Farewell, Texpatriate!


After keeping this publication on life-support for the past half-year, I have come to one of the most difficult decisions in my life: to end Texpatriate.

I started this blog about three years ago, as an exercise-in-futility to keep up with local politics while I was away at college in Boston. As time went on, I started writing better and more-often; and for some reason, people started reading. When I returned to Houston for a lengthy summer after my freshman year, three of my friends and former co-workers from City Hall joined me. All of a sudden, Texpatriate turned into a force to be reckoned with, not only in Houston, but around the state.

I think I first realized everything had changed when representatives of mayoral campaigns began contacting me, asking for our endorsement. Our questionnaires were completed by all the campaigns and, when our endorsements were published, they were spread far and wide by those who received them.

Eventually, I left Boston behind and continued college at UT-Austin. It was at this point that my path began to stray from this publication. I joined the staff of The Daily Texan, and quickly rose up the ranks, first to the editorial board and now as Senior Associate Editor, the second name on the masthead. I concurrently started working in public relations and government affairs in Houston for the Clifford Group, which obviously brought me into a whole new side of municipal politics that sometimes added conflicts of interest into local issues. Some of my colleagues lost interest in local politics, and I really can’t blame them for that.

Three years is a remarkably long time in politics. When I started this publication, no one had heard of Wendy Davis or Ted Cruz. But, more pressing for me, it feels like this blog has been a part of my life for time immemorial.

I wrote the posts of Texpate in my dorm room, in my parents’ house, in bars, in cafeterias, in lecture halls, in friends’ apartments, in hotel rooms, in cafes, in airplanes, in the state capitol and in city hall. I posted content on my phone, at the beach, in the backseat of cars, while hiking, at the pool and — embarrassingly — at parties. I offered Texpatriate’s submissions to the Texas Progressive Alliance roundup on a whole array of Sunday mornings.

This was an integral part of my life, and it is weird to think how I will live without it, even already after six months of minimal updates. Looking toward the future, I likely have two more semesters of undergraduate education, and then will continue onto law school. All this is to say I still have some years before I officially enter the workforce. I might return to blogging, but I don’t want to make a promise about that. What I can promise is that I will be still be quite active in Houston and Texas politics; it just might take on different forms.

So thank you to my family, who got me interested in politics, taught me how to write and even came up with one of the greatest blog names I have ever seen.

Thank you to Andrew, George and Olivia for providing the backbone of this publication for so many years.

Thank you to Sophia and Simone for proving I’m not the youngest person in Houston interested in politics; I definitely learned as much from y’all as y’all did from me.

Thank you to Charles, Neil, Perry, Stace and Wayne for welcoming me into the Houston blogging community. Thank you to Greg for proving friends in blogging can still exist on the other side of the aisle. Thank you to Harold, Karl-Thomas, Ted, Trey and Vince, for welcoming me into the statewide blogging community, particularly at last year’s convention.

Most of all, thank you to you, the reader, for sticking with me through thick and thin for so long. It’s been one of the most preeminent privileges of my life to write this publication precisely because of you. I will always appreciate your support.

Magic Island nostalgia

This will be, for once on this publication, a rather non-political post. I had considered making this a lengthy Facebook comment, but figured a site such as this one would be the far more appropriate venue.

The Houston Chronicle has a terrific commemoration of “Magic Island,” the one-time dinner theater magic club located at Highway 59 and Greenbriar. The club/restaurant opened in the 1980s at the height of the pomp and ostentatious extravaganza that accompanied the oil boom. After years of decline, it closed its doors in 2008 following a fire caused by Hurricane Ike. Although it was supposed to reopen, that never ended up happening.

Magic Island piques an unique sense of nostalgia in me. Growing up, it was my absolute favorite place in the world. As a little kid, I went there twice with my family in fairly rapid succession; once for my grandfather’s 70th birthday and the other for — I think, at least — my brother being a National Merit finalist. I was five or six years old at the time, so everything was twice as big and twice as impressive. Anything that the adults may have found to be tacky or gaudy, I found absolutely mesmerizing and sensational. They must have had a good kids’ menu or something, because I always remembered the food with great fondness as well.

Then, for many years, we never went back. I get the feeling that, for my parents, the entire experience may have been forgettable, but not for me. When they would ask me, years later, where I would want to go to eat, in the whimsical way that parents always humor their children with decision-making responsibilities, I would invariably suggest Magic Island (well, there or Luby’s, but that’s a completely different story). It didn’t matter if it was a Saturday night right before Christmas or a Tuesday evening when everyone was just too tired to cook, my idea for sustenance would be Magic Island.

