I Hear Somebody Whistling Dixie... Seriously

I told someone- maybe it was you who read- that I fear an attempt at armed revolt sometime in my lifetime, and that not far off. When it comes I believe the government will win, but in the process most of our remaining liberties will be destroyed forever, or at least for the remainder of my lifetime. Those liberties will include privacy, free speech, free assembly, protection against unwarranted search and seizure, and the right to refuse to testify against oneself.

I do NOT believe the armed revolt will be justified. It will be led by demagogues who seek to retain certain privileges, such as the supremacy of their religion, their race, and their social and economic class. It will be fought by people who hate the very idea of government and who think they will prosper once namby-pamby regulations and laws are abolished once and for all. And it will kill hundreds of thousands of people who wanted nothing more than to be let alone by both sides to improve their own lot as much as they can.

Those of you who scoff and say, "Oh, that Overstreet, he's just a radical- pay him no mind," please read the following stories and tell me how delusional you really think I am...

29% of Americans Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary

Thousands of Paranoid Libertarian Gun Nuts Planning to March on D.C. With Loaded Weapons

Texas House Approves 12 Firearms Bills To Put More Guns In Classrooms And Defy Federal Law

South Carolina House passes nullification bill to make Obamacare a crime

Tea Party-Type Militia Leader’s Domestic Terror Plot Thwarted by Authorities

Civil war is coming, folks. And conservatives will be the ones pushing the bayonet into YOUR back, forcing you up against the guns of YOUR government.

Results of the GOP Primary

First, the local: John Thompson handily defeated the old-school, hard-right challenger Kathie Freeman, 3700 to 1371.

Second, the statewide: Rick Perry won a clear majority, avoiding a runoff against Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

"From Driftwood, Texas, to Washington, D.C., we are sending you a message tonight: Stop messing with Texas," Perry told supporters, who spent the cold evening listening to country music and roasting marshmallows.

(Yes, because the fifth highest poverty rate in the nation combined with massive cuts in government aid to the poor and sick is something that really deserves to be DEFENDED.)

With Hutchinson's defeat, the main political question in the state is: will she honor her promise, which she's already altered twice, to resign her Senate seat after the primaries? The current oddsmakers say no; after all, bare-faced lying and hypocrisy have never hurt Republican candidates yet.

Of the five propositions put before Republican primary voters, all passed- and only the last, the requirement to get sonograms before getting abortions, passed with less than ninety percent of the vote. (The percentages on Prop. 5 were 69%/31% in favor.)

Although most incumbents easily defended against challengers on the Republican side, there are a couple of very interesting outcomes in contests for the Texas state school board races. The former chair of the board, and the driving force behind efforts to bring young-Earth creationism into science classes and far-right revisionist history into social studies, Don McLeroy, is almost certainly going to a recount... on the wrong end. Current unofficial returns show him losing to moderate Republican challenger Thomas Ratliff, 58,338 to 57,528- a difference of only 810 votes. Another hard-right Republican incumbent on the school board, Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, lost by a slightly larger margin to George M. Clayton, a school teacher running specifically against agenda-driven changes to the Texas state curriculum.

So, on that last point, perhaps there is some little hope for the future. At the least, if these numbers hold up, two of the seven young-Earthers on the fifteen-member state board of education will be thrown out.

And that's not counting what might happen if the Democrats find some previously unknown reserves of competence and actually win some races this year...

What's REALLY Important to Texas Republicans?

So, last week during early voting, I voted- for the first time in my life- in the Republican primary.

At some point the slimy feeling will wash off my body.

I voted in the GOP primary for two reasons: to support a Justice of the Peace candidate who has been very helpful to my family in recent years, and because there is no Democratic candidate for County Judge from the Democratic Party. (And the only ballot-qualified third party in Texas, the Libertarians, is no longer functional in Polk County, and hasn't been since I quit that party.)

The County Judge, in Texas government, is effectively the chief executive of county government. He presides over the Commissioners' Court- four or more (always an even number) representatives of districts throughout the county, who are responsible for basic county services in those districts. The County Judge sets the agenda, drives negotiations with business, and does such few executive tasks as devolve onto county-level government.

The incumbent, John Thompson, changed from a Democrat to a Republican five years ago, foreseeing that if he didn't he'd lose his job. His opponent, Kathie Freeman, is the wife of former Republican Party chair Danny Freeman, a long-time Republican stalwart.

Kathie Freeman did not impress me much, especially her performance in debates and public events as presented in what passes for our local county news media. I apologize for the horrible formatting, or lack thereof, of the source material, but here's the important points about Kathie Freeman:

Kathie Freeman concentrated her remarks on the need for cuts to the county budget and her belief Polk County should look closely before accepting funds from state or federal agencies, and should move toward being self-sufficient. Money from the state and federal governments is not “free money,” Freeman pointed out, and it “ultimately comes out of our pockets. I hope we could survive without that and we need to cut it out."

"Now that more than a year has passed since Ike made landfall, maybe it’s time for people to take responsibility for themselves and stop waiting for people to give them money," Freeman added.

. . .

Freeman also took credit for creating the Polk County Republican Club, an issue that has ruffled the feathers of businessman Doug Borie who has documentary evidence that his mother, Eloise Borie, led a Republican club here in the 1980s.

Freeman’s answer to the final question of the night shocked several county employees in the audience. “It seems to me county employees don’t have pride in the county,” Freeman said. “They’re just working there and that’s it. They need incentives. Let them clean up the community. Maybe we can cut their hours. There are always things that can be cut. Without looking at their hours, I don’t know what people are doing.”

. . .

Answering questions about procedures at the Polk Central Appraisal District and the recent 20 percent value increase for waterfront property, Thompson said he would defer to Freeman to explain the process since she spent four years on the PCAD board of directors. Freeman said the board of directors’ authority is limited to hiring and firing the chief appraiser. Later Freeman said the board does vote on the PCAD budget and she had fought to cut that budget, but did not get support from other directors.

The Polk County Enterprise version of this story goes on to add that other members of the appraisal district board, who served at the meeting, disputed Freeman's claims during the debate, forcing her to backtrack- only, apparently, to lie yet again.

So... a liar who tells lies so blatant that they can be INSTANTLY refuted, then responds with new lies... and whose idea of "motivating" employees is to cut their hours, cut their salaries, and force them to go out on trash pickup duty...

... sadly, as the preponderance of letters to the editor of another "news" source indicate, there's a very good chance such a person is exactly what Polk County Republicans want. It's not just Sarah Palin, y'all; it's an entire political movement.

But we'll find out about that tomorrow. That's not why I'm writing this.

When I voted in that Republican primary, I also voted on the five resolutions the Republican Party put on their ballot. These resolutions are usually either trial balloons or rally-the-troops efforts ahead of the state convention, so that those who run the party can demonstrate the support their declared positions have.

Here, from this source, are the five resolutions:

Ballot Proposition 1: Photo ID

The Texas legislature should make it a priority to protect the integrity of our election process by enacting legislation that requires voters to provide valid photo identification in order to cast a ballot in any and all elections conducted in the State of Texas.

Ballot Proposition 2: Controlling Government Growth

Every government body in Texas should be required to limit any annual increase in its budget and spending to the combined increase of population and inflation unless it first gets voter approval to exceed the allowed annual growth or in the case of an official emergency.

Ballot Proposition 3: Cutting Federal Income Taxes

In addition to aggressively eliminating irresponsible federal spending, Congress should empower American citizens to stimulate the economy by Congress cutting federal income taxes for all federal taxpayers, rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars on so-called "federal economic stimulus".

Ballot Proposition 4: Public Acknowledgement of God

The use of the word "God", prayers, and the Ten Commandments should be allowed at public gatherings and public educational institutions, as well as be permitted on government buildings and property.

Ballot Proposition 5: Sonograms

The Texas Legislature should enact legislation requiring a sonogram to be performed and shown to each mother about to undergo a medically unnecessary, elective abortion.

