Labor Day Weekend Funnies

Robert Reich: "Labor Day 2028"

To celebrate the kickoffs of the high school and college football seasons, the 29th anniversary of the marriage of the lovely Mrs. Diddie and I -- no, neither of those.  This is a reason-for-the-season reposting of former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich's blog post about a Labor Day in the near future, predicted from 87 years in the past.

In 1928, famed British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would advance so far in a hundred years – by 2028 – that it will replace all work, and no one will need to worry about making money.

“For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.”

We still have thirteen years to go before we reach Keynes’ prophetic year, but we’re not exactly on the way to it. Americans are working harder than ever.

Keynes may be proven right about technological progress. We’re on the verge of 3-D printing, driverless cars, delivery drones, and robots that can serve us coffee in the morning and make our beds.  But he overlooked one big question: How to redistribute the profits from these marvelous labor-saving inventions, so we’ll have the money to buy the free time they provide?

Without such a mechanism, most of us are condemned to work ever harder in order to compensate for lost earnings due to the labor-replacing technologies.  Such technologies are even replacing knowledge workers – a big reason why college degrees no longer deliver steadily higher wages and larger shares of the economic pie.  Since 2000, the vast majority of college graduates have seen little or no income gains.  The economic model that predominated through most of the twentieth century was mass production by many, for mass consumption by many.  But the model we’re rushing toward is unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by the few able to afford it.

The ratio of employees to customers is already dropping to mind-boggling lows.

When Facebook purchased the messaging company WhatsApp for $19 billion last year, WhatsApp had fifty-five employees serving 450 million customers.  When more and more can be done by fewer and fewer people, profits go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and owner-investors. WhatsApp’s young co-founder and CEO, Jan Koum, got $6.8 billion in the deal.  This in turn will leave the rest of us with fewer well-paying jobs and less money to buy what can be produced, as we’re pushed into the low-paying personal service sector of the economy.  Which will also mean fewer profits for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because potential consumers won’t be able to afford what they’re selling.

What to do? We might try to levy a gigantic tax on the incomes of the billionaire winners and redistribute their winnings to everyone else. But even if politically feasible, the winners will be tempted to store their winnings abroad – or expatriate.

Suppose we look instead at the patents and trademarks by which government protects all these new inventions.

Such government protections determine what these inventions are worth. If patents lasted only three years instead of the current twenty, for example, What’sApp would be worth a small fraction of $19 billion – because after three years anybody could reproduce its messaging technology for free.  Instead of shortening the patent period, how about giving every citizen a share of the profits from all patents and trademarks government protects? It would be a condition for receiving such protection.  Say, for example, 20 percent of all such profits were split equally among all citizens, starting the month they turn eighteen.  In effect, this would be a basic minimum income for everyone.

The sum would be enough to ensure everyone a minimally decent standard of living – including money to buy the technologies that would free them up from the necessity of working.  Anyone wishing to supplement their basic minimum could of course choose to work – even though, as noted, most jobs will pay modestly.  This outcome would also be good for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because it would ensure they have customers with enough money to buy their labor-saving gadgets.  Such a basic minimum would allow people to pursue whatever arts or avocations provide them with meaning, thereby enabling society to enjoy the fruits of such artistry or voluntary efforts.

We would thereby create the kind of society John Maynard Keynes predicted we’d achieve by 2028 – an age of technological abundance in which no one will need to work.

Happy Labor Day.

I wanted to post about something besides Houston city elections

-- But I am really not interested in talking about Sheriff Ron Hickman, or Fox News pushing his white conservative lies further out, while Hickman himself doubles down.  Other people have spoken for me anyway.

Hickman's rhetoric only pours gas on an ever-expanding forest fire.  More people will be shot down, unarmed black people and peace officers alike, as a result of his bloviating.

Thanks, Adrian Garcia!  One hell of a parting gift you left us.

-- I don't want to talk about Kim Davis, either.  It's "factually impossible" for me to talk about her.

-- I also won't be spending many pixels talking about Donald Trump, in Spanish or in English.  Not going to run many cartoons of him in the future, either.

These are all jokes that just aren't funny to me.

-- Nobody could have foreseen that Hillary Clinton would be struggling in the polls.  Bless his poor old hippie heart, Ted still can't see it.

-- Do you think we have immigration problems in the United States?  Do you think they have immigration problems in places like Syria, or Turkey, or Greece?  Who's got the bigger problem, do you think?  Us or them?  I'm thinking it's humanity that has the problem.

So... aren't you glad I'm blogging about those boring old city council races?

The At Large 5 contest

For those who wish to catch up, here are my posts on the state of play in the mayor's race from last week, along with AL1, AL2, AL3, and AL4.  Somebody is going to release a poll very soon in the mayoral; I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen one yet.  As a reminder, we don't talk about advertisements, or fundraising, or viability scores 'round these parts.  My humble O is that those things are by degrees undemocratic and have no place in estimating the value of potential political officeholders.  Issues, policy, clearly-staked positions, and how hard a person is actually trying to encourage people to vote for them, by their presence online and offline at various functions is how I evaluate worth.  YMMV, of course.

For you deadliners, the last day to register to vote in this election is October 5th; and early voting begins on October 19.  On to the participants in this race, listed in ballot order:

• Brad Batteau
• Jack Christie (incumbent)
• Philippe Nassif
• Sharon Moses
• Tahir Charles

Perennial candidate Batteau was instrumental in helping CM Michael Kubosh get elected in AL 3 two years ago.  He, Rogene Calvert, Roland Chavez (running again this year in District H), and Jenefer Rene Pool (running again in AL1) all split the vote neatly enough between themselves to allow Kubosh to go into a runoff against Roy Morales (who is also running again, in AL4).  That could happen once more here in AL5.

Batteau, sixth in a field of six with 8.6% of the vote in 2013, doesn't really seem to be getting the message voters are sending him.  Perhaps he's still holding on for an Andrew-Burks-in-2011-ish miracle.  He's running the same campaign he's run in the past, which is to say nonexistent.  This KTRK piece from four years ago is evidence that some things never really change.

And then there's J. Brad Batteau. He has run for an at-large position before. He says he's the man to represent the whole city. He hasn't raised any money or posted many signs but did address his robbery conviction 30 years ago.

