Goodbye, Evo Morales, hello hypocritical lefty apologists (UPDATED: Hee's BACK, or will be soon)

I finally decided that, rather than loading on and on to yesterday's piece about Morales leaving, I would get square in the face of some lefties about who committed a coup or didn't, who committed one first if both sides did, etc.

(And, per the update below about Bolivia's redo 1 year later, I'm getting square in some faces again.)

Let's start from what ticked me off:

At The Nation, Mark Weisbrot calls it a coup, while listing Morales' past history — but without any criticism. I've responded that I'll call the past few weeks' action a "countercoup" IF he'll use the C-word for Morales from three years ago up to a month ago.

OK, I'll call it a countercoup, IF you'll go back to 2016, when Morales decided to violate the constitution & use the c-word for his stacked court reversal, none of which you actually criticize. Plus, other leftists have found Morales less than all that. https://t.co/PPXkoNM9mv

— reallyDonaldTrump  🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) November 11, 2019

Ditto goes for you, Ken Silverstein, where I saw Weisbrot's piece. Also "interesting" is that both of them reference Benjamin Dangl without referring to any of his above work.

Ahh, yes the Dangl I did reference.

Let's go to Counterpunch, where, already back in 2016 Dangl was sounding the alarm about Morales' apparent moves toward wanting to be the stereotypical president for life. Dangl (also at Truthout) discusses Morales' electoral corruption leading up to that referendum that failed, and even more notable for lefties who would put him on a platform, promises already either failing or broken.

Gotta love softheaded lefties justifying Evo Morales breaking the Bolivian constitution by saying "but the supreme court said" and so #RuleOfLaw. Putin's Russia also has a supreme court. At least Putin himself had decency to serve a term as prime minister. https://t.co/PPXkoNM9mv

— reallyDonaldTrump  🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) November 11, 2019

If Weisbrot wants to say "rule of law," beyond my in-depth refudiation below? Even Putin had the constitutional decency, on paper, to serve a term as prime minister.

(Update, Nov. 18: Speaking of Putin, or at least of Russia? Hat-tip to Ken Silverstein [tho I had to Google myself to find the actual link]. Russia allegedly meddled on Morales' behalf. Says who? The Organization of American States? The New York Times? No, Quartz says this was first reported by Proekt, a Russian independent media outlet. If only this Australian native had encouraged leakers inside Russia ... 

The piece offers compelling reasons why. Russia wants a cut of Bolivian lithium, like all developed nations do. It though the opposition would be less favorable to mining on Russian terms, or to follow through with plans to buy nuclear reactor construction from Russia. 

Now, Quartz reports that Americans who don't write for the NYT think Morales would have won anyway. On the other hand, both cited analysts write before the alleged Russian meddling was revealed. Proekt's original report was on Oct. 23, before Morales agreed to new elections, let alone to a nudge to leave office. It's in English, meaning they want it read outside Russia, obviously. How much it WAS read in the first two weeks after that date? About zero, I'm guessing. The actual meddling was allegedly by Rosatom, but I doubt, if true, that it was working in a vacuum.

Indeed, the piece notes that in 2016, Rosatom head Sergey Kiriyenko became Russia's first deputy head of the presidential administration, which sounds roughly equivalent to White House deputy chief of staff. He maintained Rosatom connections by become head of its supervisory board. Proekt adds that the Kremlin "was only aware" about the effort. In other words they knew, and probably hoped Rosatom would do well enough on its own. 

Also contra Quartz's two American consultants, on Oct. 20, Proekt says the spread between Morales and the second vote-getter was within 10 percent, which would mean a runoff unless the rural votes pulled it off. Who knows?

It's interesting that the MSM and the official U.S. government has not cited this piece so far, though. [AFAIK, it's not been referenced.])

And, contra Weisbrot's handwaving about OAS claiming fraud then doing no more, Wikipedia would disagree.

And, it's not just Dangl among lefty journalists who's been skeptical of Morales.

Also unnoted by many leftist stenos, but written up at Truthout by Emily Achtenberg? The degree to which Morales had become a populist nationalist. That link also notes how Morales did some Mandela-like compromises to get elected to a third term. (Actually four, but his first term was before the two-term limit was enshrined in the constitution.) Achtenberg, like Dangl, knows Morales, has reported on his extensively, and is a left-liberal or leftist who doesn't buy the bipartisan foreign policy establishment line.

