A Whole Lot of Grumbling Going On

Now despite the fact that Hillary Clinton has urged her supporters to now support the campaign of Barack Obama, we still have lots and lots of grumbling going on among Clinton supporters. And now with the Texas GOP convention about to get underway in Houston, we get to be treated to the grumbling going on within the party of the Dark Side.

It seems that the evangelical wing of the GOP is very upset about their party’s presumptive nominee, John McCain. That is, the darkest part of the Dark Side don’t think McCain is conservative enough. They rage at his soft stance on immigration, for one thing. McCain is not their first, second or even third choice.

As a matter of fact, with Ron Paul in a home court advantage at the convention, there will be more visible opposition to McCain at this convention.

But even Tom DeLay, it seems, has come over and is now supporting McCain even despite the harsh words he had to say about him earlier this year:

“‘If McCain gets the nomination, I don’t know what I’ll do,’ DeLay said at the Capitol Hill Club, according to a source in the room. ‘I might have to sit this one out.’”

DeLay’s wife, Christine, has yet to be won over however. DeLay says that he has been unable to convince her to vote for McCain, saying that she will cast her vote for the Libertarian nominee, Bob Barr.

This is a schism in the GOP makes the whole “misobamania” thing among Hillarycrats pale in comparison. Mainly because between these two disaffections, one is not a Democratic Party thing, but the other is very definitely a Republican thing.

Supporters of Clinton who now say they will cross party lines and vote for McCain cannot be Democrats. They’re independents, and possibly Republicans who were entranced with the notion of having a woman in the Oval Office.

Contrary-wise, right wing anti-McCain Republicans would never, ever, cross party lines and vote for Obama. They’ll maintain their intransigent stance and support Ron Paul, or do as Christine DeLay says she is going to do, and vote for the Libertarian. If this holds through November, the traditional 5% that Libertarians get to the detriment of the Republican nominee will likely be higher. And Obama will win, with or without the votes of intransigent Clinton supporters.

But I find it ironic that there will be one issue that may rein in any party defections at all this November. One issue that will bring Clinton supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee, and Barr/Paul supporters to vote for the Republican nominee. And that issue is the Supreme Court.

As I mentioned before in another posting, Justice John Paul Stevens wants to retire from the bench. He is tired and his health is failing. He is 88 years old. John Paul Stevens is the swing vote on The Court that votes to uphold a woman’s right to choose every time the issue comes up to be heard.

It’s as simple as this. John McCain is stridently “pro-life”. Even though he is viewed as “a maverick” in the Republican Party, in this issue McCain maintains a firm right wing stance. Whether or not everyone knows this, because of the “maverick thing” will be moot at election time because both Democrats and Republicans will go out of their way to inform voters of his stance. Evangelicals who have such strong views on abortion will not want to cast a protest vote and give Obama the election. Nor will Hillary’s supporters cast a McCain vote to give McCain the election and four years to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.

In reality, all of this grumbling on both sides will have been for naught come November. And ironically, all for the exact same reason.

Who Do Republicans Want on the Obama Ticket?

I never listen to Democrats talk about who should be Barack Obama’s running mate. Democrats get too analytical about it. Which swing state do they want to flip for the Democrats? That state’s governor or senator is the obvious choice. Does Hillary Clinton bring more to the table than her negatives? What is Bill going to do when Hillary is Veeping? That’s just too darn many questions and trying to answer them doesn’t get you anywhere.

I noted early on that the McCain camp wanted to run against Hillary Clinton in the fall. It was obvious to me. It was obvious to lots of people. It was so obvious to Rush Limbaugh that he devised “Operation Chaos” in the primaries, inciting Republicans to cross the line and vote for Clinton in open primary states. Clinton, everyone said, “brings her negatives” to the front page, spurring Republicans to come out from under their rocks to vote against her.

Now Democrats are saying the same thing about Clinton if she were to be chosen to share the ticket with Barack Obama as his Vice President.

But the Republicans are not.

Listening to CNN this morning, with Wolf Blitzer firing questions at Senators Diane Feinstein (D - Calif) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R - Texas) I was amazed and taken aback at responses to whom each senator thought should be on the ticket. Well, not so amazed at Diane Feinstein’s answer. It is well known that Senator Feinstein favors the idea of having Clinton in the Vice President’s spot. What Kay Bailey said gave me pause.

Kay Bailey Hutchison suggested that Barack Obama wouldn’t want his brand to be tarnished by having Hillary Clinton on the ticket. If Barack Obama represents change and the future, said the senator in so many words, Hillary Clinton represents the past and the status quo. Barack Obama, according to Kay Bailey Hutchison, would be making a mistake by having Clinton on the ticket.

My guess is that this is the message that Republicans are going to be putting out there. My guess is that they have done the analysis, just as they did when Clinton was running for the nomination, and found that while Clinton’s negatives made her the opponent of choice in a presidential election, those very negatives now make her the least desirable opponent on the Democratic ticket. Or rather, her negatives are far outweighed by factors like being able to attract the votes of “hard-working white women”.

Republicans don’t want Hillary Clinton on the ticket. That has become obvious to me, too. Take a look at how the Wall Street Journal has weighed in. Not only do they not want Hillary Clinton on the ticket, they are delightfully obvious in their insinuation that if Obama were to pick Clinton, he would be seen as a weak, emasculated nominee who has been ridden hard and put away wet by the Clintons.

Now does all of that have a bearing on whom Barack Obama should pick as his Veep? It very well should.

Should he give Clinton the nod?

Not sayin’.

Not sayin’ because I agree with Obama when he says that this should be a slow and deliberate process. One that, at the end of the day, should yield the most correct result.

No, I’m not saying that Barack Obama should choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Frankly, I find myself in close agreement with the words of Kay Bailey Hutchison on this. Now how’s that for irony?

No, I’m not saying that at all.

But the Republicans are saying it.

UPDATE: Now from what I read today in the news, the Republicans are not the only ones who think that a Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton ticket would be one difficult to beat in November. Apparently the GOP prognosticators agree with none other than Fidel Castro. And here I thought that my agreeing with Kay Bailey was ironic.

Presidential Campaigns Unite Today, Waiting on the People

It was, by all accounts, one of Hillary Clinton’s best speeches. She began by thanking her supporters for all of their work, reviewed the accomplishments of the campaign in their broadest sense, then transitioned to praise for the campaign of Barack Obama. It was in marked contrast to the non-concession speech that she delivered last Tuesday. What was missing on Tuesday was finally said today: “I endorse [Obama] and throw my full support behind him.”

The crowd she addressed seemed fairly receptive to her words, even when she uttered the words that became the hallmark of the Obama campaign for change: “Today I am standing with Senator Obama to say ‘Yes we can’”

So Hillary did the right thing. Now it’s up to the rest of Senator Clinton’s supporters to do the right thing. For many if not most, this is a thing that is automatic. True Democrats will fight to win the White House for a Democrat this fall. Others believe that they have a viable alternative in John McCain, for whatever reason.

One reason that reared its ugly head today in Austin is race. No, not white people, the race of former slave owners not being able to vote for an African-American for president. The racial issue comes from Hispanics who look upon the wild and broad support that Obama has from the black community. Hispanics are asking themselves whether they as a racial group, will be better off or worse off with a black president. From the Austin American-Statesman quoting a Clinton delegate at the Texas state Democratic Convention this morning:

“‘To be quite honest with you — I don’t know if you want to put this in your paper — I think there are some racial tensions that are keeping [the Democratic Party] from coming together,’ Valdez said.”

“Valdez, who has not yet decided whether to vote for McCain or Obama in the general election, said that the avalanche of support that Obama has gotten from black voters has made some Hispanic voters nervous. And many Hillary supporters that she has talked to in San Antonio, Valdez said, are thinking about crossing party lines to vote for McCain.”

“‘Unfortunately, society is still [racist],’ Valdez said. ‘It’s sad but true — but I think we need to address it rather than put it in a closet and be like, ‘no, let’s not talk about it.’ You have to bring it out in order for us to understand it and confront it and stand up to it’”

I know. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read that either. But then, thinking about it, and truth to tell, if Hispanics are also adherents to Catholicism and catholic doctrine, this eliminates the feminist objection to a McCain presidency. Anti-choice himself, McCain’s views on abortion would more closely approach the values of Catholic Hispanic voters.

Then, what about immigration? Well, McCain has been a moderating influence in that area compared to his rabid immigrant-bashing colleagues in the House and Senate.

And finally, what about this race issue? Blacks and Hispanics have a traditional rivalry that goes back decades. Where they co-exist, they are competitors for the same jobs and resources, and interaction of these two groups has come from an “us versus them” mentality.

