Courageous vs cowardly vs stanning in Gainesville, Texas on the PRO Gainesville protests against CSA statues

I'd written months ago about Black Lives Matter in Gainesville, Texas.

I then wrote about the Cooke County Commissioners Court's decision to keep its United Daughters of the Confederacy propaganda statue in place, including noting that wingnut letters-to-the-editor writers to the Gainesville paper were full of crap when they talked about the "courageous" Cooke County Commissioners Court.

Courageous, in this follow-up, is the members of PRO Gainesville who have said they will continue to protest the statue. But? See below.

Cowardly is wingnuts starting rumors, as elsewhere, that "antifa" is coming to town. And, I'm sure those rumors will continue to propagate.

That said, there's more than two sides here.

Legitimate protestors, the rules are the rules. PRO Gainesville leader Torrey Henderson and two others of its members were charged with misdemeanors for walking in a roadway and later bonded out. Unless you want to be arrested just to be arrested, for possible Kabuki theater, the rules are the rules. Yes, the Gainesville PD may have bias, but this is a statute statewide and nationally. When I was in antiwar protests in the Metroplex, once each at two different protests, I was warned about not getting in the street. I complied.

And, the Dallas Observer? Well, not the first time I've called it out for idiocy, although in this case, it's in part the idiocy of people quoted. The "kids" referenced by PRO Gainesville attorney Alison Grinter? They're legally adults. You may (or may not) have meant "kids" metaphorically, but you are an attorney. And, in the video linked in the piece? I saw, less than a minute in, a person crossing the street on California against the light. Further on, I saw people far enough out in the street on California that I would consider that ticketable. And, it's not just walking in a shoulder area that's not market for parking. When the protestors turn around, at the 9 minute mark, there are people walking in a driving lane. Even when walking on the shoulder area, on the return walk, they're outside the area marked for parking and close to the driving lane, walking on the line repeatedly.

Grinter claims:

It’s “unfathomable” that the police are arresting kids who strayed in the street to avoid puddles, she added, while at the same time ignoring armed counterprotesters making terroristic threats.

The first puddle in the video is at the 14 minute mark, well after the protestors are warned multiple times by cops. And, that's just a block-long area. So, get on the sidewalk!

And, they ARE warned. More than once. You can hear it.

Henderson said she heard no such command; police allowed them to complete the march, which had remained peaceful throughout.

So, Torrey, you may say you didn't hear it. It's loud and clear on your tape. If you're going to take this case to trial, you'd better hope a doctor will confirm you're clinically deaf.

Indeed, at 14:38, the person who apparently filmed this says:

They're telling us to stay in (sic, from what I hear) the road and we're not listening. I like it.

Then at about 15:38, he wonders:

Are we going to stay on the street?

At that point, people are clearly walking in a driving lane area.

At 15:45, he says:

Last I heard, streets were a valid avenue for protest.

Not if you're obstructing traffic and don't have a protest permit that allows you in the streets. Even the ACLU says so.

So, you folks just self-owned. Congrats. Indeed, Gainesville PD could have arrested 30, not three.

(Also per the ACLU, and per comments to the Gainesville paper by Henderson, if you don't have a permit, you can be cited for "sound amplifying devices." That would include a bullhorn.)

Oh, and the fact that Valley View PD were also there partially supports Chief Phillips on why he didn't make arrests at the time.

This definitely proves Idries Shah right on being a more than two sides issue. On this sub-issue, on how you conduct protests, you've made it that. So, "congrats" also for losing a partial degree of sympathy in this corner. You can gain it back if you plea out rather than being dumb enough to go to trial, and in that plea, being honest about breaking the law, as relatively minor as it is.

That said, it's not totally minor. Those of you from Gainesville (and per the filmer or one other person he caught on mike, not everybody was from Cooke County) know California/FM 51 is the main drag in downtown. The only worse places for this would have been on US 82 or I-35.