(Also, per that link just above from Achtenberg? The US forcing down Morales' plane in 2013 shows that the OAS isn't always a total US toady. Plus? Morales accepted its call for new elections. Either he believed he was caught dead to rights, or, unlike Hugo Chavez, he had no huevos, no cojones.)

So, again, Tom (and Ken) if I do grant your claims that coup-like behavior happened, I'm only calling it a counter-coup.

Meanwhile, to get this organized better than yesterday, here's why Morales was really running a slow-acting coup himself.

What's that? Constitution breaking? Aaron Maté, Glenn Greenwald, Silverstein, Weisbrot and others haven't told me that.

Bolivia has a term limit on presidents, instituted in 2009.

Morales, in 2015, pushed a referendum to overturn that part of the constitution. And lost.

So? The country's high court, the Bolivarian Tribunal of Supreme Justice, replacing the old Supreme Court at the same time, was approached by Morales and his political party. He got it to rule that term limits were unconstitutional because they violated his human rights. Background on Wiki. What's laughable indeed is that the American Convention on Human Rights not only says nothing about term limits being a violation of human rights, it limits its own commissioners to two terms. Given this fact, if Bolivia's Bolivarian Tribunal appealed to Article 23 of the ACHR, which is the only thing that comes within five parsecs of Evo's claims and its ruling, it's just barmy. (At the time of the ruling, the OAS rejected such interpretation.)

In addition, Bolivia's Tribunal of Supreme Justice is not only wrong, it's hypocritical. Its own members are elected and ...

Wait for it, wait for it ...

Cannot be re-elected. And, it was inaugurated in 2009, along with other constitutional changes, all designed to make Bolivia .... more democratic. Since it was a new agency, and members couldn't be re-elected, it was ripe for manipulation, even if their elections were allegedly non-partisan. (And, yeah, some right-winger would do the same.) Every judge on the tribunal had come into office since Morales' 2009 election.

In addition, most of Latin America has some sort of limits,  if not on overall terms, at least on consecutive terms, per Wiki. The only exceptions? Suriname (set it aside), Nicaragua and .... wait for it ... Venezuela. And also, no recent previous president, whether leftist or rightist, has appealed to the ACHR to overthrow those limits.

So, right there, we're seeing Morales moving toward stereotypical Latin American tinpot dictator territory. (And, giving it an alleged "rule of law" veneer on "snowflake" grounds.)

Next step was then following through and running for a fourth term.

Next step after that was not stepping down, or at least accepting calls for a new election, after this one had charges of major fraud.

Weisbrot claims the OAS was misinterpreting, yes. And, yes, some "slowness" in late rural precincts might happen. But ... we never heard about this in 2009 or 2014.

It seems clear that more and more Bolivians had tired of Morales, constitution-breaking aside. His percentage totals (even accepting his 2019 claims as legitimate) of 47 percent were 15 percentage points or more below his 2009 and 2014 totals. 

Also per Dangl, after the 2019 election started? Morales disempowered the indigenous people he claimed to represent
 

So, Morales appeared to be trying to start a cult of personality, a la Chavezismo. But, he didn't have the country's non-rightists, or the military, as securely in his corner as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. So, constitution breaking, combined with largely ignoring the campesinos in his current term, left him on the semi-outs.

==

That said, I'm not alone. Jacob Sugarman, at TruthDig, also called out Morales for illiberalism and refusal to accept the referendum result.

==

Meanwhile, even into 2020, Jacobin and others continue to spin away the truth about Morales. I stand where I stood. I'll call the actions against him a countercoup IF they'll call Morales' actions against the Bolivian constitution a coup.

I have no doubt that organized rightist elements were lying in wait, looking for their main chance. I also have no doubt that Morales gave them their main chance.

I also have no doubt that Jacobin and others will continue to refuse to look at the serious issues Latin American leftism continues to face, starting with cult of personality issues.

==

Update, Oct. 20, 2020: With Bolivia holding a new presidential election, on Twitter, the UNskeptical cadre of leftists and ALLEGED outside the box thinkers are all laughing at this AP story. In reality, per everything I've posted above, it's fair, evenhanded and insightful. Like this:

A boyhood llama herder who became prominent leading a coca grower’s union, Morales was immensely popular as Bolivia boomed, but support was eroding due to his reluctance to leave power, increasing authoritarian impulses and a series of corruption scandals. 