"It shouldn't matter because what I'm going to do for the people doesn't have anything to do with my past back in 1987. I was a teenager ... I'm now 42," he said.

It's important to note that Batteau didn't know Rebuild Houston is when we asked him.

I would be surprised if he knows anything about it today.  Name recognition and first-on-the-ballot can't be completely discounted in municipal races, unfortunately.

Conservative Republican Christie defeated two half-hearted Democrats challenging him in 2011 with 55% of the vote, and four years ago finally prevailed in a third try over incumbent Jolanda Jones in the runoff by a similar 54.2% margin... with a helping hand from former mayor Bill White.  It is never-say-die candidates like Christie and Burks who give hope to the likes of people such as Batteau.  Greg Wythe's Texas Political Almanac has a good summary of that race in 2011...

The "Jack & JoJo Show" earned its third season as candidate Christie once more filed to run against CM Jolanda Jones. While many of the ethical charges brought against CM Jones during the past two years failed to merit serious attention, the spotlight brought attention on Jones' often combative approach to representing the city. While Jones remained popular in African-American communities -- particularly on the south side -- not enough voters elsewhere saw her as an independent voice at Council. Jones was the most frequent member on council to tag items on the city agenda, delaying action for a week on numerous items. The result was not dissimilar to the previous campaign and runoff. But the one thing missing from this election was that of a well-funded African-American candidate for mayor in a runoff that would help boost turnout to benefit Jolanda.

Wythe left out the Bill White part, probably because he was a White acolyte from the get-go in the former mayor's bid for the Governor's Mansion in 2010.  But the history he did write reminds us to watch for this African American dynamic in play in this cycle's runoff.  You can rest assured that either Sylvester Turner or Ben Hall -- or both -- running off for mayor in December changes the calculus of downballot council runoffs.  Christie wanted to run for mayor this time, but was crowded out by CM Oliver Pennington, himself an early dropout.  Both men are probably kicking themselves as they watch Hall ascend to the conservative throne.

Nassif is the Democrats' standard-bearer.  For whatever his reasons, Durrel Douglas wound up not filing to run here, and that clears the field a little for the liberal activist of Mexican and Lebanese descent.  He's got all the endorsements and support flowing his way.

Sharon Moses seems to have good qualifications for a potential council member if in fact this is her LinkedIn profile, but no other web presence and no past experience in running for office works against her.  Tahir Charles' website has a good bio of him but his Facebook page was last updated in May.  Both candidates -- and Batteau, for that matter -- might bite into Nassif's tally among African American voters.

Prediction for the general: If the four Democrats -- one establishment (Nassif) and three unorthodox (Batteau, Moses, Charles) succeed in canceling each other out, then the odious Christie goes back to council for a third term.  If the best hope for Democratic liberals, Nassif, can force the incumbent -- whose ceiling in past elections has been around 55% -- into a runoff, they should raise their expectations for knocking off the Republican on council.

Scattershooting Adrian Garcia and Hillary Clinton, two of the worst possible options for public office

-- Chris Bell reminds everybody in Houston again that Adrian Garcia, much like Hillary Clinton, is simply unfit to serve as a public leader.

"If you're leading what you call the largest mental health institution in our city, then how those inmates were treated becomes a very significant issue," Bell told a packed auditorium at the University of St. Thomas, where candidates had gathered for a mayoral forum on behavioral health. "You were supposedly the leader of that jail, and how could you have created a system where nobody told you of such a horrific incident?"

In response:

"It shouldn't have happened. It definitely should not have happened under my watch. But when I found out about it, I took full responsibility. I took action," Garcia said. "I put policies and procedures in place to keep it from happening again."

That's an admission of guilt. While a noble gesture, it still disqualifies him from office.

-- Speaking of Clinton...

While she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote and sent at least six e-mails using her private server that contained what government officials now say is classified information, according to thousands of e-mails released by the State Department.

[...]

The extent of the redactions in e-mails sent by Clinton and others, including ambassadors and career Foreign Service officers, points to a broader pattern that has alarmed intelligence officials in which sensitive information has been circulated on non-secure systems. Another worry is that Clinton aides further spread sensitive information by forwarding government e-mails to Clinton’s private account.

Benefit of the doubt:

But it also highlights concerns raised by Clinton and her supporters that identifying classified material can be a confusing process, and well-meaning public officials reviewing the same material could come to different conclusions as to its classification level.

Yes.  Why hasn't someone ever fixed this since email became prevalent (at a minimum of) fifteen years ago?

Is Hillary Clinton as president the person most capable of fixing it?  If you think so, there's a bridge in the desert on sale with your layaway tag on it.

-- More and more people are coming to the inevitable, inexorable conclusion that she is one final, small disaster away from fumbling the White House to the Republicans.  They're still imploring other Democrats to join the race.  I don't think any more candidates are needed personally, but whatever.

She is still going to beat Trump, or Carson, or Bush, or Cruz, or whatever other piece of flotsam the GOP floats.  But she is also in the excruciating process of beating herself, and the outcome of that fight is still to be determined.

More lighter, funnier fare on emails from Vox.

The At Large 4 contest

Now that we know ballot order, let's go forward listing the candidates that way.  As a reminder, Kuffner has audio interviews with a lot of these folks posted already, and Wayne is posting questionnaires returned to him from those responding.

• Amanda Edwards
• Jonathan Hansen
• Larry Blackmon
• Laurie Robinson
• Evelyn Husband Thompson
• Matt Murphy
• Roy Morales

It might be worth repeating (scroll to the end) that Houston blacks consider AL 4 to be theirs, and that is likely to hold true in this cycle with Edwards and Robinson, both African American Democratic women with solid networks of support.  They present as the best qualified and most progressive choices.  Robinson ran for AL 5 previously in 2011, finishing third behind then-incumbent Jolanda Jones and now-incumbent Jack Christie.  She is the chief executive of a high-profile management consulting firm.  Edwards practices law at Bracewell & Guiliani, and has a wide-ranging background of political and social justice efforts.  Blackmon -- this Chron piece thinly describes him as a retired school teacher active in local politics -- also carries a good resume' and the endorsements of three black Texas House members; he's been overshadowed to some degree by Edwards and Robinson.  Edwards has racked up most of the endorsements from Democratic clubs and groups to this point.

