Geoausch

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.

Even though I am one of the most politically active people you will ever meet, I rarely watch political speeches. Perhaps I’ve seen too many to know exactly what to expect, but I find it hard to sit through “rah-rah” speeches designed to excite the base, but containing very little real substance for the American people in general. The last time I had watched a State of the Union Address was in 2002, after the 9/11 attacks. I was already growing weary of the Bush administration’s build up to war and his speech that night was further proof the Republican Party have left me way behind. After that, I never listened to another George W. Bush speech all the way through. His stumbling and bumbling were too much for me.

The last time I watched a political speech I actually enjoyed, and one that actually moved me, was in Barack Obama’s keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. However, I am of the opinion that since that time, President Obama’s oratory skills have declined significantly. I told myself I wasn’t going to watch his State of the Union Address last night, but after reading all the comments on my Facebook and Twitter feed, and walking in on the very beginning of the replay of the speech on Fox News, I broke my vow. While every political pundit has long since published their analysis on the speech, I thought I would share my unique perspective of President Obama’s big night.

1. This President likes to hear himself talk

I’ll admit, while I may not be big on his substance, Barack Obama is a great public speaker and he knows that. There’s no shame in admitting be proud of one’s public speaking skills. I am a great public speaker and I love to hear myself talk, so I know one when I see one. This President has given more speeches in his first year in office than any other President prior and while SOTU addresses usually run long, Obama’s clocked in at well over an hour. I really can’t fault the guy on this one. If you’ve got it; flaunt it!

2. President Obama has aged A LOT! I still remember the Barack Obama from the 2004 Democratic National Convention. That Barack Obama didn’t look much different than candidate Obama on the campaign trail in 2008 or the President Obama who was inaugurated last January. However, watching the President last night I couldn’t help but to notice the graying of his hair and the aging upon his face. While you can always tell the effects of aging on a President when he leaves the office, I cannot remember another President aging so quickly.

3. NBC Should Offer Obama Their 9 PM (10 EST) slot!

While NBC executive scramble to find something to replace the failed experiment that was the Jay Leno Show, their answer was right in front of them last night. The President is a great speaker, has an ego, is smart and witty and has connections throughout the entertainment world. Indeed, this is “Hollywood’s President.” He would do a great job hosting a late night talk show, earning the network huge ratings and earning President Obama a much healthier salary than the one he enjoys as President of the United States. Plus, he is far more qualified to be a late night talk show host than the leader of the free world.

4. Stop Blaming  Bush

If you look in the archives of this blog you will find a ton of posts critical of George W. Bush. Simply put, I thought he was the worst President of my lifetime. However, Bush has been out of the White House for over a year and I can’t stand to hear Democrats continue to blame all our problems on him. Did he cause a lot of problems? Hell yes he did. Did he live our nation in a state of disaster? Yes. However, Democrats have controlled the executive and legislative branches of our government for over a year now and our nation is no better now than it was under Bush. Indeed, things have only gotten worse.

5. One Redeeming Moment

The one redeeming moment of the entire night came when President Obama promised to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the United States Armed Forces. This is long overdue. Though I didn’t vote for Obama, his election instilled in me hope that advances would be made in the fight for equality for all my brothers and sisters in the GLBT community. Sadly, Obama has failed to do anything to further the cause of this often neglected group. If he can overturn the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy, I will have to seriously reconsider my opinion of his time in office. Until then, I give him props for at least making an effort.

Faulty logic abounds in the world of politics.  Almost every political campaign features candidates attacking each other with countless ad hominem attacks and campaign speeches filled with straw man arguments. Unfortunately, the faulty logic does not end there and often extends into the formation of a politician or a political party’s agenda, as evidenced by the Democrat Party’s response to Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts.

Even though Brown ran his campaign as a referendum on the pending health care legislation and won, Democratic leaders insist they will continue to push for reconciliation of the House and Senate bills, claiming it’s the “will of the people”. Normally, when a politician uses a generic qualifier like “will of the people,” he or she implies they have a mandate to fulfill.

But how does a politician determine a mandate?

