Jays whiff on chance to force Game 7 against Royals

Jose Bautista:
Would-be hero,
possible goat

Don't blame Jose Bautista, of course.

Two homers, both of the non-bat flipping variety (I'll have another post up tomorrow about that and "old school" baseball), and he did his best.

But, he had handicaps.

They included a struggling pitcher, possibly a fielding decision by the normally good right fielder Bautista, and worst, in my opinion, bad management at the end of the game.

The first and third of those are no surprises.

David Price:
More struggles

Most notably, David Price struggles again. He's not just Clayton Kershaw in the playoffs; he's the new Don Newcombe.

But, let's go to the top of the ninth inning.

How does Jays manager John Gibbons not call for a squeeze after Dalton Pompey steals second, then third, with, not just less than 2 outs, but less than 1 out! Plate that tying run, especially if you do this after the Kevin Pillar walk, with the sacrifice also presumably moving him to second.

I know, I know, Gibbons is an AL manager. But, rightly, wrongly, or just weirdly at times, his counterpart, Ned Yost, thinks in NL ways, or at least not in typical AL ways. And, given that Gibbons was an NL catcher in the 1980s, watching Whiteyball with Whitey Herzog and his jackrabbits in St. Louis, he knows what a squeeze play is.

John Gibbons,
actual goat

Add in that you've got a team of whiffers, and you should have considered the squeeze.

First option was with Pillar, who's not totally horrible on K'ing.

After the Pillar walk, you have Dioner Navarro, who definitely is not a bad strikeout person, pinch-hitting for Ryan Goins, who is a K guy. But, Navarro isn't a high-power hitter, so the infield can play fairly shallow, which means relying on "contact" isn't good. Of course, he wound up K'ing.

But, still just one out. And Pillar stealing second.

Ben Revere of defensive heroics up next. And K's. Yes, he's a relatively low-K batter, and there's no force at second. But, you have to, IMO, plate that tying run.

Lorenzo Cain,
actual hero

That, in turn, takes us back to Lorenzo Cain's mad dash home in the bottom of the eighth.

Technically, it's not exactly like Enos Slaughter in the 1946 World Series, as Harry Walker was credited with a double there (many casual fans may be unaware), and we may overly malign Johnny Pesky.

Eric Hosmer had only a single, due to (take your choice)
1. A dumb throwing play by Joey Bats;
2. A smart throwing play by Joey Bats:
3. A knowledge-hindered throwing play by Joey Bats;
4. The best realistic throwing play by Joey Bats, shades of "best realistic running play" by Yost, Mike Jirschele and Alex Gordon in the ninth inning of last year's World Series.

I'm somewhere between 1 and 3.

Cain was running with the pitch, and, as a right fielder, surely Bautista sees that. With Hosmer hitting the ball where he did, shouldn't he assume that Cain might be trying for home? On the other hand, was he getting enough help from teammates on that play? On the third hand, how much of a shot does Joey Bats have at Cain? He would have to spin even harder on that pivot throw, if he goes to first baseman Chris Colabello rather than Goins at second.

Looking at the video of what actually happened, I think Bautista had a 50-50 shot at Cain, no more. Given that this was the start of an inning, keeping Hosmer on first was important. Besides that, his momentum had carried him close enough to the wall that I'm not sure he had space to complete a spin to make an accurate throw to Colabello.

And, credit Cain's speed. (He wasn't actually running on the pitch.) Credit Jirschele for having a good eye, and knowing this situation, with winning run, instead of tying, Game 6, instead of Game 7, and home instead of road, were all different factors than in last year's World Series, too.

#FeelTheBern, #AntiSemitism, #SJW humor, #Occupy and #ConspiracyThinking Part 2

As I noted last week, after the first debate, in some corners of the Twitterverse and the blogosphere, the idea was started that some of the opposition to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign is grounded in anti-Semitism.

As I further noted, one blogger behind this idea went down the ...

Well, went down the social justice warrior road.

