Last of the 2012 Wrangles

The Texas Progressive Alliance wishes everyone a safe, happy, and prosperous New Year as it brings you this week's roundup.

The filing deadline has passed for the special election in SD06, and Off the Kuff discusses the eight candidates that have filed to run in that race.

Texas' budget decisions have always been made with what is best for corporations, big business, and the wealthy at the top of the list. WCNews at Eye on Williamson says it's time we had a budget in Texas that puts the people of Texas first.  

BossKitty at TruthHugger is relieved that this years is over: Good Riddance 2012.

The race to replace the late Sen. Mario Gallegos in the Texas Senate will have eight contestants. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs prognosticates.

Neil at Texas Liberal wrote about the silly Merry Christmas bill proposed by Texas state Rep. Dwayne Bohac. If Christmas and Jesus need a boost even here in Texas, then is it really Dwayne Bohac who will be coming to the rescue?

Sunday Funnies

Eight for SD-6

Four Democrats, two Republicans, one Green, and one 'I'm not telling'.

Sylvia Garcia, Carol Alvarado, Joaquin Martinez, and real estate broker Susan Delgado (who ran third in the '08 general election as a Libertarian against Mario Gallegos) are the Ds. RW Bray and Dorothy Olmos are the Rs. Maria Selva is the G, and Rudy Reyes left the party affiliation space blank on his application.

As Charles has already pointed out, Selva has the wrong election date on her site*. Olmos needs to update her webpage for this contest (it shows her campaign for SBOE in the last cycle).

I would continue to handicap this contest with Garcia and Bray most likely to make a runoff. Garcia, for her aggressive out-of-the-gate effort and a million-dollar campaign budget; Bray for having been on SD-6 voters' ballot seven weeks ago and earning 29% in the process. That's not meant to discount the campaign of Alvarado, who has a puncher's chance against Garcia in this scrum for the second round. With 71% of Gallegos' re-election vote divided unequally among four, Bray challenged with a conservative Latina option for those so inclined, and Selva and Reyes (apparently) making an appeal to independents, the open primary will be difficult to predict.

Like all specials, this one will be about the ground game. Whoever can mobilize their supporters to turn out in 30 days will move on to February, where the Democrat is likely to prevail.

Previously...

Alvarado declares for SD-6

Sylvia Garcia jumps in 

No Noriega(s) for SD-6 *with updates

Governor finally calls SD-6 special election 

Update: Charles thinks there will be a runoff between Alvarado and Garcia. I don't necessarily disagree with his premise as I interpret it -- that conservatives don't have much reason to turn out in the first round -- but I think some of RW Bray's support in November could have come from African-American Dems crossing over to vote for one of their own. A case can be made that twenty-nine percent of a protest vote against a deceased candidate is a good thing... or a bad thing. The bottom line is that SD-6 is solidly Democratic, and they'll either send a slightly conservative one (Garcia) or a more liberal one (Alvarado) to the Senate. If both make the runoff, it's going to get brutal.

*Now corrected.

Update II (Monday 12/31): Stace has Joaquin Martinez' snapshot of the ballot positions.

Salon's media hack list

They get a few wrong -- like the Atlantic, MSNBC, and Andy Borowitz -- but generally this assembly is definitive of why you should stop watching, reading, and listening. Here, let's check #4, the Sunday Talking Heads...

Every Sunday morning, the big four broadcast networks all air their FCC-mandated “public affairs” programming, which consists of a host (a white guy) interviewing the same dozen lawmakers, journalists and pundits in a rotating order. The lawmakers are usually not the most powerful members of Congress — often they’re somewhat marginal figures in terms of influence, in fact — and the pundits and journalists all generally share the same, or very similar, worldviews. The only people I actually know who watch these things do so out of professional obligation.

But people watch these shows. Millions of people. More people watch “Meet the Press” than “The Daily Show.” Most of those people are quite old, but it’s still the case that a significant portion of the American people are learning the contours of the great public debates of our time from David Gregory interviewing Lindsey Graham.

