The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance is celebrating the summer solstice with a cold beverage and toes in the sand as it brings you his week's blog post roundup.

Off the Kuff sets a couple of hopefully attainable goals for Texas Democrats in 2016.

Libby Shaw at Daily Kos has had it with political inaction after yet one more tragic mass shooting. Enough is enough. The carnage has got to stop. Fire the cowards who enable gun slaughter: When Political Cowardice is Lethal.

Socratic Gadfly reads Bernie Sanders' call for election reforms and wishes he had real reform that included third parties.

The Texas Democratic Convention was held in San Antonio this past weekend, and by all accounts was underwhelming, as PDiddie at Brains and Eggs predicted.

Oil and gas exploration is threatening the health of all Texans, and TXsharon at Bluedaze has it all mapped out.

Egberto Willies interviewed an East Texas secessionist who's closely following the Brexit scenario to see if Texas can apply any lessons.

Texas Vox takes note of the 17th and most recent state, New York, to call for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United.

Dru Murray at the Lewisville Texan Journal toured that city's newest whiskey distillery.

Neil at All People Have Value took his efforts to the streets to promote the value of everyday life to the corner of Cesar Chavez and Harrisburg in Houston. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

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

Diana Wray recaps Dan Patrick's very bad day on Twitter following the Orlando massacre, and TFN Insider reviews state Rep. Matt Krause's claims that it "doesn't matter" that the Orlando victims were gay.

Kris Banks asserts that gun safety is an LGBT issue, and Nancy Sims mourns the tragedy in Orlando and asks what we all will do about it.

The TSTA blog calls for educators to unite against Donald Trump.

Highlighting the divide among Texas bloggers (and the rest of the Texas Democratic electorate), Somervell County Salon didn't attend the TDP convention this year and won't be voting for Hillary Clinton in the fall.

Ben Becker has some questions for TEA Commissioner Mike Morath about the STAAR test.

Alamo Heights ISD Superintendent Kevin Brown and several of his colleagues warn that we can no longer fool ourselves into believing that just because many students seem to do well and graduate prepared for college and career, that we can sustain those results over time.

Scott Braddock peeks behind the curtain at the handful of rich radicals who were trying to buy this year's legislative elections.

Grits for Breakfast goes beyond the narrow, politicized explanations for the spike in homicides last year.  He also has a terrific aggre-post regarding the limits of Politifact, crime wave hype, police pension politics, and Harris County as a driver of mass incarceration.

And in the latest installment of 'West Texas Exceptionalism', Make West Texas Great Again retells the stories of the Texas Cowboy Reunions from the 1930s up to the present day.

Revolutionary News Vol. 8: The Wisdom of Dads

Is your mind capable of holding competing thoughts simultaneously?  Here we go ...

-- Donald Trump does NOT have a path to victory in November.

To reach 270, Trump’s team is aiming to capture America’s Rust Belt — specifically, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin — where polls generally show him performing better than Mitt Romney did at this point in 2012. If he can capture Florida and keep North Carolina — the 2012 red state of the lightest hue — a strong showing that includes capture of the Rust Belt could, Trump’s team believes, put him over the top.

But the odds are long, veteran strategists said.

“It’s a fantasy. Romney got 19 percent of nonwhites. Is Trump going to do better? I don’t think so,” said Stuart Stevens, Romney’s 2012 campaign strategist. “It’s a joke. It’s just talking. It has no grounding in reality.”

-- Neither should anyone expect the entrenched insider Republicans to overthrow the will of their voters and install someone -- anyone -- else as the GOP nominee at their national convention in Cleveland next month.  There would be an actual revolution, complete with lots of shooting from many guns and real blood running in the streets if they tried.  Bernie Sanders does, in fact, have a greater chance of being the Democratic nominee than (fill in the blank with any name you like) has of being the Republican one.  And Bernie has essentially no chance at all.  Better chances of winning the Powerball.

Only a federal indictment can stop her now, and perhaps not even that.

That won't stop the Sandernistas from their #SeeYouInPhilly mission, and whatever they accomplish beyond a few platform positions that some will characterize as "transforming" the Democratic Party will be, in reality, negligible.  Their hearts are in the right place, I suppose, but they're using their heads to beat against the castle wall.  It will feel so good to them when they stop that.