Regular readers know that while I don't reject the idea of sociologically grounded, structural inequalities, I don't throw around such ideas lightly, especially when they're first espoused by New New Left types.

So, since Jodi Dean (linked at my earlier blog post) talked about "patriarchy" and "privilege" as part of what might be anti-Semitism against Sanders, let me further crush this nuttery.

First, as I already noted on my first blog post, talking about "patriarchy" when you're also bashing Hillary Clinton for repeatedly talking about the burden of being a woman running for high office is both self-defeating and illogical. (That said, such impediments are common — and commonly ignored — in the SJW world.)

Second, despite Vermont being just 1 percent Jewish, or a little less than half the national average, Sanders managed to be elected multiple times as both its single, statewide, U.S. Representative, then multiple times as one of its two statewide U.S. Senators, winning a total of eight House and two (so far) Senate elections. If Vermonters had anti-Semitism on their minds, they sure hid it well.

Third, on the privilege issue, let's just look at Sanders' bio, per Wikipedia, first of all.

It's true that he comes from an unprivileged background. His father was a Jewish immigrant who lost much of his family in the Holocaust. But, his parents weren't poor, either. Sanders graduated college, attending the University of Chicago for most of that time. And, I'm sure that UofC wasn't cheap then, either.

Finally, the Atlantic comes along and skewers a subset of Sanders supporters as the "Berniebro."

What happens? Someone like Doug Henwood, who should know better, but already showed that, with Sanders, just to use him as a Democratic whipping stick or whatever, refuses to "know better," laments the piece. Or at least, that was my takeaway.

In actuality, besides a skewering, there's probably a certain degree of truth to it.

Way back in 1968, Bobby Kennedy lost the Oregon Democratic primary to Eugene McCarthy. Why?

Primarily because white proto-hipster liberals in the Pacific Northwest wanted to oppose the Vietnam War and support environmentalism, but often did not want to talk about racial injustice. (And, I don't doubt that Henwood knows that.) I'm sure some of Sanders' supporters are that way today.

Hell, we don't need to go to Portland.

As I blogged about long ago, the ground zero for the Occupy movement, the original Zucotti Park gathering, was whiter, more highly educated, and richer (by parentage) than national average. This came from protestors' self-surveys, by the way.

Update, Oct. 27: If the Bern-Boosters keep up the claims that talking about Sanders speech volume in an underhanded anti-Semitic trope, I'm going to keep writing blog posts kicking you in the nads.

Support some East Texas Democrats this Saturday

The Nacogdoches County Democratic Party is planning a fall picnic for area Democrats to be held from 11 a.m.-2 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 24 at the Lamplight Theatre, intersection of the west side of Loop 224 and Old Tyler Road (FM 1638).

Dr. Shirley McKellar, candidate for U.S. House District 1, will be the featured speaker at noon

East Texas Democrats or anyone interested in joining the Democratic party are welcome to attend for a fun filled event complete with live music, games, and food and the  opportunity to become acquainted with one another and learn more about the local and national candidates running for public office. 

Bring chairs and coolers. A covered dish or dessert to share would be most welcomed.  For more information, call 936-569-8313 or email susiew44@gmail.com.

Pecan Acres park is located on Starr Avenue south of the SFASU campus between Business 59 and University Drive. 

Biden is NOT running because he did have premature withdrawal

Joe Biden, doing his Mario Cuomo 2.0 Hamlet dance

Per what seems to be a serious internal leak, following rumors late last week, following a VERY deliberate leak by Biden himself to arch-Clinton hater Maureen Dowd, following Biden getting Obama's blessing, just a couple of days ago, it looked like Vice President Joe Biden was throwing his hat in the Democratic presidential ring.

And now he's not. Is that your final answer, Mr. Biden?

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, for a man who's seemed more and more ethically challenged ('I was the first Biden to be ethically challenged as a senator"), Biden used his announcement ending his stint as Mario Cuomo 2.0 to take a few more shots at Hillary Clinton. (One wonders if he leaked the full text of his announcement in advance to MoJo Dowd, so she could start warming up her poison pen again.)

