And I want the Tiffany lamp!!

In Min's post from Dec 7 on her "Don't mess with Min when I'm in Texas" blog, she brings up a recent court ruling by Dallas District Court Judge Tena Callahan that she has jurisdiction to hear a divorce case involving two "married" gay men who moved here from out of state. (See the Dallas Morning News article she referenced here.) The district judge indicated she further believed that Texas's constitutional amendment limiting "marriage" to a one man and one woman is actually unconstitutional under U. S. law because it doesn't provide "equal protection". (Like we need to be protected from marriage....? ; )

Anyway, Min goes on to say that she is perplexed by the situation where Texas effectively bans gay marriage, but then will grant a divorce to a gay couple married in another state. Well, it does sound kind of ironic. My position on "gay marriage" waffles depending on how inebriated I am. Part of me says, "Heck yeah! Those people should be subjected to the same sorted legal crap most of the rest of us go through at least once in life!" But this post isn't about my opinion on whether we should or shouldn't allow gay folks to get hitched.

The larger issue, of course, is that something as fundamental as marriage, which is normally a condition (or affliction, depending on how you look at it) which transfers across state and even national borders, must have a standard universal definition. This idea that someone is married in one state, and not another; or one nation, and not another, is simply unworkable in this day and age. We are no longer 19th farmers who never travel past the county line. Modern society is extremely mobile. We move all over the place, and whether you are legally married, or not, should be standard across the board with no ambiguity; no matter if you are in Vermont, Texas or Antarctica.

The U.S. federal courts are just going to have to step up to the plate and set a national definition on the legal condition/union of marriage. This activist district court judge's ruling in Dallas will, of course, promptly be whacked down by the Court of Appeals as unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution... But, maybe it will be the catalyst case that makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court where a landmark decision is made in 7 to 10 years defining the definition of marriage for the whole country. The more likely result if it made it that far would be that they would just punt back to the Texas Constitutional amendment, though.

The schizophrenic ruling by the district judge saying that, even though we ban gay marriage, we will grant you a gay divorce anyway, is silly (or maybe very shrewd on the judges part). But the hodgepodge of legal definitions of marriage for anyone, straight or gay, and between liberal leaning states and more conservative states is really the loony thing that needs to be addressed on a national level once and for all.

So, Min's post does bring up a serious issue and point. Our current various state's and national stances on whether same sex couples should be "married" or "divorced" doesn't make logical sense to me either. I really doubt that you would be able to find many other district court judges that are willing to hear same sex divorces in Texas right now, though, so I doubt there will be a flood of them in Texas....unless they all move to Dallas and get assigned to Judge Callahan's court.

The road not taken.

There I was...heading home on north MOPAC and approaching my normal everyday exit at Scofield with the big sign “Last free exit before pay toll”. But when I got to the off ramp, it was blocked with traffic cones for construction. I and the stream of other drivers that intended to exit were diverted on up the highway to the Loop 1 toll booths. Now, I figured that since there were no signs or other indications that the “Last free exit before pay toll” was blocked off to normal traffic, that we would be able to scoot through the toll booths without paying to the next available exit, which happened to be the one into my neighborhood…

Not!!

There was no open lane, and all of us that were expecting to get off on our normal route home were scrambling to find out what the charge was going to be (Hey, I don’t use the things!) and then find the appropriate change to throw in the basket. I literally had to dig under the seat to come up with the 50 cents required. Again, I don’t use the toll roads, so I didn’t know if they could bill you if I didn’t have the exact amount, or whether they would send out the federal marshals to break my legs and collect the 50 cents, plus a 65,000,000% convenience fee. I just didn’t know! Luckily I found two quarters and threw them in the basket. I felt like I had just been shook down, but I paid them to avoid the consequences…which may have been up to death for all I knew.

So, I forked over my 50 cents to travel 400 yards, but I got away with my life, and I wrote it off as a one-off brush with the local mob.

