Sunday Funnies

Saturday Shorts

This is why people don't believe me when I tell them I've lived in Texas all of my life (except for a calendar year in Florida).  Putting mine on again as the weather warms a little, and posting them here because the time to blog is still too tight.

-- Ted Cruz understands the philosophy of the great Roman orators about as clearly as he comprehends net neutrality.  That, or he's a fraud.  I think it's both.

To adapt Cicero’s “Against Catiline” to his contemporary context, Cruz tweaked and replaced many of Cicero’s words and phrases. The speech becomes more disturbing when one considers the words Cruz writes over—what classical scholars and papyrologists call palimpsests. For the well-trained reader, lurking beneath Cruz’s already inflammatory words are suggestions that Obama, Cruz’s modern-day Catiline, “should long ago have been led to execution,” marks members of the Senate for death, and seeks “to destroy the whole world with fire and slaughter.” Dangerous words indeed.

Let’s return to that line about Obama openly desiring “to destroy the Constitution and this Republic.” Cruz positions himself as the defender of the Constitution, the state, and—by extension in our American context—democracy. But Cicero was no proponent of popular sovereignty. In “On the Republic (De re publica),” Cicero describes the lower classes as “insane” and very explicitly blames the decline of Athenian power on its democracy. Through his spokesperson Scipio, Cicero offers that “these democratic pleaders do not understand the nature or importance of a well–constituted aristocracy.” Cicero vehemently advocates for maintaining a rigid class system and for restricting the access of the lower classes to the political process. Cicero allied himself with the “Optimates” (“Best Men”), who wished to preserve the aristocracy’s power by limiting the powers of popular assemblies.

Is Cicero really the best symbol to defend our Constitution? The next time Senator Cruz feels inspired to deliver a public reading on the Senate floor, he might be on safer ground if he returns to reciting Dr. Seuss.

-- HPD or NSA?  How about neither one?

A recent report by Jace Larson at KPRC-TV confirmed the long-speculated but unestablished practice of HPD using technology that can spy on cellphones without needing a warrant. The device in question, called a StingRay, mimics a cellphone tower and tricks phones into connecting through it. This allows police to look at the metadata from any nearby cellphone, like who you call or text and where you travel throughout the day. And without a warrant, there is little way to stop police from looking at innocent bystanders alongside suspected criminals.

Our police department has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on hardware, software and training from Harris Corporation, which makes the StingRay device. HPD has asked for an additional $80 million in funds for its already-bloated budget; over the last decade HPD has seen its budget grow from $468 million to $722 million, and that doesn't include the cost of the crime lab and neighborhood protection departments. Meanwhile, HPD has actually lost more than 100 officers in that time.

City Hall needs to ask whether HPD is blowing its budget on these sorts of constitutionally questionable practices. Only two local police departments in Texas -- Houston and Fort Worth -- have these cellphone trackers, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Why does Houston find this technology necessary to fight crime and not, say, Dallas or San Antonio? Easy access to military hardware has folks worried about the militarization of police, but now it seems we need to worry about the police acting like the National Security Agency, as well. Like small town officers running around in tanks, HPD has yet to provide evidence that its gadgets add any value to police work besides threatening the civilians they're supposed to protect.

Texas' own Court of Criminal Appeals has held that citizens should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their cellphones. HPD's technological trickery shouldn't be a loophole to the Fourth Amendment.

Dozens of Texas legislators cosponsored a bill last session to end this sort of warrantless wiretapping, but it never made it to the governor's desk. The next legislative session is just around the corner, so tell your elected officials to guarantee that our 21st century police don't get to act like it is 1984. 

-- Speaking of spying, here's one really simple way to stop it.

Water, water everywhere and not a drop for the premier National Security Agency data collection center—if one conservative lawmaker gets his way.

Not only is Utah the second driest state in the nation, it’s also home to the largest NSA data collection facility. Located in the Salt Lake City suburb Bluffdale, the Utah Data Center guzzles up to 1 million gallons of water each day to cool its computers, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

Cutting off the NSA’s water supply could effectively throw a wrench into the agency’s work collecting domestic phone and email records—and that’s just what Republican state Rep. Marc Roberts wants to do. His bill would force the city to “refuse material support or assistance to any federal data collection and surveillance agency.” That would mean no more cheap water to aid mass domestic spying, a regular practice unveiled by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden last year.

-- The assholishness of Uber is still news.

Uber is part of an increasing trend towards the casualisation of labour. This means fewer full time jobs, uncertain hours, less income, and less regulation. Recruiting a workforce from the sharing economy is a way companies can shift significant costs from themselves to employees, and to society more broadly.

-- Hide the children from their schoolbooks.

Christian conservatives win, children lose: Texas textbooks will teach public school students that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the Bible, and the American system of democracy was inspired by Moses.

On Friday the Republican-controlled Texas State Board of Education voted along party lines 10-5 to approve the biased and inaccurate textbooks. The vote signals a victory for Christian conservatives in Texas, and a disappointing defeat for historical accuracy and the education of innocent children.

