v. Virginia. So, best I can tell, this amendment is motivated primarily by ignorance, but also significantly by a kind of ugly and cumulative intolerance.

Posted by: JohnL at November 07, 2005 09:50 PM (dYzx6)

8 Ranten, of course you're as welcome as anyone to read and share your opinions here. Your opinions are probably the same as those of my boss, my coworkers, my parents, my pastor, and most of my fellow citizens here in Plano. The majority is not always and forever right, however. I think your mentions of Heinlein are very interesting, as that is the libertarian outcome of removing the state from the marriage equation. I'm not convinced it would be worse than the status quo. I'm not convinced it would be better either, though I am inclined that way. My only hesitation is based on child custody/support issues and marital property issues in non-traditional arrangements. But those are and will remain academic questions for quite some time. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

Posted by: JohnL at November 07, 2005 10:00 PM (dYzx6)

9 Raven: Based on your assumption that non-traditional marriage isn't good for children, aren't there other existing conditions affecting far more children that should be outlawed before worrying about gays and polygamists? Divorce and single-parenthood are, if not yet openly encouraged, certainly very common and it wouldn't surprise me if children of single parents are being told their smaller families are just as good as the traditional 2-parent version. Has the use of legislation to protect children (or others) from certain beliefs ever worked in the past? Isn't Libertarianism about being free to make your own choices in life and allowing others to make their own? Are you really saying you don't think people in "non-traditional" relationships should not be allowed to enjoy the same legal benefits and protections you do solely because you don't want your children to think such relationships are acceptable?

Posted by: Skwigul at November 07, 2005 10:32 PM (fMF9u)

10 I know Owlish personally, since long before I knew he was gay. And before I knew I was gay. The majority is not always and forever right, however. My step-grandfather was offended by mixed race marriages, which to me seemed just stupid. In the past, that probably was a majority opinion. I know a gay couple who have been together for more than 10 years. It seems to me that Hollywood celebrities having fly-by-night marriages do much more to undermine marriage than the possibility of my friends getting married.

Posted by: Owlish at November 07, 2005 10:36 PM (rzugH)

11 R. Juhl has every right to be concerned about the state of marriage and society. Unfortunately that concern doesn't justify voting yes on Prop 2 (which is badly worded and unnecesaary in Texas anyway as explained above). R. Juhl's concern could be better focused on strengethening straight "marriage" and parental responsibility laws... but somehow I doubt R. Juhl feels nearly as motivated to vote-in government oversight and critical assessment of his own personal/familial relationship. Sure, he might say, straight people are the ones responsible for the sorry state of marriage as it stands now - but it's so much easier to vote against the gays. You can't expect him to turn a critical eye to the way his straight family and friends treat marriage when there are gays around who already think it's okay to hold hands in public. But he still, of course, wants to remain friends - as long as you aren't a gay friend who thinks kissing your partner of 20 years goodbye at the airport is okay when he and his family are within eyeshot. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Posted by: kipp at November 08, 2005 01:26 AM (HxLAi)

12 John L.: Thanks for the clear thinking, the forum for discussion, and he kind words. You are gracious host. Discussions where we all agree are boring. When we can disagree in a civil manner, we can seek uderstanding, at least. Owlish: Thanks for an interesting and civil discussion. Kipp: Thanks for the gratuitous insults and for ascribing your fears to my thoughts and attitudes. Unlike John L., who knows Owlish, you don't know me. I grew up knowing Jerry and Bori. Jerry was my mom's best friend from HS days. They were at all my family events. They lived together and owned a business together. When I ws older I heard laughing references to how wild their parties were. Esspecially mentioned was the time Bori fell asleep drunk right under the window AC unit (early 1960s) and got pneumonia. Bori commited suicide around 19070, and it brought Jerry & my mother even closer. I didn't know they were gay until I was nearing graduation from HS. And Jack? My favorite uncle? He's gay, too? And Mr. Harrington, my 7-9th grade music teacher? Amazing! Lord, Jerry was fun at parties. Loud? A Joke a minute? WOW! When WakkaWakka was five, Jerry mooned him. My brother told me: "He did the same thing to you when you were that age." Jerry went on a sex-vacation trip to Thailand about five years ago. The AIDS he contracted there killed him about three years ago. My mother was DEVASTATED. I miss Jerry, too. Don't try to tell me how I feel, bucko. I'd use stronger language, but his is John L's home, not mine. Now, I need to get off to work.