Without mentioning her by name, Mr. Biden criticized Mrs. Clinton’s assertion in last week’s Democratic debate that the Republicans are her enemies. “They are our opposition; they’re not our enemies,” he said, repeating a point he has made several times in the last 48 hours. “And for the sake of the country, we have to work together.” 

Reading from a prepared text flashed on flat screens in the Rose Garden, Mr. Biden argued against the sort of hawkish interventionism Mrs. Clinton has championed in the Middle East and elsewhere. “The argument that we just have to do something when bad people do bad things isn’t good enough,” he said. “It’s not a good enough reason for American intervention and to put our sons’ and daughters’ lives on the line, put them at risk.” 

Mr. Biden seemed to chide Mrs. Clinton for distancing herself from Mr. Obama lately, as she has done on trade, Syria, Arctic drilling and other issues. “Democrats should not only defend this record and protect this record, they should run on the record,” he said.

This is, of course, laughable.

Biden, like Clinton, voted FOR the Iraq War. And, Obama just this week said he was delaying full pullout from Afghanistan of U.S. troops. And as for the Obama-inspired Kumbaya with the modern Congressional GOP? Sorry, Joe, but you and your boss are both wrong.

Biden has more "shots," also wrong, here. Money in politics? That's rich coming from Senator MBNA.

And, no, I'm still not a Hillary Clinton supporter. I do favor some degree of ethics from both politicians and political pundits, though.

Meanwhile, speaking of pundits, JoePa's announcement again illustrates their degree of suck-up-itis.

Per the "now he's not" link, both authors of the piece, Maggie Haberman and Peter Baker, say:

At the same time, Mrs. Clinton’s allies prepared for what would have been a messy, grueling campaign against a rival whose greatest political calling card has been his authenticity. 

There's two ways to counter this.

First, does "authenticity" mean "gaffe-prone"? If that's the case, yeah, JoePa's got authenticity in spades.

Second, even as the reporting duo mentioned problems he might face in a campaign, they overlook his plagiarism of British Labor leader Neil Kinnock. There; I've reminded you, even if the weaselly NYT wouldn't.

As for political handicapping?

Short list says:

• Hillary Clinton is a winner on this. That said, maybe she's not as much a winner as might initially seem the case; the NYT says part of why Biden stayed out is that he couldn't claw away Clinton supporters.
• Bernie Sanders is a winner, because he's now the only "serious competitor."
• Martin O'Malley's is a potential winner. Can he make this actuality?
• Joe Biden is a potential loser. It remains to be seen if the final twisting of the knife in Clinton's back hurts his legacy.
• We the Getcha Popcorn People are losers on entertainment value. No "authenticity" at debates.

Post-jail, Brian Dunning still hasn't changed a bit

Brian Dunning, kind of a
Huck(ster)berry Finn

Dunning, one of the favorites of the Skeptics™ crowd, was convicted of federal felony wire fraud, then sentenced to 14 months in the stir. (Unfortunately, he didn't get the 27 months prosecutors sought.)

He's now out, and Dunning, one of the leading pseudoskeptic libertarians in the crowd, is already showing he's not learned a thing.

He's already boo-hooing about how eBay was, essentially, a bigger, more powerful libertarian than him. The fact that he calls eBay's civil suit "bogus" is part of that. (I'm surprised that he didn't get his wife, mom, and mother-in-law, since they were on his payroll from his ill-gotten booty, to add their testimonials to his piece.

The boo-hooing, as in the past, seems to shade toward the lying. And, from near the start:

(The cookie stuffing) seemed like a cheesy, fly-by-night kind of thing. But my partner pressed hard, and an acquaintance kept telling me how much money he was making.

So, let's unpack all of this.

Yours for just $15, in one of many
Dunning website ripoffs

It's "cheesy," so the man known for selling cheesy crapola, as pictured at left, on his website, wouldn't be interested. Got it.

His partner Swengali-ed a skeptic. Got it.

