Byron has his writeup of the Dallas hearing, plus a letter from a woman who attended the ill-fated Brownsville hearing. Both are full of useful information. Thanks, Byron!
As the Austin American Statesman reminds us, there's more than just redistricting going on in Austin right about now:
An Austin lobbyist took a look at his calendar for the next 30 days and sent a friend a tongue-in-cheek summary: "There are now 32 invitations for opportunities to participate in fund-raising receptions. I think I'll go to them all -- may I borrow your checkbook?"During a regular session of the Legislature, members are barred from raising campaign contributions, an attempt at restricting the rawest way to influence law-making that marked a bygone era in Texas politics. No such rule exists during a special session. It's open season on lobbyists' expense accounts.
The special session on redistricting opens today, and with it, the doors to various fund-raising receptions for legislators brought back to Austin.
Because the session will be dominated at least at first by congressional redistricting, it means that a relative handful of legislators will be busy. Most of them will have plenty of time to hit up the lobby for golf, dinners, lunches and other forms of diversion while committees work out the details.
Granted, the Legislature isn't the back-slapping collection of hard-drinking partiers that it was once was, but that many people with that much time on their hands is an invitation to mischief.
Maybe the Lege is different nowadays (I doubt it's that different), but it wasn't that long ago that Bo Pilgrim was handing out $10,000 checks on the Senate floor just before a vote about worker's compensation came up. There's a reason why fundraising during regular sessions is verboten, and with the business lobbyists' gallery being called the "owner's box" I'd say there's at least as strong a reason for there to be a ban on fundraising during this or any special session. Hell, it was fundraising that gave rise to the conditions that led to this session. Of course, our lapdog Governor will never take such a bold step. It would be bad for his own business.
Thanks to Matt for the tip on the Statesman editorial.
Having read Teresa Nielsen Hayden's paean to Jell-o salads, I am struck with the awe-inspiring realization that I am an actual ethnic person, because the only place I ever encountered Jell-o in my childhood was as a dessert. I see Jell-o salads from time to time here at work when there's a potluck lunch of some kind, and they always look out of place to me. As far as I'm concerned, if there isn't vinegar involved, it ain't salad.
Growing up where the dominant cuisine was Italian*, our family recipes are a bit more spicy, though by no means any healthier (see the ingredient list for Easter Bread in this post I wrote after my grandmother died for a prime example). On the other side of the family, my cousin Maureen solicited a bunch of recipies from various relatives for a cookbook that she put together as a wedding favor. I need to hunt one of them down to see if there are any deep, dark Jell-o secrets lurking out there.
Thanks to Karin for pointing this out to me.
* - My Irish father, who loves garlic more than my delicate-stomached mother does, was quickly adopted as an honorary paisan by Mom's aunts once they discovered how big his appetite was for their cooking. This is a fairly universal way to get in good with one's in-laws, and a lesson I learned well (it helps that my own mother-in-law is an excellent cook).
Hang on to your life, liberty, and property again: the Lege has reconvened to take another shot at shoving a redistricting bill through. Before anyone asks, the reason that the Dems (almost surely) won't walk out again is simple. In the regular session, the walkout occurred on the Monday before the Friday deadline for new bills to be brought to the floor. The DeLay/King redistricting bill had just come out of committee, but hadn't been brought to the floor for a full House vote yet. The Dems broke quorum to prevent that from happening, and with the Friday deadline, they only needed to stay away for five days. The rules are different in a special session, meaning that the Dems would have to stay away a lot longer in order to accomplish the same feat. Given that the Governor could always call another special session, that tactic would likely be ineffective.
Even if you grant that they could stick together - and out of the reach of whatever law enforcement groups the Republicans could sic on them - for however long it took, they'd be unlikely to get the same favorable reaction from the press. Doing something like that once is a bold stroke in defense of one's principles. Doing it twice is tiresome and petty. Fair or not, that's how it would be portrayed.
The House Dems took their best shot. If this is to be defeated, it's up to the Senate. With Eddie Lucio's announcement that he's running for reelection, that removes creating a district that he could win as an incentive the GOP can dangle in front of him. Frank Madla, Ken Armbrister, and maybe Bill Ratliff are all swing votes. If Lucio decides to stand with the rest of the Democrats - never a sure bet given his Sybil-like nature, but let's say so for the sake of argument - the GOP will need two of the other three to go along. You can bet there'll be plenty of arm-twisting a-happening.
There's still a question of which map will wind up being presented to the Senate by the House. At the hearing on Saturday, the weaselly Ron Wilson kept saying that the lines were still being negotiated. For sure, the DeLay/King map will be challenged in court - the expert hired by Governor Perry for the 2001 redistricting attempt says so:
"The overall nature of the proposed plan is troubling," said John Alford, a Rice University political science professor. "It is a pro-Republican partisan gerrymander on top of an already pro-Republican existing plan."It attempts to achieve for the Republican Party in Washington, through artificial pairings and partisan packing and cracking, what Republican voters in the existing districts could already do easily on their own -- elect a disproportionately Republican delegation," Alford said in a written report.
Alford's comments were in a memo to Texas Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos, D-Austin, who has been spearheading an effort by Democrats in the state Senate to block the redrawn congressional map. Barrientos and others requested the analysis. Barrientos could not be reached for comment.
[...]
To increase Republican seats, crafters of the House plan pack Democratic voters in fewer districts, reducing districts with Democratic majorities from 12 to 10 and making all Democratic districts into minority districts, Alford said.
Also, the plan shifts more minorities into districts where minorities already are the majority. The plan stretches boundaries many miles and in odd configurations to draw in minorities from separate areas of the state, he said.
"The focus, in other words, is on the ethnicity of the representative, not the ethnicity of the voters and their ability to elect their candidates of choice -- the test under the Voting Rights Act," Alford said in his report.
The Supreme Court has previously rejected districts that were irregularly drawn and overly race conscious, including some in Texas, Alford said.
Until another map is displayed and approved, this is all theoretical. The Republicans are still arguing amongst themselves about this.
Don't look for anything to happen too quickly. According to Byron, the House has already adjourned until 10 AM Thursday. With Friday being a holiday, expect the real action to begin next week.
Now that they've discovered Westar, the Chron has finally gotten around to editorializing on it:
DeLay denied any quid pro quo, and probably none was stated. But business interests focused on enriching themselves do not hand out lavish campaign donations without expecting something in return. Sometimes it is only to avoid the kind of retribution that DeLay has threatened from time to time.In e-mails, Westar executives hoped their contributions would bring a seat at the table. DeLay has been known to turn over entire offices to lobbyists intent on writing legislation to benefit their clients.
The editorial meanders though a laundry list of DeLay's offenses, and as such doesn't have much of an edge to it. I almost can't blame them - DeLay is such a target-rich environment.
Meanwhile, the Dallas Morning News has a good overview of how Westar and other corporate cash ties into last year's statewide election and now the redistricting battle.
The Texans PAC raised about $1.5 million in 2002, including $50,000 from El Paso Energy, $25,000 from Phillip Morris, $20,000 from AT&T and $25,000 from Kansas-based Westar Energy, a company embroiled in a fund-raising controversy.In all, more than $500,000 of the PAC's money came from out-of-state corporations, many with interests in federal legislation, records indicate.
In the 2002 Texas elections, the PAC gave $747,000 in contributions to the 22 key Republican candidates, 18 of whom won their races and provided the margin for the GOP takeover in the House.
"Our objective was to win the statehouse, maintain a majority in the Senate and help the statewide candidates," [John Colyandro, former executive director of the Texans for a Republican Majority] said.
As PAC officers became confident about the Senate and statewide efforts, "we ended up focused on the state House in the last cycle," he said.
I'll say again: That's an awful lot of money from businesses that aren't based in Texas in order to affect Texas state elections and thus curry favor with one Texas federal politician. Doesn't that seem, you know, wrong, somehow?
As for the Westar connection:
As congressional negotiators fashioned an energy bill last year, Westar executives wanted to free the company from certain regulations and devised a plan to get a "a strong position at the table" by dedicating $55,000 for political donations, according to internal company e-mails that have become public in recent weeks.Mr. DeLay and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, received donations. They said they did nothing wrong and made no promises to Westar, regardless of the company's expectations about access or favorable treatment.
Mr. Barton introduced a provision that could have saved the company billions of dollars but dropped his support when a grand jury began investigating former Westar CEO David Wittig, who was indicted on charges unrelated to campaign fund-raising.
Texans PAC records on file with the IRS indicate that Westar gave the donation a few weeks before several Westar executives attended a two-day retreat and "energy roundtable" with Mr. DeLay at a mountain resort in Virginia.
DeLay aides say the majority leader did not solicit the donation. He met with Westar representatives last September to discuss the company's problem, which involved tax treatment for utility holding companies.
Be honest with me, now. Do you really believe that the Westar folks contributed to a Tom DeLay PAC that was aimed at electing representatives in a state where they don't do business on their own volition? Do you really believe this idea sprung, fully formed, into their own heads as the fully grown goddess Athena emerged from the head of Zeus?
By the way, in case anyone's paying attention, another politician is returning his Westar money rather than deal with the whiff of taint. Attorney General Ashcroft, who still hasn't addressed his own Westar ties, has announced no plans to look into any of this yet.
A few more articles on the redistricting hearings: from the Dallas Morning News (here and here), from the Laredo Morning Times, and from the Lufkin Daily News. Via The View v.2.
I've never been tempted to get text messaging on my cell phone, and after reading this story, I'm even less inclined to do so.
Although few customers are receiving cell phone spam now, experts predict the onslaught will multiply to e-mail-sized proportions. Efforts to regulate spam thus far have been weak at best, and there is very little consumers can do to protect themselves.Last week, cell phones were added to the Texas No Call list, with telemarketing companies held to the list's rules beginning March 2004. But many consumer advocates already criticize the current list because it has too many loopholes, enforcement is weak and the drawn-out process for handling complaints tilts too far in favor of telemarketers.
Regulators say the number of complaints has been hard to track because the problem is relatively new. But complaints have been increasing, as "texting" has become more popular.
"We're hearing more about it," said Rosemary Kimball, spokeswoman for the Federal Communications Commission.
[...]
Experts are drawing similarities between the growing popularity of texting and e-mail, and the similarities may soon include huge amounts of spam. Experts say consumers should be on the lookout for cell phone spam.
"It's a far better target for spammers than randomly generated e-mail addresses," Chamberlain said.
Cell phone numbers are assigned in blocks of about 10,000 units, Chamberlain said, making it easier to predict existing numbers. For example, if someone's last four digits were 1111, it is likely the same numbers would exist with the last four digits 1112, 1113 and so on, he said.
There are three ways to text message a cell phone: from another mobile phone, from a cell phone provider's Web site, or by e-mail. It is possible spammers will incur no cost for sending the message, but consumers may be charged a few cents for receiving it.
"Unlike Internet spam, wireless phone spam comes with an annoying beep on your phone and a direct price tag," said Janee Briesemeister, senior policy analyst with the Consumers Union in Austin. "Consumers aren't just getting an annoying message they didn't want, they are paying 10 cents for it."
I need to sign up for the national no-call list, which I see allows you to include cell phone numbers as well. If there's ever a national Do-Not-Send-Text-Messages list, I'll sign up for that even if I don't ever get text messaging on my cell phone.
I must confess, I don't get Radley Balko's objection to the national Do Not Call list. I'm sorry, but I consider my right to exclude whoever I want from my own home to be more valuable than MegaCorp's right to interrupt my dinner. Yes, Caller ID helps, but not nearly as much as you might think. For one thing, most junk calls come in as "Caller Unknown". I could ignore all of those calls, but unfortunately calls from my out-of-state parents also come in as "Caller Unknown". I don't want to have to make my folks start every call by talking to my machine in order to filter out sales calls. I agree with the commenter who says that this is the equivalent of putting up a "No Trespassing" sign. If that ain't libertarian, then being libertarian ain't worth squat.
UPDATE: Patrick points to this post which explains why the national do-not-call list ain't all that. Rats!
Another unsigned editorial in the Chron denouncing the special session on redistricting, which begins tomorrow. They've been pretty consistent on this, and for a change they note that they editorialized against Democratic gerrymandering back in 1991. (No, I'm not going to search through their archives to verify or contradict this.)
This op-ed piece talks about the effect of redistricting here and elsewere on democracy:
Does redistricting make a difference? You bet it does. Virginia Democrats in 2001 won their first gubernatorial race since 1989. But Republicans went from barely controlling the statehouse to a two-thirds majority. How? That's right - Republicans drew the district lines before the election.In many states, one party stuck it to the other in redistricting. Take Florida, where Democrats are strong enough to hold both U.S. Senate seats and gain a virtual tie in the presidential race. But with full control of drawing the district lines, Republicans hold an overwhelming 18 of 25 U.S. House seats. In 2002 Maryland Democrats picked up two of the state's Republicans' four U.S. House seats as a direct result of redistricting.
However dangerous to democracy such partisan power grabs are, however, the problem is more fundamental and sweeping. The real story of the last redistricting cycle was that both parties generally colluded in a crass way to take on their real enemy: the voters. "Incumbent protection" was raised to a whole new level.
The result was that in 2002, just four incumbents - the fewest in history - lost to nonincumbent challengers. In California, every single incumbent won by landslide margins. It was no coincidence that Democratic incumbents forked over $20,000 apiece to the redistricting consultant to draw them a safe seat, and that the consultant was the brother of one of the incumbents. To buy their cooperation, Republican incumbents were given safe seats too. California voters were the real losers.
The authors make a plea for "nonpartisan redistricting commissions", one of those things that sounds nice but is rather hard to imagine existing in the real world. (Yes, I know, Iowa and Washington state have something like that. Unfortunately, in Texas I'd expect that the only nonpartisans you could find to participate would also be completely ignorant and apathetic about it.)
Finally, there's this puzzling op-ed, which tries to make a case that both sides were wrong in the walkout but never cites any facts to support his argument:
The founders of Texas gathered together during a hot Texas summer in 1845 to craft the first constitution of the state of Texas. They crafted a very thoughtful system, which included the requirement of a quorum of two-thirds. A quorum is the number of legislators required to be present before the House can begin. While only a majority is needed to pass a bill, there must be at least two-thirds of the House present to open business. This ensures the majority may not gather in secret without the opportunity for the minority to join the debate. It also ensures that a catastrophe, such as losing a large number of legislators in an accident or war, does not afford a political opportunity to the majority who could meet quickly before replacement representatives were appointed.Yet these writers of the Texas Constitution also realized that legislators making up the minority could easily subvert this process and misuse the quorum requirement by simply refusing to show up (for example, fleeing to Oklahoma). This would allow the requirement of a quorum to be used as a bargaining chip rather than its real purpose of ensuring open participation and debate.
So these wise men added a provision to the quorum requirement (then Article III, Section 12) which is still in place today. Article III, Section 10 of the current Texas Constitution states that a smaller number of legislators than the quorum may "compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide."
Very simply, the Texas founders highly disapproved of intentionally being absent to avoid a quorum. They disapproved so much that they gave those legislators in attendance, though less than a quorum, great and expansive powers. The House members who are there may act "in such manner" and assess "such penalties" as they decide. Such expansive powers are rarely given -- to anyone.
The Texas founders clearly thought this was important. To do nothing to compel attendance of absent legislators is tantamount to allowing our constitutional legislative process to be intentionally hijacked for the political gain of a small group. The remaining House members have a constitutional duty to have criminal arrest warrants issued to compel the return of the missing legislators and fine them severely if they don't.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans are heroes in the May debacle. It is not courage but dereliction of duty to refuse to show up for your constitutional obligations in the Legislature. Quorum is intended to ensure the full participation of all voices, not the tyranny of the minority.
It is also wrong, as the Republicans did, to stand idly by and do nothing to enforce our constitution or the democratic-republican forum of government it sets in place. All that is necessary for the destruction of our state constitution system is for good men and women to do nothing.
I suppose it's possible that the men who wrote Texas' Constitution might have this view of an intentional walkout, but I'm not going to take this author's word for it if he can't be bothered to scare up a quote or two in support of it. It seems to me that it's equally valid to conclude that the authors of a system that deliberately weakened the powers of the executive and explicitly spelled out a means to prevent government business from proceeding might not have disapproved of the renegades' actions.
As for the claims that the Republicans "stood idly by", well, I guess this guy hasn't been reading about all of the things that the DPS was ordered to do, from visiting prenatal wards to calling the Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps he'd have been mollified by an armed assault on the Ardmore Holiday Inn, but it seems to me that the GOP did everything it reasonably could - not to mention a few things it unreasonably could - to get the Democrats back. I suppose I could do a Google search on author Kelly Shackleford or his "Free Market Foundation" to see if he's always this dense, but I have better things to do with my time.
This morning my friend Andrea and I spent two hours at the House redistricting committee's public meeting. We knew it was going to be wild before we got there, and we were not disappointed. When we arrived at 8:45, the parking lot outside the Rod Paige Auditorium at Texas Southern University was already full. We were directed to a satellite lot a block away. As we milled about the foyer before we were seated, it was obvious that despite efforts from both parties to rally the troops, Democrats far outnumbered Republicans. A reporter from News24 Houston asked us if we were Republicans. When we told her no, she said that she hadn't found any yet. There were a few there, but I'd estimate the crowd was more than 95% Democrat. (There were also a couple of LaRouchies there, passing out literature and making a nuisance of themselves.)
The hearing itself started an hour late. There was a form that you had to fill out if you wanted to testify. For some odd reason, photocopied or faxed versions of this form were unacceptable. I'm not talking about forms on which the signature was not original, I mean any blank form that had been copied or faxed had to be redone even if it bore a genuine autograph. A lot of time was wasted while people redid their forms.
The panel was chaired by Rep. Geanie Morrison (R, Victoria). Members included Phil King (R, Weatherford), who was the author of the House redistricting bill that was killed by the Ardmore walkout, Ron Wilson, Sylvester Turner, Rick Noriega (all D, Houston), Robert Talton (R, Pasadena), Vilma Luna (D, Corpus Christi), Martha Wong (R, Houston), and a couple more whose names I did not catch. Morrison solicited and received a motion to limit testimony to five minutes per person due to the number of people present (all seats were taken, and folding chairs were brought in to handle the overflow), which was passed without comment. She also asked the audience to please refrain from making noise, as the proceedings were being recorded and transcribed. She may as well have asked everyone to suck their thumbs throughout, as events transpired. Two translators, one Spanish and one Vietnamese, were introduced and announced their availability for anyone who might need them.
First to speak were the members of Congress who were present. Gene Green and Chris Bell declined to testify. They requested instead that written reports they'd prepared be entered into the record, and they said that they opposed redistricting. Sheila Jackson Lee was the first to actually speak on the record, though she took only about a minute. Her statement welcoming the committee members to "the current 18th district" drew loud applause. When she finished her brief remarks, Ron Wilson started asking her questions, and that's when things started to get interesting.
Wilson, who did not walk out and who has been supportive of redistricting and critical of his fellow Democrats, noted that the current plan would make it easier for black candidates to win certain districts, such as the 9th CD, currently held by Nick Lampson. Under the DeLay/Weatherford plan, the 9th would include large swaths of east Houston and would be a "minority opportunity" district. In particular, it would be a district Ron Wilson could win. This was never explicitly said, but it was crystal clear from Wilson's questions that this was on his mind. he asked Jackson Lee if she favored or opposed increasing the number of minority Congress members from Texas.
Jackson Lee responded by saying that it was more important to her that the interests of minorities be represented. She noted that most Texas Congressional Democrats score 85-95% on the NAACP's report card. Even Ralph Hall, the most conservative member of the delegation, scored 47%. By contrast, the highest scoring Republican got a 33%. It makes no sense, she said, to trade a bunch of high scoring Democrats of any color for a bunch of Republicans who'd score 20% or less. She also referred to Nelson Wolff's statement that Rep. Henry Bonilla, the one minority GOP Congress member, would be in danger of losing his seat under the new map.
Wilson followed up by pressing his argument that it's better to have minority Congress members representing minority constituents rather than having white Congress members in districts that may or may not eventually elect a minority candidate. At one point, as Jackson Lee kept rebuffing his logic, he asked if she'd be willing to have her district split into two smaller ones that white Democrats would win. She refused to take the bait and stayed more or less on message.
Next up were the state representatives. Most of them declined to testify. The two who did were Joe Deshotel (D, Beaumont) and Garnet Coleman (D, Houston). Deshotel echoed a theme also heard in places like Austin and Abilene, which is that the proposed map effectively eliminates representation from his home town. He noted that the 9th CD, which elected a Republican in 1994 and which voted 53% for Perry and Cornyn in 2002, would have 150,000 voters in Beaumont and 500,000 in Houston if the plan went through, meaning that the representative would almost assuredly not be from Beaumont. He also stated that the 9th as it now stands is a minority opportunity district but that no such candidates have chosen to run because they're satisfied with Lampson.
Wilson took a crack at Deshotel as well, basically asking him the same questions as he did Jackson Lee. Deshotel said that he'd happily support a map that created a new black district, as long as that was all it did. He refused to accept trading seven Democrats for one new black district, likening it to trading seven All Star players for one Shaquille O'Neil.
It was when Garnet Coleman got up to speak that the real fireworks started. Coleman played to the crowd, calling the plan "Republican affirmative action", blaming Tom DeLay by name, and referring to the Ardmore walkout, all of which drew cheers and pleas from Morrison to the crowd to not make the court reporter's job any harder. He pounded on the fact that a mid-decade attempt to redistrict that wasn't ordered by a federal court was unprecedented. After a few minutes of this, Coleman pointed his rhetoric squarely at Wilson, saying "We're disappointed in you, Ron".
Well. At that point, I lost the ability to hear what was going on, between the roar of the crowd and Wilson's angry response. The two bickered loudly for several minutes before Geanie Morrison finally intervened by recognizing Sylvester Turner, who tried to play peacemaker. Coleman was pretty much finished at that point anyway, and he yielded the podium.
That was it for the elected officials, and that was when we left. The hearing was scheduled to run until 8 PM, with a two hour break for lunch at 1. The Chronicle story captures a little bit of what happened, but not much. According to a flyer I saw, there will be a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday at 1 PM at Cesar Chavez High School. I'll have to depend on the Chron report for that one, as I'll be at work. As Byron notes, there were hearings elsewhere today, and there was some pre-hearing drama in Dallas. I look forward to reading his report as well.
UPDATE: This updated story has some of the exchange between Coleman and Wilson:
The heat flared up between Coleman and Wilson when Coleman said, "I'm disappointed in you, Ron," and Wilson replied similarly.Wilson accused Coleman of putting the interests of the Democratic Party ahead of blacks, noting that he has taken money from the party as a Houston political consultant. Last fall, Coleman helped coordinate a get-out-the-vote effort in Harris County.
That prompted Coleman to point out that Wilson, a Houston lawyer, drove a 2000 Lamborghini to the hearing.
"That's why you're shilling for the Republicans," Coleman screamed at Wilson, causing many in the crowd to start chanting "sell out."
"Well," Wilson yelled back, "I don't make my money running campaigns."
Nasty stuff. For what it's worth, I heard Coleman say "We're disappointed", not "I'm disappointed", but I could be wrong. I'll see if I can find the official transcript.
Just when you thought it was safe...A federal lawsuit filed by 62 plaintiffs alleges that Chief C.O. "BAMF" Bradford knew and approved of the K-Mart raid last August. Among others, it names former Captain Mark Aguirre and Council member Michael "Boy Wonder" Berry as defendants.
The suit alleges Bradford was aware of a plan for making indiscriminate sweeps as long as four months before the Kmart mass arrests.Aguirre, whom the suit calls the mastermind of the sweeps plan, outlined his idea in a memo as early as May 13, 2002, the suit states.
It says Bradford again was informed of the plan in an Aug. 13 memo titled, "Anticipated Mass Arrests from Operation ERACER." The chief "ultimately approved of, or at the very least, acquiesced to the plan," the suit alleges.
It says the 1 a.m. raid at the Kmart in the 8400 block of Westheimer was part of an effort to curry political favor with area residents and businesses.
Aguirre first devised the mass arrest technique in response to complaints about crime near the Greyhound Bus Terminal in the 2600 block of Main and street people camps under the Pierce Elevated, the suit says.
Police carried out several sweeps in the areas, the suit says, and "numerous innocent, law-abiding citizens were unlawfully detained, seized and / or arrested in the roundups."
"Despite its blatant illegality, the plan was popular with residents and businesses, and Capt. Mark Aguirre won praise from them and civic leaders," the suit says.
It says police and city officials knew that the raids meant that innocent people were being arrested and their constitutional rights violated, but continued to support the raids.
Berry accompanied officers on a "dry run" raid in which 25 people were arrested at James Coney Island the night before the Kmart raid, the suit says.
It describes Berry as a strong supporter of Aguirre's tactics.
The suit also names John Jennings as representative of Sage Interests, manager of the Kmart and Sonic property, accusing him of falsely telling police that those arrested were trespassing.
I wonder if the commenter on this post is involved in some way with this lawsuit.
I've added several more blogs to the Texas Political Bloggers page. Counting the expats and myself, there's a total of 66. A special shoutout to newcomer Appalachia Alumni Association, who has the best intro and name explanation I've seen in awhile (scroll down to the bottom of the page, the permalink is a bit screwy, something I've never before seen in a Movable Type blog). Check 'em out.
Missed this earlier...Happy third blogiversary to Mike Tremoulet, my blogfather and the guiding voice of Coffee Corner. Yep, Mikey was blogging back in 2000, when the rest of us were still mostly depending on mainstream media sources and using the Web primarily for downloading smut (or so I've heard). Raise your cup of java in salute. Way to go, Mikey!
The 2003 National Champion Rice Owls baseball team - and no, I'm not going to get tired of typing that any time soon - got a victory parade in downtown Houston yesterday along with the Calder Cup-winning Houston Aeros. What a great week this has been for Rice.
Hey, Eric, get a load of this letter to the editor:
Proud of mannerly fansWhat's this? No burning buildings, no mobs, no overturned police cars? We must applaud the discipline/restraint of Rice [University] students and Houstonians as we honor the first national athletic title in the [Rice] Owls' history. This behavior is quite a contrast to other U.S. cities.
Ed Rich, Friendswood
Amen.
Ginger has some words about the local angle to the Lawrence v. Texas decision, about which Chron coverage is here, a local reaction story is here, an unsigned editorial praising the ruling here, and analysis of DA Chuck Rosenthal's inept performance arguing the state's case is here. I agree with Ginger that the net result of Rosenthal's handling of this case is likely to be at best a wash. He fired up his conservative base as well as his opponents.
