The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is busy designing its own TexMoji -- and it involves tinfoil -- as it brings you this week's roundup of the best lefty blog posts from last week.

Off the Kuff is busy popping popcorn so as to fully enjoy the Jonathan Stickland soap opera.

Letters from Texas guest blogger Russ Tidwell explains what the SCOTUS ruling that invalidated Alabama's Congressional redistricting means for Texas.

Lightseeker at Texas Kaos examines the Texas founders' vision for public education. As a teacher and scholar, Lightseeker laments how far we have strayed from this noble goal. Why Texas Puts the Stupid into Educational Reform.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson says it's impossible to lower taxes in a way most Texans will actually notice without raising taxes on the wealthy and big business. That is the Texas GOP's tax trap.

There's a message from the last socialist mayor of a major American city to the various Republican and Democratic socialists running (in a so-called non-partisan race) for mayor of Houston. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs wants everybody to understand that we are all socialists of a form or fashion. And that's not a bad thing.

Socratic Gadfly talks about how the New Democratic Party win in Alberta might have lessons for American Democrats, even in Texas.

Texas Leftist attended the first ever Houston Artist Town Hall, a meeting of nearly 200 artists from across the region. As the city council prepares a new cultural plan for the Bayou City, artists came together to make sure they contribute to those plans.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is appalled that Texas Republicans are using our taxpayer dollars to publicly bash gay people.

Neil at All People Have Value monitored Operation Jade Helm 15 operations in Houston. All People Have Value is part of NeilAquino.com.

Fracking earthquakes are the new normal in North Texas, according to TXSharon at Bluedaze.

Egberto Willies writes about the developing spat between President Obama and Elizabeth Warren over the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact.

And jobsanger has the numbers disclosing that the United States is a paltry 27th among developed nations in terms of median income.

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

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Better Texas Blog reads a headline from the future about the short-sighted tax cuts of today.

Texas Vox mourns the passing of the anti-fracking ban bill, and Texas Watch, about HB 3787, notes that proposed legislation severely limits the filing deadlines for home and commercial insurance policies.

Newsdesk puts on its tinfoil hat for a look at Operation Jade Helm 15.

Paradise in Hell is amused by the effort to video-stalk members of the Legislature.

The San Antonio Current reports on Scouting for Equality and their crowdfunded work to get the Boy Scouts of America to repeal its ban on gay parents and adults.

David Ortez complains about Harris County's role in killing the online voter registration bill.

The Texas Observer reports on the San Antonio mayor's race, which saw former state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte and incumbent Ivy Taylor advance to a June runoff, while  Robert Rivard recalls the legacy of William Velasquez and wonders what he'd make of today's voter turnout rates.

Lawflog wants to know if Texas DPS director Steven McCraw has a persecution complex.

Prairie Weather took note of the plethora of  "Carson '16" bumper stickers that are suddenly popping up on Texas pickups and cars.

Trail Blazers caught up with freshman state Sen. Don Huffines, busily jabbing back at Dallas-area mayors who dared questions his efforts to erode local control.

Not of It compares and contrasts Houston mayoral candidates and their campaign website photography of the Bayou City.

And Bayou City History's 'This Forgotten Day' features the re-opening of the oldest pharmacy in Texas, Star Drug Store in Galveston.

Sunday Funnies, Loon Star State edition

Please note that the conservative weirdos are not limited to Texas. And click it to big it (not bigot).

Free speech or hate speech?

I'm still kinda sorting all this out, so I'll ask you the questions I'm asking myself.

Maybe you haven't been following the latest in the Charlie Hebdo matter, what with the elections in Canada and the UK and all.  Here's an excerpt to catch you up.

Critics argue that Charlie Hebdo routinely engages in Islamophobia, and many Muslims take issue with its depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, which are considered blasphemous.

Defenders counter that Charlie Hebdo, a provocative left-wing publication, lampoons religious leaders and politicians of all stripes and has devoted more time to attacking conservative politicians who favor anti-immigration laws — such as the National Front — than Islam.

First question: are we all still "je suis Charlie"?

