mattyt36

Good faith would sure go a long way. People either don't know what they're talking about--they have this idea "freeway bad" and "freeway construction in 2022 means the same thing it did in 1962" Or they are (IMHO) true bad actors and disingenuously choose certain points with a high level of emotional response . . . no different than the whole conservative media machine . . . I'm surprised they haven't come out and said "Pedophiles love freeways," as that seems to be the issue du jour. Or they are professionals/transit "junkies" who may indeed have a fully formed concept . . . but they never think through all of the conditions that would have to be controlled (or, better stated, conditions that alone have low probability, yet need to all be true together to achieve the outcome (e.g., people will move from The Woodlands to the City, paying more for something they value less, accepting worse schools, etc., etc. if only they sit in constant traffic long enough, instead of the most likely outcome in this situation being businesses moving to The Woodlands, Huntsville becoming Conroe, and Madisonville becoming Huntsville). Or they are like most of us and say, yep, it's certainly not ideal, but there just isn't a better way, so make sure you add facilities for improved transit operations and make it look as good as you can. There aren't many histories of the world's great cities out there that include the line, "And what really made them "great" was they deliberately made it more difficult for citizens to move around." If you add the qualifier "based on the personal tastes of a relatively small, but vocal minority," I think it's clear how ridiculous it sounds.

You do realize what seems to be stated here is that instead of relocated people getting subsidized housing, they should get totally free housing altogether? Is this a policy position for which you are in favor, while also creating a new national precedent? "Way less than the CoH requested," well quelle surprise is all I have to say. Anyone ever lowball a request for free money to the federal government? No, I know you're not . . . you're "just asking questions," as always.

"most of the benefits from this work" "There are no benefits from the proposed work" Pick one! I find it always reduces headaches if I think consistently. "I don't really care if their commutes suck, they should be taking park and ride or car pooling." I certainly won't pretend you're alone in this regard, but have you ever really listened to what you're saying there? I'm sure the THOUSANDS who use I-45 every day have some choice words for what they think about your preferences. "In fact, I view loss of the Pierce Elevated as a major bad result." In that case, then . . . "There will also never, ever be parks on the caps over the underground portions. That's pie in the sky thinking with no basis in reality." Is this another royal decree with "no basis in reality" like Pierce Elevated loss="major bad result"? Do you think if you continually chant "There will never, ever be cap parks" it somehow makes it true? P.S. Liked you on Friends.

No, a "letter to the editor," which is about as indicative as what we write on here. From the letter: "Think of all the mass transit projects that could be funded with that kind of money. Think of all the neighborhood homes, schools and churches that will be negatively impacted (and many destroyed)." Hey, how about instead of "thinking" about it, why not try to put a number on it? $9 billion for mass transit ain't much (not to mention that $9 billion includes mass transit, but let's not pretend we can be reasonable here). And then we have all the homes, schools, and churches (someone doesn't like businesses, I guess) that will move from being 1 block away from the freeway to on it, I guess? Not to mention a potential implication of his "piece" is that it's A-OK to level them for a mass transit project? Since everyone seems to think this is such an "easy" decision, please list all of the mass transit projects that increased transit ride share to, say, Chicago levels (~25%?) because we're talking about the need to move a lot of people going to destinations all across the city here. There's been plenty of investment in LA and Dallas, not to mention a long list of "pet projects" that, if you ask me at least, are now poster children for urban decay. How soon we all forget that mass transit lines were the original drivers of sprawl! I know freeways are "bad" because people use them (Shocker! That's always presented as some sort of argument against them) . . . how about all of the investment in mass transit projects that are relatively unused? That won't be a short list!

“Thousands”?

Hey great question. Google says 20 year deal beginning 2003. That would mean it’s up next year. Rockets get the money, so I guess good chance it’ll be a Tilman brand? Golden Nugget Arena? Yikes.

Well I guess I hope Tilman isn't successful in becoming a "football" club owner.

Boo

I sure would endorse such a plan, as long as it stayed downtown. The Toyota Center is certainly underwhelming.

No Augie, it ain’t all about you brother! I was referring to Lauren Bo-Bo to have the audacity to be born on my birthday 🤪 But I take comfort that you would canvas the neighborhood for Michelle for President with me. I very much enjoy the banter, thanks buddy. Only in Houston …

Well she does have the stupid confidence thing going on for her, I guess. And it must have been difficult learning to spell her husband’s name, so #Accomplished. #StretchGoals (Thanks to you, Augie, I noticed that we have the same birthday, which will give me nightmares for at least a couple of weeks)

Hey, she plays the part so well, so gotta tip the hat to her for authenticity

I hope you have access to resources if this doesn’t happen. (You know, for the good of the community.)

