Friday night lights: UIL greed and stupidity mean participation trophies for all

The Era Hornets, thanks to various University Interscholastic League stupidities, are going to the playoffs with a winless ...

Not just district record, but winless entire season.

Great catch and great open-field tackle both. But one of four straight penalties meant it "never happened."
That, the sloppiness and more are kind of symbolic of the UIL and Texas high school football.

The Hornets and Cumby Trojans, who squared off tonight, play in a four-team District 9 Class 2A Division 2, after Campbell dropped down to six-man this year out of a five-team district.

Remember before UIL split each of the five 11-man classes into big and small schools, and sorted out the bigger and smaller ones for the split for the playoffs at the end of the regular season?

Remember also that districts with six or fewer teams just sent three to the playoffs?

Yes and yes.

But, due to greed over more and more playoff games — a greed that starts at UIL but, like Reaganomics, trickles down, now, no matter how small the district, four teams make the postseason. And, to keep small-school halves of each class from getting butt-hurt or whatever, the classes are each split in half.

I thought UIL was in Texas, where the men are men and the sheep are nervous. Instead, it acts like a bunch of those San Francisco "sissies."

Cumby and Era were both 1-1 on the season entering the game. An Era win would have made a three-way tie for second with the two of them and Tioga, and all three teams 1-1 against each other. Fortunately, Cumby pulled out a 20-8 win to prevent that nonsense on top of the UIL nonsense already at hand.

But the possibility of ties like that are another problem with a four-team district.

Update: Era lost its first-round game to Mount Enterprise by a 44-0 count.

Scott Santens, cryptocurrency lover

While I am interested in the general idea of basic income, I have long and strenuously disagreed with basic income guru-evangelist Scott Santens' specifics.

That starts with Santens' bad math. If you can't get the math right (and Scott didn't even come close), you've lost credibility. Especially when you also add some loss-leader angles into your pitch.

Above all, I ABSOLUTELY reject his idea of replacing part of Social Security with basic income.  Beyond that, I reject replacing unemployment benefits, disability income, or other safety net items with basic income. Behind that, I reject his "solutionism" idea of simply throwing out the door any social program that doesn't work as well as he claims (puffery and all) BI would.

Second, I reject his ancillary claims, like the one that BI will magically reduce stress.

Third, I called on Santens, and call on others, to consider guaranteed employment as an alternative to BI.

Fourth, especially given One and Two, and per a long review of a long Boston Review seminar written roundtable, I encourage people to know what is realistic and what is not.

In general, I've already thought his BI ideas too libertarian, and too susceptible to being further manipulated by harder-core libertarians.

And now, and also based in part on an old Tweet of his claiming BI is "neither liberal nor conservative," I'm wondering just how libertarian Scott is himself.

That wonderment is increased by seeing he is a cryptocurrency enthusiast. No, he's more than that.

As with BI, he's a cryptocurrency guru-evangelist. I'd forgotten that I'd seen hints of this before, but this is full blown.

NO. Cryptocurrencies, IMO, are part of libertarian wet dreams for undermining nation-states. Santens idea of a Fed-based crypto would be soundly rejected by real crypto backers, as would his other ideas that seem to try to weld a national cryptocurrency with something like Modern Monetary Theory. I think I just threw up in Scott's mouth. (I've written before about the Maoist cult of MMT.)

Beyond that?

He repeats his BI stress reduction claims about crypto.

Beyond THAT?

What should be the bottom line for any Green.

AND, if we're going to be serious about climate change, we MUST address how much electricity cryptocurrency bitmining expends. (I wouldn't even ask Santens to comment on that; I'm sure he'd give a puff answer that's not true.)

So, Greens like Laura Palmer? Feel free to out BI, but as I told her on Twitter, do NOT tout Santens' version of it when I'm around. It's climate-change unfriendly, at least as it stands now.

==

Side note: If I am understanding him correctly, Douglas Rushkoff thinks cryptocurrency is, well, is, a semi-Ponzi scheme. And I wouldn't argue.

