A big congratulations to Green Party activists who have, for now via hung jury, beaten the rap for their Venezuelan Embassy occupation trial, despite Judge Beryl Howell acting almost in collusion with the prosecution by how much in the way of defense tactics she refused to admit.
That said, per her background, it's no surprise that this Obama nominee would make such rulings. Former Assistant USDA in Eastern District of New York. Then, top assistant to Pat Leahy and eventual general counsel on staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She has some good points, like on FOIA expansion. But? The former prosecutor helped write the Patriot Act. And CALEA. And DMCA. And, despite a previous pro-First Amendment ruling? Not this time. (In 2004, the Society of Professional Journalists gave her a First Amendment award for her FOIA work. Can they take it back?)
And, for her work on the DMCA, she was rewarded, before heading to the federal bench, by being a lobbyist for Recording Industry Association of America. (One of her first big cases on the DC District was to reward the RIAA.)
In other words, pretty much a standard neoliberal Dem, and on the Patriot Act, despite some Dems later claiming "not me," a standard bipartisan foreign policy establishmentarian.
Judges like this are why, when Dems shout and/or moan "Oh the SCOTUS" every four years, I have a ready answer. The gamut of civil liberties issues carry far beyond reproductive rights (for which Congressional Dems have never restored Medicaid funding for the poor) or sexuality and sexual relationship rights.
A skeptical leftist's, or post-capitalist's, or eco-socialist's blog, including skepticism about leftism (and related things under other labels), but even more about other issues of politics. Free of duopoly and minor party ties. Also, a skeptical look at Gnu Atheism, religion, social sciences, more.
Note: Labels can help describe people but should never be used to pin them to an anthill.
As seen at Washington Babylon and other fine establishments
Pages
▼
February 22, 2020
February 21, 2020
Basic income and the gig economy, part 2
vs national health care and other angles
Several years ago, in one of several blog responses (or per Twitter, more subresponse than response) to basic income guru and evangelist Scott Santens, I said BI should not be used as
the primary fix for gig economy problems. Do that, and you open the
door to gutting Social Security next because the self-employed pay both
employer and employee portions of FICA tax. Beyond that, many issues
with the gig economy have arisen because neoliberal Dems, tacitly, and
big-biz and libertarian conservative Republicans, openly, have supported
the NLRB cutting rules on who's a contractor and who's not.
It's time to expand talk about the "gig economy" more, especially as more and more Democrats, and even a few non-duopoly semi-lefties, mouth the business conservative "e-word" — "entrepreneurship," and also as third-party backers, and even a former leftish third party state leader, think BI is the fix for their issues, even to the point of ignoring the anti-third party stances on other issues many BI pushers hold.
There are three definite classes, and possibly a fourth thrown in by some people, within what is loosely called the "gig economy."
The first is what is often referred to as the "precariat." This is people working a mix of one or more regular part-time and/or less regular freelance jobs because they can't get full-time work, which they prefer.
The second are those who work one job, generally full-time, but it at times may be less than that. They have been defined as "independent contractor" not "employee" by their company. They generally don't want this, and may have fought or tried to fight it. It's these people I refer to in the "beyond that" in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Think somebody like a truck driver.
The third are white collar people, usually with specific skill sets, who have usually made the choice to work as contract labor. From what I can tell, this includes Scott Santens, as well as many others in the IT world. It also includes a number of writers and editors.
The techies have generally made the choice on the idea of selling their services to the highest bidder. They're often young to youngish, at least under 40. That said, I can't find Santens' age with a quick Google but, from what I can tell from his bio, he's definitely over 40 himself. Big companies might hire them, but they may want the money from not paying health insurance — and the money from the employer's contribution as well, which they wouldn't get by being a staff employee and opting out. They often work full-time when on contracts, but can hit dry spells between contracts.
The fourth possible category are people who, even if the business is not full time year round (like Laura Palmer as a wedding-focused videographer) have started their own businesses.
I have the most sympathy for the first class. I have close to that for the second.
I have little for the third, probably less than for the forth in some ways, depending on the size and income flow of the business for people in category four.
Now, let's dive in.
The first class? They're just not making enough money and not getting the opportunity to do so. For them, more money comes before not having health insurance or other benefits. BI could certainly help them. Other things would help as much or more, though. That would include a higher minimum wage, moving to a 35-hour work week to free up working hours, and other things, like Howie Hawkins' proposal to expand the current Earned Income Tax Credit into a full-blown negative income tax.
The second class? Experienced semi drivers can make decent, if not fantastic wages. But, if they're "independent contractors," they're not eligible for unemployment benefits, they're also not covered by workplace safety inspections and many other things. And they're not eligible for company insurance. So, BI might help them somewhat. National health care would help them more, including letting them go full Johnny Paycheck on their bosses. They're often old enough that they don't want to go without insurance if they can avoid it. Fighting harder on NLRB rules plus national health care is the best way to help these people.
The third? Let's go back to that made the choice phrase. If you want the benefits of being your own boss, including with the business wingnuts' e-word, then IMO, per the old "moral hazard" issue of economics, you should accept taking your own risk as well. If you're looking for BI to "tide you over" between six-month or one-year contracts on occasion? I have two options, one current and one that would require a change of law.
The current? Save more money while you're working. And you can do that, in many cases.
The change of law? Rather than, like Santens, ATTACKING (sorry, Scott, but you're trying to steal my pie) my unemployment benefits, I'll let you "opt in." To riff on national health care, it's the "public option" for unemployment bennies. Ditto on workman's comp, if you want to use BI to attack that.
And, I'd offer the same opt-in to the fourth class as well. That, along with national health care, would make it easier for you to be entrepreneurial.
Back to the third class. If Santens, and his disciples, also think Social Security will go broke and that's why he wants to replace part of it with BI? You're ATTACKING again and I will fight you.
Now, back to my piece about former Green Party Texas co-chair Laura Palmer and her YangGanging.
I don't know if she's thought this through or not. But, she may not really be in the same bucket as Santens by employment class. I was going to say their ages might be different, but see above. Maybe at, if not yet over, 45. And, if she really is a Green, she's not in the same bucket as him on things like cryptocurrency, I hope. (That's not to mention Santens being a Davos writer. No, really!)
