Introducing your Texas gubernatorial candidates

It is Labor Day and the start of the "official" campaign season, so here's your four — yes, four — official candidates.

First is Republican Greg Abbott, aka Dr. Strangeabbott. Like his counterpart, Dr. Strangelove, one wonders if Abbott is always about to break into a Nazi salute. His salute would be either to rich campaign donors, especially if they have any vague, tenuous connect to cancer and can come under the CPRIT umbrella, or if they're gun nuts.

Abbott has never met a fetus he didn't like, unless its mother liked Medicaid. He's never met a schooling idea he didn't like, unless it involved money.

In short, he's a tougher, more bare-knuckled version of Rick Perry pretending to be a kinder, gentler one. He's also, given his losing track record on lawsuits against the feds, a more stubborn version of Perry.

Second is Democrat Wendy Davis, aka Wendy O. Williams. I settled on that nickname last week, because Davis' campaign seems like a discombobulated whirl of energy, when it's not on internal lockdown of some sort.

Davis had a great filibuster in the Capitol last August and has generally gone downhill since. Actually, she got close to the bottom of the downhill last December, shortly after her campaign started. When you openly pander for "moderate" Republican voters at your first major campaign event, that's not a good sign.

Since then, Davis has dodged abortion and reproductive choice issues like a vial of plutonium

Third is Libertarian Kathie Glass, also known as the Lawyer from Hell, who probably thinks that GOP Senator Ted Cruz is a softie on the "treason" and "tyranny" being instituted across the land by Barack Obama.

Glass has also never met a lawsuit she didn't like — at least if she thinks it helps business. You'll notice her website has nothing decrying either forced binding arbitration, or the monstrosity called "tort reform."

Fourth is Green candidate Brandon Parmer. Does anybody know if he's still alive? With a Facebook page not updated in six months and no website, it looks like he self-suspended his campaign. I don't mean that in the sense that some Greens hinted at him suspending his campaign if a deal could be made with Wendy O. Williams, which I blogged against.

I just mean that he seems to have been kidnapped by aliens, joined ISIS, or otherwise dropped off the face of Texas. Parmer's had plenty of chances to fill in gaps in real liberalism left by Davis, and we've heard bupkis.

Anyway, Parmer's so dead I don't even have a nickname for him.

Two years from now, Texas Green Party? Put in a "none of the above" voting option, so that if there's an exceptionally weak candidate, even by third party standards, and he or she is unopposed, the party still doesn't have to put him or her on the ballot, OK? It's nice that the party has its largest ballot numbers ever this year; for 2016 and beyond, let's work on quality as well as quantity.

#GregAbbott still can't "stand" for much, can he?

There's also other politically incorrect language the Abbott folks probably want us to avoid.

Like, I guess we can't ask him to "roll out new policy statements," can we? "Asleep at the wheel" might be problematic, too, especially asleep at the wheel of crony capitalism at CPRIT and elsewhere. "CPRIT: Too strong for a Texas Republican man, but made for a Democratic woman (if she will actually pull the trigger)."

He certainly can't "stand" for multiple debates against Wendy Davis. That's probably because he's afraid it would be too much work to fake sincerity, to fake humanness, in a roundtable-style format. The fact that he's now agreed to a "new" debate offer, set for the same day as the original was slated, and also in the Metromess, underscores that.

I'm surprised he can "stand" continuing to lose in court, like on the state's abortion law. Maybe that's why another reason why he doesn't want a roundtable-style debate with Davis.

Update, Aug. 31. I'm sorry. Abbott will "stand" for one thing, namely voter suppression. Hat tip to Perry.

At the same time, the state's lamestream media can't stand for more than two people in debates. Lets invite Libertarian Kathie Glass. Let's invite Brandon Parmer of the Greens, if he's still alive. Per the second link, the spinelessness of Metromess media in offering a "new" debate option to Abbott underscores how bad they are.

Texas #abortion law: #GregAbbott loses again in court

Like clockwork, Greg Abbott loses another case in federal court:

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that requiring abortion facilities to comply with the standards of ambulatory surgical centers would reduce access so much that it would put an unconstitutional burden on Texas women seeking the procedure.
 "The ambulatory-surgical-center requirement is unconstiutional because it imposes an undue burden on the right of women throughout Texas to seek a previabilty abortion," Yeakel ruled, blocking enforcement of the requirement scheduled to take effect Monday.

Now, while Planned Parenthood has "come out swinging," will Wendy Davis do so on what propelled her to the statewide political limelight in the first place?

Given that she's pretty much avoided this issue like the plague, this could be "interesting."

It could actually be a "get your popcorn" moment; we might see if Davis has St. Vitus Dance or something, based on the amount of wiggling.

Or she might say something as bland as "let the justice system run its course," like after Rick Perry's indictment.