The difficulties for running for president as a Green

The Green Party is one of two relatively larger third parties in the U.S., along with the Libertarians.

Libertarians have generally helped their relative standing in presidential races by running either rich businessmen with leisure time and money to invest, or former Republicans with high profiles. True-blue Libertarian nutbar Michael Bednarik in 2004 is the only person since Andre Marrou in 1992 to not fit that profile.

Philosophically, Greens aren't running rich business leaders, and in the equivalent of ex-Republicans, former Democratic congresscritter Cynthia McKinney in 2008 is the only one of those.

Greens have instead, with that one exception, generally nominated people of moderate wealth (vis-a-vis the US plutocrats) and some of them with a name recognition level. Ralph Nader had that in 1996 and 2000 of course. Jill Stein had it in her second run in 2016, the name recognition. Both were rich enough to be multimillionaires and to be able to invest a small amount of personal money in their races. David Cobb was the one exception, and he got the Green nomination because of factionalism related to party organizing, or lack thereof, connected to claims that the party was conspiring to block Nader. (I at most halfway disagree with Jeff St. Clair on this. The GP is too disorganized to conspire successfully about anything at a national level, but its non-centralization plank has allowed state parties to run the show, and in many cases, to be overrepresented nationally.)

So, what's a candidate to do?

So far in the 2020 cycle, we don't even have moderately wealthy Greens. Here, Howie Hawkins has the advantage, at least, of being retired. He can hit the hustings for money and general support in person more than any other candidate. This is not to slight Dario Hunter or Ian Schlakman, both of whom interest me as presidential candidates as well, but simply to note the additional hurdles they face.

What Hawkins may do with any leftover funds he has, should he not get the nomination, I don't know. I've not yet donated to him personally, and in the past, all my presidential-related donations have been to the party, not to an individual candidate. But, he is raising the party's, as well as his own, visibility already.

At the same time, his push for ballot access in more and more states, and earlier and earlier, while it will benefit local Greens and will benefit whoever the presidential nominee is, whether Hawkins or not? I can see how some people see it as a Hawkins-party team interface.

I'm not sure exactly where I'm headed with my thoughts, otherwise. I will note that Hawkins is right on better organization all around, not just on fundraising, by the party is important. That includes training sessions on how to launch petition drives. The day before his Dallas appearance, he was in Arizona, and in part to help the party there with a ballot access petition drive.

I also get Hawkins' idea of running a two-prong platform by also seeking, and getting, the SPUSA nod. But, I still think he's breaking party rules.

Update, July 1, 2020: Old Green Party election language confirms that this is indeed the case, so shut up, Howie-haters. And, yes, Howie-haters are out there, and lying in ever greater numbers since he appeared to have clinched the nomination. Even before that, it became clear to me that the rule is a "spirit of" issue, made more clear by the fact that Stein also sought the nomination of smaller third parties, like Peace and Freedom, in 2016. (She didn't get it, but she sought it. She was not a registered member of that party — if it has registered memberships, but she sought the nomination.) So now, more and more, it looks like this is an issue being driven by a technical interpretation of the rule combined with Howie hatred.

MLB Veterans: Who deserves the Hall, who doesn't

The "Veterans Committee" (I still call it that) has released 10 nominees for the Hall of Fame for their nomination ballot. It takes 75 percent of the 16 members to get them in.

So, here's my take on who should and should not get in.

Note: Here's the 16 committee members who will vote Dec. 7 on this year's veterans' class.

Lou Whitaker is a no-brainer. BBWAA is criminal for not only not voting him in, but far worse, dropping him off the ballot after one year, not hitting the 5 percent. Criminal. And yet, the highly overrated Jon Heyman still can't support him.

Whitaker's one problem was "no peak." One 5WAR and one 6WAR year side by side, then a 5 and a 6 in two out of three years — seven years later. But 75 career WAR and 13th on 2B Jaws. He was somewhat of a compiler, no doubt about that. But he had so many solid years that at some point, "compiler" moves into Hall of Fame territory.