Posted by: Ranten N. Raven at November 08, 2005 06:00 AM (+oX0z)

13 RnR- What a touching story about the all the swell gay people in your life. I'm sure George Wallace has lots of black friends, too. Did you ever stop to think that just maybe Bori wouldn't have committed suicide - and Jerry might not have needed to go on a Thai sex vacation and gets AIDs - if perhaps society accepted gay people or gave some aknowledgement to long-term commitment between gay people. I don't know you RnR - and these issues are pretty major in my life so please forgive some of my 'tude. Despite your fond memories, most gay men don't get AIDS on Thai sex vacations. And many of them aren't funny, hyperannuated teenagers - they're just regular mature adults trying to lead happy, responsible lives and some of them want to raise children, too. These people aspire to the very standard of marriage that straight people have let slip over the last 30 years. Voting yes on Prop 2 does next to nothing to protect straight marriage and does everything to prevent committed gay couples from receiving any aknowledgement that society values their relationship and committment. You are complicit in the oppression that can make life very sad and very difficult for gay people. I doubt you sneer at them in public or ban them from your birthday parties. But you are sneering at them in the voting booth by voting for Prop 2. I'm sorry if it seems unfriendly to point that out...

Posted by: kipp at November 08, 2005 11:55 AM (g5s3Q)

14 Not to mention, you've seen 2 people die, and your major concern is how it will affect the children if we legalize poligamy? Or is it that if Bori and Jerry had just accepted Jesus into their lives, and gone Ex-Gay, none of that would have happened?

Posted by: owlish at November 08, 2005 12:10 PM (rzugH)

15 I'm a hater and a religious bigot, or so you say. Sorry for taking my faith seriously. I try to open up and I get slammed. Not the best way to convince me of your arguments. This vote is over. I will not engage here again. John L: If you ever head San Antonio's way, let me know. I'd like to buy you a drink. Finis.

Posted by: Ranten N. Raven at November 09, 2005 05:56 AM (+oX0z)

16 Hmm. JohnL, I'm sorry if I was involved in losing you a reader.

Posted by: Owlish at November 09, 2005 10:09 AM (rzugH)

17 I wonder if those in favor of "traditional marriage" realize that at one time it was against the law to marry someone who had epilepsy. And at one time inter-racial marriage was illegal as well. It's just a matter of time folks. Just as in Canada and parts of Europe, gay marriage will be legal here someday. It's just going to take us backwards homophobic Americans a little while longer to get there.

Posted by: Texican at November 09, 2005 02:57 PM (qIXZN)

18 I really have to chime in here, on behalf of the minority who are Intersexed. The men who are 46xx females genetically, but with Adrenal Hyperplasia. The women who are 46xy males genetically, but have Complete Androgen Insensitivity. Those with Kleinfelters syndrome, 47xxy, who look like normal males, unless you know what to look for. Those with mosaicism, where parts of the body are 46xx, others 46xy, and possibly other still 47xxy. These are the common conditions, 1 in a few thousand, get to 1 in 100,000 and some really weird stuff can happen. Many have grown up believing themselves "normal". Many have gotten married. Some (mosaics and Kleinfelters) have even had kids. Some go to their graves never knowing that they were different. What about the 46xy girls with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, who find themselves turning into men at puberty? What about those whose mothers were given DiEthylStoboestrol during pregnancy, so their unborn son ended up with a female-pattern brain? Or those where it just happened due to a natural hormonal glitch? Or where a daughter ended up with a male-pattern brain, something about as common? This has nothing to do with sexual preference : many such transsexuals didn't know their condition was a congenital anomaly, that was only found out in 1999. The Female transsexuals know they're women, despite being in a male body, it doesn't fit and is a constant source of misery. The Male transsexuals know they are men, despite the curves, the ones they hate with a passion. How would you guys like it if you'd been born in a body that was a petite size 8, 34C cup, "daddy's little princess", and hating every second of it since age 5 or so. Because that's when you would know - this stuff has nothing to do with sex, it's gender. How would you like it if you knew you could never be a father, if you wanted kids you would have to have sexual relations with another man? Now you know what it's like for about 1 in 2000 people. So in 1970-something, there you are, you just think you're psychologically screwed up, you don't know the reason you feel as you do is because the very brain cells in your head react differently to hormones and neurotransmitters from everyone who looks like you. You don't know that the cell patterns in the BSTc layer under the Hypothalamanus, and other gross brain structures, are those of the opposite sex to your body. You just think you're a bit weird, a bit screwed up in the head. But if you tell anyone, you'll end up getting aversion therapy, ECT (shock treatment), mind-bending drugs... none of which will work, there has never been a single documented case of a "cure", but they'll keep on trying well into the 21st century. You deal with it. You make the best life you can. If you're lucky, you find a member of the same sex as yourself who is attracted to your opposite-sexed body. If you're very, very lucky, you manage to overcome your natural homophobia, and fall in love with them too. You marry, and have kids. This is especially common with females, they have strong maternal instincts, even if they do have male chromosomes. But some crack under the strain. Usually about 33 years after puberty. Maybe all do - how would we know? Then the only choice they have is twofold: to either have the hideously embarressing, expensive and protracted cosmetic "sex change" treatment (which has a 97% success rate), or figure out how they're going to die: by their own hand, or, if they have the courage, just letting nature take its course. Stress kills them within months, years at most, years of torment 24/7. Or decades of being a Zombie on huge doses of Happy Pills to keep them breathing. Parenthetically, there is a third possibility, but incredibly rare, very few cases reported. Sometimes the body starts changing without any treatment. Such people don't get a choice. They change, partially, anyway. In any case, you end up with two people who are married, usually with children, and of the same somatic sex. 80% of such marriages immediately fail. 20% don't. "Those who God has joined together, Let No Man put asunder". Even if, through a medical condition, they end up with the same sex. But it's only a tiny minority of course. Why, not even a thousand in Texas, only a couple of hundred. Zoe (one of the rare ones who had no choice)

