Kenneth Kendrick: the best choice for Texas Agriculture Commissioner

To tell the truth, he's the only rational choice on your ballot in November.

So you might suspect that I am a little biased.  I have been getting to know Kenneth for some time now, and as the Republican and Democratic primaries produced two of the absolute worst candidates for statewide office in recent memory, now is a good time for considerate, thinking Texans to take stock of their options.

Kendrick has undergone some of the usual -- as well as unusual -- circumstances that befall public whistleblowers.  He's the fellow who revealed the salmonella charades going on at Peanut Corporation of America's facilities in Plainview, Texas and Blakely, Georgia.  As that case finally went to trial this week, here's the latest from Lubbock's KAMC (video at link).

The trial is a relief to people like Kenneth Kendrick, who feel wronged by PCA's actions. Kendrick was a former employee turned whistleblower who tried to expose the company in 2006.

"I had worked there as production planner and assistant manager." He said. " I only stayed four months for obvious reasons. Was asked to falsify documents and do things I was not comfortable with and I blocked it."

Kendrick described the horrible conditions of the Plainview plant saying that there were "holes in the wall that let mice in" and "leaky roofs -- (they) don't want to spend the money to fix it -- bird droppings were being washed in.

Kenneth and I spoke recently about his campaign for Commissioner of Texas Agriculture.

================

What motivated you to run for this office?

After getting some notoriety as a whistleblower against PCA, I hit the lecture circuit of a sort; speaking to students at universities and conferences about the experience. Nine people died from salmonella poisoning across the country, and 700 were made ill.  The Texas Department of Agriculture, under Commissioner Todd Staples, had certified the Plainview plant for organic processing three separate times even though they were not registered with the Department of State Health Services.  They had no license to operate, yet were certified for safety!

Three years after my reporting it, Texas still had done nothing to investigate my claims of poor health practices by the company.   I made up my mind that no person -- no child, no adult -- should ever have to suffer or die because of corporate ineptitude or greed.

Just yesterday, it was reported that the nationwide cyclospora outbreak includes more than half of the reported cases in Texas!  We still have tremendous food safety problems in Texas and nothing has been done, nor likely will be done if the Republican or Democrat is elected.

What are your top issues and your plans for addressing them?

1) We want food safety and GMO labeling, working in conjunction with the DSHS, to make Texas the safest place in the United States to buy food and food products, increasing our economic viability. There is no harm in consumers having all the information possible when buying food. This will require the Texas Department of Agriculture to be restructured to have more inspectors on the ground, and a direct connection with other agencies as a top priority when safety issues outside the Department are noted.

2) Safe water and more aggressive conservation methods, along with the use of renewable energy.  Fracking is not the answer given our state's water shortages.  Too many rural towns already have warnings that their water does not meet minimum standards to drink.  Wichita Falls is already recycling waste water.  In West Texas there are lots of wind generators already, and room for plenty more.  Texas is becoming a leader in renewable energy, and we must continue to do more.  Less water used for fracking and electricity generation means more water for Texas farms and cities.

3) Holding corporations accountable. As I have said many times, we the people are fined and arrested when we break the law, but corporations are just told to get into compliance, as has been shown with 355 unlicensed facilities that broke the law. Instead of just a compliance warning, these companies should have at least been fined... just like people.

4) There are virtually no fines that have been handed out to pest control companies (and they fall under the Department of Agriculture) that break the law. We have regulations in place, but no enforcement.

5) And legal protection for whistleblowers who report in good faith those who break the law!

What sets you apart from your opponents?

My Democratic opponent Jim Hogan -- well, if anyone knew anything about where he stands I could respond, but I do not see much of anything out there.  I guess taking no position on anything is good enough to get you the Democratic nomination?

No website?  No Facebook page?  He refuses to give interviews for the most part and runs away from Democrats and the Texas Democratic Party like it's the plague.  What sets me apart from a blank slate?  I feel comfortable letting the voters decide that one.