... well, of COURSE I voted against all of them. Want an explanation why? Good, because you're getting one.

1) PHOTO ID TO VOTE

This is just part of an ongoing effort to discourage non-whites from voting. You already have to show photo ID to vote if you forget to bring your voter ID card to the polls. You shouldn't need to show the ID if you also have your voter ID. The net result will be to discourage minority-race people, who (justifiably) fear harrassment by mostly-white Texas cops and officials, from showing up to the polls to vote... which, in turn, means white Republican rule is strengthened.

2) CONTROLLING GOVERNMENT GROWTH

This is the same snake-oil Grover Norquist and his ilk have been pushing for the past thirty years- and it doesn't work. Look at California, where the Republicans managed to institute a requirement that two-thirds of their legislature is required to approve tax hikes. The state, despite massive budget cuts, prison overcrowding, and neglect of infrastructure, is rapidly going broke. Expenses can rapidly outstrip the growth of inflation or of the population, even without an "official emergency." This cap on budget growth is an irresponsible effort to "starve the beast", where the beast is government... the eventual goal, of course, to kill the beast altogether, and vital services be damned.

3) STOP THE STIMULUS

Um... without the stimulus package, we would be in a new Great Depression right now. Sadly, my Congressman, Kevin Brady, recently released a press statement claiming that the Recovery Act caused the loss of over four million jobs in the year since its passage- which, although easily disproven bullshit, plays well with the Republican base. There is also the fact that these "stimulative" income tax cuts the Republicans propose are almost entirely for the highest tax bracket- and utterly ignore those poor enough to pay little or no income tax whatever.

4) PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOD

The Republicans refuse to recognize a simple fact: that atheism, paganism, Islam, Buddhism, and other religions have the same moral right to respect as Christianity. As such, they see no reason whatever not to force people at government events to acknowledge God, or to spend taxpayer dollars to acknowledge God (and, as former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore did, to ban other religious or secular displays that would compete with monuments to God). In short, Republicans have no respect whatever for people who believe differently from themselves- and are quite happy to shove their religion into those people's faces.

5) SONOGRAMS

Not only is this a naked attempt to scare or intimidate women into not having abortions, but it's also a major expense added on to all abortions. Sonograms can cost from $500 to $2000 depending on who performs them. A basic first-trimester abortion costs, on the average, only about $500 to $1000 by itself. The most striking thing about this proposition is that, unlike other Republican positions of the past, it avoids calling for a direct, immediate and total ban on all abortions.

So, what's most important to Texas Republicans this election season? Abortion, enforced religion, cutting taxes for the rich while cutting services and aid to the poor, and keeping non-whites away from the voting booth.

Yes, nice to see that Republicans, face with fewer jobs, higher costs of living, more people falling into poverty, disintegrating infrastructure, underperforming education systems, and a gradual social and economic drift towards Third World conditions, knows precisely what they think is more important than any of those things.

What I don't know is this: why would I, or any halfway intelligent person, want these people running government?

(BTW, I voted- as promised- for Debra Medina for Republican nominee for governor. Tomorrow's primary day- if you haven't voted yet, by all means go and do so- and vote Republican, for the worst candidates you can find. Let's see if the Democrats can find one or two candidates who won't fuck up, who might actually manage to win... and then, once in office, actually spend time undoing all the shit the Republicans have been doing the past twenty-thirty years.)

I go Medina

Well, my mind's made up: I'm crashing the Republican primary this year to vote for Debra Medina for Governor.

Why? Because of the three candidates, she's the most likely to lose in November.

Think Rush Limbaugh's pro-Hillary operation in reverse, on the state level. If the Republicans want to do it to Democrats, they should be prepared to have it done to them, right?

Of course, given just how crazy and unelectable Medina is, it probably won't work- especially after Glenn Beck tried to "out" her as a 9/11 Truther.

Radio host Glenn Beck, saying he was responding to e-mails he got from listeners, asked Medina in a national interview this morning whether she believed the U.S. government was involved in the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

“I don’t have all of the evidence there Glenn so I’m not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that,” Medina said. “I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard, there are some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that.”

When Beck asked whether any of her advisers believed the government was involved, Medina said none of them did to her knowledge. He then asked whether she would disavow any advisers who did.

“That’s a federal issue,” Medina said. “We’re very focused on issues in Texas on Texas state government. I’m certainly not into mind control or thought-policing people. We’ve got a very diverse team in this state and it’s because Texans are standing shoulder to shoulder to support and defend the Constitution. I frankly don’t have time to go through and do psychological testing on people and know every thought or detail that they have. I don’t see us having a team of radical individuals if you will.”

After the interview, Beck, who holds sway with many Republican primary voters, said, “I think I can write her off the list.”

Beck, who has been critical of Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, added, “Let me take another look at Kay Bailey Hutchison if I have to. Rick, I think you and I could French kiss right now.”

Now, the kindest thing that can be said of this performance is that Medina has no business being interviewed in public or in the media, period. Maybe Beck was deliberately trying to ruin her in order to help Rick Perry; maybe not. If so, then Medina might as well have read from a script written for her by Beck for that explicit purpose. She dug herself in deeply.

Although she's since disclaimed 9/11 Trutherism and is attacking Beck for twisting her words, the damage is done. Texas is big 9/12 Movement territory- 9/12 is Beck's personal "revolutionary" political movement, full of people who believe in conspiracy theories Beck approves of, such as birtherism, one-world-ism, and Obama-is-a-Commie-ism.

But not Trutherism.

Still, I'm voting for her in the primary. Election Day is March 2; and on the GOP side, may the worst person win.

What hope for change in Texas?

In the last state legislature, the lower house was divided thus: 76 Republicans, 74 Democrats. (The state senate was 20-11 Republican.)

In 2011 the state legislature and United States House of Representatives districts will be redrawn, most likely by the state legislature. Current projections are that Texas will gain four- count them, FOUR- new representatives in Congress. (Those same projections show no other state gaining more than one.)

If the blatant gerrymandering rammed through by Tom Delay and Rick Perry in 2003 is to be reversed, then the Democrats need to take control of at least one house of the state legislature in THIS election. With national Democratic popularity plummeting due to the bungle which is the health care reform debate, this will be an uphill climb... but, given Rick Perry's own general unpopularity outside hardcore Republican circles and simple demographic shifts within the state, the Dems do have a chance to take two seats and win the state House.

Things like this do NOT help those chances.

State Rep. Terri Hodge, D-Dallas, pleaded guilty early this morning to lying on her tax returns in connection with the FBI’s Dallas City Hall public corruption investigation, an act that ends her 14-year political career.

Ah. So, Mrs. Hodge, you knew this was coming for quite some time. Yet you RAN FOR RE-ELECTION in one of those rare things in Texas, a safe Democratic seat. You waited until it was legally too late to get your name taken off the ballot before finally admitting, "It's a fair cop," and throwing in the towel.

Which means, Mrs. Hodge, your name is still on the ballot for the March Democratic primary, with only one Democratic opponent. If you beat that opponent, then the Democratic Party gets to name your replacement nominee...

... but the Republican Party gets to name a candidate, too.

Up to now, no Republican was going to run against you. But thanks to your attempt to hold on to power despite being caught in a corruption probe, you've opened the door to giving away a seat in the legislature that Texas Democrats absolutely, positively, definitely could not afford to lose- because the Dems can't afford to lose ANY of them.

Again, we need something else. We can't fight one corrupt party with another- it just won't work. A third party is desperately needed- and so far I don't see any viable options stepping to the plate.

Lincoln and Douglas are Still Dead

I didn't watch the Republican gubernatorial debate the other night- didn't really feel a need to. I haven't decided for certain yet which primary I'm going to vote in- vote for the best Democrat or the worst Republican- but I already knew how I felt about all three of the people seeking to be the chief executive of Texas.

That said, the Houston Chronicle's account of the debate is a bit interesting.