God help Harris County if “Man Hands” Mealer is elected. (Great name, at least, to remind everyone how obviously hungry she is BTW …) The absolute best we could hope for is she eventually realizes her fever dreams are not real, but that’ll take at least a couple years and I personally don’t want to be around while she’s learning. And I don’t think there’s more than maybe a 1% chance of that, as all of her advertising materials exude the personality of an absolute mental case. I mean go to her website and look at the photos … she’s got a photo of her lazing around spreadeagled with a gun in a military uniform sitting next to someone who didn’t even give her permission to show his face and then of the two photos she chooses to post with her kids (1) is in a friggin golf cart (total normie, Harris County! She must’ve gotten that from a book on How to Run for School Board in Montgomery County) and (2) is at a church, looks to be post-exorcism, with both of them telegraphing, “Get me the hell away from these two losers cuz they are totally loco.” It’s like Mattress Mack went out and said “Find me a Hispanic woman as that’s the only person who can beat Lina,” and look at the absolute cover model they got for that. She exudes 1980s closeted/murderess/FTM-every-other-Wednesday housewife from Orange County, yet … Hispanic! (It's a close race between that and the second-grade runner-up in the Little-Miss-Pentecostal-Church-with-Aluminum Siding-Bad AC-and-a-Septic-Tank Beauty Queen contest . . . and the only reason she ranked that high was because everyone else had already been bitten by a snake.) https://alexandramealer.com All I can say is this woman has a long way to go in finding herself. I guess, also, thank God I’m not one of her children. Stick to mattresses, Mack.

I think Will Hurd summed it best: America has a proportionality problem. And this conversation is a great example.

Well by this point I have been conditioned not to expect any careful consideration of any of the points being made. At least I got an acknowledgment, "Well I see it, too," so I suppose that is an improvement. The divergence seems to be that what I am seeing is a "dog and pony show," as if it is some cycle in American politics that we've seen before and somehow have "grown out of." If that's the case, then please provide me with some modern examples of similar scale . . . I'm all ears! Maybe the John Birch Society? Don't think they were anywhere near this successful, not to mention they were disowned and exiled by the Republican Party. I will stipulate they were equally bonkers and cruel, though. It's either that "none of this is real" or the "real" problem is "yellow journalism," which you keep on bringing up, Lord knows why. (Is Will Hurd, a former CIA officer and congressman and current Republican a victim of this “yellow journalism” that seems to explain it all to you?) The implication being, what? That it's not really a problem that congressional candidates are talking about the possibility of legislating the practice of killing women for getting an abortion per se, but rather that the media reports on it? I guess linked with the "dog and pony show" reference, I should surmise that your view is that (1) people have been making such comments in the background for a long period of time; (2) in the past the media just ignored it; and (3) it was just a bunch of people "shooting the shart" so to say that didn't really mean anything. I suppose that is possible. Sounds pretty naive if you ask me. Even if you believed that, you'd have to agree that the circumstances have totally changed with this stuff all out in the open and amplified. Why would one default to a position that what happened in the past when the circumstances were different will happen again? As far as misunderstandings go, I also think it's possible that you've misunderstood the entirety of my point. Or you do, but still choose to throw out straw men. Nowhere in any of the above am I arguing that if people really do have a moral argument against abortion or transgender people or gay wedding cakes do they have an obligation to vote for a party that contradicts their position on those issues. I have not proposed anyone be thrown in any sort of Gulag, or held that the right of free speech only applies to "woke" positions. Or that guns should go in closets or by beds or in the kitchen or not at all . . . your fixation on it has been duly noted. I am saying we should all be worried when it's a common turn of phrase in the context of "Well we may disagree on this issue, but I want to remind you that only one side has all the guns . . . hehehehe LOLz" (Incidentally, I'm not sure why all you gun owners think that any situation in which everyday Americans are using guns each other is going to be "controlled" enough in any way where the "good guys" win . . . I mean that sounds pretty self-evidently ridiculous on its face, if you ask me, but best of luck to you, Augie, in the crossfire.) I'm saying that what constitutes normal, run-of-the-mill Republicanism these days--and acceptable political discourse on that side--is crazy and runs fully counter to the ideals this country was built upon. Why? Because the endgame appears to be to shove all of the Republican superstitions about sex, race, gender, the "role of government," etc. down the throats of those they disagree with, with any appreciation of the "freedoms" guaranteed by the constitution be damned. "If my religion thinks abortion is wrong, well no one can have one, and don't be surprised when we kill you for it." "If I don't think the country is racist, I'm going to ban every institution of the state from teaching otherwise." "If I don't get gender dysphoria, well I'm still going to force little Timmy to wear some jeans and a jock strap." "If I think Trump won, well the rest of the country is going to have to recognize it!" I know the "whatabout" instinct is that the left is also trying to jam this down the throat of the country, but nowhere are there parallel and central policy positions like there are in conservative whack-a-doodle land. Maybe a "don't discriminate," but nothing like any sort of movement to "Don't say God" in the classroom. I mean, come on! It's why the "mainstream" Republican intelligentsia (e.g., the Claremont Institute) and prominent enough Republican sociopolitical figures (e.g., Rod Dreher) are now openly integralists and calling for an entirely new political system fused with religion, and (I would qualify the following with "until recently," but I really don't think their position has changed) exactly why they idolize Vladimir Putin--and entirely unironically, mind you. The Russian economy has for a long time been absolute crap and there are no universally enforced freedoms . . . it's just political patronage. Why in the hell would anyone in the United States of America want to emulate Russia? Or Pinochet's Chile? Or Franco's Spain? All of these are political systems antithetical to our own. Again, this is not good for any average voter--Republican or Democrat. It is a recipe for a suicide of the American experiment and our leading position in the world--and all for the sake of a bunch of nutjobs to have even more power? Do you not think it's good (and conservative) advice to take people at their word?

