Making it up as we go along, NASCAR-style

NASCAR has long fought the impression that stock car racing is the equivalent of professional wrestling on wheels. Rules have had a funny way of changing on the fly to suit one driver or another - or one manufacturer or another. No one ever had a win taken away if it turned out later that they had cheated by using illegal parts afterward. Spinning the car out in front of you wasn't punished - it was encouraged.

Now, twice in a week, the boys in Daytona Beach have monkeyed around with their own "playoff" system in order to protect the "integrity" of the racing. First they penalized Martin Truex because his teammate deliberately spun himself out late in the Richmond race last weekend. There was no evidence that Truex had anything to do with the manuever - yet somehow it was determined that deliberately spinning yourself out is a just not acceptable.

After penalizing the members of Michael Waltrip Racing, Truex was out of the playoff and Ryan Newman - who had been leading at the time of the spin - was back in.

But then there was Joey Logano. Apparently his team had a deal in place with another driver to let Logano pass him late in the race. By making the pass Logano picked up enough points to knock fan favorite Jeff Gordon out of the playoff. So, in true NASCAR fashion, the rules were changed in midstream and Gordon was added to the playoff.

NASCAR chief Brian France claims these changes were made to preserve the integrity of the racing. Meanwhile, in order to fill a field of 43 cars every week, teams are allowed to qualify then pull their cars into the pits early in a race in order to avoid damaging their cars. What happened that night in Richmond happens in race after race - it just so happened that this time it was in a race that was made the artificial end of a regular season.

The NASCAR rulebook, it seems, is written in pencil.

Last year I wrote about why Bud Selig would make a good judge as to 4th Amendment issues as he was able to ignore the fact that Ubaldo Jimenez lost a perfect game due to a blown call with two out in the ninth inning. Brian France, however, would be more than comfortable sitting on the bench today as he is more concerned with the outcome than the process.

Read More

Vacuum at the top

Earlier this month, after less than a year in office, Harris County District Attorney Mike Anderson died from cancer. He had been out of the public eye since May when he announced he was suffering from cancer and was taking a leave of absence.

In the meantime, former state district judge Belinda Hill, the First Assistant District Attorney, became acting DA. And, over the last four months there has been a complete vacuum on the Sixth Floor at 1201 Franklin.

Organizational chart for the Harris County District Attorney's Office

The theme of Mr. Anderson's campaign seemed to be "I'm not Pat." He advanced few ideas on how to fix the perceived problems in the DA's office. Apparently just being one of Johnny Holmes' "boys" would be enough to cure the office's ills.

Aside from his decision that we need to lock up more folks for possession of drugs in amounts so small that there isn't enough to conduct confirmatory tests by an outside lab, he set out to kill Pat Lykos' illegal DIVERT program.

But no one wanted to do away with pretrial diversion for DWI cases - since the program reduced the number of cases taken to trial (and the number of not guilty verdicts rendered by Harris County juries) - so he got rid of the element that made the program illegal.

Under Ms. Lykos' scheme a defendant wishing to enter the program had to enter a guilty plea in open court that could then be used against them should things go south down the road. That made the plan deferred adjudication under a different name - something that is barred by state law. So the Anderson administration did away with the plea and gave the program a new name.

But when questions arose regarding who was eligible and who wasn't and what defendants would be required to do as a condition of their "probation," there was no one around to answer them. No one was in charge. With Mr. Anderson out of the picture, no one wanted to step up and take any heat for unpopular decisions.

And so the program, which in reality is nothing but a contract entered into by a defendant and the DA's office, found itself in a tug-of-war with the judges, the prosecutors and defense attorneys. Judges decided who could apply. Judges decided whether or not to allow cases to sit on their dockets for a year while the defendant fulfilled the terms of the contract.

All because no one was willing to take charge. And let's be honest about it, no one believed that Mr. Anderson would be returning to his office. It wasn't a situation in which Ms. Hill was just keeping a seat warm. She was, for all intents and purposes, the unelected chief prosecutor in Harris County.

State law dictates that if an officeholder dies less than two years into his or her four-year term that a special election must be held at the time of the next general election. This means that Gov. Rick Perry will have to appoint someone to be the interim District Attorney until next November when the voters of Harris County will select someone to fill the rest of Mr. Anderson's term.

