RedScare

I'm getting mixed signals here...

No, the signal is crystal clear. You did not read the article, either.

It really should not matter if all passengers have to go through the same security area, if the security is properly designed and equipped (with the appropriate number of lanes) and properly staffed. In fact, if properly equipped and staffed, it should provide better, more efficient service overall than if the same equipment and staff were scattered among 4 or more screening stations in multiple terminals.

Bottlenecks are not efficient in any other traffic setting (freeways, stadiums, etc.). There is no reason to believe that they would be more efficient at airports. It may make security easier to enforce, since there is only one entrance to watch, but for passengers entering the facility, it is worse. This same bottleneck effect can be seen at courthouses everywhere.

If by "read", you meant "skipped entirely", then this time you'd be wrong.

Skipped enough to miss this little tidbit...

The two hurdles Texas wind developers do face are acquiring financing and a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction because of navigation issues. Coastal Point Energy has both for the single 2-megawatt turbine it plans to erect this summer, which would supply power to an oil and gas platform offshore.

I hope they stick an oil drill right directly in the middle of each one of these giant fans.

Maybe they can use the electricity generated by the fans to power the drills.

It is quite clear that you did not read the link provided.

Back to the original post. While the Economist makes our budget problem sound severe, they are taking Houston's $100 million shortfall out of context. For instance, Phoenix, a city about to attempt to arrest and incarcerate tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, had to cut $240 million from their $1.2 Billion budget, a cut of 22%. Where we may cut the police budget 1% and limit some overtime, they just booted 140 cops off the force...almost 5% of the department. Houston is trying to close a $100 million gap in a $4 Billion budget, or 5%. That's peanuts. Life is tough all over. By comparison, we are living in nirvana....even if Peter Brown is worried.

And you know what I meant by mine.

By the way, if there has not been a traffic study done on the stretch of road you got the ticket on, the ticket may be no good. A traffic study basically determines the safe speed for the road. In any event, I thank you for your contribution to my city's budget, just as I am sure that you appreciate my daily donation of cigarette taxes...and I am not even violating the law.

I'm referring not to traffic officers who patrol, looking for moving violations, but the chicken-squad who gives tickets to those doing 50 in a 35, like along Westpark drive, where the speed limit feels more like 45. I'm all for increased traffic enforcement, but setting speed traps and u-turn inspection traps do about as much as red light cameras for preventing accidents and traffic fatalities.

Cops giving out tickets for going 15 over the limit. Of all the nerve! Next, they'll start growing their hair long, wearing baggy drawers, and buying dope from people without even telling them that they're cops! Maybe they'll pretend they are 13 year old girls on the internet to prey on lonely 50 year olds who just want a friend! Where will it end!

[raises hand]

I can.

Richard Florida's methodology for qualifying and/or quantifying the "Creative Class" is flawed beyond even the slightest hope of redemption. Therefore the data that I presented lacks validity...and so does every editorial that references either the theory or the data as a premise.

You forgot to mention that Richard Florida is last decade's news. No one (other than outdated bloggers) even listens to him anymore.

As to Ricco's questions, studies show as many as 2/3 of all arrests, and 50% of non-traffic related arrests, result from traffic stops. Additionally, in 1995, traffic crashes cost Americans $150 Billion, according to a USDOT study. ALL personal and property crimes cost Americans $19 Billion. The argument to de-emphasize traffic enforcement would appear to be an excellent way to drive down police efficiency and arrest rates, while simultaneously driving up insurance costs and traffic fatality rates.

Grant money is applied for from state or federal programs. The money generally is used to fund a position or overtime to achieve certain objectives, such as increasing seatbelt use, deterring drunk driving lowering auto theft or combatting narcotic activity. The rules of the grant require strict record keeping that the money is used only for the purpose approved in the grant. It is a violation of the terms of the grant (and usually illegal as well) to divert grant funds to other uses.

