Obama pantsed the Republicans today

President Obama announced on Saturday that he will ask Congress for authorization to launch military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s military in response to his alleged use of chemical weapons last week.

Obama reiterated that the United States has concluded that Assad’s forces gassed civilians and opposition fighters in a rebel-held suburb of Damascus on Aug. 21 and said “this menace must be confronted.”

“The United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” Obama said, adding that while he believes he has the authority as Commander-in-Chief to order strikes, he “will seek authorization for the use of force” from Congress. Obama also outlined what the campaign would entail, saying that any U.S. military action in Syria would not be an open ended intervention but one that is meant to hold Assad accountable and to deter him and degrade his ability from using chemical weapons in the future. 

For the record, I am dead set against any action in Syria, even "limited" action (which is probably defined as a hundred or so Tomahawk missles fired from ships and jets).

But, echoing comments from Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday, Obama asked: “what message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children and pay no price? … We are the United States of America. We cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus.”

The president also said that Congress will debate and vote on the authorization for force in Syria when it returns from the August recess. “I am ready to act in the face of this outrage,” he said. “Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.” 

I've already posted my opinion on Hawk Kerry, who is acting like a Secretary of War and not State. What a disgrace, and he seems completely oblivious to it.

But that's not the news. Today Obama put the GOP in a trick bag. Painted them into a corner. And they don't know whether to shit or wind their wristwatch.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, yesterday.

“There are potential repercussions,” Paul said on Fox News Channel. “If he launches this little piddly attack with a few cruise missiles, it won’t stop chemical weapons, but it may well insight a gas attack on Israelis. I think it’s a big mistake.”

Paul said that if military action is undertaken, it should only happen after Congress signs off.

Cong. Peter King of New York, today.

"President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents. The President does not need Congress to authorize a strike on Syria. If [Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians deserves a military response, and I believe it does, and if the President is seeking congressional approval, then he should call Congress back into a special session at the earliest date. The President doesn’t need 535 Members of Congress to enforce his own red line."

The Senate will pass whatever the president wants -- and with Republican votes like John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- but there's enough anti-war liberals and tea partiers in the House that a resolution to strike Syria will probably fail (without lots of strings attached).

Can you imagine a tough-talking Republican -- like say, my Congressman, John Culberson -- trying to explain his vote when he gets primaried from the right?

If he votes 'yes'...he obviously can't criticize Obama for taking action. 'Support the president in a time of war' and all that.  If he votes 'no'... he looks like a pussy. Bowing down to Assad.

To be certain, this has ALWAYS been the dynamic when military strikes are on the table. Hawks and doves, tough guys versus pantywaists. And a few other categories.

A 'no' vote isn't going to make Obama look bad, because he'll just fire the Tomahawks anyway if he feels like it (and he obviously does). See, he's not up for re-election next year. And besides, some Americans think war presidents are hot.

What Republicans are not grasping is that you have to be against war on moral principles, not because you're tired of fighting wars or because you don't want to spend any more money. You have to be against -- or for -- war no matter who's in the White House. Otherwise you just look like a partisan hypocrite.

Not that it bothers them to be one of those...

What's also disgraceful is John Boehner not calling the House back into session until September 9. TEN DAYS from now.

Nothing gets in the way of the Republican House avoiding work. Not even voting on military action in Syria.

House leaders issued a statement saying that “serious, substantive” questions were being raised regarding Syria and they are so glad that the President is asking them to vote because this is so important, constitution, blah blah – oh, and they are going to take the measure up on September 9th, which is another way of saying they are not coming back early from vacation for this “serious, substantive” matter.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) today issued the following joint statement.

“Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress. We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised. In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th. This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people.”

Can you imagine if Democrats had told Bush they’d get back to him on Iraq when they were done with vacation?

This was to be expected by this House, after all, they are only planning on working 9 days in September.

Obama has bamboozled them.  Every last one of them.

Update: The New York Times has the backstory on how it all went down, focusing just on the policy and not the politics.

Why the mayor's pay raises are a BFD

Because perception is reality.  Altering the perception is why so many people are trying to spin the matter one way or another.

Those who have followed the previous reporting on this topic don't need to be caught up, but let's provide a one-paragraph summary anyway for casual observers.

In 2011 Mayor Annise Parker laid off around 750 city employees because she did not want to raise any taxes or fees in order to balance the budget, but about the same time she began granting -- and has accelerated since then -- significant salary increases to high-level staff members.  The city's firefighters, no pal of the mayor's, have heavily criticized the move, and the president of one of the unions representing city employees called it "heartbreaking".  But the police officers' union (big supporters) stood behind her, contending that 'the market' dictated that the key people around the mayor were underpaid compared to similar jobs in the private sector, and were thus worthy of the increases once the city's financial footing was secured.  Even Richard Shaw, head of the local AFL-CIO, backed Parker up, saying (somewhat unnecessarily, unless he's extending a private fight into public view), "The firefighters need to quit whining".

