"mot·ley" - Pronunciation Key - [mot-lee]
–ADJECTIVE: 1. exhibiting great diversity of elements; heterogeneous: a motley crowd. 2. being of different colors combined; 3. wearing a parti-colored garment: a motley fool.
–NOUN: 1. a combination of different colors. 5. a parti-colored effect. 6. the parti-colored garment of a jester. 7. a heterogeneous assemblage. 8. a medley.


Greather Houston Partnership, Houston Business Journal and Mayor Parker: Shut Up About HERO and Move On, Already

Given the GHP's conspiritorial attempt to practically beg convention and visitor groups to boycott the city, and given that the HBJ is in the back pocket of the GHP, it is not surprising that the HBJ not only would publish this propaganda piece on the failure of the #Houston #HERO ordinance, they tagged it with a headline that obviously is untrue and unsupported by the content of the story. This is Yellow Journalism at its best.

The headline of the referenced HBJ piece implies, if not outright states, that there has already been (a negative) impact on the city as the result of the good citizens of Houston voting down the unethical and immoral #HERO ordinance, yet the story gives not a single example of a lost convention, or a threat thereof.  Worse, the statement by Mike Waterman, president of the Greater Houston Conventions and Visitors Bureau, that he has heard from "four fairly large citywide" customers (whatever that means) holds no water at all if those four customers are not identified and if we must guess what Waterman "heard." These kinds of attributions border on fraud, and certainly are nothing short of shoddy, agenda-driven reporting.

And why would these four customers not want to be identified or quoted? Are they more afraid of the ongoing propaganda that they might lose outside business because Houston is a city of intolerant and discriminatory brutes (itself a massive stretch of a massive lie), or are they afraid they might be punished by for continuing to flout the will of the voters who clearly rejected the LGBT agenda of the mayor and the GHP? If I was one of those four customers, I would be much more anxious about the latter.

By continuing to publish and spread these sensational, divisive and unsubstantiated stories (stories is the proper word, as they have no basis in fact), the GHP  and the HBJ are inviting harm to the city, and flaunting their own greed and personal agendas in the faces of 62% of Houston voters.

Hey, HBJ and GHP, are your personal politics and profit motives more important to you than the citizens of Houston? Because that's the way you are behaving. Again, I suggest that you are doing so at the risk of INVITING harm to Houston and its citizens, not protecting them.

The GHP, HBJ, Mayor Parker and their LGBT lackeys are truly bad losers. And on this issue they also are bad for Houston, bad for Houstonians, bad for the political process, bad for the children of our city and bad for the future of our country.

They already  have done more harm than ever was necessary, and all for no real, worthwhile purpose in the eyes of the vast majority of Houstonians and, I suspect, in the eyes of a vast majority of the country.

So please, sore losers, just shut up and move on already.

-- The Motley Blogger

Damn Those Televisions at Victor's

I know of no culture present or past that, when fortunate enough to be able to provide at least some of its citizens with a sufficient supply of food that two or more of them could sit down to a communal meal, did not benefit from having its people break bread together.

Of course, the very act of breaking bread together does not always advance the general welfare of society, as people can and do plan evil as well as good while sharing a meal (see "The Last Supper"). Generally, though, sociologists and historians recognize the almost unique ability of people coming together over a meal to facilitate and improve personal and corporate relationships. That is why heads of state usually hash out their differences at state dinners, not in the media room of the White House or at a baseball game.

Sadly, many restaurateurs no longer recognize the contribution of communal dining to the common good of society. My proof? The ever-increasing number of eateries that think the dining experience is enhanced by the presence of televisions, usually more than one, and often of the big-screen variety.

I am not  talking strictly about sports bars and chicken wing joints here, I am talking about places that once were, and still should be, mid- to upper-scale establishments where family and friends can sit down together over a meal to share what is going on in their lives without the constant distraction of a soap opera, sporting event or -- God forbid, and worst of all -- a news or political talk show.

Recently our favorite restaurant, a place where my wife and I have dined at least twice a week for the past twenty years, changed ownership. It didn't take long for the new owner to install six televisions where previously there were none. There is no place you can sit now where you cannot see at least one TV.  We hate it.

We continue to frequent this particular establishment because we enjoy the food, the staff, the families with children who dine there, and the "usuals" whom we have become accustomed to seeing for the last two decades, but our experience has been considerably diminished by the inability to escape the electronic intruders.

It is sad to see children and adults alike, who once gave each other their mostly undivided attention, staring or repeatedly glancing at the TV screen, an almost unavoidable and involuntary reaction to devices that are too big in numbers or size to ignore, devices that compete relentlessly with your companions for your attention. I consider myself to be fairly disciplined when it comes to paying attention to my dining companions, but six television screens make polite and courteous dinner conversation almost impossible. "I'm sorry, what were you saying?"

What kind of message does it send to our children when parents pry them away from the boob tube at home to go out for a family meal together, only to find them once again transfixed by a TV screen when they should be relating to one another? For that matter, what kind of message does it send to the adults? To society at large?

We will probably continue to frequent our favorite restaurant as long as the menu, the staff and the ambiance remain reasonably the same, but those obnoxious televisions have forever diminished our experience and, I am convinced, they have contributed in their own way to further diminishing our rapidly eroding culture and society.

Did I mention that we hate those damned televisions at our favorite restaurant?