Rosenthal is seen by Dems as one of the weaker Harris County incumbents. A glance at the 2000 election returns shows why:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
REP - CHUCK ROSENTHAL . . . . . . 485,385 54.12
DEM - JAMES S. "JIM" DOUGHERTY . . . 411,436 45.88COUNTY ATTORNEY
REP - MICHAEL P. FLEMING . . . . . 529,029 100.00SHERIFF
REP - TOMMY THOMAS . . . . . . . 534,137 100.00COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
REP - PAUL BETTENCOURT . . . . . 521,165 57.08
DEM - JOHN T. WEBB . . . . . . . 372,671 40.82
LIB - PETER C. ELLOWAY . . . . . 19,194 2.10
Rosenthal drew quite a few less votes than similar Republican officeholders. It's not hard to believe that a strong challenger could knock him off in 2004, though if it happens I'd think it'd be because of his involvement in the HPD Crime Lab scandal and not because of the Lawrence case.
Meanwhile, Ted points to The Antic Muse, who has a sharp and witty analysis of the decision.
Check out the hissy-fit he throws in his dissent, basically predicting that overturning Bowers will lead to utter chaos, real wrath of God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, and volcanos! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
That's right, folks, he just argued that the getting the police out of gay people's bedrooms will lead to pig-fucking. (Or, worse: touching yourself.)
Hilarious. Go read the whole thing.
Finally, as propitious as the ruling's timing was to coincide with Appropriate Michael Savage's Name For Your Own Purposes Day, it's even more fitting that it came two days before Houston's annual Pride Day Parade. Go read this article - it's full of what things used to be like for gay folks in Houston, and it ain't pretty. Here's a sample:
[Jack] Valinski, host of KPFT-FM's weekly "Queer Voices" talk show, recalled a day in the 1980s when robed and hooded Ku Klux Klansmen paraded through the heart of Montrose.Bill Bridges, 65, a longtime member of the fiscally conservative Log Cabin Republicans, remembered when police raids on gay bars in the early 1960s invariably would be reported in a daily newspaper, complete with the names of those arrested and the places they worked.
[Clarence] Bagby, president of the Houston Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Community Center, recalled his days at Sharpstown High School in the late 1970s when openly gay students would be beaten or smashed into lockers. "I didn't feel safe to be open and out," he said. "I was afraid someone would take me out back and beat the hell out of me or worse."
In the 1980s, Bagby recalled, undercover Houston police were assigned to Montrose in an effort to sensitize them to the plight of gays.
"They went out in stereotypical gay outfits -- 501 jeans and real tight T-shirts with rolled-up sleeves," Bagby said. "They kind of looked like muscle boys. Here are these police, heterosexual, middle-aged men. They were horrified by how they were treated. Eggs were thrown at them. One was attacked with a baseball bat."
In 1985, Houston voters trounced a proposal protecting the jobs of gay city workers. And the momentum of that vote led to creation of of a "Straight Slate" of anti-gay rights candidates, led by former Mayor Louie Welch. Welch failed in his challenge to then-Mayor Kathy Whitmire, but not before suggesting one answer to curbing the growing AIDS epidemic was to "shoot the queers."
Verbal and physical gay bashing reached its nadir on July 4, 1991, when 27-year-old banker John Broussard and two friends left a Montrose night spot to be confronted by 10 teens from The Woodlands.
In the ensuing altercation, Broussard suffered crushed testicles, a broken rib and two stab wounds in the chest. He died hours later at a Houston hospital.
With Hill, a gay gadfly and ex-jewel thief, in the forefront, Houston's gay community successfully agitated for full investigation and prosecution of the crime. Broussard's killer, Jon Buice, was sentenced to 45 years in prison.
These are all things that happened within my lifetime, some of them within my memory. Don't ever forget what it was like.
[Ken Jones, president of the Houston Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus] estimated that as many as 20 percent of Houstonians may be "truly scared of gays." "That may be down from 60 percent," he said. "I'm just pulling these numbers out of my hat, but there's no doubt there's a group frightened of the 'gay agenda.' I'd like to know what that is.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Byron's on the job covering the redistricting hearings going on around the state. Be sure to read the various accounts of the brouhaha in Brownsville. I will be at the Houston hearing tomorrow morning and will report what goes on wen I return.
Easily the most ludicrous thing that has been said or will be said by anyone in this whole ridiculous saga was said by Rob Beckham, a former Abiliene City Council member and an obviously sore loser who failed to knock off Charlie Stenholm in 2002:
Beckham assigns Stenholm a generous share of the blame for the threat to the 17th District."We are a Republican district that has continued to vote for Congressman Stenholm," he said. "Charlie’s ego has kept him running for office."
Stenholm should have retired, switched parties "or done something to protect Abilene," Beckham said.
Amazing. I think I lost five points of IQ just reading what he said. Hey, you Republicans, you wanna know why you can't win those five Congressional districts that voted over 50% for Cornyn, Perry, and Dewhurst in 2002 but keep sending guys like Stenholm back to DC, there's your answer: You've run stupid candidates, and the voters have seen right through them.
That in a nutshell is the thing that frosts me the most about this whole thing. It's very much like the phony push for term limits back in the early 90s - the party that can't win certain elections that it thinks it should decides the best way to achieve its aims is to change the rules. Jesus H. Christ, Cornyn and Perry got 67% and 72% of the votes in Stenholm's district. How much friendlier a demographic do you guys need?
[deep breath, deep breath]
OK, that's better. Meanwhile, I hope people have noticed that Hispanics appear to be none too pleased with redistricting. Despite claims that the DeLay plan would lead to more black and Hispanic Congress members, one plausible scenario that could result from the DeLay map is for the one Hispanic Republican to lose his seat:
Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, a Democrat who claims bipartisan support, said U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-San Antonio, was in danger of being unseated in his own party's primary if lawmakers adopt a redistricting map approved by the House panel during the regular session.That map, with some changes, is expected to be filed as a starting point for debate during the special session called by Gov. Rick Perry.
Bonilla, a former television producer who has been in Congress for 10 years, has been showcased by President Bush and other Republican leaders in an effort to attract more Hispanics to the GOP.
The GOP proposal would almost completely transform Bonilla's district, which now stretches from San Antonio across a vast stretch of West Texas to El Paso. He would keep part of Bexar County but exchange the West Texas counties for suburban counties north and east of San Antonio.
Wolff, a former mayor of San Antonio and a former state legislator, said Bonilla would trade a district with a Hispanic majority for one with an Anglo majority. There is a "good chance" that he could lose a challenge in the Republican primary under the proposed map, Wolff added.
Finally, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has accused the county GOP of playing the race card in an email to its supporters:
The target of Jackson Lee's accusation is an e-mail the local party sent its members, urging them to attend the Texas House Redistricting Committee hearing scheduled Saturday at Texas Southern University.The e-mail includes a photo of Jackson Lee at a lectern and the caption: "She will be there to express her views ... will you be there to express yours?" The caption does not identify the congresswoman.
"I do not believe for a minute that everyone to whom this e-mail was directed knows that is a picture of a congresswoman from the 18th District," Jackson Lee said. "Many of them will simply see an African-American behind the podium, along with the Republicans' foreboding language.
"Unfortunately, the Republicans chose to play the race card," she said. "It is deceitful and it is shameful. The Harris County Republican Party should not simply apologize to me.
"They should apologize to the African-Americans in the Houston area and across the nation."
County GOP Chair Jared Woodfill claims that emails were sent yesterday and will be sent today that have photos of Chris Bell and Gene Green in them. As for the veracity of Jackson Lee's charge, I couldn't say. She's my Congress member, but I may or may not be able to indentify her from a contextless photo, though one could certainly argue that the photo in Woodfill's email wasn't exactly without context. Truthfully, I'd probably assume it was Jackson Lee.
That doesn't mean I think there's nothing to what she's saying here. Remember, one of the things the DeLay map does is move the heavily black Fort Bend Precinct 2 out of his own district and into Jackson Lee's. With Fort Bend growing progressively less Anglo - one of the things Bob Stein said at the recent Grassroots conference is that the Fort Bend Independent School District is majority nonwhite - it's very much in his best interests to move as many nonwhite voters out of the 22nd CD as he can.
Don't believe me? Here are the precinct by precinct results from 2002. According to the Fort Bend County Clerk's office (whom I called to check on this), in the four-digit precinct number, the first number corresponds to the County Commissioner precinct. Add up the votes for Precinct 2 as I did, and you'll get that DeLay lost by a margin of 7503 to 5461. It's just a fraction of the total he won by, but DeLay knows where his bread is buttered, and so does the Harris County GOP.
I'll report from the hearing tomorrow. This is looking like it'll be more fun than I first thought it would.
UPDATE: Fixed some errors in the paragraph about GOP voting in Stenholm's district.
"Beyond stupid" is a pretty good description of this:
Declaring Dan Morales a financial risk to the community, a federal judge on Thursday ordered the former state attorney general to remain behind bars.U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks refused to set a new bail for Morales, who is accused of lying about his income and occupation on loan applications for two luxury cars while out on a personal recognizance bond on federal fraud charges.
Morales bought a 2000 Mercedes-Benz convertible and a 2000 Lexus after stating he was working as a lawyer and had an income of $20,000 a month. The cars were bought shortly after Morales told Sparks he needed a court-appointed lawyer because he was not working and had no income.
"This is beyond stupidity," said Sparks.
[...]
After a years-long investigation, Morales was indicted in March in connection with the tobacco legal fees and charges of misusing political funds to make a down payment on his home, lying on a loan application for a $600,000 mortgage and filing a false income tax return for 1998, his last year in office.
During the investigation, Morales had been represented by a high-profile team of lawyers, including former U.S. Attorney Paul Coggins of Dallas and Gerry Goldstein of San Antonio. But after his indictment, he began representing himself in court and in late April told Sparks he needed a court-appointed lawyer.
At the same time, Morales told reporters that it was just a matter of time before he raised $1 million to hire his top legal team. Sparks referred to those news reports, saying that's not what Morales told him.
"I don't find Mr. Morales credible," said Sparks.
[...]
Robert Hightower, an FBI agent, testified that credit reports show Morales also has $163,715 in credit card debts and owes more than $500,000 on his West Austin home and $245,000 on a home equity loan.
Hightower said Morales needs $10,615 each month to pay his mortgage, car payments and make minimum payments on his credit cards.
Morales apparently has been able to make his payments even though his last source of income was in October 2001.
Unlike Byron, I did vote for Dan Morales in the Democratic primary last year. I had my doubts about Tony Sanchez, doubts which sadly proved to be true, and still had a lot of good feelings for Morales from his days in the AG's office. I wish I knew what went wrong for him.
(Side note: My aunt worked for Morales as part of the child support enforcement unit. Hanging on the wall of her garage is a big piece of posterboard that her coworkers all signed when she retired a few years back. One of the signatures belongs to Dan Morales. Nowadays, every time I see it, I think of what he's become.)
Just a strange turn in an already sad story. I don't see it getting any better, either.
If you only read one blog entry from yesterday's Appropriate Michael Savage's Name For Your Own Purposes Day extravaganza, make sure it's this one. The standard beverage warning applies.
We now return you to your regular Savage Weiner-free blog.
Fox News is suing an Austin-based novelty shop that sells Faux News T-shirts and other similar things. So far, this has been a boon for the retailer, boosting their daily page views tenfold, but as is often the case, they have no money to defend themselves against Fox's legal assault. As Neal Pollack suggests, this may have to be the next target for mass mockery. Stay tuned.
On a side note, I got an email from the Agitproperties guy a couple of months ago asking for a link. I didn't reply at the time because I wasn't comfortable linking to a commercial site, even a small one. I'm happy to help with this, though.
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court struck down Texas' ban on gay sex today, ruling that the arrest of two Houston-area men having sex in their bedroom was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.
Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for the two men had argued to the court.
The men "are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote.
"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," he said.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Kennedy in full. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed with the outcome of the case but not all of Kennedy's rationale.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.
"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."
How perfect that this occurred on Appropriate Michael Savage's Name For Your Own Purposes Day. Some days the karma is just right.
Speaking of the Savage Weiner, I just received the following email from him:
Justice Scalia is just feeling cranky because he had to miss my annual Crisco 'n' Fudge Party this year. Don't worry, Tony, my Reenact The Bath Scene From Spartacus Party is still on! Senator Santorum says he's got a loofah with your name written all over it.
Next year we need to lobby to have banks and government buildings closed on days like this. I'm thinking maybe a parade, too.
Today is Appropriate Michael Savage's Name For Your Own Purposes Day, and after reading Neal Pollack's opening salvo, I just know that I can't compete. Hell, looking at Pollack and Atrios and Blah3, I didn't even realize that the serious playas would be, like, redesigning their sites for this. Still, I promised that I would do something, so I'd better do something.
But then I figured the poor boy would be under such an unrelenting assault from America-hating liberals all day today that maybe I'd exercise a little compassion. So I took a little trip down to the public library and checked out a copy of his book Savage Nation and spent last night reading it. As a public service to you, I hereby present the Top Ten Nice Things About Michael Savage That You America-Hating Liberals Didn't Know But That I Now Do From Having Read His Wonderful Book:
10. He has the complete works of Judy Garland on VHS and where possible on DVD.
9. He's an accomplished dancer, especially when going backwards and in high heels.
8. He once saved John Derbyshire's life after Derb was bitten on the ass by a rattlesnake.
7. His favorite pet is a declawed gerbil he got from Richard Gere.
6. He enjoys going to the park with George Michael and going to the theater with Pee Wee Herman.
Well, OK, I lied, there were only five nice things about Mr. Savage Weiner that I could find in his book. Maybe his next book will have more.
Have a happy Appropriate Michael Savage's Name For Your Own Purposes Day, and if you hear from Savage Weiner's lawyers, be sure to refer them to this guy.
UPDATE: Forgot to mention that this post is in support of Take Back the Media, Michael Savage Sucks, and Savage Stupidity, all of whom have been sued by the Savage Weiner.
Stuyvesant High School, my alma mater, will be celebrating its centennial in 2004. Apparently, there's a minor kerfuffle brewing over who the commencement speaker for the Class of 2004 should be.
Class leaders have panned the idea of asking the leader of the free world to speak at their commencement ceremony next June. Although former President Bill Clinton addressed the 2002 graduating class, many students at Stuyvesant said the current President is all wrong for the storied school's centennial graduation."He's not an eloquent speaker. Students want an inspirational speaker," said Sophia Mokotoff, 17, vice president of the senior class for 2004. "Students feel he wouldn't provide the inspiration."
Michael Cho, senior class president, said he thinks a Bush speech would detract from the pomp and circumstance. "We understand the President brings a lot of prestige and media coverage," Cho said. "He would overshadow our graduation. It wouldn't be about the students."
Please, please, please, don't let some NRO writer get into a snit about this and write 5000 words on the subject. That's all I ask.
For what it's worth, the commencement speaker for the Class of 1984 was then-Mayor Ed Koch. I don't remember at all what he spoke about. I was in the band, which meant I was onstage, behind the dais (our commencement was at Avery Fisher Hall), which also meant there was a lot of temptation to goof around during the speech. We played the "Grand March" from Aida as the processional. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but you know how I get when I start reminiscing.
Anyways, no one has been formally invited to speak yet, so this may be the usual hubbub about nada. I was just amused to see a reference to Stuy in Salon.
Man, I'm getting burned out (and more than a little bit bitter) about the whole special session/redistricting thing. I've still got one or two more substantive things to say, mostly in response to Kevin's thoughtful post (note: "thoughtful" doesn't mean I agree with it), but I don't have it in me right now. Byron (here and here) and Morat (here and here, being sure to follow the link in the first post to this story and its cautionary words from Bill Ratliff) have been on top of things for me. Go read them when you're done here.
What I've got for now is this op-ed piece by Tony Sanchez' campaign manager, in which he tries to draw a parallel between Tom DeLay's Westar problems and the old Sharpstown scandal of thirtysome years ago:
In that scandal, House Speaker Gus Mutscher, an aide to Mutscher and a state representative were convicted of conspiracy to accept a bribe from banker Frank Sharp. Sharp wanted a bill boosting his banking business passed during a special session in 1969. The financial favors he did for lawmakers got the job done. In the aftermath of Sharpstown, voters threw out 50 percent of the Texas House.It doesn't take much to convince Texans that something is rotten in Austin. But some -- importantly, not all -- Republican officials are still somewhat intoxicated by their takeover of all branches of Texas government. Some of these are certainly innocents who are thinking, "Hey, I didn't do anything wrong. The voters won't be mad at me."
But when some of their colleagues accepted so much money from corporate interests that they should probably receive W-2 forms, they had better look carefully at what they are about to do.
They may just want to be able to tell their constituents that they didn't even vote for the DeLay redistricting bill. They may want as much distance as possible between themselves and the expanding scandals that have helped make this one of the most bizarre political years since, well, Sharpstown.
Scandal is likely to play a part in the political discussion in Texas during the 2004 election year. Texans won't have seen any real property tax relief. Schools continue to suffer. Hundreds of thousands of children will still be without health care. Local taxpayers will be forced to pick up the costs of health care because Medicaid and Medicare also suffered.
Under more normal circumstances, a process as obscure as redistricting may not capture the attention of Texas voters. But then, few Texans knew the details about Sharpstown. They still sent culprits -- and innocents -- packing.
I'd like to endorse this view. I really would. Unfortunately, it's a lot of wishful thinking trying to stretch into a cogent point.
What's the difference between Texas politics of 1969 and today? In 1969, eveyone was a Democrat. What that says to me is that all of the scoundrels who were ejected from their seats in the ensuing election weren't knocked off by Republicans - if they were, this wouldn't be the first year since Reconstruction that the GOP was in control of the House - but by fellow Democrats in the primaries. (No, I haven't taken the time to look this up, but really, how can this not be?) In order for Glenn Smith's scenario to take place, you have to assume that not only will something come out of Westar, but that voters will care enough about it to vote out the current scoundrels.
That's where this falls down. See, congressional redistricting wasn't the only thing on the plate in 2001. So was Texas Lege redistricting, and that was done by a GOP-dominated state board. Republicans didn't go from 72 seats in the House to 88 in last year's election on their good looks and economic stewardship alone, you know. They had many newly favorable districts to work with, which caused some longtime Dems to retire and others to get defeated. I can believe that Westar will turn into something juicy, but I have a real hard time believing that voters in GOP-drawn legislative districts will boot out a bunch of GOP legislators as a result of it.
I suppose it's possible that a combination of genuine criminality in the Westar case plus a steep decline in Bush's popularity could lead to a depressed GOP turnout in 2004, which could mean some pickups for the Dems. I ain't betting on it, though.
I'm pleased to report that Metro's rail plans are not only perking along, they're talking about doing even more, based on feedback they've gotten from business and citizen groups at public meetings. Today's news is the addition of an express line to Intercontinental Airport:
Metro is also reviewing the possibility of adding express rail service to Intercontinental Airport, which would cost more money to build parallel tracks where the express train would pass the local train. An express train would run at a faster speed, stopping only at a couple stations between downtown and the airport terminal. Continental Airlines has said it will only support rail to Intercontinental if it runs as express service. Its customers would be reluctant to use a slower local train because of the great distance between downtown and the airport, the airline has said.
Continental would apparently chip in $165 million towards this effort. As a frequent flyer on Continental, I like that idea a lot.
Earlier today, the news was that Harris County Commissioner Steve Radack was set to propose a commuter rail line that goes along the US 290 corridor. It would use existing tracks, which ought to make construction a lot faster and cheaper.
Radack, in a luncheon speech to the West Houston Association, plans to pitch the concept as a way to improve commuting on the northwest side. The commissioner, a skeptic of rail, said conversations with Union Pacific Railroad have convinced him a county-operated commuter train is feasible and could be built quickly and inexpensively.Union Pacific owns an old Southern Pacific freight track that runs from near Memorial Park along U.S. 290 and Hempstead Highway to Waller County and on toward College Station. The track is used by only three local freight trains per day and could easily accommodate a commuter rail operation with a few upgrades, Union Pacific says.
[...]
Radack said his constituents can't wait 20-plus years for Metro to consider the corridor. The county could start running commuter trains in just a few years, he said, before the Texas Transportation Department is scheduled to start widening U.S. 290.
"Compared to light rail, this is something that is much cheaper and certainly something that could be done posthaste," Radack said Tuesday. "It's something that we don't necessarily need to depend on Metro."
A county rail authority would operate similar to the Harris County Toll Road Authority, which issues revenue bonds to build tollways without tax money, Radack said. He plans to submit the issue today for discussion at next week's Commissioners Court meeting.
Other court members reached Tuesday said they're willing to support Radack's request to study the issue.
"I would be fully supportive of looking at the county's involvement in a commuter-rail program," said County Judge Robert Eckels. "The highway 290 corridor is a prime candidate because of the existing capacity along that rail corridor."
A few notes of interest here. First, 290 is getting to be as crowded as I-10 is. I worked out that was from 1990-1993, and at the time there was not much along the way. Since then, there's been an explosion in growth - strip centers, restaurants, you name it - with an accompanying surge in traffic. I met some friends for lunch at 290 and Hollister a couple of weeks ago, and at 2 PM when I was heading back into town, the outbound lanes were already full. In addition, expanding 290 is going to be a lot harder than expanding I-10 is. I-10 at least has some extra unused space where there used to be train tracks. There's no buffer zone next to 290. And finally, with I-10 construction just set to start, it will be years before 290 will see expansion. Heck, it's just been a couple of years since 290 was made into a real highway all the way out into Waller County.
For me personally, the exciting thing about this proposal is right here in the map. This proposed line would pass within reasonable walking distance of my house - probably about a mile and a quarter - and would connect up with the existing light rail line. The upshot of all that is that if this thing existed today, I could take it into work.
And before anyone leaves a comment saying that I wouldn't want to do this because it would take longer than driving, let me say this: My commute is already 20-30 minutes each way. If this were to take 40-50 minutes each way, I'd take it. I'd get more exercise, save wear and tear on my car, have time to do some reading, and be able to live a bit more in tune with my principles. That's an easy win.
Though there's no updated map in the most recent article, I'm guessing that the other proposed addition, to the Hillcroft Transit Center, would be basically a longer version of the "inner southwest" line that was being pushed:
If Metro comes up with money for an additional line, the inner southwest connector is considered a leading contender because of its short length (about five miles), backing by some of the city's biggest business interests, and potential to attract high ridership in the urban areas along the Southwest Freeway. It could also link onto the Main Street line -- scheduled to start operation Jan. 1 -- allowing a train to run directly from the Galleria through Greenway Plaza to downtown or the Texas Medical Center. It would also complete a rail loop in the dense area west of downtown.
This also makes a lot of sense to me, as it passes through an area that's fairly densely populated and which has a lot of natural destinations along the way. Unlike most of the other proposed expansions, it would primarily alleviate traffic on surface roads rather than on freeways. US 59 has plenty of capacity, but the nearby parallel streets (Richmond, Alabama, Westheimer, Bissonet, and Westpark) are a crowded, traffic-light-blightened mess. Here are maps showing Metro's original plan and the various proposed extensions.
Finally, for those who would complain about the high cost of rail and how it must be heavily subsidized by all taxpayers regardless of whether or not they'll use it, I'll tell you what: When all of the highways in this town are toll roads, then we can talk.
The Gunther Concept is still digging into Gregg Phillips' background (see this post for more). He's also still got Blogspotted links, so if this has scrolled off the top, look for the June 24 entry entitled "The Revolving Door of Gregg Phillips". Apparently, Phillips' official bio leaves out some of his recent employment history. Here's Gunther's summary of the situation:
So to sum up, Gregg Phillips was at one time the Director of Mississippi's Department of Human Services. He resigned as Director to accept a position with a firm that he had previously approved as recipient of a $875,000 contract with MDHS. At some time or another, he founds and becomes CEO of Enterject, Inc. Enterject gets a large portion of it's business by helping private companies get tax credits from federal Welfare to Work (WTW) programs, and various similar schemes that allow governments to cut welfare rolls. Phillips worked in this capacity at least until the fall of 2002. Now he is in a position where one of his primary responsibilities will be to reorganize Texas' social service sector, to make it more "efficient".How much of this reorganization will involve granting of tax credits to companies that hire long-term welfare recipients?
How much business will Enterject, Inc. receive as a result of these changes?
Does Gregg Phillips still have any role with Enterject, Inc.?
Will he immediately start working for Enterject when he eventually leaves his current position?
Is there anyone out there who thinks this is a conflict of interest?
Why does't anyone know about this?
I think those are fair questions to ask, and it would be nice if we knew the answers to them. It is possible that this is much ado about nothing, but I'd still like to know that someone with the time and training to know what to look for has checked it out first.
Getting back to an old favorite for a moment here, the ongoing Westar scandal is knocking on John Ashcroft's door:
Ashcroft, meanwhile, is being asked by some liberal and Democratic groups to launch an investigation -- either by the Justice Department or a special counsel -- into possible connections between the Westar campaign contributions and legislative action on the energy bill. The groups say Ashcroft should recuse himself from the investigation, however, because his 2000 Senate campaign received $2,000 from former Westar executive Carl Koupal. Koupal also gave $1,000 to Ashcroft's Spirit of America PAC. Koupal managed two of Ashcroft's statewide campaigns in Missouri and was Ashcroft's director of economic development in the late 1980s, when Ashcroft was Missouri governor.In addition, [Westar's Washington lobbyist Richard] Bornemann gave $2,000 to Ashcroft's 2000 Senate campaign.
Ashcroft has declined to respond to news media inquiries about Westar and possible investigations into its activities.
Meanwhile, two congressional recipients of $1,000 contributions from Wittig -- Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) and Rep. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) -- have announced plans to give the money to charity.
Ashcroft has now been formally requested to appoint an "outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility" for investigating the Westar matter. Rep. Conyers' letter to the AG notes that "one month after Westar donated $56,000 to the DeLay PAC, company officials spent two days at the Homestead, a Virginia resort" with DeLay, Ashcroft, and other donors. Conyers cites a Greenwire.com report as his source for this. Greenwire is a pay service, so I can't check his link.
Another pay service that I don't have a subscription to is Roll Call, which has an editorial about Westar. The one-paragraph excerpt says quite a bit, though:
Senate rules permit outside groups to file complaints with the Ethics Committee, but House rules do not. Hence, there’s a chance of a Senate ethics probe of allegations that Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) assisted Westar Energy Co. in return for campaign contributions. But a companion House investigation won’t take place — unless Democrats develop the gumption to file complaints against a high-powered group of Republicans including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Texas) and Energy and Commerce Chairman Billy Tauzin (La.).