TX Progressives look at #Harvey cleanup, more

The Texas Progressive Alliance encourages you to keep supporting Harvey and Irma relief efforts as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff reminds us that we have elections this November and they still need our attention.

As part of job hunting, Socratic Gadfly pays careful attention to some of the fluffery and hyperbolic language in employment ads and job descriptions and translates some for you, likely as part of an ongoing series.

The question "what happened" was not answered by PDiddie at Brains and Eggs, but rephrased as: 'WTF are Democrats going to do going forward?'  (Hopefully not more infighting.)  He also had a good word to say about Houston mayor Sylvester Turner's efforts in managing the city's responses to Hurricane Harvey.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wonders what is worse?  Denying food stamps to Harvey victims or refusing to register students to vote?

Turning 50 this week, Neil at All People Have Value offered a list of his favorite politicians in life. It is not a long list. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

Jobsanger says polls and research show America still has too many racists.

Houston Justice says there may be racism lurking in GOTV events.

Grits for Breakfast helped launch the new podcast by Just Liberty.

David Bruce Collins talks about the renewed "Medicare for All" push from a Green Party POV. More here from a national GP press release, including weaknesses in Bernie Sanders' current plan.

Dos Centavos wonders if there is a head fake in President Trump's alleged deal with Democrats on DACA and a border wall. Salon follows that with a question of who swallowed whose Kool-Aid.

 =====================

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

 Daniel Williams highlights the continued need for local non-discrimination ordinances in Texas.

 Melissa Law denounces the idea that Harvey was anything but a catastrophe that is still ongoing.

 It's Not Hou It's Me shares her mucking experience.

 Juanita rounds up some of the lesser 9/11 memorials.

Therese Odell rounds up the late night reactions to the Ted Cruz Twitter porn-liking saga.

Michael Li explains what happens next in the redistricting case.

Mean Green Cougar Red examines Harvey-related survivor's guilt.

Dan Wallach goes into detail about the security properties that a voting system needs to have.

Space City Weather looks back at all of the Harvey-spawned tornadoes.

While Houstonians continue to recover from Harvey, former San Antonio Spurs legend Tim Duncan helps Irma work in his hometown U.S. Virgin Islands (which may get hit again, by Maria)/

-->

John Lewis is not immune to criticism just because he's a civil rights legend

John Lewis, hoist on his own Hillbot petard

First, per the basics of the spat between the iconic Georgia Congresscritter and President-elect Trump, Lewis started it.

He said Trump was not "legitimate."

The Electoral College disagreed, first.

Second, if Lewis is sniffing Hillbot and Democratic National Committee insider #IBlamePutin crack, which he apparently is, that's his problem — and it is a problem. It's a problem indeed.

Third, Lewis is getting butt-hurt after hoisting himself on his own petard. Michael Tracy, on Twitter, largely agrees, per the note above.

After all, even though many younger minority voters supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries, Lewis and others of the Congressional Black Caucus gerontocracy doubled down on backing Hillary Clinton.

Who lost.

Bernie might not have one, but he might well have run a better campaign.

To help keep him from winning Southern primaries, Lewis engaged in a sneer campaign (I see what I did there) against Sanders, then tried to walk it back — unsuccessfully. Just.Another.Politician.™

As for his "I met Hillary Clinton, I met President Clinton" claim in the civil rights movement? Really? When did you meet the Goldwater Girl, who wasn't involved in any of the 1960s activities? Ditto for Slick Willie.

You made your own bed, now go lie in it. Somebody needs to primary you in 2018. Better yet, some Green Party person of color needs to run against you in the 2018 general election. Or retire. You're past the age of 75, like much of the rest of the Democratic Congressional gerontocracy, and have been in Congress for 30 years. (The exact same, by year of birth and years of Congressional time, is true of Nancy Pelosi.)

As for Paul Begala claiming Lewis was acting out of "pain, not partisanship," puhleeze. First, Paul's very much a partisan himself. Second, Election Day was more than two months ago.