Gov. Rick Perry spent most of the evening defending his promotion of the Trans-Texas Corridor, toll roads and the spending of $380 million to attract businesses to move to Texas. Perry said he would not have done anything differently during his nine years in office.

I hope the Democrats have THAT little clip in hand for their fall ads. "If you hated the last nine years of Republican rule, how about four more?" Or better yet, "If this man has his way, someday all Texas roads will be toll roads- including the street on which you live."

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison again tried to square her “94 percent pro-life” voting record with her support for the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. She also took the brunt of anti-Washington rhetoric.

Dead campaign walking. In this environment, nothing other than "the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth" is going to satisfy the radical right organization that the Texas Republican Party has become.

Hutchison restated her promise to quit the Senate no matter whether she wins or loses the governor's race.

So what's keeping you?

Please don't say manana if you don't mean it...

Activist Debra Medina had to distance herself from statements she made last year that if efforts to promote states' rights fail, the nation may need a “bloody war” of secession. Medina said she is against secession. She said she wants the state to be able to nullify federal laws...

So, you don't support secession, you just support the thing that led to secession a hundred fifty years ago.

Debra, dear, don't be ashamed of your pro-secession views. Rick Perry shares them, remember?

But very few concrete ideas were offered by the candidates on how to resolve a possible $17 billion shortfall in the state's budget over the next two years or how to pay for an expected $300 billion in highway construction needed over the next 20 years.

And this is the fundamental point of the debate. The Republican Party has forgotten how to even HAVE ideas. They've lost their brains and have nothing left but their campaign reflexes- fight, and fight dirty.

It's ironic that almost the only idea of any solidity came from the teabagger outsider, Medina:

She offered one of the more direct proposals of the evening: replace the property tax with increased sales taxes — even if that means the sales tax rate would have to go to 14 percent.

I actually ran with this as my main platform plank when I sought a seat in the legislature as a Libertarian, back in 2006. I still think it's not a bad idea, provided you make most necessities of life tax-free and provide some mechanism to ease the pain on the poor.

But it's not really a Republican idea, and never has been, because it requires that one tax be raised to offset the abolition of another. No mainstream Republican has the honesty to admit the need to do this; instead, it's "cut taxes" forever, and to hell with balancing the budget or maintaining minimum services for the worst off among us.

It's sad that a pro-secession, lunatic-fringe teabagger candidate appears to be the most honest and most sensible of the Republican options. It's also not a little bit frightening. Right now the empty suits like Perry and Hutchinson are the only things standing in the way of an open (and possibly armed) revolt by the people who Debra Medina represents. If they don't come up with better policies- or, more to the point, better candidates- then the old Republicans will sink...

... and something new, and much more savage and ruthless, will rise in its place.

Texas GOP Embarrasses Us All, Plus State Poll Update

First, a button which should have got the vendor thrown bodily out of the Texas GOP convention this past weekend, but apparently didn't:

Click here for open racism.

According to the above, the button was for sale at a booth run by these guys. They don't have that button in their listings, but they have others which are real *cough* winners.

This is right up there with the Obama sock monkey, made in Utah.

Aside from that comparison, words fail me- except that I hope every single educated white person and every minority group in Texas gets to know about that button- and votes on that knowledge come November.

On to the national level, FiveThirtyEight has updated its estimates and polling averages in the past twelve days since I first broke down the states into Solid, Wobbly, and Leaning/Tossup. Looking at the numbers, there have been some substantial shifts in 538's mathematical regression model, which forms the baseline for their predictions. These shifts, based on the recent national bump for Obama from getting the Democratic nomination, uniformly favors Obama. I'm going to give some weight to recent polling, though, to counterbalance bias at 538 if it exists, to hold states out of Solid status if there's any doubt.

SOLID --> WOBBLY - Well, no. Once I call a state Solid, I don't give a damn about it anymore; there's no way the vote is going to shift enough for it not to go for that person. It might end up closer than 10% come the election, but it's going to stay in that column barring an electoral earthquake. Forget it.

WOBBLY --> SOLID - Massachusetts goes Solid to Obama, with the two most recent polls showing him up over 10% (and the most recent over 20%)

WOBBLY --> LEAN/TOSSUP - Florida goes from Wobbly for McCain to Leaning McCain; North Carolina goes from Wobbly for McCain to Leaning McCain

LEAN/TOSSUP --> WOBBLY OBAMA - Colorado.

SHIFTS WITHIN LEAN/TOSSUP - Indiana and Missouri go from Lean McCain to Tossup. Virginia goes from leaning McCain to Lean Obama. New Hampshire and Ohio go from Tossup to Lean Obama.

So, here's my numbers:

SOLID OBAMA (12/51) - 157 EV
WOBBLY OBAMA (7/51) - 59 EV

SOLID McCAIN (10/51) - 69 EV
WOBBLY McCAIN (10/51) - 91 EV

LEAN/TOSSUP (12/51) - 161 EV

On the 6th my estimate of solid + wobbly was Obama 214, McCain 202- pretty close. The above shifts change that to Obama 216, McCain 160- not so much a gain for Obama as weakness on McCain's part.

We'll keep watching the polls...

Trans Texas Corridor- Minor Victory

Good news: the Texas Department of Transportation has nixed their plan to build the I-69 Trans Texas Corridor as an entirely new highway, grabbing millions of acres of new land to bypass virtually everyplace.

Bad news: the plan to make I-69 part of the Trans Texas Corridor still stands- which means that US 59 will be expanded to the Goliath proportions of the 400-yard-wide Trans Texas Corridor standards for most of its rural length. Local businesses near the existing US 59 lanes will be destroyed or bypassed for the toll incarnation of I-69, which will have businesses owned and operated by the same private corporations that operate the toll road itself.

In short, the Trans Texas Corridor Project is still alive; the beast has not yet been slain.

TxDOT promises that existing lanes will not be made into toll lanes on US 59. This, of course, presumes that existing lanes won't be torn up or shut down for various reasons.

Granted, Rick Perry is having trouble holding even his loyal Republicans in line on this issue. My Republican State Senator, Robert Nichols, was elected without any opposition whatever- but he supported the moratorium on toll road construction currently in place, and he seems favorable to killing TTC off completely.

Still, it's all the more important to elect Democrats to the Texas state legislature- especially since the Republicans hold only a five seat majority in the House at present. A flip of three seats would be enough to turn the House Democratic, which in turn would spell doom for the TTC and for most long-distance toll projects in the state.

Good Lord, let it happen...

Say No to Trans-Texas Corridor

The following is a statement I will try to deliver Wednesday night, when the Texas Department of Transportation comes to Livingston to give an open house on its attempt to include the proposed I-69 project as part of the Trans Texas Corridor toll road project.

In 2005 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Kelo v. New London that governments may use the power of eminent domain to take homes and property from one person and give it to another for the purposes of private profit. Here in Texas the Republican Party voiced their outrage at this ruling and promised to pass laws to forbid any such abuses within the state of Texas.

The eminent domain bill that actually came out of the legislature was a toothless, worthless document. It did not require that property owners be paid market value for their property or recompense for loss of access to property not taken. It allowed state and local officials to declare property "blighted", take it, and give it free to private developers. It had a list of exemptions a mile long- exemptions for new private wharves and yacht harbors in Freeport, exemptions for the new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys in Arlington, and most notably Governor Rick Perry's Trans Texas Corridor project. Perry signed this measure, this sham of a law, and called it reform.

In 2007 the Legislature came back and tried to close some of these loopholes. It tried to remove the power to declare property blighted. It tried to force the government to pay fair market value for property seized. This bill passed with veto-proof margins in both houses.

Rick Perry waited until the Legislature adjourned, then vetoed it.

Why did Rick Perry veto this second, substantial reform? Because Rick Perry wants to take our homes. Rick Perry wants to give our property to a handful of toll road corporations and land developers. And Rick Perry does not want us to be able to stop him.

