Texas Greens worried about pseudo-Greens?

Note the following resolution, adopted last month at the state convention:

"A disciplinary list should be created and composed of the names of individuals who are not in good standing with the Green Party of Texas. Those named shall not be recognized as officers and will not be eligible to represent the state party on national committees."

What IS that about?

Trans activists hating on GCRFs? Jesse-stanners hating on Howie-lovers from 2020?

Not that I bigly care. 

On candidates, I've already said that Deliliah Barrios didn't float my boat, and what she told to Ryan Knight failed to change my mind. Hunter Crow? The less said from me the better.

I can vote Molinson, as Dems are likely to nominate a ConservaDem as land commish candidate, and still help the GP stay above 2 percent. Since there's no judge candidates, a Dem not running for a CCA spot now means nothing.

More "sauce" on David Sirota

Last week, after blogging my piece calling The Squad as really The Fraud for embracing Biden's Ukrainian warmongering bill, I twice Tweeted the link to David Sirota and his latest online news site, The Lever, asking him why he hadn't said anything. I added more thoughts to the original piece as to my guess on why, and will expand further here.

I also called them out to talk about how Nina Turner is actually anti-BDS, per Mondoweiss, and otherwise on Israel-Palestine issues, walks back half her allegedly pergressuve walk. Stand by for ... nothing, in all likelihood. 

Sirota doesn't talk a lot about foreign policy stuff (including BDS, I think, judging from Sirota likely being part of the effort to whitewash Bernie's record on BDS and Zionism), from what I see on Twitter, and when he does, he appears to keep one foot inside the bipartisan foreign policy establishment box. And, since he said nothing about Nina Turner, more of the same. Google only returned less than 5,000 hits for "David Sirota" plus "BDS," and showing how little Sirota has said on it, and how crappy Google results can be at times, despite "David Sirota" being in quotes (in other words, to say Google must find it, and those aren't just reference quotes for this blog post) multiple Google hits among the first 10 didn't even have his name.

As for The Fraud? My guess is that as the descendant of "Eastern European ethnics," Sirota indeed keeps one foot in the bipartisan foreign policy establishment box on Cold War 2.0 stuff. Scratch that. He's actually Jewish. But, see below.

Of course, for all his callout of "Team Blue," Sirota IS Team Blue himself. Democratic candidate consultant, wife a Colorado state legiscritter, etc. He might puff Susan Sarandon on Twitter, but puff Jill Stein or Howie Hawkins? Not.A.Chance. And since, per that link, he thinks DSA Roseys are actual socialists, he'll never throw them under the bus. Also,  (Nor did he ever say much about Bernie not ever saying much about climate change.) And, assuming he still eyeballs being a candidate consultant in the future (and possibly the dubious two-hats ethics that involves, which he did with Bernie), he'll continue not to overly criticize anointed "pergressuves."

Update: And dayum, I never looked at Sirota's Wiki page before. Team Blue indeed! Worked for the devil itself known as AIPAC! And, per a DuckDuckGo search, tweeted about it, then deleted it. Per the Atlantic, that was part of a massive Tweet-scrub when he joined Bernie's campaign. Guess like Miami Gator Geoff Campbell, he thought that didn't look too progressive?  Oh, and went to high school at a tony private school.

So, let's call Sirota this: A suaver, more urbane, moderately more leftish-liberal version of Cajun attack dog James Carville.

And, I guess per Jack Nicholson, he couldn't handle the truth:

Bye, David.

Coronavirus week 108: Types of immunity

Back after a week off on the theme to various notes for this week.

Katharine J. Wu says that Omicron's numerous variants and mutability have put paid to herd immunity. But, she says we can still talk about what's reasonable to hope for on U.S. societal immunity. She also notes a lot of this depends on addressing class-based privilege on medical treatment. (That's not happening.)

Ukraine week 9: Realities of Azov, Swoboda, Right Sector

Via a Twitter friend, I saw this great paper by a Canadian academic that addresses the reality of all those issues.

One thing the bipartisan foreign policy establishment and its fellow travelers, the nat-sec nutsacks and their fellow travelers, will tell you and I is that the far right parties didn't get much electoral support in 2014 or later. Ivan Katchanovski notes that those parties had a degree of importance and influence beyond their electoral numbers.

Next, he notes that both Russia and Ukraine (and Western backers) have politicized things connected to the Euromaidan. This is the first time I've heard that the Ukrainian government claimed the Odessa genocide was a false flag.

It's an academic paper, of 2016, so not "up to date," but still invaluable.

And, Katchanovski has dipped his toes in the Haaahhvahd word himself, per his vita.

==

Remember #BlueAnon talking about Trump as a loose cannon on foreign policy? Well, folks, Counterpunch has your number on Team Biden. Hell, per the story, Teapot Tommy Friedman has your number, down to the exact same point of Europe being alarmed.