Either of the three has the skill set to be an effective council member.  But two of the three are unlikely to be in a runoff together, so we must handicap the likely (conservative) challengers.

Morales is a name we all know and distrust by now.  He's lost more city council and mayoral general elections and runoffs than I care to document.  But his Republican activism and Latino surname may once again be enough to get him second past the post.

Husband Thompson is the widow of astronaut Ron Husband, who perished in the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster.  That's pretty much it for her online campaign as a prospective city council member.  No website, no Facebook page.  There's a story here about how she met, courted, and married her second husband, and too much for my digestion about the strength of their faith.  I'm going to presume, until she says otherwise on the record, that she's a Christian conservative and an opponent of HERO.

That leaves Hansen and Murphy.

Hansen is your basic pro-business, inherited-wealth, pull-yasef-up-by-ya-bootstraps Republican.  He recently engaged in some good old-fashioned political ball-busting of Murphy on HERO, without revealing his own position on the ordinance.  Murphy is the "pro-family fiscal conservative" in the contest, and I would surmise based on his flip-flop on HERO -- as detailed at Hansen's blog -- that he indeed does have the requisite hypocrisy needed for Houston's worst Republicans to vote him into the runoff.

Prediction for the runoff: Toss-up between Edwards and Robinson (with a small chance given to Blackmon) squaring off against Murphy.

HEROes and haters

The Chron chronicles a thirty-year of history of proud homophobia in Houston city elections (too much alliteration?), and outs the 'Bathroom Caucus' on your ballot in November.

A flurry of candidates opposed to Houston's anti-discrimination ordinance finalized bids for City Council in the waning hours before last Monday's filing deadline, setting the stage for a multi-race campaign against the controversial ballot measure known as HERO.

With the latecomers, the fight to repeal HERO now is poised to extend into all of the at-large and most of the district council races, in addition to the mayor's race.

At first glance, the lineup harkens back to the "Straight Slate" of 1985, when conservative power broker Steven Hotze organized challengers to run against incumbent council members who supported job protections for gays employed by the city.

Dr. Hotze, you haven't evolved a bit since 1985.  That was the year Louie Welch's "shoot the queers" comment went viral without an Internet, and in one night, "Don't Shoot Louie! T-shirts became best-sellers.  Read Mayor Annise Parker's account of the irony of representing the city of Houston (as comptroller at the time) at Welch's funeral in 2008.

"We have been approached by candidates who oppose the bathroom ordinance," said Jared Woodfill, spokesman for the anti-HERO campaign. "And we have encouraged people to run who oppose the bathroom ordinance, as have other organizations who have the same goal of defeating the ordinance."

[...]

Of City Council members running for re-election, five oppose the ordinance... They are joined by at least 11 council hopefuls, many of whom launched their bids before it became clear the ordinance would be on the ballot.

Others, such as pastors Willie Davis and Kendall Baker, as well as former teacher Manny Barrera and Siemens sales executive Carl Jarvis, filed to run on the last day.

Emphasis mine.  If you need to reminded why it's important to tax the churches...

Houston Area Pastor Council Director Dave Welch, who is helping to run the anti-HERO campaign's church-based efforts to rally voters against the law, said his group does not "officially enlist or recruit candidates."

He added, however, that he did broadly encourage those active in the church to seek office.

"In general, we encourage people to run for office and be politically involved," Welch said. "It's pretty hard to have a good government if you don't have good people in government. (HERO) certainly, it certainly provided an inspiration and motivation for some of the folks in our churches to run."

It reminds me of Ken Paxton's brethren and sisteren asking their local TeaBagger sheriff candidate why more lethal force is not used at the border.  But that's a digression.

You should go and finish Rebecca Elliott's and Kat Driessen's article; Chron municipal election coverage scores a D- in my gradebook, but the blind hog found a few acorns in this piece.  Nothing against the two reporters; responsibility for the newspaper's continued failure to cover local news adequately rests higher up the Hearst food chain (another digression).

Just note the names in bold above, and ask the question every chance you get of any candidate: "Do you support or oppose the equal rights ordinance?"  Everybody running for office needs to be on the record.

Texas Leftist posts the map and the list of all the American cities that have similar ordinances on the books (dozens) and the instances where a transgendered woman assaulted someone in a bathroom (not once).  And TransGriot reminds us about the potential economic losses associated with repealing the ordinance, which reminds me that it's time to remind you to sign this petition.

The Weekly Wangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance remembers the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and honors the spirit of its survivors as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff recaps Ken Paxton's first day in court. It won't be his last.

Libby Shaw, writing for Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos scolds the Republican Party for its cruel war on immigrants. Earth to the GOP: Stop picking on immigrants and do your jobs.

Socratic Gadfly turns a skeptical eye to Constitutional-era pop historian Joseph Ellis, and rakes him over the coals for writing something barely historical, but that adds to Constitutional myth-making.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme watches the Republican war on Latinos continue with throwing attorneys out of detention centers and denying birth certificates to citizens.

Houston city council races dominated PDiddie's Brains and Eggs this past week, with At Large 1, At Large 2, and At Large 3 all profiled and prognosticated.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson also covered the Texas attorney general's many legal troubles, noting they are not going away anytime soon, in Paxton's problems pile up.

Texas Leftist analyzed the "debate" between Jorge Ramos and Donald Trump on immigration, and Dos Centavos also added his two cents.

TXsharon at Bluedaze spent some time in Fracking Hell, aka the Eagle Ford shale, and lived to tell us about it.

Neil at All People Have Value expressed distress over how we drive in Harris County and asked that we be careful on our roads. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

==============

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Ryan Holeywell and Stephen Klineberg debunk myths about Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Houston, while Ethan Raker shows how interacting with Katrina evacuees affected opinions about them.

Grits for Breakfast seemed surprised and perturbed at Texas media for seemingly ignoring one of the most important laws going into effect on September 1: raising the threshold for property theft crimes.

Carol Morgan commented on the many instances of disaster capitalism in "When the Parasite (the 1% and the corporations) Kills the Host (the rest of us)".

Trail Blazers covered the removal of the statue of Jefferson Davis from the grounds of the University of Texas.

