Badge of influence

It's that wonderful time of year when it warms up and political flyers bloom in our mailboxes.

Although they're often full of half-truths, bluster and pointless accusations, they're also very telling. For example, who you should really fear.

It's the most common complaint in Austin politics, and the one most used by single-member district proponents - this city is run for and by those who live in Central Austin.

But you ought to have much more fear for those with badges. That's the real powerbroker.

It is almost impossible to get elected to city office in Austin without the police and fire political action committees. They are the most moneyed, organized and involved groups in this town. Look at how loudly the candidates who get those endorsements trumpet the prize.

The members of those PACs and their friends also have a very narrow agenda that has an impact on every citizen in town.

Under the label of public safety, police and fire budgets take up almost three-fourths of the budget. And it is in the best interest of the employees under those budget numbers - police and fire - to keep those numbers up and even growing.

You may say that it is incumbent upon us to maintain such status quo. I am all for maintaining safety, and those two organizations are the spot where it happens. But I'm also for all departments always being reviewed and reorganized to ensure money is spent to do the core duties and not too much involved in administration or layers of bureaurcy. And that's harder to so when the PACs' approval prove to be the most sought after in local politics.

Public safety gets into the field with the other sacred cow, education, much too often. In education, we say "it's for the kids" and people are automatically willing to authorize tens of millions. Public safety says "it's to keep you from getting robbed or your home burning" and we nod like cows watching cars go by.

You want proof? City Manager Mark Ott has told all city departments to cut 7 percent in their proposed 2010 budgets from what they have in 2009. Except public safety. They should cut 3.5 percent.

Don't think Ott made such a decision on his own. This council chased off the last city manager saying it wanted to work the budget details. Now, it does such a little quieter since we're in recession and the decisions are difficult, but you can be assured Ott was consulted by council members who dearly wanted police and fire on their side at election time.

It's not even a vote thing. Large percentages of the two departments live outside Austin. But they carry clout - dearly sought endorsements and money.

I believe members of the police and fire departments have as much right as anyone, resident or not, to speak out on Austin politics. I admire them for being involved. But no one should believe city elections are controlled by a few zip codes between Ben White Boulevard and Enfield. Those areas do cast votes more often, but those votes are greatly influenced, as are many, many city council decisions, by those in uniform who have a very special interest in all the tax dollars.

Buffoons, skanks and culture

I have friends who brag they never watch television. But I've always felt, to be part of and understand our culture, you have to sample. Some you may watch, some you may visit to get a taste. But to know who we are as Americans, there's no broader vista than television.

It's kind of sad to view.

I'm not suggesting television is all-encompassing, although from Discovery to M-TV and all in between, you get a pretty extensive set of choices. I guess my discouragement arises from how pervasive the lower rungs of our society are displayed, particularly in what is called reality.

In a more specific question, how can they find this many buffoons and skanks and why are they so popular?

Subquestions that lead to the big query:

1. Why is Terry Bradshaw doing sports analysis? He pretty much plays country bumpkin and yucks a lot.

2. Could Ben Stiller, Seth Rogen, Jim Carrey or David Spade make you laugh by appealing to your head instead of contorting, stumbling, playing a ridiculously broad and shallow character or appealing only to people who feel antisocial because pot isn't a part of everyday life?

3. Who are these throngs of women who want to twist tongues with yesterday's used up rock musicians like Bret Michaels?

4. Who are these women dying to join any household wired with television cameras so they can flounce and sleep with any moving object?

5. Who are these guys who join those houses and get their testosterone so flowing they can only express themselves screaming in tempter tantrums and with flying fists?

6. It's a been a few years since I've been to California, but is it possible the 20-something residents are that shallow, self-centered and simply stupid?

I'd like to deny it's a generational thing. The Three Stooges, Three's Company and even Beavis and Butthead weren't exactly enlightening. It's just the proliferation that makes me question right now.

Is this America? Does that "reflection" give insights into declining high school testing and graduation rates? Did someone slip something in the water? Maybe high school is just our training ground for the next generation of television stars.

Still a ways to go

In the middle of December, I wrote an unpublished piece about the sliding economy having an up side.

My thought was this is when the flotsam is cleared, the bad boats moving up on a rising tide began to sink and the best would rise to the top. It would be a time of innovation and increasing customer service as everyone battled to draw the dollar.

By April, anecdotal evidence has me thinking we've got a ways to go.

I'm still not convinced there are so many critical businesses that should be kept afloat by artificial means. At least not at this cost.

But I'm also unsure how many are getting that it's now become better or be dead.

Here's my example. In a somewhat innovative move, the local outlet for a national pizza chain I've patronized for decades dropped a note at my home. It said it wanted to be thankful for continued business and therefore offered a good discount on a pizza. "It's a straight deal for straight dealing folks," it claimed.

Things got crooked. I ordered to pick up the pizza with a cohort on the way. I was then informed the offer was only good for delivery. I questioned how that could be as the offer made not such stipulation. "It's a typo," the poor order taker responded. I questioned why that was my punishment. "That's the manager's policy," she said.

Ah, the customer is always right unless a manager has blundered.

I cancelled the order and filed a complaint with the corporate office. Nothing much has changed there either. I've traded three or four emails with always the promise "we're looking into it."