Well this is timely and germane to the discussion. "THE REVENGE OF THE NORMAL REPUBLICANS Will Hurd thinks there are enough normal voters to deliver him the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. But is he right?" Will Hurd 2024: Revenge of the Normal Republicans? - The Atlantic Seems like Will Hurd may be seeing at least a little of what I'm seeing. Quoting the article: “Some of my friends, some of my former colleagues, they are desperate,” Hurd tells me. “They are so desperate to hold on to their positions, to hold on to their power, that they make really bad decisions.” Those bad decisions are evident when it comes to big, history-forming events, such as the party’s enabling of Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy. But the bad decisions are also made subtly, in response to smaller episodes every single day, often to accommodate the party’s ugliest impulses. (The third chapter of Hurd’s book, written as an open letter to the Republican Party, is titled “Don’t Be an Asshole, Racist, Misogynist, or Homophobe.”) The desperation—lawmakers catering to the loudest voices in the party base—is not healthy, Hurd says. It’s the by-product of safely partisan districts that provide more incentive to light fires than put them out. It’s the consequence of the public’s collapsing faith in the core institutions of civic society, which invites national politicians to weaponize disputes that should be addressed at the local level. It’s the expression of a country in decline—a country convinced that its existential concerns are not Chinese sabotage and Russian disinformation, but face masks in public and vaccines for a virus. “We’re in a competition. If we don’t win it, we’re going to be a former superpower,” Hurd says. “We need to treat it as a competition—us versus the world. But we can’t, because our politics are so messed up. We’re too busy fighting with ourselves.” Hurd’s book is notable for many reasons—his personal and professional journeys are legitimately compelling—but most of all for its rebuke of America’s proportionality problem. Drawing on his diverse experiences, from chasing down intelligence overseas to parsing classified documents in Congress to working with groundbreaking tech companies today, Hurd argues that we are woefully unprepared for what is coming our way. Quantum computing has the potential to break every form of encryption that guards our money and our secrets. Artificial intelligence could cut the service-based workforce in half—every two years. Biomedical advances will force questions about the ethics of rewiring our brains and halting the degradation of human cells. In the meantime, China will continue its siege of the American economy—swiping our intellectual property, snatching up our real estate, sabotaging our investments—while Russia will intensify its decades-old campaign to delegitimize our systems of government and turn Americans against one another. His subtext is plain enough. To confront these challenges, Hurd’s colleagues in the Republican Party might need to rethink their fixation on transgender athletes and critical race theory. [...] Republicans have become comfortable “saying or doing anything to win an election,” Hurd writes. The party of family values champions cruel policies and hateful politicians while lecturing the left on morality. The party of fiscal discipline and personal responsibility blows holes in the budget, then blames Democrats for their recklessness. The party of empowerment and opportunity systematically attempts to disenfranchise voters who are poor and nonwhite. The party of freedom and liberty keeps flirting with authoritarianism. Hurd’s most pressing concern for his party is that it’s become an agent of disinformation. This is not a uniquely Republican phenomenon, he emphasizes—the book contains a blistering critique of Democrat Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for leaking faulty information regarding Trump colluding with Russia—but it’s the Republican Party’s embrace of lies and propaganda that most immediately threatens our system of government. Hurd says that watching the January 6 assault on the Capitol, just three days after his retirement from Congress, felt like he was watching a sequel to 9/11—extremism infiltrating America in a new form. It was “an example of the kinds of internal threats many of our military leaders have cautioned our political leaders to take as seriously as external threats,” Hurd writes. “To prevent future manifestations of this threat from materializing, the Republican Party must drive out those who continue to push misinformation, disinformation, and subscribe to crackpot theories like QAnon.” [...] For the Republican National Committee to gather more than a year after the insurrection and pass a resolution justifying the death and destruction at the U.S. Capitol was a “new level of crazy”—and, to him, proof that the party needs an intervention."

