The War and Peace (and Church and Food) Report

-- By my oath as one of the judges sitting on the Early Voting Ballot Board, I will refrain from posting anything regarding the Senate District 6 special election (except maybe someone else's words, and then only if it doesn't advocate for or against a particular candidate). So what that means is you shouldn't be swayed or influenced by me in any way by this.

--  The fact that the ban on women in combat was lifted by the Pentagon yesterday probably has nothing to do with the ass-whipping Hillary Clinton gave John McCain and several other Republicans. I'm sure it was also just a coincidence that it was two women -- one a former foreign service member, the other a Republican -- that called C-Span to clarify things for the Republican senators asking the questions.

I would rather have a world where neither women nor men were sent to fight foreign wars, especially when they are sent to fight them based on long threads of lies by Republican men and women, but this development still qualifies as progress on gender equality.

And it's long past time for this country to promote a woman to the position of Commander-in-Chief as well. I certainly hope that woman isn't also a Republican.

-- The CIA apparently tells Hollywood writers more than they tell the US Senate about torture, targeted assassinations, and exactly where in the world they have agents working, so I suppose we should not be surprised that Senators don't actually know as much as they think.

-- The Catholic Church has attorneys arguing that a fetus is not a person -- despite the dogma from the pulpit that established this commandment in the bible of conservatism -- if said fetus shows up on their ledger as an expense.

This on the heels of information, previously undisclosed, that reveals the depths of the conspiracy within the Los Angeles diocese to protect child-molesting priests from justice.

Newly disclosed internal documents have confirmed the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles deliberately hid evidence of child molestation for more than a decade. The now-retired archbishop, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, and other high-ranking clergy officials made extensive efforts to transfer abusive priests out of state to avoid prosecution and to stop them from confessing to therapists who would have been forced to inform police. The church reached a $660 million settlement with 500 victims in 2007, the largest of any Roman Catholic diocese. In reaching the deal, it spared top church officials from having to testify in court. A Los Angeles judge is set to rule next month on whether two church officials will face new depositions in a civil lawsuit over the abuse.

So I think it's safe to say the Church, just like the GOP, is having another bad week.

Update: the Church won their case based on that argument. In the long run (i.e. future lawsuits challenging Roe -- or restricting women's reproductive freedom -- at the SCOTUS), this might actually be a good thing. Legal precedent and all that.

-- What's on the menu at your local fish house? Pig shit, antibiotics, and a side of diarrhea. Mmmmm. That sounds almost as good as some mercury in my sushi, and a little dab of carcinogens with my Gulf seafood platter.

Think I'll have a salad, thanks. But no GM corn or HFCS dressing, please.

Currently, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as are 91 percent of soybeans and 88 percent of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products). According to industry, up to 95% of sugar beets are now GE. It has been estimated that upwards of 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves -- from soda to soup, crackers to condiments -- contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Never mind; I just lost my appetite.

2.9%

Michael Li had it last evening.

Final day of in-person early voting in SD-6 special: 975 votes cast plus 92 mail ballots. Total vote so far-8245 (2.9% of reg). 

It's difficult to see that remaining 20,000 projected voters showing up on Saturday. An abysmally low turnout aids the cause of those with the most name recognition.

Campos has been saying a lot about not saying much.

I’m not going to say much about Carol Alvarado’s opponent sending out their fifth negative mailer attacking Carol that landed in mailboxes last Friday.  That’s five in two weeks.  I can pretty much guarantee that folks won’t get another today.

I’m also not going to say much about “Viva Houston” yesterday.

His candidate couldn't get to the faceoff on Channel 13 because she was busy in Austin. That's worth saying -- or at least spinning. He seems to have conceded the race already.

I have to revise my forecast and bet Garcia and Alvarado, $2 exacta. Perhaps I should go ahead and buy a quinella ticket also. But then they wouldn't call it gambling.

More corporate cash, less transparency

Still wondering what my problem is with money and politics?

Four years ago, President Obama banned corporate and union donations from funding his first Inauguration. Not this time.