Municipal court revenue, which includes fines for traffic violations, parking violations, code violations and other city ordinance violations, amounts to $36 to 38 million annually. However, it costs upwards of $24 million to run the municipal courts and pay staff and judges. Additionally, the city attorneys office, which provides prosecutors for the municipal courts, cost $17 million annually, though not all of the city attorney staff is dedicated to the municipal courts. It is probably closer to one-third, or $6 million yearly. This would leave a 'profit' of $6-8 million, which probably does not cover all of traffic division's expenses.

All of this should be compared against the $675 million police budget, and the total city budget of $4 Billion.

I would have to agree with what Peter Brown said, the creative class is not coming to Houston. I would also add that the creative class that Houston creates are lured away by other cities such as NYC, LA, Atlanta, Chicago, Austin, Dallas, etc.

But, then Niche posted this...

Anyhow...check out this data set breaking down Richard Florida's Creative Class by county. As of the previous Census, 28.2% of employment in Harris County was considered to be "Creative". (And if you didn't know, Florida's use of the word "class" actually is defined by occupational category rather than demographic or socioeconomic metrics.)

It didn't surprise me much that New York County had the highest percentage of creative jobs, at 47.9%; it did surprise me that 45.7% of Collin County's employment were creative jobs. Collin County actually ranked 3rd in the country by this measure, well ahead of places like San Francisco County (CA), Fulton County (GA), or Travis County (TX)...and is miles ahead of Los Angeles County (CA) or Cook County (IL).

But then...Los Angeles County (27.5%), Cook County (27.5%), and Dallas County (28.0%) get beat out by the likes of Houston's suburban counties, Fort Bend County (34.9%) and Montgomery County (28.3%). Conroe is apparently more attractive to creative employers than is Los Angeles. Harris County (28.2%) is too, of course.

You should have cited the Washington DC area on your list of places that are supposedly stealing away our creative jobs. Arlington County, VA (47.5%), Howard County, MD (44.9%), Fairfax County, VA (44.8%), and Montgomery County, MD (43.8%) rank 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th in terms of the percentage of creative jobs out of all the counties in the United States. You also should've added Phoenix, San Jose, and Seattle to your list, by the way. Maricopa County added 149,501 creative jobs, Santa Clara County added 92,174 creative jobs, and King County added 87,857 creative jobs; Harris County only added 69,925 creative jobs, about on par with Collin County (+68,337) and Travis County (+65,678), but well above the number added by Fulton County (+52,273), Dallas County (+46,824), New York County (+41,561), or Los Angeles County (+39,960).

Those statistics completely and utterly refuted your statement. Citykid, will you respond to the fact that your claim has been proven absolutely wrong? Can you?

You wouldn't last 5 seconds doing the job that they do. Let's live in a community where the cops are known as limp wrist tartars. There's not a one of them - "Bad" or good that would hesitate one second to give their life for you in a burning car, or the middle of a ghetto. It's evident you wouldn't help them if they pleaded. I had two police officers from HPD muscle some punk gang bangers that had threatenned my family ( my father was 87 years old at the time ). I would have paid money to watch them kick the stinkin' teeth out of those animals.

It is entirely possible to support the efforts of the police without encouraging them to violate the rights of our citizens by beating them unnecessarily. This is not a zero sum game. Just because the police helped your dear old pa does not entitle them to then "even things up" by violating the civil rights of someone else. Some of us rather enjoy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the protection from government oppression it affords us. It is what makes so many residents of India, Pakistan, China and Mexico want to emigrate here, as opposed to the other way around. I'd ask you to think about that before advocating civil rights abuses by our police.

So, there were no driveway robberies in the Heights at all then, as this location is most decidedly in Garden Oaks.

I touched on this in the HPD thread, but HPD has two divisions, traffic and patrol. Traffic are the guys that run the speed traps. Patrol are the ones chasing down the bad guys in dark alleyways. Why not just move some of the traffic guys over to patrol if more are needed - besides the obvious answer of loss of revenue from fewer traffic cops to write fewer tickets.