How does having an African-American in the White House give blacks an advantage in this decades-long struggle? Being of neither race I cannot fathom it at all. When I use logic and reason I cannot arrive at a reasonable conclusion. An unreasonable conclusion I can arrive at is that since Obama is African-American he will put “his own people” into political offices, ignoring deserving Hispanic aspirants. It’s unreasonable because I honestly don’t think that this Black/Hispanic angst has ever been a part of Obama's life. If so, will someone please point it out to me?

Now what about those women? I have been labeled a “misogynist” as a result of my posting of clear reasons to vote a straight Democratic ticket this fall, even if there is someone on that ticket that gives one pause. These women who feel betrayed, and feel that this man “is being forced on them”, still yet threaten to vote for McCain. From today’s Boston Globe:

“Hundreds of women have logged onto Clinton's campaign website, with many insisting they will not vote for "that man" - Obama - and urging Clinton to run as an independent or challenge Obama's nomination at the August convention in Denver. Many on the website pledged to vote for Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive GOP nominee.”

“Other websites have sprung up to denounce Democrats for picking Obama. One - called PUMA, an acronym for the sentiment "Party Unity My Ass" - features postings by Clinton supporters saying they will never vote for Obama, even if it means electing McCain.”

My reaction remains the same, with qualification. Some of these women remain so disappointed with the outcome, largely from having drunk all of the kool-aid presented to them during this past primary season, that there is no way they will vote for Obama, a man, but will vote for McCain, also a man, and also a man dedicated to make the lives of women worse, not better.

No one can reason with these women, especially if they were never Democrats in the first place. The others though, the Democrats who simply still bear a grudge, these others will have to sit through 5 months of campaigning bearing that grudge from one day to the next, as they hear their candidate of choice voice opinions that are not theirs, express values that are not theirs.

My guess is that self-interest and Democratic values will bring these disappointed women voters back to elect a straight Democratic ticket.

The question is not whether, but when.

When May an Educator in Texas Physically Restrain a Student?

No, I’m not thinking of putting a Half Nelson (get it? Half Empty . . . Half Nelson?) on one of my students. That, anyway, is in the past as today I watched my former students walk across the stage this morning, watched them pass into personhood.

No it came up earlier this week as the news in the Chron and FortBendNow has been covering an event at a high school a few miles away. It seems the students at that high school, named after George Bush-41, decided it might be fun to throw food at each other in the school’s commons during lunch.

One student threw a plastic PowerAde bottle, with PowerAde still in it, at another student, striking that student in the back. The PowerAde chucker then made to leave the scene quickly but was then tackled from behind by an administrator who then physically restrained that student so that he could neither attack another student nor escape the justice that was due to him.

The student later alleged that the administrator administered a “choke hold” and complained of cuts, bruises and a broken vessel in his eye.

I could find no report of what had happened to the other student who was assaulted with a bottle of PowerAde. I assume from that, that he’s OK.

But what makes this news is that the administrator was arrested and charged with assaulting a student. He was released upon posting a $15,000 bond.

The administrator was charged with using “excessive force” to restrain this student, a charge that the administrator is now denying.

This is an issue that comes up infrequently but when it does, there is clearly some misinformation out there. I have been told by students that if a teacher uses physical force to restrain a student, the teacher will be fired. I told them that wasn’t exactly the case, but now, with this incident in the news, I fear that students will become emboldened in committing crimes, thinking (and now maybe knowing) that those in charge of maintaining discipline and order are powerless to do anything about it.

So I went to the Texas Education Code.

It’s all covered under §37.0021 and has a twin in the Texas Administrative Code §89.1053.

§ 37.0021. USE OF CONFINEMENT, RESTRAINT, SECLUSION, AND TIME-OUT. (a) It is the policy of this state to treat with dignity and respect all students, including students with disabilities who receive special education services under Subchapter A, Chapter 29. A student with a disability who receives special education services under Subchapter A, Chapter 29, may not be confined in a locked box, locked closet, or other specially designed locked space as either a discipline management practice or a behavior management technique.

(b) In this section:

(1) "Restraint" means the use of physical force or a mechanical device to
significantly restrict the free movement of all or a portion of a student's
body.

So there is no question that an educator may physically restrain a student. How much restraint is used is an issue in this incident though. Here are the relevant passages a little further down:

“be consistent with:

(A) professionally accepted practices and standards of student discipline and techniques for behavior management; and

(B) relevant health and safety standards”

Clear as mud? The thing is, the state has set guidelines that are in place, and these guidelines are taught in training sessions. Yes, Texas will train teachers how to legally restrain their students.

Do I know what these guidelines are? No.

Did the administrator in this incident know? Haven’t the foggiest.

Why don’t I, as a teacher, know the limits placed on Texas educators by state law and locally developed procedures? No one has told me. I have never participated in a training session in this.

This, by the way, is perfectly all right. In fact it is only required that a teacher receive this training if they are involved in a physical altercation with a student. Then the teacher must receive this training within 30 days of the incident.

I know, this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but imagine what the community reaction would be if word got out that all teachers in the district were to receive training on the physical restraint of their kids. I’m a parent and I know what I would think if I were told this.

So again, Texas educators are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The same place where teachers find out, after the fact, which one of their acts led to their dismissals.

Geez, why would anyone want to teach in Texas public schools?

State Closes Sam Houston High School (HISD)

Citing the poor academic record of Sam Houston High School, which has received an AEIS rating of “Unacceptable” for the sixth straight year, the Texas Education Agency has ordered this North Houston school’s doors closed and 75% of its teachers were told that they would not have jobs there next year.

The school will be reopened in August, possibly with a new name, definitely with some new teachers, and, it is said, with “new programs.”

Now looking at the school’s AEIS report on the TEA website I concede the point that the school has had some academic hard knocks. Scoring below the Texas average in all areas, with a dismal 36% of students passing all TAKS tests, yes I can see their point. And a 12% dropout rate, yes I can see their point (it’s probably much higher than that – they usually are no matter what school we are talking about).

Obviously things are broken at Houston’s Sam Houston High School. This is a real shame. This is one of Texas’ oldest continuous secondary schools having been organized in 1878 and having had several name changes and locations since then. The last time the name changed, from Central High School to Sam Houston, was 1955, so I guess it is time for a new name.

But here are the questions I have. Are we going to see a 75% turnover in teachers because they were a) failures at teaching these students enough to pass the TAKS test, or b) not the kind of teachers they will need next year when they reopen the school with “new programs.” Or maybe some combination of the two?

This is getting back to a very sore subject with me. The rating of the worth of teachers, or their skills as teachers, based on their students’ test scores. Based on the culture and economic composition of the community.

It’s like rating the performance of a dentist based on the oral health of their patients. That sounds reasonable but what if you rate dentists from rural areas whose patients do not have dental insurance and make appointments only when there’s something wrong, versus rating dentists in an urban area whose insured clientele comes in twice a year for a cleaning and examination?

Clearly there is more to this than poorly performing teachers.

Now from what I can glean, which is precious little, these "new programs" should by all rights more properly address the needs of the community. It’s obvious that there is very little community buy-in to the state’s academic curriculum by community members. Community members who are parents of failing students.

I think that is reasonable.

However, if HISD emplaces “new programs” and this no more serves the community than the state academic curriculum, I have to ask when are we finally going to realize that we have in this state students who don’t want to learn, who have parents who are unconcerned with their children’s academic failures?

Bottom line: A child’s failure to learn is not necessarily the effect of their teacher’s failure to teach. It can and does, in many cases, reflect back on the students or their parents.

I wonder what will happen at that point. What will the state finally do if it discovers that there are no “new programs” that will cater to that special community that doesn’t value education of any kind?

My best guess is absolutely nothing. It’s better (and I might add, cheaper) just to stick your head in the sand and ignore the problem. Or if not nothing, then school vouchers will rear its ugly head once again. Give school vouchers to these families so they can find better schools for their children to attend, because the problem lies with the schools, not the students, parents or community. And therein lies the rub. Give vouchers, and only those who are concerned about their education will take the time and trouble to find better schools. For the rest it will be business as usual.

Only now, instead of having 36% pass all TAKS tests, none of them will. Because those students in that 36% category will all be attending other schools.

Will Obama Speak at the Texas Democratic Convention This Week?

I think it depends on what his opponent is going to do about the fact that he is the presumed nominee, and she isn’t. For reasons that the pundits have been trying to fathom all day, Hillary Clinton failed to concede the nomination to the presumed nominee. I don’t want to join them in trying to figure out why. I don’t care why.

What, though, is this going to do to the 2008 Democratic campaign up and down the ballot in Texas? The Democratic convention in Austin begins on Friday, well Thursday night if you throw in all of the parties, drinking, and backroom meetings. It would be nice to have a single rallying point. It would be nice to have some single thing to unify this badly fractured party around.

But that isn’t going to happen.