Dwight Evans is a tough borderline case. I'm OK with him being elected. I'm OK with him not being elected. Dewey,  like Sweet Lou, didn't have much of a peak. He also, myths aside, was a negative dWAR on his career. 67 WAR, 15th in RF Jaws.

Thurman Munson, not Ted Simmons (and I'm a Cards fan) is the best Hall-eligible catcher not already in. We forget that Munson died at just age 32. He'd likely be at 55 WAR to Ted's 50 had he played out the rest of a normal career. BBWAA is also criminal for not voting him in. (55 WAR would put him above the average of catchers already in the Hall and that high, and assuming his actual seven year peak as is, his JAWS would also go above Hall average. Had he played out that way, he'd have a JAWS of 46, in the top 10 for catchers, even if you count Mauer's entire career as a catcher.) In his case, unlike Sweet Lou's, I know why. It was his cantankerous relationship with New York media. But, rounding up 4.9WAR to 5, he had 4 5WAR or better years in five seasons, including a 7-WAR year, rare for catchers. Ted? Like Dewey in RF, he's my "cutoff standard" for the Hall. Among drawbacks is being a bit of a "compiler" with less than 20 career WAA.

Dale Murphy is not a HOFer. Been down this road before, Tomahawk Choppers. Less than 50 WAR, and 16 WAA. As for his back-to-back MVPs the fanbois tout? In 1982, he was essentially tied for fourth in WAR. In 1983, he was essentially in a six-way tie for first.

And, not counting alleged roiders and those not yet eligible? Here's two other non-HOFers who have won two MVPs:
Juan Gonzales
Roger Maris
That said, Juan Gone was totally undeserving both times.
Maris even won back to back, like the Murph. Maris, though, was outright first in his first win, in 1960. He and Juan Gone are both around 40 WAR. Less than 10 WAR behind the Murph.

And, one of the Fansided nutters (and worse, Fanbois in comments) drinks and pours the Kool-Aid big time.

Dave Parker? Loved booing the Cobra in his Pirates heyday from the RF bleachers at old Busch. Not a HOFer. Lower than Murphy.

But not MUCH lower. As I noted in going down the Murph road before, if you blind boxed both their stats, you'd think one was the other.

Tommy John? A compiler. A pioneer with the surgery but not a HOFer as a player. Below 25 WAA. Kind of like Jim Kaat, but a better compiler.

Steve Garvey and Don Mattingly? No. Sorry for Donnie Baseball's back problems, but his career as stands? No. Garvey? He's the most overrated Dodger 1B since Gil Hodges, though Steve might deserve entry into other halls, wink wink. Sadly, this is one of Bill James' biggest wrongs.

Marvin Miller? Hellz yes, but as in past elections, he may be blackballed.

==

That said, with a previous VC electing Friend of Tony named Harold Baines, and Jack Morris, to the Hall? Who knows who will get in. And who knows if La Russa isn't going to be a new Frankie Frisch of the Veterans Committee on this.

Texas Progressives analyze the voting entrails

The leaves are turning color up here on the Red. Did this week's constitutional amendments election portend any color changing in the tea leaves of Texas politics a year from now?

Nationally, the tea leaves look more blue-ish in Virginia and Kentucky; it would be nice for them to have a third color, if eternal green translated into party success.


Texas politics

All constitutional amendments passed — but one. Sadly, wingnuts got a constitutional bar to an income tax that could also affect the franchise tax, contra denials. Meanwhile, it looks like municipal judges can't hold multiple elected judgeships. Details here.

Off the Kuff looked at the lawsuit filed by Democratic groups over the new law that bans temporary voting locations.


Texana

Texas Monthly garners reader contributions about celebrating Dia de los Muertos.

Pivoting from folk Catholicism to Lutheranism, SocraticGadfly goes over to his second blog, where he wished a Happy Reformation Day to some gun nutz for Luther, officially known as Armed Lutheran Radio and headquartered right here in Texas.