My Republican opponent, Sid Miller, helped cut $64 million from Planned Parenthood and sponsored the sonogram bill.  And the Agriculture Commissioner has what to do with this?  Here's a quote from his website: "An avid rancher and hunter, Sid Miller believes in the Constitutional right to bear arms".  Does the Agriculture Commissioner get a vote on gun legislation?  I don't think so.  Let's stick to the issues relevant to the office!  I am the only candidate in the race for Agriculture Commissioner talking about the issues relevant to agriculture in Texas... that is, if you don't count my Libertarian opponent, Rocky Palmquist, taking over Kinky Friedman's advocacy for marijuana legalization.  But you won't find that on his website, since all it says is 'coming soon'.

In keeping with the tenets of the Green Party, I have taken zero donations from corporations (such as Monsanto).  My campaign is true grassroots, for the people.  I owe no one.

What's the best way for people wanting to help your campaign to get in touch?

I have FB page, web page and a direct #.

https://www.facebook.com/kendrickforAgCommish

www.kendrickfortexas.com 

806-800-1021

Paypal address is kkendrick41 at gmail dot com.  Please mark it as political donation, and leave your name, address, phone, and occupation (this information is needed for the Texas Ethics Commission). They make it difficult for a 3rd party candidate without a full time treasurer to run (go figure, Texas would never do that, right?)

======================

Make you own choice for Ag Commish, readers.  Trust me, I have.

Uber, Lyft decision coming

Today's the day... maybe. The Examiner explains that only the amendments or a substitute ordinance are taggable, and like them I would say that's likely to be the case.

Update (7/31):  As we suspected.  Lots of detail on the proposed changes.

So, to recap...

Charles' post from Monday is a good update that sets the field for this afternoon's vote, filled with linkage worth clicking.  CM Stephen Costello took the 'pro' in the TribTalk faceoff, with Noah at Texpate taking the 'con'.  For deep background, my two-part series from a year ago (Part I and Part II) are among the most clicked posts here, and make the top five on the front page at Google for "Uber Houston".

Uber and Lyft have been going rogue in Houston for some time, which IMHO pees on their prospects for today. They also recently got stung locally, which has the Texas Department of Insurance yellow-flagging them.

And that's where I'll begin, with my experiences last month in Dallas with UberX and two cab companies (Yellow and Executive). When I decided to do this I wanted the experience to be as bias-free as I could make it; if I used the Houston services I might encounter someone I knew, for just one example. So the state Democratic convention at the Omni last month gave me the best opportunity to see how things were going.  Like Houston, Uber in Dallas still awaits city council's final approval, and aren't waiting around to get it.

The primary sticking point -- among many -- is who's carrying the insurance if an Uber car is involved in an accident, particularly one causing injuries or death.  Uber says it's their drivers; their drivers don't seem to know.  From the KHOU article linked above...

Houston-based attorney for taxi and limo services, Martin Hill, said everyone is at risk.

There is absolutely no coverage for these hailed trips or these repeat business trips, said Hill. The passenger is at risk, any third party is at risk.

A woman by the name of Olivia, who did not want KHOU 11 News to use her last name, is a former Uber driver who claims she was eventually fired.

It s almost out of control, she told the KHOU 11 News I-Team as she talked about the confusion she had over the company's insurance policy.

She says even when she was working as an Uber driver she had unanswered questions about the company s insurance coverage.

KHOU: So at this point you have no clue what kind of insurance you had?

Olivia: With Uber? No. None.

It's at least a little more clear when someone hails an Uber, as they would a cab, without using the app and paying cash instead of being billed by smartphone: Uber declares they are not responsible.

In an effort to prove their point, attorneys for local cab companies hired private detectives who wore hidden cameras. The detectives did not go through the app. They just hailed an Uber driver who they found in the area.

Undercover video shows the detectives approaching the Uber driver s window and asking him for a ride. The driver accepted the ride.

The detectives paid in cash for their ride and at the end of the trip, asked for the driver s cell phone number so they could call him for a future ride. The driver willingly gave his number to the detectives.

Later, the detectives made a call to that driver and the driver picked them up at a location near downtown.

I figured, shoot, it will be easier and you can make more money and pay your cash. We don t have to do that other stuff, the private detective said to the driver.

You can hear the driver respond in the undercover video.

At least I don t have to give my 20 percent, he said referring to the percentage Uber gets from each ride that goes through the app.