For the record also, Noah at Texpatriate led the reaction in the left blogosphere, calling it a "phony" issue, and has supplied considerable inside information to support that POV.

Parker's highest-profile challenger, Ben Hall, has -- as with several other opportunities -- tried and failed to make this much of a campaign issue so far.  A couple of the local uber-insiders have the best interpretation of the affair for today...

GOP communications consultant Jim McGrath said the issue will be little more than water-cooler fodder at City Hall unless Hall can show a pattern of such decisions.

"Taxpayers and voters care about their well-being and their future and if the mayor has failed in some regard as it relates to that, that's something you can get traction with," McGrath said. "This inside baseball stuff will not fundamentally alter the dynamics of a race that isn't looking good for Mr. Hall at present."

Democratic political consultant Mustafa Tameez agreed: "This is not going to be seen well by the public, but something like this doesn't make or break the election."

So for everyone who thinks it's no big deal -- or hopes it won't be -- here's a news flash: it should be, and it ought to be.  And while Hall cannot find any traction with the topic, it appears that another of Parker's challengers, Don Cook, has.  This is from his campaign bulletin last night, via text message.

"It is characteristic of the insensitivity of this administration that Ms. Mayor Parker would give these massive pay raises to staff members while the 747 people she laid off in 2011 have not been rehired.  Parker claims credit for turning the local economy around, although an outside observer might conclude that has more to do with the city's position atop the carbon energy food chain.

"But Houston's economic recovery, as with the rest of the country, has been limited to those at the very top," Cook said.  "In fact, the highest 7% of wage earners have seen increases in their incomes of an average 28%, while the lower 93% of Americans have experienced real income deductions of 3%.  This business of the Mayor's is just more feather bedding for the elite while the rest of us tighten our belts.

"As Mayor, I pledge that not only will I rehire those 747 employees, I will only claim $31,138 of the current mayor's salary of $209,138, and find something better to spend the remaining $178,000 on."

The 31K figure is based on current estimates of a 'living wage' as being $15 per hour, a 40-hour work week, and a 52-week year.  "I figure the mayor, along with everybody else, deserves a living wage," said Cook.

That is how you make a mountain out of a molehill.  Alas, I predict the corporate media will overlook this candidate's statement... seeing as how we're headed into a holiday weekend and all.  After all, "nobody pays attention to political campaigns until after Labor Day".  Right?

Update: I'm delighted to see that the HouChron e-board proved me wrong and referenced Cook's press release Saturday morning. They did so as they justified the pay raises and slammed Ben Hall, but their mention of Cook's name and pledge still qualifies as progress, however minute it may be.

In other news, here's the ballot order for all local candidates standing for election in November.

Uber ridesharing service coming to Houston (Part II)

(Part I is here)

Mike Morris' piece at the Chron names the power players for the two sides involved in Uber's entry into the Houston market. We'll pick it up where the battle lines are drawn.

Yellow Cab CEO Roman Martinez and Joe Jordan, president of the Houston Limousine Operators Networking Group, labeled Uber a rogue operator.

Martinez, whose Yellow Cab and affiliated companies field 1,400 vehicles, said Uber's service will skim the best trips in the city, hurting the taxi industry and curtailing its ability to give rides to the poor or disabled.

"We don't understand why Uber would want to change existing law instead of operating under current ordinance just like all of us have been doing for years," Martinez said. "It's unfair for them to come in the market and say, 'Now we're going to get rid of all these rules and regulations so we can get into the market.' "

Yellow Cab affiliate Towne Car operates sedans at the same price as cabs, said lobbyist Cindy Clifford. She is joined on the cabs' lobby team by Felix Chavelier and former council member Sue Lovell. Uber has hired lobbyists Jeri Brooks, David Gonzalez, Robert Miller, Neftali Partida and Nancy Sims.

"Every place they go, they say, 'We're only going to use established, licensed operators; we're clean as choir boys.' And as time goes on they start using anybody with a pulse and a running vehicle," Jordan said. "If there's an issue with the city or a ripped-off client, where are you going to go? You going to go complain to a website? It'd be chaos if they let Uber come in."

That's really the best word to describe Uber: chaos. Another clarifying adverb is 'disruptor'. More on disruptor companies here, here, and here.

