Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

Norman “Stormwater” Utility: An Unpublished Letter

by Leave a Comment

BACKGROUND

A Norman Transcript article appeared early this summer, ostensibly as news, but in reality thinly disguised advocacy for a utility for “stormwater” (should be two words: storm water, hyphenated when used as a modifier). This came on the heels of two wise and proper election defeats of the idea in the past decade, as I wrote a letter to the editor.

My letter qualified for publication on every stated check box. It was cleanly and creatively composed, free of grammar, punctuation, spelling, and usage errors, contained no personal attacks, and tallied a volume well under the word-count limit. Despite that, the editor of the Transcript ignored the letter, yet published several others favoring water-rate increases of other types not directly tied to storm water.

Clearly my offering struck a nerve. Choosing not to publish well-written dissent places the paper in firm editorial-control grip of those who favor more bureaucracy, higher taxes, and anti-rural agendas.

Fortunately, we live in an age when we need not depend on mass media to get word out, and anyone can publish online as he or she sees fit, with equal access worldwide as a corporate newspaper gets. In that spirit, here was the verbatim text of my letter to the editor:

———————–
LETTER to the EDITOR

Regardless of any oversimplified portrayals one hears, the storm-water utility’s electoral failures here largely have revolved around two issues:

1. Inequity and misleading nature of the tax proposed to finance it. It’s called a “fee” for the sake of utility bills, but that’s playing a semantics game that voters here see right through. It is a de facto tax. Residents of rural wards comprised a major part of rejection in these votes. This is because the proposed tax was applied identically to rural as well as urban parts of Norman, even though storm-water hydrology in each is far from identical. The tax was thoughtlessly based on the absolute amount (rather than percentage) of impermeable cover on a lot. Hence the rural inequity: adjacent acreage and uncovered land are much larger for the same raw amount of rural impermeable cover, and rural houses and driveways will drain into dirt or ponds more than will urban apartments, businesses and houses.

2. Making it a separate utility (bureaucracy) from the water department. Although it’s “done elsewhere,” that’s a follow-the-lemmings rationale, not a reasoned one. It makes no sense because this is a water problem. Keep it in a slightly expanded yet streamlined water department with one set of overlords and staff instead of two, one computer system instead of two, one itemized bill, etc., not a separate utility, and it would stand a better chance of being approved.

Normanites mostly aren’t opposed to storm-water remediation. Want a path to passing? It needs to be done in a manner consistent with urban/rural equitability (most of Norman’s drained land area is rural!) and streamlined, efficient governance.

Better Choices than Woke Cult vs. Trump Cult?

by Leave a Comment

I have many friends, associates and colleagues whose relationships I value, and who also voted for Trump. I do not think less of any of them for it; in fact I respect and even agree with a lot of their reasoning. It’s also well-known that I did not and will not vote for him, ever, in any primary nor general election.

Mainly it’s his wanton selfishness, disturbing level of impulsiveness, intellectual vacuity, utter absence of statesmanlike dignity, demonstrated dishonesty, and shameless personal immorality—all of which together made and make him utterly unvotable to me. Even if (being very generous here) 90% of the crimes of which he is accused are completely bogus, the balance, combined with his historic moral and ethical problems, still leaves him wholly unsuitable in personal character to return to this nation’s highest office. I have a moral litmus test and he fails it, period. “Bigly!” [BTW, the same goes for the overwhelming majority of Democrats, including all D candidates on any of my ballots since 1990. I have voted for other Rs, as well as Ls and Is. Modern Ds have swung so radically far left that the very idea of their influence in powerful positions is thoroughly repugnant…and dangerous.]

I mean this in a concerned and caring way, not a derisive one, regarding my Trump-supporting friends, whom I value as God’s children and whose overall worldviews I otherwise relate to, strongly. What if you’re being played…by Trump and by the system, as a means to the end on a larger-scale game of divide and conquer? Please read this Twitter link carefully, stop for a few moments, and give it thought. If you do, you may see how he has betrayed all of us who care about liberty, fiscal responsibility, and personal moral bearing, in several ways (whether or not we voted for him).

What if Trump himself is controlled opposition? Dare I even ask? Is that too radical a concept to even consider? I am not positing any particular “conspiracy theory”, whatsoever, period. Instead I am asking questions, and posting questions and suggestions from others that are worth giving some thought.

Just as with the “woke justice” social-conformity cult on the opposite part of the spectrum, whose derangements I see infecting a lot of otherwise brilliant minds, what easily could be considered the personality cult of Trumpism has used legitimate (and legitimate-sounding) grievances to ensnare many, and appears to have blinded them to the internal inconsistencies, double standards, un-Christ-like behaviors, and direct deviances from the values we liberty-cherishing Christian conservatives share.

And if you still vote for him in the primary anyway, I will not insult you nor think less of you as a person. I might scratch or shake my head, however.
Here is the link again. Read thoughtfully.

Critical Thinking as Applied to an Overseas News Item

by Leave a Comment

This should go without saying, but a reminder can’t hurt: Don’t take “news” stories on their face. Examine critically. It’s a good brain exercise, as well as a needed and healthy self-defense mechanism for the mind. Consider sourcing, context, possible agendas, motivations, angles, and as appropriate, what’s not said about a story. This includes unstated aspects regarding the subject(s) of a story, in context of who they are, how they live, and past statements and actions. It’s easier to do for stories promoting themes you don’t like, but should be done for those with which you agree as well.