Then…the same thing happened once more a couple of weeks later. I was able to find the 50 cents a little easier that time, but I thought, “Hey, wait a minute…what really happens if I don’t pay this.” I mean, I hadn’t chosen to use the toll road. I felt I was being forced to pay some Toll God just to get to my home, even though I never intended to be on anyone’s for-pay road, and it didn’t sit well.

Of course I called the toll road authority and asked why I had been extorted, but the Toll God minion just went off about dispute forms, and having to visit their office (lair) and talk to disputed toll resolution specialists (demons) to get my buck back….

And I was weak. I’m not proud of it, but I again decided to blow it off. I should have broken out the samurai sword, alerted the local media, and went down and vanquished the evil Toll God! But I didn’t. Maybe next time.

Anyway, I did start to think about why it was that I hate the monstrosity (toll road) beside my house, and why I avoid all toll roads unless unwittingly forced on to them. Is it really true that toll roads are the best answer to our overcrowded highways in Texas as Governor Rick and his zombies declare? Or, are they not really an answer at all.

I actually found a good synopsis of the reasons for increased toll road construction in Texas and the players involved found here under "Articles on Transportation Privatization" .

Governor Rick, TXDOT, and some in the legislature tout privately funded toll roads as the only quick answer to overcrowded highways because the legislature has refused to raise the 20 cent per gallon gas tax for road construction in Texas since 1991, and construction costs have greatly outpaced the tax revenues.

After a little thought, it is my opinion that they will ultimately cause more grief than relief…at least from what I’ve seen. The new toll roads don’t seem to have diverted any of the existing congestion around Austin. They only seem to have helped enable the urban sprawl out to places like Leander and N.E. Pflugerville. Maybe if the authority had made it cheaper for semis to take the 130 Toll around Austin, it would have at least relieved that traffic off IH 35; but I have travelled 130 with other people and saw no trucks. As a matter of fact, I saw very little traffic at all. I can’t imagine these roads are even remotely paying for themselves, at least not yet.

Even if these roads do become more traveled, the revenue they generate will apparently continue to go to the foreign companies that operate them long after they should be paid for, costing users way more than public funding. The companies apparently get a 50 year lease for up-front payments to the Texas treasury in the billions. But Texas will quickly spend this money on whatever immediate needs it has, and our kids and our grandkids will still be paying profits to foreign companies many decades down the road.

And I believe the euphoria currently felt by the few drivers on the toll roads now will eventually be replaced by sticker shock with the contracted annual toll price increases, and the almost inevitable increases in the gas taxes. The state gas tax can’t stay at 20 cents a gallon forever; and increases probably tied to inflation to pay for new construction will eventually get some real traction in the legislature. Then, all those toll road commuters can pay their ever increasing toll fees, plus higher gas taxes also to get to their bedroom mansion in the x-erbs. God love ‘em.

And thanks to the existing toll roads, we won’t be able to go back and build public free highways on those throughways. The contracts with the operating companies even bar some improvements to parallel competing public roads, and mandate impediments to traffic on competing roads such as reduced speed limits and de–synchronized traffic signals to “encourage” drivers onto the for-pay roads. I don’t know what impact campaign contributions actually have had on the decisions to out-source our highways, but what a money-making gimmick these guys have going on.

Anyway, I guess my gut just tells me that we have sold our souls for the next half century for a short-term fleeting benefit for just a few drivers. And even though early highways in the U.S. started out as private roads, in the early twentieth century lawmakers saw the light and the federal and state governments took over road construction and maintenance for use by all. Roads, like the military and police (and prisons in my book) should never be outsourced by the government. They need to be in the public realm for a host of reasons…accountability being the primary one.