The Original Disruptor, as both Jen Sorensen above (and perhaps you) surmise, is Wal-Mart. Or rather, Walmart. In attaining their goal to compete solely on the basis of price, they succeeded in bullying both their suppliers and employees into accepting the lowest price Walmart was willing to pay, which has culminated in the wholesale destruction of the retail industry's mom-and-pop stores across the United States. This also resulted in the scions of Sam Walton becoming some of the wealthiest people on the planet. They have pushed workers onto welfare, bought off politicians in countries around the world... you probably already well understand the Walmart 'success' story.

Still, before we get back to the business of Uber and how it will affect us both positively and negatively in the Bayou City, more local background is essential.

Yellow Cab and a few other Houston brands (like Fiesta and United Cab) are owned by Texas Taxi Inc., a corporate parent to the Greater Houston Transportation Co. and others. The Houston affiliates currently hold about a 60% market share here, according to their own data, and Texas Taxi also serves Austin, San Antonio, and Galveston. They are in competition with several other smaller taxi and limousine operators, not to mention outfits like SuperShuttle, the jitneys and even pedicabs. In Houston the company employs about 250 dispatchers, mechanics for their fleet of cars, administrative and support personnel as well as nearly 2000 cab drivers as independent contractors. Many employees are long-termers, with 30 and 40 years' service. The companies have a long history of supporting the community, from scholarships to free rides to the polls on Election Day.

By contrast, Uber -- a company with only a smartphone app, no actual cabs or dispatchers, no customer service personnel, no phone number to call if you leave your briefcase in one of their cars, no long-term reputation to protect and no ties to the local community -- got in hot water with New York City after they doubled their rates in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. They called it "surge pricing".

This is the kind of thing that results when there isn't sufficient regulation to protect consumers from gouging. The kind of regulation Uber's CEO calls 'draconian'.

Let's be clear that the argument in favor of ordinance compliance is not naive to the premise that many laws have been written to the prejudice of large corporations seeking to protect their market share. The big banks own the Congress; the oil companies have bought off the Texas Legislature and most of our statewide office-holders, and even the beer distributors in the Lone Star State have long used the Lege to keep a boot on the neck of the microbreweries. But city ordinances compelling taxi cab companies and operators to high standards came about many decades ago primarily as a result of two things: unsafe transportation and unethical operators taking advantage of customers. The public safety of citizens -- and not manipulation of the market by influencing lawmakers -- is why taxis operate in a regulatory environment. Houston's ordinances have not restrained the many and varied competitors listed previously.

Uber's model, simply, is not to play by the rules. They don't want any employees except for a few at the top of their pyramid, they aren't going to have a fleet of cabs that they maintain and service, they don't wish to train, license, insure or support their drivers (except to the barest minimum standard). They simply want to profit by offering a service designed to cut every single cost of doing business... except for the lobbyists to get them their way in the beginning, and the lawyers to clean up their messes after the fact.

Here's a checklist that describes the differences in greater detail.

Comparison Chart r4

It is not restraining commerce to ask the city to enforce laws already on the books. But in the spirit of "letting the market decide", go read some of the reviews at Uber's Google Play page. You'll find some really good ones and some really bad ones. Then do something you rarely, if ever, do: carefully read the terms of service. Among the eye-widening disclosures, you'll find that in order to litigate a dispute with Uber, you must file your case in The Netherlands. The damage limit for a successful tort claim of this type in that country is... wait for it... 500 euros.

You might also be aware that just as Uber gives their passenger a quick customer-satisfaction survey at the end of the ride, its drivers are also rating you.

In my humble O, Uber should be able to easily comply with the city of Houston's long-standing and generally accepted good business practices in regard to providing transportation services -- or brokering such, as they claim. If they decide they can't, then there are lots of other sandboxes they can play in.

The matter will likely be resolved by Houston city council sometime after the November election, so now would be a great time to quiz your favorite candidate for mayor or council about whether they support -- or oppose -- Uber's "disruptor" business model.

Uber ridesharing service coming to Houston (Part I)

Mike Morris at the Chron last month provides our background.

A smartphone app could be the subject of the year's most spirited regulatory battle at City Hall, as lobbyists line up for a fight that pits taxicab companies against a car-service technology company called Uber.

The firm's entry into more than 20 U.S. cities has sparked lawsuits and cease-and-desist letters from taxi owners concerned for their livelihoods and regulators accusing the firm of skirting the law. Uber says it is merely a broker between riders and drivers, using a smartphone app to make getting a ride more efficient.

Uber must seek a change in ordinance for its business model to work in Houston, said Uber CEO Travis Kalanick. Company representatives first met with city officials in May; a social media marketing push launched in recent days.

The service the San Francisco-based startup wants to offer in Houston is UberBLACK, which would allow riders to hail town cars - also known as black cars or sedans - using the Uber app, alerting the nearest participating driver to respond. The fare is based on speed and distance using each smartphone's GPS technology, with the fare charged automatically to the customer's credit card.