And that is precisely what I did in Dallas.  But from the top...

We walked out the front door of the downtown Omni and hailed a Yellow cab there to take us about eight blocks to the Sixth Floor Museum, at Dealey Plaza.  The driver was Middle Eastern, the vehicle an older model Chrysler minivan, not in bad shape.  When I told him I like cabs and not Uber, he was diplomatic: "There's plenty of business for everyone", he said.   The ten-minute ride was under 6 bucks and I gave ten.  I also asked for his card in order to come back and get us in a few hours, and he did so, arriving withing 15 minutes of our summons.  He was grateful for the repeat business, and I gave him a twenty this second trip.

The following evening we called for him but he was unable to take our trip, so we again walked out the front lobby doors and asked a bellman to hail us a cab.  The last one was pulling away with another fare, and as we waited in the heat, the bellman walked over to a man in front of a late model black Chevy Tahoe, returned and told us we could take his car... an UberX.  I said to the Caucasian driver, well-dressed and professional: "I don't have the app, I'll have to pay you cash" and he said that was fine.  So off we went to Deep Ellum for sushi, a twenty-minute ride that cost $17.  I gave him a twenty, asked for his card for a return, and he graciously accommodated.

After dinner, we stepped outside the restaurant and before I could call the number, the wife was hailing an Executive Cab (the blue ones) driving by.  We piled in -- like the Yellow, an older Dodge minivan, nothing fancy, but good enough -- and broke the ice again with our African driver and his girlfriend about not liking Uber.  He laughed and said something similar to our previous cabbie.  The return trip to the Omni was shorter and cheaper for some reason: $12.  I gave him a twenty.

So while my cab rides in Dallas were less expensive and less flashy, it's easy to see what Uber (as a company) wants to do: skim the cream off the top of the market, with very nice cars, very courteous drivers, and a luxury price point.  The premium experience at a premium price.  The affinity branding that so many upscale folks prefer.

But I have my doubts as to what might have been the outcome had we been T-boned in an intersection with our driver at fault.  I get the impression we would have been SOL in more ways than one.

So that's another reason for me to emphasize that while Uber and Lyft have every right to participate in the market, they need to do so according to Texas law and city ordinance.  Those laws and ordinances exist for reasons that are NOT monopolistic and not cumbersome to decades of ride-for-hire entrepreneurs before them.  They exist because people were injured -- or killed -- and the drivers and the companies who employ them had to maintain legal responsibility for that possible occurrence.

Play by the rules, or get penalized when you don't.  Uber seems to want to have it both ways; that is to say, not play by the rules and not be penalized for doing so.  Hell of a business model if you can get away with it: $17 billion capitalized -- or is it $6 billion? -- certainly sends that message.

This homie don't play like that, and he also expects his CMs to do likewise.

Read this Forbes article about the "bear" case for the company.  One excerpt:

Across North America and Europe, taxi and limo drivers’ unions have been lobbying legislators to regulate or outlaw peer-to-peer services, and occasionally succeeding. “What they’re trying to do is get all their competitors to have to incur the same costs they do,” says Samuel Staley, who teaches economics and urban planning as director of Florida State University’s DeVoe Moore Center. One industry group, the Taxi, Limousine and Paratransit Association, claims that 30% to 40% of a traditional taxi’s operating expenses consist of regulatory costs Uber is now avoiding, especially primary commercial liability insurance. (Uber requires drivers to have their own insurance, although it does provide secondary coverage for certain situations.)

Uber might actually play by the rules if they are compelled to do so.  Let's count on someone at Houston council to convince them that there shouldn't be lawsuits from maimed passengers or their survivors before they do.

Latest YouGov: Abbott 54, Davis 37

Not the TexTrib this time, but CBS/NYT commissioning the poll.  I saw it first at DK early yesterday morning, posted about it here and Tweeted that at lunchtime, and the Houston Chronicle had it yesterday afternoon.  As disclosure, I was included again among poll respondents.  The results for the US Senate race in Texas ran similar to the gubernatorial, with John Cornyn ahead of David Alameel 51-35, and the generic Congressional Democrat coming in behind the R, 50-31 (counting leaners in both).