My romanticizing of the restaurant only increased as the years went on. Starting in the 4th grade, I began attending school at St. Stephen’s in Montrose. Every morning, as my dad would drive me to school on his way to work, we would exit 59 on the Greenbriar/Shepherd exit, and thus pass right by Magic Island without fail.

Magic Island became part of the legend that was Houston in my mind, one of the landmarks upon the pedestal I placed the city on. There was the big blue skyscraper, seemingly standing all by its lonesome, that my dad called “Transco” but my teacher called something else. There was the big white building, which almost looked abandoned, that my dad told me used to house this great newspaper, one that was bought and shuttered by its anti-intellectual competitor. Most importantly, there was Magic Island, the great infallible restaurant representing all that was perfect with Houston.

Finally, after eight long years, I went back (for another one of my grandfather’s birthdays). I was taller, wiser and more cynical. Everything looked a little sadder and everything looked a little cheaper. A few months later, Ike hit and the club closed its doors forever.

In some ways, I’m glad that I went back, but in other ways I wish I hadn’t. If there is anything that government, journalism and politics have all taught me, it’s that ignorance is truly — more than bliss — enviable. And my ignorance at five or six years old was, like most children, rather intense. In 2000, everything seemed invincible: myself, my family, my city. Magic Island, fittingly created during an era when everyone apparently believed the city was invincible, was a poignant representation of that.

Why I am backing Sylvester Turner

Since Texpatriate went dormant, I’ve realized a few things. One of them is that I no longer have to keep my cards close to the vest, so to speak, with respect to municipal elections until October. With that in mind, I want to explain some of my picks to lead Houston sooner rather than later (in this case, much sooner). By far the easiest pick, and one I basically determined a year ago, is State Representative Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, for mayor. Beyond the shadow of a doubt, he is the right person for the job. Briefly, I would like to explain why.

A little over a year ago, I had the privilege of sitting down with the frontrunners for mayor in lengthy interviews regarding city issues. What I noticed is that Turner and former Congressman Chris Bell, D-Houston, his main competitor, have totally different visions as mayor, despite not really diverging from one another too much in their political positions. Bell is obsessed with policy, whereas Turner is obsessed with the process. One might not think that a benefit for Turner, but his track record in the state legislature speaks for itself.

Turner has a wealth of experience that none of his opponents can even approach. With more than 25 years in the legislature, he has repeatedly proven himself to be a master of the rules and procedures that govern the State House. As the Vice-Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he wields a disproportionate amount of power for a member of the minority party, but he puts it to good use. Last session, he was particularly instrumental in killing a bad water bill and bringing about a much better, bipartisan alternative.

If elected, Turner would bring all that knowledge and experience to the 3rd floor of city hall, where he would no doubt be able to form an inclusive and more effective coalition to lead the city.

Perhaps most important, Turner would be the perfect successor for Mayor Annise Parker, who I think has been an overall positive mayor but has certainly had some hiccups along the way. The other candidates tend to characterize her as either infallible or the cause of everything wrong in the city, both of which are pretty silly overgeneralizing assertions.

Specifically, Turner would not only double down on Parker’s positive steps in the right direction on things such as LGBT rights, he would address the issues Parker did not, such as our crumbling roads or the impasse on the firefighters’ pensions. On the latter front, Turner has already been instrumental in brokering a good first step in that long process.

Accordingly, Turner is already being supported by not only some of Parker’s historical base, including parts of the LGBT community and inner-loop business Democrats, but by historical enemies as well. The Firefighter’s Union, obviously no friend of Parker’s, has already endorsed him, as have both the Police Officer’s Union and HOPE, the municipal employee’s union. Expect a plethora of other organizations to soon follow.

Furthermore, I’m not especially impressed with Turner’s competition. Given the growing polarization of politics and the toxicity of some state Republican principles, I do think it is important to have a Democrat as mayor. I also think that Turner, a native Houstonian, has a better connection to this city than some who, for example, was previously the mayor of another town. Turner is also brilliant; aside from his legislative accomplishments, he’s a gifted attorney who graduated from Harvard Law School.

Now, I wasn’t alive (even by Dan Patrick’s definition) in 1991, so I don’t have a personal recollection of the shenanigans that surrounded that election. Sadly, much of the electorate does. Channel 13 libeled Turner in such a slimy way back then, and it would cause me to lose all my respect for any of the other mayoral candidates if they brought up those discredited lies at some point throughout the campaign.