He shrugged aside a public vote that had set term limits, and competed in the October 2019 presidential vote, which he claimed to have narrowly won outright. But a lengthy pause in reporting results fed suspicions of fraud and nationwide protests followed, leading to the deaths of at least 36 people.

Actually, if anything, the AP story still bends over backward in Morales' favor. Contra my first piece on his constitutional coup, it doesn't talk about the laughable ruling by his packed high court that term limits on the presidency were a human rights violation, nor the hypocrisy that the high court making that ruling was itself term-limited. Nor does it mention that some of Morales' own civilian allies were telling him to move along a year ago.

As for who's going to REALLY be Bolivia's new president? It AIN'T, per this blogger, going to be the "duly elected" Luis Arce.

Morales, who turns 61 this month, said at a news conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on Monday that he plans to return to Bolivia, though he did not say when. 

Like Arce, he took a conciliatory tone and called for “a great meeting of reconciliation for reconstruction.” 

“We are not vengeful,” he said. 

He declined to say if he would have a role in the government. But few expect the sometimes-irascible politician — Bolivia’s first Indigenous president — to sit by idly. 

“Arce is not Morales, but the question is, who is going to govern Bolivia facing the approaching crisis,” said political science professor Franklin Pareja.

THAT's the man, whether he holds official office or not, who will once again be actually holding office.

Evo Morales Thought, anyone? Speaking of? It's almost as bad as UNskeptical lefies, including Green Party thought leaders, stanning for Xi Jinping Thought. I of course checked Howie Hawkins' Twitter feed, as these Green stanners were and are in his campaign, and there we go.

Congratulations to Socialist Luis Arce for his electoral victory in #Bolivia! The Movement Towards Socialism got 20 points more than the closest right wing competitor. #Indigenous people recovered democracy after bloody coup backed by U.S. #Evo https://t.co/9XmY5SP2cC

— Howie Hawkins (@HowieHawkins) October 20, 2020

Teh other parts of the AP story are true, too. The economic bloom was coming off the Moralean installation of Hugo Chavez-type Bolivareanism even before last year's election. But, that will all be blamed on the U.S.

Nobody blamed Hugo Chavez for not diversifying the Venezuelan economy more. Nobody blamed Hugo Chavez for not having Venezuelan petroleum engineers trained in sufficient numbers to adequately extract Venezuela's sour, heavy oil after he nationalized the industry. It was all America's fault. (Nor did Green types among lefties note that Chavez had left Venezuela dependent on sour, heavy, particularly climate change inducing oil!) I referenced this in passing in my RIP for Kevin Zeese, which was prelude to my Xi-stanning piece.

Finally, the fact that Bolivia is having a "do-over" election less than one full year after Morales' (semi)-coup failed shows that the rightists there who were so maligned by American liberals as well as UNskeptical leftists just maybe weren't all evil, or at least that centrists had more power in the whole situation than many left-of-center Merikans chose to admit. I mean, contra people sneering at the AP story, interim president Jeanine Añez quickly accepted the result. Also, per that Wiki link, with a link to a Spanish-language news site, Morales was snooty enough he refused to debate challengers in all elections he was in. And Arce pulled the same thing.

 

And, shock me that Greenwald is among the liars about this. First, he ignores that the reason the "do-over" was twice postponed was because of COVID. Second, he ignores Añez ruling herself out of running. Yes, it may have been belated, and to help another candidate, but she did. Third, calling this a U.S. coup ignores what I said above about even political associates of Morales telling him not to run in the first place. And, of course, all of this halfway ignores Morales' own semi-coup against the constitution, Glenn. (Greenwald does refer to it, but in HIGHLY euphemistic language. He does also admit even someone like Lula, as well as some U.S. leftists, had become skeptical if not critical. But he doesn't tell you why. And, for Bolivia's economic success, he has to pull up a 2014 piece. 

 

The reality is that 2014 was a Bolivian high point; its growth rate started tailing off from there, and the slump got worse starting in 2018, probably in part because of natural gas prices continuing to tank. The related reality is that on a 25-year cycle, as pictured above, Bolivia broke 5 percent GDP growth more than once before Morales took over, too.

 

(Did he distribute that wealth better? Arguably. Did he increase wealth by increasing an extractive economy focus? Unargubly.)