Your #GregAbbott movie text of the week? "John Dietz" or "school finance"

"Thank" Greg Abbott for interrupting your movie.

As a number of people know, Greg Abbott hit a new barf-inducing low a few weeks back of asking supporters to text him from movies.

In a new twist, Abbott is taking his campaign to the movies. He is running an ad in two dozen movie theaters across the state, playing on every screen a film is being shown. The ad asks moviegoers to text the word “FREEDOM” to the campaign. The effort is aimed at collecting information the campaign can use to identify and boost turnout.

This combines three barf factors of the modern movie-going experience:
1. Ads before movies;
2. Political advertising in general today;
3. People using cellphones at movies.

And, as regular readers know, as more and more opportunities to lampoon Abbott come up, I'll be doing just that.

Given Judge John Dietz' ruling on the unconstitutionality of Texas' school financing earlier this week, your text, per the header, is obvious.


Update: Or, even better than any of the other links, text "abortion," or "reproductive choice," or "anti-woman," or similar. Texas' Worst Lawyer has lost again in court, on the state abortion law.

#SJW alert: The new New Left and 20th-century literature

As a good skeptical left-liberal of sorts, one who knows that neoliberals are captives of an ever more rapacious Big Business world, with hypercapitalism, increasing income inequality, globalization and "free" trade and more, I've often said that "Brave New World" is the most prescient novel of the 20th century, ranking ahead of Orwell's "1984."

Not that Orwell is bad, by any means. Certainly, the ideas of "doublespeak" and "thought police" are quite true. But, I've always thought that, in the capitalist West, Big Business would be as much of a problem with this as Big Government and that, to the degree Big Government became a problem, it would be in part due to the connivance of Big Business. Edward Snowden, with most of his NSA work, and some of his CIA work, being done at private contractors, as well as Halliburton and the company formerly known as Blackwater in the Iraq War, are clear exemplars.

That said, the new New Left, the new identity politics Left, the world of Social Justice Warriors and nth-wave feminists, reminded me yesterday that I'd overlooked a novel that, if not as prescient as "Brave New World," might just deserve to go ahead of "1984."

I'm talking about Arthur Koestler's magnum opus, "Darkness at Noon." To its reality, "1984" and its quasi-sidekick, "Animal Farm," are but shadows on Plato's Republican cave. It's what Orwell might have written had he lived next door to the Soviet Union, or even lived through a brief but intense Red Terror, as Koestler did with Bela Kun's post-World War I Hungary, or even been in a Communist party, which Koestler was in late-Weimar Germany.

For those unfamiliar with it, the "protagonist," if we can call him that, is one Rubashov. Koestler wrote the book in 1940, and though he never uses the words "USSR" or "Stalin," or the phrase "show trial," it's clear that that's what it was about. Indeed, Wikipedia says that the "fellow travelers" of the 1930s-40s Hollywood Left feared its explosive movie potential and did all they could to squelch a product based on it.

The plot? After years and years of throwing small fry under the Stalinist wheels, Rubashov, an "Old Bolshevik," is now on the other end of the stick. From having not only informed on people or turned them in, but having helped with previous trials, he knows what's expected of him -- a confession -- and what's  going to happen to him -- an execution. The book has multiple interrogation sessions interspersed with Rubashov's "decompressions" in his solitary confinement cell.

And, eventually, worn down and worn out, he confesses.

Which is what the SJWs want. It doesn't matter the crime; it doesn't matter if you know what the alleged crime is in advance of the Internet (mainly social media) interrogation. It doesn't even matter if you clearly understand it after interrogation, or even after confession.

Indeed, rather like Gletkin dealing with Rubashov, there's an element of doublespeak. The fact that you can't understand is part of the proof of your guilt. That alleged guilt, in turn, is why things can't be explained to you more clearly.

Texas school finance unconstitutional: Judge Dietz slaps down Perry, Abbott

State District Judge John Dietz, upholding his initial ruling of last year on review, says that Texas' school finance system is unconstitutional.

Here is the basic background, to refresh you:

The case grew out the Legislature's cutting $5.4 billion from public education in 2011, prompting more than 600 school districts responsible for educating three quarters of Texas' 5 million-plus public school students to sue. 

 They claimed they no longer had sufficient resources to educate students. The lawsuit cited Texas' school enrollment growth of nearly 80,000 students per year due to a booming population and the Legislature's increased demands for standardized testing and curriculum requirements to graduate high school.

As it turned out, of course, Texas' economy was nowhere near that dire, and Comptroller Susan Combs had good reason to know that before giving information that she did the the Lege.

Here's what happened next:

Dietz's initial verbal ruling came after 44 days of testimony, but he held off compiling a written ruling that would start the appeals process. Four month later, lawmakers restored more than $3.4 billion to classrooms, translating to a 2014-2015 public education budget worth nearly $56.3 billion, and slashing the number of standardized tests required for high school graduation from 15 to five. 