It's also important to note that there were no third party candidates included in the poll questions, just 'independent' in the Congressional query.  That's how you get such a small number of undecideds -- 'other' and not sure', in this case.  The most significant finding to me was the 7% who declared they would not be voting at all.

YouGov's polling methodoly has long been questioned because of its online, opt-in nature.  The best explanation of this comes from the NYT.

YouGov’s work is worthy of its own discussion because it’s the first set of data from an online panel this year. The other nonpartisan surveys have used traditional, random-digit dialing to reach a sample of adults by telephone.

Random-digit dialing has long been the gold standard for public polling, but declining response rates may be complicating the ability of telephone polls to capitalize on the advantages of random sampling. Most polls underestimated President Obama’s standing in 2012, perhaps because young and nonwhite voters were least likely to own a landline and least likely to respond to telephone pollsters. Polls may also have exaggerated Mr. Romney’s gains after the first presidential debate, because Mr. Obama’s supporters were less willing to respond after his weak performance. The phenomenon is known as “differential non-response.”

CBS/NYT had YouGov poll over 100,000 members in all fifty states.  The full tabs for the Texas races can be found at this link.

As the young voters who are less likely to respond to telephone surveys become an ever-greater share of the population over time, it is probably more important for analysts to have an ensemble of surveys using diverse sampling and weighting practices.

YouGov has emerged as a part of that ensemble. It has tracked many of its respondents over months, if not years, which gives it additional variables, such as a panelist’s voting history, to try to correct for non-response. After the first 2012 debate, YouGov showed less of a swing than many other polls, and its final pre-election polls were as good as or better than many other surveys in forecasting the results.

There are still questions about the effectiveness of web panels, which can reach only the 81 percent of Americans who use the Internet. That’s worse than the 98 percent of households that can be reached by a live interview telephone survey, although it’s better than the 63.5 percent of Americans who have a landline telephone and can therefore be contacted by automated polling firms, which are prohibited by federal regulations from calling people on their cellphones.

Non-Internet users tend to be less educated, less affluent and more likely to be Hispanic or over age 65. These concerns aren’t strictly theoretical: YouGov most likely underestimated President Obama’s share of the Hispanic vote in 2012. Its final survey showed Mr. Obama with 59 percent of the Hispanic vote, far lower than the 71 percent in the exit polls.

So the silver lining for Davis (and Alameel and other Dems down the ballot) is that younger voters and Latinos are widely under-represented in these numbers.

Another issue is that the YouGov panel does not use probability sampling, the theoretical underpinning of modern polling. In a probability sample, every voter should have an equal chance of being randomly selected, making the sample representative. Phone numbers provide a device for randomization that is impossible online.

Instead, YouGov attempts to build a large, diverse panel and then match its panelists to demographically similar respondents from the American Community Survey, an extremely rigorous probability survey conducted by the Census Bureau. This step is intended to mimic probability sampling. But it can require significant assumptions about the composition of the electorate, including partisanship. These assumptions are contestable and based on varying amounts of evidence.

All of this is controversial among survey methodologists, who are vigorously debating whether a non-probability web panel should be used for survey research. At the same time, they’re also debating whether the sharp rise in non-response is undermining the advantages of probability sampling. Only 9 percent of sampled households responded to traditional telephone polls in 2012, down from 21 percent in 2006 and 36 percent in 1997, according to the Pew Research Center.

John Zogby is the fellow who pioneered this polling model, and everyone should be familiar by now with his reputation for accuracy.  YouGov has refined its methods over time, and to its credit, has managed better outcomes in predictive analysis.

While the methodology debate rages, it’s probably best to have an eye on a diverse suite of surveys employing diverse methodologies, with the knowledge that none are perfect in an increasingly challenging era for public-opinion research.

One striking aspect of the YouGov results is that they are broadly consistent with previous data on the campaign. Republicans appear to have narrow leads in enough states to win the Senate, but only narrow leads. The Republican lead is less than two percentage points in Michigan, Iowa, Louisiana and North Carolina. In Arkansas, Tom Cotton, a Republican challenger, leads Senator Mark Pryor, the Democratic incumbent, by four points.