The larger reality is that, if you go to the same link above and do something like GDP per capita PPP, arguably the best reasonably common way to look at things, Morales' administration saw some acceleration of a growth rate that had already started accelerating before he became president.

And, speaking of natural gas? Morales, especially with more time in power, wasn't always the best environmentalist. Ecuador's Correa had a similar history. 

Oct. 23: Threats to freedom of the press and freedom of speech are already starting. Doesn't matter if the statement is racist. (It is.) But, threatening to take the reporter to court? Already chilling.

Nov. 9: As I predicted three weeks ago, Morales HAS snuck his ass back into Bolivia. This was the day after Arce was sworn in. How long before Morales starts being his puppetmaster?

Nov. 14: Just reading Dangl's post-election article. He does talk about a coup, does NOT call it US-backed, and in his story this spring about the Añez government, again notes that Morales brought some of his problems on himself.

==

New update, Nov. 30, 2021: Looks like Morales' flunky-puppet President Luis Arce ain't so popular with a bunch of home folks. Those protestors have since drawn counter-protestors. And, it's drawing flies from right and left elsewhere in Latin America.

Brian Dunning was not only a fraudster, he was an ineffective one

That's one of several findings from this long piece about online advertising.

It's snark-heavy, with a headline of "The new dot-com bubble is here: It's called online advertising."

The bubble, as it turns out, isn't just online advertising. It's a variety of online marketing, including affiliate marketing. The photo at right is a teez of what's coming.

A key early point of Jesse Frederick and Maurits Martijn is that here, in the most dismal of the social sciences (advertising as part of economics), as in other sciences, correlation is not causation.

From there, we dive into some actual research, which the hand-wavers didn't.

Finding one? Paid company brand name keyword links? Bupkis.

We then move beyond that to:

The benchmarks that advertising companies use – intended to measure the number of clicks, sales and downloads that occur after an ad is viewed – are fundamentally misleading. None of these benchmarks distinguish between the selection effect (clicks, purchases and downloads that are happening anyway) and the advertising effect (clicks, purchases and downloads that would not have happened without ads).

Interesting.

Now, that's all true of old-fashioned ads as well.

From there, the authors talk further about "selection effects" (i.e., selection bias) vs "advertising effects." And they apply this to the Hucksterman Empire.

In seven of the 15 Facebook experiments, advertising effects without selection effects were so small as to be statistically indistinguishable from zero.

Well, that's pretty serious.

From here, the authors note that this also shows advertising can't manipulate people as much as digital advertisers claim.

The information above is as true on affiliate marketing as on search, the authors show.

And, given that much of the research on both search and affiliate that the authors cite is about eBay, the specific company that unrepentant pseudoskeptic fraudster Brian Dunning pled guilty to defrauding? Schadenfreude is sometimes a semi-Nietzschean recurring bitch.

And who will tell Sharon Hill?

Goodbye Evo Morales; goodbye, softheaded lefties

It's too bad it took word from the Bolivian military, though not an actual coup, to force constitution-breaking semi-progressive President Evo Morales out of office. (That said, key civilian backers of him were also telling him to resign, but without a nudge from the brass hats, that didn't mean too much.)

What's that? Constitution breaking? Aaron Maté, Glenn Greenwald and others haven't told me back.

Well, per the New York Times, yes.

Bolivia has a term limit on presidents.

Morales, in 2015, pushed a referendum to overturn that part of the constitution. And lost.

So? He had "packed" the Bolivian supreme court and got it to rule that term limits were unconstitutional because they violated his human rights. Background on Wiki. What's laughable indeed is that the American Convention on Human Rights not only says nothing about term limits being a violation of human rights, it limits its own commissioners to two terms. Given this fact, if Bolivia's Bolivarian Tribunal appealed to Article 23 of the ACHR, which is the only thing that comes within five parsecs of Evo's claims and its ruling, it's just barmy.

In addition, Bolivia's Tribunal of Supreme Justice is not only wrong, it's hypocritical. Its own members are elected and ...

Wait for it, wait for it ...

Cannot be re-elected. And, it was inaugurated in 2009, along with other constitutional changes, all designed to make Bolivia .... more democratic. Since it was a new agency, and members couldn't be re-elected, it was ripe for manipulation, even if their elections were allegedly non-partisan. (And, yeah, some right-winger would do the same.)