Money is addictive, as well as being SCOTUS-approved as "speech." Got it.

THERE's some bullshit, Brian. Sell it!

Dunning goes on from there to blame middlemen, big bad eBay for aiding and abetting his cookie-stuffing, then changing the game, and more. Very much more. In a new level of both irony and hypocrisy for an alleged skeptic ...

Dunning goes on into full-blown conspiracy theorizing:

Our rep at eBay, whom I'll call "K," sometimes gave suggestions on things to try. ... But (after my arrest) things took a dark turn. ... (W)e wanted to depose K. Turns out K had disappeared with a mysterious, unknown illness. When she resurfaced six months later, eBay had transferred her overseas to their London office.

Sure, Brian, and the melting point of steel proves al Qaeda crashing airliners couldn't have caused 9/11.

He then claims other eBay reps made "provably false statements to the FBI." They'd probably sue you, if you named them, Brian. Why don't you go ahead?

Finally, Dunning claims the conviction rate for federal wire fraud is 97 percent, so he just had to cop a plea. No choice.

The true "bogus" is that he's a quasi-guru and now, after federal jail time, he's going to have struggle to try to rebuild his old financial empire.

The true "bogus" or rather "bullshit," including what at least used to be the overpriced $15 bullshit at his website, as noted at left, is a man making enough by his cookie-skimming (and Internet cookie stuffing is the second bane of the commercialized Net after banner ads) to pay his wife $10K a month (possibly to shelter money), to pay his mom and mom-in-law both $2,500 a month and more.

(But, per Brian, they were "traumatized" by the FBI. Ahh, a libertarian conservative having sympathy with the victim, but not real, poor, minority victims before that, as far as I know. That's OK; even if they were actually victimized some small bit, $10K a month buys good psychotherapy. Maybe Dunning has that for sale on his website, for all I know? Doorknob, I'm in fine snark today.

That and more about his "shells" for his nefariousness (and it ain't alleged nefariousness, Brian, you're a convicted criminal) is at my second-last blog post about him. It's long, but, if you're just seeing Dunning, and his would-be "explanation" from his freshly-scrubbed, Hucksterberry Finn face, and think his freckly-like self could never tell a lie, a half-lie, or close to it, you need to know differently.

It's important to expose the reality of his history, and not let him take control of his narrative right away like this.

That's true because he's not alone. He's a "type." He's the one person of this type who's visible within pseudoskeptical libertarianism, and true skeptics, who think beyond narrow debunking of pseudoscience of the Skeptics™ movement, will know that's part of why the actions of a likes of Dunning, whether he's as bad as Jesse Willms or not, must be pointed out.

As must his mental doubling-down on denialism.

Hence, this response to him.

The reality? Per my last post about him before his incarceration, he tried to shield his nefariousness behind seeking nonprofit status, never had an iota of repentance, and generally saw events through Dunningesque glasses that he probably sells for $399 on his website.

"Welcome back," Brian. I'll take pleasure in punching you in the intellectual "face" if you keep uttering such stupidities.

Per that photo-poster at left, Dunning's not the only "skeptic" to confuse, or else deliberately conflate, skepticism and libertarianism. Far from it.

Among "names," Penn and Teller and Michael Shermer come immediately to mind.

Dunning is useful to me, as a reminder of the fact that the Dunning-Kruger event is about overestimating one's intelligence. I remember that it has the names of a cartoonish horror monster ... and Freddy Kruger!

Thanks, folks, I'll be here all week.

And, Brian, it will give me pleasure to continue to slap you down.

Add in that you, as on your website in general, make your webpages so your text can't be copied and pasted, guaranteed to increase my piss-off factor, and I'll slap you down.

And, slap down supporters of you, including among the Skeptics™ crowd, libertarian quasi-skeptics and libertarian pseudoskeptics. You know who you are, the D.J. Grothes, Shane Bradys and others of that world, besides more prominent names already mentioned.