Rumors have it that Gov. Goodhair has shopped the position to various folks who have been prominent in the Harris County criminal (in)justice system but that no one has expressed any desire in serving as the temp. It looks like Belinda Hill will get the nod by default. But whatever's going to happen needs to happen fast because so long as no one's in charge confusion will continue to reign at  1201 Franklin.

Read More

Mucking it up down in Richmond

I finally reached a point last Saturday night where I couldn't sit and watch the BYU offense run at will against the Longhorn defense I was told was much improved over last year's disaster. Well, numbers don't lie and the defense laid an egg of epic proportions in the Utah desert.

So I flipped over to the stock car race. For those of y'all who don't follow NASCAR, a few years ago they implemented one of the dumbest ideas in all of sports. They decided that instead of crowning a champion based upon his performance over the course of the entire season that they would create a 10-race "playoff" to determine the champion.

The details aren't important but how much sense does it make to put 12 drivers racing for a championship on the same race track with 31 other drivers who are just racing for money? But that's neither here nor there.

On Saturday night as the race wound down Ryan Newman was leading. If he won the race he would be in the playoff and Martin Truex would be out. If he lost, he would be out while Martin Truex would be dancing.

With but a few laps remaining Clint Bowyer spun bringing out a yellow flag. The cars came into pit and, when all was said and done, Ryan Newman was no longer in the lead. When the checkered flag flew, Ryan Newman was out of the playoff and Martin Truex, Clint Bowyer's teammate was in.

The next morning all anyone could talk about was the suspicious finish to the race. Then NASCAR got involved and pulled audio that led them to believe that Michael Waltrip Racing (MWR), the team of both Truex and Bowyer, had manipulated the end of the race to benefit their drivers. As a result, NASCAR fined the team a significant amount of money, took away 50 points from the drivers and suspended their crew chiefs. Adding insult to injury, the penalty knocked Truex out of the playoff and put Newman back in.

So, if we are to believe NASCAR in this, the person who caused the mess suffers no harm while Truex, an innocent bystander, is docked points for something he had no control over. Where is the justice in that?

But what was the problem? NASCAR is full of multi-car teams that share garages and testing data. The teams build cars for each driver using data they have gathered from races and testing sessions. They swap crew chiefs and pit crews sometimes.

MWR did what teams do - they worked to get the best possible outcomes for their drivers. It's a time-honored tradition in auto racing. In Formula 1 drivers are under team orders to do what benefits the team leader. This was no different.

The plot thickens as NASCAR looks into whether Joey Logano's team made a deal with another driver to take a dive.

NASCAR was upset because it appeared MWR made deliberate moves to impugn the integrity of the race. Really? NASCAR is legendary for the invisible "debris on the track" yellow flag when someone gets too big of a lead late in a race. NASCAR encourages drivers to "beat and bang" on the track. Drivers have spun out their competitors late in races in attempts to win -- and everyone then says "that's racing."

Sure, maybe the ending of the race left a bad taste in some mouths - but so what? NASCAR still tries to market itself as a bunch of good ol' boy moonshiners driving around in circles in souped-up sedans. The reality is that NASCAR is a buttoned-down corporatized enterprise that's more concerned with image, television ratings and sponsorship dollars.

Still, as far as I'm concerned, what happened on Saturday night was "just one of them racin' deals."

Read More

Two wrongs don't make a right

The Congress shall have the power ... [t]o declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal,  and make rules concerning captures on land and water.  

-- US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8

*****     *****     ***** 

WAR noun, often attributive

a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war

b : the art or science of warfare

c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic :soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism

b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end war against disease;

c : variance, odds 3— war·less  adjective 

-- Merriam Webster dictionarynoun, often attributive \ˈwȯr\

*****   *****   *****

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me. 

-- "War" by Edwin Starr

I don't care what you call it. Limited strikes. Targeted strikes. It doesn't matter. It's still war. Whether you want to say the bombing campaign will only last a few days. So fucking what. You're still declaring war on Syria.

And why?

Because somehow the national security of the United States of America is at stake? Really? I don't care if you made some ad lib about chemical weapons and a red line. That's a "you" problem. Do you really expect us to buy your argument that because you made a comment about a red line that it's now a matter of national security that we drop bombs and fire missiles on Syria?

I still can't fathom how Barack Obama not only won, but was even nominated, for the Nobel Peace Prize. He has taken George W. Bush's lead and run with it. Instead of ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he extended them. Instead of closing the US torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, he kept it running. Instead of looking for a humanitarian way of ending the slaughter in Syria, hr has chosen to perpetuate it.

