First, we read Jessica Pishko skeptically

Having now read her book, "The Highest Law in the Land," this is a riff on my old blog piece about the book, which riffed on Shakespeare in saying, "First, we get rid of all the sheriffs."

The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy by Jessica Pishko
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

For me thinking of other reviewers, on Goodreads, it was really right at 2.5, but I'm bumping down, albeit reserving the right to come back and bump back up. For me as me, it's at 2 stars flat and period

First, Pishko is preaching to the converted, overall, per the non-nutter 2-star reviewer besides me. That said, that's with an asterisk which I'll get to at the end.

Second, without claiming to know every detail of every movement within the constitutional sheriffs' world, I've long known the big picture, so nothing new here. In addition, I'd read two reviews of the book already, one at Capital and Main and the other at the Texas Observer, per my original piece. With that said?

I'm not converted on her "ergo" — the elimination of sheriffs. Not at all convinced. I have the advantage, per other lower-star reviewers, of living in a semi-rural county and knowing enough about sheriff's offices and sheriffs that run them — the good, the bad and the ugly.

Getting rid of ELECTING sheriffs? Hellz yes and I've said that for more than a decade, and in newspaper columns. We don't elect city police chiefs, we don't elect state directors of public safety, and we don't elect the head of the FBI, ATF, etc. Why should we elect sheriffs today? (That said, I know why, and with generally good reason, sheriffs were elected a century and more ago, and you won't find that in Pishko's book.) I've also said that, here in Tex-ass, we ought to get rid of the office of constable in every county and transfer constabular functions to that county's sheriff's office.

But, we need sheriff's-level policing. State directors of public safety, especially in plains and Western states with large counties, don't want to take that over, either. Patrolling county roads and knowing signs to look for is different than highway patrol. And, first-order investigative work is different from second order work that a state bureau of investigtion does.

So keep sheriffs. Just don't elect them. (And, beyond the constitutional sheriffs movement, there's plenty of other reason to remove politics from sheriff's offices, and, as a newspaper editor, I've seen and heard some of that personally.)

For other reasons, I disagree on abolishing jails. I agree on abolishing private prison contractors. I agree with making it easier for many people who have been arrested, mainly non-violent detainees, to bond out more easily. I agree with spending more money on jailer pay and total jailers, and also having somebody besides the sheriff run them. But, not every detainee should bond out easily. And, jails are also needed for more severe non-felony convictions. (I am talking specifically about jails, not prisons.)

And now, that asterisk. It comes from the conclusion, where Pishko goes off on mass incarceration, sheriffs and immigration and even Roe.

She makes clear she's a Democrat.

I'm a non-duopoly leftist, so I'm going to speak from her left.

Clinton, Obama and Biden, all in their first two years in office, had the opportunity of doing something in terms of federal protection for abortion, beyond EMTALA, which we've seen how post-Dobbs courts treat. They didn't. And, in any case, that has ZERO to do with sheriff's offices.

Mass incarceration? It is a problem. And national and state Democrats as well as Republicans, have largely supported the War on Drugs that is a primary fueler of it. Presidents of both parties have supported militarization of city police, county sheriffs and state departments of public safety all alike, as discussed in a book like Radley Balko's "The Rise of the Warrior Cop." (Balko has his own problems as an extreme libertarian, like wanting to entirely get rid of DWI laws; that's part of why I said "a book like.")

As for getting rid of policing in general, as proposed by Alex Vitale, who blurbs this book and with whom Pishko seems to half agree or more? No, policing doesn't have roots in colonialism, slavery and the rise of industrialization. I addressed that in refuting policing myths of libertarians and the New Left, noting that "the Shah's eyes and ears" of the Achaemenid Empire were cops. (Balko, unsurprisingly, is among those who gets this totally wrong.) Likewise, in writing about what I already knew about the book a month or so ago, I said Plato's archons were cops, or at least halfway so.

Immigration? Dear Leader (that would be Barack Obama) practiced family separation at the border before Trump did. Biden continued Trump's Article 42 by other means, namely tech-neoliberal ones.

Related? Presidents of both parties have continued government deals with private prison contractors on housing detained immigrants.

View all my reviews

YES on the judges killing the Kroger-Albertson's merger

Living in an area where both companies operate, I am glad to see this was killed.

Both stores, and Albertson's in particular, have gotten more and more sucky on price jacks starting with COVID and going beyond. In addition, Albertson's often seems to have a problem with items in a weekly sales flier being out of stock. My local Tom Thumb nameplate has gotten better, but in 2022-23 was kind of bad.

In addition, the reduction of jobs would have been an issue, and prices would only have gone hire. In addition, would the merged company, since Albertson's is non-union at best, antiunion at worst, gone into union-busting? In addition, the idea that a third-party grocery distribution company and PigglyWiggly remnants owner could have taken over the 500-plus stores the two had proposed to shed — and which wasn't enough — was laughable.