I’ll offer one recent example among countless many possibilities. A few critical thoughts on Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro’s criticism of European response to Koran burning…

* As for the subject of Maduro’s ire: I personally don’t approve of Koran burning and won’t be doing so — not because I’m afraid of anyone or anything, but because I see no productive point in it. The thought of doing so really hasn’t occurred to me, much as I have condemned many aspects of radical Islamism taken straight from the Koran’s most hideous teachings and violent verses.

* Freedom of expression and religion are duly and rightly codified in the very first amendment to my nation’s Constitution. As a staunch proponent of liberty, I ardently support and agree with the First Amendment in its literal, black and white words. That includes the freedom to write everything I write here today. I personally don’t approve Koran burning, but I support the freedom of others to do so as a means of expression. Same goes for Bible burning (my own good book!), which I intensely oppose morally, but which is a protected means of expression for some. I personally don’t approve of much of the Koran itself, but I support the freedom of others to express and worship from it peacefully, whenever and wherever they wish. I personally don’t approve of much of what the Left endorses, nor statements of truly racist people on either end of the sociopolitical spectrum, but I support all their freedom to make awful statements. [As I often write: The First Amendment doesn’t say “except” or “unless”! Expressions of leftism or racism, much as I detest both, are, and should be, Constitutionally protected.] I also expect to exercise my freedom of expression without governmental restraint: to approve or disapprove of anything…to oppose parts of the Koran, to attack leftism and collectivism as I often do, and to discuss freely anyone’s statements or other behavior regarding any topic. Maduro’s endorsement of governmental restrictions on expression fly in the face of the ideals of liberty, so I oppose them. Were he a U.S. citizen, Maduro would be fully, legally entitled to his expressions, as I would be equally to rebuke them.

* This specific story is common in headlines from sources such as Sputnik, Tass, RT, and others known to be sympathetic to socialist and communist regimes. I won’t click on a TASS, RT or Sputnik link, or any other state-controlled media like Xinhua or People’s Daily, nor offer one to you, in case it delivers malware or trackers. I recommend you avoid them too if digging further into this specific story. But I have read of Maduro’s quotes elsewhere.

* Critical thought is…critical! It starts not with the story, but the source. One question I often ask is, “Why is this medium pushing this story?” From the outside looking in, it’s pretty easy to see (for example) TASS or Al Jazeera selectively publicizing this for propagandistic manipulation. Those or Xinhua aren’t alone, mind you; most modern media, including right here in the USA, have descended into this practice. I grew up in the inner city and learned to watch or shield my back habitually. Unfortunately, we now have to do so mentally with media stories.

* On the face, and taken alone in a rigidly impermeable silo with no context at all, he makes a compelling point. After all, what good comes from burning another religion’s good book, even if you don’t agree with it? However, as I often say, “Consider the source.” Maduro, like many famous populist leaders selectively wielding their stated faith for rhetorical leverage, acts purer than he is, in terms of living it out. [This reminds me of bible-holding Trump for one evening with his military accompaniment to the DC church, or Biden and Pelosi supporting mass abortion while claiming the mantle of Catholicism for the sake of public show. Using their good books as publicity devices without living by them!] The thoroughly devastating results of Maduro’s and his beloved mentor/predecessor’s programs in Venezuela bear it out. He ought to take the plank out of his own eye before dealing with the speck in another’s. That’s Biblical. Live it more than talk it.

* He criticized Koran burning by “racist sectors”. What didn’t he say? For one, that the public Koran burning was done by a native Iraqi, Salwan Momika, who immigrated to Sweden. Hardly “racism”! The burner has been labeled Christian but described himself on social media as “atheist and enlightened politician, thinker and author”.

* Maduro allied with Iran for economic reasons. He is pandering to extreme Muslims here. I doubt that’s coincidental. I wonder when Maduro will discuss the modern torture, summary executions and vigilante-style killings of hostages, “apostates” and “heretics” in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, or throwing homosexuals off buildings in Iraq, Syria and Libya, or the gang rape, torture and murder of Christians in parts of North Africa. Considering his regime’s own brutalization of dissidents, I won’t hold my breath waiting.

* Maduro the “Christian”…his being one of the most notorious human-rights abusers around today, with his Helicoide political prison and “The Tomb” torture center, it’s an understatement to say his actions make me skeptical about his alleged “Christianity”. Still, only God can judge for sure. Nobody is perfect. All sin. All will have to answer for themselves at Judgment Day. “All” includes me. And yes, we’re all created different but equal in God’s eye. God loves Nicolas Maduro and wishes to grant him salvation and forgiveness, even as evil as his practices have been. The same can be said for each of us, and anyone engaging in behavior you or I (or even God Himself) don’t approve of. That’s Biblical.

* With those due caveats stated: Still, in a pragmatic sense, the errors and sins of people in positions of high power have greater consequences for society as a whole than those of the average guy waiting on the corner of Commerce and Akard for a bus home. Therefore, the powerful should be held to expectations commensurate with their positions and influence, and yes, that means higher performance standards than you or me. It’s their intrinsic duty to live up to a loftier standard for what they do and say than the downtown bus passenger, by virtue of far vaster consequences. With greater power comes greater responsibility.

* His results at home belie his preaching about yahoos burning Korans somewhere thousands of miles away, an item totally irrelevant to his duties. It strikes me as a purposeful distraction tactic as well as pandering. He’s misguided, but not stupid…kill two birds with one stone (or statement, in this case).

Other critical thoughts certainly are possible, but those are some immediate examples, arising from just one little story that the great majority of Americans will miss completely.