And probably the most disturbing thing about the privately ran toll roads is what actually happens if you don’t pay the toll…valid charge, or not. Even though these are privately funded and ran enterprises, unpaid tolls, which should be a civil matter (just like if you didn’t pay your plumber), may actually get you charged with a misdemeanor criminal charge. A quote from the Austin mobility authority web site: “If the collection agency is unsuccessful in recovering the money that is due, the vehicle owner may be charged with a misdemeanor.”

So, the criminal justice system then becomes a collection/extortion agent for a private enterprise at that point. A foreign private enterprise at that!

...Is this really the road we wanted to go down?

"There's no freedom of speech in baseball!!"

This post is in response to posts by classmates, Lissa and Remy, viewed on Lissa's blog here.

Man, this stuff takes me back...teenage rebellion. Luckily, I got over it pretty quickly when I became a supervisor in the military at 20.
But, I think we will be debating what is, and what isn't, a matter of free speech until the sun burns out. And of course that's a healthy thing. There are still many places in the world where there is no debate. In those places, the authorities are always right. In this particular instance, I have to say I have to agree more with Lissa, and less with Remy on this one.
I have had countless discussions with my son about something called "freedom of expression". He is better now, but at one point in his late teens he liked to dress (and sometimes act) like an idiot, and I tried to convince him to dress more appropriately. He said he dressed that way to "express his individuality". I couldn't reconcile the fact that all his friends looked the same...
Anyway, I do understand that my son was attempting to define himself as a person, and to test boundaries.
I also disagree with Remy in that I really don't see this incident as a free speech issue.
The school system had reportedly informed the young man who made the T-shirts up front that they considered them inappropriate for wear at school. In my opinion, this is exactly what a school should be doing. Setting boundaries for our teenagers. It appears that many parents have totally abdicated this responsibility, and the only time students are ever told "no", or that something is inappropriate, is by school staff.
In this case, the administrators made a decision and the student should have abided by it.
Public schools are not, and have never been, democracies. If we, as parents, have a problem with their policies, then we need to address them to the administrators or the school board. If we still don't like the policy; well then, we should run for the school board ourselves (that's the point that democracy shows up).
It is obvious that this boy...I want to say young man, but he isn't there yet...and his friends were testing limits and thumbing their noses. As Lissa points out in her blog, when we don't "swat our children on the be-hind when they act out" (that's figuratively), we get a further devolution of appropriate social values and mores. Young people need to understand that to be successful in life, there are going to be many limits imposed on them by employers and social circles. We sometimes don't like them, but a successful life is going to be a compromise, and that's what schools should be reinforcing.
Even if you subscribe to the idea that "free speech" has been subverted, this kid's message kinda "sucks" anyway. "I spent 12 years in public school on the taxpayer's dime, and all I got was this stupid T-Shirt!"
Anyway, as far as attire, we really should have school uniforms throughout Texas. Khakis, polos, and black shoes or tennis... Why not?

Ron tackles health care.

The current Senate version of the health care bill is reportedly 2,074 pages. And who really knows what's in that cobbled together document, and how it would really affect American health care...?

I think most of us are altruistic. We want to help our fellow man, but when the costs for doing so are considerable, we want them to be damned grateful when we do it. I hate being taken advantage of, and I think that we are about to maybe have it stuck to us.

When you take the emotion out and think about think about it, health care is not a right. Although I don’t like to see others sick or in pain, I don’t believe that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" entitlement involves me paying for someone else’s health care.

I understand that we already subsidize many folks over 65 with Medicare, but if those people worked before, they paid their FICA taxes and at least helped fund the program. And then there’s Medicaid; a federal and state program which already consumes up to 22% of states budgets, on average, to cover some 40 million low-income people in America.

Now the substance of the plan, as I see it, being pushed by some congressional democrats is to greatly expand the number of people medically covered by the government by requiring people to have coverage and then offering a government subsidized “Public Option” (insurance) in lieu of obtaining private coverage.