The head of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on a pike comes about three months too late.

-- More evidence that they aren't getting on the Clinton bandwagon.

Hillary Clinton may be the presumptive Democratic nominee, but the fight to unify the party and its traditional allies in the wake of an unexpectedly long and contentious primary is poised to go on much longer.

The more than 3,000 Bernie Sanders supporters and progressive activists gathered here at the "People's Summit" have engaged in little open talk about Clinton, preferring instead to plot a path forward in the wake of the Vermont senator's defeat -- and questioning the motivations of the Democratic Party and the legitimacy of its nominating contest. 

"There is massive corruption in the machinery of the Democratic Party," said RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United, the powwow's principal organizer, who had endorsed Sanders. "The only way that we can overcome that corruption and manipulation is for all of us not to work in isolation."

The People's Summit folks shut out Jill Stein and the Greens.  Everybody seems to want to start from scratch; I'm getting email now from the United Progressive Party. Their website is inoperable at this posting, but their logo should tell you everything you need to know.

The progressive left in the United States -- which has one foot inside the tent and one foot out -- has always been fractured and disorganized and ineffective as a result, and it may be even more so in 2016.  That would be unfortunate but not unexpected.

-- So Stein is going full-bore after the ruling duopoly.  Read all of this profile of her and her party; it's the best one yet.  Here's a snip about "safe states":

Sanders has drawn fire from Democrats for staying in the race despite lacking the delegates to win the nomination, but Stein may be even more politically brash than Bernie. Not only does she lack Sanders’ squeamishness about tipping the race to the Republicans, she is burying the tentative approach to presidential campaigning tried by 2004 Green candidate David Cobb. Following the 2000 election, when many blamed Nader for contributing to Democrat Al Gore’s defeat in Florida, Cobb pioneered a “safe-state” strategy—hunting only for votes in deep blue and deep red states, thus successfully protecting the Greens from the “spoiler” label. But he wasn’t successful in winning votes, garnering only 120,000 votes compared to Nader’s 2.9 million.

Stein defiantly told Politico Magazine she has a “No Safe State strategy,” because “there is no safe state under a Democratic or Republican future.” She’ll be stumping in Pennsylvania later this month.

--  Noam Chomsky has co-written a treatise about it; Counterpunch has counter-punched it. Bold emphasis below is mine.

[Chomsky and co-author John Halle] ... make an argument that by electing Clinton (i.e. by voting for her in swing states) this allows for the continuing growth of the left and reduces the amount of harm that will be caused over the next four years. I do not doubt their desire for radical change, nor do I doubt that they make these arguments because they find them morally justifiable in consideration of the consequences of our actions. Yet, it is dubious whether we can consider Clinton an LEV, just as much as it is dubious whether electing Clinton would enable the growth of the Left. I am not arguing from what they call a “politics of moral witness”, but argue in the same analytic vein that they have placed their brief. That is, is Clinton on topics such as climate change, trade, and militarism actually an LEV in comparison to Trump? Taking their criteria of consequences over rhetoric, there seems at best a “dimes worth of difference” on these topics.

Go ahead and try it on, see if it fits.

I'm an advocate of the "safe states" mission, but am swiftly moving in the direction of the "fuck 'em all" premise.  Some people say that's white privilege.  I say if someone wants to fix white privilege, then they need to go vote it out of office.  I won't be bothered one little bit by that.

-- The Texas Democratic convention this weekend past was, as I predicted, a joke.  These accounts of the steamrolling of Sanders delegates are essentially all you need to know about why there is a #SeeYouInPhilly movement.  But it was funny/not funny in pretty much every other way you can think of.  I'm glad John had a good time, though.

Sunday Keepin' Bear Funnies

Texas Dems prepare to underwhelm once again

The key to happiness is low expectations, some philosopher once said.

Statewide races on the 2016 ballot are lackluster: a no-contest Railroad Commission faceoff -- better options with the Green candidate, just as with the Ag Commissioner's race in 2014 -- and a few high civil (SCOTX) and criminal (CCA) court justices we mentioned in December last, in the spring and we'll mention again in October.