Anyone want to join me in sending email to the endangered Texas Congressional Democrats about this? It's not like they have anything to lose, after all.
Getting back to the issue of what to do with Westar money, while some wimpy Republicans like Sen. Sununu and Rep. Burr might be giving their donations to charity, DeLay is unencumbered by doubt:
"That money was spent to do what the group said it was going to do: help elect Republicans to the Texas Legislature," [James Ellis, who runs DeLay's federal PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority] said. "To my knowledge, there are no plans to refund any money."
Doesn't it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that Kansas played such a critical role in shaping Texas' Legislature? Maybe someone ought to suggest to Tom Craddick that he offer an official apology for that wimpy state insult from a few years back. Wouldn't want to offend their sponsors, after all.
For what it's worth, some Kansas politicians are having second thoughts about Westar money. Maybe they should ask some of Enron's recipients for advice.
UPDATE: Joe Conanson is on the Westar case, and he's right: someone needs to get Nancy Pelosi's butt in gear on this.
A big and loud crowd packed into Reckling Park last night to welcome back the National Champion Rice Owls baseball team. The Chron did not give an estimate of attendance, but the consensus on the Rice Sports Forum is about 4000. Some of those folks were not very happy with the long list of speakers, a sentiment only touched on by the Chron:
As the celebration dragged into its second hour, the crowd became increasingly restless to hear from Graham, even interrupting one speaker to chants of, "We want Wayne!"
I wonder which politician that was. Regardless, if you missed the Reckling celebration, there will be a parade on Smith Street at 11:30 AM on Thursday to honor the Owls and the AHL champion Aeros.
Amazingly, Rice will be in a good position to repeat as champions, since all four starting pitchers will return. Some of the players who were drafted, especially Enrique Cruz (a 14th-round pick), may choose to return.
Finally, there's this John Lopez column, which has some nice things to say about Wayne Graham, and this unsigned editorial which lauds Rice's commitment to having genuine student-athletes.
There's a great interview with potential Senate candidate Jerry Springer up on the Political State Report. I especially urge partisan Democrats to read what he has to say. I daresay you'll like it. I know I did.
I voted earlier today in the MoveOn.org "primary" (registration is now closed, so if you aren't already registered, it's too late). Some folks have reported problems accessing the MoveOn site, but once I got the email with my voting link, I got right in with no problems.
Nathan Newman notes an effort by some mouthbreathers to try to slant the results, but I'm not particularly worried about it. For one thing, they can easily record the originating IP address of the voter, and eliminate anything that looks fishy. For another, they require a phone number to vote, as they are planning a followup telephone survey to check the results. If all else still fails, they can try again (it's not like this was a vastly expensive undertaking) and require an up-front donation, as some of Nathan's commenters suggested.
Who did I vote for? I'll tell you on Friday when the results are released.
If you've been following the ACC/Big East brouhaha (ably covered by Eric McErlain), the one thing that you can hang your hat on is that if and when the ACC raids the Big East for one or more teams, the Big East will look to invite schools from other conferences, most notably Conference USA. C-USA will then do the same, and in the end a whole lot of conferences will look very different, with one or more possibly in mortal danger.
As a Rice fan, I know what it's like to be abandoned by a conference. I know the WAC has been about as stable as Texas' congressional district boundaries lately. What I don't know is what to do about it.
Fortunately, someone else has been thinking about this. Check out The Yoda Plan, put together by WAC fan Bill "Yoda" Tanner, who is a regular poster on the WAC Fan Forum. It covers pretty well the issues that the old WAC-16 faced, how to work around them, and how to ensure stability for the future. He's gotten some mainstream media coverage of his plan (there are at least two other competing plans out there), and from where I sit he's pinned the sentiments of the Eastern WAC schools. Good job, Yoda.
Apparently, this humble blog has been selected as a participant in Project Lafayette, about which I know little more than what's behind that link. According to a nice note I received from one of their coordinators, they want to "[preserve] the association of your brand with your content in the directory, by using small image thumbnails of your logo or photo on your profile page and elsewhere."
Which is cool, but if you look around you'll see that this site is long on text and short on images. I'm not particularly artistic, and the thought of designing a logo pretty much terrifies me.
I've been assured that logoless losers such as myself can still participate, with our names in the place of an icon, but that seems kinda lame to me. I mean, if I'm gonna be in this (and I would like to be), I may as well be like the kool kids and have my own picture. But then we get back to the whole lack-of-artistic-talent thing.
So, I'm asking for help. The Lafayette folks need something from me by Monday. If anyone out there feels like taking a crack at whipping up an icon for this site, they will get my undying gratitude and a free lunch at a date and place of their choosing. (If you're not in Houston, we'll work something out.) I'll also incorporate the image into my site design. The requirement is that the image be small, roughly "32x32 pixels in dimension, and need to look good at that size", according to what they told me. If you're interested, please put a link in the comments to your idea, or shoot me a note. I'll pick a winner from the millions of entries that I'll surely receive and make my announcement Monday morning.
Thanks in advance for saving me from my artless self.
Great. Just great.
President Bush last week said the rest of the world should join the United States in declaring that it "will not tolerate" nuclear weapons in Iran -- a vow that most Americans appear willing to back with force. By 56 percent to 38 percent, the public endorsed the use of the military to block Iran from developing nuclear arms.
If you'll pardon me for a moment, that wall over there is calling for a little head-banging...
OK, that's better. There's actually a fair bit of encouraging news for us objectively pro-Saddam hippie peacenik types in there, not that the article delves into it:
As the war ended and weeks passed without the discovery of such weapons, some Democrats questioned whether Bush or members of his inner circle deliberately exaggerated the threat to justify going to war -- an argument that the latest Post-ABC poll suggests has had negligible effect on the president's public standing.Concerns over mounting U.S. military casualties have soared largely among Democrats and independents, the survey found. In April, 56 percent of all Democrats believed U.S. troop losses had been acceptable; now 35 percent share that view. The proportion of those who viewed current casualty levels as acceptable dropped by 23 percentage points among political independents, to 43 percent. There was no change among Republicans.
Concern among women also has increased, with the proportion calling the casualties unacceptable increasing from 33 percent to 50 percent in the past seven weeks.
If "public standing" means "overall approval level", then I suppose that's an accurate statement. I'll note that Bush's approval rating is headed back to where it was before we headed off to kick a little Baathist ass. In addition, given that Bush won't win in 2004 with Republican support alone, the fact that independents and women are starting to question casualty levels sounds like a leading indicator to me.
So then. Am I a cynic or a realist if I believe that the odds of an invasion of Iran are tightly correlated to Bush's overall approval numbers?
The Gunther Concept, which now has permalinks even if they are blogspotted, found a curious omission in this Sunday Chron story about Gregg Phillips, the $144K-per-year "leader of the most sweeping social services overhaul in modern Texas history". Here's what the story says:
After three tumultuous years as former Mississippi Gov. Kirk Fordice's young political choice to lead a major overhaul of that state's Department of Human Services, the embattled executive director could no longer stand the heat. Facing a tidal wave of opposition, he resigned in 1995.State employees protested privatization of child support collections. Legislators, upset by the issue and at odds with Fordice, threatened to close the agency. Advocates for the poor called Phillips a liar, and a Jackson Clarion-Ledger editorial cartoon portrayed him as Pinocchio.
"I had a son in second grade at the time. The final straw was when he came home really upset one day because some of his friends had seen someone being ugly to me on TV," he said recently from his new office at the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.
As HHSC deputy commissioner for program services, Phillips will make key decisions on downsizing and consolidating 12 agencies serving the blind, deaf, nursing home residents, abused children, mentally impaired, physically disabled and other needy Texans into only five agencies.
Phillips also will oversee the privatization of eligibility screening for services to sick and needy Texans as part of a new state law designed to shrink government and save $1.1 billion. Instead of the 800 Mississippi state jobs jeopardized by privatization, Texas aims to eliminate 3,600 health and human services workers during the next two years.
[...]
The ambitious social services overhaul in Texas might take up to six years to complete, Phillips said, predicting the most complex and challenging tasks will be privatizing eligibility screening and splitting mental retardation and mental health services into separate agencies.
He said he no longer believes the argument should be whether privatization saves more money than government-run services. The focus should be to create competition by preventing either public or private monopolies, perhaps splitting tasks among several bidders.
Republican leaders who pushed through the changes in Texas human services predict it will lead to greater efficiencies and better outcomes for the needy and taxpayers. But advocates for the poor who remember Phillips' work in Mississippi, predict his leading role could end in chaos, disaster and perhaps squandering of tax dollars.
"He really knows his stuff," said Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth, R-Burleson, author of House Bill 2292, the health and human services overhaul, noting Phillips played a critical role in drafting the new law.
She said he possessed a wealth of knowledge needed for such an ambitious reinvention of government and if he didn't have an answer, he quickly got one.
"There are not very many conservatives who are all that involved in health and human services issues. I knew he was," she added. "He had an excellent reputation."
Larry Temple, who worked for Phillips in Mississippi before landing at the Texas Workforce Commission as the director of welfare reform, predicted a successful future for his friend in Texas.
"He's no-nonsense, very direct, very focused, extremely loyal," Temple said. "He's a good soldier, the kind of guy you can depend on to carry out any mandates you're given."
Temple said Phillips is the "perfect person" to pull off changes in the landmark legislation, but several civil rights advocates and others in Mississippi disagree.
"Mr. Phillips has been identified as one of those people that can come in and make all those drastic cuts and not feel any compunction about what he's doing to the poor people of Texas," said Wendell Paris of Mississippi Action for Community Education in the poverty-stricken Mississippi Delta. "If he does in Texas what he did in Mississippi, I feel sorry for the poor people of Texas."
Many recall controversial welfare-to-work policies, which reduced welfare rolls by more than 80 percent, sometimes by putting welfare recipients to work in poultry processing plants or casinos. Their benefit checks went to employers to subsidize their low-wage jobs. Phillips described the approach as "tough love," but Paris saw the impact they had in less flattering terms.
"Those Texas legislators ought to research what his history is, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves," he said, noting the state's recruitment of both Temple and Phillips. "They're bringing in that whole crew of these ruthless wolves hiding in sheep's clothing."
Carol Burnett of Mississippi's Low Income Child Initiative said Phillips was a "very controversial choice" to head Mississippi's human services department because he was so inexperienced with the issues faced by poor families.
"I think his work in government is more political than it is really trying to promote any kind of improvement over time for human services for low-income families," she said. "I regret that type of person is the choice to head agencies that have such incredible influence over how programs are shaped that so influence the lives of children and families."
Warren Yoder, director of the Public Policy Center of Mississippi, said Phillips' controversial privatization of child support collections under a contract to Maximus Inc. was limited by the Legislature in scope.
Even so, he said the experiment was a failure, and the Legislature later turned both child support collections and welfare-to-work training programs back to the state.
While this seems like a reasonable get-quotes-from-supporters-and-detractors-alike approach, there's a factual matter that wasn't addressed. According to this report by the Mississippi Legislature's Joint Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER), Phillips departure from his position there caused ethical questions to be raised:
After terminating his employment as MDHS Executive Director, Gregg Phillips immediately contracted with Synesis, a subcontractor of the LEAP program, which creates the appearance of impropriety and could constitute a violation of state ethics laws. (See page 26.)Gregg Phillips, former Executive Director for the Department of Human Services, signed a contract modification in 1993 which added two mobile learning labs to the LEAP program. Centec Learning entered into a contract with University of Mississippi to convert two vehicles into these mobile learning labs, while also maintaining and operating them for the term of the contract.
On April 26, 1995, Gregg Phillips resigned his position as Executive Director of MDHS and on the same day entered into a contract with Synesis Corporation, of which Centec is a division. Contract terms called for Mr. Phillips to be paid $84,000 per year to make industry contacts and market Synesis products and services.
Mr. Phillips's actions create the appearance of impropriety, facilitating an erosion of the public trust.
LEAP stands for Project Learn, Earn, and Prosper, and it was developed by Mississippi's Department of Human Services (MDHS) as part of program called JOBS (Job Opportunity and Basic Skills), which in turn was created to comply with the federal Family Support Act of 1988. All of that is in the introduction in the beginning of the report - the bit about Phillips is towards the end.
The PEER committee made the following recommendation:
The Executive Director of the PEER Committee shall immediately refer copies of this report to the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission and the Attorney General for an investigation of Mr. Gregg Phillips's contractual relationship with a LEAP subcontractor for determination of violation of state ethics laws. If the Ethics Commission and the Attorney General do not determine this to be a violation based on strict adherence to the law, the Legislature should consider making terms of the ethics law more specific to address contracts executed by an executive officer who does not report to a board or commission.
As noted in this followup story, the contract with Centec was for $875,000 and was one-third of Centec's entire net worth at the time.
Phillips was not ultimately prosecuted for this; as the PEER report anticipated, his behavior violated the spirit rather than the letter of the state's ethics laws. I have no idea if the Mississippi legislature followed the recommendation to amend the law to ensure that no one else can get away with what Gregg Phillips did. I do know that I would have found this information to be a more substantial criticism of Phillips' tenure than some crabbing by bleeding heart types. Gunther suggests writing a letter to the editor and point this out to them, along with the links he dug up. I've called and left a message for reporter Polly Ross Hughes to ask her about it. Though my past history in getting clarifications from the Chron is spotted at best, I'll try to be optimistic.
The Rice Owls are your 2003 National Champions of college baseball.
Damn, that sounds good. Let me say it again.
The Rice Owls are your 2003 National Champions of college baseball. That link has a photo gallery with it, by the way.
Any fans that want to leave a congratulatory message for the Owls can do so here or here, though the latter appears to be overloaded as I type this.
Congratulations, Rice! Woo hoo!
UPDATE: Full Chron coverage here: the front page story, the sports section story (actually an AP wire story), Fran Blinebury's column, in which we will forgive him for dragging a Harry Potter reference into it, and the fan reaction story. ESPN's Wayne Drehs has a feature on winning pitcher Phillip Humber and another on Chris Kolkhorst. Finally, here's John Manual's writeup.
UPDATE: There's a victory celebration tonight at Reckling Park at 8 PM. I can't be there, but if you're in Houston, you should go. It's free and should be a blast.
UPDATE: Here's a fine NYT article on the champion Owls. And Wayne Graham has been named Coach of the Year by Collegiate Baseball. And here's another good NYT article, this one about Coach Graham.
I'll second what Amy Sullivan says here, namely "Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!"
Because the current dominant paradigm is that the feckless Democrats are a bunch of bumbling idiots who suffer from too many presidential candidates, none of whom have a chance of winning anyway and they should probably just pack it in now to save themselves the embarrassment of a good whomping in November, 2004. (This paradigm brought to you by the Republican National Committee, with the help of the national press corps.) Howard Kurtz's latest column is a particularly snarky assessment of the Democratic field, arguing among other things that there are too many contenders, that no one is paying attention to them, and, furthermore, that they're not worth paying attention to anyway. It's hard for a Democrat to read the piece and not despair.But let's step back and examine the situation ourselves for a moment. Is the Democratic field too crowded? There are currently nine candidates in different stages of running for the nomination, with Wes Clark and Joe Biden possible contenders. (I'll address the Clark question in a moment; Joe -- read What It Takes, don't run again. And when you're done with the book, pass it along to Dick Gephardt, please.) In 2000, the Republican field consisted of Bush, McCain, Forbes, Hatch, Keyes and Bauer, with perennial candidates Alexander and Buchanan flitting around the edges. And I could be wrong, but I don't remember any commentary proclaiming the Republicans doomed and the Democrats impressively disciplined for keeping their race narrowed to Gore and Bradley. Funny, that.
So when you hear someone talk about feckless Democrats and garbled messages, say "Of course the Dems don't have a unified message yet. That's why we're having a primary! Talk to me in March after we've shopped around and picked out the best messenger."
Sullivan goes on to make a case for Wes Clark, based on the theory that "successful presidential candidates tend to come from executive ranks". Not to out myself as favoring one candidate over another just yet, but that description does also fit another candidate, one who's actually committed to running. I'm just saying.
Two employees of the Texas Association of Business have been held on contempt charges for refusing to answer questions in the grand jury investigation of whether the TAB illegally used corporate funds in last year's elections.
As requested by lawyer Andy Taylor of Houston, state District Judge Mike Lynch has confined publicist Cathy DeWitt and lobbyist Jack Campbell to a room in the court. They could be sent to jail if Taylor doesn't get bail for them before Lynch is done with his list of cases for the day.Taylor said earlier that the only way to get a higher court to consider the underlying case — whether the business association must divulge the sources of $1.9 million of corporate money used for election-season ads — is to have someone in custody.
For six months, Taylor has staved off the grand jury investigation with various appellate efforts. So far all of them have failed.
Earlier, they had reported to the courthouse to find out what their fate would be.
The employees, publicist Cathy DeWitt and lobbyist Jack Campbell, have refused to answer questions about the association's $1.9 million advertising campaign during last year's elections.The grand jury is investigating whether the association illegally used corporate money to electioneer. Taylor has argued that the ads were protected by the First Amendment and beyond state regulation because they did not advocate the election or defeat of any candidates. Earle disputes that.
After the Republican sweep last November, association President Bill Hammond boasted of helping elect a business-friendly Legislature by raising corporate money and spending it on issue ads. Several losing Democratic candidates sued, and Earle began investigating.
Hammond has refused to identify the corporate donors.
Hammond and another TAB employee have also been cited for contempt. We'll see if they wind up getting detained as well.
Note that this is separate from, though perhaps related to, the Westar saga, which was tied to Tom DeLay's PAC Texans for a Republican Majority last week. TRM is also being investigated by Travis County DA Ronnie Earle while simultaneously being sued by failed Democratic candidates. Both TAB and TRM are in the news, but so far they appear to be separate issues. With DeLay, of course, all things are possible, so let's not be too sure about that just yet.
One of the things I missed while out of town was Larry Simon catching Sen. Orrin Hatch using unlicensed software on his Senate web page. The story was widely picked up (see Wired's coverage, for example, which notes that Continental Airlines is doing the same thing). Larry got himself quoted in this Salt Lake Trib story and noted by the hometown paper. In the end, Hatch and the software contractor who did his web page as well as those of several other Senators fixed the problem, but the whole issue raises a bunch of questions, some of which Larry poses here:
So what if a contractor did the site for him. The site would be just as much in violation and could be smoked.
So what if the software was for free. It was unlicensed, period. Would a Freeware/Adware/Shareware developer have the right to defend their intellectual property the same as Microsoft or Sun would?
So what if it was a mistake. As I hear 100 times a day, the country is full of "computer dummies" that make mistakes all the time. But should such a mistake have such a drastic remedy without due process?
So what it's just a computer. Yes, and try to think of all the things that run on a computer. My brother-in-law went in for surgery a while back. He came out with a computer-controlled drip in his arm. What would have happened if the control software had been illegal, on a wireless LAN, and "fried" by Orrin Hatch?
This was part of a rant about the general media, which picked up the story that a link on Hatch's page had been hijacked by a porn site faster and with more enthusiasm than the more difficult story about software licensing. This is a huge issue, one that won't go away any time soon, and one that's being decided by large corporations who want to control the market to protect their business models rather than adapt to rapid changes. There's more to media consolidation than just the FCC letting a handful of companies buy up every media outlet in existence. As a security consultant said during a presentation I attended about viruses, if someone else can run a program on your computer, it's no longer your computer.
Good job, Larry. I'm sure you won't let all this fame go to your head.
The Sunday Chron had two articles on Tom DeLay, a front page profile and an overview of his fundraising tactics. I confess, Dear Reader, that I have not yet summoned the intestinal fortitude to wade through the first article. My head is hanging shamefully, I assure you.
A mere two weeks after the story first broke, the Houston Chronicle has finally done some reporting on Westar Energy and its generous donations to various Republican lawmakers, including Tom DeLay. In doing so, they uncovered a new local angle.
For DeLay, the Westar donation to Texans for a Republican Majority was part of a $1.5 million campaign to help the GOP gain a majority in the Texas House of Representatives. DeLay's ultimate plan, still unfolding, is for that new Republican state House to draw Texas congressional districts that would solidify the GOP hold on the U.S. House.At DeLay's urging, Gov. Rick Perry has called a June 30 special legislative session on congressional redistricting, a session that could cost Texas taxpayers as much as $1.7 million.
The Westar contribution was part of at least $433,000 that Texans for a Republican Majority raised from out-of-state corporations, lobbyists and federal contractors who stood to gain from friendly relations with the powerful majority leader.
"The donors' purpose was an interest in legislative issues in Congress. It was Tom DeLay who turned that money into a partisan tool in the Texas Legislature," said Craig McDonald of the advocacy group Texans for Public Justice.
That's right, hundreds of thousands of dollars from out-of-state businesses was raised by a political action committee whose ultimate purpose was to butt into the state legislators' agenda in order to push redistricting. And this is better than a court-approved map how?
I've reproduced the sidebar article which lists some of the bigger contributors below. These are the people who are trying to determine which member of Congress represents you.
Most of the corporate donors to Texans for a Republican Majority weren't Texans at all but out-of-state businesses trying to win favor with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land. They include:
· Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care, $100,000. The Boston-based nursing home owners' group in 2002 lobbied Congress in opposition to a proposed $2 billion cut in Medicare funding that would have cost nursing home chains about $35 million a year in lost revenue.
· Questerra Corp., $50,000. A Richmond, Va., software company that specializes in homeland defense computer programs, Questerra last year launched an aggressive program to obtain government contracts.
· Diversified Collection Service Inc., $50,000. Based in Union City, Calif., the company holds contracts with the Internal Revenue Service to help enhance tax collections.
· Westar Energy Corp., Topeka, Kan. $25,000. Sought repeal of a federal grandfather clause that affected the firm's profits.
· Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvellas Meed, $25,000. A lobby firm with 20 listed clients, mostly in high technology or transportation, the firm last year opened a new practice dedicated to obtaining homeland defense contracts for clients.
· Bacardi USA, $20,000. The Miami-based liquor company lobbies Congress on trademark and federal excise tax issues, according to the Miami Daily Business Review.
· Perfect Wave Technologies, $15,000. Perfect Wave is a subsidiary of a San Diego, Calif., company that provides high technology computer software to the U.S. Department of Defense.
· The Barona Band of Mission Indians and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, $6,000 total. In 1995, at the request of the Mississippi Indians, DeLay helped kill a proposed tax on Indian gambling. Since then, the tribes have become major Republican donors.
In the 77th Legislative session in 2001, the House and Senate failed to agree on a new congressional map. A new map had to be drawn, since the 2000 Census gave Texas two more seats in the US House. The state House drew a map that left most existing districts essentially intact, while the Senate plan would have given a majority of seats to the GOP. Governor Rick Perry declined to call a special session to force the sides to come to an agreement, and in the end a three-judge federal court panel ruled in favor of the House map.
Here are a few choice quotes from the July 6, 2001 issue of the Houston Chronicle, in the story that covered Perry's announcement that there would be no special session.
"Although I expect Texans will be disappointed with the inability to accomplish this task, I believe Texans would be even more disappointed if we expend considerable sums of taxpayer money to call a special session that has no promise of yielding a redistricting plan for Congress," [Governor] Perry wrote [in a letter sent on July 3 to Lt. Governor Bill Ratliff and House Speaker Pete Laney].
Obviously, Perry has no qualms about expending "considerable sums of taxpayer money" this time around, even though a map is already in place.
"Texans will likely be better served by impartial judges than by highly partisan Democratic legislators attempting to maintain political power," [State Republican Chair Sarah] Weddington said.
I'm willing to bet that sentiment would come as a surprise to Kevin. Clearly, highly partisan Republican legislators attempting to maximize political power is just ducky to Weddington, as one might expect.
"Since it's the governor's opinion that a consensus cannot be reached in the legislative process, it's his prerogative not to call a special session," [House speaker Pete Laney] said. "However, his decision means the Legislature will not get the opportunity to debate a fair, equitable congressional plan that was approved by the House Redistricting Committee."
In case my point eluded you the first time, I'll repeat it. Governor Perry was perfectly content to let judges sort it all out in 2001 when the Democrats held a majority in the House. The Republicans couldn't get the plan that they liked best through the Lege, so they took their chances with the courts. They lost, and now here they are again looking for a second bite at the apple. That's all there is to this. Maybe they'll succeed, and maybe they'll fail again, but please spare me the notion that this current attempt to redistrict has anything to do with "fairness" and "principle".
Update your bookmarks - the Burnt Orange Report has a new home. Byron's been following the whiplash-inducing twists and turns of Governor Perry's redistricting session and Comptroller Strayhorn's remarkable decision to certify the budget after all.
All charges against Sgt. Ken Wenzel, the second former HPD officer indicted on five counts of official oppression stemming from the botched K-Mart raid last august, have been dropped in the wake of former Captain Mark Aguirre's acquittal.
Prosecutor Tommy La Fon said a jury's acquittal Monday of the raid's commander, Capt. Mark Aguirre, after two weeks of trial was a key reason why he asked state District Judge Carol G. Davies to dismiss the five misdemeanor counts of official oppression against Wenzel.La Fon said he also consulted with District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal about the matter.
"The strongest evidence we had was against Capt. Aguirre," La Fon said. "The jury heard that and concluded that no criminal wrongdoing occurred, and acquitted him."
No surprise there. Meanwhile, HPD Chief C.O. "BAMF" Bradford is under heavy fire due to the crime lab problems and other issues.
A majority of council members said a series of problems beyond the crime lab at HPD has damaged their confidence in Bradford, including last summer's mass arrests at a westside Kmart and his trial on aggravated perjury charges, for which he was acquitted."He should take the high road and resign," said Councilman Gabriel Vasquez, who has consistently raised questions about mismanagement in the Police Department. "He deserves an opportunity to explain himself to council and the public, but short of that, he should (go)."
Eight of Vasquez's 13 fellow council members told the Chronicle they agreed.
The Houston Police Officers Union, which has long expressed its dissatisfaction with the chief, also called for his resignation.
"It's time for him to step down," said union chief Hans Marticiuc.
The three declared mayoral candidates are staking out their positions on the chief and HPD's recent woes.
One candidate -- City Councilman Michael Berry -- said Thursday that Bradford should be asked to resign as a way to rebuild confidence in the Police Department.Another -- former Councilman Orlando Sanchez -- has said previously that one of his first acts as mayor would be to replace Bradford.