Maybe the DC police will bust Gregory for possession of a high-capacity magazine. The frying pan/fire progression means we'd probably get Luke Russert, however.

Press the Meat is only on in my house if Rachel Maddow makes the panel, which is too rarely. I only watch Facepalm the Nation because it comes on after CBS Sunday Morning, the only thing worth watching on Sunday mornings. This Weak with George Snuffleluffagus is simply hideous. I usually go back to Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry if I need to have some chattering in the background. MSNBC's breakfast television frequently has some intelligent conversation happening.

Number One on Salon's list is Politicko. That's dead solid perfect. Now you may be asking yourself, "what about Fox"? Well, Fox no longer qualifies as media.

I considered putting off my 2013 New Year's resolutions until 2014 (because I kinda feel like being an asshole for another year) but I am most certainly going to watch less of all the above, starting yesterday.

A slow boat to nowhere

If you haven't read this New York Magazine report of the National Review's post-election cruise, it's worth every bit of your time. Here's a few excerpts to whet your tastebuds.

The whole thing was white, and broken, that much was clear. A week after the presidential election, when the dreams of Republicans were dashed with President Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney, we were snorkeling in the blue waters of the Caribbean. In the distance was a shipwreck. “You could make out the pieces of it,” said Ralph Reed, the right-wing political operator who had bolstered the Evangelical Christian vote for Romney. “It was deep and murky.”

[...]

The cruise, featuring the star columnists of William Buckley’s 57-year-old conservative biweekly, had been planned long in advance, and everybody had believed it would be a victory party. An ­e-mail from the magazine’s publisher arrived a few days before we embarked: “Do not despair or fret. At least not next week.”

Onboard the Nieuw Amsterdam, no one could follow his advice. “Who sent Obama here to destroy America?” a fiftysomething woman asked me one evening over dinner, as if it were a perfectly reasonable question. 

Just when I thought I had gotten all the schadenfreude out of my system... they pull me back in.

After drinks, we moved to the Manhattan Dining Room, an elegant two-story restaurant at the ship’s stern, where we would meet each evening, tabled with a different assortment of cruisers, sometimes hosted by writers and pundits from the National Review. Kevin Hassett, a former economic adviser to Mitt Romney, hosted my table of eight that night, arriving in a bright-green golf shirt and rimless glasses. He announced that this would be a “family” conversation in which he was the moderator. 

[...]

Hassett, with an oddly cheerful, Oh-What-My-Country-Has-Done-Now mien, predicted economic doom under Obama, the most likely scenario being another Great Depression, which would make 2008 look like a joyride.

That prompted a tall, extremely tanned blonde named Kay, from Old Greenwich, Connecticut, to ask Hassett, the co-­author of the 1999 book Dow 36,000, “So what do we do with our money?”

He recommended investing in real estate in another country, maybe in Central America somewhere. A woman to Kay’s right wrinkled her nose: How about a Western country? “Okay, if Europe is what you want, go to Poland,” he said optimistically. “Go to Krakow, buy a house for $50,000, and it’s going to be like Paris in a few years.”

As we drained the Pinot Noir, Hassett gave his audience the insider’s view of the Romney campaign, describing how its election-monitoring software crashed on November 6 and Obama was probably behind it, “because those guys are so evil.”

The table grumbled in assent.

“The thing we have to understand is, these are people who don’t have any morals,” said Hassett. “They’ll do anything. I’m one of their No. 1 targets. I mean, they really want me bad.”

“Well, you’re safe on this ship!” said Bobbie boldly.

Then Hassett pivoted to the liberal media. “I actually think that Goebbels was more critical of Hitler than the New York Times is of Obama,” said Hassett, tucking into a piece of strudel. “I was in the middle of the fight against the propaganda, and I have stories like you wouldn’t believe. These people are so evil. They’re basically Fascists. It’s unbelievable.” 

Read the whole thing. They don't get it (and they're still mad about it), and they're not ever going to get it.

Merry Christmas from a nonbeliever

T'was-the-day-before Wrangle

... and all through the blogosphere, not a creature was stirring. So here's the roundup from the best of the Texas Progressive Alliance from last week.

Off the Kuff discusses where the redistricting and voter ID lawsuits stand with the Supreme Court.

BossKitty at TruthHugger enjoyed a fiery sunrise on Apocalypse Morning. But the Sunday morning talk shows laid the cat's ears back in anger; she has a few NRA Whack-A-Mole Questions.
 
WCNews at Eye on Williamson says that Rick Perry and the wingnuts' latest privatization scheme to be exposed is just the latest instance of the scam that's always been there for everyone to see.

The legal and moral justification for homophobia, as expressed by Father and Son Scalia, is relayed by PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants you to know that the odious Aaron Peña is an official sellout and Rick Perry is no longer universally loved by the Tea Party.

With Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina set to become the fifth Black post-reconstruction U.S. Senator, Neil at Texas Liberal posted photos and links about Mr. Scott and the four who came before him.

The legal and moral justification for homophobia

As related to us by the Scalias, Antonin and his son Paul. First, the father...

Now that the Supreme Court will be weighing in on the issue of same-sex marriage, the Justices’ biases on the basic principles of sexual orientation are under scrutiny — none perhaps moreso than Justice Antonin Scalia. Recently, he defended his comparison between homosexuality and murder, arguing simply that either can be morally condemned. He obtusely couldn’t understand why the gay Princeton student who asked the question wasn’t convinced by his response.

More on this exchange.

The quotations from Scalia opinions that so dismayed  Princeton freshman Duncan Hosie all referred to homosexual conduct. For example, in a 1996 case the majority of the court held that voters in Colorado had exhibited “animus” toward gays by making it impossible for the state or municipalities to pass laws protecting them from discrimination. Scalia responded: “I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct."   In his dissent Scalia did refer to “homosexuals” (he assiduously avoided the word “gay” except in quoted material), but he used that term interchangeably with “those who engage in homosexual conduct.”

And what of the notion of "sexual orientation"? Scalia did acknowledge in his Colorado opinion that such a thing might exist. For example, he wrote that it was permissible for states to criminalize homosexual conduct  (as it was in 1996) "surely it is rational to deny special favor and protection to those with a self avowed tendency or desire to engage in the conduct. In the next sentence he suggests that "'homosexual-orientation' is an acceptable stand-in for homosexual conduct."

And now the son.

Insights into Scalia’s understanding of homosexuality (or lack thereof) can perhaps be found through his son, Rev. Paul Scalia, a Catholic priest in Arlington, Virginia. The younger Scalia has worked with the Church’s Courage ministry, which promotes “chastity” for gay Catholics using principles from ex-gay therapy. He has also spoken openly on the topic, and though he’s proven quite capable of reiterating the Church’s anti-gay teachings, a 2005 article reveals just how distorted the family’s view on homosexuality may be.

You need to go on over there, or you can click this link. Once you have taken in as much of that as you can stomach, continue here.

Contrast  the Scalias’ approach to this passage in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the 2003 case of Lawrence vs. Texas, which overturned a Texas law against same-sex sodomy. Kennedy wrote:  “The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” Some gay activists blanched at Kennedy’s use of the term “homosexual lifestyle,” but applauded his larger point: that what was at issue was the lives of gays and lesbians, not isolated sexual acts.

Scalia dissented in that case, too, arguing that Texas’ sodomy law “seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are 'immoral and unacceptable' — the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity."

The conventional interpretation of  Scalia’s opinions in gay-rights cases is that he doesn’t like gays; but maybe the more accurate gloss is that he doesn’t believe they exist -- except when they are engaging in (or thinking about) "immoral and unacceptable" sexual acts.

And then finish at the original with this.

For the Scalias, moral condemnation of homosexuality is just assumed, and the consequences of that judgment are par for the course. The consequences of family rejection for LGBT youth have been thoroughly documented, but for these men, rejecting “homosexual inclination” takes priority. Rev. Scalia relies on genetic uncertainty to conclude that homosexuality is not a “fixed, inborn orientation,” even though science does not doubt that is exactly how sexual orientation presents, regardless of its causes. He seeks to reject people for something that is wholly part of who they are and how they will lead their lives, ignoring that such an approach unquestioningly deprives them of life’s most basic sources of happiness and support: a loving partner and the opportunity to raise a family.

The phenomenon of “coming out” only exists because a culture that shuns homosexuality has demanded gay invisibility. The concept of “gay pride” came about not as flamboyant flaunting, but to counter the expectation of “gay shame.” These unique aspects to gay identities reflect the consequences of condemnation, not an impetus for them. Moral condemnation is not inherent; in the court of law, it must be justified beyond tradition and religious belief. Unfortunately, it seems Justice Scalia is not interested in such intellectual justice.

So by my reading, homosexuality -- according to the Scalias -- is an 'urge', i.e. a choice; since it is a sin against God's law it is also a sin against man's; and no serious thinker can disagree with that. (It is worth noting that no less serious a thinker than Gore Vidal advanced a similar premise, albeit without the moral judgment.)

These religious interpretations, followed by constructing premises based upon the foundation of conservative Christian values -- dogma, in other words -- is what leads to less serious thinkers saying things like "Life is God's gift to women, and so by extension is a fertilized egg as byproduct of rape or incest."

When science is dismissed in favor of faith, the rationale for any argument collapses. But the comforting fallback for those less serious thinking folks is always some version of 'what does the Bible say'. This makes as much sense to me as watching one television news network, one which only reinforces your prevailing point of view, never engaging one in critical thinking, never prompting a question as to whether the thoughts involved might be misguided.

The very definition and practice of ignorance (and a few other things).

Sunday Funnies

"Today House Speaker John Boehner struck back with his plan to cut spending by demanding Obama come up with Boehner's plan to cut spending."

-- Stephen Colbert

"The U.S. Census Bureau says that by the year 2043 white people will be in the minority in the United States. By that time, the country will be 15 percent black, 31 percent Hispanic, and 1 percent Republican." 

-- Jay Leno

The powerful delusions of Wayne LaPierre

As I suspected, he didn't disappoint. I'm now convinced that the head of the NRA couldn't pass a mental health background check to purchase a firearm.

Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association will forever now be known as America’s maddest gunman.

 In style and substance, his performance Friday in delivering his organization’s response to the Newtown massacre revealed the obsessive, lunatic paranoia behind its worship of firearms.

A week after a gunman armed with an assault rifle murdered 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, and ever so shortly after the bells there tolled for the dead, LaPierre lashed out at everyone and everything but the weapons that were used to kill.

Still worse, in his arrogance and in his sense that terrible forces are out to get him, LaPierre was callous to the raw agony of the families of the slain. The hell with them — he made clear that he will fight to maintain the easy availability of assault weaponry of the kind that killed their kids.

He said at least four things that could easily be applied to himself and the NRA members and anybody else that agrees with him.

1. "[O]ur society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them."

2. "How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave."

3. "There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people."

4. "Isn't fantasizing about killing people as away to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?"

Even people who grew up with guns -- a West Texas Girl, in this case -- understand what the problem is. The polling bears this out. Americans want calm, serious regulations on firearms. Hyperventilating about the second half of the Second Amendment is stunted psychologically and thus increasingly threatening and dangerous -- a description that sadly fits the Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza.

Let's disregard the ludicrousness of LaPierre's call for armed guards in schools. Unless the NRA will be funding the mandate -- or Grover Norquist concedes a tax increase -- there's no money for it; we can't even afford enough teachers as it is (we're broke, remember?). Houston ISD already has police in schools here, and a small town in North Texas has been arming its teachers for the last five years. Columbine had an armed guard; it's obvious how effective that turned out to be. Evidence also indicates that children don't feel safe as a result and the crime deterrent is negligible.

That fever dream onstage yesterday was the result of a week spent in self-imposed isolation. LaPierre blamed everything he could think of (video games, Oliver Stone movies, the media) for the carnage in Newtown -- but not the mall shooting a few days before, and not the gun deaths since. We got an unwelcome glimpse into the mind of the man who has more Congresscritters by the short hairs than Norquist. The mind of a lunatic.

The only person's guns I want taken away right this instant are Wayne LaPierre's. He's clearly unstable.

Update: LaPierre a "lobbyist for mass murderers" and "a desperate, cornered rat".

And I feel fine.

My-Wayan Apocalypse

Cry it out, bitch.

In a stinging setback for Republican House Speaker John Boehner, a lack of support from inside his own party for his “fiscal cliff” fall-back plan forced him late Thursday to cancel a much-trumpeted vote on the measure.

“The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass,” Boehner said in a written statement released after an emergency meeting of House Republicans.

The measure, dubbed “Plan B,” would have let Bush-era tax cuts expire on income above $1 million annually, while extending them for everyone else. It appeared that Boehner faced a rebellion from conservatives opposed to any tax hike, while House Democrats starved the bill of their support, making passage impossible.

Dude's probably up to four packs a day. Fiscal Slip-n-Slide, here we come!

Boehner’s dramatic defeat cast fresh doubt on efforts to avert the “fiscal cliff” and spare Americans across-the-board income tax hikes come Jan. 1. Those increases, coupled with deep automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect the same day, could plunge the fragile economy into a new recession. Talks between the speaker and President Barack Obama were at a stalemate, according to aides on both sides.

After the cancellation of the vote, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced on Twitter the House "has concluded legislative business for the week. The House will return after the Christmas holiday when needed."

Merry Christmas Happy Holidays, Republicans. Hope Santa drops a lump of coal in your stocking.

Update: Upon further review, this might be the rending asunder of the GOTP we've all been waiting for...

Plan B fiasco leaves GOP lost, divided, and weak

As a simple matter of arithmetic, if House Republicans aren't prepared to follow their own leadership and support a list of right-wing goodies, Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership must realize that the road to 218 votes runs through the Democratic caucus -- if the Speaker can't pass a bill with his own side's support, he's going to need Nancy Pelosi's help.

Since Boehner has already deliberately blown up his talks with the White House, it will be very tough for the Speaker to give Obama a sheepish call, saying, "Maybe we can give this another shot?" The more likely scenario is that the president will have to quickly begin a very different set of discussions: finding a bill that can generate bipartisan support in the Senate, satisfies Pelosi and House Dems, and can generate the support of a couple dozen House Republicans.

All of this will have to happen, of course, over the course of about 10 days -- two of which are Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

Last night, House GOP leaders also announced they're leaving town, possibly to return next week. After last night, there was no real point in them sticking around, anyway.

Scarborough chides fellow GOPers: ‘Extreme’ stances led to worst ‘disarray’ since Nixon resignation

“I want my Republican brothers and sisters who have taken exception to some of the things I’ve said over the past year about us going in the wrong direction as a party — offending swing voters, offending the middle class — I want you to look at those numbers and just breathe them in,” Scarborough said. The party is in a “sorry state,” he added.

He then went on to hit Republican leaders for their “complete, utter silence” on key issues following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. He asked: Is this the party of assault weapons or lower taxes? Contraception wars or balanced budgets?

“This party has painted itself into an extreme corner by going down all these various rabbit trails that have nothing to do with our core of who we are as a party of small government,” Scarborough argued. “I can’t think of any time the Republican Party, my Republican Party, has been in such disarray — since 1974 after Richard Nixon resigned.”