One of the biggest things I have learned about politics in the last year is that, in the absence of other skills and capabilities, being a policy wonk will not get you very far. That and a dollar will get you a coke. A successful mayor needs to also be an expert at the procedures and processes of government. The big stuff will follow, as I’m sure it will with Turner.

Accordingly, I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly endorse Sylvester Turner for mayor!

The silent Iranian Revolution


In 1979, religious fundamentalists overthrew the government in Iran. Built-up by the repressive conditions of the despotic Shah, who despite his autocracy was fiercely secular and even admiring toward the west, religious groups loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini, an Islamic cleric, engaged in an armed struggle to win control of the country.

Iran, which to that point had been a model of secularist values in the Middle East, quickly turned its back on the progress. Bolstered by popular support, Khomeini took supreme control of the country, and began a brutal crackdown on all dissenters and minorities. Equality between the sexes, once a goal in Iran, became a distant dream as misogynists only reinforced patriarchal conditions in the country. Iran, as well as countries with similar stories such as Afghanistan, only took a step backward since being taken over by religious zealots. They have turned their back on the 21st century, and all the values that go along with it.

Today, Israel stands on the precipice of its own “silent Iranian revolution.” However, the reactionary and misogynistic brigades of today will rely upon votes, not violence, and ballots, not bombs, to achieve their goals.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition, comprised with some centrist elements, has collapsed, new elections will take place in 10 days time. Opinion polls prognosticate that Netanyahu will likely be returned as prime minister in the parliamentary elections, which feature a plethora of parties as a result of the nationwide proportional representation system. However, more significant than Netanyahu’s likely re-election is that his most extreme allies, namely the far-right religious parties such as The Jewish Home, look destined to retain their strong presence in the Knesset at the expense of those aforementioned centrist parties.

Originally, one of Israel’s key advantages compared to its backwards neighbors was its dedication to secular values. Even though, as early as the state’s declaration of independence, there were references to the state’s dedication to being a home for the Jewish people, this sentiment echoed the people and not the religion. Many of the state’s founding fathers, including David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and Yitzchak Rabin, were avowed atheists.

Unfortunately, as time went on, the population has become far more religious, heavily comprised of individuals with little appreciation for democratic values. Dedication to free speech/expression, minority rights and equality of the sexes has particularly been ignored by these backwards, reactionary and extreme parties.

Under Netanyahu’s stewardship, the government enacted an anti-democratic law, ostensibly designed to protect against well-organized boycotts against the state. The law allows for private individuals to launch litigious, frivolous and punitive suits against those advocating for such boycotts, chilling the free speech rights of those advocating for dissenting opinions in Israeli society. This illiberal, authoritarian law was heralded by the aforementioned religious and far-right parties.

They have similarly done their best to alienate the Arab minority within Israel. Long heralded for its colorblind and ethnicity-blind laws that extended equal protections and democratic rights to all citizens, Jewish, Arab or something else entirely, these protections have been all but eviscerated in recent years. In 2010, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his racist ilk attempted to push through a so-called loyalty oath that would have required citizens, of all ethnicities and religions, to pledge fealty toward the “Jewish state.” The heinous proposal, which sought to humiliate religious and ethnic minorities, was derided by newspapers and even cabinet ministers as simply fascist in nature.

Perhaps most perniciously, ultra-religious groups have begun expanding segregation based on gender in public spaces. Be it cemeteries, sidewalks or even buses, women are often compelled to occupy second-class conditions as a way of fulfilling misogyny and sexism masquerading as religious values. Former Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, one of the centrist politicians recently sacked by Netanyahu and a key rival to him in this month’s election, attempted to criminalize these abhorrent practices but received immense pushback from religious societies.

The ultra-religious have exponentially grown in population and influence in Israel as a result of the indefensibly generous deal they get from government welfare. These individuals simply get a check from the government, subsidizing their unemployment, and spend all days at Synagogues or Yeshivas, contributing absolutely nothing to society. Most Israelis agree they are a drain on the economy, but political realities suggest they are also a drain on the morality and progress of the state. Like the fundamentalists who propped up Khomeini in Iran, their vision for the future is theocratic and deleterious.

In the next Israeli parliamentary election, the hard and religious right looks likely to continue their stranglehold in power and continue to implement their harmful, reactionary and fascist agenda upon the state. For all those curious to see how theocracy can work out for a Middle Eastern country, one need not look any further than Iran. For the sake of Israel, which despite all these criticisms is still at heart a liberal democracy (albeit with many, many flaws), it should seek a different path. Their silent Iranian Revolution may not be silent much longer.