In addition, most of Latin America has some sort of limits,  if not on overall terms, at least on consecutive terms, per Wiki. The only exceptions? Suriname (set it aside), Nicaragua and .... wait for it .. Venezuela. And also, no recent previous president, whether leftist or rightist, has appealed to the ACHR to overthrow those limits.

So, right there, we're seeing Morales moving toward stereotypical Latin American tinpot dictator territory. (And, giving it an alleged "rule of law" veneer on "snowflake" grounds.)

Next step was then following through and running for a fourth term.

Next step after that was not stepping down, or at least accepting calls for a new election, after this one had charges of major fraud.

It's sad that primarily right-wing opposition was engaging in violence at this point, but that doesn't justify lawbreaking Morales staying in office.

All right here in the New York Times.

But, but, that's a bunch of establishmentarians.

(Update, Nov. 18: Hat-tip to Ken Silverstein [tho I had to Google myself to find the actual link]. Russia allegedly meddled on Morales' behalf. Says who? The Organization of American States? The New York Times? No, Quartz says this was first reported by Proekt, a Russian independent media outlet. If only this Australian native had encouraged leakers inside Russia ... 

The piece offers compelling reasons why. Russia wants a cut of Bolivian lithium, like all developed nations do. It though the opposition would be less favorable to mining on Russian terms, or to follow through with plans to buy nuclear reactor construction from Russia. 

Now, Quartz reports that Americans who don't write for the NYT think Morales would have won anyway. On the other hand, both cited analysts write before the alleged Russian meddling was revealed. Proekt's original report was on Oct. 23, before Morales agreed to new elections, let alone to a nudge to leave office. It's in English, meaning they want it read outside Russia, obviously. How much it WAS read in the first two weeks after that date? About zero, I'm guessing. The actual meddling was allegedly by Rosatom, but I doubt, if true, that it was working in a vacuum. 

Indeed, the piece notes that in 2016, Rosatom head Sergey Kiriyenko became Russia's first deputy head of the presidential administration, which sounds roughly equivalent to White House deputy chief of staff. He maintained Rosatom connections by become head of its supervisory board. Proekt adds that the Kremlin "was only aware" about the effort. In other words they knew, and probably hoped Rosatom would do well enough on its own. 

Also contra Quartz's two American consultants, on Oct. 20, Proekt says the spread between Morales and the second vote-getter was within 10 percent, which would mean a runoff unless the rural votes pulled it off. Who knows?

It's interesting that the MSM and the official U.S. government has not cited this piece so far, though. [AFAIK, it's not been referenced.])

OK, for the truth about Morales leading up to this lawbreaking election?

Let's go to Counterpunch, where, already back in 2016 (reprinted at Popular Resistance) at least one contributing writer was sounding the alarm about Morales apparent moves toward wanting to be the stereotypical president for life. Benjamin Dangl (also at Truthout) discusses Morales' electoral corruption leading up to that referendum that failed, and even more notable for lefties who would put him on a platform, promises already either failing or broken.

Among broken promises? Many of those massive fires of September that many people thought were all in Brazil were actually in Bolivia.

The broken promises? They weren't wildfires. They were slash-and-burn clearage fires designed to turn forest into pasture, and burn out Indian natives, just as has been done in Brazil in the past. Whether it was "just" Morales betting on Big Ag, or what, that's a clear abandonment of the campesinos he claimed to represent. As Truthout notes, they were arguably both an ecocide and a genocide.

Also unnoted by many leftists, but written up at Truthout? The degree to which Morales had become a populist nationalist. That link also notes how Morales did some Mandela-like compromises to get elected to a third term. (Actually four, but his first term was before the two-term limit was enshrined in the constitution.)

In response, it's not just those mentioned above. At The Nation, Mark Weisbrot calls it a coup, while listing Morales past history — but without any criticism. I've responded that I'll call the past few weeks' action a "countercoup" IF he'll use the C-word for Morales from three years ago up to a month ago. Ditto goes for you, Ken Silverstein, where I saw Weisbrot's piece. Also "interesting" is that both of them reference Dangl without referring to any of his above work.

If Weisbrot wants to say "rule of law," beyond my refudiation above? Even Putin had the constitutional decency, on paper, to serve a term as prime minister.

In addition to not wanting to let go, Morales failed to groom a successor. Nicolas Maduro may be semi-craptacular, but Hugo Chavez gave him at least a bit of a head start on running Venezuela.

Dangl, a Canadian historian of Latin America, is not unsympathetic toward Morales. Just a month ago, he noted his successes in office — along with his manipulation of leftist symbols.