In case I didn't mention you, or didn't know to mention you, please let me know

==

Update, Dec. 27, in reference to comments below, but not just to the particular person who's making them, in part extrapolating from my replies.

1. I've heard again and again from the commenter, and it may be believed by others, that "Dunning wasn't guilty."
1A. If you're a lawyer and a personal friend, why didn't you defend him yourself?
1B. If you're not, whether you want to admit it or not, I am point-blank telling you that Dunning had the money for a criminal defense better than 99 percent of Americans. He may not be 0.1 percenter, but he was a 1 percenter. Period and end of story. Therefore, if his lawyer worked out a plea deal for him, it was almost certainly because Dunning was guilty and this was the best plea bargain available. And, if that's not good enough, given the cult-like nature of Dunning's followers, why didn't one of you start a Kickstarter for his legal defense fund.

2. Because of that, I am not accepting further comments that don't argue new ground. That's not only about this post, but any about Brian Dunning.

3. To the best of my awareness, and certainly on this post, I have called bullshit on ideas and actions first, individuals second (if at all, besides Dunning himself). I have called a bunch of people "pseudoskeptics." And? Deal with it.

Pinkwashing, or even DOUBLE #pinkwashing Dallas News style

Ahh, it's October, the season when leaves turn golden yellow, orange and red in much of the country, while NFL players' cleats turn pink, in an abomination even MLB baseball doesn't (yet?) indulge.

Behind much of this is the Susan G. Komen, which, after dropping the "Race for the Cure," and dropping the "Foundation" before that, surprisingly has not followed the Dallas Morning News in capitalizing the "the," which ain't done on this block. Suck it, Snooze.

And, if you want to do some honest reporting, now that the ACS has said women should wait until 45 on mammograms, how about telling people mammograms can kill more than they save.

The Snooze has taken the pinkwashing for which Komen is known to new levels this year, putting that banner at top as a floating banner among all webpages. (Please, just trust me; do NOT reward bad behavior by visiting the News' website.)

Cheap PRwashing for the NFL, which has other problems
with women's issues, like domestic violence (can you say
Johnny Manziel?), let alone not wearing pink-gray shoes
to try to actually fight CTE.

I've already joked that, due to its lack of a paywall, and its general financials, the Snooze's website is in the pink because it's not in the black.

Meanwhile, Komen has a long history of "issues." Most of them have been lightly and belatedly reported by the Snooze. Probably because the organization was incorporated in Dallas, and via founder Nancy Brinker has lots of connection to Dallas-area heavy hitters in the conservative political world. (Husband Norman founded the Brinker restaurant conglomerate, owner of Chili's, Maggiano's, Steak and Ale, Romano's and more, either currently or in the past.)

Like Brinker, who garnered multiple Bush Administration diplomatic posts. And went on to keep garnering CEO salary at the Komen nearly a full year after saying she was stepping down. And, was quite highly paid for a nonprofit CEO had she even been one.

In the past, it's also sold products with alleged carcinogens, then tried to either ignore or bury that. Or used its muscle to fight claims about carcinogens.

Then, there was former Komen executive VP Karen Handel, deliberately separating ties with Planned Parenthood. And, since this was when Brinker was CEO, this wasn't all Handel's call. Indeed, Brinker publicly defended it.

Part of it seems to be Nancy Brinker's swelled head. NYMag documents. After she left the White House and returned to Komen (her husband had died in 2009, too), she wanted five-star treatment, and to run the "foundation" in a five-star way. And, she, a Bush "pioneer" in 2000, brought BushCo henchwomen to work with her.

The Snooze could have reported on any and all of this, of course.

But didn't. Or buried it when it did, and borrowed other reporting when it had to print something. Jim Schutze at the Dallas Observer has some past lowdown.

That said, since the Komen fiasco, Brinker moved WAY left on one social issue, supporting gay marriage. (Of course, it's because of her son. It's amazing how gays in the family can change a family matriarch or patriarch stance at times. It's both more amazing and less amazing how often it can't or won't.)

That said, I've never heard that Brinker has changed her general political stripes or her stance on reproductive choice.

