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.