Closer to home: was Pam Geller yelling fire in a crowded theater when she sponsored her Muhammed cartoon contest?  (Let's look past her ridiculous and Orwellian "I'm saving lives" justification for what she says and does for the moment.)  Is it a good thing that she hires her own heavily armed security for these events -- you know, Second Amendment remedies for First Amendment provocations?  Less important question: Were the two single cells in the Garland, TX "terrist network" ready for jihad... or just martyrdom?

Update: Ted Cruz blames Obama, of course.

Most important question: do you really and truly feel like defending to your death the right for Geller, or Charlie Hebdo, or anybody else to keep on like this, under the current global socio-political circumstances?

Report.  Decide.  Ted Rall's opinion.

When exactly does free speech cross over the line to hate speech?  What is the proper reaction when it does?   (Obviously not shootings and bombings... but what?)  Certainly it's got to be okay to tell people to shut up.  That's free speech also, yes?  Or is that censorship?  If it's not OK to tell them to shut up, is it acceptable to ask them to tone it down a little?

Is this just an endless loop of point/counterpoint, as Nick Anderson shows?  (Don't skip the petulant complaints and baiting taunts from the very worst of Houston's conservatives in the comments.)

If you have the right to insult people to the point that they become so angrily deranged that they kill you -- religious excuses aside -- why is it wrong for others who don't want to be caught in the crossfire or maimed by the blast or the shrapnel to tell you to pipe down?

No answers here yet.  Still just asking the questions.  But a few more toons posted here on Sunday will further illustrate the quandary in which we we all find ourselves.

How much intolerance is tolerable?

Imagine a Green elected Texas governor

And you'll be able to relate to what happened in Alberta -- the Texas of Canada -- this week.

On Tuesday night, the near-unthinkable happened here in Canada when the New Democratic Party (NDP) stormed to a commanding majority in Alberta's provincial elections. To explain this in American terms: Imagine that Texas just overwhelmingly elected a legislature dominated by a left-wing party that opposes major oil pipeline projects; promises a core review of the obligations that oil and gas companies have to their communities; and favors fundamentally rethinking the tax structure toward large-scale redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Oh, and it's going to insist that climate change is real, man-made, and should bear on any policy that involves burning more hydrocarbons.

Even this comparison is tough, because Americans don't support a mainstream party as unabashedly left-wing as the NDP. (The Greens would be a decent analog. Or a breakaway party of Bernie Sanders acolytes.) Publicly NDP members say they're “social democrats,” but most of its members, like Canadians at large, use that term interchangeably with “socialist.” Alberta has traditionally been unyielding soil for the NDP. The province is defined by its vast fossil fuel reserves, comparable to Saudi Arabia in its oil underfoot. Once oil was discovered there in the 1940s, actual Texans rushed up to establish companies and, concomitantly, a pro-capital, pro-religion, pro-firearm style of politics that the rest of Canada regards as distinctly American. For 44 years before Tuesday night, a span of twelve straight elections, Alberta has been run by the Conservative Party, a decent analogue to the Republican Party. Before that was nearly 40 years of even more conservative rule under the Social Credit Party.

Kaboom (and that's not the sound of an exploding tar sands oil train, either).  This is what revolution at the ballot box looks like.

Still, to put what just happened Canada in context for you Yanks, imagine Bernie Sanders becoming Texas governor by a big majority.

— Doug Saunders (@DougSaunders) May 6, 2015

Honestly, I'd rather see Sanders in Washington as opposed to Austin; after all, he wouldn't be able to deal with the Lege that would still have too many Republicans in it (unless they shock us all and manage to let Texans get stoned legally, but that's another story).

It’s a game-changer for a number of reasons, one of which should have been immediately obvious: Alberta is home to the massive tar sands deposits that the oil industry wants to tap and ship south via the Keystone XL pipeline. And with the changing of the guard, the industry’s just lost a top Washington lobbyist – and is now facing leadership that opposes the pipeline and is committed to reducing the climate impact of oil development.

Can it happen here? Can something sort of like it happen here? Please?!

Garcia announces... something today *Updates: He's in

What he's announcing does not seem to be clear from the Chron story.

Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia will address his expected bid for Houston mayor on Wednesday afternoon, according to sources close to his campaign.

Garcia's expected announcement would end months of speculation about whether the longtime lawman and former City Council member would run to replace term-limited Mayor Annise Parker.

Should he run, Garcia would join a crowded field of some half-dozen competitors. He would also be required to resign as sheriff.

Nor the KHOU report.  The assumptions made by the reporters lean toward yes, but they've left enough doubt to cover their asses in case he says he's not.  Rarely does a politician extend this kind of fanfare to an "I'm not running" press conference, after all.  The departed Teddy Schleifer covered all of the 'in' speculation seven weeks ago.

So is he in or is he out?  Anyone want to speculate, offer some scuttlebutt, start a rumor ahead of this afternoon's 'announcement'?

Update: Sure enough... in.

Update II:

County Judge Ed Emmett, who received Garcia's resignation letter Wednesday, has not decided who he wants to replace Garcia, though he prefers someone who wants to run for office in 2016, said Emmett's spokesman Joe Stinebaker.

Noting that it would be beneficial for Garcia's replacement to have a combination of law enforcement and management experience, Stinebaker added that "speed is of some importance here."

In his letter of resignation, Garcia said he hoped the Commissioners Court would appoint an independent or Democrat to serve the remainder of his term.

Those speculated to be interested in the job -- none of whom are Democrats, to be clear -- were also previously named here.

Update III: More on who might be the next sheriff here, with a decision coming in about a week.

Update IV (5/8): State representative Allen Fletcher jockeys himself into the lead for the interim appointment, to be made in short order by Harris County commissioners.

2016: Same as it ever was

A sure sign that voter turnout in 2016 is going to set another record low.

This map feels like déjà vu: It’s effectively the same map we featured for much of the 2012 cycle, and it unmistakably suggests the Democratic nominee should start the election as at least a marginal Electoral College favorite over his or (probably) her Republican rival.

Let's add the qualifying 'but'.

However, at the starting gate it is wiser to argue that the next election is basically a 50-50 proposition.

Florida remains swingy, I would posit, because of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.  Otherwise not so much, despite what portends to be a spirited Republican primary to replace Rubio in the Senate.  Colorado and Iowa elected right-wing freaks for US Senators in 2014 because Democrats stayed home on Election Day.  If John Kasich makes it onto the ballot somewhere, then Ohio is more red than not.  Nevada is bound to have a lively Senate contest because Harry Reid is retiring, so that's an ongoing development that could send its electoral votes either way; the truest of tossups.  Vermont (or is that New Hampshire?), irrespective of Bernie Sanders' ultimate fate, doesn't seem likely to be anything but blue.  I would have to think that Virginia is more red -- despite what Larry Sabato's Crystal Ballers say -- than they are letting on, and North Carolina (not currently considered a swinger) somewhat bluer.  Then there's Wisconsin, which could outright flip with Scott Walker somewhere in the mix, causing Hillary Clinton a multitude of problems.

In other words, this election is going to be as boring as being alive.

Americans still want taxes raised on rich to adjust for inequality

There's a lesson in these 30-year polling results for every single one of the Texas House Democrats who voted to cut state taxes last week (in conjunction with their Republican brothers and sisters).

Despite the growing focus on inequality in recent years, the 63% of Americans who say that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people is almost the same as the 60% who said this in 1984.

Americans' agreement that money and wealth need to be more evenly distributed reached a high point of 68% in April 2008, in the last year of the George W. Bush administration, and just before the full effects of the Great Recession began to take hold. Americans became slightly less likely to agree with the idea later that year and in surveys conducted in 2009, 2011 and 2013. This year's increase to 63% is close to the average of 62% agreement across the 13 times Gallup has asked the question since 1984. The latest data are from Gallup's April 9-12 Economy and Personal Finance survey.

Worth emphasizing: the percentages deviated steadily during the Reagan and Bush the Elder years, narrowed sharply after Bush the Lesser's election selection in 2000, rose to its highest separation levels as the economy slid off a cliff at the close of W's Debacle in 2008.... and then cramped again, as it became apparent to Fox News consumers that Barack Obama was, indeed, a socialist.