The thing is that Greenwald, though not always in the same orbit as Maté, Matt Taibbi and others, is often enough to be a fellow traveler. The so-called anti-imperialist leftists are in my book, as I've said before, alleged outside-the-box thinkers but really some sort of twosiderism stenos.

And, all of them know this. And unless they decried Morales' actions three years ago, they have no leg to stand on.

I've decried Counterpunch for years in the past sometimes engaging in reflexive anti-Americanism itself. When the folks above are worse, that's sad.

Is Morales as bad as a Pinochet or Galtieri? Or a Nicolás Maduro? Of course not. But, he was bad enough.

And, no, softheaded lefties, this wasn't a coup. I eventually accepted the 2009 ouster of Mel Zelaya in Honduras as a coup after first calling it just a semi-coup.

This isn't even a semi-coup — unless we use that term for Morales' actions. The reality is that in parts of the world with less stable democratic traditions brandish the word "coup" like a blunt meat-axe for purely political purposes. And, international allies, mainly the US with rightists, back them up and egg them on.

(Update, 2020: Given the post-electoral history of Morales' successor, Jeanine Añez, and her backers, I am willing to use the word "coup" in dialogue BUT ... IF and ONLY IF Morales' blank-checkers use the phrase "semi-coup" for his own actions. Otherwise, per Wittgenstein? No dice.)

And, there's centrists, as well as some leftists and the many rightists, who thought Morales was wrong on matters of law first, political differences second. Can the centrists and leftists together block rightists from winning the election redo?

Redistricting will hit West Texas Congresscritters hard

The map above, plus the so-called Texodus, tell the details.

Mac Thornberry, in the 13th (blue in the Panhandle) since 1995, Mike Conaway, in the 11th (red in west central Texas) more than a decade, and marginal Republican winner Will Hurd in the 23rd (purple in the southwest), are all leaving.

The 13th is rated as the most GOP-friendly seat in the nation and the 11th isn't far behind. The 23rd is a marginal seat, but many of its Hispanic voters have backed ConservaDems in primaries before, so a Democratic pickup might mean something in the aisles but not a lot in reality.

The fact is that West Texas' rural counties continue to, at best, grow more slowly than national averages and in many cases decline. Even the cities of above 75,000 or so — in size, from large to small, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo, Midland, Odessa, Wichita Falls and San Angelo —have not always grown quickly. The last two, with "old" oil and no new surge, have been nearly flat in population themselves.

Redistricting will be affected in part by whether or not the GOP holds on to the state House. If it does, then the new 23rd, if won by a Dem, will be even more gerrymandered than now. If the Democrats win, they'll try to protect that seat while putting it on the back burner of increasing their power in Austin-area districts, reversing old GOP gerrymandering there.

The 13th and 21st will interact with the 19th, 21st and 25th districts.

The 21st bears watching like the 23rd, as it is currently held by first-term Republican Chip Roy. Roy, a bigger nutbar than his predecessor, Lamar Smith, is in Democratic crosshairs for 2020. If he loses, the future shape of that district also depends on who controls the Texas House.

Jody Arrington in the 19th (orange between the 11th and 13th) is in his second term, and in a very safe district like the 11th.

Roger Williams in the 25th (gray in center) could be the big loser no matter what. He's older, is not a true Tea Party favorite, and lives in a very gerrymandered district. If Dems get the state House, their version of redistricting takes away the Austin tail of his district. The Fort Worth head probably gets put into part of a new Metroplex district, especially if you take southeastern Tarrant County out of the 6th District which makes a lot of sense. AND... current officeholder is GOP rookie Ron Wright, who replaced he retired-in-disgrace Smokey Joe Barton. Again, the future here depends on who controls the state House. Most counties in between would be added to the 11th; Hill County might get put in the 17th.

Is there any chance that the western portions of the 13th and 19th would be combined into an Amarillo-Lubbock district? Little, IMO, if the GOP holds on to the state House; if Dems take control, they're going to want to cram non-El Paso cities in West Texas into as few of districts as possible.

Stay tuned.

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

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

Not just district record, but winless entire season.

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

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

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

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

Yes and yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Santens, cryptocurrency lover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond that?

He repeats his BI stress reduction claims about crypto.

Beyond THAT?

What should be the bottom line for any Green.

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

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

==

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