Jones County, stuck with an empty prison and a boatload of debt, bets on locking up Ill Eagles and putting them on ICE.

The Texas Trib turns 10. Congratulations, either hearty, medium, or small, may or may not be in order. I've thawed a bit from what I wrote on its 5-year anniversary, but much of Jim Moore's spirit is still mine. Congrats are moderate and wary, and I'll have more in a few days.


Houston

Incumbent Mayor Sly Turner is headed to a runoff with Tony Buzbee.


Dallas

Josh Hamilton, most likely off the sobriety wagon (I wondered when he cut all his old support staff a couple of years ago) allegedly injured his one daughter. Christmas and New Year's Eve are not too far away; if you need help, and don't want the 12-step approach, visit Lifering Recovery.

Carrollton is the latest place in Texas of any size to suffer a cyberattack and it's still recovering.

Pete Freedman asks the important question: Was the founder of the city of Dallas a cephalopod?


Fort Worth

Jim Schutze of the Dallas Observer moseys over to Cowtown again and asks, if the city wants a diversity director, why did it fire who Schutze considers its previous one, its last police chief? OK, Jim, let's not ride this horse too far, as you do at times.


San Antonio

Sanford Nowlin reports on the continuing fight over San Antonio's paid sick leave ordinance.


National

God, lack of donors or whomever call Bob on a Knob O'Rourke "home" and out of the Democratic presidential race, after his pandering 0 for 2 wrongness on Constitutional issues failed to boost his campaign. Julián Castro does a better impersonation of Oral Roberts and gets enough new money to stay in.

Howie Hawkins got the SPUSA nomination and immediately launched an eligibility issue and other issues within the Green Party, where he is also running, into even higher gear. I address all that.

Brains, in his weekly 2020 update, discusses Bob, Julián, Howie and Lizzie Borden Warren and her Swiss cheese Medicare for all plan.

Christopher Hooks gets in some last bromance for Bob on a Knob as he bids farewell to the Beto for President campaign. Just when Hooks has a string of unbroken hits, well, he does something like this.

Jim Henson and Joshua Blank analyze the October UT/Trib poll that shows plurality support for the Trump impeachment inquiry.

Therese Odell thanks Washington Nationals fans for their appropriate greeting of Donald Trump at the World Series.

Fellow Rethugs in the Senate rejected Sen. Rand Paul (R-Squirrel Hair) when he called to deanonymize the Ukraine whistleblower.


Elections

Good-bye, Matt Bevin, Xn Right hack job as K-Y Jelly gov. CNN also reports that both houses of the Virginia Lege flipped, and that the MISSISSIPPI gov's race. according to Cook, was lean Republican and NOT "likely Republican" any longer.

While Virginia was an actual swing, the Kentucky results appear to be mainly just a refudiation of Matt Bevin, when one looks at all statewide races.

In Texas? The Secretary of State's webpage with constitutional amendment ballot language was jacked up, calling Amendments 9 and 10 both 7.

Jill Stein slouches the rest of the way to Gomorrah

I'm still of multiple minds about her 2016 trip to Russia. It had elements of sincerity, as well as elements of a campaign stunt. I certainly don't think she, or Gen. Flynn, or Justice Party prez candidate Rocky Anderson, were under Russian control. But, I do think she and the other two had their appearances manipulated by Putin.

Stein discusses that, Russiagate and Howie Hawkins' take on it and more in this excerpt from an interview by Primo Nutbar, officially known as Primo Nutmeg. (I've briefly mentioned him before here, and run into him in more depth on Twitter. He earns the renaming.)

The "more"?

When Stein heard about the idea of libertarian Jesse Ventura (noted as such in my review of potential GP candidates), and conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura (he is), running for the Green Presidential nomination, and that antivaxxer RFK Jr. would be his wingman if Jesse had his druthers, she was all for it. He's also a HAARP conspiracy theorist.

