Readers, we've had our first blog comment, and it was from Rob Brant of AMEPA, FAHCS and TAHCS. I've posted it, and I'm going to respond to it point by point because I'm so stunned by what Brant had to say.
It's quite easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize.
That's quite an assumption, Rob.
If you want to effect change get involved.
What makes you think I'm not? The truth of the matter is that I've been "involved" far longer than you have. But it's nice you finally got involved, four years after MMA 2003 was passed.
You want to cry about how MESA is suffering because of TAHCS existence, ask if anyone in the industry cares.
From what I'm able to determine, MESA isn't "suffering" because of TAHCS existence. What I find absolutely appalling is that you said this: "ask if anyone in the industry cares."
There are obviously people in the industry who care; that I express my concern is an indicator that someone cares. Or am I nobody to you because I don't think much of you and your tactics? I bet those involved with MESA care, or are they nobody to you as well?
Here's the obvious point: You should care. You should care about alienating anyone in the industry at such a crucial time; you should care about splintering, and you should care about any and every organization serving members in an embattled industry. It's not for you to define what an organization's members find helpful, and it's not for you to determine the usefulness of an association you've never been a member of and don't know at all.
As you yourself said, it's quite easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize. That's the TAHCS approach with MESA; your hypocrisy is showing.
That you're so flippant about it proves the points I've made, and nails your colors to the mast for all to see. That has to be one of the most arrogant, selfish and self-interested statements I've ever seen. If this is your style of leadership and involvement, I'll pass, thank you.
Shame on you.
If you want to discuss issues with me pick up the phone and discuss it with me.
If I'm going to discuss issues with someone, the discussion is going to be with someone I respect. This is why I'm not dialing your phone number.
Don't hide behind your blog.
My blog is one method I'm choosing to express myself; your approval of it isn't something that concerns or interests me. If you don't like what's on it, don't read it.
This blog should be an indication to you that I'm not on the sidelines. And the thing is, Rob, that I'm only saying here what I think and what I've heard many others express privately. Your clumsy attempt to call me out is as amusing as it is transparent.
Nice passion here, why don't you bring some of that fire to DC.
I have. Long before you ever did, and I will continue to do so long after your 15 minutes are up.
The difference between you and me, Rob, is that I haven't been an activist at the expense of someone else, nor do I feel compelled to get as much attention about my activism as you and your group appear to need to do. Quiet activism doesn't equal no activism, but that's something you don't appear to understand or appreciate. That I'm speaking out as I am is an indication of my disgust with how things are going.
I am not alone in this.
Your way, Rob, isn't the only way, nor is it necessarily the best way, nor has your way produced any tangible results for the industry. Bills have been introduced before, and will be again. Lawsuits have been filed before, and all have failed. Of what real benefit has your involvement been? What changes have you effected?
Instead of posting a comment that attempts to deflect by trying to put me on the defensive (such a transparent tactic), why not change your path and work with the existing organizations (all of them, not just MESA) instead of splintering the industry more? Did you, prior to forming TAHCS, even try to work with MESA? What would they say if I asked them?
I use the MESA/TAHCS situation as an example of what's wrong with things. I use it to illustrate your methods. That you don't like being called on it is a given. MESA doesn't say much about it; it's clear that they've taken the high road where you and TAHCS are concerned (which is more than I can say for you), and continue to serve their members. Crying about MESA? No; there's no need.
What I should cry about is your crappy attitude about it.
I'm not even in Texas and I find your approach offensive and divisive. I recognize your right to do as you see fit, just as you have little choice but to recognize my right to disagree with you, to be offended by you, and to speak up about it in whatever form I select.
You ask me if anyone in the industry cares? I do. The time I invest in this blog and in other activities should indicate that I care.
You know who else will care? The other existing associations who will face squaring off with you when you decide it's in your interests (or because they won't do things your way) to establish splinter groups there as well. Will you care, Rob Brant? All signs indicate not. Your words and your deeds bear that out.
As I've said, a reader doesn't have to agree with me, and Brant kept his comment clean, so it was posted, unedited. Is this blog going to turn into a war of words with Brant or any of his colleagues? No. This isn't their blog, it's mine. I present my observations, thoughts and opinions only; it's up to you, the reader, to decide what you agree or disagree with. But this isn't going to turn into a platform for their justifications, excuses, or deflections. I've addressed what Rob Brant had to say, I've given his comments all the consideration they deserve today (I've actually gone above and beyond in that department) and I think that's that.
Will I address AMEPA, FAHCS, and TAHCS in the future? Sure I will. Just as I do not hesitate to criticize them for their tactics and their overblown boasts about their alleged "accomplishments," (have they saved the industry yet?) I'll be the first one to applaud if they ever manage to secure a Senator willing to introduce a companion bill to 3790 and can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt in my mind that they were responsible (and not taking credit for the efforts of others).
Time Is Running Out
Readers, you need to take action. 3790 has the support it has in the House because of the combined efforts of the whole industry. Do I believe that TAHCS was instrumental in making 3790 happen? Of course not. But I do recognized that Rob Brant and his colleagues were likely the ones who persuaded Meek in introducing it.
I'm unsure how much support that legislation would actually have now that it's been rescored; there's a huge difference between $9 billion and $20 billion. I'm not going to argue whether or not the latter amount is accurate or appropriate, because at the moment, it is what it is.
The House and Senate recess is a good time to contact your legislators and state your case. Take advantage of it and the fact that it's an election year.
No comments:
Post a Comment