More than 75% of those gathering in San Antonio this weekend (Update: John says it's 65%, and he's on site) will celebrate the crowning of the presumptive nominee despite her accumulating baggage, and they'll exercise the same old tyranny of the majority over the 25% 35% left-wing.  The Berners should be easily abused because apparently their plan is to to lie down and take it.  Oh well, San Antone is still a great place to fiesta.  Who wants to sit in a convention hall when you could be drinking margaritas on the Riverwalk, anyway?

Drumpf is going to Bigfoot the state conclave with fundraisers and rallies in Dallas today and the Alamo City and H-Town tomorrow, sucking all the media oxygen out of the state.

Charles can still find a few small things to dream big about; good on him for his PMA.  Most of the so-called party leaders are more pragmatic, however.

And to some portion of the 25% of Texas Democrats who didn't vote for Hillary -- not to mention the half of the state's adults who are not registered to vote, and the 80+% of those who are who didn't participate in the primary -- it just doesn't look like much difference.

When it comes to thinking in binary: I have observed that the stronger the support one has for Hillary, the less this premise can be comprehended.  But at least that makes more sense than voting for Clinton in the primary because of 'the Supreme Court'.

This will be the first convention in ten years that I have actively boycotted, despite being granted both Sanders delegate and media credentials.  (I guess Sarah Slamen was right; some people don't read this blog after all.)  I'll still be following whatever action there is on social media, but I don't expect much.  Housing Secretary Julian Castro, once-presumptive vice-presidential nominee (or is it brother and Congressman Joaquin?  Or is it both?) will be keynoting, and the rest of the agenda looks primed to be knockout gas.

I kid because I care, Texas Dems.  Get your shit together for 2018.

Update: Worse than I suspected.

Another view of the Electoral College

Pretty much the same view as the previous ones.

No matter the 2016 presidential matchup after the primary campaigns, the Democratic nominee was likely to have an edge over the Republican candidate once the election turned toward the November race.

In the past six presidential elections, 32 states and the District of Columbia have voted solidly Democratic or solidly Republican. If none of that changes this year, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton would start out with 242 electoral votes — just 28 shy of the 270 she needs to win.

The GOP candidate would start out with just 102, if that trend were to hold. And if presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump won Arizona, Montana and the seven Southern states that voted Democratic only when Bill Clinton was on the ballot, Trump would be up to only 180 electoral votes.

That leaves 116 votes in 10 states. As always, Florida becomes crucial.

If Trump can win nine of those 10, he still would lose, unless Florida is among his victories. Clinton can lose nine of those 10, but if she wins Florida, she would move into the White House come January.

After the San Bernardino shootings, Drumpf gained in the horse-race polling... for the GOP nomination.  And he has also done so -- slightly -- in the wake of Orlando.  FiveThirtyEight's Harry Enten says not to read too much into it; the Republican primary electorate is quite obviously not the general election one.  And Clinton has otherwise bitten into Trump's lead among male and Caucasian voters.  Polling released next week will tell more, but he simply has no ground to lose.

If you're still nervous about the Queen's November prospects after reading this, be consoled with the takeaway, again: National polls are not the Electoral College.

And if you're #NeverTrump or #NeverHillary, you'll have at least two other choices in Texas -- Green and Libertarian, no indies -- and also in roughly forty other states in the Union to express your disgust with the D/R options that would be much more effective than a hashtag.  The candidate foreordained to win your state -- and/or the White House -- won't be affected in the slightest.  So vote your conscience, your principles, or your values; just don't vote for the status quo.  That's how we got to this sorry state in the first place.

And it's exactly why they take your vote for granted.

A Muslim terrorist... or a closeted, self-loathing gay man?

Who might have had some daddy issues, who beat his ex-wife, and who was investigated by the FBI for terrorist sympathies but whose case was ultimately dropped?

The gunman who attacked a Florida LGBT nightclub had attended the club before the attack and had used a gay dating and chat app, witnesses said.

Kevin West, a regular at Pulse nightclub, said Omar Mateen messaged him on and off for a year before the shooting using the gay chat and dating app Jack’d.

But they never met – until early Sunday morning.