Juanita Jean gives the idiots protesting at the HISD Arabic language immersion school a piece of her mind.

The Makeshift Academic builds a model to estimate how many people would benefit from Medicaid expansion.

jobsanger graphed the polling that shows Americans are split on whether to tax churches or not.

Paradise in Hell observes a rite of passage for George P. Bush.

HOUequality reprinted Pulitzer-winning writer Lisa Falkenburg's op-ed: "Anti-(HERO) campaign's scare tactics need to be flushed".

Erica Ciszek explains her anxiety about bathrooms.

Lawflog explained why Hearne's supervisor of the city's street department is being paid to sit in jail.

Chip Brown calls out Baylor President Ken Starr in the Art Briles/Sam Ukwuachu case.

Stephanie Stradley explains why the Deflategate case matters.

And Fascist Dyke Motors got a little creeped out on her recent visit to New Orleans.

Sunday Funnies

The At Large 3 contest

Here are the entrants, as usual from the city's filings page and in alphabetical order.  Via Kuff, who has a post up about this and some mayoral fora upcoming, Mike Morris at the Chronicle's graphic shows the names listed in ballot order.

• Michael Kubosh
• John LaRue
• Joseph McElligott
• Doug Peterson

This race IMHO presents one of the more interesting lineups of candidates among the At-Larges despite its complete lack of diversity (I find AL 1 and AL 4 to be the protoypical mud wrestling matches, with AL 5 demonstrating more of what Houston is all about demographically).  Let's not bury the lede; one of Peterson or LaRue hopefully can push the incumbent Kubosh into a runoff in December.

Peterson has a long and impressive resume': strategist for NASA, leadership experience with environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, chairman of Senate District 11, active with the Bay Area New Democrats -- in short, everything just about anybody on the left could look for in a progressive, activist Democrat.   LaRue voted in the 2014 Republican primary in 2014, and McElligott -- affiliated with the Harris County Green Party, the only such candidate on the ballot -- voted in the 2010 Republican primary.  In a conversation with me, McElligott indicated that he did so strategically in the governor's race that year, for Kay Bailey Hutchison over Rick Perry.  I don't know LaRue's motivation so let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he did the same as McElligott.  (Many more Democrats than will admit it do this.  They even encourage others to do so; that's how weak Texas Democrats have become in midterm elections.)

McElligott has fleshed out strongly progressive policy issues: participatory budgeting (they've given it a go in NYC), repealing TABOR, reforming tax increment financing, advocating public banking and paid leave... sadly, these initiatives are outside the realm of concept for most municipal voters.  They will just screech "soshulist" and point at Bernie Sanders (or Jill Stein).  McElligott's paving the way to real progress for Greens, Democratic socialists and non-Democratic progressives.  Good on him for that.

LaRue is trying to run right down the middle of the partisan divide, rarely a winning electoral strategy at any level these days.  He has campaigned actively, appearing at numerous Democratic functions with photos on his Facebook page, and even making news as he and his husband became the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license issued in Harris County.  Here's OutSmart magazine's retelling of the day-long saga involving Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart's refusals, County Attorney Vince Ryan's threats of legal injunction, and the media swarm that covered it all day.  Here's an article where LaRue describes his views as centrist and bipartisan, and also that his motivation for joining the race was Kubosh's votes against HERO.  And he's open about chasing moderate Republican votes, so there's that.

Despite his folk hero status, LaRue did not get the GLBT Caucus endorsement, probably due to their distasteful "viability" ratings of candidates.  Kuff underscored this point a couple of weeks ago in his reporting on endorsements.

I simply would not expect a great deal of votes to go to McElligott -- something on the order of the Greens' usual market share in contested races, about 1-2% -- but LaRue and Peterson could spoil each other's chances and let Kubosh waddle back to the horseshoe.  The incumbent and portly bail bondsman has voted against HERO and taken five large, the maximum financial contribution, from Steven Hotze this go-round.  He has a big target on his very wide back.  He got lucky two years ago when the Democrats washed each other out, and his popularity from fighting (and winning) the red-light camera battle with Mayor Annise Parker was at its zenith.  But unless turnout favors the liberal strongholds in the city, we could be looking at a rerun of 2013.

Prediction for the general: Kubosh could skate over thin ice again if Peterson and LaRue split the Democratic vote. If one of the two can get the incumbent mano a mano in December, odds are good that the seat flips.

Email matter reveals Clinton unfit for office

We'll continue with Houston city council races shortly, but this piece from Investors Business Daily is a must-read, especially for all you pathetic Clinton supporters who continue to insist that her e-mail server scandal is small potatoes, or a smear tactic or some other lame-ass excuse.

Last week, it was Hillary Clinton's campaign spokesman acknowledging that she "didn't really think it through" when she chose to use her personal email account for State Department business rather than a secure government account, thereby admitting that she isn't fit to be president.

This week, Clinton herself conceded she doesn't have the judgment to be president.

While campaigning in Iowa Wednesday, Clinton showed that she finally understands what nearly everyone else has long known, confessing that her use of personal email "clearly wasn't the best choice."

"I should've used two emails: one personal, one for work," she said.

Yes, one for yakking with friends about yoga routines, another for the classified material that was on her personal email and private server. Most anyone who isn't a Clinton (or a top Clinton aide or Democratic operatives at the IRS and the EPA) would do just that.

As we noted last week, America doesn't need a commander in chief who doesn't "really think it through" when making decisions that can affect national security.

Presidents have and will make bad choices on big issues, but the country needs someone who can at least make "the best choice" in small decisions. How will a candidate who is unable to select what's clearly the right option when there's no pressure fare when faced with the monumental decisions that a president has to make on a frequent basis?

And that is precisely it.  When the FBI investigates something as a potential criminal matter, it's not just screwing around.  You can't call it a partisan witch hunt, either.  If nothing arises from said investigation, then you can certainly trumpet that.  But this drip, drip, drip of gradually taking responsibility for a serious mistake in judgement is part of the Clinton modus operandi.  Fear not, Clintonites; it's still not enough to damage her long-term prospects.

Ever the evasive politician, Clinton told the Iowa crowd that she takes "responsibility for that decision," but just what does that mean? Exactly nothing.