In 2002 Rick Perry announced his Trans Texas corridor as a solution to the problem of "rural interstate congestion." There is no such thing as rural interstate congestion. There is, however, such a thing as over $800,000 in campaign donations from toll road interests into Rick Perry's campaign funds in 2001 alone- with hundreds of thousands of dollars since.

Ric Williamson, Perry's hand-chosen head for the Transportation Commission, has told us that, quote, "It's either toll roads, slow roads or no roads." This is by design. In the biannual budget for 2007 Rick Perry assigned 40% of the state's highway budget to the Trans Texas Corridor. By an amazing coincidence, maintenance of existing roads amounts to 60% of the budget. Perry and his supporters, including our very own representative John Otto, have deliberately rigged the state budget to create a shortfall in the highway budget to both fund and justify building toll roads. To quote Commissioner Williamson again: "In your lifetime most existing roads will have tolls." This is their ambition: to force you to pay a toll every time you leave your driveway.

Governor Perry claims the only way Interstate 69 will be built is through the Trans Texas Corridor project. This is wrong. What will be built under Trans Texas is not an interstate. Nearly a third of the projected I-69 project is either already built or can be built with no additional taking of private property. Trans Texas Corridor would bypass virtually all this existing freeway.

In its place Trans Texas Corridor would build a highway with exits spaced as far apart as twenty miles, cutting off access to towns like Livingston, Corrigan, and smaller villages. The Trans Texas Corridor would be over five times as wide as a standard interstate... with no access roads. If the bypass around Livingston became the center of the Trans Texas Corridor route, everything from the Brookshire Brothers store to Long King Creek would be taken, flattened, and handed over to a Spanish corporation... and it still wouldn't be wide enough.

Furthermore, the developers of Trans Texas would build their own restaurants, gas stations, and hotels within the Corridor... property wholly exempt from county or city property taxes, causing all other residents' taxes to go up. The result would be not an expansion of the local economy, but a sharp decline.

Trans Texas Corridor does not help our area. Trans Texas Corridor will take half a million acres statewide to build over four thousand miles of toll road, almost entirely in areas where they are not needed. In urban areas such as Austin it will convert highways already built, paid for at taxpayer expense, into toll roads. It will take homes and pay homeowners pennies on the dollar. It will split counties in half and shut farmers and property owners out of their land. Worst of all, it will triple-tax Texas citizens- once to pay for the construction, then again for auto registration, then a third time for the toll.

Finally: in the past, toll roads were built to cover only the initial cost of construction, after which they were made freeways. This is not true of Trans Texas. The leases, contracts, and agreements involved with this project have terms of as long as seventy years. That means, if this project were completed tomorrow, not a single person in this room tonight would live to see the toll booths taken down. And those tolls would not go to maintain the roads or build new ones: they would go into the pockets of a handful of corporate interests. Instead our tax dollars- which would go ever higher- would be used to maintain these roads built not for our sake, but for the sake of rich men getting richer.

I am oppposed to the Trans Texas Corridor project. I am opposed to Rick Perry, Ric Williamson, John Otto, County Judge John Thompson, and all other supporters of the Trans Texas Corridor project. In November my votes will all be NO for this proposal and YES for those who will go to Austin, repeal the Trans Texas Corridor Act, and shut this project down.

We do not need this boondoggle.

We do not WANT this boondoggle.

Do not BUILD this boondoggle.

Anyone want to give odds on whether or not I'll actually be able to say a word of this?

Didn't think so.

Looking for My Candidate Updates, and John Edwards

First off, I'm editing my Mike Huckabee review to add a second vote-killer: theocracy.

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

Um, that oughta do it, fuck you very much Mike.

Second, a Federal district court has ruled that the Texas Democratic Party has a right to control the membership of their party and to conduct its internal affairs as it sees fit. It's very debatable whether or not a primary election that the state forces them to hold, under laws that effectively make political parties departments of the government itself, is an internal affair. The upshot, though, is that Dennis Kucinich is not going to be on the Texas ballot. Furthermore, Mike Gravel won't be on the Texas ballot either, so unless someone requests him I'm not going to run the numbers on him. (Nor will I crunch numbers for Alan Keyes, unless requested.)

(And as I type this, Kucinich loses another court case: the Nevada Supreme Court rules that NBC News has a right to exclude him from tonight's Nevada debate. Considering he was in all debates up to now, and considering he has virtually no support despite this, I have to call this fair; he's out of the race, except for chasing stray delegates to get him a speaking slot at the convention.)

Finally, I've done a bit of self-education on the primary delegate issue. The Democrats don't have any winner-take-all states: national party rules require proportional representation with a 15% floor (that is, candidates polling below that don't get any delegates). The Republicans do have winner-take-all states, but some of them are less winner-take-all than others, and many of them aren't at all.

At this point I don't see the Republican race turning on WTA strategies: there's just too much difference from state to state, and too many candidates who only appeal to a limited constituency in each state. Huckabee is going to focus his efforts on the deep South, Romney on the urban states, and McCain on states where large numbers of independents will turn out; the other candidates will struggle, likely in vain, to find a win in any state that looks likely.

On the Democrat side, with WTA not an option, the key division point is whether or not the states allow independents and crossover voting. Hillary, who wins the party machine vote (for the moment) will focus her efforts on big states and closed primary states. Obama, on the other hand, will focus on states where crossover voting is permitted. Both candidates will fight tooth and nail for California, the big prize of Tsunami Tuesday, which allows crossover voting for all parties.

As for John Edwards, who gets his turn on the scorecard today? Edwards is within the statistical margin of error in Nevada, but he's still third. He's losing support nationally. Barring a very large gaffe on both Clinton's and Obama's parts, he is out of the running. That obviously hasn't stopped me from voting for candidates in the past, though- I voted Perot in 1992, Browne in 1996 and 2000, and Badnarik in 2004. I might as well give him a good look-over, according to the issues you probably know I support by now.

WAR: Gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Opposes war in Iran. Famously called the War on Terror "a campaign slogan". Supports UN/NATO/US invasion of Sudan to end Darfur genocide. Proposes "restructuring" of military, limiting size and cutting wasteful projects. 20%.

SEPARATION OF POWERS: Dismantling of the imperial Presidency. No domestic spying. Transparency in government. Right of Congress to oversee the executive branch upheld. 100%.

HEALTHCARE: Universal health care plan based on employer mandates, forcing employers to provide it to all employees, offering tax credits to offset (but not eliminate) cost, followed by eventual individual mandates. 0%.

TAXATION AND BUDGET: His idea of "simplified income tax" is Form 1, i. e. trust the IRS to tell the poor taxpayer how much he or she owes. Multitude of new tax credits, deductions, etc. proposed. Higher capital gains, corporate taxes. Silent on government borrowing, balanced budget. Opposes corporate lobbying, but silent on corporate welfare. 0%.

CIVIL LIBERTIES: Voted for McCain-Feingold, "fairness doctrine", other acts to censor political speech. Supports net neutrality. Supports censorship of electronic media. Would restore habeas corpus. Supports end to torture, closure of Guantanamo and black sites. 75%.

IMPEACHMENT: Opposes. 0%.

IMMIGRATION: Path to citizenship after paying fines. Vague statements about "stronger border enforcement."Favors immigration reform to reunite families, cut red tape and background checks for persons already in USA. 66%.

TRADE: Decries, but does not call for repeal of, NAFTA, GATT, WTO. Calls for "smart trade"; prosecuting violations of trade agreements, seeking protection for workers of other nations, balancing tariffs against foreign subsidy, etc. No special emphasis on China except for currency manipulation. 50%.

ENERGY: Supports mandating renewable-resource energy (25% of all electricity produced by 2016), 40 MPG fuel efficiency mandate. Corporate welfare handouts to car companies to encourage them to build alt-fuel vehicles. Supports expanding subsidized ethanol and bio-diesel production. Supports funding public transportation expansion. Opposes expanding actual energy production. Supports clean coal. 20%.