No one has ever deserved the Nobel Peace Prize less than President Obama. There are few bigger hypocrites than our President (though John Kerry rates a close second).

Syria has descended into a brutal civil war. That's what happens with dictatorial regimes. No one in Washington cared as a hundred thousand Syrians were killed. No one cared until someone used chemical weapons. What difference does it make how a civilian is killed. You are just as dead if you are shot in the head as if you breathe in poisonous gas. What makes the use of chemical weapons so special?

Back in 2012 I had to sit through a presentation at the Rusty Duncan Advanced Criminal Law Seminar (put on by the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association) in which TCDLA President Gary Trichter introduced a man who piloted a plan whose mission was to drop bombs on Tokyo in World War II. We were supposed to hail this man as a hero since he was able to eject himself from his plane and make it to safety.

But how much honor is there is dropping bombs from high up in the sky on cities in another country? This wasn't the story of a war hero - it was the story of a war criminal. I was appalled at the presentation. We look at the Japanese pilots who dropped bombs on US ships in Pearl Harbor as evil people, yet we celebrate people who set out to drop bombs on civilians.

There is no justification for dropping bombs or firing missiles on Syria. There is no humanitarian purpose served by dropping bombs or firing missiles. The military's function is to destroy - not to build.

Read More

Taking away the voice of the people

Last week Wallace Jefferson, the first black Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, announced that he was stepping down from the Court on October 1, 2013. His stated reason is financial. Judge Jefferson has one child in college and two others in high school and is making a mere $152,000 a year (but a pay raise authorized by the legislature would make that $170,000).

I'm quite certain that he will be stepping down from the bench and into a corner office at either a white shoe or boutique firm in San Antonio without missing a step. I'm interested to see just how quickly he moves into that office.

Once he leaves the bench, the fair-haired one, Gov. Rick Perry, will have yet another opportunity to appoint a conservative jurist to the bench.

Now, for those of y'all who think that partisan elections are a bad way to pick judges, you should love the Texas Supreme Court. It is, for the most part, made up of judges who were appointed by Gov. Perry who periodically run in retention elections to determine whether they get to keep their seat.

Chief Justice Jefferson was appointed to the Court in 2001, he was then appointed Chief Justice in 2004.

Justices Phil Johnson and Don Willett were appointed to the Court in 2005.

Justice Eva Guzman was appointed in 2009. This followed her appointment to the 14th Court of Appeals in 2001 which followed her appointment to a state district court.

Justice Debra Lehrmann was appointed to the Court in 2010.

Justice Jeffrey Boyd was appointed to the Court in 2012. Interestingly enough, prior to that appointment he served as Gov. Perry's chief of staff. Prior to that he served as the governor's general counsel.

Of the nine judges on the Texas Supreme Court, only Nathan Hecht, Paul Green and John Devine were ever elected to their seats. Thus, the overwhelming majority of the court (which presides over civil matters) is answerable to no one. As they are all Republicans, so long as the GOP controls statewide races in Texas, their seats will remain safe. Aside from lawyers who practice before the court, the only other folks interested in the Supreme Court are business interests who have an interest in keeping their buddies on the bench fed.

So, before you start waving the banner to get rid of partisan judicial elections in Texas, just ask yourself if you really want a governor to have the power to appoint every judge across the state.

Read More

Why would he lie?

We've all heard it at trial whenever there is a question about the veracity of a police officer's testimony. The prosecutor will ask the jury why a police officer would risk his job and his reputation for the sake of lying to get one conviction. Judges who came to bench straight out of the DA's office or who have never defended anyone accused of a crime can't fathom why an officer would lie. And jurors, most of whom have never set foot inside a courtroom, tend to believe the police because that's the way they were raised.

That's exactly what Kyle Reeves, then a prosecutor in Brooklyn, said to the jury in 1997 when a defense attorney accused the state's main witness, Louis Scarcella, a former homicide detective. And, as is par for the course, the jury bought the story.

The defendant, Jabbar Washington, said that Det. Scarcella told him what to say in his confession and beat him until he said it. Interestingly enough, Mr. Washington's confession began with the same two sentences that suspects in other cases interrogated by Det. Scarcella said.

“Our experience all around the city is that errors by police and errors by prosecutors go hand in hand and frequently become a toxic mixture,” said Steven Banks, the chief attorney for the Legal Aid Society, which represents many of the defendants whose cases are under review. “There are a series of circumstances that should have set off alarm bells both at the precinct and in the prosecutor’s office.” 