There will be no consequences. She will not censure herself in any way or pay for her mistake.

But she knows that phrase plays well politically, that it makes her sound as if she's holding herself to account.

Clinton also applied slippery spin when she said she's looking forward to October when she testifies before Congress about her personal email account and private server. She's "confident," she said, "the process" will exonerate her.

In private, she's probably not so confident. She knows what she did. The president and vice president also probably know, too. Maybe that's why Joe Biden is preparing to run and the president has given him his blessing.

Joe Biden probably isn't running, as it turns out.

Vice President Joe Biden revealed to members of the Democratic National Committee Wednesday that he is assessing whether he has "the emotional fuel" to run for the White House.

"We're dealing at home with ... whether or not there is the emotional fuel at this time to run," Biden told DNC members on a conference call that was billed as an opportunity to hear from the vice president on the Iran nuclear deal. "If I were to announce to run, I have to be able to commit to all of you that I would be able to give it my whole heart and my whole soul, and right now, both are pretty well banged up."

If he did, polling shows he'd be a stronger nominee than Clinton.  She's damaged goods, but thanks to Donald Trump, she's still on pace to be the 45th president of the United States.  And that will be nothing to celebrate.

The At Large 2 contest

Once more, your choices on the ballot in November from the city's filings page, listed in alphabetical order by last name, and links to those candidate web pages where they exist.

• Andrew Burks (See Facebook page linked below)
• Willie Davis (See profile linked below)
• Eric Dick (law firm site, no 2015 campaign site found)
• Moe Rivera
• David Robinson (incumbent)

Let's begin by recounting that just two years ago, Robinson defeated then-incumbent Burks in a squeaker of a runoff, 50.7% to 49.3, or a margin of less than 500 votes out of 52,000+ cast.  In the general that year, Robinson led with 41.2% followed by Burks with 38.2, Rivera with 16.3 and Trebor Gordon with 6.3. Gordon was rumored to file but did not, so the stage is set with Davis, a black pastor virulently opposed to HERO, replacing the Republican Gordon.

In 2011, when this seat was open, ten challengers split the vote, with Burks -- a perennial loser in City Hall elections to that point -- finishing first in the general, followed closely by Kristi Thibaut.  Robinson came in fourth that year, and Dick seventh.  Burks prevailed in December in a similarly close runoff election, 50.2 - 49.8, or just 111 votes.

Attorney Dick ran for mayor in 2013 and clocked in a solid third, well behind behind Annise Parker and Ben Hall but ahead of six others including a Green and a Socialist candidate, with over 18,000 votes out of 172,448 cast, or 10.6% of the tally.  (See the link above in the second graf for more details if you like.)  Dick also seems to like to run for political office more to boost the fortunes of his law firm than actually get elected, ever since his signs debacle a few cycles ago.

In a non-bathroom election year, you'd have to score a rematch with Robinson and Burks as the most likely outcome for a runoff.  But Dick and especially Davis complicate matters, with their distinct conservative supporters unlikely to switch away from their preferred candidate until the runoff dust is settled.  Rivera, a resident of Kingwood with a lengthy military background and a longtime Republican as well, completes the list of conservatives trying to win this office.  Latinos turning out for Garcia might know nothing about him and mark him on the basis of surname alone.

Burks has a Facebook page that saw its last update in March, with sad tales of knee replacements and broken arms and the passing of his mother.  His former campaign website, burksforhouston.com, returns a 404 on direct link, but the Yahoo search listing redirects to a domain hawking garcinia cambogia as a weight loss supplement.  And from deep in the bowels of the Internet, a site which looks current but only lists his political campaigns up to 2001 ("at present").  Still, none of this sort of thing held him back in 2011.  Though a nominal Democrat, Burks's record  is a fairly conservative one.  His HERO position is unclear.*  That isn't the case with Davis or Rivera or Dick, so expect the Republicans and social conservatives among the black Dems to be divided in their allegiances in this tilt.  No one of them can likely best Robinson -- a solid Democrat and quiet but effective council member with no philosophical challenger -- but a runoff with one of them, and the HERO vote in the record books, might be a different circumstance.

No bets taken on who might wind up facing the incumbent in December.  It all depends on how well the various conservative constituencies turn out their voters.

Prediction for the general: Robinson may be able to avoid a runoff if the black vote splits between Burks and Davis; even if it does then one of the two others could join him in the finals.  Strong liberal turnout for HERO gets him over the bar without one.

*See Charles Kuffner's remarks in the comments.

The At Large 1 contest

Here are your contestants, in alphabetical order by last name, from the city's filings page.  I'm only linking to the pages of the candidates that I believe have a realistic shot at the seat.

• Michael "Griff" Griffin
• Mike Knox
• Lane Lewis
• Tom McCasland
• Chris Oliver
• James Partsch-Galván
• Jenifer Rene Pool
• Georgia Provost

Last go first.

Griff and Partsch-Galván are perennial losing candidates for city council.  That's really all that can be said about either man.  Wait; Griff lost his tenth bid for city council in 2011 and promised us then that it was his final race, and he used to own a fun, dive-y sports bar that still has his name on it.  JP-G is a freak.  Now that's all.

Provost made the runoff in District D two years ago, clearing a field of twelve with 14% to face off against Dwight Boykins.  She ultimately fell to the incumbent, who had garnered almost enough votes (42.9%) to avoid the runoff.  She is well-known in the African American community as a professional photographer, businesswoman, TSU alum and fundraiser with Alan Helfman, the proprietor of River Oaks Chrysler Dodge Jeep.

Speaking of Boykins, he was the only African American council member who voted against the HERO last year... but he then voted to sustain it last month.  The equal rights ordinance is likely where AL1 will turn, with Pool (a trans-woman) and Lewis (a gay man, also chair of the Harris County Democrats) leading the contingent of pro-tolerance liberals among the Houston electorate.

Pool has run for at-large seats on council in 2011 and 2013, missing the runoff both times.  She has clashed with HGLBT favorite son Lewis a couple of times as well, most recently when she lost the Caucus endorsement last month.  Two years ago, she and the other three Dems -- Rogene Calvert, Roland Chavez, and Brad Batteau -- canceled each other out, allowing Republican Paul Kubosh to defeat Republican Roy Morales in AL3's runoff.  This same dynamic is in play for AL1 this time around.