West was dropping off a friend at the club when he noticed Mateen – whom he knew by sight but not by name – crossing the street wearing a dark cap and carrying a black cellphone about 1 a.m., an hour before the shooting.

Orlando gunman used gay dating app, visited LGBT nightclub on other occasions, witnesses say:

At least four regular customers of Pulse, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender nightclub where the massacre took place, told the Orlando Sentinel on Monday that they believed they had seen Mateen there before.

"Sometimes he would go over in the corner and sit and drink by himself, and other times he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent," said Ty Smith, who also uses the name Aries.

He saw Mateen at the club at least a dozen times, he said.

"We didn't really talk to him a lot, but I remember him saying things about his dad at times," Smith said. "He told us he had a wife and child."

He physically abused his former spouse; his father was a minor-league crackpot.

FORT PIERCE, Florida — Years before he shot up an Orlando gay club in what became the largest mass shooting in American history, Omar Mateen regularly picked up lunch from a drag queen at Ruby Tuesday. He may have even gone to see a drag show or two, a former high school classmate told The Daily Beast.

About 10 years ago, Mateen, a few years out of high school, was working at the supplement store GNC. Samuel King, a year ahead of him in high school, was working next door at the restaurant chain. Mateen was a few years out of playing football in high school while King, who is openly gay, had long, flowing extensions, and prettier hair than most of his female co-workers.

“He always had a smile on his face,” King told The Daily Beast on Sunday. “Maybe it’s because he was working in customer service.”

Ex-wife: Mateen had 'gay tendencies', used dating app Grindr

Former classmate says Mateen was gay

So do you draw 'jihadist' from this?  It appears the FBI did not consider him a menace to society, despite their attempts yesterday to cover their asses by saying he was 'radicalized'.  Conservatives are religiously avoiding using the G-word to describe Mateen but have rushed to judgment on 'Islamist terrist', and are vigorously defending their 'Raght to Keep N Bare', both of which are the most predictable of responses.

What if Mateen was just conflicted, awkward socially, a little strange, someone who was mocked as an adolescent and who became resentful and socially -- ultimately socio- and psychopathically -- dysfunctional as an adult?  What can we do for a person like that (besides not letting him buy guns)?  Maybe 'love IS the answer', but it seems as if Mateen had that externally... but not internally.

I'll save any more shade-tree psychology for additional facts to come out, but IMHO we still need some sane Republicans demanding sensible gun safety legislation.  The GOP electeds just won't listen to anybody else.

Update: Amanda Marcotte picks it up and adds the GOP critique.

Stupid things allegedly smart people say, RNC convention edition

(This is Part Two, Part One was here.)

"How the GOP could Dump Trump in Cleveland":

Do we think that the Republican Party will ditch presumptive nominee Donald Trump at its convention in July and select someone else to replace him — a notion that seems to be catching on among conservatives and commentators in the wake of Trump’s controversial remarks about the Mexican-American judge overseeing his Trump University suit?

No, we do not.

And yet, if there were ever an election weird and wild enough to make such a switcheroo possible — just barely — 2016 would be it.

Cleveland is a long way away. A lot can happen between now and then. So what would have to happen to make “Dump Trump” a reality?

To give our fellow convention fanatics something to fantasize about for the next 40 days, Unconventional has assembled a step-by-step instruction manual for dumping Trump. If any of these steps are skipped, the whole chain reaction fizzles out. But if every one of them is completed, there is still a chance — a very, very slim chance — that Donald Trump won’t be competing against Hillary Clinton in fall.

Tenuous and ignorant premises out of the way early; on to the jokes.

Step One: Trump keeps saying offensive stuff

Trump has said plenty of objectionable things since launching his campaign last summer: the Mexicans-are-rapists thing, the John-McCain-isn’t-a-war-hero thing, the Muslims-should-be-barred-from-entering-the-U.S. thing, and so on.

But the Judge Curiel-can’t-do-his-job-because-he’s-of-Mexican descent thing is the first toxic thing that Trump has said since becoming the GOP’s presumptive nominee. The content may be similar, but the context is very different. Before, during the primaries, Republican leaders could brush off Trump’s remarks. He’s not my candidate, they could say. Maybe the voters will still reject him. And if not, he’ll probably grow up in time for the general.