So instead of party unity, we are going to have delegates have at each other. With nothing settled, and with something akin to defiance in the air, I think, in the absence of having anything finally resolved, this is going to be a very rancorous convention.

I’ll use the adjective “shrill”.

So will Obama show up to address this group of 16,000? Who in their right mind would want to? Who would want to attend a convention where half of the audience will greet you warmly, even wildly, and the other half will boo loudly? I think that’s not a moment that the Obama campaign will want to see on You Tube.

And now come to find out, quite accidentally, the Obama campaign is going to send a surrogate to address the crowd. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine will come to the Democratic Convention in Austin, and will speak to the general session on Friday.

I don’t envy him.

He will have to stand in front of a roomful of delegates who have still not stopped bickering. This crowd knows that although Clinton carried Texas by a slim majority in the March 3rd primary, she lost in the precinct conventions that were held later that evening. So Texas stands unique among the 50 states as the only state that cast a majority of votes to Clinton, but Clinton will not receive a majority of Texas delegates at the national convention. Clinton delegates are pretty sore about that.

Half of me wants to be there to watch this spectacle. But I have a long-standing conflict that prevented me from applying for a “blogger’s credential” (yes, they really have them).

But then the other half (the empty part) doesn’t think he can take it anymore.

UPDATE: Just out is that Clinton will suspend her campaign and concede on Friday. Now I have to ask, has anything changed? I think not. It’s going to take people some time to adjust to all of this. No, nothing will really change unless she actually does her concession speech in Austin.

And what do you think the chances are of that happening?

McCain Speaks in Louisiana Tonight

Getting the jump on both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama before his avid followers all have to go to bed, John McCain addressed his supporters in Kenner, Louisiana this evening. Kenner is a suburban town north of New Orleans. It has New Orleans’ airport within its city limits.

So it is not a surprise that John McCain decried the poor response that George W. Bush’s regime had to the humanitarian crisis in the days and weeks after Hurricane Katrina hit the area with such monumental devastation. He spoke so emotionally of a government that could not deliver bottled water to the mouths of dehydrated babies.

I heard that and asked myself: “where was John McCain when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast?” Then I remembered. He was there waiting on the tarmac in his home state of Arizona, waiting for his great friend George W. Bush to arrive on Air Force One. On the occasion of Bush's birthday. This is an event that has photographic proof.

He spoke of how broken government is in Washington, DC, this in spite of the fact that he, himself as served in that self same federal government for 26 years. He spoke of his years and years and years and years of experience, as opposed to that of his “young opponent”, in spite of the fact that with all of his years of experience he could not see through the obfuscation and outright lies of the Bush Regime in the run up to the War in Iraq, yet his young inexperienced opponent saw them clearly.

This is the guy we have to beat in November? Holy smokes. I’m not letting down my guard just yet, but I am starting to ask myself, can the Republicans make this thing any easier?

The Beginning of the End, and the End of the Beginning

Well everyone seems to have kept to the script. So as a result, this is going to be a very well orchestrated event today and tonight as we move from Barack Obama being one of the Democratic candidates for President of the United States, to Barack Obama becoming the presumptive, inevitable, predictable and unavoidable Democratic nominee.

All Obama has to do is win some delegates in South Dakota and he can turn over a couple of superdelegate cards and claim victory early during prime time. Or if he’s crazy, he can wait until the polls close at 10 o’clock in Montana and make his victory speech to the west coast.

It all started earlier today as uncommitted superdelegates made their move to narrow the delegate list to 18.5 (as MSNBC is saying at this writing). This is the list of previously uncommitted superdelegates who came out for Obama today (courtesy of Demconwatch):

DNC Tina Abbott (MI)
DNC Joyce Beatty (OH)
DNC Maria Chappelle-Nadal (MO)
Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI)
DNC John Daniello (DE)
DNC Jennifer DeChant (ME)
DNC Debbie Dingell (MI)
DNC Carnelia Fondren (MS)
DNC Diane Glasser (FL)
DNC Kwame Kilpatrick (MI)
DNC Debra Kozikowski (MA)
DNC Joyce Lalonde (MI)
Rep. John Olver (MA)
DNC John Perez (CA)
DNC Harriet Smith-Windsor (DE)Rep. John Spratt (SC)
DNC Richard Wiener (MI)

In addition, four superdelegates that had previously declared for Clinton have switched their vote to Obama.

DNC Ben Johnson (DC)

DNC Kamil Hasan (CA)

Rep. Maxine Waters (CA)

DNC Rhett Ruggerio (DE)

And Jimmy Carter, who broadly hinted several weeks ago that he would be supporting Obama now says that he will declare for Obama after the polls close tonight. But I think that pretty much means the same thing, so add to Obama’s list:

Jimmy Carter (GA)

Now this is interesting. Just in the writing of this, that 18.5 needed superdelegates number just changed to 11. At this rate he should have the nomination by 6:48 PM CDT unless someone can go out there and put the brakes on this avalanche that we have all been waiting for.

Now how long do you think it’s going to take for Hillary Clinton to mention that she is open to the possibility of becoming Barack’s runn . . . oops . . . that’s already happened, too.

Things are moving too fast for me today.

Ah, here we go: my superdelegate, Congressman Nick Lampson has yet to declare who he will support for the nomination.

(Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick, NICK, NICK, NICK, NICK)

Superdelegates Can Switch Endorsements

It’s somewhat anticlimactic at this point, but the media keep replaying that news clip of Hillary Clinton saying this:

“One thing about superdelegates is that they can change their minds.”

I find it ironic that she says these words at this time, because from the things I am hearing, her words may just be the prophetic ones that will bring the Clinton campaign to a close very soon now.

Yes, superdelegates can change their minds and have in the past. From what I am hearing, we are about to see a big mind-changing, and it will be as I said . . . very soon now.

NASA’s Political Suppression of Science Laid at the Feet of . . .

Today the Associated Press is reporting that NASA’s Office of the Inspector General has issued its final report on the suppression of scientific evidence regarding global warming. In its brief statement the AP says that NASA had inappropriately interfered with the dissemination of NASA studies of global warming, and that it was political in nature.

Oh my. What a surprise.

Actually there is more to it. Examination of the Inspector General’s report, found here, reveals that, apparently, there were political appointees in NASA’s Office of Public Affairs, headquartered in Washington, D.C. who were responsible for the suppression of the works of several NASA scientists, but notably, the office moved to prevent Dr. James E. Hanson, a NASA global warming investigator, from participating in a radio interview in December 2005.

The report reveals that “NASA’s decision was based, in part, on concern that Dr. Hansen would not limit his responses to scientific information but would instead entertain a discussion on policy issues.”

That is, the press office decided that Dr. Hansen would not limit his discussion to scientific fact, but would extend toward the forbidden turf of public policy. Bush knows that only political hacks can synthesize all of this science into a cogent public policy. Heaven forbid that a scientist would want to draw a conclusion based on the data.

But now comes the question that comes when the government is caught with its censorship markers in inappropriate areas: how high did it go? Who gave the order?

Well, according to the OIG, it was a lowly junior grade political appointee, acting alone, but in general concert with the overall management policy of this kind of information.

“NASA maintains that the decision to deny media access to Dr. Hansen was unilaterally made by a junior Schedule C political appointee in the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs. The evidence, however, reflects that this appointee acted in accord with the overall management of climate change information at that time within the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs.”

Who sets the tone then? Who made sure that the Office of Public Affairs wielded a heavy mallet whenever information supporting the notion of global warming poked its head out of the ground?

Well, they looked and they looked but they just couldn’t find the connection between NASA’s information suppressing press office and anywhere else. They laid blame on a seeming contradictory structure at the headquarters, wherein political appointees were placed in charge of “the seemingly contradictory position of ensuring the “widest practicable” dissemination of NASA research results that were arguably inconsistent with the Administration’s policies, such as the ‘Vision for Space Exploration.’”

In other words, they placed the foxes in charge of the hen house.

And surprise, surprise, senior management at NASA’s Office of Public Affairs were completely in the dark:

“…the alleged improper political interference with dissemination of climate science research and dysfunction between the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs and a group of Agency scientists had apparently occurred unbeknownst to senior NASA leadership over a sustained period of time.”

This is the absolutely oldest game in the history of science, and here we have top leaders in the government’s premier scientific endeavor claiming absolute ignorance that such a thing has occurred – or for that matter could occur.

It boggles the mind, and I’ll bet that if Galileo Galileii, Nicholas Copernicus, Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin could hear the plaintive whines of NASA senior management, they would be spinning in their graves.

On Pain and McCain

Yesterday we saw the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee give Hillary Clinton 19 delegates in Florida, and give Barack Obama 4 delegates in Michigan. Some would argue that they gave Obama 59 delegates in Michigan because Obama wasn’t on the ballot. Others will say that Obama should have gotten 64 delegates in Michigan since their primary, as I found out this morning from DNC Chairman Howard Dean, was nonexistent because it was illegal.