Of these two, Lewis -- whom I support -- is most likely to move into the runoff.  He has by far the most endorsements, momentum, etc. to be left standing on the evening of November 3rd.  IMHO the only question is who will join him for the December round from among Knox, McCasland, and Oliver.

Knox -- former USAF, former HPD, defeated two years ago in the Stardig/Helena Brown second-time scrum in District A -- is running this time on what's being called the "straight slate".  Knox is the only reasonable Republican option (I am not counting Griff and P-G as reasonable, though they are certainly GOP).  If you think this is going to be a 'bathroom' election, and I do, then it's going to be Knox and Lewis in the final round.

McCasland is roundly praised for efforts in addressing public housing in the county, has the bonafides to be an effective council member, but is supported by too many of the local Democratic Party's conservative wing for my taste.  Bob Stein at U of H likes him as the best chance to move ahead with Lewis, but I am of the opinion that if the Democrats split their votes among their four very qualified candidates in this race, McCasland -- mostly by virtue of having the lowest name recognition -- is the odd man out in a strong field.

Oliver, elected a couple of times to the Houston Community College Board of Trustees -- often a stepping stone to a Council seat -- is the only black man in the race and received the endorsement of the Houston Black Dems, so I rate his chances ahead of Provost's, who doesn't have much online presence to speak of this cycle.  Google returns a lot of activity from two years ago, but she hasn't Tweeted since 2011, her Facebook page is low-profile, and a website in her name is inactive.  Oliver is running hard and has a good platform, but appears to be mum about HERO, from what I can find.  I cannot discount his shot at being one of the top two at the end, but somebody needs to get him on record as favoring or opposing the equal rights ordinance.  It's possible that Provost is only on the ballot to draw down his bid.

Prediction for the runoff: Lewis and either Knox or Oliver.

The very latest HERO developments

Here's an example of a bathroom right here in Houston that both sexes use that isn't disgusting, filthy, or unsafe.  It was in the mechanic's shop where I got my truck's state inspection performed earlier today, and it was clean, smelled nice, and was completely safe for men and women, cis- and trans- alike.  In fact, you have seen bathrooms like these all over the city, and similar bathrooms all over Texas, the United States, and even in European countries if you have been fortunate to travel there.

The terrorists screaming vulgarities on your radio are, in a word, Neanderthals.  They are throwing rocks at the moon.  You should no more allow them to foment panic in you any more than yesterday's stock market gyrations did.

Would you need more concrete proof?  Take a look at this, courtesy Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, from Equality Matters.

For as long as the transgender community has fought for protection from discrimination in public spaces, conservatives have peddled the myth that sexual predators will exploit non-discrimination laws to sneak into women's restrooms. 

That fear has been an extremely effective tool for scaring people into voting against even basic protections for transgender people, which is why conservatives routinely use the phrase "bathroom bill" to describe laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations. When conservative media outlets attack non-discrimination laws for transgender people, they almost exclusively focus on bathroom and locker room facilities. 

But that fear is baseless -- completely unsupported by years of evidence from states that already have non-discrimination laws on the books. In a new Equality Matters report, experts from twelve states -- including law enforcement officials, state human rights workers, and sexual assault victims advocates -- debunk the myth that non-discrimination laws have any relation to incidents of sexual assault or harassment in public restrooms:

Public restrooms aren't a new battleground for civil rights. Social conservatives frequently invoke "bathroom panic" to justify discrimination against marginalized groups. As Lambda Legal notes, the regulation of bathrooms has been used as a tool to exclude people of color, women, and people with disabilities from participating in public spaces.

But the claim that sexual predators will exploit non-discrimination laws to sneak into women's restrooms is a lie, plain and simple. It's a lie that is unsupported by even a shred of evidence and contradicted by years of experience in states that already have non-discrimination laws on the books. It's a lie that does tremendous damage to efforts to protect transgender people from violence and harassment, which often occur in public restrooms. And it's a lie that persists because conservative media outlets would rather tout made-up stories about sexual harassment than fact-check the anti-LGBT groups who invent those stories from whole cloth.

Fear, hate, and intolerance has spawned a remarkable bipartisan effort locally.

The Houston Stonewall Young Democrats (HSYD) and the Log Cabin Republicans of Houston (LCRH) have decided to work together to protect the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) from being repealed. 

One might not expect anything to bring the two parties together, least of all HERO, which has been fought tooth and nail by a group of local conservatives. This is the first time the two organizations have ever participated in a joint effort; in fact, they are the only two-party organizations in Houston working together. 

The leadership displayed by HSYD and LCRH can teach us all a valuable lesson, not just about cooperation and collaboration, but also about HERO. As James Lee, president of HSYD stated, “We have come together, despite our differences, because the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is more important than party affiliation.” 

“It is always good when people can come together on a bipartisan basis to come to good legislation,” added Michael Baker, the Vice President of LCRH.

Nobody could have foreseen that.

As the most ethnically and culturally diverse city in the nation, a city of 2.2 million people with varying beliefs, traditions, backgrounds and idiosyncrasies, it is time to move forward together. Houston is the only major city in the country and the only major city in Texas that does not have an equal rights ordinance of any kind.

The HSYD and LCRH put it plainly. “We believe that all Houstonians should have the right to live, work, and prosper in our great city, and HERO will provide them the ability to do just that.”

Post time for Houston's city elections

Yesterday was the filing deadline, and first via Kuff, here is your lineup card for November 3rd.  Stace has some thoughts on who he prefers, and we are in general agreement.  Here's the Chron story, focusing more on council elections and reactions from people like Bob Stein and Dr. Richard Murray at U of H.

A total of thirteen mayoral hopefuls, and this post will shine a brief spotlight on the seven with little chance of influencing the race, much less making the runoff.

Marty McVey belongs among these also-rans, despite his many forum appearances with the big six, and even despite his fairly progressive platform.  He's just out of his league in this contest, despite good effort and intentions.