Considering that more Houstonians die on our roads than are murdered by gangsters, I do not see why we should make the traffic division even smaller. Despite your fury at traffic cops, they make up a small percentage of the force compared to the mayhem they must supervise. It should also be noted that much of the traffic duty is financed by various grants that seek to cut down on DWIs, speeding and seat belt infractions, to name just a few. And, as you noted, traffic finances much of the rest of the department through ticket revenue. Eliminating that revenue, which is paid by traffic offenders, as opposed to law-abiding taxpayers, would trigger even more cuts to the department.

well the more police the better. we used to be short 1000 officers or so. what is the current number?

That depends entirely upon whether you believe that simple numbers like "X police officers per 1,000 residents" means anything at all when it comes to effective law enforcement. Houston is currently at about 2.5 officers per 1,000, a number that is virtually identical to the staffing levels of Dallas and Phoenis, 2 similar style cities. It is well under New York's 4 per 1,000, and nearly half of Chicago's almost 5 per 1,000. Ironically, Chicago's massive police force is unable to keep its resident from committing crimes at a higher rate than Houston, but New York has a lower crime rate than Houston. So, the number of cops appears to have little correlation to crime rate, though the police chiefs will always tell you that they need more. A combination of more cops and more efficient use of resources is best.

By the way, HPD is having a study done by UCLA to answer the question, 'How many cops does HOUSTON need?'

However, they WILL freeze their asses off.

As long as they leave the FAs, I don't care if the stinkin' head honchos leave.

The 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Well, "probable cause" seems to be the hang up, which could be argued indefinitely. Perhaps this would be a better question, as it seeks a resolution: If you don't agree with this law, then how should illegals be treated? Should they be allowed to continue to drain our resources indefinitely? Do you think that this is at least a small reason (where as us who are in favor of the bill see it as the main reason, with terrorism prevention as a close second) that this law has passed? Or are you going to stick to your guns that the 70% of polled voters in Arizona who approve this bill are all just racists?

Since I asked the question, I'll volunteer to answer it. I think FEDERALLY we need a fence, on top of a wall, behind a moat, with armed guards, the entire length of the USA/Mexico border. Once that is done, I think we should offer amnesty one last time to all those here illegally who have no criminal record (felony offenses). Get your name on a list and get an ID card. One year after that, then we start enforcing the laws on the books, as Arizona is attempting to do. The reason I'm okay with Arizona skipping to the last step is because THEIR federal government has forgotten them for as long as this has been a problem - and this has been a problem since way before Obama, and they are ALL to blame.

But just like a flat or fair tax, private investing for social security, real medicare/medicaide reform or bi-partisan patriotism based politics, it will never happen. We're just gonna keep putting bandaides on our blood soaked bandaides.

And that's the problem. Our Federal Government is NOT doing it's job of protecting our borders so we have to pass our own ridiculous laws.

Actually, "probable cause" is a concept that has been debated, defined and refined by courts, both state and federal, for decades. It is a well defined term in the legal world. So is "reasonable suspicion". The Arizona statute has brought these terms out of the courtrooms and into the realm of public debate, and therefore, into the dialogue of those who are not familiar with the long line of court cases that define the terms. I deal with these definitions virtually every single day. But, most of the people debating the Arizona law (on BOTH sides) do not. Even non-criminal lawyers often confuse the terms and define them incorrectly. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are not interchangeable, yet I see them used routinely as the same thing.

I don't blame the non-criminal lawyers for not knowing the exact definitions. When a brick mason starts talking about bull-headers and soldier rows, I have to look up those terms myself. However, large numbers of people are forming opinions on the constitutionality of this law based on the blogged opinions of non-lawyers, and much of the legal analysis is flat wrong. To be honest, I am not too concerned with the way that the police enforce the law. If they follow the suggestions of some of the non-legal opinions I've read, Arizona will simply be sued out of existence. And, as I stated earlier, Arizona taxpayers are about to get a cruel lesson in the costs associated with arresting, and incarcerating large numbers of people in addition to the usual criminals they round up. It will bankrupt them (an example can be found in Texas regarding drivers with suspended drivers licenses. There are so many out there that most big cities refuse to arrest them anymore. They simply write them a ticket and tow their car).