ENVIRONMENT: Supports "cap and trade" system, government-enforced conservation, individual mandates to buy more efficient and cleaner products... or else. Supports expanded government spending to refit poor family homes for energy efficiency. Supports carbon sequestration, methane sequestration. 40%.

TORT REFORM: Former trial lawyer. 0%.

AVERAGE SCORE: 33.7%

VOTE KILLERS:

GUNS: Voted in the Senate to force background checks and licensing of gun-show and private gun sales, mandate locks on guns. Claims to support Second Amendment:

"I think, first and foremost, that we need a president who actually believes in the Second Amendment and in the individual right to own firearms. And, the importance in that, both for hunting and for protection, and I do. I think part of it is the way of life that I grew up with, and the culture of which I grew up in. It’s been with me my entire life."

... yet, on another occasion, said, "Owning a handgun is a privilege, not a right.". (Source for quotes: Blue Steel Democrats.

DRAFT: “One of the things we ought to be thinking about is some level of mandatory service to our country,” said Edwards in a recent interview, “so that everybody in America not just the poor kids who get sent to war are serving this country.” (Source: George Phillies for President campaign.)

RANKINGS TO DATE

Candidates in italics are not in consideration due to vote-killer positions.

Dennis Kucinich - 40.9%
John Edwards - 33.7%
John McCain - 33.6%
Ron Paul - 28.2%
Rudy Giuliani - 22.3%
Mike Huckabee - 16.9%
Mitt Romney - 14.8%
Duncan Hunter - 11.8%
Fred Thompson - 11.1%
Hillary Clinton - 8.5%

Next time: the last candidate, barring third-party or independent developments, the one I've leaned towards pretty much since the beginning of this process, Barack Obama...

(... and if what I've heard is true, Obama was a gun-grabber in the Illinois State Senate, which would mean a clean sweep on the big-party candidates being unsuitable. That said, gun control is the vote-killer item I'd be quickest to drop, since it's extremely unlikely that any president could ram tighter gun control through Congress, even the heavily Democrat Congress that seems inevitable at this point. What's more, eliminating gun control as an issue would bring only Kucinich back into consideration among the already examined candidates... and he's not going to be on the Texas ballot.)

Looking for My Candidate: Dennis Kucinich

MSNBC just issued an apology for saying, in error, that Mike Gravel had withdrawn from the Presidential campaign. I'd had it from two sources, but the other source was likely watching Keith Olbermann too.

I'd planned on doing John McCain next, but current news changed my mind.

Dennis Kucinich Barred from Texas Primary Ballot

Specifically, Kucinich refused to sign a loyalty oath to support the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is. He tried to rewrite the oath to say he'd support the nominee provided that nominee were opposed to the war on Iraq. In other words, he won't support Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war in Iraq and who refuses to commit to withdrawing any troops at all should she be elected.

Kucinich is suing to get on the ballot; the court date is January 11. The timing will be very tight; the party chairs have to submit their slates of candidates to the Texas Secretary of State by January 6 (probably Jan. 7 this year, since the 6th falls on a Sunday). The SoS must then certify the ballots- ballot order, format, etc.- within about two weeks of that deadline, so that the counties can print ballots or set up machines by February 2. The primary itself is March 2, with early voting for the two full calendar weeks before then. Since Federal courts have ruled that political parties can control who is or isn't in their primaries on several occasions before, Kucinich has a steep uphill climb to get on the ballot here- and he has to do it first try, since there won't be time for appeals.

With this in mind, and since I admire Kucinich for his steadfast anti-war, pro-impeachment stands, I'm going to go ahead and score him today instead... while there's time.

Again, going by these standards:

WAR: Out of Iraq, now, completely. No war in Iran or Sudan. Would end War on Terror, replace it with program to end global poverty. Would cut military budget, end all research into new military technologies, especially missile defense. 50%.

SEPARATION OF POWERS: Demands end to imperial presidency. Wants to end government secrecy. Wants Congressional oversight of executive branch, especially Justice Dept. 75%.

HEALTHCARE: Supports socialized medicine- no profit allowed, one payer, total government control. Derides tort reform as unimportant. 0%.

TAXATION AND BUDGET: Would raise rates across the board, although would compensate households under $80,000/yr. with tax refunds and credits. Vast expansions in spending for a new War on Poverty, universal socialized medicine, universal socialized university education, revival of the Public Works Administration. Would make corporate taxes equal to other income taxes. 10%.

CIVIL LIBERTIES: Opposes USA-PATRIOT. Opposes torture, Guantanamo. Supports amendment to ban flag-burning, ban on private spending for political speech in favor of government-run election financing. Calls for repeal of Military Commissions Act and restoration of habeas corpus. 50%.

IMPEACHMENT: Leads the fight, such as it is. 100%.

IMMIGRATION: Favors amnesty, simplification of immigration laws. Opposes militarization of Border Patrol and INS. 100%.

TRADE: Opposes GATT, WTO, NAFTA. Defines "fair trade" to mandate high wages, environmental concern. No particular brief with China. 50%.

ENERGY: Opposes all nuclear power. Opposes any and all expansion of oil drilling, refinining. Supports alternative energy, but also supports subsidized corn-based ethanol and biodiesel. Supports fuel efficiency standards for cars utterly unattainable with oil-based technologies (45 MPG minimum cars, 37.5 MPG for trucks and SUVs); therefore, presumably, supports electric, fuel-cell and hydrogen vehicles. 15%.

ENVIRONMENT: Supports Kyoto, unattainable emissions reductions. Wants to make America vegan, or at the least make all American meat products free-range, regardless of the production losses this would entail. Wants to make all water, even bottled water, public domain and not susceptible to ownership or private exploitation. 0%.

TORT REFORM: Opposes. 0%.

AVERAGE SCORE: 40.9%

VOTE KILLERS:

GUN CONTROL: Supports full civil liability for manufacturers whose guns are used in crimes, by supporting the "assault weapons" ban, and by wanting to essentially outlaw the sale or transfer of weapons between private citizens. Supports requiring a license before any person may own a gun for any reason. Sorry, Dennis, I can't support you after all.

RANKINGS TO DATE

Candidates in italics are not in consideration due to vote-killer positions.

Dennis Kucinich - 40.9%
Ron Paul - 28.2%
Mike Huckabee - 16.9%
Duncan Hunter - 11.8%
Fred Thompson - 11.1%

Next time: Rudy Giuliani, who recently said he'd like a man like Dick Cheney to be his vice-presidential running mate...

How to Look Concerned Without Really Doing Anything Dept.

Today I found out about a new program created in the 2007 Texas legislature that I'd entirely missed in the news coverage, or lack thereof.

I introduce to you: the Low-Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program.

Sounds good, right? Well, um, no.

First, you can't make more than twice the poverty line in your household.

Second, your car has to pass everything except emissions checks. (This, of course, requires that you live in a county that HAS emissions checks, and for at least a year prior to applying. It also requires your car be rolling, and that you have a clean title.)

Third, the director of a state agency- the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality- can put any additional restrictions on the program he or she sees fit.

If you get through these three obstacles, though, what do you get? Between $30 and $600 to bring your car up to code, or between $600 to $1000 to replace the car if it can't be brought up to code.

Furthermore, you can't get the $1000 unless the old car is completely parted out or destroyed outright. You can't sell it as a car or use it as a trade-in at a dealership.

Now, for most causes of emissions failure, $600 is not nearly enough to cover the work needed to bring a car up to snuff. Nor are you going to get a car that passes emissions tests for $1000. In fact, a car that passes inspection isn't likely to be available for less than $3000, and more likely more than $5000.

My personal prediction? This program is going to dole out only a tiny trickle of its billion-dollar budget to the poor. The rest is going to go either to bureaucrats under "administrative costs" or to friends of the current GOP leadership in Texas who can weasel their way through a loophole somewhere.

I personally believe that, if the government is going to concern itself at all with replacing people's old hooptys, it ought to just give folks a new car and be done with it.