As for Santens' "the robots will steal all our jobs"? As with Yang, that fear is probably overstated to a degree. Going beyond Politico, though, it's also misfocused to a degree. If computer software can write up sports briefs and county real estate sales into stories, and now, on the video side, Reuters has a VR bot newsreader for teevee, why can't I program a bot to scrape BI postings by others and create Schotte Ohnezehn?
That said, although Santens hasn't maybe written directly about that? I suspect he knows that. Another reason he's writing these BI articles, and as a libertarianish type in Class Three, touting the cures of cryptocurrency as well. Follow the money, even if cybermoney.
Finally, the fact that Santens has a Business Insider piece from 2016 saying that Trump might be the Basic Income Moses leads me even more firmly to the conviction that Santens is politically agnostic on many issues.
He's never, IMO, directly undercutting his idea that BI would fight climate change, addressed the stone cold reality that the energy consumption of cryptocurrency is a huge threat to our climate. (You say go green and renewable even more? Right now, we're just doing little more than running in place on that.)
Oh, back to what I say is much more important than BI — single payer. Santens does support that, but even there, it's ultimately with BI wrapped in it. No. If we go beyond "just" single payer, it's gotta be to a British-style National Health System.
So, to summarize? The "gig economy," without further descriptive qualifiers, is a vague phrase that covers a huge class of people. Subclasses within this have different needs, most of which can be met better by one or more other actions than by basic income.
It's time to expand talk about the "gig economy" more, especially as more and more Democrats, and even a few non-duopoly semi-lefties, mouth the business conservative "e-word" — "entrepreneurship," and also as third-party backers, and even a former leftish third party state leader, think BI is the fix for their issues, even to the point of ignoring the anti-third party stances on other issues many BI pushers hold.
There are three definite classes, and possibly a fourth thrown in by some people, within what is loosely called the "gig economy."
The first is what is often referred to as the "precariat." This is people working a mix of one or more regular part-time and/or less regular freelance jobs because they can't get full-time work, which they prefer.
The second are those who work one job, generally full-time, but it at times may be less than that. They have been defined as "independent contractor" not "employee" by their company. They generally don't want this, and may have fought or tried to fight it. It's these people I refer to in the "beyond that" in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Think somebody like a truck driver.
The third are white collar people, usually with specific skill sets, who have usually made the choice to work as contract labor. From what I can tell, this includes Scott Santens, as well as many others in the IT world. It also includes a number of writers and editors.
The techies have generally made the choice on the idea of selling their services to the highest bidder. They're often young to youngish, at least under 40. That said, I can't find Santens' age with a quick Google but, from what I can tell from his bio, he's definitely over 40 himself. Big companies might hire them, but they may want the money from not paying health insurance — and the money from the employer's contribution as well, which they wouldn't get by being a staff employee and opting out. They often work full-time when on contracts, but can hit dry spells between contracts.
The fourth possible category are people who, even if the business is not full time year round (like Laura Palmer as a wedding-focused videographer) have started their own businesses.
I have the most sympathy for the first class. I have close to that for the second.
I have little for the third, probably less than for the forth in some ways, depending on the size and income flow of the business for people in category four.
Now, let's dive in.
The first class? They're just not making enough money and not getting the opportunity to do so. For them, more money comes before not having health insurance or other benefits. BI could certainly help them. Other things would help as much or more, though. That would include a higher minimum wage, moving to a 35-hour work week to free up working hours, and other things, like Howie Hawkins' proposal to expand the current Earned Income Tax Credit into a full-blown negative income tax.
The second class? Experienced semi drivers can make decent, if not fantastic wages. But, if they're "independent contractors," they're not eligible for unemployment benefits, they're also not covered by workplace safety inspections and many other things. And they're not eligible for company insurance. So, BI might help them somewhat. National health care would help them more, including letting them go full Johnny Paycheck on their bosses. They're often old enough that they don't want to go without insurance if they can avoid it. Fighting harder on NLRB rules plus national health care is the best way to help these people.
The third? Let's go back to that made the choice phrase. If you want the benefits of being your own boss, including with the business wingnuts' e-word, then IMO, per the old "moral hazard" issue of economics, you should accept taking your own risk as well. If you're looking for BI to "tide you over" between six-month or one-year contracts on occasion? I have two options, one current and one that would require a change of law.
The current? Save more money while you're working. And you can do that, in many cases.
The change of law? Rather than, like Santens, ATTACKING (sorry, Scott, but you're trying to steal my pie) my unemployment benefits, I'll let you "opt in." To riff on national health care, it's the "public option" for unemployment bennies. Ditto on workman's comp, if you want to use BI to attack that.
And, I'd offer the same opt-in to the fourth class as well. That, along with national health care, would make it easier for you to be entrepreneurial.
Back to the third class. If Santens, and his disciples, also think Social Security will go broke and that's why he wants to replace part of it with BI? You're ATTACKING again and I will fight you.
Now, back to my piece about former Green Party Texas co-chair Laura Palmer and her YangGanging.
I don't know if she's thought this through or not. But, she may not really be in the same bucket as Santens by employment class. I was going to say their ages might be different, but see above. Maybe at, if not yet over, 45. And, if she really is a Green, she's not in the same bucket as him on things like cryptocurrency, I hope. (That's not to mention Santens being a Davos writer. No, really!)
As for Santens' "the robots will steal all our jobs"? As with Yang, that fear is probably overstated to a degree. Going beyond Politico, though, it's also misfocused to a degree. If computer software can write up sports briefs and county real estate sales into stories, and now, on the video side, Reuters has a VR bot newsreader for teevee, why can't I program a bot to scrape BI postings by others and create Schotte Ohnezehn?
That said, although Santens hasn't maybe written directly about that? I suspect he knows that. Another reason he's writing these BI articles, and as a libertarianish type in Class Three, touting the cures of cryptocurrency as well. Follow the money, even if cybermoney.
Finally, the fact that Santens has a Business Insider piece from 2016 saying that Trump might be the Basic Income Moses leads me even more firmly to the conviction that Santens is politically agnostic on many issues.
He's never, IMO, directly undercutting his idea that BI would fight climate change, addressed the stone cold reality that the energy consumption of cryptocurrency is a huge threat to our climate. (You say go green and renewable even more? Right now, we're just doing little more than running in place on that.)