Stop the wars, tax the rich.  That's an easy campaign slogan, but the Democrats don't use it because they know they can't follow through on those promises.

"Don't extrapolate a national poll to Texas", you may be thinking, especially since Republicans who quite clearly don't stand with the majority dominate the Lone Star electorate.

Yes, I'm sure that all this has nothing to do with historically low voter turnout in Texas, particularly among former Democratic voters.  You can blame a bit of that on the most restrictive photo ID legislation in the nation, of course.  But at some point Democrats have to take responsibility for their collective fate, and when they decline or refuse to do so when the votes get called in the legislature, or the Congress, then you get what we had here last week: failure to communicate.

Is anyone really surprised?

Update: Thanks to Gadfly for the link to Gallup. And more from Vox.

But in some ways the most interesting demographic sub-sample is the age one. Respondents ages 18 to 34 are supportive of redistributive taxation by a 59-38 margin, while those over 55 are much more skeptical — 47 percent say tax the rich, and 50 percent disagree. In other words, the age stratification of American politics isn't just about gay marriage or marijuana; it cuts to the core economic policy divides in Washington and state capitals around the country.

Now if they would only vote.

Matt Drudge and Martin O'Malley

(What?  You were expecting some Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or Mike Huckabee?)

As Cillizza at the WaPo notes, Drudge made his bones on the Clintons twenty years ago.  The problem is that he continues to do so, and the lazy corporate media lets him keep doing it by sniffing his ass like he's a dog in heat.  You may need to click over to catch up on the backstory;  this news is now a week old, which means it was out there before the rumors broke about Bernie Sanders' announcement on Tuesday, and then Sanders' fairly dominant news cycle (from Thursday, the day he declared, to the coverage about his campaign cash haul, and all the way through to the Sunday talk shows).  Because of last week's many other breaking developments -- but particularly due to the Baltimore, Maryland connection -- Drudge's pimping of O'Malley hasn't registered in the plus column yet for the former Terrapin State governor.

As usual you should read it all, but here's the last three grafs.

And it's not just that Drudge is deciding what pieces of content from the biggest media outlets in the country are the ones that get attention/traffic. It's also that he remains extremely influential as a sort of daily booking guide for cable television.  Bookers from every network check Drudge religiously to see what stories he's chosen to feature. Often those stories wind up getting airtime.

So, if Drudge promotes Martin O'Malley, then O'Malley will almost certainly get more attention from the media, which should translate to a higher level of interest — or at least recognition — among average voters.

How long will O'Malley's Drudge honeymoon last? Probably up until (or, really, if) Drudge succeeds in helping to make O'Malley a semi-credible Clinton challenger. At which point, if history is any guide, Drudge will turn on him.

I think the honeymoon is already over, for reasons previously ascribed.  But if it isn't, and you start to see shirtless O'Malley pics on Good Morning America and the like, just know who's behind it.

A message to all Houston mayoral candidates

At the end of this piece from the inimitable Charles Pierce about Bernie Sanders, there's an excellent message for everyone running -- and considering a run -- for mayor of Houston.

To establish: the last Socialist to be elected mayor of a major American city was a fellow named Frank P. Zeidler, who served as mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1948 and was re-elected twice, holding that office until 1960.  He was actually the third of three Socialists elected Milwaukee mayor in the first half of the last century.  Zeidler won his first election in 1938, as Milwaukee County Surveyor, on the Progressive Party line, as a Bull Moose liberal.  Now here's the relevant part.

Once I heard (Zeidler) say that, when he was coming up, what made you a socialist was the fact that you believed your city should fix potholes and that it should have a fire department.

Is anybody calling Bill King a socialist because he wants to fix the potholes?  A few people are labeling Steve Costello that, derogatorily of course, because he supported a fee that would go to repairing the drainage infrastructure of the city.  A few more are calling Sylvester Turner a socialist because of his efforts to make sure our firefighters aren't impoverished in their retirement.  But those are all the same people who have been calling Barack Obama a "soshulist" for the last six years, who marked John Cornyn a RINO (and re-elected him anyway), and who believe that the US Army is preparing for an armed occupation of rural Texas.  So perhaps their judgment, not to mention their definition of 'socialist', is questionable.