Well, we've got August's vote . . . there's absolutely nothing to see here when politicians talk about killing women from availing themselves of a procedure that was entirely legal one hot minute ago. Or the former National Security Advisor taking oaths to a cult centered around child sex trafficking. Or having elected officials talk about Civil War. Or having the cult-susceptible wife of a Supreme Court justice and a high-profile, longtime Republican activist trying to impose her YouTube-inspired fever dreams on the government of the United States cuz that's how she feelz and that's what she "hopes is true" (her own words, multiple times, from wet ballots to Trump rounding up elected officials and sending them to Guantanamo). I can't say I admire your glibness and cynicism, but I will at least say I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong. I just don't have the same faith in the red proletariat that you do. You get people this riled up, they're going to demand catharsis somehow. Always great when they are hoarding guns, too. (Not keeping "guns in the closet," Augie, ha ha ha, total LOLz, but talking about their stash of guns in the context of an inevitable Civil War, Part Deux, The Elimination of the Woke.) See Sixth, January, 2021. In case you don't believe me, why not ask Gretchen Whitmer to give you a rundown of her first-hand experience? Maybe, at the end of the day, you're seeing everything I'm seeing and the truth of the matter is you just like it. Cuz, seriously, it really doesn't take much to say, "Now that you mention it, some of those things are pretty kooky and I can at least see the argument that they could spin out of control. I don't personally believe it, mind you, but I'd give it, say, a 0.1% chance." Or, let's step back a couple messages . . . how about answering this simple question . . . "Would you trade the Texas Republican Party of today for the Texas Republican Party of yore?" Hell, not even yore, let's just go with 2017! If the answer is yes, well that's certainly saying something! (Do you really think you're saying anything with this reflexive whataboutism, incidentally? Someone mentions MTG and all you have to do is mention AOC and the left-wing media in some sort of ritual, and it somehow cancels everything out? (Nevermind it's not even a valid comparison . . . see how AOC has been managed by the party versus MTG . . . there's a big difference, and I'm not talking about the obvious fact that once again is the real point here . . . AOC isn't out saying batflurf crazy things on the daily . . . you may disagree with her policy positions, but she isn't giving a limp shrug at the possibility of Americans killing other Americans while clapping and yelling "WOO-HOO!") Or that you can say, "the reality is that neither one is all that important in the grand scheme of things" as if it is some incontrovertible truth and is really saying anything at the end of the day. How about replacing "The reality is that . . . " with "I think that," which is an entirely more accurate statement (have you ever considered you may be wrong?). I suspect it is because such word choice would obligate you to express at least some scintilla of reasoning as to why you are so convinced. I mean, I get the condescending tone, the advisory about "rabbit holes" (no "rabbit holes" there, Augie . . . nothing I cited is the output of "yellow journalism," all of it actually happened) . . . surely someone who so happily condescends would actually engage on the merits?)

Yet more evidence of what constitutes acceptable debate in today’s Republican Party: “In a suburban Fort Worth House runoff, Republicans debate killing women over abortion” https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/bud-kennedy/article259670215.html Like I said, the writing is on the wall and it’s absolutely loco. Back in the day, at least there was a decent chance party leaders would’ve stood up and said, “That doesn’t represent the mainstream views of the party.” Rest assured there’s little chance of that these days. It’s an implicit acknowledgment that such views ARE indeed the mainstream views of the party. The entire id of the party can be summed up with one word: Retribution. Against what? Hell if I know. But that’s in a nutshell.

