WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT HOUSTON

The major disaster that was Hurricane Harvey has catapulted Houston into the forefront of the news of both the US and the world. Of course. If it bleeds. it leads. And right now, Houston is a bloody mess.

Let's begin with what you do know, might know, or should know about Houston.

Houston's 2.3 million souls makes it the fourth most populous city in the US. Houston is named after Sam Houston who, believe it or not, had nothing to do with the Alamo. Houston wasn't there. But because Santana decided to take the Alamo rather than bypass it and go for Sam Houston's throat, Houston was able to backpedal, gather his forces, and eventually win Texas its independence by attacking Santana during his mid-day siesta. That's the short version. It will have to do for now.

Houston is an oil town. Like any other city of its size, there's other stuff going on. But the basic fact is that as the oil business goes, so goes Houston. While that can make for a roller coaster of an economy, it also means that Houston has a surprisingly cosmopolitan feel for those who are open to discovering it. Oil producing and consuming countries from around the world bring their cultures to Houston along with their petrodollars. So even if you're not into authentic Mexican food or Tex/Mex food or great barbecue, all of which abound, Houston can be an enticing city for the worldly foodie. The array of African, Asian, and Mediterranean options is most satisfactory.

All of this should make sense to you. Let's talk about what there is about Houston that doesn't make sense.

Native Americans didn't live in Houston during the summer. They were too smart for that. The abundant Gulf seafood that they depended upon in winter was inappropriate in summer due to both the life cycles of shellfish and to the intense summer heat. Summer also brought severe storms, not only hurricanes, that flooded the land that was mostly flat, clay-based, and swampy. And so, Native Americans left Houston in the summer and camped up to 100 miles inland. Smart.

Northerners generally don't understand just how big Houston is. I'm not talking population now. I'm talking about land area. Check out population and square mileage of Northern cities as compared to Houston:

New York: 8.5 million; 468.5 square miles
Chicago: 2.7 million; 234 square miles
Houston: 2.3 million; 667 square miles 
Philadelphia: 1.5 million; 142.7 square miles

Houston is HUGE. Just about one-quarter of New York City's population and nearly 50% more land area. 50% more population than Philadelphia and more than four times the land area. HUGE. Bigger than its Southern and Southwestern partners like Phoenix and Los Angeles.

HUGE.

And Houston continues to grow, gathering land to it the way that the space under the bed gathers dust bunnies - overnight and without effort. But most importantly, we're not talking about planned growth, orderly growth. Or, heaven forbid, regulated growth. No, Houston's growth model serves as the poster child for how poor urban planning and an antipathy to government regulation can lead to disaster. Many cities, even Texas cities, have a basic understanding of storm water management. You don't build in floodplains. YOU DON'T BUILD IN FLOODPLAINS. Houston builds houses in floodplains, builds businesses in floodplains, paves over floodplains. Storm water goes wherever it pleases, most often on the property of a neighbor. And if it can't get there, it just sticks around. And gets deeper. And deeper.

Let's review, class. Native Americans were too savvy to live in Houston during the summer. Houston's foundation is mostly flat, mostly swamp, that didn't drain well even before the inventions of asphalt and concrete. Houston's planners have chosen to ignore this simple fact in spite of the tendency for summer storms to drop tons of water on the city, paving over square mile upon square mile of ground including flood plains. Storm water has nowhere to go. If it rains. Houston floods. If it rains a lot, lots of flooding. Twelve major flood events in the past three years alone. Harvey is just the most recent and the most devastating.

Now, consider that the streets of Miami are already prone to flooding during exceptionally high tides and that Hurricane Irma is headed directly for that city. Consider that the governor of Florida has demanded that the words 'climate change' be scrubbed from all official documents, never  to be uttered by an employee of that state. Consider that luxury homes continue to be built and rebuilt on the barrier islands of North and South Carolina. And consider that we have folks in the federal government, led by our President, who proposed to cut funding for FEMA this year as a way to pay for a wall on the Mexican border.

When do you suppose people in power will begin to take notice of the cost of ignoring proper land use planning and the predictions of climate scientists? Who will pay for their hatred of even the most common sense regulations much less the consequences of ignoring the possibility that the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists might just be correct about the consequences of global warming?