As for Republicans backing him over Trump in this spat? Some, like Evan McMullin, are spooks themselves. All are wedded to the "deep state," and Trump's stance both antagonizes and scares them.

#BruceJenner vs. Renee Richards, the #SJW world and more

Bruce Jenner/Wikipedia

As everybody in the US not in hibernation probably knows, 1976 Olympic decathlon winner Bruce Jenner is "out" as a transgendered person.

And?

While this is interesting, is it something that necessarily needs huzzahs and handsprings? Maybe, maybe not.

"But he's famous," somebody will say, and that will publicize transgender issues.

He's famous for what?

Per a commenter on NBC Sports' Hardball Talk blog, Jenner has voluntarily been part of the Kardashian circus for more than a decade. Name me something else he's famous for, other than recently killing a person in an auto accident.

In addition, nobody forced him to go on camera. His choice. Per that commenter:

In other words, Bruce Jenner represents a tiny, all but quantum fraction of the total number of transgender patients. He only receives this much attention because (1) he is a former Olympic champion, (2) he has recently been involved in a fatal automobile accident in the media subcapital of the world, but most of all because (3) for the past umpteen years he has been a willing participant in one of the biggest self-aggrandizing, self-promoting media freak shows in history and by his own volition a darling of tabloid dumpculture. 

That might be somewhat harsh. But, is it totally so? I don't think so.

And, while transgender and sexual identity issues are confusing, Jenner seems more confused yet. To claim that he's conservative, Republican and Christian is one sign of that. Many liberally religious people don't have a problem with transgender issues, as the forth initial in the LGBT civil liberties quasi-acronym. However, Christian conservatives have plenty of problems with that. Problems enough that, as the religious right takes stronger hold of the modern GOP, it's perplexing that folks like the Log Cabin Republicans continue to identify as Republican. There are more than two parties in America, you know; you could be Libertarian. But, I guess that the largely two-party duopoly has too much of a hold on you, and you're willing to sacrifice an essential part of your personhood for the Religious Right's agenda.

And, speaking of LGBT? Jenner's claim that he has little need for its rights or it as a movement is even more perplexing. I suspect that, at some point, organized LGBT groups, if they don't abruptly dump Jenner like a hot potato, will at least slowly walk away from him. The social justice warrior types, the SJWs, may be having rapture right now, but probably should think again.

I mean, the NYT, in one article, found his political leanings more shocking than him coming "out."

That NYT piece also notes his circus show background:

This was a coming-out about gender identity and also of television genre. Mr. Jenner tried to disentangle himself from his reality show skin, shedding the slightly goofy, Father Knows Least persona he plays on E! to reveal a more forceful and assertive version of himself. He became exercised – and even sarcastic — when Ms. Sawyer told him that his Kardashian years (she only referred to the series as “that reality show”) made people wonder whether this too was a publicity stunt. “Yeah, right,” he drawled. 

 Instead, he reframed his reality show career as the price he paid to create a platform for his new calling. “Yeah, I know,” he said, referring to what Ms. Sawyer described as “a shameless selling of everything.” He said this was different. “But what I am doing is going to do some good and we’re going to change the world. I really firmly believe that,” he said shaking his finger at Ms. Sawyer. He added, “And if the whole Kardashian show and reality television gave me that foothold into that world, to be able to go out there and really do something good, I’m all for it. I got no problem with that. Understand?” 

 His reality show days aren’t over, however. Mr. Jenner said he was doing an eight-episode documentary with E! that will air this summer but said he drew the line at giving the camera the kind of access he allowed on “Keeping Up With The Kardashians.” 

As for that conservative Republican part?

Mr. Jenner described himself as conservative and Ms. Sawyer seemed taken aback. When she asked him if he would ask Republican leaders to champion the transgender cause, Mr. Jenner was full of aplomb. “I would do that, yeah, in a heartbeat, why not? And I think they’d be very receptive to it.”