Sorry, no. I know whataboutism is an effective rhetorical technique as of late, but the fact that it is effective quite honestly is a sign of how dumb we've all become. Republicans can clutch their blankets all they want thinking that, as crazy as their worst party members are, well at least the Democrats have some too as if this is some sort of legitimate justification for voting for an absolute clown and clear failure as a person on almost every level over a woman that they're beyond weirdly obsessed with. But it completely lacks even an ATTEMPT at an appreciation of magnitude or degree. You cite politicians in blue states holding on to power, we are way beyond that. No Democratic governor is out there tilting at windmills over nonexistent issues and shaping an entire party platform around whack-o conspiracy theories. At a recent rally, the shining star and new vanguard of the Republican Party, Marjorie Taylor Greene stands up at a rally and says, "Pete Buttigieg and his husband can stay out of our girls' bathrooms" to a round of applause. I'm sorry, that is just nuts. I guess it's supposed to be about transgender people? Neither Pete nor his husband are transgender. It's supposed to protect women? Well, I don't think there's any risk there. Would they prefer Trump to come in? I mean it doesn't make any sense, it is a very clear sign of an absolutely diseased mind. The people who clapped for it seem to be suffering from the same disease. It truly is a cult, clear as day, right in front of you to see. Turn on Tucker Carlson on any given day, I mean, there is a textbook case study in a new kind of narcissism and just outright nihilism. Religious leaders talking about hanging people from trees--entirely unironically. The wife of a Supreme Court justice--an escapee from an actual cult--thinking that it is appropriate to text the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States conspiracy theories from YouTube and qualify it all with, "I hope this is true." The woman is absolutely nuts and has her hands deep in Republican politics for the past 40 years! How many of these people seriously call for a Civil War every night on Fox News, while talking about all the guns they have in their closets and mentioning that they talk to Jesus? I mean, Texas state government officials calling for a Civil War as if it won't be a problem in their own damned state . . . "Sorry Harris County . . . bad luck of the draw. You're stuck with a government ran by Bubba from Jasper whose top concerns in life are that his neighbor doesn't get an abortion and little Timmy doesn't wear a dress." Scroll up in this very thread, someone posting a map of red counties in Texas as if land votes! That's essentially what he's saying . . . there's this whole undertone of "come and take it, I dare you!" There's also this consistent undertone of unhealthy pscyhoses centered around sex and children . . . a whole cult shaped around talking nonstop about child sex trafficking and the return of JFK, Jr, I mean WTF, America?! I know your mind my say, "Well history has always had people like this." Um, no, buddy, not the country I've been living in for the past five decades, and they sure as hell haven't had control of one of the major political parties. You think it's going to work out well to have these total nutters as the normies in one of our country's two political parties? Maybe one day people will open their eyes and just notice what is right in front of them. Connect the dots. Sure, you'll say, "Well people really believe them, so they're valid beliefs--they just have a different opinion than you." Absolute hogwash. What is considered mainstream in the Republican party these days is absolute nuts--let's just call a spade a spade. I'll stipulate that Democrats have some whack jobs of their own, but they aren't anywhere near the mainstream of the party, nor are they anywhere near as transparently nuts. This kind of craziness produces political leaders like Putin who, with a straight face, can say, "We're invading Ukraine to denazify it" along with a whole network of mealy-mouthed arse shiners who will happily and reflexively engage in some sort of mind contortion to defend the statement. Why? I have no idea. What I do know--none of these people belong in politics. I fear it is not going to work out well for most of us, Democratic or Republican. The only people it will work out for is whoever is in the cult. Wake up--the golden goose that is the USA is at stake. They're not going to pull any punches in destroying the entire system, ironically most likely in some sort of effort to prove their psychoses are true. There will be massive long-term financial and societal consequences. Only a few people will be better off than before. It's everything we were taught was bad in high school civics.

Continuing the *overwhelmingly positive* trend of self-appointed experts on vaccines, voting fraud, the Ukraine war, etc, etc. It seems like a full third of the country has fully lost its mind. Again, I just don't think it's going to work out well when, in a never-ending quest to "own the libs" and hold on to power, the State actively throws kerosene on the worst of the worst. Yet more people are going to die. Such an absolutely needless waste.