The two other candidates -- businessman Bill White and state rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston -- are less pointed about Bradford's future.
[...]
Berry said the Police Department suffers a "crisis of confidence among its police officers" because of the crime lab and other issues.
"I would bring him in and ask for his resignation," Berry said. "He's given too many good years to fire him. I would tell him that a resignation would help restore confidence in the police department."
Sanchez said he would not speculate about how term-limited Mayor Lee Brown should handle Bradford. But Sanchez noted that he has already pledged to replace Bradford if elected.
"I happen to like Chief Bradford personally," Sanchez said. "But as I have said, the Police Department needs new leadership."
White said Bradford should be given the opportunity to explain his side of the story.
"In my administration, the chief would be held accountable for any serious management failures," White said. "I'd give anyone an opportunity, then I would assess the evidence and make a prompt decision on management."
A spokesman for Turner said he would not comment about campaign issues until he announces his candidacy July 9.
There are two dynamics at work here, both of which are mentioned in this article. One is that Chief Bradford is popular in the African-American community, which makes criticizing him easier for Sanchez and Berry and tougher for White and Turner. I fully expect Sanchez and Berry to hammer on this somewhat, since it not only causes discomfort for the other two candidates but it plays to their anti-Lee Brown base and to anyone else who might be looking for a real change from Brown's tenure.
On the other hand, as noted in the Houston Area Survey (see Figure Three here), traffic is the big concern this year. By harping on Chief Bradford, Berry and Sanchez run the risk of spending too little time addressing what voters want to hear. There's a limit to how often they can go to this well. Likewise, White and Turner can turn this around on them - "OK, we get it, they don't like Chief Bradford. What do they plan on doing about traffic once they're done firing him?"
Anyway, to get back to the original topic, this should be the last we hear of the K-Mart Kiddie Roundup until one of the civil cases comes to court. Let's hope the city does a better job with that than they did in proving Aguirre's criminal intent.
A Senate committee has voted to revoke many of FCC Chairman Michael Powell's rules that would have allowed for more media consolidation. Sing Hallelujah!
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee adopted a bill sponsored by Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) that would prevent newspapers from owning television and radio stations in the same city, halt broadcast networks from buying more television stations at the local and national levels and force radio companies to divest some of their stations. The bill's prospects in the Senate and House, however, remain uncertain.On June 2, the FCC passed rules permitting cross-ownership of newspapers and television stations, allowing networks to own a group of TV stations reaching 45 percent of the national audience -- up from 35 percent -- and exempted some radio companies from new rules that would have left them over station limits.
"Today's vote is a strong, bipartisan repudiation of the FCC's disastrous ruling," Hollings said.
Tom Shales has the best line:
When communism fell and America won the Cold War, George F. Will, on "This Week With David Brinkley," memorably considered that the civil and polite thing to do would be not to gloat about the victory. Then he smiled and said, "Let's gloat."Those who opposed Powell and his sweeping, potentially ruinous rule changes would be justified in feeling the same way this morning. Let's gloat -- while the gloating's good.
Indeed. If there's anyone who deserves to gloat, it's Lisa English, but she's right back at work on this, focusing on the full Senate vote.
Got a few free minutes and access to a computer, so I thought I'd check in for a second. I swear, every time I go out of town, everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Governor Perry finally quits teasing and calls a special session for redistricting, just as Comptroller Strayhorn refuses to certify the budget. In doing so, she's got people speculating about her political ambition:
[S]peculation persisted that Strayhorn, who has held a succession of public offices off and on for almost 30 years, also enjoyed an opportunity to make public life a little more difficult for some of her fellow Republican leaders, including Gov. Rick Perry, whose job she is suspected of coveting."She's not doing him any favors," said Southern Methodist University political science professor Cal Jillson.
"She was probably chuckling up her sleeve just before she went before the cameras to say this budget isn't balanced," he added.
The self-styled "tough grandma" began the year on the wrong foot with the governor and legislative leaders when, on the eve of the regular session in January, she doubled her previous projection of a revenue shortfall to almost $10 billion.
Then, she fueled the fire by accusing lawmakers of having a "party," or spending too much, in 2001 and also criticized the Legislature's budget-writing efforts this year.
Strayhorn's refusal to certify the budget may force Perry to add the budget to the agenda of the special legislative session that he already has called for June 30 to tackle the controversial issue of congressional redistricting.
Some political observers predicted that completing work on the budget -- which was highly contentious during the regular session -- could consume so much time that it thwarts Republican plans to redraw congressional districts during the 30-day special session.
Others, however, expected the budgetary problem to be resolved quickly.
Although the comptroller had warned days ago that she had some reservations about the complex series of accounting maneuvers that lawmakers had used to draft a new budget without raising state taxes, she informed Perry and legislative leaders of her decision to reject the spending bill only a few hours before her public announcement.
[...]
Bill Miller, an Austin political consultant with ties to Perry and Craddick, said Strayhorn was "being a little persnickety" over a tiny percentage of the state budget.
Miller suggested the comptroller was striking back over the failure of some of her own legislative priorities, including her proposal to provide free junior college tuition for all high school graduates.
"I think she's letting people know she's got some muscle, and she's willing to flex it," he said.
Jillson said Strayhorn, if given the opportunity, "would love to run for governor." Reportedly, so would U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
"If I were Rick Perry, I would be hearing footsteps," Jillson added.
The SMU professor said he believed that reworking the state budget in the special session could prove a setback to efforts by Perry and other Republicans to redraw congressional districts, the reason the governor called the session in the first place.
Budgetary issues, which likely will be marked by renewed debate over spending cuts, will give Democratic opponents of redistricting more opportunities and more time to maneuver, Jillson said.
Miller disagreed.
"I don't think (the budget) affects redistricting at all," he said. "I think, on redistricting, the Democrats are high and dry. It's a fight they're going to lose."
The one things legislators must do when they convene is pass a balanced budget, so that will be the first item on their agenda when they get back together. If it gets resolved quickly, then Perry and Craddick will have better odds of ramming through some form of redistricting. If not, well, it ought to make for a fun 30 days.
On a side note, Texas Monthly put Tom DeLay on its every-other-year list of Ten Worst Lawmakers, a list usually reserved for state lawmakers only. The list contains two surprises to me: Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth on the Best list, since she was a Worst List member in 1999, and Rep. Jim Dunnam on the Worst list. I'll have to check out the issue and get back to you for their reasoning.
UPDATE: Thank you, Ginger, for catching the Chron stories about Perry's announcement of the special session (here and here). Note the following tantalizing quote from the first article:
When the Legislature in 2001 failed to redraw congressional districts as required in the first session after the 2000 census, the boundaries were drawn by a three-judge federal panel. At the time, Democrats controlled the state House. Perry refused to call a special session, saying the courts should draw the lines.
Emphasis mine. Obviously, it's only OK for the courts to draw the lines when the Democrats have a majority in the House. When I get back home, I'll be searching the archives for the actual quotes from back then.
UPDATE: Faster than you can say "Attorney General Abbott threatens to sue", Strayhorn has reversed course and rubberstamped the budget after all. That will make Perry and DeLay's job easier, and once again puts the focus on Senate Democrats.
I'm heading out of town, and may or may not have any Net access while I'm gone. I'll be back on Sunday and will post while I'm gone if possible, otherwise when I return. Check out the fine blogs on the right in the meantime. See you later.
Ah, there's nothing like a candidate forum to get the political juices flowing and the elbows throwing. It's a good thing for Orlando Sanchez he's the front-runner, because everyone out there is hurling rocks at him.
On his right, Michael Berry accused Sanchez of being a part of the same cast of campaign workers and contributors that helped elect Lee Brown as mayor.On his left, Bill White challenged Sanchez not to include City Hall lobbyists on his campaign staff -- a dig at Sanchez campaign advisers Dave and Sue Walden.
Sanchez, who almost unseated Brown in 2001 and is trying for the mayor's job again now that Brown is term-limited, weathered the criticism during the forum sponsored by the Building Owners & Managers Association of Houston.
I do think that Berry is getting some traction with his charges that Sanchez is too much of an insider and has too many members of Lee Brown's campaign team on his staff. I don't know how many votes this will translate into, but as I've said before, every one of them is a vote that would have gone to Sanchez otherwise, and from where I sit that's a good thing.
While I'm rooting for Berry on strategic grounds, I'm most certainly not a fan of his, and this is one reason why:
At the forum Tuesday, the only question that was directed to each candidate was about his opinion of Blueprint Houston, a citizen's group that is trying to develop growth strategies for the city.Blueprint Houston's goals include cleaning the city's air and developing a public transit system that decreases congestion and increases density.
Berry charged that Blueprint Houston is controlled by interests inside Loop 610 that want to dictate their development strategies to the rest of the city.
He said that Houston has grown too large and too diverse to try and retrofit all 640 square miles with a development model that resembles the Heights or Montrose.
White, a Blueprint Houston member before he announced his mayoral campaign, called Berry's comments divisive.
"It's not so much that I disagree with his words, but I want to share with you an approach," White said. "In this city, you can't go around in a way that has so divided us, trying to label each other and dividing this city.
"It has been too divided by ethnicity and partisanship in elections."
This is not the first time that Berry has played the I'm-a-divider-not-a-uniter card in this race, and it damn sure won't be the last. When he slinks back into private life after this race, it will be good riddance.
Though he still won't confirm anything, the word is that Governor Perry is about to call a special session to begin on June 30 that will cover redistricting as well as the so-called "Death Star" government reorganization bill.
Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt refused to confirm the expected announcement."If and when he decides to call a special session, you'll be among the first to know," Walt said.
The Houston Chronicle first reported on June 5 that Perry was going to call a special session for June 30.
But while the governor's staff has continuously told legislators to avoid any vacation plans for July, Perry has taken no action in setting the wheels in motion on a special session. At one point, his staff told lawmakers the session would begin either June 30 or July 7.
House Speaker Tom Craddick's staff was embarrassed when his aides set up redistricting public hearings for this week and then had to cancel them when Perry did not issue the special session call.
Perry earlier Tuesday was questioned by reporters over why he was delaying an announcement on the session. He declined to answer.
When one reporter said the governor's inaction was making it difficult for lawmakers, legislative staff and journalists to plan their summer vacations, Perry replied:
"There may be some folks who believe Ardmore would be an appropriate vacation spot."
I suspect that the main roadblock this time will be in the Senate, where previously wavering Democrats Eddie Lucio and Ken Armbrister have more recently made fairly strong statements against supporting a redistricting bill. Not to say that they can't or won't be persuaded, but it's not a slam dunk by any means.
As noted, though special sessions are limited to 30 days (and this one may be shorter), the Governor can call as many special sessions as he wants. It will be very interesting to see what happens if the Senate Democrats stare Perry down. I can't help but think that calling another special session immediately afterwards would be unpopular, at least among editorialists and those who think spending any extra money on government is wasteful.
In any event, it appears my tentative prediction that Perry would put a school finance session ahead of a redistricting session in order to get full cooperation from Lt. Governor David Dewhurst is wrong. These thing happen.
Now that 12 of the 14 remaining Tulia defendants have been released on bond, the other residents of the town are trying to deal with the town's negative image.
"It seems to me our community has gotten a pretty bum rap," said the Rev. Charles Davenport, pastor of the First Baptist Church.He's lived here 29 years and is trying to figure out how a town few outside of West Texas had heard of until the pre-dawn moments of a fateful summer morning four years ago became an icon of racial bigotry.
Many here believe Tulia, like Jasper, got blamed for something it didn't do and are confounded by demands that it "repent" and mend its evil ways.
[...]
"It almost appears to some of us that the media has said that at some point the people here got together and said we want to send black people to jail," Davenport said. "This community didn't invite that sting. No one in this community knew it was going on until the arrests were made."
Davenport said he has seen little evidence of the kind of racial division that has been sketched in many news stories.
On Tuesday, he had lunch with a black minister to talk about the "healing process."
"We never came to a conclusion," he said, suggesting that neither knew where to begin in soothing a non-existent wound.
"The folks in our community would welcome suggestions," Davenport said. "What do they expect us to do."
The town's critics have pointed out that it wasn't just the ill-executed sting, but the harsh sentences meted out by local juries that reeked of racist injustice.
But Davenport, among others, pointed out that many of those seated to judge the defendants were not legal sophisticates.
"They had nothing to go on except what was presented to them by law enforcement and the district attorney, people they believed and trusted," he said.
I do think there's something to what the Rev. Davenport is saying. While it's fair to question the motives of the jurors who believed Tom Coleman despite a lack of corroborating evidence and in some cases the existence of exculpatory evidence, most of them are probably not guilty of anything more severe than excessive deference to authority. Primary blame for this fiasco attaches to Coleman, the sherriff (Larry Stewart) who hired him, the District Attorney (Terry McEachern) who prosecuted the cases despite knowing about Tom Coleman's history and not disclosing it to defense attorneys, and the judge (Edward Self) who presided over the cases and had to be removed from the appeals process because he sided with the prosecution. Whatever else you may think of the town of Tulia, these four people deserve the vast majority of your anger and scorn.
And let's not forget that Tulia is hardly an isolated case. Don't go telling me that somehow the "system" worked because these folks eventually got their freedom back. They're only free because of the tireless pro-bono work of their attorney, Jeff Blackburn, the media attention that reporter Nate Blakeslee and eventually NYT columnist Bob Herbert brough to the case, and a bill that was rushed through both state legislative chambers because two years could pass before the Court of Criminal Appeals hears the case. The system is broken, which is why these people were arrested and convicted in the first place and why heaven and earth needed to be moved to get them out. How many others, in Texas and elsewhere, are rotting in jail or sitting on Death Row because they don't have the same kind of attention paid to their cases?
I hope Tulia helps to shine a big bright spotlight on our criminal justice system and the so-called "War on Drugs" that has so thoroughly perverted it. Then and only then will I accept that some justice has been done here.
Via Big Media Matt, I see that Jacob Rosenfeld is worried about pessimism among Democrats in the runup to next November:
The 2004 race isn't over -- despite what Kurtz and others presume. Now, the relentless negative coverage can become a self-fulfilling prophecy as Dems get depressed from all of the negative stories they read/see/hear and pack it in until 2008. This presents a real and growing danger as the prevailing "Dems are done" storyline gathers steam among journalists and pundits.
I'm not seeing pessimism, not in the blogs and not in real life. In this article on the Killer D's, the Texas Observer sees plenty of optimism as well:
From the beginning the Democrats made their target Tom DeLay, not the colleagues they left behind. Some worked the sound bite better than others. "We will not be accomplice to a partisan, gerrymandered, Washington, D.C. plan," Steve Wolens (D-Dallas) told the assembled press corps.And indeed, their stand captured the imagination of the Democratic base everywhere. "The overwhelming reaction from Democrats all over the country is not in response to the principle of the thing," believes Dean Rindy, an Austin-based political consultant who advises [Rep. Jim] Dunnam [D-Waco], "but joy that someone had the courage to stand up to Tom DeLay."
Toward the end of their stay, the war room looked like a battle zone. Scattered everywhere could be found gifts from grateful Democrats across the nation. A toy superhero action figure, one of 51 sent to each member, lay on a table. In a corner floated a cluster of yellow balloons. On the far wall someone had draped an American flag. A box filled with stacks of a book entitled Profiles in Courage for Our Time, a gift from North Texas Congressman Martin Frost, covered a chair. And everywhere, messages of thanks.
"Destalló la bomba (a bomb went off)," said Rep. Paul Moreno (D-El Paso), who had flown in from his hiding spot in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to be with the group so they would have 51 present. "This is going to have an impact nationally."
I will always remember being [part of] 51 who had a common cause and who shared conviction," says Rep. Jim McReynolds (D-Lufkin). "The experience was the richest I’ve ever had in terms of my political life."
Inside the war room, Anglo Democrats (who called themselves WD-40s for White Democrats Over 40 until the owner of the trademark sent a threatening letter urging them to stop), urban blacks, and South Texas Hispanics found common cause with each other for the first time. Some discussed the future. In coming elections, they pledged mutual aid. "We talked about ways to support each other and how to see ourselves as a team instead of different tribes," says [Rep. Aaron] Peńa [D-Edinburg].
Dunnam says throughout the week he watched as those who had been ready to oppose the reelection of certain caucus members decided to put aside their differences. "It was a unique opportunity to heal wounds created during the session," says [Rep. Miguel] Wise [D-Weslaco].
The result is an infinitely stronger Democratic legislative caucus. It created trust and goodwill where precious little had existed. "Obviously you will never have complete consensus on most issues, but what we at least demonstrated with our members is that we can do it and people will respect the opinions of others," says Dunnam. "And that will help later on when we can’t agree."
In the 2004 election there will be no significant statewide Democratic candidates. The key races will be legislative, and that is where resources will be focused. It is likely the caucus will form a political action committee to support fellow members. Increasingly, they will play a larger role in an ineffective Democratic Party battered by repeated defeat. "There is a new group in town and those who have exercised leadership in that group will now exercise leadership in how we rebuild the Party," vows Garnet Coleman.
Feel better now? Go read the whole thing.
After getting permission from the state, convicted murderer Diane Zamora got married today in a rare double-proxy ceremony to another inmate.
A judge in San Antonio performed the wedding ceremony in which Zamora's mother and a male friend stood in for the imprisoned couple, County Clerk Gerry Rickhoff said.Zamora, who attended the U.S. Naval Academy, and ex-boyfriend David Graham, who was at the Air Force Academy, were convicted of capital murder in the 1995 slaying of 16-year-old Adrianne Jones of Mansfield.
Prosecutors contended that Zamora urged Graham to kill Jones after he had a purported one-time sexual encounter with her.
Zamora and Graham were sentenced to life prison terms.
Earlier this year, Zamora and Steven Mora wrote the county clerk office asking for permission to get a marriage license.
KDFW-TV in Dallas obtained a copy of the marriage certificate -- dated June 17 and issued by Bexar County -- naming Zamora, 25, and Mora, 27, of San Antonio.
Before anyone asks, there's no indication whether she will now call herself Diane Zamora Mora.
Greg Morrow has a few choice words for John Ashcroft, and Arthur Silber has a few more for pro-invasion hawks. Check 'em out.
You know, I just haven't been getting enough hits off of search engine queries lately. This ought to help.
Seeking to maximize its "Double Your Pleasure" slogan, gum maker Wrigley has filed for a patent to cover gum that contains the active ingredient in Viagra, Pfizer's impotence drug.
Snarky comments are left as an exercise for the reader.
UPDATE: Note to self: "Viagra" is not a one-letter variation of "Niagara". Thanks, Ikram.
Remember Rep. Roy Blunt (R, Missouri), the House Majority Whip who tried to sneak some legislation favorable to Philip Morris at the last second into the Homeland Security bill? At the time, I didn't know exactly what his relationship with Philip Morris lobbyist Abigail Perlman was, but now I do:
Are recently divorced House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Philip Morris lobbyist Abigail Perlman headed for the altar? Word around town is that the two lovebirds -- whose romance has been raising eyebrows and giving fits to self-appointed ethics cops -- are planning to announce their engagement soon. Perlman didn't return our phone calls and Philip Morris spokesman Dave Tovar dismissed concerns that the relationship might bend House rules governing personal transactions between members of Congress and lobbyists with legislative business before Congress. "We have a very strict compliance and integrity program. As far as our lobbying is concerned, we are confident that we are in full compliance of all legal and ethical obligations," Tovar said. Meanwhile, Blunt's press secretary, Burson Taylor, told us: "I have a policy of never commenting on Congressman Blunt's personal life."
For the most part, I really don't care who our elected leaders sleep with. It wouldn't bother me if he were carrying on a passionate affair with Rick Santorum's dogwalker. Once they begin to use shady, under-the-table pork barrel legislative favors in place of chocolates and flowers for their inamoratas, however, that's where I draw the line. Roy Blunt needs to have his ethics investigated in a big way. Too bad it'll never happen.
Via Atrios.
Well, I can't say this this is a big surprise:
WASHINGTON -- A Homeland Security Department investigation has cleared an agency worker of any wrongdoing in the effort last month to help Texas Republicans track down missing Democratic lawmakers and referred questionable actions by the state Department of Public Safety to the FBI.The report, released late Monday by the department's inspector general, found an agency employee spent 40 minutes and was involved in eight phone calls trying to track down former state House Speaker Pete Laney's airplane during a partisan standoff over redistricting.
The inspector general's report said the behavior by the dispatcher at the Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center in California did not amount to fraud or abuse of federal resources.
Despite some indications that DHS knew what they were involved in, the likelier scenario was that the Texas Department of Public Safety misled them. There's still no answer to that question, and DHS still hasn't given up its transcripts which would clear it right up. The DHS report left many questions unanswered:
Monday's inspector general report did not address whether the Texas Department of Public Safety lied or violated state or federal law when it subsequently destroyed documents relating to state troopers' efforts to get the Homeland Security Department involved.[...]
In its report, the inspector general's office stated that the Texas DPS had been uncooperative during the investigation.
"DPS officials interviewed by the (inspector general's office) declined to provide any information identifying the person or persons who requested surveillance assistance and claimed they destroyed all notes, memoranda, or other correspondence related to this incident," the report said.
In short, the main question - what the hell was DPS doing when they called in Homeland Security - is still a mystery, and DPS has done everything it can to ensure it stays that way.
In the meantime, another finger has been pointed at Speaker Tom Craddick:
[I]n a deposition released Monday, state Homeland Security Coordinator Jay Kimbrough denied suggesting to state officials that federal agencies be recruited to help search for the missing legislators.Kimbrough said he called the FBI only after House Speaker Tom Craddick, a Republican, gave him the name and number of an agent in Oklahoma. He said Craddick wanted him to call the agent to determine whether the FBI had any jurisdiction in the case because the missing legislators had crossed state lines.
"The speaker of the House gave me a number and said, `Here, call this FBI agent to see if ... these guys have any jurisdiction since they (the Texas Democrats known to be in Oklahoma) have crossed state lines,' " Kimbrough said in the deposition taken in a civil lawsuit brought by state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth. Burnam alleges that DPS illegally destroyed records.
That sworn testimony -- along with a deposition given by DPS Lt. Will Crais, portraying a similar account -- suggests Craddick played a much larger role in seeking federal help.
Bob Richter, Craddick's spokesman, said the speaker's involvement was minimal.
"Craddick was not directing the operation," Richter said.
"The speaker knows nothing, NOTHING," Richter did not add.
Rep. Burnam is still dogging DPS, at least for now:
In addition to the Fort Worth Democrat's previous charges that the department illegally destroyed records, Burnam's lawyer Art Brender said the department had violated its own record management policies and had no authority under Texas law to use state resources to attempt to apprehend members of the House.Brender said Burnam wanted to make sure the issue of who is authorized to do what under House Rules is ironed out before a special session is called this summer, hinting at the possibility that the so-called "Killer Ds" may strike again.
[...]
"Burnam wants the court to clearly define what the rules of engagement are," Brender said. He said that neither the Department of Public Safety nor the state knew what its roles were when the Democrats fled, and said he didn't think the public safety officers appreciated the political guys "calling the shots."
Say whatever else you want, it would be a useful result out of all this if everyone were to come to an agreement about who can do what if and when this sort of quorum-busting occurs in the future. I just hope someone writes it all down.
Burnam's lawsuit may be coming to an end - DPS claims it has now fully complied with his request. A judge will rule on that within the next 30 days. For what it's worth, there's still an investigation by the Department of Transportation into how Tom DeLay got his mitts on FAA flight information that is supposedly not available to the general public, and a request for information on the White House's role in all this by Sen. Joe Lieberman.
The Rice Owls whupped the Longhorns 12-2 to move into the College World Series bracket finals, meaning they have to not lose twice to whoever wins the Texas-Miami game tomorrow night in order to advance to the finals. Woo hoo!
Man, if I had a webcam I'd put up some streaming video of me doing the happy dance. OK, maybe not - I am to dancing what Don Rumsfeld is to brevity and forthrightness. But believe me, I'm psyched. Go Rice!
UPDATE: Here are the Chronicle and Statesman stories on last night's game.
Former HPD Captain Mark Aguirre was acquitted on all counts of official oppression stemming from the botched K-Mart Kiddie Roundup raid last August.
Forewoman Elaine Sayers said the jury, which began deliberating Friday, was unable to find evidence Aguirre tried to arrest anyone illegally."It was very hard," she said. "In reading the charges, we had to show intent on his part to make an illegal arrest."
I guess the jury decided that indifference - and I do believe Aguirre was at best only slightly concerned about who got arrested - is not the same as intent, a conclusion that I find defensible. This pretty much wraps up everything except for the pending lawsuits - the only thing stupider than going ahead with the trial of Sgt. Ken Wenzel was the previous trial of Chief C.O. "BAMF" Bradford for reckless cussing. Of course, this is Chuck Rosenthal we're talking about, so don't count on anything just yet.
Aguirre was mostly classy in his triumph, though he couldn't help taking a quick victory lap:
Asked about the next step in his life, Aguirre quipped, "I'm gonna run for mayor. I want to fix potholes."
Heh. Better hold on to the euphoria, those civil trials won't be nearly as much fun.
UPDATE: Ginger and the Chronicle make their assessments of the verdict. I do think it was appropriate for Aguirre to get fired, but I can't disagree with the Chron's contention that there needs to be more firings at higher levels.
When Republicans were the minority party in the House, they routinely complained that Democrats used the Rules Committee to stifle their bills and amendments. In the 1994 campaign, as part of their Contract With America, they pledged to run the House differently if they gained control.
Naturally, this was a big, fat lie. They've done unto others what had been done to them.
By preventing Democrats from offering amendments, Republicans virtually eliminate the possibility of the House passing legislation not endorsed or written by GOP leaders. As important, they eliminate a key opportunity for Democrats to divide Republicans by writing alternative bills that might appeal to moderate Republicans. Republicans also protect their members from swing districts from having to vote for or against some bills that could hurt them politically in the next election.[...]
Republicans have used the Rules Committee to block Democrats from offering more generous unemployment benefits to a bigger pool of workers, greater homeland security funding and smaller tax cuts.
[...]
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who controls the Rules Committee because he appoints its members, is simply following in the tradition of Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr., a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, and others before him who made the committee a powerful tool for the speaker.
And that's fine. Really. Because some day, the shoe will be back on the other foot. And when it is, I will cordially invite anyone who complains about how those bad ol' Democrats are silencing Republican voices to reread this article while I pop open the champagne and break out the noisemakers.