(Update, Nov. 15: New research, as written up by the Guardian, shows RFK Jr.'s World Mercury Project was one of the top two buyers of antivaxxer ads on Facebook.)

In 2016, I defended Stein from charges of being an antivaxxer. I said she was playing footsie with the issue for political reasons within the GP, but she wasn't an antivaxxer.

That defense is now officially gone, Stein. You're an antivaxxer.

You're also a relatively poor interview, per the first half of the interview. The halting, hesitant answers, as you seem to seek the right political ground yourself? You should be past that.

(Update 2, Nov. 15: Stein also, according to the Bezos Post, wants Tulsi Gabbard to run as a Green.)

That said, Stein is right on Ian Schlakman whining about the GP's accreditation process for "certified" candidates. And, since I've called Howie half-wrong on his angle on Russian election meddling, Stein is half right. Maybe more.

She's largely wrong about her recount, even if it got a few good results. The AccommoGreen still refuses to admit that the likely reason she sought the recount (I doubt she knew that state law blocked her in Minnesota and New Hampshire) was to block Trump, and maybe only secondarily, look at electoral issues.

Well, between this and Howie breaking party rules (while at the same time exposing the number of conspiracy theorists among Greens), the party is cracking up more and more, and needs to do so, IMO. I thought Hawkins getting the Green nomination would flush out some conspiracy theorists. It may still do so, but unless he gets a waiver on his rule breaking, I can't vote for him.

Mark Lause was both expecting and hoping for such a crack-up three years ago, as I blogged at the time. He seems righter than ever.

The real single-season home run record holder is ???

If you're like me, you don't want to give it to either Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire before him cuz roids. Third in line is Sammy Sosa, and scratch him, too, of course.

So, Roger Maris?

First, for those of you who say "greenies" back then, I've said more than once that IMO they didn't have the same effect as steroids or HGH, especially when you compare a bowl of pills in a locker room vs Bonds' scientific support.

Second, I simply don't picture Maris doing that.

So, Maris? Asterisk of Ford Frick or not?

But, but, but ...

He, like Ruth before him, played on that short porch in Yankee Stadium's right field.

So ....

A sabermetric, drug-free home run record holder?

Let's change that to ... sabermetric, drug-free, expansion free.

Per a commenter below, and my own check on splits, not only in 1961, but basically not at all during his seven years in pinstripes, did Maris have any notable advantage, including not at all in 1961.

BUT? 1961 was an expansion year, and, as with later expansions, it benefited batters at pitchers' expense, in general.

Maybe Hank Greenberg and his 58 in 1938. Briggs (Tiger) Stadium back then, as until it was torn down early this century, was a barn. I couldn't find park factors back quite that far, but Baseball Prospectus goes back to 1950. (If you're a stathead, bookmark that.) And, it consistently shows it was a barn, and though not going just on homeruns, but presumably connected to that, has 1B, 2B and 3B factors. Remember Greenberg was a rightly. 3B factors generally are the worst looking, as far as the batter side of the equation, in old Tiger.

Add in the rumor, at least, that Greenberg got a lot of intentional walks late in the year because of racism, as in nobody wanted "that Jew" breaking Ruth's record, even as Hitler was expanding his power and virulence.

And a tidbit: Jimmie Foxx with a higher BA led Greenberg on OPS and OPS+.

It's worth remembering there that Greenberg actually enlisted in 1941, and missed all of three years plus most of a fourth. Ted Williams, of course, missed five years from two wars, and Bob Feller missed three-plus, almost as much as Greenberg. Had Hank gotten all his years in, he surely would have been in the top 10 in 1B JAWS. I'm sure he'd be behind Lou Gehrig and Albert Pujols, and probably Foxx, but, oh, right about at Cap Anson and above Jeff Bagwell? Yes.

A-Rod, of course, also had 58 one year with the Mariners, but see above.

On the other hand, Briggs was NOT a barn for Greenberg. Check my comment below.

So, is it Giancarlo Stanton?