But if or when a member of the Harris County Green Party or the Houston Socialist Workers Party or even the Houston Communist Party declares for mayor in 2015, try to keep in mind what actual leftists want to do, because it's the very same thing the Republicans and conservatives want: to fix the potholes and have a fire department.

Now the police, the roles they are supposed to serve in our community versus their original intent... maybe liberals and conservatives still have a difference of opinion on that.

The Weekly Wrangle

In a week filled with presidential campaign developments, a death in Baltimore followed by the arrest of six police officers charged in that death, the birth of a royal baby, a few high-profile sporting events, and even a blockbuster opening weekend for "Avengers: Age of Ultron"... the Texas Progressive Alliance would like to wish everyone a Happy Star Wars Day as it brings you this week's roundup of the best of the Texas left from last week.

Off the Kuff rounded up coverage of the voter ID appellate hearing at the Fifth Circuit last week.

Libby Shaw, at Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos, weighs in on the overall disgust for the Texas governor's cowardice: The CT Freaks Win: TX GOV Panders to Paranoia.

Socratic Gadfly wonders if, given this was not the first outbreak -- and having other information about the Food and Drug Administration from whistleblower Ken Kendrick and more -- if we can really trust the FDA that much when it claims Blue Bell and other ice creams are safe.

Nonsequiteuse calls on Rep. Todd Smith and any other reasonable Republicans left in Texas to come collect their party.

Texas Vox documents the vote on the latest assault on the environment and local control, and Bluedaze blogs about the most recent frackquakes in North Texas... and in Austin.

Bernie Sanders declared for the Democratic nomination for president, and not even the events of Baltimore could keep him from extending his news cycle through the weekend. PDiddie at Brains and Eggs reports on the money part of the equation in the opening days of his campaign, and wonders if the stark differences between he and Hillary Clinton might actually produce a meaningful primary contest.

McBlogger points out what is really hurting Hillary Clinton.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wonders why so many Texas Republicans act to enable rapists.

From WCNews at Eye on Williamson: Hooray, Obamacare is working! The Good News About Healthcare In Texas For Everyone But Republicans.

Neil at All People Have Value said as shameful as Governor Abbott is to pander to the Jade Helm paranoia, there are in fact serious reasons people believe crazy things. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

And Dos Centavos collected some of the worst logo ideas for Cinco de Mayo.

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

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

HISD Trustee Anna Eastman explains her standardized testing philosophy.

The Texas Election Law Blog previews the arguments in the voter ID appeal.

In a flip-the-script, the Texas attorney general gets sued by the Houston Community College System over its disclosure of public records.  Hair Balls has the story.

Quoting the 2015 Teacher of the Year, the TSTA Blog says we do not separate people into groups that are more deserving than others.

Unfair Park and Paradise in Hell both wonder why Greg Abbott is giving comfort to the tinfoil hat crowd. Harold Cook may have the best explanation for it, and RG Ratcliffe joins the fun.

Grits for Breakfast has a summary of the good criminal justice bills still moving through the Texas Legislature.

Andrea Grimes notes that the Lege has coughed up 32 more anti-choice bills this session, and a few might still be passed.

Trail Blazers posted that several of the bills removing restrictions on marijuana use in Texas have gone up in smoke.

Texas Watch excoriates the Senate for choosing insurance company profits over families and businesses.

Mean Green Cougar Red gives his thoughts on the proposed I-45 rebuild in Houston.

Mari Aguirre-Rodriguez demonstrates some of the tools and technologies that a modern campaign can use.

The Rag Blog is hosting a happy hour in Austin this Saturday, with guests Jim Hightower and Ellen Sweets, author of "Stirring It Up with Molly Ivins".

The Quintessential Curmudgeon takes on the Amarillo city council (again).

Fascist Dyke Motors recaps her blog's story to this point, and adds a warning that it is coming to an end.

