Texas GOP Gubernatorial Debate
The candidates involved in the Republican primary for the Texas governor’s race met last night for their second debate. Nationally, this race has garnered attention for the showdown between incumbent, Rick Perry, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Locally, the libertarian-minded Debra Medina has captured headlines for her ability to campaign with the two behemoths with a fraction of their budget and media exposure. As an independent voter, I’m still not convinced that I will vote in the Republican primary, but I decided to watch the debate nonetheless.
Over the past two decades, I’ve become all too familiar with the politics of both Perry & Hutchinson. Nothing that either candidate could say in the debate would change my perspective, the only real difference between the two is that Hutchinson is less interested in legislating Levitical law.
Minutes into the debate, the candidates’ contrasting styles became evident. Perry, nicknamed “Governor Good Hair” by a local media outlet, lived up to his nickname, dressed to the nines and presenting himself as a confident and competent politician. His style was well suited for the “good ol’ boy” network of oil men, timber men and ranchers whose deep pockets have kept him in office.
Hutchinson looked nervous, distant and unfocused, yet still very stately. The debate confirmed what the Perry campaign ads claim–Hutchinson is Washington. Without a pre-prepared speech, she seems uneasy and out of place. Yet there is enough sophistication to appeal the “blue blooded”, old world Republicans. However, there’s not enough there to appeal to the rural voters of Texas.
Medina, on the other hand, came off as an average Texan, outraged with the current administration’s handling of state affairs, full of populist fervor. She is the type of candidate who will play well in the rural areas of the state, but struggle among the white collar crowd. Yet there was something about her I found enticing. Coming into the debate, I had been intrigued by her libertarian stands on taxes, but conflicted by her association with the Tea Party movement–a movement whose affiliation with fringe elements worries me.
I must say that she impressed me. However, I was disappointed with her response to the “gay marriage” question. I find it hypocritical for someone to claim to be a civil libertarian and then to invoke their religious values to campaign against gay marriage. The only redeeming part of her whole response was that she felt the government really had no business in marriage at all, that it was a spiritual institution that should be handled by churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. I find this answer to be somewhat easier to swallow, knowing that there are several progressive minded congregations that would welcome the opportunity to marry gay couples. However, I feel very strongly that gay couples deserve the same protections under the law that straight couples enjoy.
All things considered, Medina won the debate and probably my vote. While I disagree with views on gay marriage, none of the candidates running for governor in either party support gay marriage, therefore that issue will not be a deciding factor in who gets my vote. This was the last debate before the primaries in March, so there’s not much time left for the candidates to change my mind. When I examine the issues across the board, Medina is the only candidate who provides real solutions and not just empty rhetoric.
The People Under the Stairs
Two years ago, Stephanie and I moved into a beautiful, pre-World War II four-plex in the heart of University Park. We fell in love with the hardwood floors, built in bookcases and location the first time we laid eyes upon it. A week after we moved into our second floor unit, Mark, a piano playing chef moved in below us. Mark was a great neighbor, understanding the proper mix of neighborly socializing and privacy. Sometime last March, Mark fell in love. As Mark and his boyfriend became more serious, we saw less and less of him and, in August, Mark and his boyfriend moved to the Oaklawn area.
Shortly after his move, we noticed that someone had moved a couch and large, plasma TV into the vacant apartment, but we never saw any other furniture moved into the unit. For a few weeks, we saw a few signs of life (i.e. delivery notices on door, packages at doorstep, etc.) but never saw any people moving in or out of the unit. We assumed that someone had simply stored the TV & couch in the unit until they were able to move it to it’s proper location. Every now and then, we would hear sounds of life (creak, pops and the such), but readily dismissed them as signs of an old building. The windows remained darkened, the parking spot assigned to the unit was used by a tenant from another building and we never saw anyone enter or leave the unit.
