Kyrie is butt-hurt, LeBron is WTF and Ainge is salivating

Kyrie Irving

OK, here's the verschnizzle on all that.

In case you haven't heard, Kyrie Irving says he wants the Cleveland Cavaliers to trade him because he doesn't want to play wingman to LeBron James any more. Yeah, jaw drop. One ring and two other Finals trips will do that, I guess?

Sidebar: Well, maybe you DON'T have a superteam, LeBron.

Irving mentioned the Spurs, the Knicks, the T-Wolves and the Heat.

Let's look at a couple, while noting I'm not sure how easy the salary cap matches would be for each one.

Carmelo Anthony

The Knicks? Shit, Carmelo Anthony has to have a salary near enough. Yeah, sounds like Kyrie could be a bit of a headache, but if I have the chance to put him beside The Unicorn, Kristaps Porzingis, I do it. Or maybe Melo goes to the Rockets or otherwise becomes part of a three-team trade. Hmm.

And, my guess, at least on a potential deal is right, with the third team reportedly the Suns.

The Spurs? Pops likes defense. Kyrie doesn't. And, just as Kawhi Leonard is making that his team, Kyrie would have to accept playing second banana to him. And, who do you trade for him? An ill-fitting LaMarcus Aldridge, re the salary cap?

The Timberwolves? Tom Thibodeau definitely likes defense. He'd have to play about fifth banana to Karl-Anthony Towns, Andrew Wiggins, Jimmy Butler and Taj Gibson.

The Heat? Pat Riley would move heaven and earth to make that happen. And, it probably could. Stay tuned. Goran Dragic would be a near fit on cap. If Cleveland owner/meddler Dan Gilbert could be placated with a draft choice or something as well ... that could be a trade.

Any snark aside, Knicks, Heat, Spurs, T-Wolves, in order, are my guesses of trade likelihoods. And now, Red Satan reviews some of the trade possibilities. ESPN also goes further down the road of "Is Kyrie 'all that,' and if not, what is he?"

If you believe advanced defensive metrics and other things, he is NOT all that. In turn, that may affect how much smarter teams will pay for him. The Knicks aren't "smarter teams," but the other three on Irving's top-four list definitely are.

Back in Cleveland ...

LeBron James

LeBron was blindsided and disappointed. And he's keeping hands off. Kevin Love is reportedly pretending to chill.

And, if he wasn't sure about going to the Lakers next year, as rumored, well this will probably increase that incentive.

Even if the Cavs hold on to Irving rather than trading him, that's an icy clubhouse in months ahead.

Now, to Beantown.

GM Danny Ainge, just having landed Gordon Hayward as a free agent, and still having stockpiled draft choices, is salivating at a gutted Cavs team.

He's just going to salivate, while trying to be patient at the same time.

(Update, Aug. 24: Ainge was salivating until he pounced in for the trade.)

Update, Sept. 20: Kyrie bunny-hops around Stephen A. and Max attempting to grill him.

Early Texas gov's race rumblings (updated)

Gov. Strangeabbott has, of course, already declared for re-election.

Part of me wonders if he made this official announcement this early was to scare off Danny Goeb from considering a maverick move from Lite Guv to Guv. And no, that wouldn't have surprised me in the least if that were on Danny Boy's mind. (State political analyst Harold Cook agrees on that.)

Few new thoughts via Brains, in two separate posts.

In the first, he speculates about Speaker of the House Joe Straus running for guv as an independent.

Interesting indeed. And, given the flap over the bathroom bill, Texas big biz would pony up campaign cash, and Abbott threats of enemy-listing would be futile.

Two questions — would he consider it and could he win?

The "consider" issue is predicated in part on him possibly being burned out on resisting the Tea Party wingnuts during his five terns as speaker, and while conscientious — which his "no suicides" comment to Goeb about the bathroom bill indicates he is — finally getting tired.

That said he could run and have a non-Mucus (Michael Q. Sullivan) replacement discussed with other Straus Republicans in the House plus Democrats.

The could he win?