Oh, back to what I say is much more important than BI — single payer. Santens does support that, but even there, it's ultimately with BI wrapped in it. No. If we go beyond "just" single payer, it's gotta be to a British-style National Health System.
So, to summarize? The "gig economy," without further descriptive qualifiers, is a vague phrase that covers a huge class of people. Subclasses within this have different needs, most of which can be met better by one or more other actions than by basic income.
February 20, 2020
#DeleteFacebook? Why not Twitter? It may even help you
Plenty of people Tweet on Twitter about encouraging others to delete their Facebook accounts, usually with the Twitter hashtag above.
Well, I've never heard of Facebook helping a company hack a contract employee's personal Facebook account.
Unlike Twitter, which IS alleged to have helped a company hack a contract employee's Twitter account (he has the email confirming that), then lying about doing so through silence and PR babble.
(Oh, the company is the slimy SB Nation, owned by the slimy Vox.)
But Cambridge Analytica!
Well, on the other hand, Facebook doesn't have, and hasn't had as far as I know, employees working as moles for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, unlike Twitter.
The story notes that the infiltration took off with a request by a Saudi official for the one mole to grant a blue-check verification for a Saudi media person's account. After suitable gratuities, he started looking for in-real-life info on anonymous Saudi dissidents on Twitter. He couldn't do much, but he made contact with another Saudi national at Twitter, a site reliability engineer with all sorts of access.
And so, Twitter's peddling of the idea of anonymity backfired.
Well, I've never heard of Facebook helping a company hack a contract employee's personal Facebook account.
Unlike Twitter, which IS alleged to have helped a company hack a contract employee's Twitter account (he has the email confirming that), then lying about doing so through silence and PR babble.
(Oh, the company is the slimy SB Nation, owned by the slimy Vox.)
But Cambridge Analytica!
Well, on the other hand, Facebook doesn't have, and hasn't had as far as I know, employees working as moles for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, unlike Twitter.
The story notes that the infiltration took off with a request by a Saudi official for the one mole to grant a blue-check verification for a Saudi media person's account. After suitable gratuities, he started looking for in-real-life info on anonymous Saudi dissidents on Twitter. He couldn't do much, but he made contact with another Saudi national at Twitter, a site reliability engineer with all sorts of access.
And so, Twitter's peddling of the idea of anonymity backfired.
I personally have had one of my Twitter accounts hacked by another individual. Twitter has never acknowledged this, and while suspending the account after it was hacked, has refused to kill the account and thus free that email address.
Personally, I have never seen Twitter as a company as being nobler in any great way than Facebook. It's just that it's enough smaller, its ignominity does less damage. I'm sure that if Jack Dorsey had Twitter as big as he wished, between intermittent fasting, sniffing Gwynneth Paltrow candles and whatever the hell else New Agey he does, he'd try to do Cambridge Analytica-type dumb shit just like Hucksterman.
February 19, 2020
Dem Debate quick thoughts, mainly on Bloomberg, bit on Bernie
For a man who so calculatingly delayed his entry into the race (he did plan this, bet on it) Bloomberg sure wasn't prepared for oppo research hitting him this quickly and this hard.
And he's sure been thin-skinned about it. This and more showed up in the Las Vegas debate. Politico has a decent summary.
But this isn't just MiniMike. The Donald is the same way. Ross is Boss Perot was the same, too.
It's the CEO syndrome. Corporate heads get largely insulated from criticism by servile boards and on-demand corporate PR staff. They forget about two big things: The media, and two other branches of state or federal government. Trump has gotten enough fawningness from GOP legiscritters that unconstitutional things like his misprision of funds on the fall for which Dems refused to impeach gets covered over by them, too. The third branch? On this, in the American federal judiciary system, the wheels of justice aren't even grinding slowly. To show my age, they're like a 78 rpm record played on the old 16 rpm speed. (Yes, more than 33s and 45s existed at one time, folks.) Compounding the problem is that the Supreme Court, IMO, not only could but should be exercising original review on a lot of these issues and refuses to do so.
Anyway, Bloomberg got some hard hits and didn't take them well.
Bernie? His health probably is good. But, the non-disclosure makes him look like a backtracker. That's because he IS a backtracker on previous pledges, stanners. Just own up and admit it was a gaffe by Bernie, because it was. Now, how he gets off this hook, other than simply saying that the doctors' statements he's offered have met the bar of transparency and moving on, I don't know.
Back to Bloomberg, speaking of backtracking. Five bucks says he doesn't release his back taxes before the April 15 IRS filing deadline. That, too, will be calculated, not because a billionaire can't pay salaried accountants and tax attorneys to work enough overtime to make it so.
And he's sure been thin-skinned about it. This and more showed up in the Las Vegas debate. Politico has a decent summary.
But this isn't just MiniMike. The Donald is the same way. Ross is Boss Perot was the same, too.
It's the CEO syndrome. Corporate heads get largely insulated from criticism by servile boards and on-demand corporate PR staff. They forget about two big things: The media, and two other branches of state or federal government. Trump has gotten enough fawningness from GOP legiscritters that unconstitutional things like his misprision of funds on the fall for which Dems refused to impeach gets covered over by them, too. The third branch? On this, in the American federal judiciary system, the wheels of justice aren't even grinding slowly. To show my age, they're like a 78 rpm record played on the old 16 rpm speed. (Yes, more than 33s and 45s existed at one time, folks.) Compounding the problem is that the Supreme Court, IMO, not only could but should be exercising original review on a lot of these issues and refuses to do so.
Anyway, Bloomberg got some hard hits and didn't take them well.
Bernie? His health probably is good. But, the non-disclosure makes him look like a backtracker. That's because he IS a backtracker on previous pledges, stanners. Just own up and admit it was a gaffe by Bernie, because it was. Now, how he gets off this hook, other than simply saying that the doctors' statements he's offered have met the bar of transparency and moving on, I don't know.
Back to Bloomberg, speaking of backtracking. Five bucks says he doesn't release his back taxes before the April 15 IRS filing deadline. That, too, will be calculated, not because a billionaire can't pay salaried accountants and tax attorneys to work enough overtime to make it so.
#WheresWarren?
That was a hashtag trending on Twitter Tuesday evening.