Perhaps the strangest incident occurred on New Years’ Eve when I heard a group of female voices coming from the downstairs lobby. At the time, we assumed that the bottom two units were vacant and figured that a group of drunk New Years Eve revelers had entered our building by mistake.
On Friday night, as I left to pick up dinner, I came to the bottom of the stairs and was taken back when I saw a couple standing in the lobby. My initial shock soon turned into curiosity as the couple entered the unit in question. How could a couple live below us for almost a half a year and go virtually unnoticed? Better yet, how could someone live below us for that period of time and not introduce themselves to us? Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to have neighbors that don’t make a lot of noise, but I still believe in being “neighborly.”
Help Me Understand The Beatles
Five years ago, I was questioning my friend about their fascination with the Grateful Dead. Up until that point, my opinion of the Dead had been greatly influenced by the most commercially successful of the Dead’s music–”Casey Jones”, “Truckin’”, “Touch of Gray”, “Uncle John’s Band”, etc. I never found any of these songs to be particularly great, but would listen to them if I happened to hear them on the radio. Indeed, my opinion of the Grateful Dead was one of total ambivalence.
My friend introduced me to some of the band’s “deeper cuts”–songs like “Jack Straw”, “Franklin’s Tower” and “I Know You Rider”. These tracks intrigued me and I began to dig deeper into the bands catalog, delving into the deep collection of live tracks, discovering versions of “Eyes of the World”, “China Cat Sunflower” and “Scarlet Begonias” that would forever change the look of my iPod playlists.
Similarly, I struggled for years to understand why people felt U2 was so great. To me, the band came off as noting short of generic. I asked several U2 fans to suggest some deep cuts to help me gain an appreciation for the band. While I still think the band is over-hyped, I developed a much better appreciation of the band after discovering tracks like “I Will Follow”, “Twilight”, “Is That All?” and “Drowning Man.”
I think it’s now time for a similar project for a band that many consider to be the “best of all time”–the Beatles. I admit that my exposure to The Beatles is relatively limited, basically just the “hits” and The White Album. It’s The White Album that especially perplexes me. Yes, it marks the first time The Beatles drifted away from pop and experimented with real rock n roll, but it falls way short of the greatness of other albums released the same year. In addition to The White Album, 1968 saw the release of the Rolling Stones’ Beggar Banquet, Jimi Hendrix’s Electric Ladyland, Simon & Garfunkel’s Bookends and perhaps the most innovative album of the decade, The Byrds’ Sweetheart of the Rodeo. All of these albums would have a much greater impact on the evolution of rock than The White Album.
What is it about The Beatles that I am missing?
In my opinion, The Beatles did two things well. One, they created radio friendly pop tunes, much like Nickelback or Fall Out Boy of the modern era, when compared to other British invasion bands like The Animals or The Zombies fall short on the artistic meter. Secondly, they produced some interesting whimsical tunes consistent with the work product of one hit wonder bands. Indeed, the two Beatles songs I like the most are “Honey Pie” and “Martha My Dear.”
So with that I put out this plea to all of The Beatles fans out there. Help me understand this band. Suggest some of the band’s work that I should check out that will change my perception. Please provide the track and album name in the comments field.
Rules for being a fan…
Last night the Dallas Mavericks recorded their 336 straight sell out. A couple of things made this game stand out from the rest. One, Dirk Nowitzki became the 34th player in NBA history, and the first not to have played college or high school ball in the U.S., to top the 20,000 point mark in his career. But what really made this night stand out was the large size of the crowd for the opposing team. The Los Angeles Lakers were in town and their t-shirt fandom was out in full force.
It goes without saying that 99% of the Lakers fans in attendance last night have never been to L.A. They have no real connection to the team, but they like to be associated with winners, so based on the past success of that franchise they buy the team’s merchandise and tickets to the game when the Lakers swim through Dallas. The Chicago Bulls attracted a similar following in the 1990’s and the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Detroit Red Wings and, yes, my beloved Dallas Cowboys attract similar followings in their respective sports.