Well in a sign of responsible conservative governance that shows another way than that chosen by the toxically sex-obsessed Texas state government, the Governor of Utah vetoed a bill that would have barred transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports, joining his counterpart in Indiana. Quoth Spencer Cox, the Republican governor of Utah: "I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion . . . Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day . . . Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live." (Wanting constituents to live, even if they didn't vote for you . . . truly a novel concept, I know.) From NYT article today summarizing the veto of Eric Holcomb, the Republican governor of Indiana: Mr. Holcomb said the bill, known as H.E.A. 1041, would likely have been challenged in court. He also questioned whether it was solving any pressing issue, writing in a letter to lawmakers that “the presumption of the policy laid out in H.E.A. 1041 is that there is an existing problem in K-12 sports in Indiana that requires further state government intervention.” "It implies that the goals of consistency and fairness in competitive female sports are not currently being met,” the governor added in his letter. “After thorough review, I find no evidence to support either claim even if I support the overall goal.” (Another novel concept . . . don't make a law to address a nonexistent problem.) Meanwhile in Texas, we have our governor thinking it's great policy to prosecute parents for child abuse for seeking sanctioned medical treatment that they think is in their child's best interest. A medical institution--well-respected worldwide--has ended its treatment along these lines. You want to not "promote" transgenderism in state-funded schools? Fine. You want to take steps to ensure that those individuals receiving such treatment are doing so (1) with their parent's full understanding and permission; and (2) consistent with the consensus views of the medical community? Fine. But no nuance, no attempt to understand even the many situations in which there is an undeniable biological basis for "gender dysphoria." Just a toxic combination of sticking one's head in the sand while throwing red meat to the lowest common denominator whose brain is incapable of processing anything that may be marginally complex. Hell, all they have to process is, "Hmmm . . . this doesn't seem to affect me in any way, so maybe I should sit this debate out and leave it to the parent and the kid." What majority of Texans is asking for this nonsense? What majority of Texans is asking for a de facto end to limited access to abortion? What majority of Texans wants to be deputized to spy on their neighbor and collect a reward for an entirely private decision? Truly deplorably demented, entirely irresponsible governance and an absolute embarrassment. So much for "parents' rights," so much for "freedom," nevermind the real difficulties the state will face in attracting truly the "best and the brightest," many of whom will think twice about submitting to the troglodytic governance whose practitioners can't stop tilting at windmills. I ask again . . . "How does anyone think this will possibly end well?" The only hope is that the real majority of Texans stands up and says ENOUGH and takes back our government from the gluttonously corrupt and nakedly hypocritical right-wing radicals.

I sincerely hope they are successful in accomplishing what they want. I see quite an uphill climb, but it's certainly worth trying.

Trebly Park somehow helping GreenStreet seems quite the reach to me. There seems to be an underlying thought that any new park will produce the effects of Discovery Green, but when you're talking about a park that takes up 3/4 of a parking lot, I think you'll be lucky if it has even the ho-hum effects of either of the Midtown parks. (Although, admittedly, La Calle has seemed to help Bagby Park, but I'm not sure how much you can attribute that to the park and restaurant versus the nightlife resurgence in the Gray/Dallas corridor.)

Well, that’s not surprising to me as you are a reasonable person. If you thought otherwise I am sure you would vote the other way. But, how about approaching it from this perspective? What good do you think will come from this? Abortion and people identifying as different genders have been around since the beginning of time, as inconvenient as that may sound it is a fact of life. From my perspective it just results in further “ghettoization” of poor people, which isn’t good for anyone—at best it’s just a “comfort” law for religious radicals. People will still find a way. Want to make abortion illegal after the first trimester? Fine. Don’t deputize neighbor against neighbor. Absolute imbecility. It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to see it ain’t going to work out well and any effect on behavior will be at the margins. While that may be desirable for the ideologues who are selectively blind to the first amendment, I’d argue the cost of appeasing such ignorance and hypocrisy is much higher. It is not in anyone’s interest to be a Mississippi with 30 million people, except maybe the politicians, who can run for higher office on a base of elevating the lowest common denominator. The “make no laws” approach is the way to go—no “feel good” nondiscrimination laws, no explicitly discriminatory laws. Such an approach is, at its heart, truly CONSERVATIVE. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/upshot/texas-abortion-women-data.html