And Prairie Weather asks: are men really just cowards?

Left, right, left, right

Bernie Sanders is already doing what everyone expected was the most he could do.

Even without a high-profile challenger in her way -- and in part to prevent one from jumping in -- Clinton has been moving left. What's remarkable about her shift is that it's occurring even at a time when her approval ratings within the Democratic Party are strongest among self-described liberals. She's shoring up the base now, moving from constituency to constituency.

That paragraph was written after Sanders' entry last Thursday.  He raised more money in the first 24 hours of his campaign announcement than any of the other declareds.

(Sanders) kicked off his dark horse campaign for the Democratic nomination on Thursday with an email to supporters and a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol. Since then, more than 100,000 people signed up for the campaign and 35,000 people donated money, according to a campaign press release.  The average donation was $43.54.

Sanders' 24-hour fundraising haul puts him ahead of what every currently declared Republican presidential hopeful posted in their first day.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's campaign announced that it had raised $800,000 a day in. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's campaign raised $1 million in the first 24-hours of its existence. And Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's campaign raised $1.25 million in its first day.

The only other Democrat in the race -- former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- did not announce what her campaign raised in its first 24 hours and declined to do so on Friday.

Gee, I wonder why.

Of course, even humble-bragging about the money (note the average donation amount again, above in the excerpt) might be a little, teensy part of the money-in-politics problem.  For Democrats who have now aligned themselves with the benefits of Citizens United... hey, Hillary all the way.

When the ruling was handed down, Democrats were outraged, and Hillary Clinton herself has recently suggested she wants it overturned. Yet with revelations that firms with business before Clinton's State Department donated to her foundation and paid her husband, Clinton's campaign and rank-and-file Democratic activists are suddenly championing the Citizens United theory.

In campaign statements and talking points—and in activists' tweets and Facebook comments—the party seems to be collectively saying that without evidence of any explicit quid pro quo, all the Clinton cash is acceptable. Moreover, the inference seems to be that the revelations aren't even newsworthy because, in the words of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, “there’s nothing new” here.

"Nothing to see here, move along."

— While Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, Bill Clinton was paid $2.5 million by 13 corporations that lobbied the State Department. Ten of the firms paid him in the same three-month reporting period that they were lobbying Hillary Clinton's agency. Several of them received State Department contracts, worth a total of almost $40 million.

— Hillary Clinton switched her position to back a controversial U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement as millions of dollars flowed into her foundation from an oil company operating in Colombia, and that company’s founder. Amid reports of violence against Colombian unionists, she also certified Colombia's human rights record, thereby releasing U.S. aid to the Colombian military.

— Hillary Clinton's State Department delivered contracts and a prestigious human rights award to a technology firm that donated to the Clinton Foundation—despite allegations from human rights groups that the firm sold technology to the Chinese government that helped the regime commit human rights violations.

The same Democratic Party that slammed the Bush-Halliburton relationship now suggests that this type of behavior is fine and dandy, as long as there wasn't, say, an email detailing an explicit cash-for-policy trade. The insinuation also seems to be that journalists shouldn't even be reporting on any of it, if there is no such email.

Is it morally acceptable for firms to pay a public official's spouse while those firms are getting government contracts from the agency headed by that same public official? That’s a matter of opinion, and if the Democrats want to now champion the ideology behind Citizens United, that’s their right.

Right.  So please stand over there, Democrats.  No, farther to the right.

You'll be hearing a lot of yellow dogs call themselves progressive in the coming months, but be clear that if they're saying they are voting for Clinton, then they've mislabled themselves.  Deceiving themselves certainly, maybe even trying to deceive others.  Pay attention to that as Secretary Clinton makes the rounds of constituencies on her latest listening tour, telling people what they want to hear.  In these early days, judging them by their past works, and not their recent words, is the best lesson they have demonstrated as to who they really are.

See?  Even an atheist knows there's something you can use in your life from the Bible.

Sunday Funnies, justice edition

Or is it just us?

A festive Baltimore rallies in hope after six police officers charged

"Donde esta la chancla?!"