Super Fat Tuesday

Lots of partyin' to do:

The Weekly Wrangle

As you recover from Super Bowl Sunday, check out this week's Texas Progressive Alliance Blog Round-Up, compiled by Vince from Capitol Annex.

Why would Bill Peacock write a commercial for the energy industry? Find out on Bluedaze as TXsharon shines a light into the dark corners of Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Off the Kuff takes a look at the messy finances of state supreme court justice David Medina, and wonders what else is out there that we haven't heard about yet.

Phillip Martin at Burnt Orange Report says thank you to John Edwards.

McBlogger takes a look at the Free Market Foundation's campaign against the Parent PAC and its leader, Carolyn Boyle. Apparently they are unhappy that we endorsed her in 2006. And that she's been beating them and their lame candidates.

Nat-Wu of Three Wise Men tells us why free trade isn't everything it's cracked up to be, at least for the American worker.

WCNews at Eye On Williamson has more from the recent House Elections Committee hearing on voter fraud -- Abbott May Have To Explain His Partisan Voter Fraud Record.

XicanoPwr begins a Politics of Humanity series. The first takes a look the Department of Homeland Security recent decision to eliminate the Violence Against Women Act's domestic violence program that was meant to protect undocumented immigrants from abusive spouses who use their position as citizens to intimidate their spouses who did not have legal immigrant status in the United States. The second post in the series takes a look at Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) inhumane policy of of drugging immigrants and their recent settlement case.

North Texas Liberal notes that we recently passed the one-year mark, meaning President Bush now has less than one year left in his job. Is he planning on coming home to roost when his tenure ends? Not everyone in D-FW thinks that's the best idea.

Open Source Dem at Brains and Eggs has the inside dope on the Harris County Democratic Party's efforts to turn the county blue (and why the partners-in-charge may be shooting themselves in the feet).

Gary at Easter Lemming Liberal News sent people to his other blog for a lesson in how to put someone to sleep with government lies about economics, among other items.

Vince at Capitol Annex wonders if State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) will actually make good on his claim that he will ask AG Greg Abbott to answer to charges that his "voter fraud" prosecutions are race-based.

We might have a debate in town

With no dog in the Super Bowl fight (sorry Mike Vick), I'm still talking presidential politics, and I'm hoping we have still something to talk about by the time our primary election rolls around:

The (Greater Houston) Partnership and the Sierra Club Foundation have long planned to hold a presidential debate at the George R. Brown Convention Center on Feb. 28, just five days before the March 4 Texas primary.

MSNBC has promised to air the event, with NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert as moderator.

The plan calls for the remaining Democratic candidates to face off in one session, with the Republicans going at it in a separate debate that same evening — assuming no candidate has clinched a party nomination by then.

Originally, the organizers had expected the debate would focus on energy and environmental issues, given the energy sector's importance to the Houston economy.

But realizing theirs could be the last debate before the nominees are finally chosen, the organizers decided to broaden the topics to be discussed, although energy would still be emphasized.

Alas, there is a scheduling conflict:

CNN has announced plans for a presidential debate in Ohio on the same day as one scheduled later this month by the Greater Houston Partnership and MSNBC.

And that could prompt an earlier debate within the campaigns: Which state is tactically the better venue if the nominations aren't decided after next week's Super Tuesday showdown?

Texas awards more nominating delegates, but Ohio is more likely to be a November battleground.

Somebody is going to blink and reschedule. I'm guessing we lose again. It sure would be cool to have a contested Democratic nomination still nip-and-tuck with Texas being able to figure in to the winning difference, and a debate locally to go watch.

Conservatives are neurotic. Whooda thunk?

*Gasp*

A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".

This brings to mind the possibility of payback for the book right-wing mentalist Michael "Weiner" Savage wrote regarding liberalism as mental disorder.

Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.

One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Do you think the doctors anticipated the sputtering outrage, the apoplectic blog posts, the rabid frothing of the goonbats?

The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."

See? Fair and balanced.

But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."

Chronic and hopefully terminal, in Will's case.