Yeah, right. You’re either a full-on idiot, totally clueless, or else think you can tame the Religious Right GOP circus just like a Kardashian circus.

And, that’s another reason not to put him on any platforms.

After all, Christine Jorgensen went public with this 60-plus years ago! Renée Richards went public as an athlete still in competition 40 years ago. Both did so less voluntarily than Jenner, but with more aplomb, perhaps; certainly, remembering Richards, she did so without the apparent publicity-seeking of Jenner. So, while Christina Kahrl is partially right to salute Jenner, she shouldn't be going overboard, either. 

As for Kahrl entering the social justice warrior world by chiding Jenner's mom for saying "he" and "him," the New York Times used male pronouns for its story, and offered what was to me a reasonable editorial defense, noting that Jenner had not chosen a female name nor set out for public understanding other parameters of his identity transitioning. And, it would be bad enough to chide other media outlets; selecting Jenner's mom as the object lesson for a "teachable moment" is kind of sad, in my book.

Jenner's second ex also uses male pronouns in writing for Huff Post. She notes that he had started the transitioning before they divorced. That said, he went on to marry Kris Kardashian, not go further down the transitioning road, and join their media circus.

So, shake your finger at Diane Sawyer, or me, or others, all you want, Bruce. I don't believe you're going to convert a bunch of Republicans. I'm not shocked, or even surprised, that you may go back to reality TV as a "pulpit," or a "slimepit." Please, don't push yourself as America's role model for this. 

Meanwhile, this is further proof that there's no omnipotent god or Intelligent Designer behind this world in general or human procreation in particular. Beyond gender identity issues, sexuality also goes haywire during fetal development, due to hormone insensitivity issues or other things. And, we haven't even discussed things like teratomas, as blogged about by me before, or mosaicism, or even the 25-35 percent of human conceptions that are spontaneously aborted due to various abnormalities. As Francisco Ayala, a nominal Catholic and world-class biologist has said, if God's the Intelligent Designer, he's also the Great Abortionist.

Any would-be commenters who mention "original sin" get their would-be comments deleted. (And, yes, like Ken Ham, some Xns actually will attribute the cause of anything wrong in our world to original sin.)

Government and pursuit of happiness — #ThomasJefferson vs #DavidBarton

For addition of a period, the meaning has changed.

Has a misplaced period in one of America's founding documents led to a misunderstanding of Thomas Jefferson and his thoughts on the role of government?

Very possibly so, according to Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, affiliated with Princeton University.

Here's how one of the most iconic passages in the Declaration of Independence normally reads, with the punctuation mark in question included:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

See that period right after "the pursuit of Happiness"? That's what's at question and, according to Allen, not part of Jefferson's original hand.

OK, we take it out. So, what does that do?

According to another story, this:

Allen ... argues that Thomas Jefferson intended to emphasize the second part of this passage — the role of the government — equally with the individual rights in the first part. Instead, with the period in place, there's an implied hierarchy. So you can begin to see how one little punctuation mark's presence or absence could become the subject of heated debate among those who have strong opinions about the role of government as it concerns individual liberty.

Indeed.

In fact, she's written a book on the issue. And, has some strong arguments. Typologically, given that a comma appears after the first "that" clause, just before the second em-dash, and that other historians of the period think that if there's any punctuation mark after "pursuit of Happiness," it's a comma, not a period, she's not alone.

Besides, sentences don't begin with "That."

As for non-wingnut objections to the idea?

First, it doesn't matter that Jefferson was one of five people on a committee drafting the Declaration of Independence. What matters is he was the one writing it.

There's a reason that word is boldfaced.

The Declaration is NOT a "modern" document like an Obama State of the Union address. It's a manuscript in the narrow etypmological version. It's something written by hand, and Thomas Jefferson didn't pass the pen to Ben Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, or Robert Livingston, his fellow members of the Committee of Five.

Beyond that, as the top link notes, beyond my form-critical note about sentences not beginning with "That," this is a textual criticism issue. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, about which I recently read a great critical book about its manuscript history, comes to mind.