Now the Brooklyn District Attorney, Charles Hynes, has ordered an investigation into about 40 cases investigated by Detective Scarcella. Earlier this year Mr. Hynes revealed that an innocent man spent more than two decades behind bars due to a "flawed investigation" by Detective Scarcella.

Doubts about Det. Scarcella's integrity began to rise long before that trial in 1997. At least six defendants in murder cases have claimed that Det. Scarcella made up their "confessions" himself. In a rape trial back in 1983, a judge said that the defendant was more credible than the detective due to the number of times Det. Scarcella responded "I don't remember" under cross examination.

As an aside, earlier this year I tried a case in front of Judge John Clinton in Harris County. When it came to light that, despite the fervent denials of prosecutors, that both police officers had been investigated by internal affairs, I asked the judge for a continuance so that I could obtain the records I had previously requested from the city. I told the judge that since we now knew these files existed that I needed an opportunity to review them to find out if there was anything else we weren't being told. Judge Clinton, a former police officer, then said that he just couldn't fathom that a police officer would risk his career by lying on the witness stand.

It's this attitude on the bench that has led to the utter decimation of the Fourth Amendment because, in a world in which defendants always lie and the police never lie, nothing is ever suppressed.

Another question that sticks out in this case is why on earth the Brooklyn DA's Office - the same office that vouched for Det. Scarcella over the years - is even involved in the investigation. Even a blind man can see the blatant conflict of interest. Once a person is convicted, the prosecutor's office will fight tooth and nail to keep that person behind bars - regardless of the evidence before them.

The critics note that Mr. Hynes, 78, is seeking re-election and that Mr. Scarcella’s daughter works in the office as a prosecutor. In a brief interview, Mr. Hynes said that so far no glaring problems had been discovered in the review. He said the detective’s sloppy work was not brought to the office’s attention until a year ago, when it reopened the case that led to an exoneration. Even in that case, he found no reason to blame the prosecutors. 

“I am not going to second-guess the assistants involved,” Mr. Hynes said. “They are very good trial lawyers.”

We see it in almost every exoneration case. Prosecutors will argue til they're blue in the face that the defendant had a fair trial and that the evidence was overwhelmingly in support of the verdict. They will fight to keep evidence from being retested. They will fight to keep new evidence out. And so, unless Mr. Hynes' office finds that every conviction involving Det. Scarcella should be tossed out, there will always be questions of just how honest the investigation was.

I mean, after all, Det. Scarcella's being investigated by the same office who told jury after jury what an honest cop he was.

Read More

Trying to revive the spirit of George Wallace

The states of Texas and Mississippi have decided that the 14th Amendment just doesn't apply to them when it comes to recognizing same-sex marriage. Despite a Pentagon directive that the National Guard units in the states extend benefits to same-sex spouses in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in the DOMA case, someone in Texas decided to ignore it.

Officials cited the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman found in the Texas Constitution as justification for denying equal protection to the spouses of same-sex marriages. Maj. John Nichols did tell those affected by the decision that they could apply for benefits at federal installations and that the Texas National Guard would not deny them benefits.

This is precisely the issue I wrote about some time back regarding the inevitability of the legalization of same-sex marriage. These acts of defiance by Texas and Mississippi bring into question whether same-sex spouses are being treated the same as traditional spouses.

Forcing same-sex couples to apply for benefits at a federal installation discriminates against same-sex couples as they are being required to do more to obtain the benefits they are legally entitled to receive. All that remains is for one couple to refuse to bow down and then walk over to the courthouse to file suit alleging that their civil rights were violated.

From the Dallas Morning News:

Pentagon officials said Texas appeared to be the only state with a total ban on processing applications from gay and lesbian couples. Spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen said federal officials will process all applications from same-sex couples with a marriage certificate from a state where it is legal. 

Alicia Butler said she was turned away from the Texas Military Forces headquarters in Austin early Tuesday and advised to get her ID card at Fort Hood, an Army post 90 miles away. She married her spouse - an Iraq war veteran - in California in 2009, and they have a 5-month-old child. 

"It's so petty. It's not like it's going to stop us from registering or stop us from marrying. It's a pointed way of saying, 'We don't like you," Butler said. 

She said she was concerned the state would withhold survivor benefits if something happened to her wife while she was activated on state duty rather than on federal deployment.