Lane Lewis needs to resign the Chairmanship


The Houston Chronicle reports on a subject that has been brewing no shortage of chatter around Houston among local political types: whether or not Harris County Democratic Party Chairman Lane Lewis, who is also running for the Houston City Council, should resign the chairmanship. Upon some contemplation, my answer to that question is an emphatic yes.

Back in December, when Lewis first announced his candidacy, I was broadly supportive, given his track record as party chair. I have liked what Lewis has accomplished at the helm of the party, and was very supportive when he previously ran for the city council in 2009. In 2012, he was named Person of the Year by Texpatriate. It is my firm belief that if someone less competent than him were leading the party that election, every single Democratic incumbent would have been defeated.

All these qualities, all other things being equal, make Lewis a great candidate for the city council. But none of them justify him staying on as chair. Of course, I recognize that neither pertinent law or party rules compel Lewis to resign, but it is the right and ethical thing to do nonetheless.

Lewis was not the first candidate in this race, not by a long-shot. He was also not the first Democrat; the third, actually. Philippe Nassif and Jenifer Pool, both good progressives, would make fine councilmembers. Both have been outwardly campaigning for the position for many months. My biggest fear is that Lewis or his allies could — even inadvertently — coerce other Democrats out of the race because of the power he has over the party.

The party is not allowed to endorse in non-partisan elections like this one for that very reason. Likewise, salaried employees of the party may not get involved. A big player in the HCDP, Finance Chair Bill Baldwin, has resigned in order to take on a more direct role in Lewis’ campaign. It simply does not pass the ‘smell test’ that the chairman of the party need not adhere to the same standards.

In the Chronicle article, Lewis defended his decision not to run, pointing to the plethora of other politicians in elected office who simultaneously run for another office. However, this ignores the most inimitable quality of Lewis’ office: its constituents are not citizens, but political cadres, including other politicians. Lewis is in a unique position to reward or punish other municipal candidates. One that HCC Trustee Chris Oliver, for example, another candidate for At-Large Position #1, simply does not have the power to do.

As Texas Leftist and John Wright (writing for Project Q Houston) have noted, there have already been spats between Lewis and another candidate (Pool). This is to be expected; it is politics, after all. But what makes political trench-fighting like this so dangerous is that Lewis has weapons at his disposal that his opponents do not. Now, I do not think Lewis has done anything improper hitherto on his campaign, but he should proactively eliminate the possibility of it altogether and resign the chairmanship.

Lewis has been a good chairman, and would make a good councilmember if elected. I want to consider supporting him, but he needs to resign as chair in order to run a feasible campaign. If he doesn’t, there is simply no way that I could support him, all other things remaining equal.

Brains & Eggs and Off the Kuff have more.

The two big things wrong with politics

I tried for a good ten minutes to find a title that briefly and succinctly describes our broken political reality without using any type of expletive; I failed. It goes without saying that, particularly at the national level, the red-versus-blue tribal mentality of the day is extraordinarily awful. I’ve been trying to figure out the underlying causes for a couple years now, and think I have finally zeroed in on two central ailments.

The first is an adulteration of sincere information, which runs hand-in-hand with the demonization of views that challenge one’s own. This, in my opinion, has by far the most deleterious consequences.

As I have noted repeatedly in a somewhat jovial manner, the degradation of the consumption of “healthy” information has been somewhat rapid in this state. Newspapers are shriveling, news radio stations are shuttering and local television news has largely been reduced to 30 minutes of shooting coverages and cats of the week. Make no mistake, this is not because of a lack of competent journalists in all mediums. It is because the average Texan — indeed, American — is far more comfortable getting his “news” from the television monitors at a gas station than in something he actually has to read. I purposefully say he because the problem is significantly worse with men.

However, apart from apathy on the part of the average citizen, many political inclined individuals have moved away from the fair arbiters of newspapers and other unbiased news sources. Fox News and MSNBC are rather trite examples, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. Many blogs allow partisans to create a completely alternate universe where their fantasies can become reality –ever so briefly. For a liberal in Austin who got 100% of her politics from Burnt Orange Report or Addicting Info, perhaps there could have been genuine shock to the utter shellacking that Wendy Davis and the Democratic slate received in Texas last year.