And, another ignorant woke fail by High Country News

The magazine, in talking about what a name means behind Western place names (and going into colonialism behind that, natch) asks a Navajo for the native name of the San Francisco Peaks.

And, never asks a Hopi for THEIR name for the peaks. Nor even entertains that perhaps still today, and definitely hundreds of years ago, the Hopi likely would have seen the Navajo as colonizers.

I commented on their Facebook page, but once again, it will do nothing.

The only time HCN has responded to me was when it had a clear factual error on logistics hubs west of the Mississippi and that was to blame the Salt Lake Trib as originator of the story and saying it would make a correction if and when the SLT would. (I provided them, from my years in Dallas, the clear evidence they were wrong.)

They did and said nothing about the atrocity called a Melanin Base Camp story. They labeled it "opinion" online, something they'd basically never done up to that point in print, probably because they knew the "opinion" was based on factually incorrect information and even at least one outright lie. That was when HCN put the "woke" key in the ignition switch for good.

And, I still won't resubscribe, HCN.

Sinn Fein is BIG non-Ukraine news

The Northern Ireland wing of Sinn Fein, the Irish nationalist political party, won a plurality in Northern Ireland local parliamentary elections Saturday. I don't know if somebody will coalition with it, or if it will form a minority government.

The big question is if Sinn Fein thinks it has the public backing to call for a union election with Ireland. If it does, the Good Friday accords, per that link, allow it.

No. 2 was the Democratic Unionist Party which of course would oppose that. No. 3 was the Alliance Party, which at one time was unionist but now takes a neutralist stance on this issue, indicating how things have evolved over 20 years.

The Ulster Unionists sagged badly, as did the DUP. (Sinn Fein actually won no new seats; Alliance was the big winner.) It appears the Northern Ireland Protocol has indeed kneecapped unionism.

Sinn Fein + Alliance + Social Democratic and Labor Party make a majority.

That said, per the Good Friday deal, unionists get the No. 2 leadership slot guaranteed if not in leadership. And, the DUP has already indicated it will pout and perhaps not fill the slot, thereby gridlocking the government, if London doesn't toss the protocol. This only makes the DUP look ever more reactionary. I mean, that's why the previous government fell, and the DUP lost major votes. If it continues this attitude, leaving the UK will happen. Guaranteed. It's just a matter of time.

Sadly, Unherd has a piece by a British academic similar to one I saw on The Conversation. Both tut-tut the idea of an early referendum. Both, after making pro forma statements about the DUP living in the past, say that it's really Sinn Fein living in the past. Both appear to be whistling in the dark.

That said, per what I said halfway through, while I'm not a British academic poo-poohing the chance of the "other union" happening by referendum, we really need to see what Alliance says. We really, really need to see what Alliance says if the DUP try to wreck the train and the train station.

Texas Progressives talk abortion, trivia and more

Off the Kuff reminds us that Texas Republicans are way out of step with public opinion on abortion. 

Stace lectures us all regarding taking advantage of Democratic majorities before it's too late.

Therese Odell vents her fury at that draft opinion.

Your Local Epidemiologist demonstrates that abortion is still health care and won't just go away in a post-Roe world.

The Texas Signal brings Rep. Veronica Escobar's warning that the Republicans will push for a nationwide abortion ban. 

Jessica Shortall has no trouble connecting the pending evisceration of abortion rights to a broader culture of misogyny among its proponents.

Yours Truly will have thoughts for next week's Roundup.

"I'll take 'Obscure Texas Democratic trivia' for $1,000, Alex." "Answer: This man was the last Democrat to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate." "Question: Who was the just deceased Bob Krueger?" The interesting thing, per the link, is how much Slick Willie and Miz Ann Richards harshed on him for losing the special election to Kay Bailey Hutchison. I mean, Krueger was a ConservaDem and had served in the House before. He wasn't a neophyte and I don't think screwed the pooch in anyway. It's just that this was the first installment of the Republican tsunami.

Austin is trialing what is called basic income, but really isn't. True UBI isn't means-tested, for example, but the Austin pilot is. That's not to say what Austin is doing is bad; it isn't. But, it's not basic income. Thus, there's nothing to really be learned from it — other than neoliberalism strikes again.

Dallas County DA John Cruezot has indicted three area police officers on brutality charges related to 2020 George Floyd protests.

The Texas State Bar is suing Kenny Boy Paxton. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

SocraticGadfly says that the Squad is really the Fraud and that Chomsky went a bridge too far on various Russia-Ukraine War issues.

Amanda Marcotte digs into Greg Abbott's desire to use the Dobbs decision to push for an end to public education for undocumented children.  

The Bloggess talks about depression, joy, and music.

Jessica Wildfire talks about progressive survivalism. I have my doubts.

James Dorsey has more hope for moderate Hindu nationalism than I do. In fact, I find the idea an oxymoron.