Back then, Trump didn’t represent the GOP. Now he does. So now whenever Trump says something offensive, other Republicans have to choose: Do I defend this? Or do I denounce it? Hiding isn’t an option anymore.

As we’ve seen over the last week, the risk of guilt by association has dramatically lowered the GOP’s tolerance for Trump’s most distasteful remarks.

“ ‘Bigot, bigot, bigot. Racist. Racist Racist,’ ” said influential conservative talk-radio host Hugh Hewitt Wednesday, recapping the morning’s headlines. “The Republican National Committee needs to step in and step up, and go see Donald Trump and tell him to get out of the race.”

Hugh Hewitt bailing out is huge.  Yuuuuuuuuge. 

Step Two: Trump’s poll numbers plummet

Right now, Trump is trailing Clinton by only 3.8 percentage points, on average, in the general-election polls. That’s reasonable. To be expected. He’s still “well within striking distance,” as they say.

But what happens if Trump’s numbers go into a free fall and Clinton starts to pull away? What if she crosses the 50-percent threshold and he plunges into the 30s? What if the gap between them widens — to five points, 10 points, 15 points?

Somebody else who does not understand how the Electoral College works.

This is key. 

This is not key.  Popular vote percentages -- you know, the same ones that Berners use to say that Sanders should be nominated over Hillary because he beats Trump -- might be the excuse the GOP uses to try to defenestrate their popularly elected nominee, but most DC electeds understand that's not how a president gets chosen.  And the EC numbers are grim already.

The major problem with dumping Trump is political.  It looks like GOP elites are conspiring to deny the will of GOP voters — the most galling offense imaginable in a year that’s been all about the voters denying the will of the elites.

But Trump’s plummeting poll numbers would provide objective evidence that actual voters agree with party leaders that he’s gone too far. The GOP would start to fear a down-ballot disaster. More Republicans would jump ship. Combined with a series of Curiel-like controversies, a sickening slide in Trump’s public-opinion stats might establish a new anti-Trump argument that doesn’t ask rank-and-file Republicans to reject the nominee just because establishment types like Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio are doing it: Trump had his chance. Now he’s tanking — and he’s taking the party with him. 

So if you were wondering where Ted Cruz has been all this time ...

Step Three: Someone else steps up

Mitt Romney refused. Ben Sasse begged off. James Mattis said no sir. Even David French — a bald, bearded conservative lawyer that no one had ever heard of — decided against it.

You can’t fault the #NeverTrump movement for lack of effort. But so far, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and his anti-Donald cronies have been unable to convince anybody to take on Trump.

For the whole “Dump Trump” scheme to work, this would have to change. As Curly Haugland, a member of the convention Rules Committee from North Dakota, recently told the New York Times, “In order to have a contested convention, we need to have contestants.”

Some Republican politicians are starting to signal their interest in a convention challenge. As Yahoo Senior Political Correspondent Jon Ward reported (last) week, conservatives are increasingly mentioning Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker as a “possible replacement.” RedState reported (a week ago) that there are “rumors” that Walker is “open” to such an outcome. One of Ward’s sources said that Walker, who mounted a brief bid for the 2016 GOP nomination, has told those working to find an alternative that he would be willing to step up at the convention if Trump continues to implode.

The likeliest substitute, however, would be someone who can already claim considerable support among the convention delegates. Ted Cruz comes to mind. Right now, he has 559 delegates to Trump’s 1,542. But remember: Many of the delegates now pledged to Trump were loyal to Cruz (or some other candidate) first.

For his part, Cruz has kept his options open, refusing to endorse Trump and suggesting that if he sees “a viable path to victory” in the future, he “will certainly respond accordingly.”

“I am looking and listening and watching the candidates,” Cruz told CNN earlier this week. “I’m doing the same thing millions of voters are doing and … time will tell.”

"Now for the fun part", the piece continues.  I'll pass; you go on ahead.  Hint: the GOP/RNC has to rewrite their rules.  How many Trumpeters do you think will take that lying down?