The panel provides its best news for Democrats in Colorado, where Mark Udall, a Democratic incumbent, has a four-point lead. That’s far better than a recent Quinnipiac poll, which showed Mr. Udall trailing by two points, but it’s about the same as a recent NBC/Marist poll, which showed Mr. Udall up by seven points among registered voters.

Real Clear Politics summarizes polling for US races in a way similar to what Nate Silver does: taking all polls and averaging them to come to a consensus.  Here's that for Texas.  Rasmussen is widely understood to oversample Republicans, PPP is run by DK so it's suspected of having a Democratic bias.

My humble O is that YouGov is weighted too far right in this poll to the tune of about 5 points, which would leave Davis, Alameel, et.al in the 49-42 range or thereabout, which makes much more sense.  Irrespective of what the polling reveals, Abbott will blitz the airwaves beginning soon, and Texpate thinks Davis should as well.  I don't agree with him on that, but we'll see what happens.

Democrats should simply ignore the inevitability meme and keep grinding away on the phones, keep walking the blocks and keep donating what they can.  Wendy Davis still has a puncher's chance against Greg Abbott, and the rest of the Democrats down the ballot may have better than that, as they won't have to contend with the multi-million dollar broadcast onslaught from a well-heeled Republican opponent.

The race isn't over, even as much as the GOP and the corporate media would like to keep saying it is.  It's entering the homestretch, however, and Davis needs to make a move.

Update: If you needed reminding about why you should be skeptical about polls... here you go.

Update II: Forrest Wilder at the Texas Observer has a terrific suggestion for something the Davis campaign could emphasize: Medicaid expansion.

It is understandable that Davis hasn’t made abortion—or even women’s health—a cornerstone of her campaign. This is Texas, after all, and it’s wise for a Democrat to run on issues that are more unifying. But why not a seven-city tour on, say, Medicaid expansion? Expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act will not only save lives and put more than a million Texans on health insurance, it’s a terrific deal for the state. The feds will pay 90 percent of the cost. By rejecting the expansion, Rick Perry and Abbott are leaving $100 billion on the table, according to recent estimates.

It’s good politics too—even if Republicans start hollering about “Obamacare.” (They will anyway.) Democratic governors in some red states, like Kentucky, have made Obamacare a winning issue. In Arkansas, Gov. Mike Beebe—one of the most popular governors in the nation—got a Republican-controlled Legislature to sign off on a Medicaid model that uses federal dollars to help people buy private insurance. That’s the same basic idea touted by some Republicans in the Texas Legislature. Polls, including one by Rick Perry’s own pollster, also show that a solid majority of Texans favors expanding Medicaid.

Davis, when asked recently by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, was unequivocal in her support (“I absolutely do”) for Medicaid expansion. And in mid-June, she unveiled her economic development plan, which included Medicaid expansion. But otherwise she’s rarely discussed health care so far. The word “Medicaid” doesn’t appear once on her campaign site. 

Democratic strategists I spoke with cautioned that it’s still early in the campaign; that the Davis grassroots effort feels and sounds different than the “messaging” in the media; and that her team has been frustrated by the media’s indifference to her policy ideas.

As Paul Burka of Texas Monthly has pointed out, if she made it a central issue she’d have the doctors on her side, the hospitals, and much of the business community, not to mention local governments and—most important—millions of Texans who would see the benefits of healthier families.

Go read the whole thing.

Still never going to be casino gambling in Texas, and maybe no more lottery

First, a correction: in my post about the Astrodome last week, I mentioned that a potential Governor Greg Abbott would never sign legislation supporting gambling in Texas. Specifically I wrote the following...

As for the Dome being converted into a hotel/casino... that will NEVER happen as long as Talibaptist Republicans rule in the Lege.  And a Governor Greg Abbott would veto it even if Hell caught a polar vortex blizzard and a bill did pass legalizing casino gambling in Texas.  How do I know this?  I point you back to this post about campaign finance reports, and this sentence from Wayne Slater's story within it.

Abbott’s largest out-of-state contribution was $50,000 from the Chickasaw Nation political committee, which operates casinos in Oklahoma.