Posted by: Zoe Brain at November 10, 2005 06:03 AM (1Hvoy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 20, 2005

Texas Kraut Recipes

A significant number of the "Anglos" that settled in Texas in the early 19th century were, in fact, Teutons and Slavs. And until the current generation, one could readily encounter German dialects being spoken in small towns in the Texas hill country. (In my sophomore year of college, my German class took a field trip to Fredericksburg, where we struggled to understand the dialect of a 70-something museum guide whose German was anything but Hochdeutsch).

In honor of Oktoberfest (excellent Oktoberfest picture here, btw), here's a site with numerous recipes incorporating sauerkraut, including a couple that might work here in Texas: Surprise Chili and Salsa Ole.

Posted by: JohnL at 11:23 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

January 27, 2005

Irony Alert

Recently, a Texas lawmaker introduced a bill that would require Texas school districts to include the body mass index of pupils as part of their regular report cards.

I'm sorry, but parents should know if their kids are fat (or "husky") without the school districts telling them so. And, frankly, Texas schools have a lot more to worry about than the BMI of their students.

As to the irony (pointed out by Texan Munuvian Ilyka): check out the apparent BMI issues of the legislator (legislatrix?) who introduced the bill.

(This lady has also introduced a bill requiring development of lactation education programs for elementary and secondary schools' science curricula. Hello? Why do those kids need to learn about lactation in elementary school?).

Posted by: JohnL at 10:28 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

January 01, 2005

Hook 'Em, Horns!

Now THAT was a football game!

Awesome Rose Bowl. Texas beats Michigan, 38-37 on a last-second field goal.

I wonder how many of the other BCS games will come close to being as entertaining as this one was.

Posted by: JohnL at 07:51 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That was about perfect, Texas behind by 10 at about 12 minutes left to go, some back and forth, last minute win. Can't get any better unless I went to UT.

Posted by: owlish at January 02, 2005 11:42 AM (KP3t9)

2 What a fantastic game! I'm not a big fan of either school (and have been dubious of Mack Brown since his UNC days)---but what a great example of college football. I don't know how USC-OK will be able to compare...

Posted by: bubbster at January 02, 2005 12:57 PM (RSO0m)

3 Woo-Hoo! Hook 'em, Horns! And what better companion to a last-minute, come-from-behind win by Texas than to see the Aggies get crushed in the Cotton Bowl? For a fan of Lone Star State football with the right sensibilities, life is sweet.

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at January 02, 2005 02:00 PM (+7VNs)

4 While I bleed burnt orange, I was sad to see the Ags lose to Tennessee, which has the temerity to call itself the "real" UT. It would have been nice to see a Texas sweep of the bowls (I'm not a Tech fan, but I was really happy to see them put it to the overrated California Golden Bears). Now I'm conflicted -- while an OU win in the Orange Bowl would be good for the Big 12, I simply loathe the Sooners.

Posted by: JohnL at January 02, 2005 02:17 PM (gplif)

5 It cost me working Christmas Eve, Christmas, and New Year's Eve in order to be off to watch it... but was it ever worth it. Since I went to Tech and The University, it's been a great bowl season- though I was sad for the Ags; I always pull for the Big 12. Yeah, that means I'll be for the (gag) Sooners, if only 'cause it makes UT look better.

Posted by: Jack Grey at January 03, 2005 03:33 AM (Jq8H8)

6 Thank God I'm a Buckeye.

Posted by: Bob Hawkins at January 03, 2005 09:04 PM (AxwvL)

7 sooners ya you guys suck go SOONERS boomer......sooners

Posted by: yo daddy at January 20, 2005 07:18 PM (/9Bpc)

8 HOOK'EM HORNS IS MEANS HOOK EM IS ALL BIG 12 MASCOTS NOT A JAYHAWK JAYHAWK GO WITH LONGHORN TOGETHER

Posted by: Eric Dyer at April 15, 2005 09:17 PM (QlCtO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 25, 2004

Armstrong Rides Into History

Texan Lance Armstrong has won a record sixth Tour de France.