Others have said that Obama was being magnanimous in taking fewer delegates in Michigan and allowing his supporters to give Clinton 19 in Florida. My feeling is that his campaign doesn’t want it to look too much like a total rout for Clinton, that the deal is in the bag and now is not the time to be in a delegate grabbing mode.

The delegates will come anyway. Word is that there is a bloc of superdelegates, or charter delegates as we all now know to call them, who have declared for Clinton, but will switch sides later this week.

This will not be good news to the many women who have pinned their hearts, hopes and treasure to someone that they thought was going to be the first woman to be President of the United States. The piece that I wrote a couple of days ago, about women, Democratic women, who will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee showed the level of the pain that they feel. Especially now when we see a Catholic priest do an outrageous take-off on Clinton’s tearful moment in New Hampshire.

Yes there will be pain and suffering this week if there is a significant superdelegate shift to Obama. Women will feel cheated. They will be angry, just as the woman in this You Tube video clip was when she left the room after the Rules Committee made their decisions known. I actually remember hearing her outbursts – she has a very thick accent that makes her voice unmistakable. But clearly, this woman was in pain.



If you listened at the very end you heard the laughter of a young woman near the video camera’s microphone. This is the kind of reaction that we don’t need right now. Right now we have women who are making very short-sighted voting decisions that go against their own self-interest.

They say that they will vote for McCain this fall.

I think what we have to do now is let that anger and frustration run its course. This is a unique primary season. It is like no other in American history. It is the first time that both race AND gender are issues. Post-primary feelings are going to be higher than they have been in the past when all we had running against each other were some middle aged white men.

As the nominee emerges, some women will simply shift their allegiance to Obama, crestfallen but certain in the knowledge that the real enemy is not Obama, but McCain. I think others will need more time and may say things that they will want to retract later. What we don’t want to do is deride these women in their pain or it will only make it harder for them to recognize where the real problem is, who is their real adversary, and what is at stake.

The last thing we want is for McCain to reap the benefit of their pain.

2118

Today the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic Party voted to restore half of the delegate votes of both Florida and Michigan. Each delegate from each of these states that moved their primary dates up in contravention of Democratic Party rules will be able to cast one half of a vote a the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August.

It was a partial victory for both states, each of which submitted challenges to the committee that they restore to them one half of their votes as opposed to denying them any votes at the convention.

The new goalpost is now set at 2118 votes to nominate a presidential candidate.

The committee met in a fish bowl, an open meeting where vocal partisans of the Clinton campaign and Obama campaign looked on. It was covered by both MSNBC and CSPAN, but on CSPAN, at least, one could view the proceedings on a PC, which is what I had to do while distributing SD-18 T-shirts to state convention delegates this morning.

It became clear to me that the committee would not be restoring full votes to either of these two state delegations, despite the impassioned pleas of Jon Ausman for Florida and, and Carl Levin for Michigan. Ausman unsuccessfully argued that it was Republicans that forced the date of the primary. Democrats voted for it as well in the Florida state house because the bill included voting reforms that restored a paper trail to Florida’s voting process.

It was pointed out that the rules committee’s previous ruling that would deny Florida 100% of its delegates served to deter some Florida voters from voting in their primary election. Indeed, Robert Wexler (D – FL) pointed out that Florida stood out as the only state in the union that had fewer Democrats participating in their primary election than Republicans.

That, to me, was a very persuasive argument that the Florida vote was not fully reflective of all Florida voters, indeed representing a subset of voters that one could successfully argue might have produced a different outcome if the election process was unimpeded.

Rules are rules, and under the rules, Florida was to have its delegation halved. My thought, however, was that if the Florida results were in some way skewed, the total effect of that skewing might be mitigated by having its voting power halved. I wonder if this was on the minds of some of these rules committee members.

Michigan, however, was another matter. Michigan Democrats, led by Sen. Carl Levin, were in a fight to deny New Hampshire their continued status of always being first. His argument, also well-received, was that if you look at the results of Iowa and New Hampshire, and look at who continues to be running for president, it is the three winners of them: Obama and Clinton split one each, McCain took both states. His fight, and that of other Michiganders, led to the inclusion of Nevada and South Carolina as two more pre-Super Tuesday primaries, with one of them to occur before New Hampshire’s primary. But, singularly, New Hampshire ran an end-around and placed its primary date second after Iowa. This thoroughly enraged Michigan when the rules committee let them do this, and enraged them further when Michigan voted themselves a pre-February 5th date in retaliation, and they did not also receive a waiver.

Levin also argued that half of their delegation votes be restored, per party rules.

Levin admitted that the Michigan primary election was a “flawed election” in that all candidates did not have their names on the ballot – four withdrew their names, actions that it was later admitted, were something the state should not have allowed. But since it was, it set up an impossible situation where Michigan voters had to choose between Clinton, Kucinich, Gravel and Dodd. Either that or vote “uncommitted”, which 40% of voters did.

The question was asked: did voters who voted for one of the other three, vote for them because their candidate wasn’t listed? Were there those that did not vote for any of the choices because their candidate wasn’t listed? It was also pointed out that there were 30,000 write-in votes (5% of the total) cast that were not counted because of Michigan rules which only allows registered write-in candidates to have their votes counted. And then again, how many Michigan voters simply stayed home because their presidential vote wouldn’t count?

Clinton’s camp’s position was that the votes should be counted and delegates awarded, as-is, 73 delegates for Clinton, 55 uncommitted, without regarding the obvious fact that the election was ”flawed”. Obama’s people argued the fact that the delegate votes should be split 64-64, ignoring the fact that a vote had taken place. The Michigan Democratic Party offered a compromise, one that they had agreed to among all factions in their state, one that they begged the committee adopt: 69 Clinton, 59 Obama. This figure, they came up with mainly from exit polls and those 30,000 uncounted write-in votes. They were obviously squeamish about this compromise as well, but the fact was, it had already been agreed to within the state by all parties concerned.

This split, and the half vote per delegate rule was eventually passed by the committee with a combination of votes from Obama supporters, uncommitted supporters, as well as 4 Clinton supporters.

Harold Ickes, Clinton’s chief advisor, also on the committee, was visibly upset by the ruling, uttering words not permitted on the public networks, and promising a fight in the Credentials Committee.

The committee meeting adjourned to heckles and catcalls from the Clinton supporters in the audience. Clearly Harold Ickes’ words were having an effect that rulings handed down in this committee meeting did not serve to unite the Party, but would further divide it. It made me further reflect on the threats of staunch Clinton Democrats (Clintocrats ?) who threaten to bolt to the Republican side if Obama is handed the nomination. Are they truly serious? Would they purposely inflict more pain on our country because they couldn’t have their female nominee?

I cannot fathom it, but then when it comes to understanding the female mind, I am truly, very truly, Half Empty.

Mass Transit: A Concept That Has Finally Come of Age

I remember the first Earth Day back in 1970. Back in 1970 gasoline was selling for around 33 cents a gallon but you could get it for 28 cents at the cheap discount stations. Back in 1970 people were worried about air pollution, and gasoline engine emissions were the principal contributors.

No one was concerned with global warming. No one was concerned with depletion of an abundant and cheap natural resource.

No one.

Still, arguments were made even way back then about the need for mass transit systems in the future. Expensive mass transit systems. Very few metropolitan areas bought into building them, fewer actually went and did it. Some cities, like Houston came in late and bail-wired a light rail system that is limited in extent, and used by very few commuters. San Francisco already had a surface electric car system that was augmented by an underground system they labeled BART. Los Angeles came on later with its largely surface and freeway-following Metro system, an extensive system that links one side of the greater Los Angeles area with another. Even Singapore, that tiny island at the tip of the Malay Peninsula has an extensive and well-used underground system called the MRT.

[The MRT, by the way, is why it is illegal to buy or possess chewing gum in Singapore. Patrons of the MRT would stick their used gum wads in the railcar doors fouling the sensors that sensed whether the doors were closed]

What is my point? My point is with the exception of a few of the newly established underground systems, mass transit has been poorly used, and, if you will, used only by the poor. The LA Metro system is famous locally for being an exclusive haunt of the poor, the young and carless, and people who hear voices and talk to themselves. Commuters have, by and large, stuck to their automobiles, the freeway system, and dependence on gasoline.

Times seem to be changing, however. Gasoline prices have started to become an actual factor in the everyday lives, and budgets, of middle class Americans. A factor that now causes them to rethink their lifestyles and maybe adopt alternative transportation. I spotted this Chon article today that makes a good read.

Middle class Americans are discovering the viability, usefulness, and economy of mass transit. It took $4 gasoline to do it, but I guess with every dark cloud there is a silver lining. If more Americans keep their cars parked in their driveways, or at commuter parking lots, everyone benefits.