Hoo boy. That big biz cash would have to pony up for a GOTV drive of massive proportions as well as lots of advertising. However, big biz in Texas with big office space could find him plenty of campaign events to address.

The second post? One Democrat who's in but not in, and one Democrat (for now) who's definitely in.

Let's take the second of those candidates first.

Tom Wakely certainly talks the right talk about what's wrong with today's Texas Democratic Party. Indeed, he talks enough social justice and environmentalism that I'm with Brains — he could run as a Green if he tires of chasing the Dem brass ring.

Brains thinks something like that, created by TDP cold shoulders, if not outright kicks from Gilberto Hinojosa and minions, could well happen. Wouldn't surprise me. Wakely has at least indicated he'd be open to an independent run of his own.

A Green run would be better. But, that's yet more reason for Texas Greens not to opt out of trying to regain ballot access next year.

(Per Brains' comment, I Tweeted Wakely to consider the idea, and cc-ed the Texas Green Party's account.)

The second candidate? Or quasi-candidate? Jeffrey Payne has basically announced that he'll make an announcement. No previous campaign experience, unlike Wakely, who sought Lamar Smith's House seat last year.

He checks the special interest tag as a gay candidate. He checks the rich conservative wing of the Democrats tag as a businessman citing his business experience. Of course, the Dallas Voice once did a boatload of spinning for eventual felon Joey Dauben.

Yet more about Payne here. Hmm. Hinojosa et al might run more scared from his candidacy than from Wakely's.

Update, July 22: We may have a third candidate. Reportedly, Mike Collier, who already announced for Lite Guv, will either move down to comptroller or up to the guv's race to clear space for former state legiscritter Allen Vaught to run for No. 2.

Collier's got the Dem establishment's seal of approval already. If he does move up, Wakely needs to — and probably will — think harder about his options and plans.

TX Progressives are the lull before the #txlege special session storm

The Texas Progressive Alliance is girding its loins or whatever for the special session of the Lege, and hankering after a “Sunset and Sign, Die” pin.

Off the Kuff highlights a spate of LGBT candidates running for office in the near future.

SocraticGadfly tells any Texas Greens who are thinking of skipping 2018 in working to restore party-line ballot access to stop entertaining such thoughts because next year will be a good opportunity.

Got any Democrats in mind to run for governor in 2018?  Drop a line to the TDP if you do, says PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

Neil at All People Have Value attended the Medicare For All Town Hall sponsored by the Bernie Sanders Our Revolution group and also by Houston Socialist organizations. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

At Dos Centavos, Stace calls out the Harris County Commissioners Court for being chicken-shit on the SB4 lawsuit.

Grits for Breakfast does a roundup of what actual police reform should look like.

South Texas Chisme notes that anti-immigrant stances are affecting shrimping.

Lewisville Texan Journal has the latest on a Title IX lawsuit against that school district.

McBlogger calls out religious liberals for dissing secularist liberals as a straw man, and other things.

Somervell County Salon has an update on a North Carolina county going beyond even the broad allowances on meeting prayers after the Town of Greece case.

David Bruce Collins gives an intro to the campaign of Green candidate Hal Ridley Jr., running for CD-36.

====================

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

Better Texas Blog keeps digging into how bad Trumpcare would be for our state.

Juanita has some fun with a Republican neighbor.

Paradise in Hell wonders what town hall meetings Ted Cruz goes to. Meanwhile, wherever Rafael is, High Plains Blogger sees the return of Lyin’ Ted.

Dawn Hanson advocates for high-density affordable housing as an answer to income inequality.

Michael Li demonstrates how not hard it is to draw minority opportunity districts in Texas.

Gabriella Dunn documents the other requests for voter data in Texas.

The StartleGram talks about Abbott end-running traditional media again, this time for his re-election launch.

-->

#BasicIncome is NOT a magic wand

I've already done one long blog post noting that basic income, guaranteed income or universal income is just ONE tool in addressing automation, other employment concerns of the future, the power of labor in general and more.

It looks like I need another.

When the likes of basic income guru Scott Santens are uncritically retweeting claims that basic income could fight climate change and more (and no, I'm not linking to it), it's time to write.