BTW, do I even need to mention that this is also what went on in the Texas House this year? Unlike the House of Representatives, the Texas House had a fairly cordial and bipartisan history (for the 30 or so years that there were any Republicans in the state House, anyway). After all, Governor Bush has no trouble getting his legislation passed, and received endorsements in 1998 from Democratic Lt. Governor Bob Bullock and in 200 from House Speaker Pete Laney. Under Tom Craddick, all that went out the window. Enjoy it while it lasts, fellas.
Via Political Parrhesia.
Since everyone and their sock puppets have already linked to this story about Rand Beers and Team Bush's feckless attitude towards terrorism, I'll just take the lazy way out and quote Ted:
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it won't be three days before Rand Beers, who served on the NSC under Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes, is smeared. I'm going to go further out on a limb and guess that it won't be five days before we find out that the smears aren't true. And seven days later, the usual gang of idiots will still be repeating them.
Indeed. Let's keep an eye on this one.
Greg Beato has some fun with the Greg Packer story and the unholy troika of Coulter, Kaus, and Reynolds, who are bound and determined to find a Liberal Media Conspiracy in there somewhere.
In case you haven't heard of this, Greg Packer is a guy who's been incredibly successful at getting quoted by reporters as a "man on the street", most recently at Hillary Clinton's book signing. The Wall Street Journal has a good overview of who he is and how he's achieved his ubiquitousness.
What I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is the fact that there's nothing original about what Packer has done. One could say that Packer is this decade's Rollen Stewart, though I sincerely hope that the parallels go no farther than multiple media appearances. And let's face it, no matter how many times Greg Packer can get quoted by the Associated Press, he's no Joey Skaggs. Really, the most amazing thing about the whole Packer story is how often and easily guys like him are able to get away with it. This story shows how easy it's been for Skaggs:
Skaggs has pulled off quite a few capers on his media mission. Using the alias "Dr. Joe Bones," he invented the "Fat Squad" to razz the media for the endless attention it pays to diet fads. Skaggs promoted the Fat Squad as a group of commandos that dieters could hire to keep them away from food. Skaggs said, "It is a joke about how everyone is hyping this weight loss thing. All these books, you know, and the diets and all this stuff. So I said, 'I will have commandos assigned to you 24 hours a day, and they'll beat the crap out of you if you go for that chocolate cake, if it's not on your diet.' "To promote his Fat Squad, Skaggs simply sent a press release to wire services, which then sent the story to newsrooms across the country. "The Washington Post and The Philadelphia Enquirer both fell for this," Skaggs said. "Another journalist wanting to do their own personal spin on it will call you up, verify that they spoke to you, and then repackage, re-can and put out the same story in essence," he said.
And what newspapers print, television regularly copies. Skaggs, posing as Joe Bones, appeared on ABC's Good Morning America, promoting his Fat Squad. The show's former co-host David Hartman introduced the story by announcing that "six Fat Squad commandos are here now, this morning, live, to maintain tight security around our Good Morning America refrigerator." Hartman displayed a bit of skepticism, asking "Bones" if the Fat Squad was legitimate, but that was the extent of the challenge.
There is, of course, a big difference between Joey Skaggs, a self-styled "satirist" who's looking to fool the media, and Greg Packer, an apparently honest schlub who just wants to see his name in print, but in the end they've been able to do what they do for the same reason: not enough people have paid enough attention to recognize them when they've popped up. I suspect it will be harder for Packer to get in the paper now that he's been outed, but I can just about guarantee we haven't seen the last of him.
There turned out to be a large group of us at the new Alamo Drafthouse to see the Mister Sinus Theater presentation of "The Terminator". The show started late because the Alamo needed more time than they originally thought to clean up after the 7 PM showing, and the "trailer", which was an old Schwarzeneggar fitness-for-kids video, ran on a bit long, but all of that was forgotten when the main event took center stage.
As others have explained, Mister Sinus Theater is basically a live-action version of Mystery Science Theater 3000, which is to say a bunch of wise guys making fun of a cheesy movie. These guys are really good at it, and they're really relentless about it. The glorious thing about movies made in the 80s is that there's such a rich vein of comedic material - hairstyles, music, everything that was trendy - and these guys make a good amount of hash over all of them. I can't really do justice to what they do - it's just the sort of you-had-to-be-there thing that won't translate at all to a written review. What I can say is that we laughed a lot, and when a joke fell flat there was another one right behind it to get you laughing again.
Towards the end of the movie, they stopped the film long enough to do "Terminator: The Ballet", which was a recapitulation of the story done in interpretive dance. That was easily the funniest bit, worth the price of admission in itself. I'll say this: These guys have no fear, and it works for them.
You've got to appreciate snarky commentary, bad puns, sometimes obscure pop cultural references, and running gags that border on the obsessive - basically, junior high humor that's actually funny - in order to appreciate Mister Sinus. If you count yourself in that group, be sure to catch them when you can (and be sure to buy tickets in advance - both shows were sold out). Tiffany has a lower tolerance for this sort of thing than I do and she still enjoyed it, so unless you know you'll hate it you should give it a try. I'm on their mailing list so I'll know when they come back. I'll be there when they do.
This is the best news you'll read today:
TULIA -- Forty months older and $70,000 poorer, Amarillo attorney Jeff Blackburn will stand in a courtroom here today and, at last, watch his pro bono beneficiaries -- 13 people imprisoned on questionable drug charges -- set free."There were plenty of times when I thought this day was never going to come," Blackburn said. "We fought a losing battle for two years. The only say we had was in the press."
At a hearing at 1 p.m. today, retired state District Judge Ron Chapman of Dallas is expected to release the defendants without bond until their cases are resolved by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
[...]
The written record of the Tulia saga is packed with investigative abuse, prosecutorial obstruction, judicial inertia and no small dose of irony:
· Tom Coleman, the undercover officer whose uncorroborated testimony was the sole basis for dozens of convictions, has been discredited and is under indictment for perjury.
· Terry McEachern, who prosecuted the Tulia defendants and failed to disclose to their lawyers information about Coleman's troubled past -- Coleman was arrested for theft while conducting the sting operation -- was recently convicted of aggravated drunken driving in New Mexico and faces an uncertain political and professional future.
· Judge Edward Self, who presided over many of the cases, was forced to recuse himself after he expressed public support for the prosecutors after the trials.
[...]
One defendant proved she was in another state at the time Coleman alleged she sold him dope. Another was acquitted when his boss testified that he was at work when the alleged transaction took place (he later sued the county and settled for $30,000).
Despite the obvious flaws in the cases, Blackburn said, "our hands were tied at the appellate level."
"We were never able to effect anything meaningful," he said. "We had to go outside, to the press. I'm glad that we had the allies that we did. It would have been swept under the rug."
For the prosecutors, Blackburn said, Self's recusal and Chapman's appointment to hold the evidentiary hearings were "their Stalingrad."
Coleman is accused of lying during two days on the witness stand, and before the hearings were concluded, the prosecutors threw in the towel. They stipulated that Coleman was not credible and agreed that new trials should be granted.
However, the Court of Criminal Appeals did not respond to Chapman's recommendation.
This is a great achievement, and as far as I'm concerned, Jeff Blackburn is a hero. Keep in mind, though, that he couldn't have done this without publicity. How many other people are in jail unjustly because they don't have lawyers as tireless, resourceful, and good at getting the word out as Jeff Blackburn?
"Claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the course of the underlying state criminal proceedings."
That's Tony Scalia's idea of justice. As long as that attitude prevails, there will always be Tulias.
UPDATE: As Daniel Levin points out in the comments, the above quote comes from William Rehnquist's majority opinion in Herrera v. Collins and not from Antonin Scalia's concurring opinion. My bad.
So yesterday Rob, Ted, and I spent five hours in a big meeting room at the University of Houston attending a "Grassroots Political Conference" given by the Billie Carr Institute and sponsored by the Harris County Democrats, the Harris County Democratic Party, and Congressman Nick Lampson. I wasn't quite sure what I was getting into, but I can say I'm glad I went.
The session opened with brief lectures by Richard Murray, Bob Stein, and Steven Klineberg, who does the annual Houston Area Survey. They spoke about demographics and voting trends, with the dominant theme being that both Texas and Harris County are becoming majority non-Anglo and that this will have an effect on state and local politics in the near future. All of them agreed that while these trends favor Democrats, and that they expect Harris and Dallas Counties to become Democratic counties within the next couple of election cycles, there are things Democrats can do to accelerate that change.
In that regard, Stein had what was surely the most interesting single data point. He discussed a study that attempted to determine what kind of effect efforts to make voting easier (early voting, voting by mail, etc), and get-out-the-vote efforts by each party, had had on turnout. In the end, only a combination of extended early voting hours in conjunction with a GOTV effort by Democrats had any measurable positive impact on turnout. Every other combination made at best a negligible difference. Interestingly, the extra votes came mostly from Hispanic voters between the ages of 18 and 35. File that one away for future consideration.
Klineberg, whose Houston Area Survey really is a treasure trove of useful data, made several worthwhile points:
- The natural-resources economy, which drove Texas through the 20th century, will mean very little in the 21st century. It's all about knowledge now.
- There are huge disparities in educational achievement across different racial and ethnic groups. (See Figure 10 on this page for the data.) Hispanics, who are both the youngest and fastest-growing segment of the population (see here and here) are also the least educated and in gravest danger of being left behind in an economy in which blue collar work is not a path to the middle class.
- Traffic and the economy are currently the "biggest problems facing Houston today" (see Figure Three for a long-term chart), but "quality of life" issues such as air pollution and park space are creeping up on there as well. As Klineberg notes:
In the "knowledge economy," corporations and individuals are freer than ever before to choose where they would like to live. Long-neglected quality-of-life issues (such as air and water pollution, sprawl, mobility, aesthetic appeal, urban amenities, and downtown revitalization) are turning out to be critical determinants of economic success for cities in the twenty-first century.
Again, Democrats are better placed to benefit from these trends, but again, the question of when and how much is largely up to them.
The most interesting thing (to me, anyway) to come out of Murray's talk came during the Q&A session. I submitted a question asking his opinion on the upcoming Mayor's race. He considers Orlando Sanchez to be the favorite, with a "40-45% chance" of winning, but believes that Bill White will beat Sanchez in a runoff if he makes it that far. If White falls prey to the Chris Bell/George Greanias problem, Murray said, Sanchez will beat Sylvester Turner in the runoff. (As an aside, he said that Bell would have beaten either Sanchez or Brown straight up in 2001.)
Next up was Peter Cari, the Political Director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who spoke about what the national party is doing in preparation for the 2004 campaign. It was very gratifying to hear him say things that liberal bloggers and their commenters have been saying all along, things like the Democrats need to stand up, be tough, and fight back. "We have to make a fist and punch these guys", he said, a sentiment sure to bring joy to the hearts of Atrios, Kos, and countless others. He was one of many to snort and bray about Tom DeLay, including making DeLay the next Newt Gingrich, an idea that brings joy to my own heart.
Rep. Nick Lampson, one of the sponsors of this event, gave a brief but amazingly fiery speech after Cari spoke, the sort of rafter-rattling pep talk you wouldn't expect from a fiftyish buttoned-down white guy from Beaumont. I got a chance to shake his hand afterwards, and told him he was the first political candidate I'd ever given money to (back in 1996, when he ousted the execrable Steve Stockman from the 9th CD). I also asked him if the national party is working to keep Senators Eddie Lucio and Ken Armbrister from supporting redistricting, and he assured me that it is.
There were some other speakers, who weren't quite as interesting to me, and a couple of panels, one featuring other activist groups like Planned Parenthood the Bay Area New Democrats, and one about media relations, but the best response of the day was to Rick Brennan of the Harris County Young Democrats. (Aside: I note with some sadness that I am officially too old to be a Young Democrat. But at least I'm young at heart.) Brennan spoke about how opposition to the war galvanized young people, and got a standing ovation for saying that "There shouldn't be a Green Party. We need to bring them home."
We all had things to do that evening (I promise, Ted, I'll write a review of last night's Mister Sinus Theater event at the Alamo Drafthouse), so we didn't stay for the post-session social event, which was a 50th anniversary celebration of the Harris County Democrats, but all three of us felt like we got something out of the experience yesterday. There's going to be a followup event on August 2, which I won't be able to make due to a prior commitment, but if anyone wants to know more about it, drop me a note.
Just noticed that Thomas Nephew has also been following the Killer D story as well. Start at that link and follow the other links back for his coverage. Via Amygdala.
The Rice Owls defeated SW Missouri State 4-2 in their opening game of the College World Series last night behind a strong outing from sophomore pitcher Jeff Niemann. The Owls will play the Texas Longhorns, who knocked off Miami 13-2, on Monday. UT is the defending national champion, and they beat Rice 2-1 in the opening game of last year's CWS, so you can bet that Wayne Graham will not have to do much to motivate his troops. UT is about the only team to have a winning record against Rice over the past couple of years, too. Game time is 6 PM CDT and will be on ESPN2. Go Rice!
Dwight Meredith takes some recent stories about money and political influence and ties them together in a nice package that touches on campaign finance reform and the appearance of impropriety. Check it out.
Meanwhile, here's today's Westar update (via Atrios) and a fine collection of documents from the case (you'll need Adobe Acrobat reader for them), via Alfredo Garcia.
You remember Afghanistan, right? Here's how things are going over there:
Such is the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, compounded by the return to the country of a large number of former Afghan communist refugees, that United States and Pakistani intelligence officials have met with Taliban leaders in an effort to devise a political solution to prevent the country from being further ripped apart.According to a Pakistani jihadi leader who played a role in setting up the communication, the meeting took place recently between representatives of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and Taliban leaders at the Pakistan Air Force base of Samungli, near Quetta.
Remember how, before the invasion of Iraq, critics said we shouldn't distract our attention from the vital job of rebuilding Afghanistan? Remember how pro-invasion advocates assured everyone that we could handle both places at the same time?
With the withdrawal of the Soviets and the emergence of the Taliban in the early 1990s, though, the situation once again changed. The Taliban, taking advantage of the power struggles among bitterly divided militias in Kabul, consolidated themselves into an effective political movement led by clerics and in 1996 seized power in Kabul. A part of their success also lay in the fact that initially Afghans, especially Pashtuns who make up the majority of the country, were reluctant to take up the gun against clerics.Now, in the renewed guerrilla war against foreign troops, it is the clerics who are calling the shots. For instance, Hafiz Rahim is the most respected cleric in the Kandahar region, and he commands all military operations from the sanctuary of the mountainous terrain.
The US forces have employed maximum air support and advanced technology in an attempt to curtail attacks, but without the help of local Afghan forces they are unable to track down Hafiz Rahim, who to date has targeted US convoys scores of times. The United States has admitted a few deaths, while the Taliban claim they have killed many more than the official numbers state. For funds, the Taliban use money looted from the central bank before they abandoned Kabul, estimated in excess of US$110 million, in addition to money received from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda.
At the same time, famed warlord Gulbbudin Hekmatyar has joined the resistance after returning from exile in Iran. His Hezb-i-Islami Afghanistan (HIA) is the most organized force in Afghanistan, and its participation has added real muscle to the resistance. Many top slots in the Kabul administration are occupied by former HIA members who, although they were once anti-Taliban, are loyal to the Islamic cause and anti-US. Also, several provincial governors and top officials are former HIA commanders. They are suspect in the eyes of the Americans, but because of their huge political clout it is impossible to remove them.
With this groundswell of support - even if in places it is only passive - and with Kabul's influence restricted to the capital, the Americans and their allies will remain vulnerable targets, let alone be in a position to restore any form of law and order. It is in situations like this, argue most experts on Afghanistan, that traditionally insurrections begin in the Afghan army against foreign administrators.
But hey, at least we've been careful to maintain our alliances with other countries in all of these foriegn forays. You know, to make sure that we all have the same goals in mind.
At present, Kabul is divided into two main factions. The first is pro-US, which is represented by the US and allied troops and those loyal to President Hamid Karzai. The second is pro-Russian and pro-Iranian, represented by Defense Minister General Qasim Fahim and his Northern Alliance forces. Although the camps are cooperating at present, they are silently building their support bases to make a grab for full power once the present interim administration runs its course, a process that is due to begin in October with a loya jirga (grand council).In this respect, every returned or returning former "communist comrade" is important, for should the Northern Alliance faction develop sufficient critical mass, it would come as no surprise if its leaders openly forged an alliance with the resistance movement.
Via Atrios, who says "Every time somebody starts complaining that the Democrats need a coherent foreign policy I just want to bang my head against the table and ask them just what the coherent Bush foreign policy is." I totally agree.
To cover my bases here, I'll admit as Jim Henley notes that this story may not be true, and even if it is there's value in intelligence agencies maintaining ties to "out-groups and adversaries". That said, I'm pretty sure that this isn't what the average American has in mind when asked about President Bush's leadership capabilities.
Here are the rest of the Tank McNamara strips that lampooned Hall of Fame president Dale Petroskey: Thursday, Friday, and today.
Congratulations to Roger Clemens for recording his 300th career win along with his 4000th career strikeout in a 5-2 victory over the St. Louis Cardinals last night. Rob Neyer makes the case that Clemens has been the best pitcher of the post-World War II era. Here are some numbers that help illuminate Clemens' career.
Clemens, along with Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine, are often cited as the last pitchers to challenge the 300-victory milestone in this age of 5-man rotations and six-inning starts. I'm far from convinced of that, if for no better reason than some teams, such as the Toronto Blue Jays have considered bringing back the four-man rotation. I also think there are several current pitchers who have as good a shot at 300 wins as anyone. Mike Mussina has 190 career wins and has averaged 16 wins per full season. If he stays healthy, at that rate he'd have 294 wins after the 2009 season, meaning he'd need six wins at the age of 41 to join the club. It's way too early to make decent projections, but check back on guys like Mark Prior, Roy Oswalt, and the Oakland A's terrific trio of Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and Barry Zito in another decade. Baseball changes directions over time, and I think predicting the end of 300-win pitchers is premature at best.
Hey, cool. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is talking about printing some more $2 bills.
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing may print 121.6 million new $2 bills in fiscal year 2004, which starts Oct. 1, said BEP spokeswoman Claudia Dickens. "Around July or August we will be able to confirm that number positively," she said.When new $2 bills were last printed in 1996, some 163.6 million of the notes were made. The government stopped making the bills because there wasn't much demand for them from banks and their customers. Cash registers typically don't have bins for the $2 note.
"I think people are just saving them. The general population, when something is unusual in terms of money, they pull it and set it aside — `Gee, I haven't seen one of those,' " said David Sundman, a paper money expert and president of Littleton Coin Co. "It is just human nature."
Some people like to give them as gifts or use them at $2 betting windows at horse racetracks, a few money mavens suggested.
The main source for deuces here in Houston is the Mucky Duck, which also likes to hand out half-dollars and now Sacagawea dollars as change. I confess that I was a hoarder of $2 bills, but I've since gotten over it.
If you don't like $2 bills, how does the concept of an 18-cent coin grab you?
If Americans want less loose change rattling around in their purses and pockets, they should replace the 10-cent dime with an 18-cent coin, according to mathematician Jeffrey Shallit of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.Shallit has figured out the denominations that would give the minimum number of coins for any amount of change. Canadians would benefit from an 83˘ coin, he has found. And nations in the euro zone should add either a 1.33- or a 1.37-euro coin.
Most people like their change to comprise as few coins as possible. For example, if one is owed 32˘, the four-coin combination of a quarter (25˘), a nickel (5˘) and two cents is more satisfying than three dimes and two cents.
A handful of US change contains an average of 4.7 coins, Shallit calculates. He assumes that the smallest possible number of coins is used, and that all amounts of change between 0 and 99˘ are equally likely. They may not be, however - for example, the tendency for retail prices to end in 99 may skew things.
Could another four-coin system reduce this average? The combinations 1, 5, 18, 25 and 1, 5, 18, 29 each deliver an average of 3.89 coins in a handful of change, Shallit finds. The first option requires only replacing the dime with an 18˘ coin.
According to Shallit's web page, his suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, a subtlety that was not grasped by much of the media when they picked it up. Those crazy mathematicians, always with the practical jokes.
Some news on the Westar case, in which four GOP legislators are alleged to have altered legislation in a way that would favor a Kansas utility in return for campaign donations. Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-Louisiana), who has already attacked the statements made by a Westar lobbyist, has continued to trade barbs with him.
"I welcome any inquiry by any party so that this matter might be laid to rest once and for all," said former Westar lobbyist Richard Bornemann.Bornemann said he was simply responding to faxed invitations from the organizers of the eight Tauzin-Barton fund-raisers.
Tauzin said through a spokesman that Bornemann had contacted Tauzin's fund-raisers a year ago and obtained a list of all eight upcoming events known as "Tex-Cajun cookouts."
Bornemann "was never solicited and no one from Westar ever attended these events with the exception of Bornemann himself," said Tauzin spokesman Ken Johnson.
Bornemann responded by disclosing a notice sent to his office by the fund-raising organizers.
"He asked for" the list of fund-raisers, Tauzin's spokesman insisted. "He said he had a client who wanted to participate and he was then faxed a complete rundown of events. He was never solicited and if he's saying otherwise he's a liar."
I believe you can reduce most of this to "I know what you are, but what am I?" Texas Rep. Joe Barton comes off a lot better in his attempt to explain the fuss:
"To be told there's some quid pro quo, that's just stupid. It's just dumb. It just didn't happen," he said in his first extensive comments since questions were raised about his actions on behalf of Westar. "I may be cranky. I may be a contrarian. But I am not crooked and I am not corrupt. I play by the rules, and I've done it for the 19 years I've been in Congress."Mr. Barton said he believed Westar "was the only utility in the country that could be regulated as a mutual fund company" if Congress repealed the 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act, something he has long advocated. "A utility that has an alarm company is not a mutual fund company," he said.
[...]
Mr. Barton and several other members of Congress have tried for years to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act. The law bars holding companies from building a national chain of utilities and subjects their acquisitions and trades to SEC supervision.
The SEC has urged repeal of the act since 1995, arguing that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is better suited for utility oversight.
The SEC monitors other types of holding companies, which typically are firms holding shares for their customers – in other words, investment companies that deal in instruments such as mutual funds.
Mr. Barton said he met with Westar lobbyist Richard Bornemann two years ago to discuss the company's concern that repeal of the holding company law would leave it subject to SEC scrutiny as a mutual funds firm.
The lobbyist explained Westar had approached the SEC about getting an administrative exemption but wanted legislative language as well, Mr. Barton said.
"I was approached and presented with the problem. I had staff check it out," Mr. Barton said. "So I decided we'll put it in the bill and see who squawks and who doesn't."
There were squawks from the Investment Company Institute, the Securities and Exchange Commission and energy committee Democrats.
Barton withdrew the legislation after some of those squawkers told him that it would have created a big ol' loophole in federal securities law.
So let's say there's an investigation of this Westar business. Who should be looking into it? Normally, you'd say the Attorney General. Only problem is, he's been a beneficiary of Westar's checkbook in the past, too:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence McAuliffe said Attorney General John Ashcroft, in his unsuccessful U.S. Senate bid, received two donations totaling $2,500 from a lobbyist and senior executive with the Topeka, Kansas-based Westar Energy Inc . The company's former chief executive, David Wittig, was indicted for fraud last year.McAuliffe already had written to Ashcroft last week asking him to seize records of four Republican lawmakers concerning over $55,000 in donations that Westar made to political groups linked to them last year even as the company was seeking an exemption on Capitol Hill from federal regulation.
But in his letter on Tuesday, McAuliffe said that because Ashcroft received a $2,000 donation from Westar lobbyist Richard Bornemann and $500 from then-Westar executive Carl Koupal for Ashcroft's 2000 Senate campaign, the attorney general should let someone else probe the company's donations.
So far, Ashcroft hasn't said whether or not there will be an investigation and if so who would lead it.
Going back to the first story, I can't help but think that this problem is much more pervasive than any one company or legislator getting caught being naughty. Look at this paragraph:
On April 23-24, 2002, Tauzin and Barton staged "Tex-Cajun cookout" fund-raising events for Shimkus and Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo). They were the first two of eight such Tauzin-Barton events on behalf of House Republicans facing competitive re-election races. All eight events were held at the American Trucking Association offices in Washington or at the Washington lobbying firm of former Republican congressman Jack Fields of Texas.
I just don't think it's a good idea for elected officials to be that fiscally cozy with corporate interests. I don't care which party it is. I can't help but think that a government that supposed to be, you know, for the people should spend less time milking money from business interests.
OK, my moment of idealism is over. Let's move along.
Real nice writeup on the Alamo Drafthouse in today's Chron. I've been extremely jealous of my friends in Austin since I first heard of this place, and I'm just thrilled to pieces to have one here. Good movies, good food, no screaming kids, and did I mention they serve beer? Best of all, if the first location way out Westheimer at Highway 6 does well, they'll look to open another one in town. Excellent!
Tiffany and I will be doing our part to help make this location a success by attending tomorrow night's Mister Sinus Theater presentation of The Terminator. I'll report on it on Sunday.
Well, shoot. The defense attorney for former HPD Captain Mark Aguirre has rested its case without calling Chief C.O. "BAMF" Bradford as a hostile witness. Closing arguments are today, with jury deliberations expected to start today as well. What a huge letdown!
I guess the strategy is to say that the state didn't make its case. Might be a bit of a tough sell after a week of testimony, but then that may be part of the point - "They droned on for a week and they still have nothing!" Seems risky to me, but there wasn't a lot of reporting on the defense cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses, so maybe they have reason to feel confident. We'll see.
UPDATE: It's in the jury's hands now.
Who knew Yogi Berra was a hockey fan? Thanks to Matt for sending this to me.
By the way, in case you're curious, that guy who promised to marry his longtime girlfriend if the Mighty Ducks won the Stanley Cup proposed anyway. She said Yes. I have to say, this had all sorts of bad karma possibilities. I mean, get married or don't. Don't play games with it. I think it worked out in the end, but it was closer than it needed to be. Via Eric McErlain.
In case you missed it, Sammy Sosa's eight-game suspension for using a corked bat was reduced to seven games on appeal. Basically, MLB cut him some slack for being forthright in admitting that he was wrong. I'm cool with that.
Though Sosa's reputation is taking a beating right now, I think in the long run he'll come out okay. He's going to have to work to rebuild his image with fans, but he's exactly the kind of player who will take that task seriously. I think it's more likely that this will be a footnote to his career than a defining moment.
