Second Thoughts about Kinky

Bush 2004? Say it ain't so...

It was brought to my attention that Kinky Friedman has only voted once in 12 years, and that was to support George Bush in the 2004 Presidential election. Words cannot say how that disappoints me. Had he voted for Bush in 2000, you could write it off to naiveté, thinking that Bush was a "uniter not a divider". But by 2004, Bush had already made serious strategic blunders that make him a candidate for "worst president ever". It also bothers me that Kinky was so uninvolved that he chose not to vote in so many other elections.

Kinky Friedman has a platform plank calling for return of the 10 Commandments to the walls of public classrooms. This goes against one of our nation’s most important precepts -- church/state separation. I'm surprised that a "Jewish cowboy" would make the suggestion at all. It opens that Pandora's Box concerning whose tenets, whose religion, whose version of the commandments.

I'm very disappointed to find out about "the Kinkster" but better to find out now than later. Beyond all the witticisms, you want a governor with substance, gravitas and good ideas. Clearly, Kinky is not that person. His actual political positioning was camouflaged behind witty remarks and fun photos with Willy Nelson. When it comes right down to it, we need a hard worker with progressive, good ideas in the governor's mansion. At this point, I have to say it's a toss between Chris Bell and Carol Strayhorn. If Bell has any serious ideas on fixing school finance problems I might be persuaded to his side.

Here is the DMN article, for those interested in Kinky's voting record.

POST SCRIPT: I removed the blog entitled "My Governor is a Jewish Cowboy". The title is no longer true, and if someone should randomly land on that blog without seeing my retraction above, they'd think I was still supporting Kinky's campaign. I don't have any replacement candidate in mind. Guess I'll have to see how the campaign develops. I do think Kinky is entertaining and will add levity to an otherwise dull affair.

WDJS

Jesus at the temple

Last week's "Newsweek" had a book review that should create some controversy in the Christian community. Garry Wills has authored a book called "What Jesus Meant", and it will challenge the behaviors and assumptions of Christians everywhere. Wills is a devoutly religious Catholic, but also a contrarian who sees big differences between Jesus' intent and how his message has 'evolved' over two thousand years. Wills also has extremely conservative credentials, having been a regular contributor to "National Review" for many years.

Here are some points Wills brought up:

• Jesus would much prefer a simple church or synagogue to a giant cathedral; he would also reject extreme pomp and rituality associated with some Christian religions.
• Jesus would never want the state itself to be politically Christian; the state is not a follower of Jesus.
• Jesus opposed virtually all religions of his era -- for things like hubris and hypocrisy. These criticisms would apply to religions today.
• Jesus did not think sex was evil or unclean. He wouldn't have persecuted gays, prostitutes or others thought to be violating a sex dictum.

According to Wills, Jesus was a complex, mercurial creature, subject to different shades of interpretation. He was egalitarian, feminist and revolutionary. Jesus understood above all that people were not perfect or all-loving. According to Wills, Jesus did not expect people to come to him that weren't grappling with some type of anger, hatred or prejudice. Now, all of the above is 'According to Wills'. You'll have to buy into Wills' other scholarly efforts (he's written books on Nixon, Clinton, Saint Augustine and even John Wayne), to give him credence. People tend to give better care and maintenance to a prejudice than they do to a pet, so some Christians will be disinclined to accept Wills' ideas. Some of what he says jibes with my own thoughts. I like what the comedian Dennis Miller also said about Jesus: "Bob Jones University wouldn't even let Jesus into the admissions office. He was a short, dirty, Jew with long hair". Crassly put, Dennis, but true. I think modern society’s reaction to the man and his original message would be put to the test. WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) is a catch phrase in the Christian community. I do like Wills' topic, even if I don't share all his insights. WDJS (What Did Jesus Say?) and WDJM (What Did Jesus Mean?) are worthy of some discussion too. Maybe if more thought and discussion were given to Jesus' message, it would reach some new listeners.

Fries with that McMansion?

A new behemoth -- what does it say about us?

Today's blog is about something many in our affluent society can relate to -- McMansions. Now, much has been said about how these leviathan manses overshadow neighbors and destroy the character of quaint neighborhoods. I'm in general agreement with that complaint, but I'm actually more interested in the psyche of the typical McMansion purchaser. There are subdivisions in Frisco and McKinney where rows of new McMansions define the whole development -- not merely where a tear-down occurred. I'm too lazy to reach for the latest stats, but the average new house is something like 25% larger than a new home in 1970. At the same time, the average family occupying that house is one person less than in 1970.