First, BI may, or may not, bring about non-employment changes, including social and environmental ones.

Second, if Indiana is an example, it could exacerbate global warming.

We know this from a temporal experiment that state did, when it transitioned from year-round Standard Time, with the exception of the Gary and Evansville areas, to adopting Daylight Saving Time.

With more people going home near the heat of the day, home AC use shot up, for an overall rise in state electric use.

If BI led more people to be at home even more, something like this could happen nationwide. That's VERY true if we had 15-hour work weeks, per something else Santens retweeted.

Could it reduce stress? Possibly, or replace it with more marital / partner stress from couples being together more. Again, don't make unwarranted claims.

This doesn't even address the fact that many Americans would go nutsy Fagan in general with a 15-hour work week, between addiction of workaholism and guilt of the Protestant work ethic.
Santens also uncritically retweets conspiracy theorist, 9/11 Truther and alt-right fellow traveler of sorts Caitlin Johnstone.

The big issue? Rather than calling him a "guru," perhaps it would be better to categorize Santens as an "evangelist" for basic income.

And, evangelists stretch the truth. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.

That's why I am not only a secularist, but, at the same time, I'm not a Gnu Atheist.

Basically, at bottom line, evangelists are salespeople.

Hey, Og Mandino said that about Paul of Tarsus. Don't be saying that I, a secularist, am slurring evangelists.

This will probably be the last thing I write on it for a while.

Santens and others also know that the level of basic income necessary to actually have a chance at work-related stress reduction absolutely won't happen in the US and is unlikely even in western and northern Europe.

And, on the sales side? It may even be injurious to the promotion of the cause of basic income to present it as a magic wand when it's not.

Santens also approaches being simplistic in other ways.

He notes the problems with food stamps (TANF) and Medicaid being made into state block grants by "the politicians." Well, first, they didn't start that way, and second, who's to say that, without strict "lockboxing," that basic income couldn't end up that way?

This is another reason basic income is just one tool.  Fix the various parts of the safety net, too.

==

Sidebar: Dylan Matthews, in a wide-ranging, mostly good sometimes iffy piece, notes other problems.

There's the Charles Murrays of the world, who want to gut the existing safety net even more than liberatarians, for example. Surely, other economic-thinking paleoconservatives agree. And, even allegedly liberal union leader Andy Stern wants to use BI to cut at least parts of that net, and cut Social Security. That said, this is far from the only reason I put "alleged" in front of liberal with him.

Stern has other issues. He, along with Murray (with Murray the reasons are obvious) doesn't want a BI that includes kids.

Overall, Matthews brings a good deal of largely well-placed pessimism. And, part of his solution is well-based on that. That's both for a targeted version of BI within the US safety net perhaps being a better starting point, and a more comprehensive BI in the developing world helping both it and the whole world.

That said, Matthews has his own neoliberal interpretation problems with our current economy and labor system. Does automation raise wages? For computer and robot programmers, sure. For the employees who work with the robots? Maybe. For those replaced by robots? Not at all.

We should have his pessimism about elements of BI, yes. But, they shouldn't be run through his own version of a neolib filter. And, yes, it is some sort of a neolib filter. He didn't expressly use the word "Luddite" in attacking worriers about automation, but the idea was there.

==

New update:

I don't make Twitter a total echo chamber, but, Santens make me wonder yet more how much he's in the libertarian tank when he follows both Turning Point USA and its founder, a founder who is an extremely hardcore libertarian.

Per my "one tool" and per Turning Point's Charlie Cook vehemently opposing single-payer national health care, it's at least time to put back up my Twitter filters about basic income. And I may mute Santens.

Note to Texas Greens: Do NOT take a pass on 2018

Specifically, do not take a pass on pushing a ballot access petition for 2018, and waiting until 2020, just because that's a presidential year, and a horrible Donald Trump plus a possible neolib Dem candidate will help chances then.

And, yes, I've heard talk about that already. What I consider halfway serious talk.

So has friend Brains, I'm sure.