It is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause for a state to recognize the out-of-state marriages of some of their residents while not recognizing those of others - particularly since the only reason is the sexual orientation of those involved.

The leaders of both Texas and Mississippi should be ashamed of themselves. Being seen as supportive of same-sex marriage may not be a vote-getter in either state, but guaranteeing equal protection under the law to the citizenry should trump base politics. Of course we all know that the State of Mississippi has a pretty abysmal record when it comes to equal rights. We also know that the establishment (white) churches played a large role in defending segregation in the 1960's. The circle of good ol' boys who have run Mississippi for generations is slowly, but surely, coming to an end and they are doing everything they can to cling to power for as long as possible.

The right wing in this country (and others) have long used religion as their justification for fighting the extension of equal rights to the populace. That great opiate of the masses has been very effective in keeping the oppressors in power.

These western fundamentalists are every bit as wrong as their Islamic fundamentalist cousins in, and around, the Middle East. I find it very amusing to listen to the wingnuts express their hatred for those who would advocate theocracy in other parts of the world while they do their best to build a theocracy at home.

Read More

Barbecue and Longhorn football - it doesn't get any better

This past Saturday I took my youngest on a field trip out to Austin to watch the Longhorns open their 2013 campaign. This season marks the 50th anniversary of the first national championship for Texas. On the way up to the Forty Acres we stopped in Lockhart for some barbecue.

That building you see across the street from the CVS parking lot on US183 is the famous Smitty's Meat Market.

Here's my assistant standing at the entrance to the market. The entrance, by the way, is in the back of the building. The dining area sits in the front of the building on the courthouse square.

Waiting in line for our 'que and staring at the mouthwatering sight of ribs, briskets and sausages on the massive pit.

Here's the business end of the pit. That's an open fire burning at the end of the pit. It was in the mid-90's on Saturday outside and over 100 inside. My daughter thought it was so hot she refused to stand by the pit and sat on a bench instead.

As usual I ordered brisket and sausage. Since we were packing up the meat to eat up in Austin we didn't order any sides (my wife packed a variety of fruits and some edamames for a little balance to our dinner). We had a choice of crackers or good ol' white bread. I chose the bread (for making sandwiches). The meat was wrapped up in heavy duty butcher paper and put into a heavy brown paper sack along with the bread.

The meat smelled heavenly as we made our way up to Austin. After watching the football team walk into the stadium we headed back to our car - parked just behind the Tower - to eat. There are few things better than eating good barbecue on game day out in a parking lot underneath the Tower.

If you find yourself heading out to Austin along I-10, you need to make the side trip out to Lockhart. The barbecue is worth driving a little bit out of your way.

Read More

The militarization of elementary school

Every Wednesday

Military shirts

Spring Branch T-2-4 Plan 

By 2017, SBISD will double the number of students completing a technical certificate or military training, two-year or four-year degree.

Pine Shadows Elementary School will support this plan by encouraging staff and students to wear a technical school, military shirt or two or four year college shirt/t-shirt every Wednesday, beginning September 4, 2013.

And so begins the indoctrination into unquestioning support of the military in our schools. I guess they have to learn somewhere that we should all cheer and support the murder of innocent men, women and children and the wanton destruction of property and land around the world. Who couldn't get behind that?

Our schools are for learning. Violence is the last resort of those who can't think of a better way to get what they want other than destroying someone or something. Shouldn't our goal be to get away from that kind of mindset? Shouldn't we be teaching our children why war is not the answer?

It's got to start somewhere. At some point we have to get away from trying to solve every problem with a gun or a bomb. Our role as stewards of the earth is to leave it in better shape than it was when we came along. Is perpetuating a war mentality the way to do that?

We've seen President Obama and the other cheerleaders for bombing Syria talk about the women and children who were killed by the alleged chemical weapon attack from their own government. Yes, we should be appalled. But where is the outrage over the innocent men, women and children who have died at the hands of American artillery and armaments? Where is the outrage over the scores of people killed by drone attacks who had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist plot?

I'm pretty sure that won't be a topic on "wear your shirt supporting death and destruction" day at my daughters' school. I'm sure they won't be talking about the hundreds of thousands of people around the world killed as a result of our government's militaristic policies and support of right-wing dictatorships.

I cling to the belief that one day we will live in a world without war. I doubt I will see that day but I hope that someday my grandchildren or their children will live in that world. Encouraging unquestioning support of the military and war culture gets us nowhere near that goal.

