Sunday Funnies

Weems captures DMN endorsement

The Dallas News got it completely wrong in the agriculture commissioner's race (after all, they endorsed Kinky in the March primary, so what could you expect?) but they got it right in the railroad commissioner's contest.

Seldom do we run into a first-time candidate for any office and wonder why that person hasn't already been elected to the job. But that's how impressed this newspaper is with Democrat Jeff Weems, who is seeking election to the Texas Railroad Commission.

The 52-year-old Houston attorney would be ready on Day One to make a significant contribution, which is why we strongly recommend him for the three-member panel.

His understanding of the industry shows. He can talk chapter and verse about energy issues, which the oddly named Railroad Commission oversees. And he is a sharp contrast to some candidates who shoot for the commission on their way to a higher post.

This newspaper also supports Weems because of the balanced view he articulates. He understands the importance of oil and gas production to the state's economy and, for example, doesn't favor a moratorium on Barnett Shale natural gas production.

We also agree with him that the Railroad Commission can't leave a void for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to fill when it comes to monitoring the practices of natural gas extraction. As an example, he wants producers to tell the commission what chemicals are in the fluids they use to unlock the gas from the Barnett Shale geological formation. Those trade secrets would be sealed but would still allow the commission to know, for environmental reasons, what goes into the hydraulic fracturing that companies use to extract the gas.

Weems wants the commission to be more aggressive in lobbying the Legislature about its goals. We particularly like his idea of limiting fundraising for this quasi-judicial post to selected times during a commissioner's six-year term. He would curtail fundraising shortly after a commissioner's election until essentially the member's next election cycle.

These are just some of the many examples of Weems' smart and thoughtful views. His opponent, Republican David Porter of Midland, filled out our questionnaire, but the 54-year-old CPA neither showed up for an interview alongside Weems nor returned a call seeking a phone interview. Roger Gary is running as a Libertarian, and Art Browning is running as a Green Party candidate.

Weems and Porter are competing for an open seat, so voters would be well-served to take the time to distinguish between these candidates and dig deeper than sound bites. Weems clearly has the qualifications – and then some – to bring common-sense leadership to this influential commission.

Weems' Republican challenger really is just as weird and unqualified as the DMN discovered. Weems is the only sensible choice for the Texas Railroad Commission.

Update: The Houston Chronic follows suit.

Can you pick out the gay soldier?

Antediluvian

I always appreciate a piece of writing that sends me to the dictionary.

extremely primitive or outmoded <an antediluvian prejudice>

... Rachel Maddow has it exactly right. It was confirmed today for all to see. The Republicans absolutely will not allow a vote to get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We know why. Here's an example from what passes for a U.S. Senator in Georgia:

[The armed forces should] exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion. In my opinion, the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would very likely create an unacceptable risk to those high standards. [It will lead to] alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art. If we change this rule of 'Don't Ask, Dont Tell,' what are we going to do with these other rules?

The homophobic Senate dinosaurs like Chambliss who cling to these pathetic antediluvian views are, as Maddow so perfectly showed, out of step with the majority of rank-and-file Democrats, Independents and Republicans, who all want an end to this harmful policy that endangers our national security, ruins careers and violates civil rights of Americans as surely as the segregated military of 1948 and earlier violated civil rights.

Yes, DADT endangers our national security by -- among other reasons --  expelling Arabic-speaking specialists from the ranks of the service.

Who's anti-American now? Who's not supporting the troops now? And the best objection the Republican senators can come up with is "we didn't get to add all of our amendments"?!?

That year, President Harry Truman, having been prodded into action by the vicious 1946 murder of two African-American veterans and their wives in Monroe, Georgia -- the last public lynching in the country --  chose to desegregate the military by executive order instead of waiting for legislation from Congress.

Even as the Pentagon works on its study of a possible change in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it discharges gays and lesbians, including men and women for whom the military is a career, as part of its continuing witch-hunt. This will continue until somebody commands it to stop. There is a commander who can do that, a man who now sits where Harry Truman once did, a man who has said repeatedly in the clearest possible language that he opposes DADT and wants to see it ended.

After the Senate's inaction today, Maddow said:

The White House could decide right now -- tonight -- to stop implementation of this policy pending the military's review.  The right wants a culture war against gay people?  In 2010, that's a war anti-gay politicians lose and pro-civil rights politicians win.

Does the White House leave that on the table and walk away?  Or do they try to win?  Do they do well politically by doing what they say is right for the country?  Do they do it?  What happens next?

This would constitute no end run around the military's review of DADT. It would not violate the separation of powers. It would merely do the right thing until Congress makes it official: stopping the discharge of women and men who have signed up to serve our country by wearing the uniforms of our armed forces. Men and women with talent and skills and millions of dollars in specialized training who willingly risk their lives in the name of America. Some call such people patriots. Not, of course, chickenhawks like Saxby Chambliss, who launched his Senate career with cowardly disses of another patriot, Max Cleland.

Republicans proved once again Tuesday that they have no intention of working with their counterparts across the aisle. They do not believe, as Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike McMullen believes, as President Obama believes, and as most of the American people believe, that civil rights should apply to everyone equally. And they never will. Eventually, they will lose their retrograde attempts to keep the old rules and their twisted prejudices in place. In the meantime, the President has the authority to end a discharge policy that weakens national security and divides people between those who have full civil rights and those who do not. It's the right decision.

All of your Republican senators -- and the two so-called Democrats from Arkansas (Harry Reid voted 'no' so that he may recall the vote later) -- voted in favor of denying the military funding authorization, against the DREAM Act, against DADT -- because they (falsely) claimed they weren't allowed to participate to their fullest happiness in a procedural matter involving the legislation.

All. of the Republicans. in the Senate.

You want more of this? Vote Republican.