Short Petticoats and Pelvic Thrusts; Not in This Town by Golly!

This past weekend Lubbock hosted the 45th annual Texas State Federation Square and Round Dance Festival. But not to worry, the LPD was present to make sure the length of the dresses and petticoats worn by the ladies were within the skirt and petticoats limits as outlined in the city’s “Display of Public Sexual Activity Ordinance”. Plus they were there to make sure the men did not engage in any sexually suggestive pelvic thrusts

There were no other reports of any arrests; except for a little old man who was questioned and detained after a sex novelty item dropped out of his shirt pocket as he was busting a do-si-doe move on the dance floor.

Police suspect he might have purchased the item at the “Somethin’ Sexy” lingerie shop; the Lubbock store which was recently served with a search warrant by 4 Lubbock undercover officers. In that incident officers arrested and charged a store employee with promotion of obscene devices after she sold a sexual device to an undercover officer. Although it could not be confirmed, confidential sources told this reporter that the device had mysteriously disappeared and had never made it to the police property and evidence room.

Chief Claude Jones called an emergency press conference to discuss the little old man’s arrest and vowed to investigate “until we get to the “bottom” of this”, said Jones. When reminded by this reporter that using a word like ‘bottom’ could be misconstrued as sexually suggestive language and in violation of the city’s ordinance, the Chief said it was ok for him to use the word, “the ordinance:, he said, “does not apply to Lubbock police officers”.

Ok, I made this up; the only parts which are true are that square dancers did have their festival here; it really took 4 LPD undercover officers to serve the warrant; and the employee was arrested and charged.

But tell me, considering what has been happening here lately, would you be that surprised if those were the only parts that were true?

Shall we dance some more…

30 Pieces of Silver

I received the following question from a reader: Why did you once use the phrase “30 pieces of silver” when writing about the city’s red light camera program? Signed: “a born again Atheist”

Dear Born Again:

Thanks for the question. I didn’t know Atheists

could be born again; thanks for the heads up.

I used the term to illustrate a point and I used it figuratively, and not literally. The Mayor is a Christian/religious man. He asks us to pray for rain, he reminded us once that local media was the “Enemy”; much like Satan; he wrote: “There is no question that we are getting some attention from the Enemy as the attacks are more frequent and personal. We are putting on the armor and taking refuge in Him everyday. Therefore, we are not discouraged or disheartened... but we are certainly challenged. Thanks to so many for lifting us up in prayer”.

The Mayor used religion as a basis for making his point; I just thought I’d do the same. I referred to the biblical story which teaches that Judas betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver to make a point. And the point is this; when the majority on the council voted for red light cameras, even though they knew that the majority of residents were against it and even though they knew that the potential revenue from the program was more of a priority than public safety, they in a sense betrayed whatever public trust that the public had in their elected officials. In my view they should have listened to the majority; represented their wishes and voted accordingly. In other words, one could say that it was all a political ruse; just like the one Judas planned with the Roman soldiers. “Capice” yet? That’s Italian for do you understand; those Roman soldiers spoke Italian didn’t they? It’s either that, or I must still be in a “Sopranos” mode after the finale this past weekend; well, never mind.

Anyway, the point I was trying to illustrate was that those who voted in favor in a sense “betrayed” the tax paying citizens of this city for the revenue the city stood to make; hence the “30 pieces of silver” reference. Of course they will argue that they voted in favor of the cameras so they can hire more police officers and citizens will benefit. But then I could argue that the reason they want the money is to repair the police vehicles which might be damaged the next time LPD officers over imbibe and vandalize public property; in order to keep drunken police officers from driving; just like the officers said

they did in the Jacob Opperman case.

No? Ok, here. Here’s something that might help you understand it. Hank Williams recorded a song once by the same name. Here’s a verse; I took some creative liberties and rewrote some of the lyrics to fit our topic.

“Tis a sad but true story, from the Lubbock city council it came

And it tells us how they sold the citizens trust in them away.