First, I think he's clean, so no Bonds-type asterisks. Second, 2017 Miami's Marlins Park was almost as much a barn as Tiger Stadium. Third, unlike Greenberg, Stanton played in the post-integration era, plus (and this swings both ways) night baseball, and coast-to--coast travel (which probably affects position players more than pitchers).

And, 59 homers tops 58, setting aside Greenberg's intentional walks.

On the other hand? In both 2017 and his second best year, 2014, he, like Greenberg, hit more at home despite being in a pitcher-friendly park.

Note on that: MLB didn't track intentional walks at that time. That said, Greenberg had a career high of 119 total walks. Stanton had 13 IBBs and 98 total in 2017.

Howie Hawkins, Greens, Socialist Party USAversus the apparent whining of Ian Schlakmanalong with the apparent conniving of Dario Hunterand a seeming hot mess for the Green Party

Update, Nov. 9: Please note the header has been updated. For why, see near the bottom, in two places, in italics.

Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins also sought the Socialist Party USA nomination, and got it, meaning that if the Greens go off the rails, I have a candidate. I think. (SPUSA was on the ballot by write-in  in Texas in 2016.) Sadly, his only opposition was the WAY underage (constitutionally) Elijah "Beau" Manley, who pulled the same stunt with Greens in 2016. Here's an interview with Howie and his campaign staff.

Sorry, Howie, but IMO, you're not a "legal" Green candidate.

Running on the SPUSA line has drawn flak from other Green candidates. Howie's team, led by Margaret Flowers on Twitter, claims SPUSA isn't Federal Election Commission registered and therefore it doesn't violate Greens' two-party rules. Richard Winger of Ballot-Access News says it IS FEC  registered. That ALSO said, political parties only HAVE TO register with the FEC if they meet certain criteria. And, per Richard Winger, the FEC lists it among parties for which it has codes for candidates filing federal financial reports.

Ian Schlakman, the main complainer about Hawkins, has now withdrawn from the race. I've asked him on Twitter for a short course on why, without having to fast-forward through an hour-long video interview. He does address it a bit on his Medium site.

So, let's look through some stuff.

Update, July 1, 2020, partially summarizing older updates below: Old Green Party election language confirms that this is indeed the case, so shut up, Howie-haters. And, yes, Howie-haters are out there, and lying in ever greater numbers since he appeared to have clinched the nomination. Even before that, it became clear to me that the rule is a "spirit of" issue, made more clear by the fact that Stein also sought the nomination of smaller third parties, like Peace and Freedom, in 2016. (She didn't get it, but she sought it. She was not a registered member of that party — if it has registered memberships, but she sought the nomination.) So now, more and more, it looks like this is an issue being driven by a technical interpretation of the rule combined with Howie hatred.

Per Green Party rules, Section X is the rubber hitting the road on all of this. And, Ian's right.

10-1.2 addresses Hawkins:

Party Affiliation: Candidate is not a registrant or otherwise a party member of any state or national level political party in the individual’s primary state of residence except for a state party which has affiliated with GPUS, or a party forming for the intent of GPUS affiliation in a state where there is no GPUS affiliated state party.

Sorry, Margaret Flowers, that doesn’t say “FEC registered” anywhere.

Andy Ellis, also a Maryland Green (like Flowers, Schlakman and Kevin Zeese — maybe a plague would solve some problems) thinks Hawkins is in the clear. He thinks this by using the "or" disjunctive in the "state or national level political party" differently than I do, then referring to "individual's primary state of residence" in what seems to be a legalistic way, further expounded on Facebook.

The "Or"? If the SPUSA is a federal party, even if not recognized as such in New York State, and Hawkins is running for president, a cross-state race? Then "national level" clearly should apply.

Contra Andy's Jesuitical take on Medium, 10-1.2 also does not say that "political party" definition, especially for presidential race, should be restricted to the state of primary residence.

You know what? This sounds like something that may have sprouted from the fertile mind of David Keith Cobb.