Go back to the top and read the part where they wrote, 'if any of these steps are skipped, the whole chain reaction fizzles out'.  And then read this again: 'But if every one of them is completed, there is still a chance — a very, very slim chance — that Donald Trump won’t be competing against Hillary Clinton in fall.'

No.  Just no.  And it has nothing to do with guns, or responsible gun safety legislation (which is the third rail of GOP political viability).

Sorry you had to waste five minutes reading all that.  I just document the atrocities, folks; I can't really influence them too much.

How you know Bernie's already conceded

This Weak with George Snufflelufagus may have been pre-empted in your market for coverage of the Orlando tragedy, so if you missed this, take note.

The Vermont senator also plans to meet with Clinton Tuesday to press her to embrace his progressive agenda.

On ABC's "This Week" Sunday, Sanders said he and Clinton will discuss "if she wins, what kind of administration she will have."

"What I need to see [is] a commitment that there will be progressive taxation," Sanders said.

"Will she go as far as I would like her to go? No, she won't," he said. "But I think millions of people want to understand and see is what kind of commitment she has to addressing the real crises in the country." 

Sanders is done, y'all.  Fought the good fight and all that happy horseshit, but now he's tired and he wants to go to bed.  All that's left to negotiate is his severance package.  Vice-president?  I doubt it.  Senate Majority Leader?  Kinda laughable, to say nothing of that blogger's command of the English language.

Some party platform BS, BS?  Yeah, he'll take that.  A tax increase, though?  In the words* of Hillary Clinton, 'you gotta be shitting me, old man'.

Over to you, Bern Unit.

*Paraphrasing slightly.

Whose fault is it again?

It was the worst act of terrorism on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001, and the deadliest attack on a gay target in the nation’s history, though officials said it was not clear whether some victims had been accidentally shot by law enforcement officers.

It's a hate crime against gays.  No, wait: it's radical Islamist terrorism -- and that means it's Obama's fault; after all, he sort of predicted it less than two weeks ago, AND Ted Cruz and Donald Trump both said so.  They're probably not altogether wrong about that, either; is this sick enough for you yet?  I just hope the president doesn't say "that's not who we are", because it's precisely who we are.

“Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism,” (Drumpf) wrote. “I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!”

'Smart' is just not going to be possible for you and your ilk, Don.  Ever.  What's your Plan B?

I'm still #FuckTheNRA, personally.

The vast majority of guns used in 16 recent mass shootings, including two guns believed to be used in the Orlando attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

Go ahead take a look, then filter it through the reality of the same old politicos posting the same meaningless #ThoughtsandPrayers on their social media accounts while they deposit another check from Wayne LaPierre.  Keep in mind that, like Dan Patrick, some people believe their thoughts and prayers were answered when more than a hundred Latinos/as, many of them LGBT, were struck down by bullets early yesterday morning.

As an atheist, my question is: why do you want to worship such a god as that?

Want to read more Tweets like that one above?  Here you go.

Not bothered enough yet?

Some Hillbots thought it would be primo to take a shot at Bernie Sanders over his gun policy.  And some Sandernistas fired right back with a full clip at Hillary:

“This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.”

But those “weapons of war” have been used on the streets of Iraq and in midnight raids on the civilian population in the war there that Hillary so ardently backed.

Does she even grasp what she is saying?  She is saying that it is an atrocity to use such weapons on Americans – but not on the brown people, civilians in their homes, in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East and North Africa in U.S. wars of aggression and the occupation.   To be horrified by the use of those weapons on Americans but not on Arabs qualifies as racism of the basest sort.

Not ugly enough for you yet?  Want more?

Sorry but I can't take any more.  Here's some Onion-style satire, this is my stop.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA (The Nil Admirari) - Today, a number of Americans and corporate news outlets were not intentionally being sarcastic when they described the latest mass shooting in the United States as "unbelievable" and "shocking."

"This is unbelievable. This kind of thing never happens in the United States," said Mandy Hammer, who awoke this morning from a coma she had been in for over fifty years.

The corporate media in the United States routinely used the word "shocking" to characterize yet another mass shooting in America, which boasted a historic body count.

Maxwell Keene, a Harvard University English professor, told TNA he was unaware of changes to the English language that would make either word appropriate to use.