What's incorrect is that the governor of Texas has no say whatsoever in any legislation that regards amending the Texas Constitution.  In order for there to be casinos in the Great State, there would have to be a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Texas Legislature approving the measure, after which the proposal becomes a ballot referendum for Texas voters.  The excerpt does beg another question, though:  what did the Chickasaws buy with their 50 large to Abbott?  A lobbyist?  Who does Abbott think he is, Michael Quinn Sullivan?

We know how Texans would vote on casino gambling if  they ever got the chance.  But they won't.  And just so everyone is clear, there is still no chance the Republicans in the Lege will approve anything that even sounds like gambling.  John Carona tried last session, and he lost his primary this year (to one of the men mentioned in the next excerpt).  Today in the TexTrib...

Five Republican nominees for seats in the Texas Senate voiced opposition Monday to a proposal that would allow a controversial new form of betting on horse races in Texas.

Paul Bettencourt of Houston, Konni Burton of Colleyville, Bob Hall of Edgewood, Don Huffines of Dallas and Rep. Van Taylor, R-Plano, urged the Texas Racing Commission to reject the commission’s proposed rules allowing historical racing, saying in a joint statement that it “would effectively authorize Las Vegas-style gaming in Texas.”

Go to the link above for an explanation of historical horse race betting.  I consider it as ridiculous a betting proposition as I do polling political races after the fact, but speaking as a horse player myself, it seems fairly innocuous. Since thoroughbred and quarter horse racing is already legal in Texas, what could possibly be the problem?  The message is clear: there will never be any slots at racetracks, no offtrack betting, no poker parlors, no nothing like that and certainly no blackjack or craps at resort hotels in the metros or along the Gulf coast.  It's Satan preying on the po' folk, and we need the GOP to save us from that (the party of less intrusive government and personal responsibility, after all).  The Trib again, having gotten granular polling data when the gambling measure got close last year, is cautious even in forecasting that an amendment would clear the voters.

But given the strength of the socially conservative wing of the Republican Party, coupled with the opposition of radical fiscal conservatives to gaming, a bet on gambling might still be a longshot. 

I grow weary of people saying the Dome should be a casino.  It's the hallmark of an extremely low information voter, one who probably casts a straight Republican ticket.  To be fair however, it's not just Republicans.  Speaking of poor people being preyed upon, one of the most liberal Democrats in the Texas House, Garnet Coleman and the Texas Lottery are in the news.

House Speaker Joe Straus on Thursday announced his appointments to the Legislative Committee to Review the Texas Lottery and Texas Lottery Commission, a new panel charged with studying the ramifications of ending the lottery, along with examining charitable bingo and how its revenue is distributed.

The appointees include three Harris County lawmakers, one of whom is a vocal lottery critic.

Houston Democrat Garnet Coleman has accused the lottery commission of a cozy relationship with the game operator and criticized how most players are poor. He will be joined by Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston; Rick Miller, R-Sugar Land; Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake and co-chair John Kuempel, R-Seguin.

More from the local news radio station.

“Lottery money is stagnant, we raised the same billion dollars in the early 1990s, nothing more per year,” the Houston Democrat tells KTRH News. “So in terms of the lottery being a solution for public education, its not.”

Sugar Land Republican Rick Miller has his own concerns.

“How effective is this? How much money is going to the school fund? What's the overhead for this administration?” Miller asks.

Coleman and others believe the lottery is just another form of gambling which preys on the poor.

“What the lottery has had to do is create more games that have a worse chance of winning, and get the people who play to play more and more,” he says.

Miller believes there is some truth to that.

“It is what might be considered a tax on the poor,” he says. “How they look at it and do they have the resources to participate, that is a question. But it is still a personal choice.”

I would have to say I would be shocked if the Lege let the sun go down on the state lottery.  A billion dollars -- it's actually more than two -- is a billion dollars, and there would still seemingly be the multi-state lotteries like Powerball and Mega Millions, which presumably would not be affected here.  Even with Texas running a budget surplus now, $2.2 billion leaves a pretty large hole to be filled.  Which is why the Lege crawfished last year.

Sometimes it's about the money, and sometimes it's not.  And when it isn't, you can be almost certain it's about Jesus.  Specifically, Republican Jesus.