I don’t know much, but I do know that if they expect many of these “uninsured” or “under-insured” people who aren't paying for their health care now to run out and enroll in any program that they have to contribute to in any amount….well, those Congressmen are insane if they think that’s going to happen. I believe that most people who don’t have coverage aren’t interested in paying for it…ever! And they are not afraid of having to pay some piddly fine for not having coverage, either. They’ve had a free ride off their parents or the government so far; how could anyone think they are all the sudden gonna become upstanding citizens and begin to pay their way, no matter how small the cost. Even if they enact penalties for forgoing coverage, it’s a simple equation to these folks; say, 120 days in jail, or a 100,000 dollar hospital bill? What do you think they will opt for? They don't have any assets to go after....except maybe the X-Box and the Escalade, and the Escalade’s not going to be in their name by the time the bills hit.

So, some people say, “But, we are already footing the bill anyway.” …Well, I say, “Let’s stop it!!”

Instead of p***ing away our tax dollars expanding an already screwed up mess with some sort of government subsidized “Public Option”, let's try some other options first.

First, for those few uninsured who are actually interested in footing the bill for their coverage, let's get more private insurance companies in the mix by breaking down the barriers to getting insurance out of state. It’s silly to not be able to buy insurance from a reputable company in Pennsylvania if I live in Texas. And let’s have our employers step out of providing health care plans and put that health care money in our paychecks. Let us decide which insurance program is best for us. Maybe we could encourage personal collective “group” plans which leverage the insurance market like mutual funds to make costs more affordable. But if you choose to spend that money on an X-Box, or flat screen, well, God help you when you get sick. Life is about choices.

Then, if the government wants to spend a billion, let’s subsidize med schools for good students and attract more doctors to the field. That's one productive way to develop more physicians and drive down costs that's used by many developed nations.

Next, instead of sending medical malpractice suits to juries of laypersons who may make inappropriate decisions based on empathy, let’s send them to outside professional Medical Review Boards which would arbitrate malpractice suits. This could be one way to compensate people who have been legitimately injured and also cut down on the frivolous suits brought in to the courts, and which drive up the malpractice insurance costs even for highly competent physicians.

Then, let’s research and bill the employers who hire "undocumented" workers and their families who use local emergency rooms as primary care clinics. If the employers want to keep costs and wages down by hiring “undocumented” workers, they shouldn’t be doing it on the taxpayers dollar. You would need an enforcement agency with some teeth (like the IRS), but by going after the employers, you would have a fixed target from which to collect compensation for the local tax base. (My school and hospital taxes have tripled in the last few years because a major local employer back home—Bo Pilgrim!—decided to outsource his labor force from outside the U.S. )

In addition, we could triage a little better and send non-emergency patients home or to a primary care clinic of their choosing if they can afford it. I'm not advocating turning away the person with the butcher knife sticking out of the their thigh; but a runny nose, queasy stomach and 99 degree temperature, do not an "emergency" make...especially if you don't have insurance.

Also, we should break the pharmaceutical lobbies and enact drug price controls. I’ve researched this, and we are the only developed country without them, therefore we are the only country bearing the brunt of new drug development. Let’s force the freeloaders to pony up. A pill shouldn’t be 30 cents in Norway, and 7 dollars in the United States just because they refuse to allow their citizens to be extorted.

Finally, my pragmatic fringe proposal. Let's actually do that dreaded "r" thing, "ration". Why not have tests before the taxpayer pays a person’s medical costs? Have we gotten so far away from personal responsibility in this country that we feel that no matter how much a person has screwed up their lives, we (the taxpayer) must always be there with our “magic bag” of deficit spending money to bail them out. Is it so foreign a concept to think a person should have contributed something to the good of the rest of us before we wholeheartedly pay all their medical bills? ... Really.