Here's how I'd do it: first, set aside a certain amount of dough, say a billion a year, for the program. One million- 0.1% of the total budget- for overhead costs should be sufficient. Give a handful of officials full authority to go out and buy the cars the cheapest way- whether that's direct from the manufacturer or off a car lot. Don't set up any bureaucracy that requires years of applications and review before the cars get delivered; it doesn't stop crooked bureaucrats from giving their buddies a special deal. Instead, investigate the receipts after the fact and make an example of anybody who gets too grabby.

What kind of cars should be bought? No-frills models, certainly- the absolute base standard package. There should be a mix of different vehicle types, but since the program would focus on urban areas the bulk should be small passenger cars. I'd also recommend a mix of hybrids, all-electric, and hydrogen vehicles as they become available; save energy, reduce pollution, and encourage the construction of support infrastructure by the private sector. (Stanley, should we get our hydrogen at Shell, BP or Chevron?)

Given the above, the average price per car should be about $33,000, or a million bucks for thirty cars. If a billion bucks per year is budgeted for the program, that comes up to nearly thirty thousand cars given away per year. Presuming one car per person in Texas (in reality it's more), that's a bit more than 0.1% of all cars in Texas being replaced per year at taxpayer expense. (Which is OK, because most people can afford to upgrade their own rides.)

Anyway, divide up those thirty thousand cars among the urban areas in Texas that require emissions testing, by population. (Living in the sticks as I do, that would make me and about five million Texans ineligible.) People living in those areas can apply for an annual lottery to get the car; pledge your current car as a trade-in, and if your name is pulled, get a new car back. Restrict it to cars ten years or older, but otherwise allow anyone, regardless of income, one chance at a car.

Now let's weight the odds in favor of giving the cars to poor people with polluting, gas-guzzling beaters. Give five extra chances to anyone who shows evidence that the car they're pledging runs, but flunks emissions. Give five extra chances to any household earning less than double the poverty line, and twenty extra chances to any household earning the poverty line or less. Finally, give one extra chance for every two years older than ten the trade-in car is.

Then comes the lottery day, and the winners (plus alternates) are picked. The agency takes delivery of the old car and hands over the new, no taxes, no fees, nothing but a full tank/charge. The old cars can be auctioned off to recover a tiny bit of the cost of the program; the odds are they'll end up as parts, scrap metal, or new offerings in a Mexican car dealership. In any case, they'll be off Texas roads and, more likely than not, off the road altogether.

Is this a legitimate government function? No, not really- at least it's not a core function.

But it's a much better way of actually helping poor people drive cleaner than the abomination the Texas legislature actually came up with.

Texas 2007 Constitutional Election- How to Vote

Every odd numbered year, and sometimes in even-numbered years when there's a special session of the Legislature, Texas has an election to amend the state Constitution. This is necessary because the state Constitution of 1874 is such a poorly written document that little or nothing can be done WITHOUT amending the state constitution... and yet amendment only requires a simple majority of the electorate, giving the constitution all the strength and resilience of salt-water taffy.

This year there are sixteen propositions on the statewide ballot. Here's how I intend to vote, and why I believe Libertarian-minded people should vote likewise.

First, let's skip around a bit and cover all the bond authorizations at once. As a general rule, governments should only borrow money in the most dire of circumstances, because borrowing makes everything more expensive and guarantees higher taxes over the long term. It's debatable whether or not carrying a small government debt helps establish credit against such emergencies; it's not debatable at all that a large government debt cripples both the government and the overall economy. Libertarians should always insist that, if government cannot be stopped from doing something, that it must pay as it goes, borrowing only in cases where urgent need will brook no delay.

This year's bond issues are Proposition 2 ($500 million for a student loan fund), Proposition 4 ($1 billion for maintenance of public buildings), Proposition 12 ($5 billion for highway projects), Proposition 15 ($3 billion for a new state cancer research agency), and Propsoition 16 ($250 million to bring water and sewer service to "economically distressed" neighborhoods- read shantytowns- along the Texas-Mexico border).

Two of these propositions are clearly unnecessary- government should not be either in the business of lending money or funding cancer research (for the benefit of private pharmaceutical corporations) with tax dollars. Both higher education and cancer research should be funded by charity, not by forcing taxpayers to cough up the dough.

Proposition 16, likewise, should be voted down. The "Texas Water Development Board" was created in 1989 to eliminate the problem of homes in the Rio Grande Valley without running water or sewage service. Despite $500 million already spent, this problem has gotten worse, not better, as immigrants and the poor have built new shantytowns in ever more rural areas at a faster rate than the state can keep up with. This infrastruture issue should have remained a local matter, not a state matter; borrowing money to continue it only compounds the waste.

As for the highway bill, it sounds good until you consider two points. First, Texas has a special highway fund for the purpose of maintaining and constructing public roads. This proposal bypasses that fund and authorizes backing the bonds from the general fund directly- thus offering greater opportunity for corruption and overspending when the Texas Department of Transportation is already under investigation for shady spending practices. Second- and more fundamentally- the vast majority of this money will go towards the construction of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a network of privately operated for-profit toll roads, many of which will be converted from currently existing free highways. Building public roads that benefit all is a legitimate government function, as part of regulating commerce; using tax money to back bonds to make private corporations and their friends in the bureaucracy richer is NOT a legitimate function.

Finally, Proposition 4 would not be necessary had the government practiced responsible budgeting and paid for ongoing maintenance as a regular expenditure. By letting things run down and by building new and wasteful projects instead of maintaining existing structures, those in power both Republican and Democrat have made this process much more expensive than it needs to be. Increasing maintenance budgets in all departments would be less expensive in the long run than the bonds will- and for that cause alone Proposition 4 needs to be defeated.

So- vote NO on Propositions 2, 4, 12, 15 and 16.

Now for the other propositions, in order:

PROPOSITION 1: This proposition merely completes the transfer of Angelo State University from the Texas State University System to the Texas Tech University System- both operated by the state government. Voting yea or nay will have no effect on state funding of higher education. I propose to vote Yes, but there is no particular Libertarian reason for voting either Yes or No.

PROPOSITION 3: This proposal allows the legislature to cap appraisal hikes on property taxes in districts that assess property values on a less than annual basis. Although assessment caps sound good on first glance, more careful consideration shows it to be an empty promise. This proposal would not affect most of the taxing entities in the state, which do re-assess property on an annual basis. In those locations where it does apply, the tax burden will merely be shifted elsewhere- either by making up higher appraisals on other property or by raising the overall tax rate. This amendment violates the spirit of the original state constitution, which provides that taxation be uniform- the same rate for all.

Property taxation is inherently unjust in any case, in that it works to forcibly transfer property ownership from the cash-poor to the wealthy. Property tax is one of the most regressive taxes ever devised, and Libertarians should rank it even above income tax as the form of taxation in greatest need of abolition. Proposition 3 claims- falsely- to make Texas property taxes more fair, and fails to address the root problem. For this reason Libertarians should vote NO on Proposition 3.

PROPOSITION 5: This proposition allows the Legislature to allow towns of 10,000 or fewer residents to give specific property tax exemptions for properties participating in Main Street USA or other revitalization projects. Such exemptions would take the overall tax burden away from businesses and lay it heavier on homeowners and other individuals, making the property tax even more unfair. For this reason Libertarians should vote NO on Proposition 5.

PROPOSITION 6: This proposition would allow the self-employed and small business owners to exempt one vehicle from their business property tax, provided it is used for both business and personal use. This is actually a sensible measure; it remedies an unintended flaw in state law. Originally personal vehicles and business vehicles were meant to be handled differently- personal vehicles were not subject to property tax and never intended to be. Unfortunately local taxing entities read the law in such a way that small business owners and the self-employed had to report all their vehicles as business vehicles- even if they only owned one vehicle. Rather than unjustly transferring tax burden to others, it takes away a tax burden unjustly laid on others and puts it back where it was intended to lie. Libertarians should vote YES on Proposition 6- and continue working to abolish the property tax altogether, so such injustice never recurs.