I am more concerned with the ramifications of individual states deciding to take over federal responsibilities. While the anti-immigrant crowd sees no problem with it on the issue of immigration, once usurpation of federal powers is allowed once (known as setting precedent), where will it end? Will states be able to field armies and navies if they deem the federal military to have not done its job (note that the State National Guards currently answer to the President as Commander In Chief)? Will states begin regulating their borders with other states (for example, what if Arizona decides that other states that do not round up illegals cannot be trusted to have an open border with Arizona)? Will they enter trade agreements with other countries in competition with the United States? Will they issue their own currency? It could easily spiral out of control, once the precedent is set.

I look forward to the legal debate on this issue, as well as the attempt by Arizona to actually carry out the mandate they have enacted upon themselves.

Exactly.

I actually think this merger might be good for AA. It will give them a chance to raise their fares in line with other carriers (something that they've not done because of other carriers keep their fares low).

You're contradicting yourself. If the other carriers' fares are low, then AA's fare are already in line with those other carriers. I think what you meant to suggest is that fares are too low across the board because of an oversupply of seats. A merger will shrink the number of planes in the air and routes flown, allowing all carriers to raise fares for the remaining seats. And, I agree. The airlines have been over-supplied for decades, and they have lost money for decades because of it. A little shrinkage in the industry will be good for them, albeit bad for the flying public.

Since I am already allowed to carry a handgun in my driveway, as well as my vehicle, I don't see what more a CHL would do...except perhaps to talk tough on the internet.

I'm with you on this one. The potential spill could be 330,000 gallons per day, and that sounds like a lot, but that only converts to about 6,000 barrels. That's not a lot. The Exxon Valdez carried 1,480,000 barrels. The more recent tanker spill off the coast of Spain released about 364,000 barrels. And as Ricco pointed out, this would be a mere fraction of any of the top oil rig spills.

The risks of deepwater drilling are being overplayed to stir up controversy. And if this actually were a legitimate environmental threat of the scale that it is assumed to be, we'd be talking about tankers...not rigs.

As the estimates of oil leaking from the broken well were quintupled, oil began washing ashore tonight.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=7412867

Government officials said the blown-out well 40 miles offshore is spewing five times as much oil into the water as originally estimated -- about 5,000 barrels, or 200,000 gallons, a day.

At that rate, the spill could eclipse the worst oil spill in U.S. history -- the 11 million gallons that leaked from the grounded tanker Exxon Valdez in Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989 -- in the three months it could take to drill a relief well and plug the gushing well 5,000 feet underwater on the sea floor.

Ultimately, the spill could grow much larger than the Valdez because Gulf of Mexico wells typically hold many times more oil than a single tanker.

Frankly, I believe there are some real world practicalities that will blunt much of the urge to profile Hispanics solely for an opportunity to check status. The obvious first reality is that civil rights groups will be looking for excuses to file 1983 actions against abusive agencies. These suits are expensive to defend in normal times, but much worse in this economic climate. Home values in Phoenix have dropped over 50%, crippling tax revenue. Home construction, Phoenix's number one industry, has been crippled. Crime is already up in Phoenix, making arrests of maids and gardeners for status offenses a questionable use of police resources. State and local jails must hold the arrestees until ICE takes possession of them. ICE will be in no hurry to take custody of non-violent status offenders (they already take and depot felons) with their own limited jail space, prosecutors, agents and immigration courts, especially since this law was enacted as an insult to immigration officials and the federal government. Therefore, Arizona governments will incur huge expenses to stop, detain, arrest and house thousands of non-violent status offenders, and must find a way to pay for it.