Abortion allowed? Yes, but "how much" and for "how long" in a pregnancy?

In light of the SCOTUS leak, the Trib reports that 78 percent of Texans think abortion should be allowed in some form. Bold is very necessary on this issue; here's the poll, which does not put options for what allowances for abortion people accept within a trimester framework.. I think most Texans — including a plurality of Democrats, although perhaps not a majority — don't want third trimester abortions without a fair range of restrictions. Outside maternal life or health issues, I don't want them. (And, yes, that means no "rape or incest" allowance. If the adult, on rape, or the minor child, on incest, hasn't reported it before being visibly into a pregnancy at the six-month mark, then when? And, otherwise, though framing it differently than the Religious Right, I do see a "liberty interest" based on fetal viability.

Update: Addressing the concerns I have with the Trib piece, 538 has good polling details on how much Americans support abortion AT what stage of a pregnancy and WITH what restrictions. That said, even its opening question is weaselly with "all or most circumstances." One of those is not the other. What the poll also shows, as 538 notes, is that many Americans don't understand Roe, and don't know that it might be more radical — and certainly was more radical when the ruling came down in 1973 — than they realize.)

Update 2: On Twitter, Ryan Burge (via Kuff) claims that a majority of Americans favor "abortion on demand" at all times. His polls don't agree with what 538 et al show. nor does he cite his original source, assuming that that source is not himself. He does work for Religious News Service, and is an academic, but has copyrighted by himself on his graphs. 538's second-trimester info is so much different than his, and falls in line with what I've read elsewhere, I am taking him as wrong.

In short, I'm in that "great muddled middle" that some pundits talk about, with the exception that I'm not muddled at all. First trimester, since, unless Roe is officially overturned, we're stuck with the trimester system? No restrictions outside parental notification for minors. Third trimester? Nothing other than maternal life or health.

Second trimester? The feds could let states have their say fully and freely here. Personally, I'd split the trimester in half and extend the no restrictions out there to the 20-week mark, then after that, the material life and health, maternal mental health, rape and incest, and previously undetected fetal abnormalities.

That said, as a few liberals and a few leftists acknowledge, Roe was badly written as case law. Rather than penumbras and emanations, Blackmun should have gone straight to unenumerated rights, with privacy, including reproductive privacy, being one of those. Unfortunately, he was working off Griswold, where Bill Douglas went that way. (Or, better yet, Blackmun could have used Goldberg's concurring opinion in Griswold, which specifically cited the Ninth Amendment, making a very rare appearance in constitutional law.)

Meanwhile, despite the fact that Democrats of the first two years of Dear Leader's first term squandered chances to federally codify Roe, and Obama his own self was OK with back-burnering it, the old canards about how Greens in 2016 "really voted for Trump" are rising again. Not true. I voted against both Trump and Clinton by voting for Jill Stein. (And, I considered Mimi Soltysik, and wish I would have. Google him yourselves.) And, in 2020, I voted against Trump and Biden AND Howie Hawkins. I may undervote the presidential race in 2024 if I don't vote Green and/or don't have a leftist write-in option. I can tell Dems right now I'm not voting Biden.

As for WHY Obama decided to deprioritize this? Maybe because national Democrats thought it was a good fundraising issue. Well, Republicans play "politics of outrage" better.

As for the FACT that Obama did "back-burner" the Freedom of Choice Act, I discussed that and more a week ago.

First climate change shit could hit fan in 3 years

I reported last month that the latest UN IPCC climate crisis report says that without strenuous human action, we're likely to hit 3C — nearly 6F for Americans — of climate temperature increase by 2100.

The first major issue, beyond temperature increase itself, of an actual climate crisis, could be the disappearance of the Thwaites Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Shelf. This glacier is so large that its full disappearance by itself would raise global sea levels 2 feet. Think of what that would mean for The Netherlands. New York City. Miami. Small Pacific islands.

And, this would likely not happen on a slow-but-steady basis. Instead, the ice shelf holding it back could break off all at once.

And, yes, this could happen in the next 3-5 years. It might be longer than that, but even somewhat less alarmist predictions say 10 years. More at Science News.

When this happens, do you think it will provoke countries of the world into collaborative mandatory action? Or will it provoke one of two countries in the world — the only two countries for this to stick — to start this process on their own with a combination of a carbon tax and a carbon tariff?

You know that answer as well as I do, sadly.

It may be too late to stop Thwaites' disintegration, but not too late to stop bigger climate crisis problems. I've long said we need a carbon tax PLUS a carbon tariff to put the whole world on one page. How strong does that need to be? The IPCC says $140-$590 per ton of carbon. I'd shoot on the high side.

Meanwhile, Texas ConservaDem Congresscritters want Biden to "drill, baby, drill."

==

Reminder: This all hits farms. While much of the hit is in India and sub-Saharan Africa, it's also in the southern US.