Most pundits agree that a third of this country leans to the right, a third to the left and the other third somewhere down the middle. Regardless of the candidates, you know that the right leaning group will vote for the Republican candidates and the left leaning group will vote for the Democratic candidates, which means whichever candidate can win over the largest chunk of the final third of the voting block will win the election. This group of voters have been labeled “moderates,” “independents,” and perhaps most eloquently, the “silent majority.” In most elections, candidates attempt to identify an issue where their position will appeal to a much broader segment of this voting demographic and political pundits will label their obligation to follow through on this campaign promise as their “mandate.”

There is no empirical evidence that a majority of this key voting population referred to in the statement, “the will of the people”, supports the Democratic plan for health care reform. I have friends in every range of the political spectrum–from the Right of Rush Limbaugh to the Left of Vermont’s self-described “socialist” Senator, Bernie Sanders, and everywhere in between. Of these people, the only ones I know who support the Democratic plan are people who would have voted for Barack Obama, or other Democratic candidates, regardless of their opponents, based solely on the (D) behind their names. In fact, all the empirical evidence (i.e. polling data, town hall meetings, etc.) I have seen shows a majority of the independent voting population strongly disagrees with the Democratic health care agenda

The Democratic Party’s decision to stubbornly push an obviously unpopular health care bill, in spite of mounting political casualties, hinges on the logically flawed argument that this legislation is the “will of the people.” In the absence of clear empirical evidence, this argument assumes that more of the independent voters voted for Barack Obama, and Democrats in Congressional races in both 2006 & 2008, based on their positions on health care reform. The argument does not account for the number of independent voters who voted Democratic in the races simply out disappointment with Republican majority rule, the number of Obama voters simply caught up in the cult of personality surrounding the figure or any independent voter who cast a Democratic vote in 2006 or 2008, without once considering the candidates position on health care.

As the Democratic Party continues to ignore the real concerns of this silent majority, they have gradually raised their voices in opposition, but their screams appear to have landed on deaf ears. Perhaps the Democratic Party should try a more honest approach and describe their attempt at health care reform as the “will of the Democratic Party.” At least then they would begin to acknowledge that it is a majority of their Party, and not a majority of the American population, that desires to see their attempt to nationalize health care in the United States succeed.

As the results for the Massachusetts Senate race began to trickle in, exactly seven precincts reported before MSNBC pundit, Keith Olbermann, insinuated that race possibly played a role in the results, never mind that both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley are Caucasian.  Olbermann’s straw man argument was directed at the grass roots political organization, which played a major role in the Republican candidate’s surprise showing and represents yet another attempt to classify all opposition to the Democratic agenda as personal attacks against President Barack Obama.

While I fiercely reject the labels “conservative” and “Republican,” and dare not speak for those associated with those labels, I too oppose many of this administration’s policies, but it’s noting personal. Simply put, the progressive agenda of the Democratic does not work. I find the people behind the policies, especially President Obama, to be hip, creative and, most importantly, relevant, but in every other area of life EXCEPT making policies that directly impact my life.

I would have loved to have had President Obama as a professor in college. He seems like the type of guy who could lead some pretty powerful and interesting discussions on political theory. Unfortunately, not all of those theories are practical in the world in which we live.

To put it another way, many Dallas Cowboys fans dislike Wade Phillips as a coach. They feel his coaching philosophy is not one to lead championship teams. However, just about every Cowboys fan you meet will say the same thing about Wade Phillips, “he’s the type of guy I would love to be my neighbor.”

I feel the same way about President Obama. He’s the cool guy on the block with the picture-perfect family, the one you hope and pray invites you to his backyard cookouts,  but that doesn’t necessarily mean you think his political philosophy is the best fit for this country.

What you saw in Massachusetts tonight was voters saying that they too find the current policies of this administration to be failed policies, but it’s nothing personal.

Stephanie and I are currently in the planning stages of honeymoon. At first, we decided a trip to Napa & Sonoma would be nice, so we went to our local bookstore and bought a couple of books on traveling in the region. After reading the books and conducting some exhaustive Internet research, we decided that the region might be a little stuffy for our tastes, so we looked south on the map, down the California coastline and decided on Santa Barbara, a region that appears to offer a little more than fine wine and gourmet food. Yesterday, we purchased a couple of travel books on Santa Barbara and I couldn’t help but to notice a common theme throughout these books and the ones I purchased on Napa/Sonoma–California is fragile.