I've skewered the cults of Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg. I've just skewered, period, both Gabbard and Marianne Williamson. I've even, going back to pre-2016, pointed out that while Bernie is the best Democrat, he's still well short of non-duopoly ideals.
But until now, I've not skewered the #StillWithering cult of Elizabeth Warren that much.
I have, along with many, many others, noted the stupidity of her DNA test — something that plays right to Trump's strength. As someone who grew up in the Southwest and is belatedly repenting of some of his father's comments about American Indians, I've commented on her stereotyping and such — while also using the opportunity to skewer Cherokees for their treatment of Black Cherokees.
But, I've not skewered her cult.
Until now, or rather, until last night on Twitter.
Let's dig in!
Starting with presidential history:
I've skewered the cults of Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Buttigieg. I've just skewered, period, both Gabbard and Marianne Williamson. I've even, going back to pre-2016, pointed out that while Bernie is the best Democrat, he's still well short of non-duopoly ideals.
But until now, I've not skewered the #StillWithering cult of Elizabeth Warren that much.
I have, along with many, many others, noted the stupidity of her DNA test — something that plays right to Trump's strength. As someone who grew up in the Southwest and is belatedly repenting of some of his father's comments about American Indians, I've commented on her stereotyping and such — while also using the opportunity to skewer Cherokees for their treatment of Black Cherokees.
But, I've not skewered her cult.
Until now, or rather, until last night on Twitter.
Let's dig in!
Starting with presidential history:
#WheresWarren? Warren G. Harding is in the Oval Office closet with Nan Britton. Everybody knows that.— Nevada Caucus ChairThrower for Dolores Huerta 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 19, 2020
Oh, his polling numbers and other things are ... "about to explode."
Can't go wrong there.
Next, speaking of Warrent, alleged media blackouts, DNA tests, and presidential odds?
#WheresWarren? Holding on for her 1/2020th chance to win Oklahoma?— Nevada Caucus ChairThrower for Dolores Huerta 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 19, 2020
That's about the truth. Got some Oklahoma Cherokee Moon Pie in one of those plagiarized cookbooks of yours?
Where's Warren? Well, he could be all sorts of places, but I just listed one of the ones he mentioned:
#WheresWarren— Nevada Caucus ChairThrower for Dolores Huerta 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 19, 2020
Warren Zevon is at Trader Vic's having a piña colada with the Werewolves of London.https://t.co/V9fOLk8ibi
Ooowww WOOOO!
Well, speaking of President Warrens, besides the one of history, there's two would-be ones:
#WheresWarren? Warren Beatty is considering running to be President Bulworth still.— Nevada Caucus ChairThrower for Dolores Huerta 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 19, 2020
I'm surprised that he didn't pull the trigger in 2000. Did Clinton talk him out of it? Annette Benning? Past girlfriends?
Where's Warren? Spinning his webs in Nebraska.
#WheresWarren? Warren Buffett is where he's always been, oracling away in Omaha while buying the world, one piece at a time.— Nevada Caucus ChairThrower for Dolores Huerta 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 19, 2020
Geico geckos, anybody?
Where's Warren? Trying to find a successor to the Expos!
#WheresWarren? Warren Cromartie is still working to try to bring major league baseball back to Montreal.— Nevada Caucus ChairThrower for Dolores Huerta 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 19, 2020
.@TweetMeHomie Dude, the way Rob Manfred is fucking up MLB right now, do you really WANT a franchise as long as he's in office?
As I said ...
Where's Warren? Six feet under but wishing he could get out, if immaterial souls existed:
#WheresWarren?— Nevada Caucus ChairThrower for Dolores Huerta 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 19, 2020
Earl Warren has been continually turning over in his grave over "The Umpire," John Roberts, for years.
Maybe Rob Manfred and John Roberts could be forcibly switched? Couldn't be any worse for either the Supreme Court or pro baseball, could it?
Where's Warren?
#WheresWarren? I think she's looking for the other 1023/1024ths of the Cherokee Nation with Paul Revere and the Raiders! https://t.co/D4PJvAucxQ— Nevada Caucus ChairThrower for Dolores Huerta 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 19, 2020
Damned if I didn't think of this before!
Where's Warren?
In reality? She's cringing in fear of doze meanie BernieBros, because Culinary 226 claimed somebody threw a chair at their Neera Tanden-loving secretary-treasurer or something. And, of course, nobody's proven anything beyond, as Bernie said, some Twitter yahoos saying something or another.
There is one good thing out of this. It may undercut some Berners' penchant for conspiracy thinking. Yes, many in the MSM may not be enamored of Sanders, and many of them may be ditching Warren on electability grounds. But, some of these things are just .... mistakes.
In reality? She's cringing in fear of doze meanie BernieBros, because Culinary 226 claimed somebody threw a chair at their Neera Tanden-loving secretary-treasurer or something. And, of course, nobody's proven anything beyond, as Bernie said, some Twitter yahoos saying something or another.
There is one good thing out of this. It may undercut some Berners' penchant for conspiracy thinking. Yes, many in the MSM may not be enamored of Sanders, and many of them may be ditching Warren on electability grounds. But, some of these things are just .... mistakes.
Texas progressives salute the start of early voting
Texas Progressives wonder what the start of early voting will show on turnout tea leaves while giving you updates in local, state and national political and other news.
Brains offers his initial glance, leading off with thoughts on the Donkeys' Senate nomination race.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, I saw not a BernieBro, but a BernieBarbie, engaging in what could indeed be considered stereotypical conspiracy thinking:
Texas politics
The cult of Bob on a Knob O'Rourke and his new PAC has both upsides and downsides for Texas Democrats.
Austin Merikan Stateless, now under the ownership of Craphouse, endorses ConservaDem MJ Hegar in the Dem Senate race. San Antone endorses ModeratoDem Amanda Edwards. I presume the hometown Chronic will do or has done the same.
The Observer anti-endorses incumbent DAs Kim Ogg in Harris County and Margaret Moore in Travis County. (Your blogger thinks both counties needs more prosecutorial reform, but sides with the more moderate challengers in both cases and rejects the idea of a blanket refusal to pursue any felony drug cases.)
Paradise in Hell interprets Sen. John Cornyn. The Texas Signal comments on Cornyn's low name recognition.