On the other hand, the rule was surely written to prohibit Dem-Green fusion. And, the party has nominated AccommoGreens David Cobb and Jill Stein, who played footsie with Dems even tho not being members of that party.

(Update, May 16, 2020: Old Green Party election language confirms that this is indeed the case, so shut up, Howie-haters. And, yes, Howie-haters are out there, and lying in ever greater numbers since he appeared to have clinched the nomination.)

That said, I do also know that Schlakman had not been officially certified before he withdrew. I also, also know that the certification process is a pretty low bar. Dario Hunter as well as Hawkins has been certified.

Schlakman claims in his Medium piece that the certification process makes Greens like Dems.

That said, IMO, Ian’s kind of a whiner on being “certified.”

He just had to:

1. Pledge to appear on all state party ballots;
2. Have a dedicated website;
3. Get 100 signatures of support from official Green Party members, from at least five state parties;
4. Raise $5,000, with at least $300 from five different states (but hey, it took Sema Hernandez 10 months to raise just $7,000 here in Texas as a Democrat with a repeat run for the Senate), or $100 from each of 10 states or $10 each from 100 individual donors;
5. Have a federal campaign committee registered with the FEC.

Nothing TOO difficult there, dude. And here on Facebook, Kat Gruene says the finance threshold is just $1K not $5K. Kat is presumably right; she's plugged-in enough. So, Ian's really whining. AND, the GP needs to have somebody updating its website. That's not at all good when we have some serious rules argumentation issues and we don't have a current version of the rules online.

Update, April 23, 2020: Contra what Ian may be telling others on Twitter? The 2016 requirements to be a "recognized candidate" are basically the same as 2020.

Well, if your cantankerousness is as bad as reported, and the "official Green Party" members is kind of stringently defined, maybe you couldn't meet the signatures. Or, given that your "People For Ian Schlakman" FEC committee has no data listed, I guess you couldn't meet the $5K.

The only reasonable complaint he might have is that non-certified candidates will be delisted from the GP website and with relatively short notice.

On the third hand, Ian, that's also in the rules:

10-3.2 Candidate Access: Candidates who are officially recognized shall, through use of fair, equitable and published procedures, be eligible for special campaign assistance offered at the discretion of the GPUS, which may include special postings on GPUS websites, use of GPUS contact lists, or special visibility on GPUS communication channels.

So, again, you're whining, and you're being selective about how the rules should apply.

Schlackman missed the 100-signature requirement as well, and ALSO did not turn in his candidate questionnaire, per the party's candidates page. Dude, THAT could have been done long ago. 

Green insiders within Texas, like Katija Gruene, agree with me on both the rules issues. She said explicitly that she sees the two-party issue as a problem, with "everyone knows the general 2 parities [sic] ruling is issue."

So, as it is right now?

The only recognized Green Party candidate in my book? Dario Hunter.

(Update, Nov. 9: Per Andy Ellis of the Maryland Green Party, looks like Dario was a conniver to cut off the eligibility, by an imposed deadline, to be a certified candidate. Just wow. Maybe now, we have NO recognized candidates.)

I get what Hawkins is doing, but ... it's not allowed. At least, it shouldn't be, without some party buy-in.

Kind of ironic, at a minimum, right now, isn't it?

So, now we're back to that "I think" in the first paragraph.

Had Hawkins asked for a waiver of 10-1.2 at this year's Green Party convention, and gotten it, I'd be OK with that. Following the rules. But? He didn't. And, he was already eyeing both the Green and SPUSA races at that time.

That, too, has been noted by someone with whom I agree a fair amount of the time on Facebook. It was Howie's choice to pursue this two-prong strategy, including not seeking such a waiver.

That said, this isn't the first time.

Update, Nov. 9: It's now clear that the rule is a "spirit of" issue, made more clear by the fact that Stein also sought the nomination of smaller third parties, like Peace and Freedom, in 2016. (She didn't get it, but she sought it. She was not a registered member of that party — if it has registered memberships, but she sought the nomination.) So now, more and more, it looks like this is an issue being driven by a technical interpretation of the rule combined with Howie hatred.