Now that this trend is reality, now maybe it’s time for metropolitan areas to adopt mass transit plans, or expand the ones they already have.

The writing is on the wall. It has taken 38 years from the first Earth Day, when mass transit was lauded as a clean alternative to air polluting auto transit systems, to finally being seen as viable and useful by people who already own and operate cars. How long is it going to take for cities, counties, and metropolitan areas to read this writing and put some plans in place that link the suburbs to each other and to the city centers?

Clinton Supporters Pressure Swing District Superdelegates; Will Support Their Republican Opponents.

I have stayed away from this subject because, frankly, it sickens me. But here in Texas we have a group of feminist supporters of Hillary Clinton who are so strident in their support of their candidate, that they openly threaten to vote for John McCain should Barack Obama be, as they say, be “forced on them” by the DNC.

That or support a write-in candidate.

But now they, as reported in a blog by Linda Starr, are openly threatening not to support local superdelegates Nick Lampson (TX 22) and Charles Gonzalez (TX 20) and will support and vote for their Republican opponents. Says she:

“I’ve been contacting the HRC supporters and contributors, all of whom previously supported Nick Lampson in his bid to take Tom Delay’s old seat. These women are so incensed because they say Lampson could never have won without their volunteer help and financial assistance and they will vote Republican, if Obama is made the nominee because their own representative defied them.”

I just have to object here. On several levels.

First, I just want to point out that a lefty Democrat would never support a Republican candidate in anything. Starr, on her various blog appearances, seems to align herself with the left. So I have to say that either this is just so much huff and bluster, and an empty threat, or Starr or her sisters are not Democrats anymore.

In fact, Starr in this same blog piece mentions that she is “starting a new national women’s party for the specific purpose of electing women”. So that’s how you get a true majority: form a splinter group.

Second, need I point out that Starr and others of her ilk are saying that they intend to vote for a resolute anti-choice presidential candidate? I need to ask which one of the “feminist issues” surpasses the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have a child? And it isn’t just a four-year thing when they can have Hillary as president in 2012. When they help to elect McCain president this November, they will usher in an era when Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Justice John Paul Stevens, a pro-choice justice who turns a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court to a 4-5 minority whenever an abortion case comes before it, has made no bones about the fact that he wants to retire. He’s battling poor health, but clearly is hanging on in order to preserve women’s abortion rights.

With McCain in office, there goes a woman’s right to choose, and we are back to the bad old days of backroom botched abortions.

And third, I am suspicious why Starr lumps Lampson’s district, CD 22, with Gonzalez’ CD 20. This is again a new metric, I think. Boy, am I getting tired of new metrics.

While I don’t know how Charlie Gonzalez’ district went in the primary as far as the presidential race, I think that it’s safe to assume from its large Hispanic population that it went for Clinton. Gonzalez, however, has endorsed Barack Obama. Now that would irritate me, also. If my congressman was endorsing the candidate that my district did not support in the primary, I would be righteously irate. But how, pray tell, are these supposedly Democratic women hoping to bring Republican Robert Litoff (who has no campaign fund to speak of) a victory in November in a congressional district so heavily Democratic that Republicans did not bother to oppose Gonzalez in ’06, and he trounced his Republican opponent 65% to 32% in ’04?

Are they using some new metric to back up their threat?

Contrast that to Nick Lampson’s CD 22. Now Nick’s district IS a swing district and everyone knows it. Nick’s own votes in several key areas bear witness to the fact that he is trying to play to both sides of the aisle. But from the quote above, it would seem like Lampson has also gone the way of Charlie Gonzalez and thrown in with the Obama camp.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I heard it from the man’s own lips. He will remain uncommitted in this presidential dust up. I, and everyone else I know, assume that he will make his choice known when the winner is a foregone conclusion.

But now, here we have all these irate women gnashing their teeth at how Lampson needs to vote with his constituents. I quote:

“My whole point, if the superdelegates are willing to defy their constituents and vote for Obama for whatever reason, they are no longer representing their constituents interests (women’s suffrage), their constituents primary votes, or their will.”

Now MY whole point is this: if Nick Lampson were to bow to the will of his constituents he would now be supporting Barack Obama for President. I did the math. I did the grunt work and added up each and every vote in every precinct in CD 22. I reported on it here, here, and here. But for those of you who have Comcast as an ISP and don’t want to start another pageload, I’ll repeat myself. CD 22 snakes through parts of 4 counties (courtesy of Tom DeLay). Here are the county totals and the total totals.

Fort Bend County: 25,812 for Obama, 18,209 for Clinton

Harris County: 13,650 for Obama, 17,501 for Clinton

Brazoria County: 7,170 for Obama, 4,948 for Clinton

Galveston County: 5,440 for Obama, 4,814 for Clinton

CD 22 Totals: 52,072 for Obama (53.4%), 45,472 for Clinton (46.6%)

So I just have to ask: what metric allows Linda Starr to come to the conclusion that Nick Lampson would “defy” his constituents if he casts his super vote for Barack Obama?

Is it the metric that says if he doesn’t bend to the minority will they will be royally “pissed off” (her words)?. Well, OK, that’s fine. Be pissed off. Be angry that Barack Obama has the majority of delegates and seems to be inevitable.

Yell and scream.

Then, at the end, in the fall, let passions subside and let self-interest, logic, and, yes, party loyalty prevail. No true Democrat wants John McCain to be president. No feminist wants Roe v. Wade overturned. And most Americans want to put an end to the war in Iraq next year.

Yes, be angry. But then do as many of us who have a bone to pick with some of our Democratic candidates do.

Vote a straight Democratic ticket.

Texas Attorney General Agrees to End Voter Suppression; Claims Victory

Only in Texas can an elected official completely cave on significant voter suppression issues, and then turn around and claim absolute victory. This is exactly what happened today as 6 plaintiffs who filed suit in federal district court over Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s voter fraud attacks on minorities and senior citizens, agreed to drop their lawsuit.

According to the Lone Star Project which spearheaded the lawsuit, this settlement was a victory for Texas voters:

“The Texas Attorney General has agreed to rewrite prosecution guidelines to reflect that voters who merely possess the ballot of another voter with that voter's consent will not be investigated or prosecuted unless there's evidence of actual fraud. Prosecutions will be limited to cases exists such as when a person illegally votes a ballot for another person or causes a person to vote for a different candidate than they wish.“

“By agreeing to this settlement, the Texas Attorney General has essentially acknowledged that those who have been prosecuted to date for hypertechnical violations of failing to sign a mail ballot envelope did not commit any fraud, as he has falsely claimed for years.“

“The Attorney General's filings in the case also revealed that two of the plaintiffs, Gloria Meeks and Rebecca Minneweather, were no longer under investigation, a point the Attorney General had failed to tell these voters. “

“The Attorney General also agreed that the Secretary of State would change instructions to voters who vote by mail in 2008. The Secretary of State had already made changes to the ballot envelope and instructions to voters, acknowledging that such changes were made as a result of the lawsuit. The Attorney General and Secretary of State also agreed to consider additional revisions to voter instruction language that make it clear to voters, and those who assist them, the proper procedures for voting by mail. The Plaintiff will also help the Secretary of State's office create training materials and guidelines so
those who help their neighbors vote will do so in accordance with the law”

In exchange for this agreement, the plaintiffs agreed to drop the lawsuit. Obviously the Attorney General was in a territory that was part of the Bush/Rove voter suppression culture of 2006 and before, but this culture has since fallen into disrepute with senate investigations on the firing of 8 US Attorneys. Attorneys who refused to go along with Karl Rove’s orders to actively prosecute individuals in dubious cases of voter fraud.

This didn’t stop Greg Abbott from congratulating himself for his sly and slick maneuvering against these Democratic activists. From his website:

“Election fraud is a serious crime that undermines our democratic system of government,” said Attorney General Greg Abbott. “After more than a year and a half of pre-trial maneuvering and discovery, the plaintiffs discovered that their claims were without basis in fact or law. Today’s dismissal marks an important victory for the integrity of the electoral process”.

Whatever.

What is important is not who gets to claim victory. What is important is that the Attorney General will stop his hypertechnical interpretation of a 2003 law that governs mail-in ballots, stop prosecuting little old ladies, and stop the Attorney General’s people from peering into the bathroom windows of women as they take a shower.

But a “victory” claim by the Attorney General? I guess you can claim a victory when someone wins. And today, the voters of Texas are winners.

I, George W. Bush, an evil Republican fascist . . .

Have you seen the film A Beautiful Mind? What about The Da Vinci Code? The main protagonists of each of these movies, John Nash in the first, and Robert Langdon in the other, had skills in seeing patterns and rearranging those patterns. There are lots of people around that have that ability to some degree or another.