As for who the competition is? Aldi's is limited, especially on produce. That's how Winco is so much better, plus it has a more robust house brand line than does Aldi. Trader Joe's? Mainly specialty stuff. Not a competitor. Dollar General? Probably not. That said, Wally is. It's more than a grocery store, yes. But, Wallys that have groceries usually have a full lineup, not Dollar General stuff.

The thing is, both stores, and especially Kroger, have a number of things priced more cheaply than Wally. But, they're bad at marketing that!

The Winco in my area is not.

It will load a basket of groceries, then load a comparison basket and list prices on both, with, "$12 cheaper at Winco" on the signs. (They do that with Kroger and Albertson's too, albeit not always with the same items. But that's how marketing works!)

Albertson's has sucked for a decade-plus. They long had a history, whether their name or Tom Thumb, for jacking prices before applying digital coupons, for example.

So, the bottom-line issue is NOT that Walmart is cheaper. It's often not. It's that Kroger and Albertson's have gotten lazy.

I also don't get their CEO suing Kroger rather than fighting to keep the merger. Albertson's proposed dumping just as few of stores as Kroger, for one thing.

Looking behind Luigi Mangione and armchair psychology

I don't know who this Bev Potter is, but, this piece by her claiming Mangione in the header that Mangione "Didn't Have 'Political Motivations,'" for whatever reason "Political Motivations" is in square quotes, is wrong unless read in the most narrow sense. In other words, Mangione didn't kill Brian Thompson because he heard Thompson had joined Trump's Cabinet.

In the broader sense? Oh, he did.  I've read his "manifesto" at Klippenstein, and he states his motivation, and to the degree neither political party has addressed this issue, it's political motivations. Not conspiracy-theory political motivations, but in a broad sense, political motivations.

Beyond that, it's grossly wrong for its author to say they're sure Mangione is a paranoid schizophrenic.

I’m not a doctor, but Luigi Mangione is clearly paranoid schizophrenic.

You admit you're not a doctor. You don't admit you've never seen him in person.

This is almost as irresponsible as the conspiracy theory chuds she calls out.

It is POSSIBLE, per the Baltimore Sun editorial you cited?

A gradual personality change, signs of delusional, disordered thinking, a recent withdrawal from family and friends, all raise the possibility that the man caught Monday morning at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania, was not entirely of sound mind. Mental health professionals tell us these are the common symptoms of schizophrenia and the mid-20s are the peak years for onset and diagnosis.

Yes. No more than that. Especially since Bev Potter cut off the last one third of that paragraph, which says:

Did Luigi Mangione suffer from it? That’s highly speculative but that possibility haunts the case — and at least offers some rational explanation of so much irrational behavior.

So, POSSIBLE. Not sure.

AND? IF he has a diagnosable mental illness, maybe it's not schizophrenia, whether of paranoid or non-paranoid type. As for him "dropping out," including from his family? Others have done similar. The just-reunited (we think?) Hannah Kobayashi is an immediate example. It's no proof of mental illness, and if it is seen as a hint of possible mental illness, that doesn't necessarily mean schizophrenia. In fact, the snarling anger at his first post-arrest hearing would contra-indicate schizophrenia. Flattened effect is one of the more common symptoms of schizophrenia.

The fact that he read and favorably reviewed Ted Kaczynski's manifesto also does not make him a paranoid schizophrenic.

Back to that manifesto. As many people have noted, it's nothing like Ted Kaczynski's. There's no conspiracy thinking there, for one thing.

And, it WAS wrong.

We in Merikkka aren't 42nd in life expectancy. We're 55th, behind fucking Albania.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi got a hip replacement after her fall in Luxembourg. And, she got a medevac from there to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany for the procedure. Shit, United Healthcare wouldn't even give the average Joe a hip replacement rather than some sort of fusion surgery, and sure as hell wouldn't medevac you to the surgery. And, especially since Pelosi has no official Congressional leadership position, even if not technically, it smacks like an abuse of resources. No wonder people hate Congress about as much as health insurance companies.

Texas Progressives talk failing states and more

Off the Kuff interviewed Sandie Haverlah of the Texas Consumer Alliance about all things CenterPoint.

SocraticGadfly, in what will be the first of a series of occasional pieces after his introductory article earlier this month, talks about the US as a failing state, with this article looking at the US Constitution.

Ken Paxton is suing a New York doctor over prescribing abortion medications to a Collin County woman. New York State promises a robust defense. Per Chris Geidner, this lawsuit was being teed up in October, while Kenny Boy looked for the right test case and decided to wait until after Election Day.

Corpus Christi's planned desalinization plant could be an environmental disaster.

Of course it would be S.C. Gwynne who writes a backhanded paean to Elmo's Cybertruck at the Monthly. His craptacularness as an author, evident in his books, travels everywhere. It's also a good example of Peter principle.

The Observer looks further at TEA's exoneration of Mike Miles.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project spoke at Houston City Council public comment time about King Whitmire & his imperious ways. 

The Fort Worth Report lets us know that the city of Arlington, where AT&T Stadium is located and where the 2026 FIFA World Cup finals will be played, is not happy about the plan for it to be called "Dallas Stadium".  