A press release by the National Rifle Association informed Americans more guns would fix the epidemic of gun violence in America.

Congress confirmed any meaningful gun control remained hopelessly out of reach.​ 

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance mourns with Orlando and the nation as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff wants everyone to remember that Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick stand with Donald Trump, now and always.

Socratic Gadfly takes a week off from looking at politics to note his general support for science writer John Horgan and his critique of the current skepticism movement.

Video taken at the scene of the Pearsall Energy Center by TXsharon at Bluedaze indicates that Denton's air quality is indeed being made worse by the facility, despite the company's claims.

Texas Vox passes along a link to the remarks by the National Transportation Safety Board's former chair, who said (in the understatement of the year) that transporting crude oil by rail is just not a good idea.

Worn out from Texas' never-changing political climate, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs takes a look at Ohio, which is going to be a battleground state for both the White House and the Senate.

Egberto Willies updates the ongoing saga of the Humble ISD parents who are trying to save their kids from a dysfunctional school superintendent.

Before taking a break, South Texas Chisme takes note of the location recommended by Cong. Filemon Vela to Donald Trump regarding where he could put his border wall.

Neil at All People Have Value walked the streets of Houston with his sign regarding the value of long-term relationships in our often short-term society. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

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

Grit for Breakfast spots another incomprehensible SCOTX ruling: illegal searches are OK in asset forfeiture cases.

Protests against Donald Trump  when he visits Dallas this week may also target the restaurant hosting him because of their large number of Mexican employees, according to Trail Blazers.

Swamplot reports that the toxicology studies on the San Jacinto River's waste pits are on hold until the river's floodwaters recede.

It's not 'terror' so much as it is rage, says Prairie Weather.

Zachery Taylor says if you're taking any prescription medication, you might Google the name of it and the words 'lawsuit' or 'legal settlement'.

Robert Rivard urges investment in mass transit in San Antonio.

Kriston Capps observes that if Texas had spent as much on flood mitigation in recent years as it has spent on toll roads, we'd have far fewer floods.

Better Texas Blog notes how incredibly difficult it is to qualify for Medicaid in Texas.

BOR cheers the nomination of a Democratic presidential candidate who supports repealing the odious Hyde amendment.

Nancy Sims pauses to review history and the centuries-long fight for women's rights.

The Makeshift Academic examines whether transitional insurance plans are driving losses on state exchanges.

The Rag Blog's Dave Zirin eulogizes Muhammad Ali.

And Somervell County Salon's summer project has been building a new dog shelter.

Sunday Funnies

Unity, Democrat-style

-- This is how you do it, Democrats:

JUDY WOODRUFF: How much do you think, Mark, the fact that they sort of — the White House orchestrated this, this week, in a way that they just — they gave Bernie Sanders gave the space to get out when he wants to.

MARK SHIELDS: Democrats, historically, when they form a firing squad, form a circle. This was a total exception.

It was brilliantly choreographed. In addition to the president’s endorsement, a man not noted for his self-doubt, to say that she was the most qualified presidential candidate in his lifetime was quite an admission and statement.

I thought the other part of it, Judy, was the deference and respect and space they gave — given to Bernie Sanders, that he’s paid homage, he’s paid tribute, and I think deservedly so. He lost the nomination, but he won the future of the Democratic Party.

... and this is how you don't.

I keep John around on the blogroll feed in the right-hand column -- he's long gone from my FB and Twitter feeds due to being much more obnoxious even than this -- because I like to laugh at his thinking he's full of wit and his 5th-grade spelling and language skills, not to mention the logic he employs.  As the strongest Hillary sycophant that I have found, he's just too dense for me to be concerned with any longer.  And lately I feel the same way about anybody who takes his political opinions as anything but a joke.

What John will seemingly never understand is how Bernie Sanders made socialism cool.  And that genie ain't going back in the bottle.  Four years from now, when President Hillary Clinton is thrashing around like a drowning woman because of a failed Iran war, a turd-filled economy, an approval rate in the mid-20's and losing badly to whomever the GOP nominates, he's going to be blaming "soshulists" -- anybody but Democrats -- for her one-term failure.  Bookmark this post.