Assuming she hasn't, and the Snooze wouldn't tell you anyway, that's more reason to stay away from Komen, and nonsense like pictured at left. Or above.

Speaking of ... about that second pinkwashing?

Also questionable is the design of that area on the left.

It doesn't look so much like a breast cancer ribbon as it does an ichthys.

A WHAT?

That's the Greek word for "fish." As in the far-right Christian fish symbol.

Like St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Adam Wainwright, and his lyingly claiming to be paying tribute to Stan Musial on the Busch Stadium mound last year. (Click link for photo and story.)

And, no, it wouldn't surprise me if the Snooze is trying a double brainwashing. I've already Tweeted it and gotten bupkis as a response.

Or, yet more on the first brainwashing.

Per Brinker's outlandish salary, how's it rank as a charity?

Charity Navigator only gives it two stars out of four.

An American's Canadian election post mortem for the #NDP

Tom Mulcair: Please feel
free to exit the NDP cabin.

Yes, it's a post-mortem, and I come to bury Stephen Harper and also not to praise him.

That said, my real post-mortem is for the New Democratic Party, commonly known by its three initials; hence the hashtag.

For Americans unaware of Canada's political structure, a couple of points.

First, it's a parliamentary government, with its House of Commons closely paralleling Great Britain's.

Related to that, it, like the UK (and the US House of Representatives), has a "first past the post system." That means, there are no runoffs if no candidate in a race that has three or more fails to get an absolute majority.

And, related to that? Just as Britain has the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Labor, Canada has the Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats. And, those two spectrums parallel.

The Canadian Liberals are the centrist party; think US Democrats. The Conservatives? On outgoing Prime Minister Harper, think very much of a northern George W. Bush.

And, the New Democrats? Think Bernie Sanders, but under less charismatic leadership.

Thomas Mulcair became party leader after Jack Layton, the NDP leader who brought it to second place and official parliamentary opposition, died relatively young of cancer.

Mulcair had several handicaps coming into this election.

First, as Canadian friends of mine have said, he's not very charismatic. Not even compared to Harper. Of course, Justin Trudeau is somewhat Canada's answer to Jack Kennedy, so lack of charisma is a big issue.

Second, his own party took four ballots to elect him leader.

Maybe that's in part because he is a bit of a carpetbagger, according to Wikipedia. At the provincial level, he was a Liberal before resigning from the provincial cabinet. He then went party-hunting, not only with the national Liberals and NDP, but also with the Conservatives.

Anyway, his campaign had one big strategic error, and some tactical gaffes related to that.

I believe Mulcair ran not to lose, rather than running to win, especially when polls showed the NDP surging into the lead about a month into the 11-week campaign.

In its details, I think he figured Harper, enraged by the red flag of the Trudeau name (Harper has said Pierre Trudeau's 1980 energy tax led him into politics), would punch himself out more against the Liberals. All Mulcair had to do was play defense, and counterpunch when Harper targeted him.

At this point, I'm going to shoot down a red herring.

Some Canadian friends of mine suggest the NDP lost over the niqab issue, since Quebec is the party's stronghold, with Ontario second. I don't think that rings true. The Liberals took the same stance, and most the seats the NDP lost went Liberal; they didn't switch to the Bloc Québécois, let alone Conservatives.

Then, there's the tactical errors

First was pledging a balanced budget, especially when Mulcair's policies could have hurt the energy industry more than Trudeau's. (This sets aside some seeming flip-flops on pipelines by Mulcair.) Canada's economy probably could use some "juicing," and credit Trudeau, despite the ways in which I expect him to be Canada's Hillary Clinton, for seeing this.

The second was piling on, on the Conservatives' "not ready" attack line on Trudeau. I think calling Trudeau "Justin" at the one debate was seen for nothing but a pile-on. Worse, since the Conservatives' tactic was already backfiring, it had the potential of blowing up in Mulcair's face twice.

And I think it did.

Canada needs a truly liberal party, and it needs one under better leadership.

