Breif Examples of Published Material
Texas Monthly - March 2009
By Fred Hink
I have yet to read Professor H.W. Brand’s history on FDR but if it reflects the so-called “review” by Michael Ennis, I doubt it’s worth the time. Objectivity certainly wasn’t achieved in this churlish worship at the altar of FDR.
Mr. Ennis seems hell-bent on explaining why massive governmental intervention and equity stakes in financial institutions isn’t socialism and if he’s holding up FDR’s socialism as a cure to Herbert Hoover’s laissez-fair approach that “drove” the United States into the Great Depression, then he should check his facts. Hoover was anything but laissez-fair and his “remedies” were continued in FDR’s administration.
Our current economic woes can be blamed solely on government intervention with the Community Reinvestment Act – creator of the sub-prime fiasco – and high deficit spending by Bush and the Democratic Congress. Adding to the soup is our own desire for instant gratification financed through loan-shark credit cards. Under Reagan and then Clinton and the Republican Congress, taxes went down, government spending declined, government revenue rose and unemployment declined to historic levels while the economy boomed. These are facts that Mr. Ennis should check before declaring he isn’t a socialist and capitalism is the root cause of everything from Global Warming to dirty underwear.
Houston Chronicle - FRED HINK - July 16, 2007
THE recent publicity surrounding the case of the Katy ISD student who wrote a term of endearment to another student on a gymnasium wall is a growing symptom of the problem students face in our public schools, not an aberration.
Texas Zero Tolerance, among other groups, petitioned the Texas Legislature in the recent session to bring relief to the growing problem of punishments that are not in line with infractions.
A bill was introduced that would have made it mandatory for districts to consider intent and the true nature of the offense before pronouncing punishment, and passed the Texas House unanimously but languished in the laps of the Senate Education Committee.
This committee was chaired by Sen. Florence Shapiro, with local senators Kyle Janek and Dan Patrick as members.
Had the Texas Senate actually had an opportunity to vote on this bill, we believe it would have passed unanimously and become law immediately upon the governor's signature.
The incident in Katy happened after the session was adjourned and it stands to reason that none of this would be happening if the Senate Education Committee had done the right thing. Shame on them for allowing these kind of travesties to continue for another two years.
Houston Chronicle - FRED HINK - January 22, 2007
ACCORDING to her article concerning the rollback of subsidies for offshore drilling companies, Susan Kaderka seems to believe that the estimated $13 billion in new taxes would save the world, because it is to be spent on development of renewable energies (see Jan. 17 Outlook article, "Why Texans should be all for rollback of oil subsidies / State could have a bigger role in clean energy future"). I, too, want new, clean energy, but where is the proof that this money will be earmarked for such an endeavor? Give $13 billion to the U.S. Congress and I guarantee you it will go nowhere except into the federal black hole.
Instead, let's offer oil companies a tax break totaling $13 billion a year to develop new, clean energy sources to replace fossil fuel.
If our federal government and supporters of renewable energy were serious about saving the environment while replacing fossil fuel, they would launch a bold initiative along the lines of the Manhattan Project to offer the marketplace an alternative to our current situation.
If the federal government makes a grab for more tax money, it's for a pork-barrel spending spree, not for cleaning up the environment.
Houston Chronicle Editorials - FRED HINK - March 5, 2005
A 15-year-old girl decided to die. She took three bottles of prescription medication and proceeded to school. Later that day, her mother received a phone call from a school administrator causing her to rush to the emergency room not knowing whether her daughter was dead or alive.
Upon entering the hospital, the mother was met, not by a doctor, but by a school administrator. There were no condolences, just an administrator informing the mother that, because of school policy, her daughter would be suspended and then remanded to the district's disciplinary alternative school for a mandatory 60 days. She served her suspension in a hospital bed.
A 15-year-old boy, goofing around with a friend at a lunch table, uttered a curse word. A district policeman overhead the word, asked those around the table if the word had offended them and when one student raised his hand, the boy was issued a Class C misdemeanor for disorderly conduct and received three days of in-school suspension.
The Safe Schools Act of 1995 introduced a new lexicon to Texas political landscape: zero tolerance. Zero tolerance of weapons or drugs on campuses is necessary for safe schools. Zero tolerance of children is insane.
The year 1999 brought us the terrible tragedy at Columbine High School in Colorado. The result: School officials began to look at zero tolerance laws differently.
Superintendents around the state decided that a similar incident was not going to happen on their watch. The result has been catastrophic.