Meanwhile, my buddy Greg Morrow took a stab at explaining corked bat physics, using actual equations and stuff like that. Go check it out.
The prosecution rested its case against former HPD Captain Mark Aguirre yesterday, going with a witness who said he felt "duped" by his former mentor instead of with Chief C.O. "BAMF" Bradford as I thought they might.
"He was a mentor of mine," Sgt. John Zitzmann said during questioning by the defense. "This whole event completely turned me against him."[...]
After the raid sparked a public furor and led to a police internal investigation, Zitzmann said, Aguirre tried to make him talk about the in-house probe, a violation of department policy.
Zitzmann said Aguirre wanted to know what questions Zitzmann was being asked, then offered to write the answers for the probe. Zitzmann said he did not comply with Aguirre's request. Instead, he called a union lawyer and reported the incident.
"It's my opinion that, because he wasn't getting the support he was expecting, he was very concerned with his career," Zitzmann said.
[...]
Zitzmann testified Tuesday that he felt "duped" by Aguirre. The raid was supposed to target illegal street racing, but the focus shifted to trespassers just a few days before the arrests. Zitzmann said some of the officers questioned the change but were assured by Aguirre and [Sgt. Ken] Wenzel that they had researched the law.
After the prosecution wrapped up its case, the defense began its task of putting Chief Bradford on trial.
Defense attorney Terry Yates began his case Wednesday with a captain who testified that Aguirre suggested the raid after a meeting with Police Chief C.O. Bradford last spring."Aguirre made a recommendation that we make a mass arrest, tow vehicles and take it out of their pockets," Capt. J.P. Mokwa said. "The chief praised it."
And finally, the moment we're all waiting for:
Bradford is expected to be called as a hostile witness by the defense before the case wraps up.
Schweet! Pop the popcorn and settle in, that will be a hoot.
Yesterday I noted a WaPo story about House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R, Missouri), who tried at the last minute to slip a provision that limited the sale of tobacco products over the Internet into the bill that created the Department of Homeland Security. This morning, I found this &c piece which gives Blunt some benefit of the doubt. What caught my eye, though, was a statement made by Senators Orrin Hatch and Herb Kohl, who are sponsoring a bill in the Senate to do the same kind of Internet tobacco crackdown that Blunt shilled for earlier. Here's how the senators characterize selling ciggies in cyberspace:
"unfair not only to ... individual states, but also to the brick and mortar retailers ... placing these businesses at an unfair commercial disadvantage."
And why is it unfair to states and traditional retailers? Because Internet transactions aren't taxed. With that in mind, read this piece by Christopher Caldwell about spam and the free ride that online salespeople have been getting:
The Internet economy, as spam shows, turns out to be like a garden: Leave it alone and you will not get (as you might assume in theory) a profusion of wild and interesting growth. No--you'll get the entire space choked off by the most noxious and aggressive weed. And spam has reached the point where it calls for a mighty pesticide. An entire range of federal regulations is going to be necessary if the Internet is to be kept usable; and enacting such regulations responsibly will take legislative prudence and care. A do-not-spam list is a first imperative. But it is also a social necessity that the principle of taxing the Internet be established soon. This will mean retiring the (in retrospect) absurdly named Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, which placed a moratorium on certain Internet taxes, and was extended in 2001 until November of this year.It was always unfair not to tax business on the Internet, of course. There is no reason that Amazon.com should enjoy a pricing advantage (a de facto government subsidy) over a corner bookstore. But the most damaging part of the moratorium turns out to have been the most innocent-looking: that it banned charges for Internet access. Something like e-mail "postage" will be required if we are going to change the economic incentives that have invited pornographers, snake-oil salesmen, and other social predators into Americans' living rooms, in some cases hundreds of times a week. There are reasonable ways such postage can be collected. A penny-per-e-mail charge would drive most spammers out of business, subject them to jail time for tax evasion if they hid their operations, and cost the average three-letter-a-day Internet user just ten bucks a year. If even that seems too hard on the small user, then an exemption could be made for up to 5,000 e-mails per annum. If the postage were decried as a tax hike, then it could be used to fund one-to-one tax cuts in other areas--like sales taxes for the brick-and-mortar retail stores that have labored under such an unfair tax disadvantage for the past half decade.
Funny how these things all connect together, isn't it?
Via Mark Evanier comes this feature article about Bloom County creator Berke Breathed, who appears to be inclined to get back into doing a weekly strip.
"I can't say it wouldn't be appealing to bring back Opus to the Sunday pages," Breathed told National Cartoonists Society (NCS) meeting attendees here. "It was painful to sit through the war without a public voice." He added that a cartoonist has more control when doing a newspaper comic than when collaborating on, say, a movie. Breathed is currently working on a film featuring the penguin Opus, while continuing to do children's books.
Even though Bloom County was running on fumes the last year or so - I can recall at least three times when Bill-the-Cat-with-Donald-Trump's-translplanted-brain joked about selling an item of Ivana's so they could feed Africa for some period of time - I'll welcome its return with open arms. As fertile a decade as the 80s were for Opus and the gang (and please, in the name of all that's holy, bring back Milo and Binkley and Oliver as well as Steve Dallas), I have to believe that there's plenty of inspiration nowadays as well.
This tidbit alone is worth the time to read the whole thing:
One 1980s Washington resident, Ronald Reagan, was a periodic "Bloom County" target. Once, Breathed put a photo of Nancy Reagan in his comic for no particular reason. The president liked it, and phoned Breathed for the original of the strip. The cartoonist received the call while in the shower, and wished he had possessed the nerve to say: "Mr. President, I'm not wearing any pants!" When Breathed told Bill Watterson about this, the "Calvin and Hobbes" creator sketched a naked Reagan replying: "That's quite a coincidence, Berke."
How much would you pay for that sketch that Watterson gave him?
(Side note: I cannot believe that it's been fourteen years since Bloom County hung it up. I am so freaking old.)
It's usually a bad sign when your starting pitcher is forced out of the game after an inning due to injury, but five Houston Astros relievers picked up the ball from Roy Oswalt and combined to throw a no-hitter against the Yankees at Yankee Stadium. Here's the trivia rundown for you:
- Most pitchers ever used by a team throwing a no-hitter (six). Twice before, four pitchers had combined to do it, most recently in 1991.
- First no-hitter against the Yankees since 1958 when Hall of Fame knuckleballer Hoyt Wilhelm did it (that's 45 years, Rob, not 43), and first no-hitter against them at Yankee Stadium since 1952.
- Yankee Stadium is the go-to place for interleague no-hitters, as all three have been thrown there. The other two were perfect games: Don Larsen in the 1956 World Series, and David Cone in 1999 against the Expos.
- Yesterday was the 65th anniversary of Johnny Vander Meer's first no-hitter, which he followed up with another in his next start. The next time someone asks you which baseball record will never be broken, tell them Johnny Vander Meer's record for most consecutive no-hitters thrown.
- Just to add to the fun, Astros reliever Octavio Dotel recorded four strikeouts in the eighth inning.
Understandably, the story in the Chron, which was on Page One, was a happier one than the stories in the Daily News and the New York Times. I suppose the one consolation I can take from this is that it's been awhile since anyone's written an article about how the avaricious Yankees are spending their way to another title.
UPDATE: Here's a story about Johnny Vander Meer and his consecutive no-hitters, and here's a story about some other weird no-hitters.
I've mentioned before that Jerry Springer is considering a run for George Voinovich's Ohio Senate seat. Now, via O-Dub, I see that he's not only still considering it, he's got a blog to help him explore the issue. Hot damn!
I'll tell you what, I considered this to be a big joke when I first heard about it. Having just read the following quote in his latest entry, I'm ready to give him my support:
In terms of my possible candidacy, let me sum up what we face in the following quote from a right wing journalist recently appearing on CNN with Wolf Blitzer:
"Voter turnout is not a glorious thing. If Jerry Springer shows up, he’ll bring all these new people to the polls. They will be slack-jawed yokels, hicks, weirdos, pervs, and whatnot."
I don't know who that was, but if it's an accurate quote then I hope Jerry does run. I hope his candidacy serves as a reminder to arrogant pompous buffoons everywhere that all those yokels, hicks, and pervs have the same right to vote as they do. And I hope he succeeds in getting those yokels, hicks, and pervs more involved in the process. Win or lose, that would be a fine legacy for him.
You may have already seen this at Atrios, but on the odd chance that you haven't yet read this article about some shenanigans by House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Missouri), well, let's let it speak for itself:
Only hours after Rep. Roy Blunt was named to the House's third-highest leadership job in November, he surprised his fellow top Republicans by trying to quietly insert a provision benefiting Philip Morris USA into the 475-page bill creating a Department of Homeland Security, according to several people familiar with the effort.The new majority whip, who has close personal and political ties to the company, instructed congressional aides to add the tobacco provision to the bill -- then within hours of a final House vote -- even though no one else in leadership supported it or knew he was trying to squeeze it in.
Once alerted to the provision, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, quickly had it pulled out, said a senior GOP leader who requested anonymity. Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) also opposed what Blunt (Mo.) was trying to do, the member said, and "worked against it" when he learned of it.
The provision would have made it harder to sell tobacco products over the Internet and would have cracked down on the sale of contraband cigarettes, two practices that cut into Philip Morris's profits. Blunt has received large campaign donations from Philip Morris, his son works for the company in Missouri and the House member has a close personal relationship with a Washington lobbyist for the firm.
It is highly unusual for a House Republican to insert a last-minute contentious provision that has never gone through a committee, never faced a House vote and never been approved by the speaker or majority leader. Blunt's attempt became known only to a small circle of House and White House officials. They kept it quiet, preferring no publicity on a matter involving favors for the nation's biggest tobacco company and possible claims of conflicts of interest.
If that weren't enough, his son is a lobbyist for Philip Morris and has been the beneficiary of this kind of paternal largesse before on behalf of another client. Plus, Rep. Blunt is apparently involved (in some unspecified fashion) with a female lobbyist for Philip Morris. This plotline would've been rejected as excessively cheesy by the writers of Designing Women, and yet here we are. Have I ever mentioned that this is turning out to be a really strange decade?
Making this story even more fun are the justifications Blunt gives for his remarkable actions. First, the one-size-fits-all reason:
Blunt said he pushed the provision because he thought it was good policy, much of it drawn from legislation introduced last year by then-Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.). Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) recently introduced legislation that would do much of what Philip Morris was seeking to do, Blunt said. He said the provision was relevant to the homeland security bill because news reports last year showed that terrorist groups, such as the Lebanon-based Hezbollah, were profiting from the sale of contraband cigarettes.
Lining one's pockets in the name of anti-terrorism is no vice, right?
Blunt said his actions were no different than those of a member who successfully tucked a provision providing liability protections to the Eli Lilly pharmaceutical company into the same homeland security bill.
I can't believe he even trotted that one out. That provision raised a huge stink and as the article notes, no Republican has ever come forward to claim it. Dwight and Mary Beth were all over this. This is like justifying a puffed-up expense account by noting that lots of people steal office supplies.
Thanks to my indefatigable tipster Alfredo Garcia for sending me the link.
UPDATE: TNR did some digging, and concluded that Blunt's attempt to slip this provision into a bill may have had some merit.
Thursday, June 26, is Appropriate Michael Savage's Name For Your Own Purposes Day. I overslept and thus missed out on National Make Fun of the Cheneys Day (scroll down from here for beaucoup de tasteless fun), but I'm ready for my closeup this time.
Let's start with this article in the Statesman which examines the position of several key senators on redistricting. A common theme, as summed up by Ken Armbrister (D-Victoria) is that many of them will want something before they'll carry water for Tom DeLay:
An Armbrister staffer, Mike Sizemore, said the senator wants Congress to help Texas before he votes for a Republican congressional map."Today, he's a firm 'no,' " Sizemore said. He said Armbrister wants Congress to take care of teachers who cannot collect Social Security benefits of their deceased spouses. He also wants more money for Medicare, trauma care and the state in general.
"This is a defining moment," Sizemore said, quoting his boss. "The president is from Texas. The majority leader is from Texas. When they work on these problems, they can come talk to me (about redistricting)."
Let's pause a moment and savor the irony of that, shall we? Other Senators who expressed concerns said that they didn't care for what the previous plan did to the cities they represent, so perhaps a less heinously greedy plan would have a better chance.
Some more indications that the Senate will adhere to its regular procedures:
For the Democrats to lose on this partisan issue, it will take at least two and perhaps more Senate Democrats to vote with Republicans to even bring up the issue of congressional redistricting.Under a tradition that's evolved since the 1950s, a two-thirds vote of the senators present is required to get a bill to the floor for debate.
Without that tradition, Republicans could easily bring up the issue, because they control the Senate 19 to 12.
But the Senate appears unlikely to surrender that tradition, and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said this week that he's "inclined" to keep it. The lieutenant governor's powers, however, are actually granted by the Senate, and thus the power lies with the senators, a majority of whom determine the rules of debating bills.
Just two years ago, Republicans took advantage of the tradition themselves, using 12 GOP senators to stop state redistricting plans and throw the issue to the Legislative Redistricting Board and to the federal courts.
Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, said of the tradition Tuesday, "I don't know a senator who favors changing it."
I do wish this piece had expanded on that penultimate paragraph, because on its face it's a fine rejoinder to those (such as Gov. Perry lately) who've used the argument that the current boundaries are unacceptable because they weren't drawn by the Legislature in the first place. While I recall that there were at least two competing plans in 2001, I don't remember the details of what they did and how the court came to pick the map it did, and I don't have the time right now to wade through newspaper archives. I'll try to look into this later.
Anyway, over in the Chron, signals continue to be mixed about when a special session might be called:
With no official word from Gov. Rick Perry about the timing of a special legislative session, House aides abruptly scrubbed plans for public hearings on the contentious issue of congressional redistricting.State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, a redistricting foe, said Tuesday that someone "jumped the gun" on the governor's plans for a special session.
A June 21 meeting room reservation for a Hose committee hearing at Texas Southern University in Houston was canceled, as were reservations at University of Texas campuses in San Antonio, Dallas and Brownsville.
Perry is expected to call lawmakers into special session sometime this summer to consider proposals that would redraw congressional districts to increase the number of Republicans elected to the U.S. House from Texas.
[...]
The timing of a special session -- which could last as long as 30 days -- may be affected by a National Conference of State Legislatures' summer meeting, scheduled for July 21-25 in San Francisco, and a meeting of the Southern Legislative Conference set for mid-August in Fort Worth.
Two Capitol sources, who asked not to be identified, also said Perry wants to attend part of the Tour de France, where Texan Lance Armstrong will be seeking his fifth consecutive victory. That bicycle race stretches over most of July, but Perry spokesman Gene Acuna said he didn't know if the governor wanted to attend.
With Perry dithering and Lt. Governor Dewhurst saying "now is not the time", I'm almost feeling bold enough to make an actual prediction. As I said yesterday, I think Dewhurst wants to deal with school finance reform first, and then he'll fall in line over redistricting. We shall see.
Finally, on the Hunt for the Killer Ds Investigations front, we have a new admission that the FBI in Oklahoma was contacted but declined to offer any assistance.
"It's no big deal," Attorney General Greg Abbott's spokeswoman Angela Hale said Tuesday."(Assistant Attorney General) Jay Kimbrough did call the FBI in Oklahoma to see about federal jurisdiction, and they said no."
The attorney general's office has disclosed previously that Assistant Attorney General Barry McBee asked the U.S. attorney's office in San Antonio if federal authorities had jurisdiction to return the lawmakers to Texas.
Hale said Kimbrough and McBee were acting as state lawyers under the direction of House Speaker Tom Craddick.
The real meat of this article is in the very last paragraph:
Meanwhile, activity has continued this week in a civil suit by state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, who alleges that DPS illegally destroyed records after a Public Information Act request was made for the documents. The agency has admitted destroying documents, but said they were field notes and were destroyed before any requests had been made. Burnam said he got his information from a Bailey aide, Roberta Bilsky. Bilsky, in a deposition released Tuesday, said her source was DPS legislative liaison Michael Kelley. Kelley has signed an affidavit swearing he told Bilsky no such thing.
So now we have a DPS staffer named as a source for info the Democrats got during the DPS' document destruction party. Except that he denies it. Both Michael Kelly and Roberta Bilsky can't be right, which means one of them has lied in a sworn statement. Sounds like a job for Ronnie Earle to me.
Today's Tank McNamara. Basically a rehash of Monday's joke, so a bit disappointing.
The prosecution continues to makes its points in the case against former HPD Captain Mark Aguirre on five counts of official oppression stemming from the botched K-Mart raid last year. The DA has two main thrusts to its argument, which are that Captain Aguirre operated on his own, and that the arresting officers made no attempt to distinguish between actual offenders and innocent bystanders. Yesterday, Assistant Chief Charles McClelland, who approved the original plan, testified that he did not and would not have approved what Aguirre actually did.
"I didn't prohibit anybody from making any lawful arrests, but clearly our target was illegal street racers," Assistant Chief Charles McClelland Jr. testified.McClelland said he "had no idea" that then-Capt. Mark Aguirre had changed the plan and that he never saw an Aug. 16 memo Aguirre sent to the dozens of officers involved in the raid instructing them to make arrests for trespassing.
[...]
McClelland told the jury in state District Judge Carol G. Davies' court he signed off on a plan Aug. 1 that specifically dictated "those believed to be spectators should be directed toward the exit of the parking lot."
If Aguirre had notified McClelland of the change in the plan, McClelland said, he would have called off the operation.
"I fully expected spectators to be released if they hadn't done anything or weren't wanted (on warrants)," McClelland said.
Defense attorney Terry Yates argued that a supervisor at the scene can change a plan. McClelland said the plan could only be changed for an extreme situation or "to protect someone's life."
You can be sure that the defense will revisit McClelland's claims that he knew nothing about the modified plans when they put on their case. The defense has asserted all along that the top brass at HPD, in particular Chief C.O. "BAMF" Bradford, knew what was going on and that the denials are just CYA. They insist that Aguirre, who was greatly disliked by Bradford, became a convenient scapegoat for this snafu.
Getting back to the prosecution, Monday's testimony by 17-year-old Jessica Paine was about the other prong in the attack.
As she was driving away from the Sonic drive-in next to a Kmart Super Center in the 8400 block of Westheimer, Paine testified Monday, a Houston police officer knocked on her window with gun drawn and told her and her best friend to "get out of the goddamn car."[...]
She had no idea why she was being stopped, she said. She and her friend had been there looking at all the souped-up cars, as they do every weekend.
About 12:15 a.m. Aug. 18, they ordered two cherry limeades and an ice cream sundae [at the Sonic drive-thru adjacent to the K-Mart] and were leaving for home in time to make Paine's curfew.
Instead, she said, she was forced from her car at gunpoint, herded to the back of the strip center, placed in plastic flex cuffs and hauled to jail two or three hours later. She wasn't released until that afternoon. When she got to her towed car, she said, the ice cream was melted and the two drinks sat full in the console.
The testimony about "souped-up cars" is interesting, since all along the reports have said there were no drag racers to be found at the parking lot. Not that having such a car makes you an illegal street racer, of course. Still, this is another point that I expect the defense to return to, since they have also claimed that the arrests were righteous.
Though it doesn't say, I daresay the state is close to resting its case. A witness like the Assistant Chief is a high point, so unless they've got Chief Bradford himself lined up - and they very well may, since I'll bet the defense will call him if they don't - I've gotta think they're done. It's already amazing they had this much testimony in a misdemeanor trial, but then this was never an ordinary trial.
The Houston Rockets will announce tomorrow the official hiring of former Knicks coach Jeff Van Gundy. The Knicks will apparently receive a second round draft pick as compensation.
I like this move. I thought Van Gundy was underrated in New York, and Houston ought to be a less pressure-filled environment for him. With the new arena opening in the fall, and Yao Ming sure to be better in his second year, they have a lot going for them. Let's hope they capitalize on it.
Boy, everyone's talking about the blocker bill now. The Chron had a chat with Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, who reiterated his intentions to follow Senate traditions in any special session, including any session which may revisit redistricting. The upshot of that is that 12 votes in the Senate would be enough to prevent a redistricting bill from reaching the floor for a vote.
Dewhurst told the Houston Chronicle editorial board Monday that he is "inclined" to use a procedure that would allow debate on redistricting only if two-thirds of the state's 31 senators agreed to consider the issue. Such a rule was in effect during the regular session that concluded last week.It would mean 11 of the state's 12 Democratic senators could kill GOP efforts to add Republicans to the state's U.S. House delegation.
Dewhurst is unenthusiastic about taking up redistricting because he considers it politically divisive. A Democratic senator from Houston said the lieutenant governor's inclination to use the two-thirds rule probably is intended to preserve a cooperative spirit rather than to help Democrats.
[...]
Each session, the Senate puts a bill atop the schedule that is called a "blocker bill." The bill usually has little consequence, but it is deliberately kept from floor debate. Under Senate rules, that means that all other bills must get two-thirds approval to be considered out of sequence.
The blocker bill in the regular session was SB 220, which would have encouraged counties to beautify their parks. It never passed the Senate.
Dewhurst indicated he also would use a blocker bill if there is a special session.
Having the two-thirds rule in effect would not necessarily jeopardize a redistricting plan because at least two Democratic senators -- Ken Armbrister of Victoria and Eddie Lucio of Brownsville -- have indicated they are on the fence about allowing debate.
On the other hand, Republican Sens. Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio and Bill Ratliff of Mount Pleasant have expressed reservations about redistricting.
And for the first time, Sen. Wentworth's name is singled out as a potential Republican with cold feet over redistricting. I daresay this is no more a surprise than Sen. Ratliff, but it's good to see it out in public.
Elsewhere in the article, Speaker Craddick says that redistricting should be debated first in the Senate, since they know they can cram throughpass a measure in the House. Also, Sen. John Whitmire opines that Dewhurst is allowing the blocker bill not because he dislikes redistricting - he's already on record saying he thinks the Congressional districts are not representative of Texas' voting patterns - but because he respects Senate traditions. That's important to remember, and it casts a remark in this editorial in an interesting light:
Dewhurst agreed before the regular session began last winter that redistricting would be a divisive fight that would distract from the other important work legislators had before them. He indicates that, with the school finance issue still unresolved, his feelings haven't changed on that point.
One way to parse that paragraph is that Dewhurst would wholeheartedly support a redistricting effort if he were satisfied that "the other important work legislators had before them" were completed. In other words, he'd jump on board with Perry and Craddick if they dealt with school finance first. Something to keep in mind, I think.
Taking a look now at the investigations into DPS and its call for help to Homeland Security, Josh Marshall noticed something that snuck past me in this WaPo overview story that ran on Saturday:
In a brief statement, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- an arm of Homeland Security -- said the air interdiction center was motivated by safety concerns. "From all indications, this request . . . [from Texas was related to] a missing, lost or possibly crashed aircraft," the statement said. But at least three officials involved in the May 12 search said safety issues were not raised by the air interdiction center, which has no safety-related responsibilities."There was never any inference that the plane might be down, or something like that," said Marvin Miller, an airport official in Plainview, Tex. -- near Laney's home -- who said he was contacted by an "air interdiction" official on the evening of May 12. "There was never any safety concern, or indication that it was missing or overdue," Miller said. "The guy said at the end, 'This is just somebody looking for politicians they can't find.' "
So does this mean that Homeland Security wasn't duped by DPS after all? The New York Times makes a point well known to lefty bloggers about this:
This page was a consistent critic of the Clintons' ethics problems, but the former president's defenders should feel free to point out what kind of national outcry we would be hearing from talk show hosts and Congressional Republicans if anyone had tried to misuse the government's antiterrorism machinery this way during the last administration.
Perhaps we'll know more when Homeland Security gets around to releasing its internal investigation.
Finally, on a different but not completely unrelated note, the grand jury investigation into allegations that the Texas Association of Business illegally used secret corporate donations in the last election has caused two more people, including the TAB president, to be cited for contempt.
State District Judge Mike Lynch found [TAB President Bill] Hammond and Don Shelton, the group's information resources director, in contempt for failing to surrender documents to the grand jury. Hammond is the fourth — but most prominent — employee of the state's largest business organization to refuse either to testify or provide documents about the group's $1.9 million advertising campaign during last year's elections.All four made bail and are out of jail pending appeals to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court.
Despite losing every round so far, Houston lawyer Andy Taylor insisted the association ultimately will be cleared and blamed Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle for conducting a political witch hunt against his clients.
The man's got faith, that's for sure. It will be interesting to see if these guys choose to spend some quality time as a guest of Travis County should the Court of Criminal Appeals rule against them, or if they submit to the inevitable and let the indictments fall where they may. Stay tuned.
Well, well, it looks like this Westar scandal may have some legs, after all. Turns out that in addition to the cash payments made to campaign groups associated with four legislators, a Westar lobbyist attended two of their fundraisers as well.
The lobbyist, Richard H. Bornemann, played a key role in Westar Energy Inc.'s efforts in 2002 to benefit itself through an amendment to a big energy bill in Congress. Those efforts have drawn attention and criticism recently, prompted by the disclosure of e-mails by Westar executives discussing their belief that $56,500 in donations to campaign groups affiliated with Tauzin and three other GOP lawmakers would get Westar a "seat at the table" during crucial negotiations over the energy bill.Descriptions of Bornemann's role paint a clearer picture of how Westar planned and delivered campaign donations last year to the groups linked to Reps. Tauzin, Joe Barton (R-Tex.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). At the time, Westar was seeking an exemption from a federal regulation that treated it as an investment company, to Westar's financial disadvantage. Barton eventually inserted the Westar provision into the energy bill, but later pulled it when the company came under federal investigation.
All four lawmakers named in the Westar e-mails say they never suggested the company would receive any special treatment in return for political donations.
Bornemann attended at least seven Washington fundraisers sponsored by Barton and Tauzin in the spring and summer of 2002. The events were held on behalf of vulnerable House Republicans, both lawmakers said.
Bornemann brought checks from Westar chief executive David C. Wittig, Tauzin's office said yesterday. The lobbyist also attended a Tauzin fundraiser in Louisiana last June. Six weeks later, four Westar executives wrote checks to Tauzin's "Bayou" leadership political action committee totaling $2,800, according to federal election records.
You know, I think what really makes this whole thing stand out in terms of tawdriness is the relatively small amount of graft money involved. I mean, $2800? You could raise that much at a garden club bake sale.