PROPOSITION 7: This proposition allows government entities to sell back property taken by eminent domain to its original owners for the price originally paid by the government. I can't believe that this was actually ILLEGAL to do before- if the government does not need the property, it CERTAINLY should not charge more for the owners to reclaim what was taken from them by force! Granted, there are problems with the bill, but Governor Perry is against it- which is all the more reason for Libertarians to vote YES on Proposition 7.

PROPOSITION 8: This proposition clarifies certain questions on home equity loans (mortgages), which were only in the last fifteen years made legal in the state of Texas. The questions involved are complex, and the basic underlying issues have Libertarian arguments on both sides (the freedom of individuals to dispose of property as they see fit v. protection against fraudulent and misleading business practices). I lean towards voting NO on the sole premise that the issues are too complex and varied to be lumped into a single ballot proposition, but I see no strong Libertarian preference towards either side.

PROPOSITION 9: Proposition 9 allows a property tax exemption for disabled war veterans. Although this addresses in small part the fundamental injustice of property taxes- they take property away from those who have no means of paying the tax- it fails to address the core issue, which is that property taxation is inherently unjust and can never be made fair. The proper way to protect the homes of disabled veterans is to end property taxation altogether. Although I personally intend to vote NO, I can see Libertarian arguments on both sides and feel that a YES vote can be justified on the grounds of not forcing those unable to work to pay property tax.

PROPOSITION 10: Proposition 10 abolishes a long-obsolete county office, the Inspector of Hides and Animals. There is no possible reason on Earth for opposing this office (except that it takes away an office Texas Libertarians have run for and won in the past as a publicity stunt). The only Libertarian vote is to vote YES- and help eliminate an office which would have been abolished decades ago in a sensible system.

PROPOSITION 11: Proposition 11 would expand the number of votes in the Legislature for which a recorded vote is required to all final votes on bills except ceremonial votes or votes on issues of strictly local importance. Greater government transparency should always be supported. Although this bill definitely does not go far enough- in particular it doesn't require recorded votes on amendments to bills- it's a step in the right direction, and therefore Libertarians should vote YES.

PROPOSITION 13: Would allow courts to deny bail when the accused violates conditions of prior bail in felony or family violence cases. One of the vital functions of government is to protect individuals from the violation of their rights- particularly from violent attack. Government needs the power to lock up, without bail, persons who demonstrate their unwillingness to abide by court orders in such cases. A YES vote is a vote to make our state safer, and so should Libertarians vote.

PROPOSITION 14: This proposal allows elected judges who reach mandatory retirement age to complete their terms (or, in the case of judges elected for six years, to serve at least four years of their term). I personally believe this is going in the wrong direction. Incumbency is a major impediment to removing a bad judge from office, and by weakening the mandatory retirement age this bill makes it that much easier for bad judges to remain in office, increasing their personal power and influence in our court system. Libertarians should encourage the frequent turnover of government officials by voting NO.

In conclusion:

PROPOSITION 1 - No strong Libertarian preference
PROPOSITION 2 - NO
PROPOSITION 3 - NO
PROPOSITION 4 - NO
PROPOSITION 5 - NO
PROPOSITION 6 - YES
PROPOSITION 7 - YES
PROPOSITION 8 - No strong Libertarian preference
PROPOSITION 9 - No strong Libertarian preference
PROPOSITION 10 - YES
PROPOSITION 11 - YES
PROPOSITION 12 - NO
PROPOSITION 13 - YES
PROPOSITION 14 - NO
PROPOSITION 15 - NO
PROPOSITION 16 - NO

For your own education, read the ballot language and full text of the propositions at the Texas Secretary of State's website here.

Just Too Much to Choose From Today...

Tomorrow's Corn Flake, barring new developments, is going to be a couple weeks old- but you've doubtless heard of him.

For today, though, I'm finding so much relevant news that I just can't pick one story to focus on. This isn't a Cull Day thing- this is just all stuff which I don't want to hold and wait until more stories come out.

For an appetizer, let's start with this story about the United States' carbon emissions dropping in 2006- the first time since 1990 they've dropped, according to preliminary numbers from the US Energy Dept.

Two points to consider, though: (1) Isn't this the same Energy Department run by some guy who used to be an Exxon executive? (2) Isn't it a bit early for George Bush to be crowing about his initiatives (none of which have been enacted that I know of) reducing carbon while emissions continue to rise in Europe... when even his puppet agency claims the reduction is primarily due to lower energy demands caused by a mild winter and summer in 2006? This story, combined with the word "preliminary"- that is, subject to wild and radical change without warning- smells like bullshit to me.

Over to the Levant for the second story: Israel arrests over thirty Hamas leaders, including members of the Palestinian Parliament. Let me get this out on the table now: I support an Israeli state in the Levant. I support its right to exist. I do NOT, however, approve in any way, shape or form of how the government of Israel acts- basically, like a little bully who knows nobody will punish him because his daddy is an even bigger bully. For years now Israel has had it both ways- blame the Palestinian Authority for not enforcing laws against terrorist groups, while at the same time sabotaging every effort the Palestinians make to police their own streets and negotiate with splinter groups to end the ongoing entefada. If Israel isn't going to treat Palestinians as equals, they might as well withdraw recognition of the Palestinian Authority and declare an end to the two-state policy. If, on the other hand, they really do want an independent Palestine, they need to stop doing dumb shit like this crackdown... this crackdown that makes Hamas, people who use Mickey Mouse look-alikes to call for the massacre of everyone who doesn't agree with them, look like the victims.

Back to the USA now: Reports surface showing that George W. Bush was warned- repeatedly- before March 2003 that taking out Saddam would create an incurable quagmire and sectarian civil war in Iraq. The most relevant paragraph: A former intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the decision to go to war had been made months before the 2003 papers were drafted and analysts had no delusions that they were going to head off military action. Rather, the official said, they hoped their warnings would be considered in the planning.

That's right: yet more proof that the decision to go to war in Iraq had been made months, even perhaps years in advance. More proof that George W. Bush had no intention of negotiating in good faith for weapons inspection, sanctions, or international support for ousting Saddam Hussein. Most damaging, more proof that Bush and his cronies had determined to have a war regardless of all other considerations- including the safety of American soldiers and the American people.

This story comes from an anomymous source, but keep your eyes out when the report this info comes from is released either late this week or sometime next week.

Finally, closer to home... Remember my posts about Houston's sex business ordinance, which is a direct attack on the ability of those businesses to operate at all? Well, the state legislature has squeezed through a new sin tax at the last minute before the session ends- a $5 per head tax on everyone who sets foot in a titty bar.

No, I correct myself: strip club. Even places that don't serve booze have to pony up the dough.

Prize-winning quote from the article at the end, from State Senator Dan Patrick- not the one from ESPN, but he also STILL HAS a radio talk show:

"I don't want the fact that the government is making money from them to make them harder to close. I would rather see the businesses close down," he said after the vote. "If we base our budget on a combination of sin taxes, we are kind of supporting the sin."

Mr. Patrick has forgotten the old adage: the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Mr. Patrick is also one of the supporters of efforts in this legislature to severely restrict or outright ban abortion... and to provide tax dollars to pay women to carry their child to term.

Oh- and although Mr. Patrick is a Republican, the author in the Texas House and the bill's sponsor in the Senate are both Democrats. The state House has to vote to approve Senate changes, so I don't know the final vote there, but only one state senator voted against the bill.

With both parties voting to continue the Iraq war in Washington, and both parties voting to tax people for being horny in Houston and Austin...

... does anybody still really believe Libertarians can change anything unless Libertarians get ELECTED?

Cull Day: A Great Day to be Named Bush, and More

It's already been a long day, and I'm exhausted.