Texana
Socratic Gadfly had more sad trombones for Texas sports, this time just for Dusty Baker worried about Cheating Astros players getting beaned, even as Commissioner Rob Manfred appeared determined to show he could do worse PR than Astros owner Jim Crane.
Claytie Williams is dead of pneumonia at 88. I hope he laid there and enjoyed it.
Following up on last week's article about lung-clogging shit-laden Panhandle feetlot pollution, the Observer notes that photojournalism groups say state law forbidding drone photography of feedlots is unconstitutional — and they're suing.
The Lunch Tray takes a closer look at Unilever's decision to mostly end child-directed marketing of ice cream.
The Rag Blog talks about an Underground Railroad route in Texas.
Dallas
Oh, Lordy! Pun intended! Dallas' top Trump ass-kisser, and possibly Protestant ministry's top Trump ass-kisser, Robert Jeffress will be interviewing Sarah Sanders during Sunday, March 1, worship services, while continuing to claim he's not a political stooge.
Jim Schutze calls out the Snooze for refusing to run a piece that eventually dropped in the StartleGram about DART bleeding money. He then calls out former Snooze sister WFAA for a totally wrong story on Jim's Car Wash.
Houston
Mayor Sylvester Turner showed he's full on ConservaDem with his endorsement of Mike Bloomberg. Sly has since claimed that Mini Mike apologizing for stop and frisk was why he endorsed him. Really? Julian Castro surely has it right in noting the apology came just before the former Republican decided to seek the Dem nomination.
Houston is one of the cities where the Border Patrol will embed with ICE, and new thuggishness will likely result. Keep the ugly word "tonk" in mind.
Off the Kuff interviewed three candidates for Harris County District Attorney: Kim Ogg (the incumbent), Carvana Cloud, and Audia Jones.
National/Texas politics
Brains notes that Bernie now leads in Dem polling in Texas; he also snarks well on Sylvester's Sellout as part of Bloomberg buying up everything and everyone in sight.
Gadfly raised eyebrows at a former GP state co-chair getting into Jill Stein-for-Bernie territory by stanning on Twitter for specific Dems even while part of a Greens ballot access lawsuit.
Jenny Rollins looks at Sen. Mitt Romney's lone Republican vote to convict Donald Trump in the impeachment trial through a Mormon lens.
National
Robert Nagle endorses Elizabeth Warren for President.
Mustafa Tameez criticizes the Trump administration’s recent attacks on so-called “sanctuary cities.”
Brains offers his initial glance, leading off with thoughts on the Donkeys' Senate nomination race.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, I saw not a BernieBro, but a BernieBarbie, engaging in what could indeed be considered stereotypical conspiracy thinking:
Yes, I'm in the media, so I know about ballot order issues. But, if you don't know? It's called "asking," not going off half-cocked (or less).Uhh, grow up.— Nevada Caucus ChairThrower for Dolores Huerta 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 19, 2020
Texas has official laws on ballot order listing on a county-by-county basis, Bernie cultists.
For this Bernie stanner and all others retweeting this as "proof" of "shenanigans against Sanders" in the #TexasPrimary, try learning the law. https://t.co/uWWM90wICk https://t.co/92M2u5ByPs
Texas politics
The cult of Bob on a Knob O'Rourke and his new PAC has both upsides and downsides for Texas Democrats.
Austin Merikan Stateless, now under the ownership of Craphouse, endorses ConservaDem MJ Hegar in the Dem Senate race. San Antone endorses ModeratoDem Amanda Edwards. I presume the hometown Chronic will do or has done the same.
The Observer anti-endorses incumbent DAs Kim Ogg in Harris County and Margaret Moore in Travis County. (Your blogger thinks both counties needs more prosecutorial reform, but sides with the more moderate challengers in both cases and rejects the idea of a blanket refusal to pursue any felony drug cases.)
Paradise in Hell interprets Sen. John Cornyn. The Texas Signal comments on Cornyn's low name recognition.
Texana
Socratic Gadfly had more sad trombones for Texas sports, this time just for Dusty Baker worried about Cheating Astros players getting beaned, even as Commissioner Rob Manfred appeared determined to show he could do worse PR than Astros owner Jim Crane.
Claytie Williams is dead of pneumonia at 88. I hope he laid there and enjoyed it.
Following up on last week's article about lung-clogging shit-laden Panhandle feetlot pollution, the Observer notes that photojournalism groups say state law forbidding drone photography of feedlots is unconstitutional — and they're suing.
The Lunch Tray takes a closer look at Unilever's decision to mostly end child-directed marketing of ice cream.
The Rag Blog talks about an Underground Railroad route in Texas.
Dallas
Oh, Lordy! Pun intended! Dallas' top Trump ass-kisser, and possibly Protestant ministry's top Trump ass-kisser, Robert Jeffress will be interviewing Sarah Sanders during Sunday, March 1, worship services, while continuing to claim he's not a political stooge.
Jim Schutze calls out the Snooze for refusing to run a piece that eventually dropped in the StartleGram about DART bleeding money. He then calls out former Snooze sister WFAA for a totally wrong story on Jim's Car Wash.
Houston
Mayor Sylvester Turner showed he's full on ConservaDem with his endorsement of Mike Bloomberg. Sly has since claimed that Mini Mike apologizing for stop and frisk was why he endorsed him. Really? Julian Castro surely has it right in noting the apology came just before the former Republican decided to seek the Dem nomination.
Houston is one of the cities where the Border Patrol will embed with ICE, and new thuggishness will likely result. Keep the ugly word "tonk" in mind.
Off the Kuff interviewed three candidates for Harris County District Attorney: Kim Ogg (the incumbent), Carvana Cloud, and Audia Jones.
National/Texas politics
Brains notes that Bernie now leads in Dem polling in Texas; he also snarks well on Sylvester's Sellout as part of Bloomberg buying up everything and everyone in sight.
Gadfly raised eyebrows at a former GP state co-chair getting into Jill Stein-for-Bernie territory by stanning on Twitter for specific Dems even while part of a Greens ballot access lawsuit.
Jenny Rollins looks at Sen. Mitt Romney's lone Republican vote to convict Donald Trump in the impeachment trial through a Mormon lens.
National
Robert Nagle endorses Elizabeth Warren for President.