She planned with the Mayor and the gang of 4 that day,

For 30 pieces of silver, they voted our trust away”

I hope that answers your question. If not, you might want to write Mayor Miller and ask him if he can explain it to you. And please, try and get to church every once in a while if you can.

Shall we dance the next one…?

Maria Elena Who?

Why is it ok for Texas Tech University, a state funded public institution, to trademark their name, the Raider Red label, their mascot and even the color red and sue people who infringe on the trademark in order to make money off of it; but it’s not ok for Maria Elena Holly to try and do the same?

Councilwoman Phyllis Jones had some choice words during a recent council meeting in which the council was discussing the most recent development in the ongoing battle between some people in this city and Holly’s widow.

I don’t have the exact quote, but here’s some of what she said: “I think it’s a shame that Buddy Holly’s brothers and Lubbock citizens can’t fully celebrate Buddy Holly’s name because it is so difficult to negotiate with his (Holly’s) wife”.

I don’t know, but I’m guessing she might have meant:

I think it’s a shame that that “witch” Maria Elena wants to keep us from using Buddy’s name without paying her just so she can make money off his name. Just who the heck does she think she is; she was only his wife, it’s not like she’s like his brother or something. Why does she get to make money off his name and we don’t?

Does Ms. Jones think that just because the city had to remove the name from a couple of places, this will prevent Lubbock residents and especially his brothers from “celebrating” his name? What does that mean anyway to celebrate one’s name? I thought you celebrated

someone’s life; their memory and their legacy; in this case his musical legacy.

Another thing, the majority of the people in this city never celebrate Buddy Holly’s name; the majority of the people who were born and live here probably have no idea who Holly was. In fact, most of the people who celebrate days like his birthday and anniversary date of his untimely death are people who come from England, Germany, and other European countries.

In fact one could make a good argument that the city of Clovis outdoes this city when it comes to celebrating Holly’s legacy. And all Holly did there was record some of his greatest hits at the Norman Petty Studios.

Oh, that’s right, that’s where the money part comes in.

Come on City Council Elections 2008!

Ok, that’s enough dancing…

Intolerance and Hatred in Print

An AJ reader wrote a letter to the editor opposing the effort to rename a Lubbock street after Cesar Chavez; stating that Chavez wasn’t from here and that somehow disqualified him from having a street named after him. Fair enough; she made her case.

A few days later, a letter is published disputing some assertions which the original letter writer had made. The letter happened to be from a local resident who happens to be a Catholic priest serving in the Lubbock Diocese. He made his case saying that just because Chavez was not from here did not disqualify him. He noted that Lubbock was named after Thomas S. Lubbock and Lubbock had not lived here at all. He wrote the following:

“It didn't occur to the early settlers that because (Thomas S.) Lubbock had never lived in this area that they should not name this community in his honor. It was enough that they were inspired by his memory as a farmer and a soldier. In a similar way, those who support naming a street in honor of Cesar Chavez are also inspired by his memory. While Chavez, like Thomas S. Lubbock, never lived here, his memory continues to inspire people of every race and cultural background to work for peace and justice.”

He made no religious references at all and he signed it using his official title; “Reverend”. Apparently, this did not sit well with the first letter writer and she wrote in again.

Again she made her case; disputing what the Reverend had written. Fair enough. But it

was the last line in her letter where she revealed her real reason for responding. I can imagine her wanting so bad to say what she did she was probably “bursting at the seams” as she wrote her response. By God she would teach the Reverend a lesson; she would get even with him for having disagreed with her. Here’s how she ended her letter:

“I do not choose to call the letter writer "Reverend" because there is no scripture in the bible which commands this”.

Now I ask you, why was it important for her to write this last line?



The lesson in this story is this:

Intolerance and hatred, masked as religious conviction, are the source of many a person’s inner doubt and insecurity.



Email: acruztsc@aol.com