It should be noted that just because Bornemann attended these fundraisers that he wasn't necessarily welcome:
Tauzin, however, recognized Bornemann at his Louisiana reception and ordered his staff to throw him out, Tauzin spokesman Ken Johnson said. Johnson said the lawmaker had barred Bornemann from his office years earlier after the lobbyist misled Tauzin on a railroad matter.
He was also probably wearing white shoes after Labor Day.
In any event, the WaPo has editorialized in favor of an investigation:
So last year 13 Westar officials coughed up $31,500 in individual, or "hard money," contributions that went to selected Republican candidates. Westar gave $25,000 in corporate "soft money" to the Texans for a Republican Majority PAC, a political committee with strong ties to Mr. DeLay, reports The Post's Tom Edsall. And what next? The provision sought by Westar was inserted in the energy bill last September by Rep. Barton. Democrats tried to strip the amendment out but lost in a party-line vote, with Mr. DeLay, Mr. Barton and Mr. Tauzin supporting the Westar amendment. Two weeks later, it was disclosed that a grand jury was investigating Westar. The provision was dropped from the bill.The Justice Department can't let this matter drop.
Indeed. Thanks again to Alfredo Garcia, my main Tom DeLay watchdog, for sending this to me. Despite the Texas connections of this story, I haven't seen anything about it in the Chron other than a reprint of the original AP wire story and a two-line blurb stating that Democrats were calling for an investigation. Hey, guys, this is yet another Tom DeLay tempest. When will we see some reporting on it?
I see that Andrew Sullivan has another pledge drive going on. Apparently, the $80,000 he raised six months ago wasn't enough to tide him over. I just want to know one thing - if he doesn't raise enough money to keep him in bandwidth this time, will God call him home?
Day 2 of what will likely be a weeklong series of Tank McNamara comics that mock Hall of Fame president Dale Petroskey. Today, Dale gets tripped up by the ghost of Kevin Bacon.
The Daily Kos has rolled out a new way to affect politics at the national level, an online donation system called ePatriots. In just a few hours, it's already raised $20,000. I'll be making my donation soon. Great job, Kos!
Woo hoo! The Rice Owls baseball team is going to Omaha for the College World Series for the second straight year and fourth time overall. They came back from an opening game loss in the best-two-of-three Super Regional against the University of Houston in fine fashion. Now, as Kevin notes, Rice needs to do something in Omaha. I have this vision of Rice getting a reputation like the Atlanta Braves from the 1990s, being perceived somehow as underacheivers or worse "losers" because they couldn't leverage all of their sucecss into a title. Winning sure can do strange things to a team.
Anyway, congrats to the Coogs for overcoming their early season difficulties and getting farther than anyone would have predicted a few weeks ago. As far as I'm concerned, any season that includes knocking the Aggies out of the playoffs has to be considered a success.
Stories like this really suck:
"For the first time since the 1950s, the Rio Grande has stopped flowing in Big Bend National Park," biologist Raymond Skiles wrote in a "daily report" e-mail distributed from the park's Panther Junction headquarters. "The river is now a series of isolated pools separated by dry, white gravel with no flow. You can walk across without getting your shoe soles wet. The whiteness of river bed gravel feels like a bleached skeleton lying in the sun."Photographs Skiles took of the river on his last inspection before writing that report were starkly austere and almost unfathomable to anyone with memories of the river at its prime, when it trickled from El Paso and gathered force at Presidio, where it was fed by the Rio Conchos from Mexico and surged to depths of 20 feet through the 1,500-foot canyons of the national park.
Now, schools of dead fish decay in shallow pools depleted of oxygen, trees on the banks are dying and the park's three ecological systems -- marine, desert and mountain -- that existed in unusually close proximity to each other are being reduced to two.
Pictures like this and this tell the story. I knew it's been bad down in the valley and out west, but man, I had no idea.
Businesses and farms are impacted by the prolonged drought, as are diplomatic relations between the US and Mexico:
Mexico, bound by a 1944 treaty to release water into the Rio Grande, has fallen into arrears, claiming that its reservoirs on the Rio Conchos are at a mere 18 percent capacity.Sally Spener, a spokeswoman for the International Boundary and Water Commission in El Paso, says Mexico owes the Rio Grande 1.4 million acre feet of water and "that is an ongoing concern in U.S.-Mexico relations."
"Historically, there was enough rain that Mexico didn't have to manage its system," she says.
Green says Mexican farmers, who depend on the Rio Conchos for irrigation, simply "don't like to release water because after Presidio, it's all recreational" until it exits the national park and pours into the Lower Rio Grande Valley farmlands.
In May, some Mexican farmers created a minor international incident when they built an earthen berm in the Rio Grande riverbed to divert the diminishing flow to their crops.
U.S. authorities destroyed the berm, Spener says, and the loss to the river was not substantial.
"The volume of diversion was about 100 acre feet," she says. "That's not a lot when you consider that Mexico owes us 1.4 million acre feet."
It's so bad, they're actually rooting for a hurricane. Yeesh. Read it and weep.
Via Eric McErlain comes this story about the status of the Eighth Wonder of the World:
The vastness of the Astrodome still impresses, but little else does. The plumbing is unreliable; the AstroTurf carpet is stained and coming apart at the seams; the seats are rusting on their moorings. The air conditioning still works, but only because it doesn't need to most of the time.Saddled with such a dinosaur, the Astrodome's overseers are trying to engineer its rebirth. Last week, the Sports & Convention Corp. invited proposals for redeveloping the Astrodome -- and, in the process, for reinvigorating the most visible symbol of the United States' fourth-largest city.
But what to do with it? Houston hardly needs another big stadium. It already has two others, both of them state-of-the-art venues with retractable roofs, including Reliant Stadium, which is next to the Astrodome and home of the Houston Texans, an NFL expansion team. Nor does it need a new convention center; a massive one of those, known as Reliant Center, has been built at the same complex, Reliant Park.
"Any redevelopment plan of the Astrodome is going to be totally different than what it was used for in the past," said Mike Surface, a developer who is chairman of the board of the county's Sports & Convention Corp. "We're trying to hang on to some of the historical significance, but I don't know if people would recognize it as you and I know it today."
Surface and other officials have been careful to say they do not favor razing the Astrodome. Instead, they have suggested converting its grimy concrete filigree walls into a gleaming skin of glass and steel, and incorporating a hotel, restaurants and an arena that could accommodate ice events, horse shows, concerts and assemblies under the famous dome.
Others have suggested the Astrodome be transformed into a splashy museum of science and technology, a colossal shopping mall or a biosphere featuring a rain forest and botanical gardens.
As I noted previously, there was some talk about turning the Dome into a casino. If it ever happens, be sure to look out your window to see all the pigs flying by.
Some people are upset that the Dome may be doomed:
The suggestion that the Astrodome may become something unrecognizable -- or, worse, that it may be torn down completely -- upset some Houstonians. The Astrodome may be just 38 years old, but to many people here, it is an unsurpassed icon of municipal history and a singular point of civic pride."I am a fourth-generation Houstonian and am tired of not seeing anything of history left in our city because of progress," wrote Susan Sattler, one of scores of people who put their names to an online petition called "Save the 8th Wonder of the World." "Where is our pride in our past?"
Another signatory to the petition took a harsher tone. "The Astrodome is the 8th Wonder of the World and you want to tear it down for parking?" wrote Frank A. Harbuck Jr. "What stupid idiots. Most of you probably aren't even from Houston."
The petition is here, in case this cause tickles your civic-activism bone.
Personally, I think the Dome is toast, and a few (193 when I checked) signatories on an online petition ain't gonna make any difference. The Dome had its farewell tour for the Astros and the Rodeo, and the place had deteriorated to the point where any regular attendee would be glad to never see the place again. I'd much rather put my energies into protecting neighborhoods from rapacious development than worry about the fate of the Dome. It'll be a sad day when it's torn down, but we'll get over it.
I hadn't realized that the lawsuit filed by Michael "Savage" Weiner included Take Back The Media - for some reason, I just thought he was going after parody sites like Savage Stupidity and Michael Savage Sucks. TBTM has some sharp words about why Savage/Weiner is suing who he's suing:
There is a reason our sites have been targeted by this lawsuit. All three sites are tiny operations. TBTM, with a staff of four people, is the biggest of the three. SavageStupidity is run by a huband and wife, and MichaelSavageSucks is a one-man shop. By filing suit against 3 web sites where the principals barely have two dimes to rub together, the chances are better of a slam-dunk for the plaintiff.There are many sites and organizations - the largest among them the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) - who have been much more aggressive in their actions against Weiner than any of the sites that were sued. GLAAD actually called for a boycott of Weiner's advertisers, and they have a full archive of Weiner's quotes and sound bites (one of the main contentions of the lawsuit) on their site. The difference between GLAAD and TBTM is this - GLAAD has the resources to mount a vigorous defense against a harassment suit such as this without bankrupting themselves, and Weiner is quite simply afraid to try and attack someone who might actually be able to fight back.
This frivolous lawsuit is only one rung on the food chain for Weiner, and if he silences us, he'll have a precedent with which to go after bigger sites, more well-known commentators, bigger organizations - in short, anyone he feels like going after. In typical bully fashion, he avoids picking a fight with someone his own size, opting instead to pick on sites that would run their bank accounts dry in their own defense. Says a lot about the man and how he thinks.
While it's hard to believe that a federal judge would overlook a precedent like Hustler v. Falwell, it's not too hard to imagine a lower court judge giving Weiner what he wants and making it financially impossible for these three web sites to keep fighting. Bad rulings can happen, especially to people who push the envelope (just ask Tucker Max), which means the rest of us shouldn't make any assumptions. I sincerely hope this lawsuit gets tossed forthwith, and that Weiner finds the peace and solitude he apparently craves by returning to the obscurity he so richly deserves.
UPDATE: Soundbitten has the most comprehensive overview of this lawsuit.
The comic strip Tank McNamara has finally weighed in on the Dale Petroskey/Robbins and Sarandon/Hall of Fame flap.
The strip is usually more responsive to topical stuff like this, so I'm rather surprised that this is the first mention of that little kerfuffle. I'm prepared to overlook that if they spend the week beating up on Petroskey, however.
The Talking Dog is back from hiatus with a new Movable Type look and a suggestion for an Iraqi national anthem.
When last we spoke, during the Little League All Star Game, I was uncertain about my future status as a coach. I had a chat yesterday with John, the league president and co-worker of Tiffany's who recruited me to be a coach in the first place, and I can now say that barring unforseen circumstances I will be back, though perhaps as an assistant coach. I will very likely remain in the Mustang division, where the 9- and 10-year-olds play, and I will show up a few times during Fall Ball in October so I can have some clue about which players to draft next year.
I told John that I enjoyed the experience, and that I would like to return, but that if he had a player's father who really wanted to coach that he should go ahead and bypass me. I agreed to be an assistant if that happens, but for now I'm still pencilled in as a head coach, giving me an opportunity to improve on my perfect record and to bore you all with more coaching tales next year. So don't go away, I'll be back.
Today's WaPo has a nice overview of the Killer D story, focusing on the search for former Speaker Pete Laney's plane. Regardless of your opinion on this situation, you'll find the info on how Homeland Security's Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center works interesting.
Hey, guess what? The media isn't liberal after all. Bill O'Reilly says so, which means it must be true.
Democrats are calling for an investigation into allegations that energy company Westar made political contributions to four legislators in return for a favorable amendment to pending legislation.
The money went to political groups associated with GOP leaders, including Rep. Joe Barton (Tex.), who inserted a provision to exempt the company, Westar Energy Inc., from a troublesome federal regulation, and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.) The provision was later withdrawn after Westar became the subject of a federal investigation of the company's practices. In e-mails, company officials had written of a plan "for participation" in the legislation and had said that Barton and other GOP lawmakers had requested the contributions."These allegations should be fully investigated. If DeLay and other members of Congress did agree to sell political access, they should be prosecuted for violating bribery laws," said former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
"It is a serious federal crime for anyone to promise any public benefit 'provided for or made possible in a whole or in part by any act of Congress as consideration for any political activity or for the support of any candidate,' " Democratic Party Chairman Terence McAuliffe said yesterday in a letter to Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, requesting an investigation.
Public Citizen asked the Justice Department to investigate as well, calling the allegations a possible "violation of federal anti-bribery statutes and [a] potential breach of campaign finance law."
Barbara Comstock, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment on the requests.
Actually, I think the most exciting thing in this story is that Terry McAuliffe is agreeing with Howard Dean on something. If that's the start of a trend, then any investigations that may come out of this would be gravy.
We'll keep a eye on this. Really, I've been expecting Tom DeLay to Gingrich himself for some time now - it's just his nature to be arrogant and overreaching. I think it's more a matter of whether the press can find a compelling and easy-to-tell storyline in what he does than whether he does anything truly wrong. Maybe this is it, but I know better than to get my hopes up.
The prosecution is still presenting its case against former HPD Captain Mark Aguirre. On Thursday, Sgt. (formerly Lt.) Frank Jackson testified that Aguirre made some changes to the original plan after it had been submitted for approval:
Jackson said Aguirre made key changes in plans for the Aug. 18 raid after superiors had approved them. The main change, he said, was to make mass arrests for attempted trespassing -- a charge that does not require approval by the district attorney's office.The initial plan, he said, was to target lawbreakers for a variety of traffic and conduct offenses and release the crowd of spectators who gathered in the 8400 block of Westheimer to watch the racing and admire the cars.
But as the backlash mounted, Jackson said, Aguirre asked him whether superiors had approved a finalized plan or just a draft that he could change at his discretion.
"I said it was sent up as a draft but it came back with (Assistant Chief C.A.) McClelland's approval," Jackson testified.
On hearing that news, he said, Aguirre remarked: "Well, I'm f----- then."
Yesterday, IAD Captain Vicki King testified that in doing so, Aguirre violated department policies:
Assistant Chief C.A. McClelland approved the plan, but "its entire focus shifted" under Aguirre, King said."When a plan has been approved by an assistant chief, it can't be changed without going back to the assistant chief," she said.
Asked if Aguirre could suspend a Police Department policy on trespassing arrests for purposes of the crackdown, King said only the police chief can do so.
She also said Aguirre was authorized to charge 278 arrestees with attempted trespassing -- the lowest level of misdemeanor -- without consulting the district attorney's office. But, she said, the more serious misdemeanor of actual trespassing requires screening by a prosecutor.
Prosecutors Tommy LaFon and Vic Wisner contend the charges were invalid because police vouched for offenses they did not see committed. All were later dismissed.
Pretty straightforward so far - Aguirre did his own thing without approval, so the whole mess was his fault. Defense Attorney Terry Yates hasn't done much so far; I suspect he's saving the heavy artillery for after the prosecution rests.
You know, I'm not sure which is more galling for me, the fact that a failing energy company apparently bought influence from some politicians or the fact that I skipped past the headline in today's paper without giving it a second thought because the concept didn't surprise me in the least.
One executive of Westar Energy Inc. told colleagues in an e-mail that "we have a plan for participation to get a seat at the table" of a House-Senate conference committee on the Bush administration's energy plan. The cost, he wrote, would be $56,500 to campaign committees, including some associated with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.), Rep. Joe Barton (Tex.), Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (La.) and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.).The e-mail said Tauzin and Barton "made this request" for donations, and Shelby "made a substantial request" for another candidate. It not specify a direct request from DeLay.
The pols involved all claim that just because the Westar folks thought they were buying influence doesn't mean they were selling influence. There's a truth-in-advertising law joke in there somewhere, but I don't quite have the intestinal fortitude to make it today.
The least surprising thing about this is the appearance of the name Tom DeLay, who probably wears a button that says "Ask me about our frequent-peddlers program!" I hope it's occurred to every single Democratic candidate's chief strategist that they will need to campaign against Bush and DeLay in the way that Clinton campaigned against Dole and Gingrich in 1996. Anyone who isn't clear on that concept should drop out of the race now.
Let's see if this gets any traction. I've given up predicting what the mainstream press and punditocracy will decide is newsworthy. Thanks to Alfredo Garcia for nudging me on this.
Lawyers for Lea Fastow are asking that her trial be delayed until after her husband, former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow, has been tried, on the grounds that he has unique exculpatory testimony to offer on her behalf. The request extends to any appeals that Andy Fastow may make as well, meaning this could be a multi-year delay if the motion is granted.
Her motion states Andrew Fastow has testimony that will help his wife that no one else can offer. It says her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights would be violated if the request is not granted because Andrew Fastow is only available to testify after his own criminal trial is concluded.Lea Fastow's San Francisco-based lawyer, Nanci Clarence, said last week that if the trial is postponed to wait for the husband's testimony, then "one set of constitutional rights does not have to be sacrificed for another."
It's not too hard to read between the lines here and conclude that the government is probably suggesting, if not outright pushing, a plea bargain for Andy Fastow in return for clemency (or at least leniency) for his wife and testimony against Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, an possibility that's been speculated about since before she was indicted. I almost admire the guy for holding out this long.
Of course, maybe both of them are innocent of all charges and they just want their day in court to prove it. Right? Yeah, sure.
OK, let me see if I've got this straight. Country music radio station program managers are upset with Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks because she wore a shirt that had the letters "FUTK" on it while performing at the Academy of Country Music Awards.
Most viewers, including awards show presenter Vince Gill, interpreted the letters as an expletive aimed at Keith. After opening the envelope that revealed Keith had won the night's biggest award -- entertainer of the year -- Gill quipped, "I think his name was on someone's shirt tonight."For WXTU Philadelphia assistant program director/music director Cadillac Jack, Maines' shirt was the show's only disappointment. "With all the patriotism in the air that night, it was a downer and completely unnecessary," he says. "I was disappointed with them yet again."
"Just when you think it's safe to add the Chicks back into rotation," KZKX Lincoln, Nebraska, PD Brian Jennings says. "Oh, Natalie, why do you make it so hard to love you?"
There's more bitching and moaning among the PDs after that. OK, fine, what Maines is not what I'd call mature, but do any of these peabrained PDs have a comment about what might have provoked Maines?
In his concerts, Keith has been showing on big screens behind the stage the doctored photo of Maines and Saddam Hussein that began circulating on the Internet a few months ago after Maines criticized Bush.
Frankly, I think a "FUTK" t-shirt is a fairly mild reaction to that. It's also wholly appropriate. Thanks to TBogg for the catch.
Teen stripper's mom arrested for driving daughter to work. Apparently, letting her take the bus would have been OK.
You know, I get the distinct impression that Kevin doesn't like Kenny Chesney very much.
You know, with today's report that redistricting is likely to be on the agenda for a special session that will also revisit the government reorganization bill, I'm almost ready to say "OK, just shoot me now and get it over with. Just make it quick and get me out of my misery." Almost.
I will say this, if redistricting is on the menu in July or January or whenever, it will apparently be up to the Senate to determine its fate. Early indicators are intriguing:
Sen. Bill Ratliff, R-Mount Pleasant and a former lieutenant governor, said he knew nothing of Perry's summer plans, but he called a special session on redistricting "inadvisable, at least on the Senate end."
Ratliff is one of at least two Republican senators who have been rumored to be against the redistricting resurrection. He's the first to speak on the record, as far as I can tell. Of course, the context of this quote may have been "It's inadvisable now because there are enough Democrats to block the bill from coming to the floor", or maybe "It's inadvisable now because we don't have any money to pay for damnfool special sessions", or somesuch.
On the question of whether or not the Senate would adhere to its normal rules, which would favor Democratic efforts to block redistricting, the Statesman's Dave McNeely explains the blocker bill and suggests it would be in place when a special session is called:
A potential difference from a regular session is that the Senate might not be able to use its cherished tradition of parking a bill atop the calendar during a special session.Known as a blocker bill, its presence requires a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules for any other bill to reach the floor.
That could be particularly important on redistricting. The 12 Democrats exceed the 11 needed to block a two-thirds vote.
But if there is no blocker bill, a bill could be considered without suspending the rules. Once on the floor, it takes a simple majority to pass it.
When the infamous dozen "Killer Bees" disappeared from the Senate in 1979, it was because then-Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby planned to circumvent the two-thirds tradition. So the 12 senators fled and hid out for four and a half days. Hobby finally relented, a truce was called, and the senators returned.
Will Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst observe the two-thirds tradition in a special session?
"I expect that I would," said Dewhurst, who has worked hard to gain the trust of all 31 senators. "And in looking through all the Senate rules and the tradition earlier in the year, I remember that Hobby had considered back in 1989 not to have a blocker bill, and he was practically lynched.
"I think there would be a strong resentment on the part of the senators not to have a blocker bill, because that means 21 votes, and everyone's got to come together," Dewhurst said.
"I personally don't think that our congressional districts are reflective of our voting patterns, and I hate to see a divisive issue come up like this," he said. "But as I've said all along, if a plan comes out of the House that's got the support of 21 senators, then it will go through committee and be passed to the floor."
So there you go. Nothing it carved in stone and all that, but the Senate leadership is clearly not chomping at the bit to take this up. On the other hand, you can be sure that if it does come down the pike, the wrath of DeLay and Rove will be on Dewhurst, Ratliff, and any other Republicans who might be wavering. Their ambivalence is at best a house of straw.
As for the ongoing investigation of DPS' role in the hunt for the Killer D's, testimony from DPS agents makes it clear that Governor Perry and Speaker Craddick were very hands on:
"We assumed that there was a lot of things going on that we did not know about," said Texas Department of Public Safety Lt. William Crais. "There was a lot of things being told to us that were happening behind the scenes."[...]
In his sworn testimony, Crais said Craddick provided leads and directed DPS personnel in the command center.
"He requested certain things of us and I used our resources to get those things done," Crais said. "He would walk in there and give instructions."
Craddick is still denying all knowledge. To quote Colonel Flagg, "Don't play stupid with me. I'm much better at it than you are."
Crais said that on the evening of May 12, Gov. Rick Perry appeared at the door of the command center and asked who was in charge.When Crais identified himself, he testified, the governor asked him to step into Craddick's office and then began chastising him.
He said the governor was impatient that officers had not found the missing legislators using information developed earlier in the day.
Perry looked at his watch and said, "You had this information since 9 o'clock; it is now almost nine hours later. How come you haven't found them?" Crais testified.
Crais said Perry complained about leaks to news agencies, and handed him a document with information that the premature twins of Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, were hospitalized and that Eiland might be at the hospital.
"He said, 'I want the Texas Rangers to go by and locate Mr. Eiland,' " said Crais. Perry also wanted Rangers dispatched to Brownsville to search for the Democratic representative from there, Rene Oliveira.
It's nice to know that Perry can show forceful leadership on something he cares about. This is perhaps the only example of it I've ever seen, but at least now we know he has the ability.
The DA called a few respectable suburban arrestees and the defense did its best to hogtie Chief C.O. "BAMF" Bradford to the defendant in the opening day of former HPD Captain Mark Aguirre's trial on official oppression charges. Let's go to the videotape:
The four witnesses said officers ignored their protests of innocence, bound them with plastic handcuffs and made them sit in the parking lot for hours before hauling them off to jail.All said they were charged with attempted trespass, a misdemeanor, but the charges were later dismissed.
On cross-examination, each acknowledged hiring an attorney to seek compensation from the city.
Not sure why it matters if these folks are exploring a wrongful arrest lawsuit against the city. I guess defense attorney Terry Yates is trying to make them look greedy, which in turn may make the jury think they deserved to be arrested. Or something.
Yates said Aguirre had joined the police force in 1980 and climbed the ranks, earning praise and trust from superiors, including Police Chief C.O. Bradford.Aguirre had cleaned up crime in other areas, Yates said, so Bradford sought his help in devising a plan to stop street racing.
Aguirre's plan called for a "zero tolerance" sweep of problem areas -- arresting, rather than merely ticketing, lawbreakers. Department superiors approved the idea, Yates said.
"Captain Aguirre never ordered anybody arrested," Yates said. "He went through the crowd and released several people.
"From what he could see, the officers were making arrests based on probable cause."
Yates said Aguirre was made a scapegoat because of an unrelated conflict with Bradford.
Boy, if the defense calls Bradford as a witness, that oughta be more fun than OJ's testimony.
I'm curious about the claim that Aguirre personally released several people. For one thing, that's the first mention of it that I've seen. Second, on what grounds was he releasing people? Did he have personal knowledge that they alone were not involved with the alleged drag racing but everyone else there was? This sounds awfully fishy to me. I presume that if Yates mentioned this in his opening statement that he'll produce witnesses to that effect when he presents his case. I'm looking forward to that.
This case is a day old and already it's meeting my expectations for entertainment value. I'd like to thank the DA's office for waiting until the summer rerun season began before commencing with the trial. Very thoughtful of them.
Remember David Manning, the movie critic that Sony invented in order to put his rave-review quotes on advertisements? When Sony fessed up and promised not to make up critics and favorable quotes any more, did you breathe a sigh of relief and feel that the integrity of movie critic quotes in advertisements had been restored?
Probably not, I'm guessing, and if you so you'd be right to remain skeptical. Have you ever heard of Earl Dittman, whose favorable quotes can be seen here, here, here, and here? He's apparently a real person, who works for a magazine, allegedly based here in Houston, that as far as anyone can tell doesn't exist. (A monthly circulation of two million? Jiminy crickets, the freaking Chronicle only has a circulation of 500,000.) He's a quote whore who makes his living on the Hollywood press junket circuit, churning out favorable quotes for just about every movie out there. But hey, at least he exists.
There. Now we can all fulminate about something other than Sammy Sosa. Via The Yes/No Interlude.
By now I'm sure everyone has heard of Sammy Sosa's corked bat. His explanation that he didn't realize he was using a bat that he normally uses just for practice has been met with some skepticism by other players, on the grounds that all players always know their own bats. I'm still leaning towards accepting Sosa's explanation, but I can understand how people like Eric McErlain might be leaning the other way.
I'm pleased to see that there's at least been some mention in the mainstream media of the fact that corking a bat doesn't actually help a batter. Usually, they're the worst offenders when it comes to uncritically accepting conventional wisdom. Good explanations about why corking doesn't help can be found here and here.
There's already been a fair amount of sanctimony about Sosa, even to the absurd point of suggesting that he be kept out of the Hall of Fame. It's amazing how much more offended some people seem to be by sluggers using corked bats than by pitchers throwing scuffed or lubricated baseballs. As Rob Neyer and King Kaufman have noted, if this one corked bat - and none of Sosa's other bats were found to be corked - is reason to bar him from Cooperstown, then why are Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford still enshrined?
(What? You didn't know that Whitey Ford was a master of illegal pitches? Go find a copy of his joint biography with Mickey Mantle, called Whitey and Mickey, and be sure to read the chapter entitled "Confessions".)