The textbooks were written to align with instructional standards that the Board of Education approved back in 2010 with the explicit intention of forcing social studies teaching to adhere to a conservative Christian agenda. The standards require teachers to emphasize America’s so called “Christian heritage.”

In essence, Christian conservatives in Texas have successfully forced a false historical narrative into public school textbooks that portray Moses as an influence on the Constitution and the Old Testament as the root of democracy.

Critics called the whole process into question after publishers posted a number of last-minute changes to the textbooks yesterday, leaving board members and observers without time to figure out exactly what was in the approved texts.

According to reports, scholars did not have an opportunity to review and comment on the numerous changes publishers have submitted since the last public hearing. Some of those changes appeared to have been negotiated with state board members behind closed doors.

You have to tip your hat to the tenacious patience of the Godniks and Jeebus freaks; they pursued a long-term strategy of taking over the SBOE and it's paying off at last for them.   On the other hand, the Romans probably had the right idea re: lions and Christians.

It's time like this when I wish Obama had the resolve to do to the Talibaptists what he's doing once more to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

'Pass a bill'

In a move that infuriated his Republican critics and drew unspecified pledges to counter it, Obama said nearly all undocumented people living in the country for more than five years and who have a child who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident can apply for a three-year work authorization.

The president also broadened the program he launched in 2012 that provides temporary residency to young undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States before the age of 16.

"There are actions I have the legal authority to take as president -- the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before me -- that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just," Obama said in a 15-minute speech broadcast from the White House.

The order will affect about 44 percent of the 11.3 million people -- mostly from Mexico and Central America -- living in the United States illegally and doing menial jobs that most Americans snub.

"Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law?" he asked.

But he quickly stressed that the sweeping order, the most comprehensive immigration step in years, "does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive.

"Only Congress can do that," he added. "All we're saying is we're not going to deport you."

Obama's executive order shifts US policy from a dragnet approach to all illegal immigrants to a focus on deporting convicted felons and those who pose a danger to society.

[...]

"If you're a criminal, you'll be deported. If you plan to enter the US illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up," he said.

Not really seeing why the Republicans are so mad about this.

"To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: pass a bill." [...] "I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary."

Update: Thank goodness; an explainer.

And what are their alternatives? Impotent rage? A government shutdown? A slow-moving lawsuit? A disastrous impeachment effort? A solemn vow that whatever damage Obama does to the constitutional order, Republicans will double it when they retake the White House? All of these are likelier to wound the GOP than Obama. None of these are likely to benefit the party in 2016. And none of them solve the underlying problem.

Nor does continued confusion around immigration help Republicans. Just ask Mitt Romney, who tried to split the difference between restrictionists and reformers by endorsing "self-deportation". That worked well enough that Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, came out after the election to make clear that "it's not our party's position." But that's only because his party doesn't have a position.

That, really, is Obama's advantage right now. Even if you think he's going too far, he at least wants to solve the problem. Republicans don't seem to want to do anything except stop Obama from solving the problem. That's not a winning position. More to the point, it's not a responsible one.

Who's having the worst week?

-- Bill Cosby or Uber?  I say it's a tie.  Vote in the comments if you like.

-- I am refusing to pay much attention to 2016 presidential jockeying, but if you're not like me and want a much-too-early tell for what the GOP is in store for, then here are two articles you can read today.  A prominent local Republican I had lunch with post-election indicated that former governors are at the top of his list, and named Scott Walker specifically.

Jim Webb announced (that he's just, you know, exploring) yesterday.  Because there is a huge unrepresented constituency to the right of Hillary Clinton that the Democrats will need in order to hold the White House in 2016: conservative suburban, exurban, and rural white males who favor the military above all else.

That might be sarcasm; you decide.  Now you know why I ain't paying much attention.

-- The media keep making themselves the story.  This is really getting stale.

-- Leticia Van de Putte will run for mayor of San Antonio, spoiling the hopes of former state Rep. Mike Villarreal, who's already resigned his seat in the Texas House.  It also sets off a scrum for her Texas Senate chair; running first in speculative replacements is TMF.  There's a special election scheduled three weeks from now to replace Jethro Bodine Glenn Hegar in SD-BFE, and taking the early lead there is state representative Lois Kochwhore Kolkhorst.  (Sorry, that was mean.)  Can she out-crook this guy?  Some country gal is already running for K's House seat.

Update (10/22): Turns out Villarreal did not resign, technically (see his letter saying he will 'decline to assume the office').  As QR notes, he may be able re-assume his place in the Texas House.  He's saying he will not, FWIW.  But another GOP House member has quit to work for Archie Bunker Sid Miller at Ag, so there will be one more HD special election called at some point.

Now you know why I haven't posted about the makeup of the next Lege yet.  Not much left in the way of breaking news; far right moves farther right, same as with our Washington representation.  Plenty of time to take a look at that, probably after Thanksgiving and maybe after all these special elections.

-- Ben Hall is running for mayor of Houston once more, and has gotten busy destroying his credibility all over again.  I thought rich people were supposed to be smart.

I got nothing else.  Still recovering from the latest (and extremely powerful) version of The Crud, and still need to close out my books for 2014.  Talk amongst yourselves in the comments.