I believe that law enforcement will quietly attempt to arrest as few as possible, while still appearing to be enforcing the law, and local politicians will be vocal about how much this is costing. They will then let the taxpayers tell them which is more important, rounding up non-violent illegals or their skyrocketing tax bills. I find that to be more interesting than whether the courts allow states to usurp federal law.

Houston and Texas leaders do not work for, nor are they employed, by Continental Airlines.

I am sure that the management and employees at both CO and UAL know how to handle this.

Outside interference is not needed.

No one has dropped the ball.

Only CO... can be blamed when their deal with the devil burns them.

Then, why is Chicago promising so many incentives?

Remember everyone who commits a crime is only being arrested on suspicion of committing it...You are still innocent till proven guilty in the USA...we are not Mexico...yet.

The bill should better define what "lawful contact" entails...However I believe the drafters assumed that lawful contact was any contact where an officer had the right to detain, therefore any time where the officer either witnessed an infraction or had probable cause to detain.

Actually, arresting people on mere "suspicion" of committing a crime is a violation of both the Texas and United States constitutions...and more than likely Arizona's. A person may only be arrested in Texas with a warrant based on probable cause signed by a judge, or under those exceptions enumerated in Chapter 14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Reasonable suspicion only gives an officer the right to stop a person to investigate further.

The part that has everyone so riled up is that 30% of Arizonans are US citizens of Mexican descent (you may recall that Arizona was once Mexico). This law virtually compels police to violate the rights of nearly one-third of Arizona's citizens (since a police department that doesn't try hard enough to arrest illegals may be sued by private citizens), simply for looking Mexican. Some people become very offended when stopped by the police for what they perceive to be an unjust reason. I recall that even a HAIF poster started a thread a few months back complaining that HPD stopped him, even though he admitted violating the law, however slightly. Imagine what that person would do if he felt that police could stop him simply for looking white.

BTW, I am confident that "lawful contact" is defined elsewhere in Arizona's criminal codes.

Hmmm....I take that back. "Lawful contact" apparently is not defined. Conservatives seem to be suggesting that it means a stop for some other infraction, such as a traffic violation. However, an Arizona legislative staffer states that it means ANY contact police have with individuals in the normal course of business. So, that would include traffic stops, but also witnesses at a crime scene, victims calling for help, or even a person asking a police officer for directions.

That is not true. Perhaps you should read the United States Code, Title 8, section 1252...which clearly states:

"Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

• Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
• Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
• Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;

Shall, for the firstcommission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. C1ivil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

Last time I checked the United States did not allow jail time for a civil offense. Illegal entry is a Federal Criminal offense....not a civil one. I did not see whether or not overstaying a VISA was a criminal act, but I suspect it is treated much the same as just crossing illegally....

That statute is fine when the immigrant is caught crossing the border. When the immigrant is already here, and there is no way to prove how he got here, where he did it, and when he did so (critical elements for determining jurisdiction and limitations), the only offense that can be proven is being present without documentation. That is a civil offense.

Thats not a difficult thing to understand. It is not usurpring federal law, it is not creating new federal immigration law, it is just mirroring federal law and enforcing it b/c the government has completely abdicated its responsibility.

For a lawyer, you sure have a weak understanding of law....the constitution is not all black and white. Your particular reading and interpretation of it, is not the law of the land....for a lawyer it seems strange that you would not know that.

Umm..."mirroring" federal law and enforcing it for any reason is usurping federal law. Immigration is clearly the purview of the federal government. It is not at all clear that a state may undertake to enforce it. And, which "federal law" does this apply to, criminal violations or civil? Many of the immigration violations are simply expirations of various visas. Do they count? Undocumented aliens themselves...the ones everyone is in an uproar about, are not committing a criminal violation. It is a civil violation, punishable by a fine.

The "black and white" comment is especially amusing coming from a conservative. Do you now admit that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" open to interpretation? Before you answer, remember that this is the position of liberals.