No point in my linking many stories, since you can Google "Lance Armstrong" as easily as I. Here's a decent one to get you started.

In a game of six degrees of Lance Armstrong, I would come in at only one degree of separation, as I bought my current bike from Jim Hoyt at the Richardson Bike Mart just a couple of miles from here. Jim sold Lance his first bike, and got Lance into racing back in 1987.

A big Texas yee-haw goes out to Lance!

Posted by: JohnL at 11:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

April 06, 2004

Texas Taste

Robert the Llama Butcher criticizes a chili recipe for its lack of beer. I would agree, except for his recommendation of Lone Star beer.

As far as I'm concerned, the "real" national beer of Texas is Shiner Bock, brewed in the Spoetzel Brewery in Shiner, Texas (pop. 2,100).

Another good thing to include in a real Texas chili is novelty meat -- venison, rattlesnake, bison, you name it. Maybe even llama?

Yip yip indeed.

Posted by: JohnL at 10:36 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Okay, I'll give you that one! Forgot about Shiner Bock - It's been a long time.

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at April 07, 2004 01:22 PM (XQmyz)

2 In our college years, I would have agreed. But since The Gambrinus Company of San Antonio bought Shiner, I have to go with a real Texas brewery, namely St. Arnolds.

Posted by: JB at April 07, 2004 03:12 PM (PoauF)

3 I haven't really noticed any sort of fall-off in Shiner's quality, and they still brew it at the little old brewery. If they ever start brewing it under license elsewhere, then I might demote it. You do have a point about Saint Arnolds (first time I saw it, appropriately, was when HEB opened their new Central Market in Plano). All their flavors are good, but the "Lawnmower" is my favorite. Great story printed on the bottle about the miracle of the never-dry beer mug at Saint Arnold's funeral procession, too.

Posted by: John Lanius at April 07, 2004 03:36 PM (YVul2)

4 Lone Star! Good lord, you may as well use Pabst Blue Ribbon, Coors, or Shaffer Light! And with the recipe mentioned, to paraphrase Clara Peller, "Where's the heat?!".

Posted by: JP at April 07, 2004 03:40 PM (ktJme)

5 1) Central Market rules. 2) If you haven't tried St Arnold's root beer yet you should, although a during a taste test with my friends we couldn't decide between that and IBC. 3) 3 tablespoons of chili powder might be a little weak; one recipe book I've got recommended 1 tablespoon plus 2 jalapenos. Hmm, chili for dinner sounds good.

Posted by: JB at April 07, 2004 07:12 PM (PoauF)

6 Novelty meat? Never tried that in a chilli. I make do with grass-fed-beef. And Kangaroo, of course.

Posted by: Alan E Brain at April 08, 2004 11:07 AM (6+NlZ)

7 Any chili not made with genuine road kill is not fit to eat. In fact, adding anything to road kill is a tragedy. All beer is good, provided the master doesn't catch you lapping from his can.

Posted by: Bill Bulldog at April 12, 2004 10:55 PM (G5PGV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 02, 2004

Happy Birthday, Texas!

It's not my policy to blog from work, which is why you usually see late-night updates around here. But since today is an important date to commemorate, I wanted to get up an early-morning entry, especially for any out-of-state (or should that be "out-of-Republic?") readers.

On this date in 1836, several brave men assembled at Washington-on-the-Brazos and signed their names to the Texas Declaration of Independence.

Just a few short days later, many more brave men gave their lives at the Alamo, standing their ground for their cause despite almost-certain death. Following a massacre of Texans at Goliad on March 27, 1836, a small army led by Sam Houston caught Santa Ana on April 21 by surprise at the battle of San Jacinto. Crying "Remember the Alamo, Remember Goliad," the "Texians" routed the Mexicans and won their independence.

Texas remained an independent republic for the next 9 years, until it was admitted to the United States on December 29, 1845. I'm flying my Texas flag this week, in place of the usual Stars and Stripes out front. Happy Birthday, Texas.

Posted by: JohnL at 08:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

79kb generated in CPU 0.0578, elapsed 0.1222 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.0998 seconds, 178 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 15860
Files: 62
Bytes: 68.5M
CPU Time: 20:18
Queries: 816813

Content

Posts: 2343
Comments: 1659

Feeds

September 13, 2006

August 13, 2006

June 05, 2006

May 23, 2006

May 16, 2006

November 08, 2005

September 20, 2005

January 27, 2005

January 01, 2005

July 25, 2004

April 06, 2004

March 02, 2004

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds