Thursday, May 29, 2014

Some more thoughts on political courage

After my short rant added to the bottom of last evening's post about who has stones on Houston's city council and who doesn't (not surprisingly, the ones that don't are mostly men and mostly white, but the one thing they all have in common is 'conservative'), I thought it valuable to connect that observation with the state of play in Texas five months away from our statewide elections.

Doing the right thing is, as bluntly as it needs to be said, what conservative Republicans just don't understand about governing.  There is no 'my way or the highway' attitude that produces good governance.  From Ted Cruz to Dan Patrick and at every bus stop on their route, Texas stands again at a precipice.   We're conducting the nation's most dangerous political experiment, and it's about to blow up the laboratory.

The real problem, as we know, is that the 95% of Texans who couldn't be bothered to participate in selecting the state's leaders in 2014 are going to suffer the worst effects of the explosion and meltdown.  They don't seem to care though, so why should we?

Because it is critical that someone care, that's why.  If all around you there are men making comfortable livings from carbon extraction who deny the effects of their work on the planet's climate, it takes courage to stand up and say, "we need to stop doing that".  And work toward alternatives.

This is why there remains significant activist opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, even though tar sands oil is already being refined now in Houston and Port Arthur (because the oil was shipped by rail from Alberta to Cushing, and is now flowing through the southern leg of the pipeline to the refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast).  Even though transporting tar sands oil by pipeline is probably safer than shipping it by rail.  The part that the majority of the polled public doesn't understand is that no matter how many jobs KXL creates, it's not worth it.  There are no jobs on a dead planet.

You cannot whine about the federal debt's deleterious effects on the lives of your children and grandchildren and simultaneously deny global warming.  That is moronic.

If the Earth's 'Goldilocks zone' only has a few hundred years left, if we have passed the tipping point for halting the collapse of the Arctic ice shelf and the corresponding rise in sea levels and monster hurricanes and tornados and drought, then the easiest out would be to say, 'it's gonna happen anyway, I'll just pray for God's help and make as much money as I can as we go down the tubes".  There is nothing strong, or bold, or courageous about that option.

It takes actual courage to for someone to sign a petition banning fracking in their community when their neighbors are all cashing out (and moving out).  It takes political fortitude to vote your conscience over your political longevity, and most certainly over your bank account.

As we continue to learn, however, conservatives have mostly squashed their consciences.  "We oppose Medicaid expansion on principle even though millions of people will die because of it."  "Round 'em all up and send 'em back because they're moochers and freeloaders".   (Notice I left out the racist parts.)

This is the opposite of courage, as nearly everybody understands.  In fact it's just garden variety fear and xenophobia, stimulated by ignorance, amplified by its own arrogance.  And as we already know, fear is one of the primary voters of human behavior.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, as some wise whatever-he-was once said.  That's where Texas is, and where it digs itself deeper.  Unless some relatively small number of Texans who care enough can find the will and the courage to change it.

The Thomas Piketty affair

If you haven't been following the action -- Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-First Century has roiled the country and even the world with its conclusions about wealth and inequality as well as its suggested remedies, the Financial Times has responded calling bullshit, their claims of manipulated economic data have been mostly dismissed -- then Matt Bai's five-minute primer is a great place to catch up.

The Economist also has a decent four-paragraph summary of the book and the responses to it.

Krugman if you want to go longer and deeper.

If I wanted to hold Hillary Clinton to account in 2016 for anything at all, it would be "raise taxes in the first two years of your first term, when you have a Democratic majority".  That assumes we all survive the revolution that breaks out when the Republicans begin impeaching Obama in 2015 after they retake the Senate.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Houston's ERO approved by city council on 11-6 vote

ThinkProgress was first, Tweeting out their story moments after the vote was final.

After many hours of testimony from over 200 speakers, the Houston City Council voted 11-6 to approve the Equal Rights Ordinance, which creates nondiscrimination protections for many classes, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Houston was one of the only large cities in the country that had no municipal nondiscrimination policy.

It was not without exchanged threats of electoral retaliation, ridiculous statements by those in opposition, and many other dramatic and absurd moments.

During the debate, supporters of the bill spoke to alliances across groups, noting how the ordinance would protect following identity classifications: sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, and pregnancy. Opponents argued that the protections would impose on religious beliefs, forcing individuals to violate their own religious beliefs by serving, as an example, a marrying same-sex couple. They also asked that the ordinance be put to a city-wide vote instead of being approved by the Council.

CM Michael Kubosh -- whom I recently praised as a reasonable man -- reverted to social conservative form.  He backtracked on his statement that God had placed him on council to vote against the ordinance, he declared his ignorance on the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity, and generally disgraced himself.  He was one of the six 'no' votes.  The remaining five dissenters were Brenda Stardig, Dave Martin, Oliver Pennington, Jack Christie, and in the day's most shameful profile in cowardice, Dwight Boykins.

I'll add some other reactions in later updates.

Update:  Boykins, the lone Democrat among the noes, used the two-week hiatus to let the African American pastors and their shared constituents scare him away from voting for equality.  By contrast, council members Jerry Davis and Larry Green were steadfast in turning back the forces of hate.  Both men said their re-election bids would be heartily challenged if they voted in favor of the ordinance; Davis quoted Malcolm X, while Green noted there are some things "bigger than myself".




These men get it.  You're elected to public office to serve all of the people, and not just the will of the majority of those who voted for you.  If doing the right thing means you lose the next election, that's how politics works sometimes.

What courage is required to vote 'no' on another person's civil rights?  To vote against a city ordinance that says we won't treat some people as less human than we do others?  When the only semi-rational justification boils down to "I'm afraid I might burn in hell"?

Yesterday at City Hall was nut-cutting time for a few people, and they didn't pass the test.

Update: Hair Balls recorded some of the reactions outside council chambers, which were about as Fellini-esque as it gets.  Not just in Houston, but anywhere in the world.