Aubrey Taylor's blog has spent a lot of pixels promoting the candidacy of Victoria Lane, who is running on an anti-HERO platform.  Lane and Demetria Smith -- whom you may recall as the candidate initially excluded from the TOP/SEIU forum last month, until her supporters demanded and got a place for her on the dais -- stand as the two people who could draw off enough votes to keep Ben Hall from making the runoff.  Taylor is your go-to guy for all things African American, socially conservative, and those who wish to appeal to that caucus.  (Taylor has also performed the courtesy of reminding us which members of City Council voted for or against the ordinance earlier this year.  You should expect some races to turn on that vote, as well as some candidates' stands on the issue.  More on that when I get to city council races in a future post.)

By contrast, I would not expect Rafael Munoz nor Joe Ferreira to pull many votes away from Adrian Garcia, by virtue of either their Latino surnames nor their low-profile candidacies.  So unlike Hall -- and all the many other Af-Am candidates on the ballot, a factor which should boost turnout in those precincts around the city -- either Garcia's "community will turn out in historic numbers" for him... or they won't.

Of the remaining long shots, Thai Hoc Nguyen is a conservative Republican who lost to former Council member Al Hoang in 2009 in District F -- who himself was upset in 2013 by incumbent Richard Nguyen (no relation), and Dale Steffes is a perennial candidate who, in the words of Texas Monthly's Greg Curtis (in 1999) is "a maverick oil-price prognosticator who now runs his consulting business out of his home".  He's more favorably and recently quoted in this story.  Nothing obvious about his political inclinations, but I'd be interested in his forecast for crude prices.

The next mayor of Houston will still come down to two of Garcia, Hall, Bill King, Steven Costello, Chris Bell, and Sylvester Turner, and ultimately determined in December.

We'll take a look at the the At-Large races next.

Anti-HERO ads roll out "filthy" and "disgusting"

Here we go.

"No men in women's bathrooms," the incendiary and misleading ad begins. "This ordinance will allow men to freely go into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. That is filthy, that is disgusting, and that is unsafe," the woman, falsely, says in the ad. She also claims to speak for "all moms, sisters, and daughters," which is false.

The group sponsoring the ad is called the Campaign For Houston, and it's headed by Jared Woodfill, a 47-year old attorney and former chairman of the Republican Party of Harris County, Texas.

That's a awful lot of lies and fear to combat.

It falsely claims HERO "limits free speech and religious expression in unprecedented ways," "gives new special privileges to two special interests, neither of which qualify as true 'minorities' requiring special legal protection," and calls HERO's "naming of these groups ... a ruse in an attempt to hide the ordinance’s real purpose, which is to make 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identification' two new protected classes." It also falsely claims sexual orientation and gender identification "are defined by their behaviors -- not by characteristics given to them at birth.

Calling the ad "not subtle," ThinkProgress' Zack Ford offers a few observations:

Gender identity, as protected by HERO, is not something that can be flipflopped every day, and moreover, predatory behavior is still illegal. If HERO fails to pass, it will actually force many men into women’s restrooms, the very outcome they claim to oppose.

Houston Unites calls the ad "vulgar and grossly misleading."

"Nothing in the equal rights ordinance changes the fact that it is -- and always will be -- illegal to enter a restroom to harm or harass other people," the group told the Houston Chronicle. "And the ad leaves out the fact that the law protects tens of thousands of Houstonians from job discrimination based their race, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability."

Good rationales, but I'm concerned there aren't enough smart people in Houston to overcome a tidal wave of ignorance motivated by their God-given phobias.  You can listen to the ad if you can tolerate it at the link, but it's also coming to a radio near you.  Turning it off, changing the station, and otherwise generally ignoring the widespread panic from your conservative acquaintances misses the point: the weaponized paranoia is going to hit its intended target.  And the social Neanderthals are going to turn out in record numbers to vote against it.

Maybe a few more signatures on that petition to the NFL to pull the 2017 Super Bowl out of Houston might get the attention of the pro-business, pro-tolerance Republicans, but I hope Mayor Parker and her group have some strong counter-efforts ready to go soon.

More on the Houston municipal elections

-- If Ben Hall and Sylvester Turner make the runoff for mayor (maybe even before November), expect to see some fireworks along the lines of the Wayne Dolcefino/KTRK lawsuit which arose during the last days of the runoff almost 25 years ago (between Turner and Bob Lanier).  They battled to a draw in court, with the television station and then-investigative reporter found guilty of libeling Turner, but the14th Court of Appeals reversed the jury's decision.  Dolcefino is now a consultant advising Hall's campaign.

-- Chris Bell's profile in yesterday's Chronicle.  Relevant passage:

"I don't see any shame in running and not winning," Bell said. "The shame should be in not caring and not trying."

I think that's a win for me, Dr. Murray.

-- Houston Matters is interviewing mayorals, with Bell and Hall already in the can and Marty McVey coming tomorrow.  Kuff is logging his hours with the council candidates; here's his latest with AL4 candidate Jonathan Hansen, and links to many more.  Texas Leftist is posting his candidate questionnaires also; here's his most recent with District H's Roland Chavez.

-- And a programming note: the Texas Democratic Women of Harris County kicks off their Fall Speaker Series hosting Dr. Krista Comer of Rice University (not U of H, as the graphic below shows) at their monthly meeting this evening.

Dr. Comer's topic, "Youth Politics and Third Wave Feminism", focuses on two demographics that did not turn out in 2014, and what steps might be taken to boost their participation in 2015 and '16.

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance liked it better when politicians wanted to kiss babies and not deport them as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff took a closer look at who votes in City of Houston elections.

Libby Shaw at Texas Kaos, and contributing to Daily Kos, notes that when the GOP whistled for the dogs it ushered in the wolves. The GOP deserves its monster.

Fresh off his vacation, and as it approaches its centennial, SocraticGadfly casts a critical eye at what he describes as the decline and fall of the National Park Service.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes that Donald Trump is exposing the world to the racism consuming the GOP along with its authoritarian, 2nd amendment mindset.

It was all Houston mayoral elections all last week for PDiddie at Brains and Eggs, who attended a forum in his back yard, smelled some oligarchy in the HGLBT Caucus endorsement, covered the two adverse developments for the HERO, and witnessed Chris Bell's smackdown of Adrian Garcia.

Texas Leftist marks the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and how it changed Houston.