So, too, do Plato, Homer, the Bible, etc. This is a text-critical issue. And, with a graduate divinity degree and a class in textual criticism, I'm familiar with issues like this.

Given that the National Archives "engrossed" or Matlack copy is illegible, it's hard to appeal to that. Per the Times piece, and per common text-critical issues, it's very possible that the Stone 1823 copperplate added a period working off, to analogize with the Greek New Testament, the "Textus Receptus" at hand.

Also per the story, Allen has other historians who agree, including others that have a background in textual criticism and manuscript issues.

That all said, we do have parallels in the study of other ancient manuscripts to what would have happened had Jefferson handed the quill pen to somebody else. Paul, at the end of one of his letters, says, "Look at the big marks I make with my own hand," implying everything else had been dictated to a scribe. (Sidebar: It makes one wonder how much of the claim Paul was a Pharisee of academic training actually is true; given that it's only in Acts, not in Philippians, itself of doubtful authenticity to a few scholars, this almost certainly isn't true, the academic part. But then, was he a Pharisee at all? I'll stop, before digressing too much.) Or, in a manuscript of the Gospels, we'll see how a second "hand" edits what (he thinks) is a mistake in the original.

But, we have none of that here. Nobody's ever suggested that the version at the Archives is based on multiple "hands" being on the document Matlack used.

To wit:

The period does not appear in Jefferson’s so-called original rough draft (held in the Library of Congress), or in the broadside that Congress ordered from the Philadelphia printer John Dunlap on July 4. It also does not appear in the version that was copied into Congress’s official records, known as its “corrected journal,” in mid-July.

So, there you go. 

These issues of textual criticism are well illustrated by the history of composition of the Gettyburg Address, delineated very well in this new book.

Now, back to, using biblical studies analogies, "higher criticism" of the passage with a comma, not a period. And thus, sometimes my "wasted" professional degree is not wasted.

Does it make the language flow that much differently? I say yes. I think she's still stretching her argument somewhat, but not fully.

The Jefferson of 1776 was certainly not the states rightist of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions a full two decades later. He would surely, still, have a belief in a somewhat limited government, but, we do know that he feared a strong central government because he thought it would overly boost the power of manufacturing interests — and, indirectly, financiers.

So, at a minimum, this undercuts the Jefferson as portrayed by libertarian wingnuts who want to move him halfway to Ayn Rand, or Religious Right wingnuts like David Barton who want to make him into a small-government zealot so as to undercut his "wall of separation" comments on church-state separation.

As for claims that Jefferson is misinterpreted, as Barton likes to state? Wikipedia shows that it's more complex than that. Our history shows that our founding fathers made a number of other compromises, though they held ideals in mind. Note slavery. Setting aside the inconsistent, then hardening, Jefferson, we know Ben Franklin's involvement in abolition, yet his signing off on the Constitution.

Some people interested in history may say, but, "It's the 'official' copy of the Declaration of Independence! Surely Jefferson would have corrected it."

Well, this gets back to how much difference the comma vs. period has. More precisely, it gets back to the perceived degree of difference back then, not today.

At the first Census, in 1790, we were a widely scattered nation of just 4 million people with no faster means of communication than horseback or sailing vessel. And, even in Britain, let alone America, government remained fairly small relative to the populace. So much the more, in a more open, more loosely-run nation here.

So, the difference wasn't nearly as much in a pre-electronic communication world of 4 million vs. a wired, big government world of 315 million.

A second reason Thomas Jefferson didn't run to correct Matlack? That's per John Adams famous mis-guesstimate about July 2 being "the day," not July 4, as Adams expected future Americans, if such a country survived, would be celebrating the day we declared our independence, not the day Congress approved the document stating why we had declared that independence. A month later, as long as Matlack didn't refer to George II instead of George III, nobody was that concerned. By the time of the 1823 copperplate, I'm pretty sure Adams, Jefferson and Charles Carroll were the only three Signers alive and nobody thought to check.