Drivers who want to participate are given smartphones with the Uber app installed, said company spokeswoman Nairi Hourdajian, and must pass a background check and comply with all city licensing rules. Drivers continue to work for their limousine company or themselves; they do not work for Uber.

Houston is the last major U.S. city in which Uber does not operate, largely because of the city's "draconian" regulations, Kalanick said, calling the city's rules typical of those negotiated by taxi companies to protect themselves at the expense of riders.

Uber's jab at the local cab companies reflects their Libertarian-styled business plan. They give away ice cream and T-shirts as part of their initial marketing campaign, but they also don't invest in vehicles or other transporation company infrastructure, which is why they depend heavily on lobbyists to sway municipal lawmakers to change or drop existing ordinances. More about the local lobbying effort in Part II posted later; see here for what's going on in their home base, San Fran.

San Francisco’s taxi drivers plan to turn up the pressure on companies such as Lyft, Uber and Sidecar.

Taxi drivers said they will hold a rally outside City Hall on Tuesday to draw attention to "unlicensed, uninspected, unregulated and underinsured taxis" that are "allowed to roam the streets, creating a public safety hazard, increased congestion, greenhouse gasses and unfair competition against law-abiding cab drivers."

Taxis, which are regulated by the city and public utilities commission, said that Lyft, Uber and SideCar should all have to abide by the same rules.

"We’re not against innovation," said Barry Korengold, president of the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association. "We’re just against unfair competition. Everybody with a four-door car can now go be a taxi."

Back to what's happening in H-Town.

Uber wants to drop the minimum fare for a sedan ride in Houston from $70 to $5.50; wants regulations changed to enable on-demand service, as opposed to rides arranged at least 30 minutes in advance; and wants to delete the four-car minimum required for new limo and sedan companies, among other tweaks.

"City government has decided, 'In Houston you're allowed to get a quality ride, but it'd be bad for you to get it quickly; we need to make sure that doesn't happen because chaos would ensue,' " Kalanick said. "That's a little tongue-in-cheek, but the point is, that is a law designed to ensure there is no alternative to taxis. There is no way to get a nice ride quickly in the city of Houston."

Chris Newport, spokesman for the city's Administrative and Regulatory Affairs department, said the changes Uber seeks are "significant" and will not be undertaken before a study of Houston's taxi industry, begun in April and expected to finish later this year, is done. Recent revisions allowing jitneys, pedicabs and low-speed shuttles, Newport added, prove the city's rules are not protective of cabs.

"Obviously, we want to encourage innovation and smart, new ideas. We just need to make sure we do it in a smart way, and our most important consideration is always going to be the safety of the riding public," Newport said.

Isiah Carey at Fox26 had a good report also.

Houston weather, traffic, news | FOX 26 | MyFoxHouston

A roundup of other recent stories include the Houston Business Journal and CultureMap Houston. Yelp has some favorable comments from Houstonians who used the service elsewhere. Wall Street is simply wild about the company, and Google Ventures is all in with over a quarter of a billion dollars invested in Uber. Even the Chron's editorial board *cough*Evan Mintz*cough* registered support.

(O)ne only has to look at other cities where Uber operates to see the benefits of fresh blood in the market. Residents in New York City's outer boroughs, where cabs never tread, suddenly found themselves with access to cars. Uber could do the same for the vast cab-less swaths of Houston. In California, writers and bloggers have touted Uber as a solution to drunk drivers. And we imagine that Uber will also help alleviate Houston's inner-loop parking problems.

So with all of that positive press, who's saying no (or at least 'slow down')? That's coming in Part II.

John Kerry's turn to roast on the liberal spit

Hey, I didn't draw 'em.

But really, let's not let the commander-in-chief off the hook here.

Facing mounting domestic and international pressure to respond to the deployment of chemical weapons by the government of Bashar al-Assad, White House sources confirmed today that President Barack Obama is carefully weighing his option for dealing with the war-torn Middle Eastern nation. “The president has conferred with his top advisors and is currently considering everything from authorizing missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, to taking out Syrian regime targets with missile strikes—nothing is off the table at this point,” said White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, noting that the president would “take all factors into consideration,” including the well-being of the Syrian people and the strategic interests of the United States, before settling on his only option.

“The president recognizes that the situation in Syria is extremely delicate and that the U.S. faces complex consequences regardless of what he chooses; that’s why he’s giving the one option in front of him so much thought. He will not act until he’s confident in the inexorable decision he’s making.” At press time, Obama had reportedly narrowed his option down to missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, but stated that he would consider it for several more days before making a final decision.

I went ahead and split that long paragraph in two, so that the delicious Oniony flavor would pop.