While I am a die hard fan of the Cowboys, I grew up in the Dallas area to a family of Cowboys fans. Simply put, I am a Cowboys fan because they are the home town team and I have never turned my back on them, regardless of how tough times might have been. Similarly, I’ve been a Mavs fan my entire life–yes, even during the 90’s when the team was historically pathetic, and while I still haven’t got to celebrate a NBA title, I have had the opportunity to see the Mavs make it to the Finals, win 67 games in a season, see Dirk win the MVP and enjoy one of the most successful decades in NBA history (9 straight 50 + win seasons & 9 straight playoff appearances). With the Rangers, there hasn’t been much payoff for my loyalty, but even those gray skies seem to be clearing up.
It’s impossible for me to fathom rooting against any of the Dallas area teams. When the Lakers come to the AAC or when the Yankees visit the Ballpark, I see thousands of people who live in the same metropolitan area as me turn their back on their hometown teams and I’m left scratching my head, just as I’m sure fans in other cities wonder where all the Cowboys fans come from on Sunday afternoons. Shouldn’t there be some rules to being a fan? I think so…
1.) Live or Lived in the City – You live in Dallas; you root for Dallas teams. You live in Dallas and move to Boston; you can still root for Dallas teams. However, if you are born and live in Philly you should probably root for the Eagles instead of the Cowboys.
2.) Live in market for the franchise – This rule mainly applies to those people who live in areas without professional sports franchises. I grew up in East Texas. Dallas was the nearest city with a professional sports franchise. However, the local sports affiliates carried games for New Orleans, Houston & San Antonio teams in addition to the Dallas franchises. It’s acceptable for someone in this situation to be a fan of any of those teams.
3.) Family Ties – This is similar to rule #1, but allows for generational gaps. Your grandfather moved to Dallas in the 1940’s from Brooklyn. He was a die hard Dodgers fan, raised your father to be the same and your dad raised you the same way. It’s understandable and acceptable for you to be a Dodgers fan.
It is unacceptable to be a fan of a team simply because you like their star player, you like their team colors, or you like the fact that they have won numerous titles.
Blackened Pork Chops
I have established certain staple dishes for beef, chicken and fish, but up until a few days ago I had yet to find a great recipe for pork. For years, I experimented with several different marinades and then attempted to “grill” chops on my George Foreman Grill. Inevitably, these chops always turned out dry and rather bland. I stumbled across two different pork chop recipes, both contained elements I didn’t like, but both sounded far more tasty than any of my previous failed attempts at pork chop perfection.
I decided to take my favorite parts of both recipes and combine them together for my own unique recipe, which is what I present here. I’ll remind you that everything organic tastes better and the more organic ingredients you use, the better your meal will taste.
Ingredients:
1 1/2 tsp. rubbed sage
1 tsp. minced garlic
1 tsp. thyme leaves
1/2 tsp. ground allspice
1/2 tsp. paprika
1 tbsp. flour
1 tsp. salt
2 tbsp. olive oil
1/2 cup dry white wine
1/2 cup of water
4 pork chops
1 diced onion
Begin by mixing all of your spices and flour in a bowl. Once the spices and flour are thoroughly mixed, sprinkle this mixture on both sides of your pork chops. Pour olive oil into a large skillet and set on medium-high heat. When you see the first wisps of white smoke from skillet, add your seasoned pork chops and turn heat to high. Move the chops around, ensuring that each side develops good color. Cook for approximately 3 1/2 minutes at which point you’ll reduce the heat to medium.
Add the wine and continue moving your chops around the skillet. After the wine evaporates, add water and continue cooking for 10 minutes, turning chops a few times. Add onion, reduce heat to low and continue to cook for 3 or 4 minutes.
You can serve the chops with or without the onions. Personally, I prefer mine served on a bed of rice. The meal is perfectly paired with a glass of your favorite Chardonnay.