Now, in the interim I tried a different, more local brand and liked it. So my habit has now changed, frustration level continues to rise dealing with a corporate bureacracy and I'm questioning the business sense of what used to be a given.

In tough times, attitudes have to be reviewed and change. That is survival. That is common sense. You can't even let individual customers go as the margins are so slim those individuals add up to be here or not very quickly.

Little bites out of business soon turn into consumption entirely.

My town

I have to applaud the Austin City Council for standing up for the city's sovereignty today.

It voted unanimously (when two are fighting one another for the mayor's seat, it says a lot when they take the same position) to fight proposed legislation by State Sen. Wentworth that would force single-member districts upon Austin.

Now I am against single-member districts as I find they create provincialism and are a detriment to getting anything done. But that's not the cause for my admiration.

This is an Austin decision, not a state question. Austin has held elections and declined such districts SIX times. After another census, it's likely Austin will look at it a seventh time. Sen. Wentworth needs to mind his own business.

Now, some of South Austin is in Wentworth's jurisdiction. He claims he received a request for his legislation from some of those constituents. But if you watch the ID next to Wentworth's name, it says San Antonio, not Austin.

(By the way senator, after years and years of simply sucking cheap water out of an aquifer, has San Antonio dealt with its water crisis yet? Wait, isn't that the site of the greatest drought in the nation right now? And it still doesn't have a proper reservoir because voters look at the cost and keep saying "no"? Maybe some state legislation is the answer.)

Every senator gets requests for special interest legislation. One way this is a representative democracy is those folks weed out non-viable requests that have nothing to do with a senator's job. I don't find Sen. Wentworth very representative, nor discerning, here.

We've got financial difficulties out the wahoo, an education system that isn't turning out productive citizens, infrastructure that is underfunded and crumbling and Sen. Wentworth thinks the senate should wander off into meddling in Austin's affairs.

What the city council did was not turn its back on single member districts. It told Wentworth to mind his own business. Just because he spends a few months here every two years doesn't make this his town. It's our town.

And as for those consitituents who made the request. Tell them to vote. And get their neighbors to vote. That's how you create change.

Into the lioness' den

I'm a single, middle-aged guy. So I've long ago not only determined I'm unlikely to meet decent prospects in bars, I'm as unlikely to get much of a shot. Unless I alter the hunting grounds.

You don't hunt deer by hanging around your backyard and expecting a big buck wander by. You go into the woods where they feel safe and comfortable. And although I'll take the gun immediately out of the metaphor, it seems sane to do the same with women.

Now, at this point, I haven't really taken aim at anything. I've kind of been in an observational mode. And it's been fascinating and educational.

I've chosen two "habitats." Both are flush with women. Both attract limited men, in numbers not necessarily in ability.

One is a downtown Austin restaurant. I've dropped by a couple of times and eaten there once. I've seen dozens of females and only about three men in all that time. The only explanation at which I can arrive is the restaurant's base product is salad. Hearty salad, tasty salad, yet salad. And that seems discouraging to men.

In fact, I've noticed quizzical looks when I'm there as if I walked through a door without noticing the shadowed dress on the person on that door and hadn't yet noticed the lack of urinals in the room. But all there is to note here is the lack of smell of burning meat and absence of bread crusts on bowls on unbussed tables.

At the tables, women of all ages and types lean in for conversation in the exact opposite of how men lean back to talk to one another. They seem proud they've chosen a vegetable spot for lunch, albeit a bit put off one of the other side is catching them grazing. But they seem to instinctively know this is their world and a certain air of relaxation permeates the room. As long as I don't pollute it with seeking a ribeye on the side.

The second outpost I've visited is a wine spot. I wouldn't suggest that wine and men are anthema. But this spot in Southwest Austin seems a female hangout. So much so, and with an atmosphere that is so different than the restaurant, I feel an interloper. In general, the visitors here are in their late 30s to mid 50s. They've been through the gender wars with the skirmishes in bars. And they seem a little bitter. Whereas the restaurant denizens seem surprised at my male visitation, these seem a little defensive. Maybe pissed is the truer word.

But it's not like guys don't exude the same attitude in certain situations. Visit a sports establishment during a critical University of Texas game and watch men relegate any female tag along to imposed silence. Maybe more indicative, I've seen men in gentlemen's clubs reject the mere presence of half-naked beautiful women when the big screen has been dropped for a mixed martial arts pay per view event.

But this feeling is different. I suspect there was talk of a "girls' night" and my simple existence in the same place wasn't on the imagined agenda.

I visited twice. The first time I felt so uncomfortable, I pretty much sought invisibility. I compared it to accompanying my lesbian friend to ladies night at her favorite club. I was more than ostracized, put in my place. The second time at the wine spot, I tried a different gambit. I minded my p's and q's like a little child. No hint of reviewing the room, no whisper of flirt, minimal conversation - actually closer to only introduction - followed by an immediate "I'll let you ladies get back to your evening." Recognize their ownership and get the hell away.

The result - I felt tolerated. Not appreciated, certainly not accepted. I am still one of them.

It was educational to visit these hideaways of female domination. I quickly learned my place. I recognized that experience has, probably deservedly, created some wariness for the male attitude and action. And I know these are also not spots I'm likely to meet someone for future interaction of any kind.

These are lands with No Hunting clearly posted.