I was tipped to this guy (thanks Dave), who makes his living as a baker, but has a knack with finding anagrams for long sentences. He constructed a surprising anagram for Hamlet’s soliloquy that essentially summarized the entire plot of Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

But the really amazing thing is what this guy did with the United States’ Pledge of Allegiance.

Astounding.

To remind those of you who don’t have to utter this pledge each and every weekday of your existence (except for when you are on break), here it is:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And now here is its anagram:

I, George W. Bush, an evil Republican fascist, used God to inflict pain on the world, end life, facilitate death, create militant jihad rebels, and to let youths die for nothing.

You doubters out there will have to print this page out and get your pencils out to cancel out letters that occur in both. I did, and I am no longer a doubter.

Memorial Day Cancelled in Sugar Land

It’s Memorial Day again. Here in Texas, Memorial Day is a day when hundreds and thousands of American flags get planted on the parkways in neighborhood streets. Indeed, as I was driving through Sugar Land yesterday I a spotted city crew unloading scores of flags off a city truck and planting them at the four corners of an intersection. My own street has a large American flag pushed into the parkway grass in front of each house.

In Texas, Memorial Day, flagly speaking, is really just another Flag Day.

This year anyway.

Now last year at this time, in the city of Sugar Land’s Town Square, they really put on a Memorial Day extravaganza. I wrote all about it. It was a Republican gala put on by Republicans for Republicans. Only they had to invite Nick Lampson, a Democrat, because he was their congressman.

That event’s organizer, 4th Precinct Constable Troy "Dogman" Nehls, read my commentary and responded by giving me his cell phone number, telling me that I could call him any time if I had some suggestions.

My point then was that Memorial Day is for everyone. It’s a bipartisan holiday. I guess my only suggestion to him would have been to make that a little more obvious. Not that it would have done any good. It seems that since then, Constable Nehls, who is a captain in the US Army Reserve, has been called to active duty in Afghanistan. It came as a surprise to him I think, in that in a January 2008 reelection news release “Nehls did not expect to be called again to active duty before his planned 20-year retirement in July 2008”, but just one month later he was shipped off to Afghanistan to serve in the Army’s “Civil Affairs Unit”.

So even if I had delivered my suggestion, another person would be organizing this year’s Memorial Day Gala in Sugar Land.

Or so I thought.

Now, come to find out, this year’s Memorial Day observance in Sugar Land has been cancelled. Exactly why I don’t know. All I know is that its new organizer, Chad Norvell, is Nehls’ Chief Deputy, and I suppose is acting constable while he is on active duty.

So yes, I am a little curious. What could possibly be behind a failure to get this thing off the ground? Republicans are actually giving up an opportunity to wrap themselves in the flag during a presidential election year. Now I know that there are factions in the party of the Dark Side, but at this point I would only be guessing at whether the political infighting therein was ultimately responsible for cancellation of a patriotic event.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if that is exactly what happened.

So instead of attending a Memorial Day event today and blogging about it tonight, I suppose I’ll have to join the ranks of millions of Americans and eat some barbecue. But while I am at this right now, I might mention that there is a pretty good Op/Ed piece on The Chron you can read. A Memorial Day piece written by our next United States Senator from Texas, and another reservist, LTC and State Rep. Rick Noriega. It seems Rick is a little ticked that his opponent would rather send troops in harm’s way than vote for a new GI Bill. Cornyn voted against this bill, along with 21 other Republicans

I think we all should be just a little angry about that. But save your anger for the fall when we will award John Cornyn with an early retirement package.

The Phoenix Has Landed

The first soft landing on Mars in over 30 years has just occurred (well it occurred 16 minutes ago at this writing, but it takes awhile for news to travel from one planet to another).

Phoenix is a project headed out of the University of Arizona. The first such project to be led by a university.

Another first. It is the first soft landing above Mars' arctic circle. Its landing zone was sited there to investigate the presence of water on Mars. Where is it. Where has it gone?

Here is the link to U of A's Pheonix project website.

Why Is Karl Rove Still Being Invited to News Programs?

Former White House political advisor Karl Rove was holding forth on George Stephanopoulos’ This Week news program this Sunday morning. It was pretty sickening. This is the guy who got a mediocre at best son-of-a-president elected (well, the Supreme Court cast the final votes on that one) and re-elected (again, did Ohio really go for Bush in ’04?). We spent years listening to this guy twist the truth in more ways than Fox News can even ever imagine.

Now that he has been chased out of Washington in the aftermath of his treasonous act in the Valerie Plame affair, an act that he successfully shifted the responsibility for, to the shoulders of his aide, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Rove has been very low key. Yes, he has held forth on some campaigns and is said to be advising the McCain Campaign, but he has been in the background from what I could see.

But now, George Stephanopoulos let him come on his news program to spew his garbage once more. Even now, as members of congress are poised to find him in contempt of congress for ignoring their subpoena.

Rove is claiming Executive Privilege. But it has been pointed out that the action in question never came to the attention of George Bush. Rove, by his own admission never brought up the role that he played in getting charges filed against former (Democratic) Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. How then, can he claim Executive Privilege? It doesn’t work that way. Aides and advisors don’t get to enjoy that privilege. That is reserved for the Executive.

Maybe this is why Stephanopoulos invited Rove to his program, so that he can ask him about the subpoena. The last question handed to Rove was on just this affair:

“Here’s what the House report said, it said ‘In May 2007 a Republican attorney from northern Alabama named Jill Simpson wrote an affidavit stating that in November 2002 she heard a prominent Alabama Republican operative named Bill Canary say that Karl Rove had contacted the Justice Department about bringing a prosecution of Don Siegelman. The question for Mr. Rove is whether he directly or indirectly discussed the possibility of prosecuting Don Siegelman with either the Justice Department or Alabama Republicans.’ Did you?”

Stephanopoulos’s question was “Did you do this?” But true to form, Karl Rove didn’t hear that question. The question he heard was “When did you first hear of the Don Siegelman case?”

So instead of answering the question that was asked, he answered the question he heard.

At much length.

ROVE: “Lemme say three things. First of all . . .uh . . .I think it’s interesting that everybody that was supposedly on that telephone call that Ms. Simpson talks about says that the call never took place. I’d say that . . .”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Although she produced the cell phone record, according to the committee.”

ROVE: “Well, I would say three things. First of all, I . . . uh. . . fsh . . .I . . . uh . . I learned about Don Siegelman’s prosecution by reading about it in the newspaper. Second of all, this is really about a constitutional question of separation of powers. Congress, the House Judiciary Committee wants to be able to call presidential aides on its whim . . uh . . to testify violating the separation of powers. Executive Privilege has been asserted by the White House in a similar instance in the Senate, it will probably be asserted very quickly in this . . . in the House. Third, the White House . . . and . . . has agreed . . . I’m not asser . . .I’m not asserting any personal privilege. The White House has offered . . . and my lawyers offered . . . several different ways in which if the House wants to find out information about this they can find out information about this. And they refused to avail themselves of those opportunities. We didn’t say . . . .close off any option to do what anything else you want to do in the future. We said if you want to hear about this let’s sit down and talk about this and then if you . . .you know . . . you’re entitled to do what you want to do in the future. This is now tied up in court, it’s goin’ to be tied up in court and settled in court. And frankly, the House last week doing this . . . you know . . . uh . . .you know. . . is duplicating what the Senate has already done and it’s already found its way into the court.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “But to be very clear, you did not contact the Justice Department about this case?”

ROVE: “Uh. . . I read about . . . I’m gonna simply say what I’ve said before which is I found out about Don Siegelman’s investigation and indictment by reading about it in the newspaper.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “But that’s not a denial . . . ”

ROVE: “Uh . . .I . . I. . . uh …I…I’ve . . . you know . . .heh . . . I read about . . .I heard about it, I read about it, I learned about it for the first time by reading about it in the newspaper.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Rove, thanks very much."

So did George Stephanopoulos get what he wanted? This is, after all, Karl Rove we are talking about. Of course he would dance around and start talking at the speed of light about everything but not answering the question. That’s what Rove does best. So if that was the reason for bringing this traitor up in front of the cameras again to spew his vile filth, I have to wonder if they got what they wanted.

All I saw was a stammering 17 year old explaining why he hadn’t turned in his lab report.

Justice, Texas Style

Now I fully admit that I am a foreigner to these parts. I come from a land of milk and honey. Of bread and circuses. Of dates and nuts. I come from Southern California. In California judges are elected, just as they are here in Texas. But when Californians elect judges, they may or may not know what their party affiliation is.

In California, all judges run in non-partisan elections.

In Texas, we have non-partisan elections as well. Our school board elections are non-partisan. So are our water board elections. The thing is, here in Texas, even when the party affiliation of a candidate for non-partisan office is not stated, everyone seems to go out of their way to find out how they vote anyway.