Mustafa Tameez criticizes the Trump administration’s recent attacks on so-called “sanctuary cities.”
February 18, 2020
Ty Clevenger faces new Seth Rich conspiracy theory problems
This isn't the only time Clevenger's allegedly airtight legal beaglery has been challeged; last fall, he beat the rap on a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim.
But it was nowhere near a slam dunk. The length of the magistrate's response indicates that it was getting careful consideration.
In the new filing? Let's see if the feds know that Butowsky and associates also have allegedly discussed spying on Rich's family.
Meanwhile, Clevenger faces California Supreme Court sanctions; let's hope that court knows his scofflaw history on such things.
(Update: I read the link when I got home. The Cal Bar gave him a hand-slap of a two-year suspension from practicing in California, itself probated three years. It did consider his previous sanctions, but did NOT consider him being a scofflaw on paying them. It listened to his friends saying he had integrity, when his integrity, to the degree it exists, wouldn't extend to gays and Muslims.)
Anyway, Rich nutters and Clevenger nutters are already circling the wagons with the usual claims which I refuted long ago.
July 24, 2020: Clevenger et al now want to have a totally new round of discovery. Proving that he, and his client, are both Seth Rich conspiracy theorists, they both want that discovery to include a nameless former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who is almost surely Assange toady Craig Murray.
Worse yet on the discovery version of barratry AND the clearest demonstration yet that this case is asshattery? Wanting to RE-depose Ellen Ratner, whom I thought was a friendly witness type. Turns out Butowsky didn't like her testimony. Oops.
Seriously, Butowsky is a clown, a buffoon, an idiot, and apparently a direct and indirect liar. He'd be funny if we weren't talking about a death-related conspiracy theory. He did a self-own on Andrew Cuomo's show three full years ago:
He's not even that good of a dodger! And, on Aug. 1, though there's no blue check mark, it sure reads like the real Butowsky decided to follow me. (And blocked other people on a group thread.)
February 17, 2020
Sinema-Cassidy isn't bipartisan, but is fake help for child care
and no matter the issue, it's bad tax and fiscal policy
In a column, Chris Tomlinson ignores two things about Trump's fake tax credits child care bill. (Note: Per the first half of the header, it IS fake; per the second half, there's a deeper issue, which is what prompted this blog post.)
One is that Arizona "Democrat" Kyrsten Sinema is considered even more in the GOP camp than Joe Manchin by many Congressional rating services.
The second is that the bill is bad policy.
On Twitter, Chris claims that Pelosi and House Dems would incorporate Sinema-Kennedy into any child care bill.
I doubt it. They'd incorporate ACTUAL tax credits, yes; I highly doubt they'd do this.
Per the "actual," all this bill does is let parents borrow ahead against future tax credits. Chris admits that in the column. Per the Pelosi angle?
In fact, House + Senate Dems have (sad trombones, not bipartisan) have a bill that would make child care more affordable in the first place.
All the Trump bill would do is have parents, 5-10 years from now, at risk of having their taxes audited for using child care tax credits that they've borrowed to exhaustion already, followed by stamping their feet over wanting to be "reimbursed." And yes, the Merikan ppl are like that, and yes, there's a good chance Congress would "cave." A Democrat president would cave, too. Look at the "Bush tax cuts" becoming the "Obama tax cuts." And, yes, Chris, I think there's a good chance you know this would be a likely outcome.
I think it's the alleged bipartisanness or whatever that seduces Chris. More on that below.
That said, if Dem Congresscritters did do a volte-face someday and adopt the Trump idea lock, stock and barrel? It would still be bad policy. It would be even if Greens somehow got a Member of Congress and that person introduced such an idea.
So, no, Chris and sorry. This one is a clunker and it's #FakeChildCareHelp, to modify a Trumpian hashtag.
Also, Chris, as a business and economics columnist, knows about the Obama tax cuts. He knows this would be bad business policy if something similar were proposed in business tax deductions. (Or I hope he does.)
Well, I hope he would oppose it, even though he calls my stance here an ideological purity test.
I Tweeted back asking if he would support a bill that, for whatever reason, allowed eXXXon to "borrow ahead" against the depletion allowance. (Given that fracking has put oil prices in the toilet, this isn't a totally out of the blue hypothetical.)
Or, lest Chris think I'm picking on Big Oil, let's say there's a multi-year tax credit for putting in solar panels. Would I support borrowing ahead against that? Or for non-oil businesses, to borrow ahead against depreciation schedules? No.
(I'm not an informed expert on the tax code; AFAIK, there may be some stupid tax code subsection that already allows this in some area. It would most likely be a section of corporate tax code if it exists. Well, if it DOES exist? Two wrongs don't make a right here more than any place else.)
And, other pieces agree with me. This one explicitly notes that Sinema-Cassidy is essentially a tax loan.
Or, since I'm in full snark mode now? What if we had paid, rather than unpaid, family leave time, to go back to the subject matter of this fake help bill? Would you be OK with "borrowing ahead" on that, if the paid family leave split between two years?
Chris, in an earlier Tweet, justified borrowing ahead my claiming parenting expenses are frontloaded. Actually, the only one that is, really, is the costs of birth itself. Like many things in US medicine, it's overpriced, which is an issue itself. But for this discussion? The main issue is that we don't allow that elsewhere in the individual tax code, and a childbirth itself is not a deductible expense.
Finally, if he claims that Pelosi would incorporate this if it didn't have Trump's backing? Well, first, Trump (as he notes) has failed to do anything real on this issue. So, it's bad policy that's also serving as a would-be reward for bad political behavior. Second, Trump has had the chance to back the Warren bill, or even do a slimmed-down, but real, GOP alternative to it.
So, let's go back to the Tweet that started this:
I don't often blog about such things, but this is bad enough policy, the bill itself, along with bad ideas in the column, and not thinking through how this would play out, means I had to respond. A column like this, to complete the trifecta, is a bad column serving as a reward for bad policy that's serving as a would-be reward for bad political behavior, and that justifies bad policy no matter the issue. No purity tests involved.
The "bipartisanship" angle may not all be Chris'. After all, early voting starts tomorrow, and even the higher ups at the Chronic are loosening up a bit. But not much. Klobuchar (the viable, non-Biden centrist) got their endorsement for president on the Democratic ballot. (I assume they'll endorse any Democrat short of Sanders in the general, but do no endorsement if he gets the Dem nod.)