Whatever the reasons were, I expect Sosa to serve a suspension and a loss of public esteem. In the end, I think he'll overcome this and when he is elected to the Hall of Fame, this incident will be a footnote.
UPDATE: Via David Pinto, another study which claims that corking could have a small beneficial effect for power hitters. I'll leave it to the physicists to sort it out amongst themselves.
While the top three state leaders have generally claimed victory for accomplishing many of their stated goals in this legislative session and have received generally positive feedback from the GOP faithful (see here, here, and here for coverage), at least one Republican didn't much care for their performance:
Here are some of the rights lost and promises not kept in the 78th Texas Legislature:· Despite what some are saying, there will be no relief or reduction in your homeowners insurance premiums (or any insurance premiums).
· Taxes will be higher, but disguised as increased and new fees for permits, licenses, etc.
· As a juror, you cannot be trusted to decide the level of damages in a trial; you now have a government-imposed cap on what you can award in certain cases.
· You no longer have the legal right to bring certain warranty claims against your homebuilder (as your house sits there dripping in mold, shifting, leaking, etc.).
· No court access; more big government. If you do assert a claim of some sort against your homebuilder, it will now be managed by a newly created governmental entity called a commission and ultimately arbitration if the former fails.
But wait, you did get:
· Powerball!
Is this why you voted Republican?
Funnily enough, most of these items are in agreement with the Democrats' positions. The author is a GOP precinct chair, according to his byline (a Google search on his name yielded an endorsement for a Republican candidate for the state Board of Education, so at least he's not an obvious phony). Maybe he ought to be asking himself why he votes Republican.
I've just put up a post on the Political State Report that attempts to answer the question "Are the rules for bringing a bill to the Senate floor different in a special session than they are in a regular session?" It's a bit complicated.
I've mentioned before in this blog that I play tournament bridge. Bridge players often find themselves playing a hand where it's quite clear that the odds are hugely against them. When this happens, there's usually a point at which you have a choice. You can take a safe and easy course of action, which is a near certainty to lose, or you can do something risky and against the odds in an effort to succeed. What you do in the latter case is to imagine a scenario in which your actions can make a difference, and then play as if that scenario actually exists. You will suffer a bigger loss if your action is wrong, but when weighed against an option that can never succeed, there is no other choice. It may turn out that there was nothing you could have done to affect the outcome, but at least you know you gave yourself the best shot.
That's my interpretation of Howard Dean's strategy regarding Iraq, and it's why I disagree with Kevin Drum about Dean's electability. Dean is sticking to his antebellum stance that invading Iraq was wrong, and he's campaigning on the assumption that future events - in particular, near-future events - will prove him right. I think this is the right move for Dean, and moreover I think Dean is the only candidate who can take this line of play.
It's easy to look at surveys that show 70% or so support for Bush's handling of Iraq and equal numbers that believe things are going well over there and conclude that the only way to beat Bush is to have "credibility" on national security issues, which loosely translates to having supported the Iraq invasion. But it ignores two other possibilities. One is to try and do something about that level of support for Bush and the invasion, and the other is to play for the possibility that something will happen to change people's minds for you.
The first possibility is basically the "Bush lied about WMDs" tack, and it has some promise. That's the kind of story line that can take on a life of its own and eventually come to color everything that's said and written about Bush. It's the sort of thing that war proponents like Kerry or Lieberman could hang their hats on: "We trusted George Bush when he told us that Iraq was an immediate and mortal threat the the safety and security of the United States. We trusted him when he said we needed to invade now in order to destroy their weapons of mass destruction. Now that we have conquered Iraq, we have found nothing to indicate that it was in any way a threat to us. George Bush lied to all of us about why we had to fight this war, and because of his lies thousands of American soldiers are dead or wounded, and many thousands more will be stationed in Iraq for the foreseeable future."
The second possibility makes the assumption that everything in this war so far has gone as well as it could have for Bush and the American troops, but that can't go on forever. With Iraqi citizens demanding that US troops leave and with no timetable for that to happen, it's not hard to imagine the occupation of Iraq starting to resemble the West Bank. People may support having troops in Iraq now, but one well-placed truck bomb like the one in Lebanon that killed 241 Marines in 1983, and I guarantee that support will wither. Alternately, what do you think the public reaction will be if it turns out those CIA reports about Saddam still being alive are true?
The point is that there are many, many things which can go wrong, things that George Bush cannot control, and it's a long way between now and next November. If you believe that Bush has been on an extended run of good fortune and that a streak of snake eyes is surely due soon, then it makes perfect sense to position yourself as the one who called it all along. That's what Howard Dean is doing.
And if everything continues to go Bush's way? Then there's probably nothing any candidate can do, and it's just a matter of how many states Bush carries. That's Howard Dean's strategy, and I fully understand it.
UPDATE: This was the link I was looking for about Saddam's current whereabouts. Thanks to Charles Dodgson for providing it.
To answer Ikram's question in the comments, I'm overstating a little. Strictly speaking, any Democratic candidate who was against this war from the get-go (such as Kucinich or Sharpton) could use this strategy. It's just that Dean has gotten the most mileage out of being "the anti-war candidate", and for better or worse is now firmly identified with it. As he cannot realistically backtrack to a position of agreeing with the war, just as Kerry or Lieberman cannot backtrack to a position of opposing it, he has fewer options. Staying the course and playing for it to be right is what he needs to do.
The Department of Public Safety documents about the search for the Killer D's which escaped the shredder's jaws were released yesterday, and the first thing we see is that Governor Perry had a bigger role than he's claimed so far.
The handwritten notes show that at 7:40 p.m. "Lt. Crais was asked into Speaker Craddick's office by Gov. Perry, personally."Thirteen minutes later: "Lt. Crais came in to say governor has ordered two Rangers sent to find Rep. (Rene) Oliveira (D-Brownsville) and Rep. (Craig) Eiland (D-Galveston)."
Eiland was among the lawmakers in Ardmore. His twins were in the neonatal unit of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.
A memo by Texas Ranger Capt. Clete Buckaloo said he ordered Sgt. Joe Haralson to find Eiland on instructions that "came directly from the Governor's Office."
So Perry was responsible for a state trooper showing up at a neonatal unit to look for Rep. Eiland. As Rep. Lon Burnam says, that may not be illegal but it sure is tasteless. It's also not likely to be all that damaging to Perry.
A more important revelation is that Lt. Will Crais claimed in a sworn deposition that he acted on his own to contact Homeland Security about Rep. Pete Laney's plane.
Crais said he acted alone in calling an air and marine interdiction center, a customs enforcement agency now under Homeland Security, according to Burnam and the state attorney general's office.A transcript of the deposition is expected to be released today.
"Lieutenant Crais testified that he was the one who thought to call U.S. Customs," said Deputy Attorney General Jeff Boyd, who sat in on the deposition. "Nobody suggested to him that the DPS do so. He went and obtained the number himself from a co-worker."
The disclosure is important because one Democratic lawmaker had alleged that Jay Kimbrough, whom Perry appointed as the state's homeland security coordinator, gave Crais the number.
I'm not ready to buy this explanation. That seems like a lot of initiative for a cop to take. Maybe he did think of it on his own, but I have a hard time believing he didn't run the idea past a superior or two, and I have a hard time believing that someone in the Governor's office or Attorney General's office wasn't consulted first. Like the swift destruction of DPS' documents, this is awfully convenient for the GOP leadership.
That said, if nothing or no one comes forward to contradict his statement, it closes a big chapter in this book without getting any political hands dirty. If this is all there is, there's nothing here for the Democrats. We'll see what comes out of the depositions of Kevin Bailey and his staffer Roberta Bilsky.
Jayson Stark makes a great case for improving the Major League Baseball draft. It seems so obvious, only a chucklehead like Beelzebud Selig wouldn't get it. Which means, well, you know...
I'm not a blog triumphalist. I think blogging, in some form, will eventually affect how people take in news, but I think that said effect will be largely limited. It takes a certain amount of effort to read blogs that turning on the tube doesn't require, and unless you're the kind of person who has a lot of time, at home or at work, in front of a computer, blogs as a source of information are likely not on your radar screen.
That said, I do think blogs are having a larger and larger effect among the people who do have the time and inclination to seek out news and views from alternate sources. I also think there are ways that the energy and diversity of blogs can be harnessed for political gain, such as this suggestion from Greg Beato:
Imagine, for example, if one hundred of the most popular liberal websites joined together to create a virtual ad network. Overnight, politicians, advocacy groups, and various other entitities would have access to a platform capable of reaching hundreds of thousands of liberals at once. And in return, the participating sites would have more money to fund their publishing efforts.
That's a pretty slick idea, and it got me thinking about another way that blogs could be used to communicate progressive ideas and voices, in particular those that don't get a whole lot of airplay now.
What I have in mind is to recruit liberal bloggers from a broader range of professions. When I look at my blogroll now, I see a lot of people from a small set of occupations: Lawyers. Economists. Techies. Writers. Students. Professors. Activists. All well and good, but somewhat limited. I'd love to see some progressive blogs started by folks in the following fields:
- Medicine: Doctors, nurses, physical therapists, physician's assistants, and so forth. Hospital and HMO administrators. Doctor's office managers. We've got a health care system in chaos and several Presidential candidates who are touting health care plans. I'd like to know their take on the various public policy initiatives that are being floated around.
- Insurance: Claims adjustors, policy underwriters, actuaries, etc. What's their opinion of tort reform? What do they know about why insurance rates seem to be skyrocketing?
- Education: Teachers, principals, guidance counselors, and so on. What's the deal with standardized testing? Does federalizing education standards represent an improvement over state and local control? The only bloggers I've seen with a background in education are conservatives.
- Law enforcement, from cops (whatever happened to Lucas Miller, whose Flatfoot articles on Slate were among my favorites?) to probation officers to judges to bailiffs to wherever else.
There are countless others, but that's a good start. In some of these cases, it would be nice just to know that a liberal or two exists within the profession. In any event, wouldn't it be nice the next time you encounter someone's standard hobbyhorse rant about education standards, or socialized medicine, or the war on drugs, to be able to point them to an essay on that topic by someone who actually lives it every day?
I'm not in a position to take action on this, so if anyone else wants to run with it, I say mazel tov. In the meantime, it's entirely possible that examples of lefty bloggers in these and other fields exist without my knowing about them. If so, please tell me about them, either in the comments or via email. I'll collect the info that I get and link to it on my sidebar like I did with the Texas political bloggers.
UPDATE: I knew I'd overlook something. The Bloviator is a generally liberal blog that writes about public health policy by someone who does public health policy for a living. My apologies to Ross for the oversight.
Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) gave his much awaited deposition yesterday, in which he swore he'd name sources within DPS. Whom did he finger? Uh, well, that'd be Roberta Bilsky, a staffer of Rep. Kevin Bailey (D-Houston).
Deputy Attorney General Jeffery S. Boyd, representing DPS, said Burnam admitted in his deposition Monday that Bailey staffer Roberta Bilsky was his source."His one and only source was an employee of Representative Kevin Bailey named Roberta Bilsky, certainly not anybody in the DPS, much less any well-placed or high-ranking person in DPS," Boyd said.
Burnam acknowledged that Bilsky was his source, but said he believes she possesses the evidence to back up her claims.
Dammit, Lon! Here's what you promised last week:
At a hearing set for Monday, the Fort Worth Democrat will be asked to reveal the identity of a "well placed source inside DPS" on which Burnam based much of his lawsuit.He said the source can corroborate his charge that DPS officials destroyed records illegally.
[...]
Outside the courtroom, Boyd, the state's deputy attorney general for litigation, said he doubted Burnam's source exists.
"He is calling me a liar, and I highly resent that," Burnam said.
"The source does indeed exist, and it's (a person) who is well placed inside DPS, and I will reveal that source" under oath on Monday, he said.
A staffer for a fellow legislator is not a well-placed source inside DPS. Maybe Roberta Bilsky has her own source - frankly, for a staffer to have that kind of contact makes more sense to me anyway - but that's not the same thing. You bluffed and got called on it, and now you look like a fool. Thanks a hell of a lot.
So now Bailey and Bilsky get to be deposed, after a series of snippy letters were passed between Bailey and Boyd.
According to a letter Boyd sent Bailey, the attorney general's office tried to find Bailey and Bilsky on Monday to set up their depositions."This morning I sent a process server to your office but we have been informed that Representative Bailey has 'left town' and that Ms. Bilsky is 'out' until later this afternoon," Boyd wrote.
Noting that Bailey had discussed his committee's preliminary investigation with reporters, Boyd's letter continued, "It would be inexplicable if he were now unwilling to provide testimony about those matters."
Bailey shot back a letter later in the day taking umbrage at Boyd's missive.
"Frankly, I resent the tone and implications of your letter," Bailey wrote.
Bailey said he left Austin on Monday to return to Houston because he is to begin teaching a class at Houston Community College on Tuesday.
"Had you actually informed me last Friday of your intention to depose me, I would have attempted to work out some arrangement with you," Bailey wrote.
Interestingly, Bailey is now saying that there was more than one call to Homeland Security during the disputed time. Maybe when he talks to the Attorney General we'll get some answers.
In other news, there's been a development in the grand jury investigation of the Texas Association of Business. You may recall that Travis County DA Ronnie Earle is investigating whether TAB used corporate money to run ads for candidates in last year's election, which would be a violation of state law. The judge in the case ruled that TAB could not claim First Amendment protection to shield its membership list, thus allowing Earle to question individual association members.
Anyway, a couple of those members have been found in contempt:
State District Judge Mike Lynch found two association employees, Jack Campbell and Cathy DeWitt, in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions about the group's $1.9 million advertising campaign during last year's elections.That media blitz, financed by secret corporate donations, helped elect the first Republican majority in the House in more than 100 years. That majority, in turn, provided a business-friendly forum for the association to pursue its agenda of no new taxes, cheaper employee health insurance with less mandatory coverage, and limits on lawsuits.
On Monday, Lynch allowed Campbell and DeWitt to post bail, pending appeals, rather than go to jail. Campbell is a lobbyist for the association, and DeWitt is a public relations staffer.
I suppose you have to admire their dedication to principle, or possibly their fear of the TAB's code of omerta. We'll see how long they hold out.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall is also puzzled about Burnam's apparent prevarication, and notes that the AG is putting Kevin Bailey under oath after Bailey had been investigating the AG.
Jury selection has begun in the trial of former HPD Captain Mark Aguirre on five counts of official oppression, and everyone involved is having a hard time finding jurors who don't already have an opinion on the case.
At the end of the day Monday, only 45 of 97 original members of the jury panel were left. Some had schedule conflicts and other reasons for not being able to serve, but many said they had formed opinions that would affect their verdict in the case.
I'll say it again: if Andrea Yates can get a fair trial in Houston, so can these guys.
Preview of coming attractions:
Potential jurors also were interviewed two days last week, and today they can expect to be queried "ad nauseam" about other HPD problems, such as its faulty crime lab reports, said Aguirre's attorney Terry Yates.Yates said the Kmart lawsuits, including one seeking $100 million from the city, provide a motive for arrestees to lie.
News reports, he said, painted Aguirre as persecuting innocent bystanders when he failed to find any drag racing going on. But in fact, Yates said, the plan was to arrest spectators who had gathered to watch the racing.
"Chief Bradford knew what was going to happen," Yates said.
Aguirre won't be the only person on trial here. Stay tuned.
No matter what, at least we can all agree that one good thing came out of the 78th Legislative Session, as Governor Perry signed a bill that allows the 13 remaining Tulia inmates to post bond and wait out the Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling as free men. Big props to Sen. John Whitmire (D, Houston) for authoring SB 1948 and to Rep. Terry Keel (R, Austin) for shepherding it through the House.
Chron Editorial Board member David Langworthy writes about rail to Fort Bend County today, in particular a proposal by several towns' mayors to use an old Union Pacific track to connect their townships to the southern terminus of the Houston light rail line. It's good to see, but there's a bit in here that deserves a closer look:
It will come as a revelation to many Inner Loopers that you can be 34 miles from downtown on U.S. 59 and be backed up in a line of traffic extending for miles during any given rush hour. You can be.Traffic congestion in the middle of nowhere. That's what has Scarcella and several of his fellow Fort Bend mayors interested in passenger rail.
The reaction of this Inner Looper to those paragraphs is a resounding "Duh!" Frankly, it's one of the many reasons why I wouldn't be caught dead living out in Houston's far-flung suburbia.
Outside a certain radius from downtown, almost every neighborhood/subdivision/whatever was designed in the same fashion: cul-de-sacs off of a main artery or a branch road from that main artery, some varying distance from a highway exit. Just about everything that's not residential is on the main artery or one of the branch roads, often at an intersection or at that highway exit. To get anywhere that's not another house in your little subdivision, you have to drive on one or more branch roads and the main artery. There's no through traffic in the residential areas, which makes them safe for children to play in and attractive to their parents.
As you might imagine, as there's no other way for people to go, the roads that actually lead somewhere can get pretty crowded, even in nominally off-peak hours. The intersections of these roads feature traffic lights with light cycles that can last up to two minutes, thus creating huge tailbacks. It's the same everywhere I've visited - Sugar Land, Willowbrook, the Woodlands, Clear Lake, Kingwood, Katy, you name it.
In short, this "traffic congestion in the middle of nowhere" is a feature, not a bug. I can't believe this isn't stunningly obvious to everyone, but I will admit that unless you've ever driven out there, it's probably not something you've thought about very much.
Here in the big city, there's almost always a choice of routes. I live close to the entrance of two different highways (I-10 and I-45), and any in-town destination for me can also be reached by surface roads. If I get stuck in traffic, or I hear a report of a problem, I can usually engineer an alternate route.
Assuming people are willing to give it a try, there's no reason why this rail proposal from Fort Bend into Houston shouldn't work. It's fundamentally the same as the commuter rail lines from the suburbs to the big city in places like Chicago and New York. They'll need to include commuter parking at each stop, since walking from the sidewalk-deprived cul-de-sacs and across huge main roads like US 90 is not really an option, but that shouldn't be a big deal. This sort of thing has to succeed if rail is ever going to be part of the solution. Let's hope they do it right.
Via Paul Frankenstein, I came across this funny story about what can happen when you mistranslate something. This has never happened to me - sadly, I'm insufficiently mulitlingual to be in this position in the first place - but my friend Jason has an anecdote about his mother.
His dad was (and still is, to the best of my knowledge) in the diplomatic corps. Their family spent a fair amount of time on assignment in Italy. Early on, Jason's mom was at a dinner without his dad which was also attended by several military officers. She did her best to play the role of dutiful embassy wife by keeping the conversation going, and in doing so spoke of the difficulties she encountered in finding all-natural foods in a foreign land. Apparently, she got a lot of strange reactions when asking shopkeepers if their food had any "preservativos" in it. Perhaps this should have been a clue, as the officers' bemused questions about her natural-foods quest should have been, but it wasn't until one of the men gently informed her that the word she was looking for was "conservativo" did she learn that she had been asking those shopkeepers if their food had any condoms in it. I suppose she could take solace in knowing that their denials had been honest ones.
State Rep. Craig Eiland has accused Governor Perry of ordering a DPS trooper to search the neonatal intensive care unit where his premature twins are being kept as part of the hunt for the Killer D's.
Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston, chairman of the House General Investigating Committee, said a DPS officer, Lt. William Crais, told him that the DPS went to the hospital under the governor's orders.Bailey said Crais was one of three DPS officers in a command post behind the House chamber, which Perry visited on the evening of May 12, the first day of the Democratic walkout.
Speaker Tom Craddick had enlisted the DPS' help in tracking down the missing lawmakers after he had put a call on the House, demanding their return. DPS officers visited the Democrats in Ardmore but lacked the authority across state lines to compel their return.
Bailey said Crais told him, in an interview last week, that Perry had a letter that Eiland had previously written to Craddick, informing him that attention to his hospitalized infants could cause him to miss some House sessions.
"Perry gave him (Crais) the letter and said, `This is the hospital, send the Texas Rangers there and see if Eiland's there,' " Bailey said.
"Crais told me that directly," the lawmaker added.
[...]
Eiland said, if Bailey's report were true, that the governor's conduct was "abusive and unnecessary."
"They went to the hospital after they knew we were in Ardmore," he added.
Eiland said a Texas Ranger visited the neonatal unit late Monday night, after visiting hours, asking for Eiland or his wife, who had already gone home.
Eiland said he called the officer, told him he wasn't in the state and that the DPS already knew where he was. After the call, he said, the ranger then went to his house and rang the doorbell about 10:30 p.m.
Perry denied the charges through his spokeswoman Kathy Walt. He said he had no such letter and that at the time they believed Rep. Eiland was at his home. This is unlikely to amount to much more than a political he said/she said unless one of those troopers comes forward and supports one side or the other.
However, buried at the end of this article, is a hint that such a thing may indeed occur:
Bailey, who was among the dissident Democrats, said Crais also told him that the DPS wasn't in charge of the search for the missing lawmakers.He said Crais complained that he and two other DPS officers assigned to help coordinate the search were "basically puppets being controlled by the political people."
Today is the day that Rep. Lon Burnam is supposed to be deposed about his sources within DPS. If he delivers the goods, we might just have the kind of scandal that otherwise disinterested people will take notice of. If not, he'll look like a fool and the Republicans will claim vindication, with good reason. Check back later to see what happened.
May was my busiest month ever by a lot, with about 8100 visits, according to Sitemeter. That's over 1500 hits more than my previous high water mark. Without a doubt, the story of the Killer D's drove much of that traffic. Links from usual suspects like Atrios and Daily Kos, links from new places like Political Wire, The Burnt Orange Report, and a Salon Table Talk thread, and folks who came here having read my coverage at the Political State Report were among the big contributors. There appears to have been a residual effect as well - my normal weekday traffic has topped 300 per day, about a 20% increase. I had my 75,000th visitor during May, and at the rate I'm going will get 80,000 in about a week and 100,000 in August. I'm pleased and humbled by this, and I'm very grateful to everyone for reading.
A full list of top referrers is underneath the More link. Thanks again for stopping by.
Aggregators, collections, indices, etc======================================
573: http://radio.userland.com/newsAggregator
179: http://www.technorati.com/
148: http://blogdex.media.mit.edu/
130: http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/
87: http://www.weblogs.com/
Weblog referrers================
2273: Atrios
1166: Daily Kos
504: TAPPED
361: Calpundit
323: Political Wire
310: The Burnt Orange Report
299: Political State Report
262: Tom Spencer
162: The Agonist
94: Salon Table Talk
69: Matthew Yglesias
69: Henry Lewis
63: Coffee Corner
58: The Sideshow
53: Ted Barlow
51: Cooped Up
50: Owen Courreges
Top search terms
================#reqs: search term
-----: -----------
162: lea fastow
63: diane zamora
60: marnie rose
59: redneck neighbor
45: mastercard moments
40: prime number algorithm
32: perelman poincare
31: ron kirk
31: wicked weasel
25: women of enron
24: national talk like a pirate day
22: pro war cartoons
22: off the kuff
21: dr marnie rose
18: shari daugherty
16: beating drug tests
15: debbie clemens
15: recognized religions
14: tim robbins today show
14: vinko bogataj
The Lege has passed a budget, literally at the last minute, meaning there's one less reason for a special session to be called. A late influx of federal cash (decried on the op-ed pages by Ken Bentsen) helped soften the blow of spending cuts somewhat, but the amount the state spent this biennium was still 10% less than in 2001. With apparent agreement on that awful tort-reform bill (House Bill 4), the last looming issue that Governor Perry has mentioned as a cause for a special session is school finance reform, though of course he can call a session for any purpose as he sees fit.
A now-slightly-out-of-date list of what had been passed, what had been defeated, and what remained in limbo can be found here. The details of House Bill 1, the General Appropriations Bill, are here. The regular session officially ends tonight at midnight.
Friday night I was an assistant coach at our Little League All Star Game. The game featured kids from the first-, fourth-, and sixth-place teams (my group) versus the representatives from the second-, third-, and fifth-place teams. Our team lost 15-5, meaning that I maintained my perfect record for the season.
One of the things that I discovered through two practices and the game itself was that I really did have a good group of kids to coach. There were two players on our All Star team for whom I didn't care much.
One of them played catcher. Later in the game, the opponents had the bases loaded. A pitch got past the catcher and went through a hole in the backstop. The umpire declared the ball dead and told each runner to advance a base, which scored a run and left runners on second and third. The batter then proceeded to draw a walk. The runner on third, having forgotten that he was no longer forced, started to trot home. The other coaches and I, upon realizing what was going on, hollered at the catcher, who was still in possession of the ball, to tag him. Instead, he froze up and the runner made it back to third without drawing a throw.
After the inning, I walked over to talk to him. I gave him a short pep talk about how the catcher is the brains of the defense and needs to know the game situation at all times. He never even looked at me. I let it go, since I didn't think I had the standing to make him pay attention to me, but if that was his default attitude he and I would have had problems over a season.
The other kid reached third base in each of the two innings that I coached at third. He was clearly a speedster, and while on the base he babbled on about trying to steal home while the catcher turned his back to put his mask back on after returning the ball to the pitcher. (I found out later on from his coach that they had scouted this catcher and knew his habits.) In the meantime, I reminded him that there were less than two outs so he needed to tag up on a fly ball. Sure enough, a popup was hit in the infield. He was ten feet off the base when it was caught. It made no difference, but I gave him a few words about doing what the coach tells him to do.
The second time we met at third base was in the last inning, again with one out. He was more insistent about trying to score on a wild pitch. Sure enough, one came, but the ball bounced right back to the catcher. I told him to stay put, but he took off anyway and was out by a mile. Moreover, he ran into the catcher instead of sliding. As the catcher outweighed him by a substantial amount, he got the worst of it. He also got bawled out by both of his coaches later, who informed him that league rules allowed for him to be suspended or barred for doing that.
You might think I'm being a little hard on these kids, and you may be right. I didn't have all that much exposure to them, and maybe I caught them in a bad light. All I can say is that I've seen what I call Superstar Syndrome before, and these two showed clear signs of it. Give me a team full of less talented but earnest workers any day.
Saturday was the closing ceremonies, in which trophies were handed out to all of the players, from T-ball to the top-level kids. If that sounds chaotic, you're on the mark. The league president announced that the new field would be ready for fall ball, which means I may have to decide sooner than I originally thought if I want to ride this horse again. I do have another commitment for evenings and Saturdays in th autumn, though. So we'll just have to see.