Read More

Our missiles are bigger than your missiles

Barack Obama is now swimming in a stew of his own making. He drew the red line and now he's having to figure out what to do now that it's been crossed.

All of this talk and bluster about how the Assad regime committed a heinous act by launching a rocket loaded up with a chemical agent is quite hypocritical, however. The United States used chemical agents against Iraq in the first Gulf War. The US dumped Agent Orange over the countryside in Vietnam. The US dropped two atomic bombs on major cities in Japan. No one was made to answer for those atrocities.

The President wants to launch missiles are certain military sites over a two-day period. Why? If the missile attack is in retaliation for the chemical weapon attack, why not attack the actual stores of chemical weapons? Why declare ahead of time that you'll only be blowing up stuff for a couple of days? And what of the innocent civilians who are going to be killed in the attacks? How will their deaths be any different than those who died in the chemical weapon attack?

The alleged chemical weapon attack in Syria killed some 1,400 people - not an insignificant number - but there were more than 100,000 killed in the prior two years; along with over a million refugees. What makes the use of chemical weapons any more heinous than the slaughter of tens of thousands of people by use of bullets and bombs?

And then we have the hypocrisy of Congress. Our elected representatives wrote George W. Bush a blank check after Colin Powell went before the UN and lied about Iraq possessing stores of weapons of mass destruction. They couldn't wait to authorize the president to do whatever he wanted to do to Iraq.

There was little debate about whether military action was called for. There was little debate about exactly who has the power to declare war. Now Republicans are up on the high horses about just who has the authority to get the US involved in someone else's civil war.

That horse, my friends, has already left the barn.

Congress stood by and allowed Harry Truman to send troops to Korea. They stood by as president after president got the US more and more entangled in Vietnam. They stood by as Ronald Reagan and George Bush sent troops into Central America. They stood by as Bush the Younger got us stuck in the morass of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Congress long ago abdicated its power to declare war.

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose an attack on Syria. Doing so for partisan political purposes, however, isn't one of them.

Read More

Going to the bank

As you might expect, once word went out that the Houston Astros were on track to bag $99 million this year, someone with the ball club had to get up and say it wasn't so.

The Astros, who own the worst record in Major League Baseball, have the lowest payroll of any team after getting rid of just about anyone who makes anything approaching serious money. The two exceptions are Jose Altuve (who just signed a long-term deal) and Eric Bedard (I can only suppose he's got some serious dirt on Jim Crane).

According to Forbes magazine, the Astros are on pace to bring in more money in 2013 than the last eight World Series champions combined. The number may be a bit high because it doesn't take into account the bath that the Astros took as a stakeholder in CSN-Houston, the regional sports network they started up with the Rockets. But, even factoring in a $24 million loss, the Astros are still pulling in over $70 million this season.

Team president Reid Ryan (son of one of the greatest pitchers of all time) told everyone who would listen that Forbes didn't know what they were talking about. He insisted that the Astros were losing money.

Here's a link to Jim Crane claiming he's losing money hand-over-fist.

Now, if he were arguing that the Astros weren't making as much as Forbes estimated, I might buy into his argument. But, to argue that the number is off by more than $100 million is really stretching it.

I understand why Mr. Ryan stood up to deny the report. If I were the president of the worst ball club in baseball, I wouldn't want folks to know just how much money we were raking in. If I were the president of the ball club with the lowest payroll in baseball, I wouldn't want folks to know how much money we were raking in.

The scary thing is these numbers don't even reflect the windfall every Major League team will reap from the new national TV contracts beginning next season.

The numbers from Forbes are further evidence that Jim Crane has no intention of putting a winning product out on the field. Why spend the money on high-priced free agents when you can field a bunch of rookies and players too good for Triple A but not good enough for the Majors and still make money hand over fist?

Yes, it's Mr. Crane's money - but we aren't talking about a small market team here. Houston is the nation's fourth largest city and home to countless major corporations. There is plenty of money in Houston to field a competitive team. But that's not the game plan.

So, Houston, sit back and enjoy your AAAA ball club scrap and fight to keep from losing 100 games year after year. Meanwhile, Jim Crane and his buds will be sitting back and raking in the cash - whether you go to the ballpark or not.

***

Here's an article from another writer at Forbes who says the claim the Astros were swimming in cash was wrong.

Of course there are all sorts of ways to cook the books to make them say whatever you want them to say, too.

Read More