==
Now, while you're here, about the first name on that bill.
Sinema isn't even up for re-election until 2024. So, she clearly believes in this boondoggle. (And she's been touting the idea since last July.) On the House side, Texas ConservaDem Colin Allred has proven his true colors by being a co-sponsor.
One is that Arizona "Democrat" Kyrsten Sinema is considered even more in the GOP camp than Joe Manchin by many Congressional rating services.
The second is that the bill is bad policy.
On Twitter, Chris claims that Pelosi and House Dems would incorporate Sinema-Kennedy into any child care bill.
I doubt it. They'd incorporate ACTUAL tax credits, yes; I highly doubt they'd do this.
Per the "actual," all this bill does is let parents borrow ahead against future tax credits. Chris admits that in the column. Per the Pelosi angle?
In fact, House + Senate Dems have (sad trombones, not bipartisan) have a bill that would make child care more affordable in the first place.
All the Trump bill would do is have parents, 5-10 years from now, at risk of having their taxes audited for using child care tax credits that they've borrowed to exhaustion already, followed by stamping their feet over wanting to be "reimbursed." And yes, the Merikan ppl are like that, and yes, there's a good chance Congress would "cave." A Democrat president would cave, too. Look at the "Bush tax cuts" becoming the "Obama tax cuts." And, yes, Chris, I think there's a good chance you know this would be a likely outcome.
I think it's the alleged bipartisanness or whatever that seduces Chris. More on that below.
That said, if Dem Congresscritters did do a volte-face someday and adopt the Trump idea lock, stock and barrel? It would still be bad policy. It would be even if Greens somehow got a Member of Congress and that person introduced such an idea.
So, no, Chris and sorry. This one is a clunker and it's #FakeChildCareHelp, to modify a Trumpian hashtag.
Also, Chris, as a business and economics columnist, knows about the Obama tax cuts. He knows this would be bad business policy if something similar were proposed in business tax deductions. (Or I hope he does.)
1st, I highly doubt that. I think a Dem bill would give actual tax credits, rather than borrowing from future ones.— Nevada Caucus ChairThrower for Dolores Huerta 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 17, 2020
2nd, even if it WERE, and the "borrowing" and not actual tax credits, makes no diff which party sponsored it — GOP, Dems, or even Greens if they got a House member https://t.co/kTNAmpNZIn
Well, I hope he would oppose it, even though he calls my stance here an ideological purity test.
I Tweeted back asking if he would support a bill that, for whatever reason, allowed eXXXon to "borrow ahead" against the depletion allowance. (Given that fracking has put oil prices in the toilet, this isn't a totally out of the blue hypothetical.)
Or, lest Chris think I'm picking on Big Oil, let's say there's a multi-year tax credit for putting in solar panels. Would I support borrowing ahead against that? Or for non-oil businesses, to borrow ahead against depreciation schedules? No.
(I'm not an informed expert on the tax code; AFAIK, there may be some stupid tax code subsection that already allows this in some area. It would most likely be a section of corporate tax code if it exists. Well, if it DOES exist? Two wrongs don't make a right here more than any place else.)
And, other pieces agree with me. This one explicitly notes that Sinema-Cassidy is essentially a tax loan.
Or, since I'm in full snark mode now? What if we had paid, rather than unpaid, family leave time, to go back to the subject matter of this fake help bill? Would you be OK with "borrowing ahead" on that, if the paid family leave split between two years?
Chris, in an earlier Tweet, justified borrowing ahead my claiming parenting expenses are frontloaded. Actually, the only one that is, really, is the costs of birth itself. Like many things in US medicine, it's overpriced, which is an issue itself. But for this discussion? The main issue is that we don't allow that elsewhere in the individual tax code, and a childbirth itself is not a deductible expense.
And, while the Warren bill isn't perfect, it explicitly addresses lower income needs much better than Trump's bill does. Tax credits in general are targeted at the middle class, and within that, the top half of the middle class. This bill is no exception.I guarantee that the Cassidy-Sinema bill would be part of ANY Democratic parental leave legislation. It's a small, smart piece of what they've always wanted to do. Parental expenses are frontloaded, why not the tax credit? https://t.co/D4FTRAeSGv— ChrisTomlinson (@cltomlinson) February 17, 2020
Finally, if he claims that Pelosi would incorporate this if it didn't have Trump's backing? Well, first, Trump (as he notes) has failed to do anything real on this issue. So, it's bad policy that's also serving as a would-be reward for bad political behavior. Second, Trump has had the chance to back the Warren bill, or even do a slimmed-down, but real, GOP alternative to it.
So, let's go back to the Tweet that started this:
No, Chris, not true. I'm actually suggesting Warren's bill as one of many good bills that's the enemy of a not-good bill.As the lede suggests, you've made your decision. You've made the perfect the enemy of the good. I have no interest in your ideological purity tests.— ChrisTomlinson (@cltomlinson) February 17, 2020
I don't often blog about such things, but this is bad enough policy, the bill itself, along with bad ideas in the column, and not thinking through how this would play out, means I had to respond. A column like this, to complete the trifecta, is a bad column serving as a reward for bad policy that's serving as a would-be reward for bad political behavior, and that justifies bad policy no matter the issue. No purity tests involved.
The "bipartisanship" angle may not all be Chris'. After all, early voting starts tomorrow, and even the higher ups at the Chronic are loosening up a bit. But not much. Klobuchar (the viable, non-Biden centrist) got their endorsement for president on the Democratic ballot. (I assume they'll endorse any Democrat short of Sanders in the general, but do no endorsement if he gets the Dem nod.)
==
Now, while you're here, about the first name on that bill.
Sinema isn't even up for re-election until 2024. So, she clearly believes in this boondoggle. (And she's been touting the idea since last July.) On the House side, Texas ConservaDem Colin Allred has proven his true colors by being a co-sponsor.
Texas 13 — Josh Winegarner and who else?
Texas' 13th Congressional District is the most GOP-friendly in the nation. With incumbent Mac Thornberry being term-limited out of either running or being ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, the Newt-era Contract on America alum decided to leave after nearly 30 years.