I'm a person who has always enjoyed looking at new homes, be it a parade of homes, or a Sunday open house. To me, new homes are more exciting because they offer you all the latest technology and style features. Time was when a house was an inanimate object; now your house will conserve energy, watch for burglars, control sprinklers and heat hot tubs. Fancier ones may adjust your blinds and dim your lights. My only question is why do they need to be so ... incredibly huge? I went to the Frsico Parade of Homes last year, and the homes would all qualify as mansions. Even on relatively cheaper dirt, they were more than $350,000. Here are some of the Frisco features we lacked in 1970:

- home theater
- gift wrap room
- master bedroom sitting area
- master closet, size of small room (some w/ window and wall outlet)
- grand atrium foyers
- hallways that can double as bonus rooms
- laundry rooms with sink, counter, cabinets
- mud room, coming in from heated pool w/ stone & stainless bbq
- Ceilings ranging from 9 to 20 feet for dramatic effect

My own house was built in 1945, so I'm not even up to 1970 standards. My closets are tiny and my visitors must blunder right into my living room -- there is no foyer at all. Imagine the envy I feel toward Frisco. I would only use the gift wrap room one week out of the year -- probably no more wasteful than a 1970 formal living area that was reserved for the Christmas tree and the Avon lady. Even in 1970, we knew how to waste space. The atrium foyer would be useful to someone w/ a teenage daughter -- she can make a grande entrance on prom night. Otherwise, you're heating and cooling a dramatic zone for no special purpose. In fact, most of the above is more to impress than to provide basic comforts. If you entertain a whole lot, or have lots of house guests it might give you some payback. But otherwise, your house, like your giant SUV's, bespeaks an attitude of 'let the others drive a Kia'.

America has turned into a nation of Madame Pompadours and Marie Antoinettes. Who knows when we'll decide that heating and cooling an unused room w/ 20 foot ceilings is wasteful and impractical? I still want a new house some day -- I like the stainless appliances and birchwood cabinets. But I'll forego the features that befit a French autocrat headed for the guillotine. When the revolution comes, I can do w/out the dramatic space or the accompanying drama. I don't really think anyone's headed for a guillotine but my sense of Karma says that grandiosity has a price tag not always visible and not always affixed to the product.

The Spell of White Rock

My lady is the lake

Parks are an interesting thing. On the one hand, you have Yellowstone or Yosemite, gigantic sprawls that require a car, a compass and maybe even some bear evasion tactics. Then municipally, you have one-square block parks like Tietz Park in East Dallas. These parks, you navigate in 1 minute -- they're more like greenbelt landscaping. But then there is the large urban retreat -- urban enough for close access, but big enough to lose yourself in it a bit. Think of Manhattan's Central Park or Boston Common in Boston. There is no camping, there are no park rangers. These parks just have sprawling, landscaped areas with towering trees -- with college students reading, children at play, musicians and the occasional hot dog vendor.

Our fair Dallas is lacking in many 'big city' draws. We don't have a Chinatown, a theater district or a presentable river front. We don't have historic palaces or museums, and we don't have anything like the St. Louis Arch or the Golden Gate Bridge. We do have one thing that is world class and beautiful in its own right, and that attraction is White Rock Lake -- situated in East Dallas near the Lakewood neighborhood. White Rock is a fresh water lake that covers approximately 1015 acres, surrounded by lush, beautiful parkland, dotted with cottonwoods and oaks. It was constructed in 1911 as a water source for Dallas but that utilitarian function was overtaken by Lake Lewisville a few decades later. White Rock now is refuge to many wildlife species, and a recreation center for the human species. It features:

- Dallas Arboretum and Botanical Garden
- A 9.33 mile hike and bike trail
- Fishing piers for catfish, sunfish and bass fishing
- Bath House Cultural Center
- Audubon-designated bird watching areas & wetlands
- Corinthian Sailing Club for sail boats
- Pump Station (now a historical site), spillway
- Dog Park (divided in two areas, one for small dogs, one for large dogs)
- 3 Beautiful club houses available to rent for parties and weddings



Blue heron on spillway, bicyclers on dam

To other lovers of the lake I'm probably leaving something out. During the 1930's, the Works Progress Administration further enhanced the park's infrastructure with beautiful stone gazebos and restroom facilities. The latest addition is fantastic; in the last month they opened the new pedestrian bridge and north shore trail near Mockingbird Lane. The bridge is a simple modern-style arch, with lamps for illumination. It's built of steel, on concrete piers -- not likely to fall victim to termites or wood rot. Yesterday, the bridge was overrun with bicyclers and walkers like me. The north shore trail gives you a new view of an already beautiful place.


New pedestrian bridge

White Rock has much lore around it. German prisoners of war were housed near it at one point; there is supposedly a ghost known as 'the Lady of the Lake' that haunts it. I don't need any lore to love this lake. Affluent neighborhoods have developed around the lake, and lake proximity is a selling point. Nobody has to sell me. If you have a kayak, bicycle, sail boat or feet, White Rock beckons. On a day of 72 degree, clear-sky perfection, White Rock is a must -- and a solid point of pride for Big D.

The Ides of March

A Bad Day at the Senate

Today, I'm like the weather -- partly cloudy. Am looking at some previous blogs reflectively. On "Time Waits for No One", a friend thought I was overreacting to a really bad photo of myself. It doesn't take a bad photo (and most of mine are bad) to make me think dark thoughts. But -- it probably did inspire me just a little. "Bad Vibrations" is just an answer to the many who think I'm manic. I'm now off of coffee and tea while I do dental whitening for one month. If I become as laid back as Steven Wright the comedian, I'll know it was coffee to blame all along.