This time, the man who railed on how Citizens United would “open the floodgates for special interests” by allowing unlimited contributions from corporations and “America’s most powerful interests” ….is accepting unlimited donations to his inaugural committee from corporations. So far 20 corporations and nine unions have dropped cash on the shindig says The Hill.

Not only are the doors wide open, but the curtains are shut — from transparency, that is. Four years ago, Team Obama listed all its inaugural donors AND the amount they coughed up in a searchable database.

But this year, says the Sunlight Foundation, they only showed WHO gave. Not how much. And it’s not searchable — just a massive list. 

Four years ago, inaugural contributions were capped at $50,000. This time? Oh, don’t stop. Please don’t stop. The Presidential Inaugural Committee was offering packages for between $10,000 and $1 million — check out the invites here. 

So forgive me for not swooning at the president's lofty progressive rhetoric yesterday. A little less conversation and a little more action, please.

This development was revealed on the same weekend that protests in Austin at the Capitol (and around the country) against pesky things like Citizens United and corporate personhood went mostly unreported -- unlike the Gun Appreciation Day festivities, mind you.

Misplaced priorities much?

So as you read other things in other places about money being mother's milk and all that, just remember that only children suckle from teats. We all need to grow up and get real about what kind of politicians we want.

I would be remiss in not noting that my state Senator, Rodney Ellis, and Rep. Senfronia Thompson in the Texas House have taken the initiative in this regard. Encourage your own representatives at every level -- local, state, and federal -- to follow their lead.

Madame Mayor's re-election chances

They're pretty good. It really doesn't have all that much to do with Ben Hall, either.

"Hall is a formidable challenger but is a long shot to unseat the mayor," University of Houston political scientist Brandon Rottinghaus said in an email.

Rottinghaus noted Hall's funding capability, his vision and his qualifications but suggested that "with Parker's nationalizing profile and perceptions of her doing a good job, it is a more uphill fight."

Rottinghaus added that Parker's most formidable challenge may not be Hall, per se, but a crowded primary field that could squeeze her out of a runoff. "In a runoff, a well-funded candidate like Hall that can put the right coalition together could have a chance," he said. "This may be the model -- almost successful for Gene Locke -- that Hall is looking to create."

Uh, no. Charles is correct. The Chron could not write this story, though, without kissing the ring of the Quitter. Just. Like. Always.

Former Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt said he and (HCRP chair Jared) Woodfill discussed the possibility of him running for mayor but said his interest was predicated on the possibility that Parker may leave office early to take a position in the Obama administration, thus necessitating a special election.

"In a special election, I could see what the party chairman is pitching, because that's a low-turnout scenario that would be favorable to Republicans," he said.

Bettencourt also suggested that Hall's candidacy was based, at least initially, on the possibility that the mayor would leave office early.

"The glacier's moving," he said. "The question is, where is it going to stop?"

Quittencourt gets one thing right here: he cannot beat Annise Parker.

In fact, Parker doesn't lose unless she gets a medium-strength challenger from her left. And then a conservative, pro-business, religious African American like Hall has a chance -- but not in a head-to-head runoff against the mayor; her ground game is too strong.

See, Annise Parker is really the moderate Republicans' best choice. The only people who have supported the mayor in her previous two races that will not do so again are whatever exists of a progressive voting bloc. It might be enough of the electorate -- 10 to 15% -- to be a factor in the open primary... but it might not.

Oh, there will be one or two fringe Republican options -- a Christianist and a cut-taxes corporatist -- but neither will be named Bettencourt. It wouldn't be close; she'd whip his ass.

The rumor-mongering about Parker taking a job in the Obama administration is nothing but that. Nobody except a handful of Republicans are saying it, and they don't know what they are talking about.

The early line is on the mayor. But her odds were much better two years ago, and she nearly coughed up a big lead then. Expect there to be some kind of a Green Party/Kubosh brothers alliance as there has been over a few policy disagreements, like with the food-sharing ordinance and Parker's handling of the Occupy Houston ejection.

At this point the mayor's chances are good, but they decrease a little every day.