So, speaking from south of the border? MP Mulcair, you may have held your Outremont riding and kept your seat. Please follow Harper's pledge and resign as party leader as soon as possible.

Adding too this? The founder of 308, Canada's answer to 538 et al, says that NDP voters were less committed than Liberal backers.

Biden is finally running! (Unless he has premature withdrawal)

Per what seems to be a serious internal leak, following rumors late last week, following a VERY deliberate leak by Biden himself to arch-Clinton hater Maureen Dowd, following Biden getting Obama's blessing (will an endorsement follow?) in August, this will seem like a relief, as much as anything.

(Update, Oct. 21: He DID have premature withdrawal; he's not running.)

In case you're wondering, for me to pass on certain information, while JoePa will make the Democratic race yet more geriatric, he still will NOT be the oldest candidate in the field. Click the link to confirm that.

He's got other baggage, though.

While more progressive on gay rights than Hillary Clinton, he, like her, voted for the Iraq War. And he, like her, voted to make bankruptcy filing tougher.

Since he's fron Delaware, credit card heaven, not for nothing have I called him Senator MBNA before.

As for political handicapping?

Short list says:

Hillary Clinton is a loser on this.
Bernie Sanders is a winner, just because the neolib vote gets more fractured.
Martin O'Malley's a big loser. That "whoosh" you heard was the sound of oxygen leaving his campaign.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an even bigger loser. If she tries any Clintonista stuff now, she's got the vice president, with past Senate connections, etc., bigfooting her.
We the Getcha Popcorn People are winners on entertainment value. No Kumbaya at the next debate, speaking of Schultz. And, we will likely have Biden pushing for more debates.

TX Progressives tackle #HERO, state amendments, #DemDebate, more

The Texas Progressive Alliance is ready to vote as it brings you this week's roundup, reminding you that, in the Great White North, Joey Bats "supports the NDP," even in a failing effort.

Off the Kuff would like to clear up some myths about sexual assault.

Libby Shaw at Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos argues Governor Greg Abbott cannot claim to be  pro-life when he denies federally expanded Medicaid coverage for 766,000 Texans. The Holy Ones and the Senseless Cruelty of Right Wing Dogma.

Socratic Gadfly offers up a Democratic debate related trio. First, he presents his snarky, under-the-bus debate preview. Second, he provides his take on debate winners and losers. Third, he tackles a post-debate conspiracy theory by some Sanders supporters, that anti-Semitism is behind some opposition to Sanders.

Brains and Eggs offers his full slate of Houston elections and state amendment endorsements.

Clinton backer Jobsanger gets schizophrenic about Bernie Sanders, praising him then damning him.

McBlogger has no problem accepting Hillary Clinton's explanation on not reinstating Glass-Steagall.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme notes Republicans choose the CEO, even if headquartered out of state, over the citizens they were elected to serve. Worker safety?  Not at the expense of profits.  The water you drink?  The air you breathe?  Even the wind. Not yours.

Nonsequiteuse, writing for Burnt Orange Report, points out that voting yes on Prop 1 in Houston isnít just the right thing to do, itís your patriotic duty.

Neil at All People Have Value took a picture of the sun over Houston. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

Just in time for Early Voting, Texas Leftist
took a moment to compile all of the TLCQ 2015 responses. Find out where Houston municipal candidates stand on less "press grabbing" issues like complete streets and Mayoral power.
====================

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

Juanita reports on the #CocksNotGlocks protest at UT.

Grits for Breakfast has a suggestion for Dan Patrick if he really wants to reduce police officer deaths.

Texas Clean Air Matters would like to change the conversation about the Clean Power Plan in Texas.

Texas Watch has a Netflix recommendation for you.

The Texas Election Law Blog wonders if we are ever going to get a court order regarding 2016 legislative and Congressional boundaries.

Amy Valentine navigates her way through Amazon's creative standards as she attempts to promote her book about her breast cancer experience for Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Melissa Hudnall bemoans anatomically incorrect spider costumes and decorations.