So Texas is like that.

In Texas we like our judges with partisan stripes, and we generally like those stripes to be red in color. Not burgundy red mind you, not cerise, but full out neoconservative red.

I imagine that neoconservatives in judges’ robes must give Texans some security and comfort. That’s why they return these guys to office over and over again. That and the fact that neoconservative lucre always seems to find its way into their campaign funds.

Witness a recent case against neoconservative home builder Bob Perry of Perry Homes. The Texas Supreme Court overturned a ruling earlier this month in favor of a couple who bought a defective house from Perry. Their $800,000 award, one that they had fought for, for ten long years was completely nullified by this court, whose judges had collectively received $265,000 in campaign contributions from Perry.

Now why on Earth the Supreme Court justices thought it would look OK to hear a case concerning one of their big campaign contributors, I cannot fathom. Perhaps it is the fact that one or two might have been able to recuse themselves from the case, but not the whole freaking court.

Perry is on in his years and reclusive. Not so his son whose entire private life has unfolded in family court here in Fort Bend County. To read the whole sad tale, go read Bev’s Burner at the Fort Bend Star (5/21/08 and 5/14/08). Bob Perry, who is a drunken wife beater by his own son’s admission, has lots of influence in the county courts, too.

He has a near stranglehold on justice in Fort Bend County, having contributed to each family court judges’ campaign fund, except for one. So when each family court judge had to recuse himself from hearing his son’s divorce case, they brought in a visiting judge.

According to Bev Carter, the one judge who had not received a campaign contribution from Perry had been bypassed in favor of the visiting judge because the visiting judge allowed the divorce case to be entered into the public record with only the initials of the divorcing couple. She was told that Judge Robert Kern, the only judge whose campaign coffers are Perry-free, would not have allowed a case to be entered with only their initials.

But visiting judge, Judge Ron “Bubba” Pope had no problem allowing that. Said in fact that it was perfectly legal.

Now whether it is legal or not, I haven’t a care in the world. The fact is that divorce cases in Texas have the full names of the divorcing couples associated with them. Not their initials. Perry was obviously trying to keep his son’s name out of the news. Even out of the court records. Too bad he didn’t consult his son about this, he could have saved himself some trouble.

No, I don’t care if it’s legal or not. It’s not right. It stinks. It smells of roadkill. This is special treatment to a high degree. Special treatment to a family that has contributed mazuma millions to conservative causes locally and nationally.

Justice in Texas? It runs like a well-oiled machine.

Well oiled.

Stick A Fork In Her, She’s Done

No not literally. It’s a baseball saying for a pitcher who has tired to the point of not being able to deliver a serious pitch any more.

From what I can gather of her comments today about why she remains in the primary race despite any reasonable chance of success, Hillary Clinton is either one of two things:

1) Tired beyond all ability to reason
2) A cold-blooded calculating eater of the dead.

I am guessing number 1, but wonder about number 2.

Everyone has been wondering why Hillary Clinton remains engaged in a nomination battle where the numbers are clearly against her. Today we found out why: she’s apparently waiting for Barack Obama to drop dead or be assassinated.

The now infamous quote:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it.”

In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was all set to run against Dick Nixon for president. He won the June primary in California and virtually sealed his nomination. He was shot and killed just after leaving his victory party. Hubert Humphrey was next in line, won the nomination and lost in the general election.

Hillary Clinton is apparently trying to follow the footsteps of Hubert Humphrey. Or so she implied.

Then when her ghoulish gaffe raised the hackles of just about everyone, she delivered the most cryptic apology known to man:

“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever”

Who was she apologizing to? Anyone? The only thing I get out of those words is that she’s sorry she said that because it got her in a bunch of trouble with voters, delegates, superdelegates and the DNC Rules and Credentials Committees.

Quite frankly I think she’s just tired and frustrated. Those two things, mark me, are a deadly combination and makes you say things you don’t mean, or if you are thinking about those things, you normally restrain yourself in order to be polite and tactful.

Quite frankly, it strikes me that this is the kind of thing that Hillary Clinton was hoping to occur within the Obama campaign – some sort of unforgivable gaffe or event that would cause superdelegates to rethink their votes. Ironic, isn’t it, that the campaign killer she was anticipating may just have occurred in her own campaign.

Why We Need a Separation Between Church and State

Mainly because church leaders are responsible for erecting, supporting, and maintaining faith in America. Faith is a belief system and should never be applied to politics, which is another belief system. Different, but a belief system nonetheless. The trouble is, some cannot separate one of their belief systems from another, and some irresponsible church leaders try to take advantage of that.

This gets politicians in trouble as witnessed by the moral outrage many Americans had when they heard the words of John McCain endorser Texas Protestant Evangelist John Hagee. Obama surrogates screamed for McCain to denounce Hagee and renounce his endorsement, which McCain kindly did.

Many compare the outrageous comments of Hagee to Obama’s former minister Jeremiah Wright. McCain surrogates say that there’s no comparison, but this didn’t prevent McCain from saying these words:

“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.”

Now I have listened to a great deal of the audio that “Talk to Action” discovered and it’s actually worse than the sound bites you have heard on TV and radio. Not only does he include Adolf Hitler as God’s tool to get European Jews back to Israel, he includes Theodor Herzl, the father of the Zionist movement, as one of Hitler’s teammates.

Leaving me to conclude that some Americans are capable of thinking some really twisted thoughts, and doing some really twisted things. Now listen to the words of Jeremiah Wright just one more time:



NOW, do you know what he was talking about?

Big Oil Companies Acting the Victims

Just when you thought that the falsehoods being spread by the Big Oil corporate bosses could not get any more outrageous, today the falsehoods being spread by Big Oil corporate bosses just went from whoppers to disgraceful whoppers.

It seems that we are to pity these poor, poor men because they are victims.

I read about it on MSNBC’s website but I think every media outlet in America is running some sort of story on the Senate hearing held today at which 5 CEOs from BP America, Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Shell Oil swore under oath that it wasn’t them robbing people at the gas pump.

Said Senator Diane Feinstein (D - CA) of their woeful complaints:

“[You have] just a litany of complaints that you’re all just hapless victims of a system. Yet you rack up record profits ... quarter after quarter after quarter.”

Replied Chairman Robertson of Chevron (formerly ChevronTexaco):

“I’m sorry to sound like a victim.”

Whining further, oil executives said that “the cause is not company profits but global supply and demand.”

“Supply and Demand”.

I am old enough to know about what happens when there is not enough oil to meet the demand. You have gas lines. You have gasoline rationing. The only gas lines I have seen are at the Murphy station in Richmond when they are charging only $3.61.9 for Regular.

“Supply and Demand” is hogwash.

Oh, in addition to this, oil executives complained that they were forced, forced mind you, to charge these high prices because their profits will be much less in the future, but they must pay for their long-term investments. This is just an “up cycle”, they say. Profits will be less in the future.

Beg to differ. What kind of “upcycle“ lasts for 5 years? That’s not an upcycle, that’s a trend. Let me illustrate. Here at right is a plot of Chevron’s quarterly net profit totals since January 2003. In 2003 they made just under a $1 billion in the first quarter, and that profit steadily rose, more or less, to this past quarterly profit of $5 billion. That’s a trend. That’s a trend that says that, more or less, the company is going to be reporting net quarterly profits of a billion more dollars in each quarter of each succeeding year.

If anyone is a victim it is the consumers who are starting to chafe at the yoke over these gasoline prices. I’m OK, I’ve got my rice burner but what with the SUV buying spree we have had over the past 5 years? Others are truly hurting.

And I’ll tell you who else is not benefiting from these oil prices. The stockholders. Yes, there is a method to my madness and I own a couple or three shares of Chevron, so this was also an exercise in finding out by how much Chevron was sticking it to stockholders like me. Study the chart below the first. It shows Chevron’s quarterly dividends over the same 5-year period. Notice anything? Like how Chevron’s net profits have quintupled in the past 5 years but dividends haven’t tracked that? They’ve just about doubled in that period. Dividends should be about $1.75 per share, not the present 65 cents.

The CEOs were asked how much lucre they were pulling down. Answers varied between $2 million and $12 million per year. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. They failed to mention the lucrative stock options available only to the executive level in Big Oil. Someone forgot to recall former ExxonMobil chairman Lee Raymond’s golden parachute was worth $400 million when he retired in 2006.

No, all this is, is outrageous greed. Outrageous greed being accompanied by outrageous lies.

In another post, I suggested that the high price of petroleum was an effect of oil speculators, and that their main fear is war in the Middle East. The war in Iraq, then, is the chief cause of high oil prices, not “Supply and Demand”.