Third, given the military events of the next 18 months in the middle colonies, the Declarational Founders had little time to worry about what was surely very low on their priorities list. They were trying to escape capture by Gen. Howe, squabbling over who should have precedence in the mission to Versailles, trying to figure out how to pay for that French weaponry and much more.

In other words, to riff from the Declaration to the Constitution, and to kick one of David Barton's fellow travelers, Constitutional originalist Nino Scalia, right in the nuts, nobody was performing biblolatry on the Declaration of Independence between 1776 and 1823.

And, what you saw in the last five paragraphs above, if you include the snarky last one, was the equivalent of "historical criticism" or "higher criticism" in biblical studies, properly connecting with textual criticism.

And I do appreciate some comment on Facebook which led me to the last one-third of this post, to spell out these issues.

Texas GOP responds to LBJ civil rights 50th anniversary event

Former presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and some Republican guy named W. all spoke in Austin yesterday and today at the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson campaign for civil rights.

Carter said we can't use the idea that "LBJ did it" to excuse us from not continuing to do the work that's still needed today. Clinton acknowledged his political debt to LBJ. (That said, Carter in pandering to Reagan Democrats in 1976 already, and Clinton in things like crack vs. powder cocaine, saw the light more after they finished their presidencies than before.)

But, even though that W. Bush guy is a Republican, and gave the finale of the presidential speeches, that doesn't represent all Republican opinion in the state. Because he's a squish and a liberal and not a true conservative, you know.

Rick Perry says that talk of civil rights is an attempt to distract from his record as Texas' job creator in chief. He said his record shows he favors full civil rights for all minimum-wage, no-benefits jobs.

Ted Cruz said that civil rights today is a code word for affirmative action which is a code word for quotas which is all about socialism. Besides, Cruz says, since the bible says there is no Jew or Gentile, that means that Jesus knows we don't need civil rights, especially since the Old Testament warns us not to mix different kinds, including not mixing "chosen" and "unchosen" people, you know?

John Cornyn repeats what Ted Cruz said because, per LBJ, Cornyn has voluntarily put his pecker in Cruz's pocket. Per Ted Cruz's bible-quoting and Cornyn's pecker-surrendering, Cornyn refuses to tell us whether he's circumcised or uncircumcised.

Louie Gohmert says complaining about civil rights is a plot to steal the precious bodily fluids of good, upstanding people who just happen to have upstanding race, gender and skin color.

Greg Abbott (who may again be MIA) says we can't afford pre-kindergarten, let alone full-day pre-K, for all students in our state until we do a rigorous cost analysis of the benefits. That cost analysis will include figuring out which of today's 4-year-olds is most likely to vote be allowed to vote, especially under terms of his proposed Vote Improvement Protection —Access Security System. (There's an acronym for that.) Abbott also indicated he has a "highly respected" educational guru to help him do all this. Beyond looking for valid drivers licenses and administering pre-1964 style poll tax questions, the (read the acronym) allows all voting stations to ignore the Americans with Disabilities Act for all voters under the rank of Attorney General or retired Attorney General. When asked about how he could stand for such blatant favoratism, he said it was a dirty liberal trick  to ask him to "stand" for anything.

Dan Patrick says getting some Ill Eagles to do lots of work for cheap, because they're Ill Eagles, doesn't violate their civil rights, because they have none, since they're Ill Eagles.

David Dewhurst says he agreed with all of the above in spades, because Ted Cruz put the Dew's pecker into a pig in a blanket 2 years ago. He added that he favors civil rights for (the grounds crew employees) at any country club where he is a member, and then asks Dan Patrick if he's got any phone numbers.

Jerry Patterson although previously promising to give women all the guns they want, is silent, then starts randomly waving his gun in the air and shooting.

Joe Straus says to himself that he is damn sure glad that Jewish counts as white with a fair amount of Republicans today.