I say screw it, bring on the "death panels" or whatever you want to call them, but we should enact them where your personal, criminal, and medical history are evaluated before the gov'ment steps in to embrace the astronomical costs of caring for someone who has elected to abuse their bodies and/or criminally prey on the rest of us. If they can pay for their own care, fine. If not, that’s tough... Or, maybe they can sell the Escalade. (I know! I'm a cold-hearted meanie!) But, I think if you spend 40 years smoking, boozing, drugging and sexing and, come down with lung or liver cancer, or some other associated dread disease, well…God help you...because I really don't wanna.

So, how ‘bout let's try these other ideas without another government ran program or "option", and then take another look. I think we can do better without it, and maybe our deficit plagued taxpayer kids will be able to afford something other than Top Raman for supper in 20 years.

Associated reading: How your employer got involved in your health care.

Interesting interview of a person who should know....

from: SPECTATOR.co.uk

We are at war with all Islam’

Mary Wakefield

1 December 2007

An interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Last Tuesday at nightfall, as the servants of democracy fled SW1, a young Somali woman stood spotlit on a stage in Westminster. Behind her was the illuminated logo for the Centre for Social Cohesion: a white hand reaching down across England to help a brown one up; in front, an audience of some of Britain’s biggest brains — politicians, editors, academics. She drew her shawl a little closer round her shoulders, looked up and said: ‘We are not at war with “terror”, that would make no sense.’

‘Hear, hear,’ said a voice at the back. ‘Terror is just a tactic used by Islam,’ she continued. ‘We are actually at war, not just with Islamism, but with Islam itself.’

Out in the dark began a great wobbling of heads. Neocons nodded, Muslims shook their heads; others, uncertain, waggled theirs anxiously from side to side: at war with all Islam, even here in the UK? What does that mean?

It would be easier in some ways to ignore Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to label her as bonkers — but it would also be irresponsible. She’s not just another hawkish hack, anxious to occupy the top tough-guy media slot — she has the authority of experience, the authenticity of suffering. In the spring of 2004 she wrote a film called Submission (an artsy 11-minute protest against Islamic cruelty to women) which was shown on Dutch TV. In November 2004 the film’s director, Theo van Gogh, was assassinated and the killer left a long letter to Hirsi Ali knifed into his corpse which said, in short: you’re next. But Hirsi Ali couldn’t be silenced. She has since written an autobiography (Infidel) about growing up a Muslim (in Somalia, then Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia), describing her circumcision, the beatings she received, her arranged marriage, her flight to Holland. She risks her life daily, speaking out against what she calls the ‘fairytale’ that Islam is in essence a religion of peace.

The other reason to take her seriously is that Hirsi Ali’s ideas about Islam (that it is unamenable to reform, and intrinsically opposed to Western values) are attracting attention worldwide. In Holland where, until 2006, she was an MP for the People’s Party for Freedom and Independence (VVD), the famous ‘pillarisation’ approach to immigration — where each new culture becomes a pillar upon which the state rests — has given way to a ‘new realism’, much more in tune with Hirsi Ali’s way of thinking, and in part because of her. In Britain and in America, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has become a sort of popstar for neocons, and she now lives in Washington, and works as a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.

But is she right? And what does ‘war with Islam’ mean? I went to find out; to meet Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the House of Lords on a bitter and blustery afternoon last week, bustling past the police, down the corridors of partial power, to the visitors’ room where she was waiting. We haven’t got much time, so can we dive straight into Islam? I ask. ‘Yes, absolutely, go ahead,’ she smiles. Up close she is disconcertingly beautiful, and fragile-looking. OK then, right. Well, you say that Islam is a violent religion, because the Prophet advocated violence. But isn’t that open to interpretation? I ask. Karen Armstrong, (a non-Muslim biographer of Mohammed) has said the Prophet was a loving man who’d have been horrified at 9/11.

‘Karen Armstrong is ridiculous,’ says Hirsi Ali in her quick, light voice — Africa still audible in the clipped consonants. ‘The Prophet would have not have disapproved of 9/11, because it was carried out in his example. When he came to Medina, the Prophet had a revelation, of jihad. After that, it became an obligation for Muslims to convert others, and to establish an Islamic state, by the sword if necessary.’