Law Dork applauded the Montana court decision that blocked that state's ban on gender affirming care for minors.  

Inside Climate News reports on the failure of local tax breaks for LNG plants to stimulate growth.  

Texas 2036 gives you its 2024 wrapup. 

 The Texas Signal celebrates Krampus. 

The Current calls out Nextdoor for being the paranoia-inducing cesspool it is.

Greg Casar elected head of the Pergressuve Cucks; And?

That's what I call the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and with good reason.

Casar, a freshman Congresscritter from right here in Tex-ass, has been elected head of the group.

The only way he can make the org better is to boot about half its members, one of the things I said at that top link that's a problem with it.

Unfortunately, per the Trib story, he likely won't:

He would rather build coalitions than pass ideological purity tests that have pushed voters away from the left. He espouses a more working class message, steering away from the culture wars and back to economic concerns that dominated voters’ minds this year.

Business as usual. Oh, sure, in various places in various stories, he condemns the Joe Manchins of the world, but says it wasn't that Yachtsman Joe wasn't too liberal or too conservative, but that they didn't offer enough progress. It's statements like this that lead me to use the word "pergressuve."

Current head Pramila Jayapal, one of the worst cucks, didn't run again, because she was term-limited.

That said? 

Nobody else wanted it.

Indeed, per this piece, Casar was unopposed.

Also meanwhile, what if anything will the Cucks as a caucus say about Ukraine, the issue in my top link that got them the name "Pergressuve Cucks." Or Israel and Gaza, where the Cucks' cave-in got Jayapal designated as "one of the worst cucks." I mean, St. Bernard of Sanders follows the left hand of the duopoly party line on foreign policy, slight noises on Israel aside.

Well, actually, we know Casar is a cuck on this issue. He willingly conflates anti-Zionism and antisemitism, supports full support for Israel, opposes BDS etc. And, Greg? The two-state solution is as dead as a fucking doorknob because Israel killed it. He opposes "offensive" military aid for Israel, but who knows what that is? None of this is different from St. Bernard. The Austin chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America unendorsed him, in fact in this year's general election to his second term.

Let's get back to this "unopposed," though.

OK, the Cucks tout having about 100 members. And, NOBODY besides Casar — a freshman, I remind you — wanted this? Shit, that's a caucus that has clearly decided to File 13 itself. Seriously. It's like saying, "We're OK with being semi-irrelevant."

Will the Texas Rethuglicans really censure anybody?

The Trib looks at the possibility of the Texas Republican Party censuring anybody who does not vote for David Cook, choice of the House GOP Caucus, for Speaker. It also looks at the possibility, nay probability, of legal action by the censurees.

Sadly, it does not look at the possibility of a post-Gilberto Hinojosa Texas Democratic Party shifting its Overton window right and recruiting any censurees.

Censures were enacted against the likes of McDade Phelan in 2023. But, the 2024 state convention said the party can block a censuree from the next primary ballot, as a major change.

The Trib talks lawsuits.

“It's very unusual for a group of unelected party members to essentially say that they are going to deny duly elected officials the ability to run under the party's name,” said Joshua Blank, research director at University of Texas-Austin’s Texas Politics Project. “I think the one thing that's guaranteed here is that this will lead to a lawsuit if it's applied.”

The Trib cites state and federal court opinions in similar cases. On the other hand, some of those other cases were about restricting voting and not valid parallels, and others were decisions about individual candidates based on their backgrounds, such as "honorary" ex-Klansman.

The party censure's fallout is a different kettle of fish.  A censured candidate MIGHT win a primary ballot access lawsuit, but I'd by no means guarantee that.

==

Meanwhile, Dustin Burrows still claims he has the votes to be Speaker. Will this soften his support further, which started eroding the day after the House GOP Caucus meet? Per this Trib update, he now stands publicly at 71.

And will Strangeabbott and his paid political consultants, whether working on his behalf or not, continue to try to play both sides against the middle?

==

Chris Hooks weighs in at the Monthly, noting that whomever succeeds McDade will be the fourth Speaker in six Lege sessions, comparing them to the wives of Henry VIII. He sets out the background terms of these struggles in a nut graf:

For two decades, two Republican factions have struggled for control of the lower chamber. You could describe these sects as “far right” and “centrist,” but those terms obscure as much as they clarify. Whatever differences exist between the two cohorts on most policy issues are narrow. It is perhaps more accurate to say that this is a fight between what you could call institutionalists, who cling to a Burkean idea that the House should have sovereign authority over itself, and populists, who believe the body should function as an appendage of the party’s right-wing base and, though they prefer to de-emphasize it, its billionaire funders.

I think that gets it right.

Next, we get a petard-hoist side note:

Burrows helped institute the principle that the Speaker should be elected by the caucus, and command the support of its members, before any vote by the full House.

There you are!

Hooks speculates about the possibility of a third GOP candidate. Per my "started eroding" link, I said House Dems leader Gene Wu should have been actively encouraging that at the time of the GOP Caucus meet, even if he had been elected Dem head just a day earlier.