However, to cast this issue as equally bad on both sides would be monstrously disingenuous. When it comes to blogs and other online sources that spin the truth or just make stuff up, nobody even comes close to the Tea Party. I’m friends on Facebook with a few rabble-rousers within those organizations, and I see no shortage of evocative headlines from sketchy sources littering their timeline. They are the political equivalent of the National Enquirer, though that would probably be an insult to the Enquirer for the 5% of stuff they don’t make up.

Take this recent article from “Next Generation Patriots” about a supposed report linking Hillary Clinton to the Benghazi terrorist attack once and for all. Nevermind that even the Republican committee that orchestrated the investigations have cleared the administration. This is a BOMBSHELL REPORT! Sadly, all too many people believe this drek, because somehow they have been deluded into thinking that these uber-partisan online tabloids are more reliable than actual newspapers. I am baffled and speechless.

Similarly, I saw a Facebook friend share this nearly year-old post from “America’s Freedom Fighters,” which alleges that the Muslim Brotherhood is infiltrating the American government. At this point, I’m really at a loss for words. Are the authors of these sites actually delusional, like in a clinical way? Or do they just sit around a big room thinking of provocative things to completely lie about? And yet, individuals heavily involved in Tea Party causes, the 1% of the political process in this state, actually believe them and are influenced by them.

The decline of the information process has a companion in the elimination of robust opinion journalism. In my view, the harmful effects are comparable. We have become a nation of echo chamber dwelling simpletons, who become offended by anything that challenges our own preconceived notions.

For example, since the summer, I have served on the editorial board of The Daily Texan (one of the top 10 largest newspapers in the state), also serving as an editor for the opinion/editorial section. I like to think that the Texan runs our editorial content the way a reputable publication should. For the three semesters I have sat on the editorial board, our consensus opinion has been somewhat left-of-center, but we have always gone to lengths to ensure we have a plethora of conservative voices as columnists.

Sadly, few appear to appreciate this dedication to diversity in the editorial pages. The columns chock-full of liberal talking points get spread far-and-wide by like-minded individuals and groups; same for the conservative talking points. The few times I have shared columns that I disagreed with, but were particularly thought-provoking nonetheless, I faced nothing but derision by the “Tea Party Democrats” who incessantly accused me of being some type of horrendous political traitor who should be ashamed of myself.

Opinion content is not about validating all of your existent beliefs. Rather, it is about challenging your conventions. I have always been raised to believe if you cannot defend your views and positions against criticism and derision, they weren’t very good beliefs to begin with. With politics, that is especially true.

I subscribe to three magazines: The Atlantic, The Economist and Texas Monthly. If I had extra time and money, there would likely be others on that list, but those three in particular have always struck me as understanding how opinion content should work. They are unafraid to taking bold, new positions, and they defend these points with logic and reason remarkably well.

Particularly with the Economist, I found myself Freshman year of college disagreeing with a great deal of its content. The sophomoric juvenile in me wanted to just stop reading and retreat to the trite, backwards leftism of The Nation or Mother Jones —but the adult kept on reading. After a semester or two, two major developments had occurred in my political thought process. First, I had gotten a lot better at defending my tried-and-true liberal positions in the face of unwavering criticism. For example, the Economist is thoroughly skeptical of affirmative action, a program that I have always greatly supported. I like to think my defense of that position has been made more competent.

Second, and perhaps most important, some of my lousier political positions changed. Most notably, when I was in high school, I was a paleoliberal on topics such as free trade and protectionism. I opposed NAFTA. I favored silly, outdated things like tariffs and foolishly thought that such a course of action — say, by heavily taxing Japanese automobile imports —  could do things like pay down our deficit and assist in economic prosperity.

The more I did research inspired by those articles, the more I realized that free trade — arguably the Economist’s biggest trademark — is not an inherently bad idea. My introduction to economics class at Brandeis — a “saltwater school” in Boston, not a “freshwater school” in Chicago — corroborated this, and that was that.

Sadly, few people use opinion-based political content for such reasons anymore. All too often, it’s just used as a way to support what one already believes. Anything with which one disagrees with is immediately labeled heresy or worse.

The second, and admittedly probably less important, problem plaguing our political system is a total elimination of respect for authority. Let me clarify: I do not mean blind allegiance to one’s government or jingoistic patriotism or the like. Instead, I mean respecting the opinions of experts in their pertinent fields.

The most egregious example of this, in my opinion, is the Tea Party total adulteration of the word “constitutional.” In their topsy-turvy world, the constitution has taken on this divine power in which it is revered as a truly perfect piece of literature. “Look to the constitution” is the cliche that is the answer to nearly every single political quandary, much how “look to the Bible” is the trite retort for a proselytizing fundamentalist.