But there is such a thing as moderate Islam, I say. Muslims aren’t all terrorists. There are some like Ed Husain (author of The Islamist) who argue that there are many peaceful traditions of Koranic scholarship to choose from. Isn’t it a mistake to dismiss this gentler, acceptable branch of Islam?

‘I find the word “moderate” very misleading.’ There’s a touch of steel in Hirsi Ali’s voice. ‘I don’t believe there is such a thing as “moderate Islam”. I think it’s better to talk about degrees of belief and degrees of practice. The Koran is quite clear that it should control every area of life. If a Muslim chooses to obey only some of the Prophet’s commandments, he is only a partial Muslim. If he is a good Muslim, he will wish to establish Sharia law.’

But I don’t call myself a ‘partial Christian’ just because I don’t take the whole Bible literally, I say. Why can’t a Muslim pick and choose his scriptures too? Before Hirsi Ali can answer, the door to the waiting room flies open and a House of Lords doorman stands theatrically on the threshold. ‘You must stop this interview immediately!’ he says. Why? Is there a breach of security? A terrorist threat? ‘I have not received authorisation for it,’ he says. But we’re here with a peer, I say. I’m sure he has cleared it. ‘Please proceed to the waiting area in silence.’ So off we trudge to the foyer to sit by a fake fire — ‘it’s much nicer here, anyway,’ says Hirsi Ali kindly — and to continue our discussion about the superiority of the free, enlightened West in urgent whispers behind my rucksack.

‘Christianity is different from Islam,’ says Hirsi Ali, ‘because it allows you to question it. It probably wasn’t different in the past, but it is now. Christians — at least Christians in a liberal democracy — have accepted, after Thomas Hobbes, that they must obey the secular rule of law; that there must be a separation of church and state. In Islamic doctrine such a separation has not occurred yet. This is what makes it dangerous! Islam — all Islam, not just Islamism — has not acknowledged that it must obey secular law. Islam is hostile to reason.’

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s eyes are now aglow. She is a terrific believer in reason. For her, Western civilisation is built on the bedrock not of Judaeo-Christian values, but of logic. After seeking asylum in Holland, she spent five years at Leiden university studying political science, absorbing the Enlightenment philosophers — Spinoza, Hobbes, Voltaire — and she mentions them fondly, as if they’re family. But there’s a steely side to her atheism, which says with Voltaire: Ecraser l’infâme! During a recent debate with Ed Husain, as Husain was explaining his moderate Islam, she began to laugh at him, saying: ‘When you die you rot, Ed! There is no afterlife, Ed!’ And it makes me wonder whether, for Hirsi Ali, Islam’s crime is as much against reason as humanity; whether she sees the point of spirituality at all.

Are you so sure you understand what is at the heart of Islam? I ask her. Isn’t there a peaceful prayerfulness — apart from the politics — that an atheist might not understand? ‘I was a Muslim once, remember, and it was when I was most devout that I was most full of hate,’ she says.

OK then, you talk about your conscience, and how your conscience was pricked by 9/11. But if there’s no God, what do you mean by a conscience? And why should we obey it?

‘My conscience is informed by reason,’ says Hirsi Ali, surprised I should ask. ‘It’s like Kant’s categorical imperative: behave to others as you would wish they behaved to you.’

I say, so let’s assume Islam is hostile and not open to reason, that it needs to be wiped out. The next question then is how? We can’t just ban it. Isn’t it destructive to curtail freedom so much in the interests of protecting it? Don’t you risk loving freedom to death?

Hirsi Ali looks at me with pity. ‘You, here in the UK, are in danger. Of course you can’t ban Islam outright, but you need to stop the spread of ideology, stop native Westerners converting to Islam. You definitely need to ban the veil in schools, and to close down Muslim schools because that’s where kids are indoctrinated.’