Also, in light of the first italicized update, Dario staffers and Howie staffers appear to be trying to negotiate a post-nomination truce, with Hunter stans asking for Hawkins' support if Dario wins. Well, since he is the SPUSA nominee, don't see that happening. Onward. And, if per a recent Tweet or two by Dario, he really sees himself as that different from Howie, then? 

Per this?

In response to questions, there will be no joint ticket with any other present Green Pres. candidates. There isn’t enough commonality of values, platform focus and campaign approach to make that palatable or workable. Peace, love and respect to all campaigns and their supporters.

— Dario Hunter (@dario4america) November 7, 2019

And this?

I pledge that I will not run against the Green Party Pres. nominee in 2020 (whether for another party or as an independent) in the general election. #Hunter2020 values our party’s integrity and the responsibility we share in uniting to build the Green Party.

— Dario Hunter (@dario4america) November 7, 2019

Sir, focus on selling your campaign to a majority of Green Party delegates.

Meanwhile, back to the anti-Howie nuttery that grows and grows.

Jonah Earl Thomas:

I want Howie to work to mend the party, but it looks like he's far more interested in courting small socialist splinters outside the party than his opponents inside the party.

That seems to be about it. No recognition that he should have at least done my waiver route if he was going to pursue this. (That said, Greens talking about "small socialist splinters" should always beware that Democrats say the same about Greens, not that Democrats are courting.)

The biggest thing is that Jonah says he'll support the nominee no matter what. I've already indicated I likely won't do that.

Update, Nov. 9: Both Dario's actions and the Stein 2016 background have greatly softened me on the "won't vote Howie" angle. See more below.

I had always thought that, if the GP's candidate, or the party, went off the rails, I'd vote SPUSA. But, if Hawkins is the Green as well as SPUSA candidate, and he doesn't ask for a waiver at the 2020 Green national convention, or get the rule modified? He won't get my vote on either party's ballot line. (I think; see my caveat above.) If he asks for a Green waiver, but doesn't get it, I'll still consider him on the SPUSA line. But even that isn't guaranteed.

And, I've already said I won't vote Marxist/Communist, or Marxist under some sort of socialist party label.

And, all of this doesn't even count that Howie is half-right, half-wrong (at best) on Russian election interference, while any Green candidate, or any individual, who claims Russia did nothing, is more than half wrong, and far wronger than Hawkins.

Speaking of, in that post I said one good thing about Howie getting nominated — if he does — it would flush conspiracy theory rats out of the system. I already blocked Jasun Thor Easley. (GP official Facebook group is "public" so I'm not breaking my social media ethics standards.) Dude also posts pseudomedicine on his Twitter feed. A couple of more are lined up and one other, George Hayduke, got blocked a week or two ago. Easley was also a thread troll.

So, current summary? If Andy Ellis is right about Dario Hunter (and it seems so), then neither candidate is unsullied. I'd still prefer Hawkins ask for a waiver (and hopefully get it).

Meanwhile, Chad Wilson, another uncertified candidate, has started a petition to boot Howie. I just asked him if he'll start a similar one about Dario. He has refused to answer.

Also, contra Schlakman (whose whining may be congenital for all I know), I agree with the GP's "certified candidate" process. I don't care if it "looks like" the Dems or not. Its level of "weed clearing" is just minor. The only difference is that I might have extended the certification deadline to Dec. 31.

But, as is? It got rid of a chronic whiner as well as a 2016 repeat who's also a repeat on playing the SJW card when things don't go her way. (Not just my opinion; the late Bruce Dixon of Black Agenda Report felt the same way.)

And, the whole schmeer? As disgusting as some Greens may find it, it's not just the lawmaking part of politics that's like sausage. It's just that with the Greens being much smaller than  Rethugs or Doinks, a lot of this percolates to the surface quickly.