As one might expect, such a one-party district for the Rethugs has brought out not just wingnuts, but wingnuts squared, as I noted about a recent campaign forum.
That said, it also has people who might be called non-wingnut IN TODAY'S GOP, and with some brains in their skulls.
With a 15-person field, it's obviously headed to a runoff. Which two get in?
It's looking more and more like Josh Winegarner is one of those two. Winegarner started rounding up endorsements from the time he entered the race, and earlier this week he got the most coveted of all — Mac's.
(Thornberry said he had pledged he would "not try to pick [his] successor" when he decided not to run. So, he just said that Winegarner is getting his and his wife's votes. That's an endorsement by any name, and most the other 14 surely consider it trying to pick his successor. I would.)
Winegarner worked for both Phil Gramm and John Cornyn, as well as being a lobbyist for the Panhandle-polluting Texas Cattle Feeders' Association. So, he's connected. And born in the district.
That said, per the top link, Winegarner isn't totally non-nutbar, either. For public consumption, at least, he said Trump's wall would stop terrorism. Bullshit.
So, who is the other?
Amarillo City Councilwoman Elaine Hays challenged Mac two cycles ago and she was born in Bridgeport, so she knows both ends of the district. She has a good shot at the other spot.
Her main contender for that second spot is probably Chris Ekstrom. Per Ballotpedia's partial list of endorsements, he's got the real wingnuts, including Former Fetus Forever Fuckwad Jonathan Stickland. And the district has real wingnuts, represented by candidates like Catherine "I Swear" Carr, who expressed her fear of "Sahara law" at a forum. That said, Ekstrom, like Ronny Jackson, is arguably one of the carpetbaggers Mac warned about. And, his claim to be the only real conservative may be off-putting.
Wichita County Commissioner Lee Harvey has a shot if the plethora of Amarillo area candidates split much of the vote. But I rank him third behind Hays and Eckstrom.
Winegarner doubled down on being a wingnut on the wall last week. Mac actually called out Trump for his misprision of funds on diverting Pentagon money to wall-building. Winegarner blamed Democrats for that, showing he's either unaware of or doesn't care about the constitutional process of budgeting. Ekstrom and Jackson went further and attacked Mac.
(Sidebar: This all leads to discussions of what the word "conservative" means today. If it means prudence? None of these folks are. If it means following established principles, none of these people are. The Constitution mandates and stipulates a budgeting process and Mac got it right.)
Trump made an endorsement in the almost-as-crowded CD 11, where nearly as long-termed an incumbent, Mike Conaway, is retiring, per the Trib's "carpetbaggers" story. Nothing here, though, at least not yet. And, with early voting starting tomorrow, I doubt there will be. Even more candidates, Mac being around even longer than Conaway, more elbows being thrown. Trump advisors are telling him to stay out, surely, even if Ekstrom (I assume) had strongly asked for the signal boost.
That said, I don't think Winegarner can avoid a runoff.
And, he might not win a runoff, no matter his amount of lead, but below 50 percent, on March 3.
Let me explain.
It's possible that the true wingnuts coalesce behind whoever finishes second, especially if it is Ekstrom and not Hays. It's then possible that Trump makes that endorsement in the runoff.
As one might expect, such a one-party district for the Rethugs has brought out not just wingnuts, but wingnuts squared, as I noted about a recent campaign forum.
That said, it also has people who might be called non-wingnut IN TODAY'S GOP, and with some brains in their skulls.
With a 15-person field, it's obviously headed to a runoff. Which two get in?
It's looking more and more like Josh Winegarner is one of those two. Winegarner started rounding up endorsements from the time he entered the race, and earlier this week he got the most coveted of all — Mac's.
(Thornberry said he had pledged he would "not try to pick [his] successor" when he decided not to run. So, he just said that Winegarner is getting his and his wife's votes. That's an endorsement by any name, and most the other 14 surely consider it trying to pick his successor. I would.)
Winegarner worked for both Phil Gramm and John Cornyn, as well as being a lobbyist for the Panhandle-polluting Texas Cattle Feeders' Association. So, he's connected. And born in the district.
That said, per the top link, Winegarner isn't totally non-nutbar, either. For public consumption, at least, he said Trump's wall would stop terrorism. Bullshit.
So, who is the other?
Amarillo City Councilwoman Elaine Hays challenged Mac two cycles ago and she was born in Bridgeport, so she knows both ends of the district. She has a good shot at the other spot.
Her main contender for that second spot is probably Chris Ekstrom. Per Ballotpedia's partial list of endorsements, he's got the real wingnuts, including Former Fetus Forever Fuckwad Jonathan Stickland. And the district has real wingnuts, represented by candidates like Catherine "I Swear" Carr, who expressed her fear of "Sahara law" at a forum. That said, Ekstrom, like Ronny Jackson, is arguably one of the carpetbaggers Mac warned about. And, his claim to be the only real conservative may be off-putting.
Wichita County Commissioner Lee Harvey has a shot if the plethora of Amarillo area candidates split much of the vote. But I rank him third behind Hays and Eckstrom.
Winegarner doubled down on being a wingnut on the wall last week. Mac actually called out Trump for his misprision of funds on diverting Pentagon money to wall-building. Winegarner blamed Democrats for that, showing he's either unaware of or doesn't care about the constitutional process of budgeting. Ekstrom and Jackson went further and attacked Mac.
(Sidebar: This all leads to discussions of what the word "conservative" means today. If it means prudence? None of these folks are. If it means following established principles, none of these people are. The Constitution mandates and stipulates a budgeting process and Mac got it right.)
Trump made an endorsement in the almost-as-crowded CD 11, where nearly as long-termed an incumbent, Mike Conaway, is retiring, per the Trib's "carpetbaggers" story. Nothing here, though, at least not yet. And, with early voting starting tomorrow, I doubt there will be. Even more candidates, Mac being around even longer than Conaway, more elbows being thrown. Trump advisors are telling him to stay out, surely, even if Ekstrom (I assume) had strongly asked for the signal boost.
That said, I don't think Winegarner can avoid a runoff.
And, he might not win a runoff, no matter his amount of lead, but below 50 percent, on March 3.
Let me explain.
It's possible that the true wingnuts coalesce behind whoever finishes second, especially if it is Ekstrom and not Hays. It's then possible that Trump makes that endorsement in the runoff.