Indeed, new state Greens chair Wesson Gaige notes it was discussed last month at the state convention. (Brains will have something next week on Greens' national confab.)

And, speaking of, here's WHY Texas Greens should be wanting on the ballot, with party line access, in 2018.

Per a Brains blog post, plus a piece from Texas Monthly's BurkaBlog, Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidates are shaping up to be asshat sorry. Add in this piece early this year from the Trib, about state Dems already meeting to discuss the issue. (Link is now fixed, per Brains' comment.)

The Trib piece is the source of the photo.

Notes: At left, Wendy Davis of 2014 infamy isn't likely to run again, since she's got her lobbying shop set up. At bottom, both Castro brothers have already taken a powder. At right, Beto O'Rourke's chasing a Senate seat. At top, former Houston Mayor Annise Parker probably doesn't have a lot of "throw weight," although, in that Trib piece, she was certainly making "noises." None of Texas' other big-city mayors even got mentioned. Mike Rawlings is also a Democrat, but apparently getting no love. Ron Nirenberg of San Antonio is also a D, but new. Steve Adler from Austin has been around a while.

With no statewide offices, Dems have a thin bench. Per discussions Brains and I have had, black Democratic state senators don't want to run. Royce West likes his law practice, and possible "overrides" on some of John Wiley Price's grifting, as in the Dallas Inland Port. Former state Sen. Rodney Ellis decided that the Harris County Commissioners' Court offered better opportunity for something or another.

The Trib mentions a couple of Anglo state senators. Mike Collier, from the business wing of the party, has already announced for lite guv.

It's possible that Matthew Dowd, eschewing an indy run for senate, still considers one for guv. That, per Brains' piece, would only increase the 2006 parallel. (If Kinky Friedman runs again, I'll ask the dogcatcher of Utopia to arrest him.)

For Greens, with a somewhat unpopular Gov. Greg Abbott and an even more unpopular Lite Gov Danny Goeb, why would you wait until 2020 to try to get back ballot access?

The second reason NOT to wait is the elimination of straight ticket voting in Texas.

So, get on the ballot, and get a better gubernatorial nominee than Brandon Parmer.

David Bruce Collins, at the Houston / Harris County level, has more good points on Greens acting like an actual political party.

Trumpsteria is even hitting McClatchy

I am hereby suggesting a new portmanteau, mashing up on "Trump" and "hysteria" for "Trumpsteria." Like a wisteria, it will be purplish in its anger, and sometimes in its prose.

Like McClatchy, which I thought at one time knew better than to run speculative-at-best crap like this about Jared Kushner meeting with people who may be, but likely aren't, that close to Vladimir Putin.

First there's this, among the more tenuous statements.

By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts. 

Russia’s operation used computer commands knowns as “bots” to collect and dramatically heighten the reach of negative or fabricated news about Clinton, including a story in the final days of the campaign accusing her of running a pedophile ring at a Washington pizzeria.

Erm, given that major newspapers have retracted their "17 intelligence sources" stories, and for other reasons, if by "Russia" you mean "Russian government," we still know no such thing.

It gets worse:

One source familiar with Justice's criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently "known where to specifically target … to which high-impact states and districts in those states."

So, we have an intelligence operation brilliant enough to distribute fake news stories, or enhance their Google rank, etc., etc., and who have been selected for their cyber-smarts deliberately to target American presidential politics —

BUT, BUT, BUT too dumb to know about the Electoral College and battleground states, and left without guidance from supervisors who would know?

Supposedly, the cyberhandlers behind these bots were even smart enough not just to try to help Trump in the general but also in the Republican primaries. But still dumb!

As for other aspects of that latter link? Clint Watts is ex-FBI. I don't know if he's a BFF of James Comey or not, but it's at least possible. And,  he's clearly otherwise bipartisan foreign policy establishment insider, given stuff like his past association with the Foreign Policy Research Institute. At the same time, CNN says he is NOT known as a cyber expert.

==

On another Trumpian relative, Donald Jr., Masha Gessen has the much more factual story. A low-wattage conman was being conned by brighter ones.