When did we get so stupid?

RANDOM THOUGHTS #7 - STEVIE RAY VAUGHAN/CLIMATE CHANGE, PEE WEE REESE, HILLARY/PROGRESSIVES

STEVIE RAY VAUGHAN/CLIMATE CHANGE

Ted Cruz is taking heat for not being willing to answer questions concerning climate change in relation to the flooding in Texas. He's right and he's wrong when he says that such questions are political and this is not the time to be debating the issue.

Cruz is right because there is simply no way to connect climate change to any single weather event. In fact, flooding in Texas is nothing new. Texas Flood, the tune made famous by Stevie Ray Vaughan on his 1983 debut album of the same name, is actually a cover. The tune was first recorded in 1958, performed and co-written by Larry Davis. (Although probably an Arkansan, Davis is considered a Texas blues man.) So Texans have been singing about flooding for more than 50 years.

Cruz is wrong because it's past time that we had serious discussions about climate change and, if the only time that we're paying attention is during these sorts of events, so be it. As is the case with so many topics of importance, the media needs a hook to anchor an in-depth report - a flood or a fire or a similar disaster. So if flooding in Texas or drought in California or streets awash in Miami is what it takes to get the ball rolling, let's get the ball rolling.

It's not political. It's survival. I have friends living in Florida. Even though the majority are SCUBA certified, I'd prefer that my next visit to them take place on dry land.

PEE WEE REESE
A sports blog that I read occasionally just posted a list of the five greatest shortstops of all time. They were, from the best first, Honus Wagner, Derek Jeter, Cal Ripkin Jr., Ozzie Smith, and Ernie Banks. Not a bad list. However, I have an addition. Pee Wee Reese.

Pee Wee's offensive stats were certainly not up there with four of the five. Pee Wee was a middling hitter at best with one .300 season and a career average of .262. Nor was he as slick a fielder as the likes of Ozzie, the defensive leader of the five, although defense was a hallmark of the Dodger teams of the mid-50s glory days. And I don't propose to include Pee Wee simply because he was the captain of my all-time favorite team - Dem Bums.

No, I include Pee Wee because he was the one guy who looked past Jackie Robinson's skin color and welcomed him to The Show in ways that made a difference. His open public acceptance of Jackie shamed many of his teammates and fans around the country. It was as important a friendship between black and white as any in the history of the civil rights movement.

Pee Wee is in the Hall of Fame as he should be. But he deserves credit for displaying skills far beyond those that he displayed between the lines. READ MORE HERE.

HILLARY/PROGRESSIVES
A funny thing happened to Hubert Humphrey on the way to the Presidency.

Humphrey, one of the most traditionally liberal Democrats ever to hold high public office, was sabotaged by the Left. Robert Kennedy hated LBJ's guts (on a visceral level and totally inappropriately, in my view) and tied Humphrey to a war that Johnson didn't start and couldn't win. Ditto Eugene McCarthy who, more than RFK, was the Peace candidate at the time. Humphrey is supposed to have asked LBJ for permission to take a more dovish public stance on Vietnam but was denied the opportunity by Johnson and decided to stay loyal to his President. Once Bobby was assassinated, Humphrey was a lock. Unfortunately, by the time the general election campaign began, Humphrey's battles with those in the Party who had positioned themselves to the Left of him left him too far behind Nixon to catch up.

Perhaps the most telling bit of irony occurred when Humphrey was booed at a Washington civil rights rally in the summer before the election, ironic because in 1948, 20 years earlier, Humphrey had been booed at the Democratic National Convention for being an early advocate of civil rights legislation and a civil rights plank in the Party platform.

And now we have Hillary who, I grant you, is not the most Progressive of Democrats. The attacks from the Left grow. If she is ultimately the candidate, she could end up in the same situation as Humphrey - too wounded to win the general election. If Hillary is not ultimately the candidate of the Democrats, the slash-and-burn that it will take for someone else to win will almost certainly weaken the Party to the point that the Republicans could walk away with the Presidency and both houses of Congress.

My hope is that Progressives will save their ire for Republicans and conduct a civil primary campaign that doesn't leave scars on the eventual winner. I also hope that Amelia Earhart is found alive and that Miley Cyrus will keep her clothes on in public. What are my chances?