"Has Bush Gone Soft" (pardon any entendres) is still a relevant topic. The Bush Administration is sure we've now alienated Arab business. Dubai pulled out of the port deal yesterday, thereby avoiding a showdown in Congress -- one that would've been extremely embarrassing to Bush. Time will tell if UAE and Arabs are willing to shut off a profitable market to show anger or spite. We need to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern oil -- not just talk about it. Maybe this will get the ball rolling. With "A-Hunting We Will Go", several other bloggers pointed out that Mary Matalin was wearing a piece of costume jewelry, a broach, that looked like a large satellite dish. How could I ignore such a blogworthy detail? Cheney himself is an uncharismatic, emotionally constipated person, and is just a little more in the doghouse with the American people than he already was. Possibly, the hunting accident was "much ado about nothing" although talk show comedians are still milking it for lots of laughs.

I finished scanning "Where the Right Went Wrong" and I'd like to write my own title about where that book went wrong. Buchanan can handily minimize the concerns of whole demographic groups. He decries Islamic imams and caliphates, but then would turn right around and create equivalent, Christian "caliphates" in America. What would be a more interesting book coming from him, is what his idea of a perfect world would be. One has an unsettling feel that it would never be one that celebrates any aspect of diversity, to any degree.

And so it goes -- the Ides of March are approaching. Politics, polls, and current events can be moody and change just like the turbulent sky. We live in an interesting time, and one which offers newsworthy events on a daily basis. Every once in a while we have to take stock of what's happening -- in weather, politics and maybe with the blog author himself. :-)

Pax Americana

Buchanan Sees a Pattern...

I'm usually willing to hear somebody out, even if I know they have a POV diametrically opposed to my own. I'm especially interested if there's an amazing congruence between some of what they say, and some of what I think. Imagine that I should agree with conservative firebrand Pat Buchanan on something. Maybe it's not so strange -- he and Eleanor Clift, the liberal champion, are sometimes in agreement on "McLaughlin Group". In his recent book, "Where the Right Went Wrong", Buchanan makes several statements about America under W. Bush that ring true: We attacked Iraq, a country that had no relation to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction -- also a country which had not attacked us and had no such intention. When Bush's original reason didn't pan out, he changed his tune to that of a Wilsonian screed -- democratizing the Middle East. Bush created diplomatic problems by grouping other nations as an 'axis of evil' and saying 'you're either with us or against us'. Both statements, arrogant in nature, shut diplomatic doors that were open, and raised the hackles of other nations on the periphery. Bush and his administration have even gone so far as to tell nations such as China and India that they must never approach the nuclear weapons capability of the USA. And who are we? The supreme arbiters and nuclear police of the world? Such arrogance has inspired countries like Iran to do exactly what we wish them never to do.

Buchanan likens Bush to Caesar, who crossed a Rubicon in taking Rome from a Republic to an Empire. Buchanan feels that America's recent gauntlet challenge to 'terrorist nations' and our march to world democracy will cause the US to take on an unbearable weight -- one which has caused other empires to collapse. The beginning of every empire's end was the wrong notion that wars can be fought for preemptive reasons rather than practical considerations of national protection. Again, I'm dumbfounded in Buchanan's reasonableness.

But the story takes a turn when Buchanan pins the bad decisions on a cabal of 'neoconservatives' which has hijacked Bush's administration. Buchanan holds that true conservatism is a populist, more isolationist view -- one honed by Reagan but then corrupted by both the Bush presidents and Clinton. Then Buchanan's take gets really bizarre. The first neoconservative was apparently Woodrow Wilson, because of his quest to make the world safe for Democracy. Neoconservatives lay nearly dormant until the early 1970's, when disaffected Democrats, academicians and Jews left the Democratic Party and joined Republicans. The Jewish inclusion almost smells of anti-Semitism, but one can't be sure that Buchanan means to 'go there'. Apparently neocons are represented by Jean Kirkpatrick, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Charles Krauthammer among others. Condoleeza Rice is queen of the neocons in the way that she's molded policy and made particular decisions regarding Iraq.

Buchanan goes other places we may not want to go. He is so anti-immigrant as to appear xenophobic, maybe racist. Some immigration is healthy -- witness the fact that Texas and other states benefit from Hispanics that do jobs like farm labor and construction that Anglos are loathe to do. Buchanan is certain that we are a 'Christian Nation', never mind that many forefathers were Deist and made sure to protect freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights. Buchanan feels that sexual oriented media and tolerance of alternative religions has created a 'Roman Circus' diversion that is sure to pull us all down. Again, I think he's reaching in that regard -- our tolerance is a strength, not a weakness. The Statue of Liberty in New York bids the teeming masses to come, not go -- and no religious test has to be passed. In sum, Buchanan makes some rollicking good, thought-provoking points. Then he overreaches, far beyond healthy populism, to places none of us want to go.