 Dietz then reopened the case this past January, hearing testimony on how the extra funding and curriculum standards overhaul had affected school districts. But the new evidence wasn't enough to change his mind.

Why?

Basically, because math!

Note that $3.4 billion is $2 billion less than $5.4 billion, first. Second, note that that was one budget cycle ago and didn't account for growth in student population. Third, even the 2011 budget before the $5.4 billion cut was inadequate.

The Dallas Morning News, here, addresses the growth issue part of the ruling.

The lawsuit cited Texas' school enrollment growth of nearly 80,000 students per year due to a booming population and the Legislature's increased demands for standardized testing and curriculum requirements to graduate high school.

The cut in standardized tests may have helped somewhat, but, it didn't address 80,000 new students per year. 

More details here from the Austin American-Statesman. Here's the bullet points of a 404-page ruling that notes Dietz found four specific constitutional problems.

• The Legislature has failed to suitably provide for Texas public schools because the school finance system “cannot provide a constitutionally adequate education for all Texans,” Dietz said in his order.
• The finance system is inadequate because it does not provide enough money to accomplish a “general diffusion of knowledge.
• The system effectively imposes a property tax, in violation of the Texas Constitution, because districts do not have “meaningful discretion” over how the taxes are raised, assessed or spent.
• The system is financially inefficient because all Texas students do not have equal access to the educational money needed.
“Consequently, the court enjoins further funding under the system until the constitutional infirmities are corrected,” Dietz wrote. 

As the ABC story at the second link notes, this will be a campaign issue.

As the Houston Chron notes, complete with the ruling documents on site, there's one small twist that's different from a year ago:

The ruling wasn't a victory for all the plaintiffs, however. Dietz denied declaratory relief for a group of charter schools that joined the suit, as well as a sixth group of so-called "efficiency interveners" pushing school vouchers and reforms to teacher tenure laws.

Whether that will cause a new wave of charter school creations, I don't know. And, the other issues have to make folks like the Texas State Teachers Association a bit leery. 

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis has already asked why the office of Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott is defending the case. Assuming he appeals to the Supreme Court, that becomes a bigger issue and a bigger question.

Plus, per that story, assuming the state Supremes haven't made their final ruling before next year's Lege starts (I'm assuming Abbott appeals directly to there), it will create fireworks there for Speaker Joe Straus, the new guv, and the new lite guv.

Per the Chron, the political optics are already starting:

"Republicans like Sens. Dan Patrick (GOP lieutenant governor candidate) and (GOP Comptroller candidate) Glenn Hegar have touted their education cuts as a victory, and Attorney General Greg Abbott defended those cuts in court," Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa said. "The decision today is clear: these cuts were bad for Texas students and our state."

That's about right.

Speaking of, Abbott's released a statement:

"Our obligation is to improve education for our children rather than just doubling down on an outdated education system constructed decades ago. In my campaign for governor, I have proposed substantial improvements for our schools that will do a better job of educating Texans while spending tax dollars wisely. My plan will make Texas top-ranked in the nation for education by returning genuine local control to school districts, ensuring all children are reading and doing math at grade level by third grade, and graduating more students from high school than ever before."

Translation? 

"I'm cheap, I'm hoping that the new loophole for charter schools is a massive one, inner cities are still SOL, and rural wingnuts are stuck with me."

Dan Patrick's is even stupider; he says that it's ultimately for the Lege to decide all of this, rejecting the idea of judicial review.

I don't know if Davis has a statement out yet or not.

Until she, her campaign, Battleground Texas, etc., learn that weekly newspapers exist in Texas, I'm not going fishing for any statement of hers, either. That said, it's not just her. It's Dan Patrick vs. Leticia Van de Putte. I'm sure that, as other statewide races gear up, it will also be other Democrats vs. other Republicans. If you're a Democrat running for statewide office and has a campaign staffer savvy enough to do email blasts, and you're refusing to reach out to smaller newspapers, I don't have a lot of use for you. You are somewhat fulfilling stereotypes that this is all about seven-eight counties in the state.

Meanwhile, back to the main point.

And, also, as if his abuse of power indictment isn't a political boat anchor enough, this, too could weigh on a 2016 Presidential run, if Perry is dumb enough to continue down that road.

That said, let's get back to Dietz's bullet points.

The first and second tie in with the Texas franchise tax and a Perry-pushed "reform" that's what, almost a decade old now? At the time, everybody with brains said it was inadequate and that's proven to be the case.

Bullet point 4 could be a bit dicey. It gets more at the issue of "equalization," beyond the failed "improvement" to the franchise tax. It could be interpreted as saying that the state needs to find better ways of distributing money, as well as distributing more of it, and not just for equalization purposes.

Bullet point 3? Depending on how it's interpreted, that sounds, although it's not new out of Dietz' mouth, like it could be a ticking time bomb.