What does that make these Big Oil companies, then? Companies making outrageous profit in a time of war? There is only one concept that describes them: “War Profiteers”

Victory for Women: 4th Circuit Court Strikes Down Virginia Abortion Law

Just when I was about to lose all hope that justice was going to be as rare as hen’s teeth in this country, where Indiana’s voter suppressive voter ID law was upheld by the US Supreme Court last month, now comes news that at least we can get some justice in the lower federal courts. Virginia’s unconstitutional ban on late term abortions was found to be unconstitutional by a panel of 3 federal appeals judges of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judges hearing the case were Paul Niemeyer, a 1990 Bush-41 appointee, Blane Michael, a 1993 Clinton appointee, and Diana Gribbon Motz, a Clinton 1994 appointee. Understandably, given just that bit of information, the vote was 2-1, with Niemeyer dissenting.

This case, Richmond Medical Center v. Michael Herring et al., has been bounced up and down the judicial ladder, as it were. It first came to the 4th Circuit Court in 2005 where Virginia late term abortion ban was struck down because it did not have a safeguard provision for a woman’s health. The US Supreme Court in upholding the federal ban on late-term abortions in 2007 then sent this case back to the 4th Circuit for reconsideration.

Two judges in the 4th Circuit ruling have ruled that there are sufficient differences between the federal ban and the Virginia one that the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling had no effect on the Virginia law.

“Critical to the Court’s holding in Carhart II is the federal statute’s requirement that a doctor intend at the outset to perform an intact D&E; according to the Court, this requirement of intent at the outset ensures that the federal statute does not impose criminal liability on a doctor who sets out to perform a standard D&E that by accident becomes an intact D&E. As a consequence, the federal statute does not prohibit — through fear of criminal liability — doctors from performing the standard D&E procedure, the procedure employed in the vast majority of (previability) second trimester abortions. In contrast, the Virginia Act has no provision requiring intent at the outset of the procedure. The Virginia Act thus imposes criminal liability on a doctor who sets out to perform a standard D&E that by accident becomes an intact D&E, thereby exposing all doctors who perform standard D&Es to prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment.”

They then found that since no doctor would want to be held criminally liable for performing the procedure, it places a burden on the health of women.

“The Virginia Act is therefore unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. The district court’s summary judgment, to the extent it declared the statute invalid on this ground, is affirmed.”

That’s right. A woman has a right to life, liberty and property, just as a man does. States can’t pass laws that deny them these rights, and courts shouldn’t make decisions that do so.

In all likelihood, if these intrusive monsters keep to the script, the case will probably reappear at the US Supreme Court where justices will have to go on record and uphold the Virginia ban, thus marking their territory on each and every uterus in the United States of America.

Sorry, that was kind of gross, wasn’t it?

Soldiers: Want to Get Out of Iraq? Shoot Al-Qu’ran – and Then Apologize.

In the news yesterday and today is an incident that occurred earlier this month, in a Sunni-controlled area of western Baghdad. An American soldier, a sniper, used Al-Qu’ran, the holy book of Islam, for target practice on a police shooting range.

The soldier first denied that he knew that this book was Al-Qu’ran, but since books aren’t generally used as targets anyway, nobody believed him.

The shot-up book was discovered by an Iraqi soldier who complained to his commander. Word spread to the local Sunni community, who were justifiably indignant, and they demanded an immediate apology.

It finally came, first as a written apology from the offending soldier, who, among other things wrote this:

“I sincerely hope that my actions have not diminished the partnership that our two nations have developed together. ... My actions were shortsighted, very reckless and irresponsible, but in my heart [the actions] were not malicious.”

My guess is that the soldier now has some practice at taking dictation.

Yet later a verbal apology came from the soldier’s commander, Major General Jeffery Hammond, who spoke at an apology ceremony. Among other things, Hammond said this:

“I come before you here seeking your forgiveness. In the most humble manner, I look in your eyes today, and I say please forgive me and my soldiers.”

Well there you go. Apology asked for and delivered. Twice.

Punishment issued to the offending soldier included a reprimand “with prejudice” and an immediate reassignment back to the United States.

They punished the soldier by sending him home.

Now upon hearing this, leaders in the Sunni’s most powerful Iraqi Islamic Party most strenuously objected, and demanded that the army “inflict the maximum possible punishment on this soldier so it would be a deterrent for the rest of the soldiers in the future.”

Good point.

My guess, that upon hearing news of the crime, and its punishment, more soldiers went online to Amazon.com to order themselves up some “targets”.

It is, after all, a fairly painless way to get a one-way ticket out of a war zone. The other method was accomplished by Staff Sergeant Michelle Manhart who was discharged from the army for posing nude in a Playboy pictorial.

That method doesn’t work for everyone though because, first, you have to have something nice that someone will want to take a photograph of. That leaves a lot of people out.

So this new ploy seems to be the way to go.

That is, unless the army comes up with a draconian punishment that will appease the sensibilities of these Sunni Muslims, people who live their lives by Sharia, or Islamic Law. A system of laws that calls for death by beheading for being a homosexual or an adulterer. A system of laws that calls for amputation of the hands for those found guilty of thievery.

What, I wonder, would be an appropriate punishment for desecration of a book containing the revealed words of Allah, as spoken to His Prophet, Muhammad, through his angel, Gabriel?

Maybe the Sunnis have come up with one all by themselves. In their demonstrations decrying this heinous act, Sunnis were heard to be reciting this chant: “Yes, yes to the Quran". And this one: “America out, out.”

You see? These are the minority Sunnis who Bush, Cheney et al. want to protect from certain genocide that will fall on the heels of a US troop pullout.

Sounds like the Sunnis, though, have a different plan. A plan that I like.

US out of Iraq . . . Now.

Huckabee Hearts McCain

Even up to today it still looks like former governor Mike Huckabee is jumping up and down waving his hands saying ”Me! Me! Let it be ME!”

Mike Huckabee hearts John McCain and wants to be his Vice President.

On Meet the Press this morning:

“MR. RUSSERT: But if he said to me, ‘In order to become president, you could help me. Would you be my vice president,’ you'd say yes?”

“GOV. HUCKABEE: There's no one I would rather be on a ticket with than John McCain. You know, let, let me point out that all during the campaign, when I was his rival, not a running mate, there was no one who was more complimentary of him publicly and privately. He was my number two choice. I want to make sure you know he was my number two choice. I still wanted to win, but if I couldn't, John McCain, from always, was the guy I would've supported and have now supported.”

This was apparent even last March as Huckabee was slowly withdrawing from the campaign, leaving a string of burning bridges between his chief rival for the #2 spot, Mitt Romney, and McCain.

From The Politico:

“But as long as Huckabee is campaigning vigorously, he is likely to draw a sizable bloc of social conservatives — and deny former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney the direct one-on-one contest he is hoping for against McCain.”

“Huckabee did not mention Romney in his concession statement Saturday. But Huckabee and his aides have barely disguised their disdain for Romney, whose chameleon-like stance on issues and free-spending negative ad campaign have made him the most unpopular candidate among his GOP rivals.”

Hilariously, Democratic political consultant Bob Shrum, has had only good things to say about Mike Huckabee as the GOP presidential nominee, and equally now, as McCain’s VP of choice, as he stated on Meet the Press this morning:

“MR. SHRUM: You don't have to be culturally--well, actually, I endorsed you for president. I thought the Republicans should've nominated you, and I think maybe McCain should pick you for vice president. And I mean that with all due respect.”

Obviously the only reason Huckabee would make a good fit on the ticket is that this would bring balance to a John McCain campaign that does not wear religion on its sleeve or anywhere else. It would give the evangelicals something to cheer about.

But this time we are looking at a VP who may just have something more to do than cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate – a hopefully rare event after this year – in staying alive and well. A 72-year old president on Inauguration Day should give one pause, and make GOPers look long and hard at the VP.

And the problem there is that where McCain’s self-admitted strength is in defense and security, it is long viewed as Huckabee’s weakness. Putting a Baptist minister in charge of the nation’s military would be, at best, a display of American audacity.

But really, Huckabee’s main problem is going to be his “tax problem”. As governor he raised Arkansas taxes and anyone knows that only Democrats are allowed to do that. I think that this is just going to follow him around.

No, I’m with Shrum, I want Huckabee on the ticket. First I wanted him as president, but I’m not proud, I’ll take him on the VP slot and throw in 3 Clinton superdelegates to boot.

So it’s not going to happen because they know we want it to. Who will McCain choose? I am going to go out on a long, long limb and predict that he will at some point approach Hillary Clinton. Not saying she’ll accept, not at all. But if you saw McCain in his appearance on Saturday Night Live last night you know that the best thing we Democrats can do is come completely apart during this campaign, and one way to do it is to have Clinton on McCain’s ticket.

It would be a Limbaugh “Operation Chaos” writ large.