Electrical shortages, droughts, wildfires, earthquakes, tar on the beaches and the overwhelming fear that one more molecule of carbon dioxide may forever destroy their eco-system were all discussed in detail in the books I read. It reminded me of the first time I heard the term “eco-anxiety,” anxiety brought on by the fear that one is bringing on the end of the world by their lifestyle.  Indeed, buried within the words in these books was the admission by the author that they played some role (and the allegation that we the reader played a role) in causing all of these problems plaguing California, including the earthquakes.

The real anxiety is the anxiety created in the mind of the reader by the authors. If I get a rental car that is not a hybrid, will the locals try to drag us through the city streets and place us in the stocks for the rest of the natives to throw rotten (organic) vegetables at us. If I take a 10 minute shower, will a gestapo like agent show up our hotel door demanding to know why our water usage is twice that of the average California resident. If we choose to use the air conditioner, instead of opening our windows, will we be verbally assaulted? If we use more than one square of toilet paper, will Sheryl Crow and Laurie David show up to protest?

I am looking forward to our trip out West. Santa Barbara seems like a wonderful place to visit and I know it will make a great honeymoon location; however, I don’t think there could be a place in the continental United States more drastically different than my native Texas than coastal California.

Texans love their land as well, but we don’t fear it and we don’t let it control our lives. While residents of Santa Barbara continue to fight oil companies drilling off their coast line, Texans understand the positive impact drilling can have on an economy and understand the minimal impact it has on the local environment. Indeed, drilling continues to this day on Caddo Lake, one of the most biologically diverse wetlands in the United States.

Texans learn to live with the whims of Mother Nature as well. While earthquakes are uncommon (legend holds Caddo Lake was formed by an earthquake), we live in the middle of “tornado alley” and face nature’s wrecking ball every spring. We accept it as part of living in this part of the country and we don’t blame the personal habits of other people for these natural disasters. Before the threat of power outages became a reality in Texas, we began addressing the problem and discussing our options. We managed all of this and still have one of the best state economies in the United States.

When we invite tourists to our great state, we remind them to be good stewards and “don’t mess with Texas,” but we do so without fear or intimidation. Perhaps authors writing about California travel should adopt the same philosophy.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

I spent a lot of summer afternoons in the 80′s watching Chicago Cubs baseball on WGN. It didn’t take long for Andre Dawson to become my favorite baseball player. During that same time period, I began to amass a sizable baseball card collection and focused heavily on collecting any and all Dawson cards and memorabilia. On the diamond, I chose to “honor” Dawson by wearing his number 8 (not that I was ever a great baseball player) and was one of the few kids who actually wanted to play right field. Needless to say, today is a special day for me. Andre “The Hawk” Dawson has FINALLY been voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.  Dawson won the National League Rookie of the Year in 1977 with the Montreal Expos and went on to become one of the best all-around players of the 1980′s. While I vaguely remember his Montreal playing days (his rookie season was the year before I was born), and became a temporary Red Sox and Marlins fans during his tenure with those two franchises, I will always think of Dawson as a Cub.

In 1987, Dawson became the first player in Major League Baseball to win the MVP while playing for a last place team. That season Dawson hit 49 home runs and drove in 137–pretty gaudy statistics in the pre-steroid era of baseball. Dawson finished second in the MVP voting two other times in his career. Dawson’s career stats may not seem like much when compared to some of today’s superstars, but no one ever questioned his work ethic or integrity. The numbers Dawson posted, he earned the old fashioned way and has the knees to prove it.

Indeed, it was his knees that cut his career short. After playing several seasons on the unforgiving turf of Montreal’s Olympic Stadium, Dawson suffered several knee injuries that plagued him until his retirement.

I wasn’t sure if Dawson would ever receive this honor or not. I knew a lot of people viewed Dawson as a “solid” player, but not among the elite of Cooperstown. When I heard the news this afternoon, I could not believe it. The guy I grew up idolizing had earned baseball’s highest honor.

Congratulations Hawk!