First, it goes without saying that the constitution is far from perfect (3/5ths compromise, anyone?), but the real issue is a fundamental misunderstanding of how we adjudicate disputes about the nation’s founding charter: the court system.

Even otherwise reasonable conservatives fall into this trap, quickly calling Obamacare some type of “unconstitutional” trainwreck. Most criticisms fall within the realm of one’s opinion, but the constitutionality of a law is not one of them. The Supreme Court explicitly upheld the crux of Obamacare’s constitutionality in 2012. By definition, that means it’s constitutional. I would say you’re supposed to learn about stuff like judicial review in the 11th grade, but the Oklahoma Legislature is definitely doing their best to prevent that.

The Tea Party, egged-on by those aforementioned political tabloids, has taken it upon themselves to usurp the judicial system’s authority to call something constitutional. To a lesser extent, the left has done this as well. If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard a Democrat insist the campaign finance restrictions struck down in Citizens United were indeed “constitutional,” I could’ve bought an extra Dr Pepper at lunch today. You might disagree with the decision (I do), but, by definition, it’s not constitutional. My father, an attorney, made a point of teaching me that lesson in 2008 after the District of Columbia v. Heller case. If 14 year-old Noah can understand, you can too!

Sadly, the distrust of lawyers on legal matters is not the only example of such willful ignorance. Teachers have lost their ability to teach children without criticism and, of course, doctors and other medical professionals are accused of not knowing better than parents on medical knowledge. This was recently exemplified by the recent brouhaha over vaccines.

These deleterious beliefs of one’s superiority over everyone and anyone — no matter how knowledgeable or qualified on pertinent issues — have penetrated even ostensibly professional quarters of our society. I recently found Greg Groogan, a reporter for the local Fox affiliate, promulgating that exact type of hooey, specifically on the vaccine issue. (If you want to have some fun, check out the succeeding conversation on Twitter. I called him out, and he went off on me in especially sanctimonious and patronizing way. This, from someone who just straight-up fabricated stuff during the last mayoral election.)

This was a little more longwinded than I was going for, but those are what I believe to be the two most harmful impediments to a functional political system that we currently face. I fully admit I have broken these rules myself on a variety of occasions, but I have recently been trying my best to follow them.

A little bit of housekeeping

As you may have noticed, posts on this publication have become less and less frequent in recent months. This reflects a changing reality for me, and a transition when it comes to some of my priorities. Don’t worry, this isn’t the “End of Texpatriate” obituary; rather, it is a admittance that this blog no longer can function the way it did in 2013, when we had 3 active contributors and at least 3 articles per day, if not more.

While the Texpatriate Editorial Board is still extant, its membership has been truncated and its activity has been rather dormant. I can’t really imagine that changing, in all honesty.

For at least the remainder of this academic semester, I will not be opining about national or state politics on this blog. I might break that rule is something really big happens, but probably not. When it comes to local politics, I will do my best to interject a fresh opinion every now and then, but I just do not have the time to report on breaking news in a timely fashion. When I first started Texpatriate, I often made a point of urging readers not to use the publication for first-hand news. That principle is as true now as ever. The Houston Chronicle, despite my myriad critiques, truly does yeoman’s work in reporting local political stories. Their newest addition to that beat, Teddy Schleifer, is particularly talented.

Since I started college (which, not coincidentally, is when I started this blog), I have been involved with the  newspaper on campus. At Brandeis that was The Justice and here at UT-Austin that is The Daily Texan. I am currently the Senior Associate Editor at the Texan, which essentially means that I am an overseer of the editorial section as well as have a few side projects of my own.

If you’re still interested in what I have to say on state politics, I actually do edit and contribute to another blog at the Texan, named “A Matter of Opinion.” I write 2-3 posts a week there, all about state politics, and my colleagues also contribute stellar analyses. Further, I pen most all of the editorials pertaining to legislative and political topics, which run most every day. Finally, I also host a radio show (in Austin) on KVRX every Monday at 4:00 PM, predominantly about state politics, which is recorded and uploaded online as a podcast. For copyright reasons, I cannot post the actual content on this publication.

If you are so inclined, please consider checking it out. The Texan is the only college newspaper in the state that actually produces serious political content — news and editorial — that becomes part of the conversation with some frequency. I have been honored to get the opportunities I have there, but running this blog may have been one of the greatest honors of all. Thank you all for reading, and please come back!