But, what about freedom of belief and free speech? I ask (with a nervous look at the doorman). And if you close down Muslim schools, don’t you, by the same logic, have to close all faith schools?

‘Islam is different from other faiths because it is not just a faith, it is a political ideology. Children learn that Allah is the lawgiver, and that is a political statement. You wouldn’t allow the BNP to run a school, would you?’

But if we crack down like this, won’t it make Muslims angry? I say, thinking about terrorists and my safety. ‘Well perhaps anger is no bad thing,’ says Hirsi Ali, thinking about ordinary Muslims, and their enlightenment. ‘Perhaps it’ll make Muslims more aware, help them question their beliefs. If we keep on asking questions, maybe Muslim women will realise, as I did, that they don’t have to be second-class citizens.’

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is on her favourite topic now (the subjection of women), leaning forward, gesticulating. And as she talks I realise (belatedly) what makes her different from her neocon pals. Whereas they seem motivated by fear of Muslims, she is out to protect Muslims from submission to unreason. When she speaks of a ‘war against Islam’, she’s thinking not of armies of insurgents, but of an ideological virus, in the same way a doctor might talk of the battle against typhoid. ‘Yes, I am at war with Islam,’ she says, as she gets up to leave, ‘but I am not at war with Muslims.’ It’s a crucial difference.

It’s teatime now and the House of Lords hallway is suddenly full of peers’ wives chattering, shaking their brollies. Sorry about all these women in headscarves, I say unnecessarily, as I shake her hand goodbye. ‘Don’t worry,’ says Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ‘It’s not the hijab, the headscarves are just to protect them against the rain!’ And she walks off, laughing.

Constables gone amok?

This Grits for Breakfast Texas justice blog article questions whether the Texas constables offices should still exist. The blog article references two Dallas Morning News articles; one which addresses the Dallas County Constable Offices' increased roll in traffic enforcement and (illegal?) vehicle impoundments, with the resulting massive increase in revenues for the offices; and another which addresses the constables overall mission creep into additional areas like drug enforcement and employment of tactical units, functions usually handled by the Police Departments or Sheriff's Offices.

The blogger, Scott Henson, is a former UT student and an associate editor of The Texas Observer, so his views and writings generally lean to the left. In this article, however, Scott appeals to the public in general, saying, "...this isn't a particularly partisan issue, or it shouldn't be, but really a matter of basic good governance."

He states that he agrees with others who believe that that many of the constable's duties are duplicated unnecessarily by local police departments and sheriff's offices, and that in many respects, the constables have less oversight than the police and sheriff.

He is highly critical of the practice of differed dispositions and one day probationary periods used...at least by Dallas County constables and JP courts...to coerce people in to rapidly paying traffic fines uncontested, and views this practice as a "money grab".

He further relates that, when the criminal justice system is viewed more as a revenue generation entity, public safety actually suffers. Scott also thinks that the constables offices in Texas will eventually go the way of the dinasaur.

The two Dallas Morning News articles referenced in Scott's blog certainly document and illustrate the claims he makes about mission creep, duplication, and a focus on revenue generation over public safety...at least in some of the larger counties in Texas. He's right that the constables have little oversight and function pretty much autonomously, allowing them to expand into rolls typically filled by PD and SO without express authority. However, as one of the DMN articles highlights, most rural constables offices remain small and primarily stick to the rolls of process serving, evictions, and light traffic enforcement. They are generally complimentary to other local law enforcement, and still fill a niche that the the other organizations would rather leave to the constables.

Also, as indicated in the DMN articles, there are now legislative efforts to limit the constable's Texas statutory role. And although the missions of the constables in some of the more urban counties may be eventually paired down or realigned to PD or SO, I don't think the positions should go the way of the County Inspector of Hides and Animals, as Scott suggests.

Constables are a Texas tradition, and are still valuable when employed in their traditional roles; especially in the more rural counties.