Alienation from peers and authority figures caused the demonic actions of the two children in Columbine. When the current system overly punishes children, whether guilty or not, they are being alienated from their peers and teachers. How, then, does zero tolerance protect our children?
My group, Texas Zero Tolerance, supports restoring sanity to a system that is creating criminals and not protecting children. Formed by parents in the Katy Independent School District to promote a common sense approach in dealing with non-threatening discipline problems, our organization now believes that the Texas Legislature must mandate common sense. Most superintendents claim their hands are tied by legislation so reform is needed so it can become legal to practice common sense.
Earlier this year, a sixth grader walked into an art class and accidentally discharged his father's gun. Fortunately, the boy was only slightly injured and no other child was hurt.
How did zero tolerance help in this instance? It did not. If malicious intent were the intention, how many of our children would be dead before the gun was out of ammunition?
Arresting a child who accidentally left a fishing knife in his pickup does not mean another Columbine was averted. It means that a child, who by nature and definition is forgetful and just plain dumb at times, was caught being a child.
Pure and simple: The current application of zero tolerance is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
There are several legislative initiatives that will help with this problem, among them Texas Senate Bill 126 and Texas House Bills 442 and 461. We urge immediate passage. We also ask that legislation be written and enacted to ensure zero tolerance is not abused.
Immediate parental notification before a child is interrogated is a must; parents have a fundamental right to have input in the disciplining of their children. Additionally, an impartial appeals process, free from superintendents' influences, must be mandatory upon a parent's request.
State Sen. Florence Shapiro dedicated the 79th session of the Legislature to Texas' children. Fixing the Safe Schools Act is the best thing we can do to safeguard our children.
- Hink, Founder and Executive Director of Texas Zero Tolerance, can be contacted through the group's Web site.
Katy Times
March 18, 2004
By Fred Hink
Houston Chronicle - FRED HINK - October 25, 2004
The case of the Katy straight-A student bringing a "pencil sharpener" to school has more to do with common sense than any cultural difference.
The school's policy states that students are not allowed to bring weapons to school. Bringing any blade to school - regardless of intent - is not wise.
Regarding the punishment not being fair, what if the school gave that student a slap on the wrist and next week another student was caught with a switchblade knife and was suspended?
It's not OK to bring a weapon if you make C's, but if you're an honor student it is? If a school district is going to have a policy, then the punishment should be enforced equally and without regard to the perpetrator.
I have two children in public school, and I'm glad the administration is enforcing the rules for their protection.
Houston Chronicle - FRED HINK - July 20, 2001
Jeffrey E. Garten's July 19 Outlook article, "Let's start managing it like it's a global economy," calling for a managed global economy, boils down to a little regulation now to stem stronger regulation later. He explained that the forces that have created this recent unprecedented growth in global economies are the same forces that are now working on its destruction. But what forces does he mean? Free enterprise?
Garten believes that the United States, Asia and the European Union are linked in such a manner that if one falters, the other two will crumble. He pointed to the Asian collapse in 1998 as threatening the European and U.S. economies. While Asian economies did falter, the U.S. economy grew at an astounding rate. As a result of the EU imposing a managed economy, European economies slowed. Likewise, later, our economy slowed too, but not because of some intrinsic flaw in our capitalist system but rather from the tinkering done by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and his "inflation in the closet" fears, as well as the congressional increases to the minimum wage.
Our contribution to the "global" economy is to continue as the world's beacon of what a free economy can accomplish. We must lessen the burdens on our economy by repealing the income tax and replacing it with a sales tax and end the overmanagement being done by the federal government. The result will be true economic growth that will provide the world with an increased market in which to participate.
Houston Chronicle - FRED HINK - November 4, 2000
The battle over whether to have a new arena is a valid argument. As a libertarian, I do not support public funds being used for anything other than for basic city services and to enforce laws. But the devil has whispered in my ear and I've given into temptation.
In this real world, citizens vote for special programs to benefit themselves, sometimes at the expense of others. I will vote for a new arena because this falls into my special interest: I love professional basketball.
But there is another argument to be made for the new arena, and that is its location. Houston is different from most cities around the world in that we decide to build and live wherever we want.
With the success of Enron Field, new performing arts facilities, and other venues downtown, we are beginning to see a rebirth of a central city that we probably haven't had since the 1940s.
Voting for something that isn't depriving anyone of something, that promotes a greater benefit for all and serves our self-interests is a pretty good deal. But even if you don't like basketball and other performances to be held at a new arena, there is still the promotion of a central city for all Houstonians to identify with. That isn't such a bad thing to vote for, either.