The Lewisville Texan Journal reports on the bond issues facing voters in that city.

Egberto Willies recounts Hillary Clinton's meeting with Black Lives Matter activists and wonders if it was her Sister Souljah moment.

With Bernie Sanders running strongly for 2016, Neil at All People Have Value wrote that polling data reports more and more Americans are open to socialism. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

==================

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Carol Morgan covers the rise of Trump, made in America for Americans.

Grits for Breakfast makes the observation that overbuilt county jails have turned the for-profit prison system into a bust.

Paradise in Hell previews the fried delicacies that await us at this year's State Fair of Texas.

The Lunch Tray confirms that Americans do indeed want kids to eat healthier food at school.

Texas Watch tells you what's really driving the cost of your car insurance bill.

Alexa Garcia-Ditta takes you on a tour of San Antonio's new HB2-compliant abortion facility.

Tamara Tabo explains why you haven't heard more about all those bikers who were arrested in Waco in May.

Somervell County Salon has several blog posts and video of that county's hospital district and Glen Rose Medical Center's meetings.

The Makeshift Academic reports that Arkansas has fully embraced Medicaid expansion.

Pamela Coloff awards the title of Worst Lawyer in Texas to disgraced and now disbarred former prosecutor Charles Sebesta.

And Fascist Dyke Motors would like to teach a class in 'How to be a Feral Child in the City".

Sunday Funnies, Untrustworthy edition

Picking up what we scatter-shot

-- Big Jolly thinks I may be on to something with regard to my picks for the mayoral runoff.  It is of course difficult to analyze the conservative mind, but Jolly is reasoned and reasonable more often than any, and he's drifting toward Hall for All (the worst conservatives in the city).  His commenters point out the pastor's shortcomings, which are considerable and which few people remember from two years ago, mostly because the local media has done such a terrible job covering the city races.

For my part, I reserve the right to revise my predictions as circumstances warrant.  I'm expecting a fresh poll any day now, and there will certainly be a few after Labor Day weekend (you know, when the media tells us people begin paying attention).

-- As Hillary Clinton's polling slides further downhill and the FBI investigates her email, mumblings about Joe Biden entering the race get more serious.  This fellow thinks Bernie Sanders should now be considered the front-runner.  FWIW I believe Hillary Clinton will still be the Democratic nominee in 2016, and that she will defeat any Republican nominated, including and especially Donald Trump.  But my mother, nearly a nonagenarian and mostly a Democrat over the years, would vote for Bush.  When Hillary is losing women voters -- particularly women of her mother's generation -- she has big, big problems.

-- Why do some GOP presidential candidates now want to ban abortions without exceptions for rape, deformity, or when the mother's life is threatened?  An easier question to answer than you might think: conservatives are devolving into absolutists because they fear the wrath of their god.

“There is a significant change happening in the pro-life base, and it’s happening on a national level,” said Dan Becker, president of Georgia Right to Life. That shift is towards demanding, and being promised, an abortion ban without exceptions for rape, incest, or the life and health of the pregnant women. As many as half of the Republican candidates have fallen in line, a contrast from past election cycles.

[...]

The debate over whether to chip away at abortion rights or to openly advocate for the end of all abortion is an old one among anti-abortion activists. But despite the fact that personhood amendments have been repeatedly defeated in Colorado and Mississippi — and the fact that most Americans support such exceptions — the purist faction seems to be gaining ground.

“More and more pro-life people are starting to speak out against exceptions in legislation, and expecting more from the political process,” said Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood employee turned anti-abortion activist who frequently testifies before legislatures considering abortion restrictions.

She herself used to support exceptions for strategic reasons, until a change of heart in 2013. “I think there is this shift away from the hypocrisy that has been shown inside the pro-life movement, saying that some babies are worth our valuable time and effort to save and some or not,” she told msnbc, referring to abortions that would be allowable under an exception.

Much like the tea party’s tension with the Republican establishment, these anti-abortion activists are willing to go after their own nominal allies by accepting no less than the promise of a total ban.

“Nearly all GOP candidates since Reagan have claimed to be pro-life during elections, yet the killing continues,” Rebekah Maxwell, communications director for Personhood Iowa, told msnbc. “Grassroots activists are frustrated with the lack of action on this front.”

Some are also frustrated with the organizations that have long dominated their cause, especially the National Right to Life Committee, which has adopted a more pragmatic and incremental approach. Last year, Becker’s organization was ejected from its affiliation with the national group after it told Georgia’s congressional delegation to vote against a federal 20-week ban because it had exceptions for rape and incest. (This was the same bill over which a handful of Republican women rebelled for the opposite reason — because they believed its rape exception was too narrow.)

“Until the Supreme Court allows broad protections for unborn children, we work to protect as many children as possible by passing the strongest possible laws at the state and federal level,” the NRLC said in a statement then.

If you believe, as I do, that every awful conservative idea is cultivated in Texas, takes root here, and then the seedlings carried to other states and transplanted, then it's simple to see that with the trouncing of Wendy Davis last year, the pro-forced birth contingent has become more emboldened than ever.  The most restrictive women's reproductive laws in the nation came out of the Texas Lege earlier this year.  No compromise, no retreat, and absolutely nothing like surrender.

The split laid bare a broader dispute in the movement. “As far as I am concerned, Georgia Right to Life has now become the Westboro Baptist Church of the pro-life movement,” wrote prominent conservative activist Erick Erickson. “Instead of saving souls, they’d rather stone those who are trying to save souls.” But other anti-abortion groups have chosen to leave the fold and openly criticized the NRLC.

“What message does it send to our pro-life representatives when you whip them to support legislation that denies the right to life to innocent babies conceived in rape?” wondered one activist on Live Action News.

Kiessling, an activist who describes herself as having been “conceived in rape,” wrote that it was “clear that the emperor has no clothes, and they will need to be told so.”

Perry recounted how she persuaded him, then governor of Texas, to change his mind on exceptions. “We had a fairly lengthy and heartfelt conversation about how she was conceived in rape,” Perry said in 2011, during his last run for president. “Looking in her eyes, I couldn’t come up with an answer to defend exceptions for rape and incest.”

 It's still electoral death for Republicans, as Rick Perry again demonstrates, but these freaks just aren't going to go away.