Unfortunately, too much is happening for me to be completely silent today. The Democrats have caved in to Bush, giving him everything he wants with absolutely zero accountability and zero movement towards ending the war. I've already said my piece on the Democrats and their lack of anti-war credibility on my personal LiveJournal. Short version: if you want to end the war, vote Libertarian or Green in 2008- not Democratic, and certainly not Republican.

George Bush has held another fortuitously timed news conference,, announcing the declassification of matters related to attempts by al-Qaida to organize a strike on the continental United States based in Iraq. (Um... is Osama bin Laden really so stupid as to make home base for a strike on the USA in a nation crawling with US troops and militias with conflicting or opposing goals to al-Qaida?)

If the timing of the declassification announcement was deliberately timed to distract from Justice Department aide Monica Goodling's testimony before Congress, it was a waste of a perfectly good propoganda tool. Aside from vague accusations that Deputy Attorney General McNulty perjured himself before Congress and an anecdote that almost, but not quite, accuses Alberto Gonzales of attempting to influence or alter Goodling's potential testimony after she was supoenaed, Goodling opened no fresh cans of worms and provided nothing of any practical use in investigating the rampant corruption in the Justice Department.

However, Keith Olbermann will have much to say on all of this tonight, especially on the failure of Democrats to stand to their guns on Iraq. I'm not going to go into great detail on that... or much of anything, for that matter. I'm tired, I'm feeling burned out for the day, which makes it a great time for the first Cull Day since the return of this blog.

So, let's check the bookmarks and see what stories are a week old or older that don't merit a larger post...

Alabama Calls Libertarians Terrorists - On the one hand, I'm outraged at how a government agency calls people who believe in individual rights terror suspects. On the other hand, I keep remembering how many militia-movement people we had in the party when I first joined in 1999, and how a large number of them were calling for an armed revolution in case of a Gore Presidency- despite the fact that that directly violated both the spirit and the letter of the LP's membership pledge against advocating violence for political change. A lot of our fellow travelers have given the rest of society good reason to be suspicious: time we recognized the fact.

Taliban Releases Kidnapped French Aid Worker - Lesson learned by terrorists (again): Terror works.

Ricky Williams Fails Drug Test... Again - I don't think marijuana should be illegal. I do think the NFL, like any private employer, has the right to set drug standards for employment. Either way, Ricky, when you were already on suspension, continuing to drink and toke and expecting to be allowed back on the playing field was JUST PLAIN STUPID. Folks, this is what wacky weed DOES to you- it makes you think dicking around the people you owe $10 million in non-performance contract clauses is a GOOD IDEA.

Cheney Promises US Will Keep Persian Gulf Open - Two points. First- does anybody believe anymore that Cheney, and Bush and the rest of 'em, are NOT trying to get us in a shooting war in Iran? Second- does anybody in the rest of the world have any respect whatever for anything ANY American government official says, especially Cheney?

Army Offering Bonuses to Retain Officers - Yeah, because, y'know, getting badly underpaid and having benefits cut right and left while being put in ever-longer action tours and ever-shorter time stateside looks SO DAMN ATTRACTIVE to folks who've seen Iraq once... twice... thrice... four times running... Tell me, how do you say, "Not for all the corn in Iowa," in Arabic?

Karl Rove: Re-Open Democrat Voter Fraud Prosecutions, Or Else - I finally got round to reading All the President's Men last week. Today I picked up a copy of the follow-up, The Final Days, detailing how Nixon was persuaded to resign. Between that and this, I'm developing newfound respect for the Washington Post.

Texas Legislature Considers Tax on Nursing Homes - This annoys me. First, a large chunk of nursing home occupants are essentially wards of the state- Medicare or Medicaid is paying for thousands of dollars per month of care they can't afford. For these people, this tax would be a tax on the government- making these programs even MORE expensive than they already are! Second, those NOT on Medicare/Medicaid are pouring their life savings into their care... and this tax would make it even more expensive. Finally, this tax is earmarked... until a future legislature votes to redirect it to the general fund... to "improve nursing home care" by handing the money right back to the nursing homes... that is, those homes approved of by the state bureaucracy. Finally, the law has a provision forbidding nursing homes from passing it on to the consumers directly or indirectly. How in the hell do they expect to prove that a rate hike isn't due to this tax? From start to end, BAD IDEA.

Texas Senate Approves Tying Marriage License Fee to Family Counseling - Speaking of dumb shit from my state legislature, here's this notion- double the cost of getting your government's permission to get married unless you agree to state-mandated, state-controlled, state-chosen pre-marital counseling class. Considering the bill is written by Warren Chisum, the biggest homophobe and anti-sex warrior in either house of the Texas Legislature... just what kind of stuff will they teach in those classes? "Wives, your only proper role is as receptacle for your husband's semen. Husbands, you are not allowed to beat your wives with any stick thicker than one inch in diameter."

Zimbabwe to Head UN Sustainable Development Commission - First Syria chairing the UN Human Rights Commission, and now this. What gets me here isn't that the UN seems determined to prove it has no moral authority whatever to tell anybody to do anything. No, what gets me is that the UN considers Syria, Zimbabwe, and others as democracies, despite their one-party rule with fixed elections and strongmen serving for life. We need to remember that the trappings of democracy, or of a republic, by no means guarantee freedom. Only strict limitations on government power, enforced by the electorate, can do that... and if we aren't careful, what we see in Syria and Zimbabwe could happen here.

$17 Million in Texas Worker's Comp Death Benefits Kept by State, Mostly Paid Back to Insurance Companies - Wow. Government corruption and insurance corporation corruption in the same story. Please note the laws that mandate this were enacted in 1991, back when Texas was still solidly in Democrat control. As much as I'd love to stick this to Bush or Perry, I'll settle for demonstrating equal opportunity graft.

Lawmakers Try to Live a Week on Food Stamps - First, I've had to live on that amount, and I didn't have the help of food stamps. Second, the Congresscritters are very right: you just plain cannot afford a healthy diet on that amount. Third, I don't know that many people on food stamps or other assistance, but: (a) how many states don't supplement the federal food stamp program with their own programs, (b) how many food stamp people don't supplement their stamps with cash, and (c) what role do private charities play in feeding these people? Libertarians need to take an active role in creating a world where (c) adds up to no more need for taxpayers to pay for (a) and/or (b). Until then, let's get past cheap but thrilling publicity stunts like this one-week diet and get some actual facts on the topic.

... wow. That's a lot of stories, and still the list is huge. It's been really thick times for government stupidity, looks like. Probably do another of these before my upcoming business trip.

CORN FLAKE FRIDAY: Pat Dixon

Interestingly enough, it's been rather a slow week for Corn Flakes, especially when you consider why this week's winner has been named. Remember, though, a Corn Flake is a person who embarrasses either the Libertarian Party or the liberty movements the LP is associated with by their actions in public. Corn Flakes are usually extremists and anarchists with no grasp of reality or common-sense politics... but, as this example shows, sometimes a rational person can show Corn Flake potential.

Patrick Dixon, state chairman of the Libertarian Party in Texas, won election to the city council of Lago Vista, TX in 2005. The election was nonpartisan; he was not listed as a Libertarian, and he mentioned the party nowhere in any of his campaign materials. This year he was the only elected Libertarian in Texas seeking re-election... and he failed of election, getting slightly more than 40% of the vote. (Early votes composed two-thirds of the final total and showed him down 25%-75%.)

Now, being defeated in election is not an embarrassment. Very few Libertarians get elected to anything. Even being defeated for re-election is not an embarrassment- although if that 25% number had held up it probably would have been.

No, the embarrassment comes because of Pat Dixon's conduct in office, and the voters' reaction to it. As quoted from this interview on Last Free Voice...

"Like many cities, there is a ruling regime. These people are not necessarily stupid or evil. They want to keep things as they are. These people endorsed me 2 years ago and I won. They must have thought I was going to be more supportive than my incumbent predecessor. When I actually started voting the way I said I would, they discovered that I had no problem dissenting. This year the same “old guard” that endorsed me 2 years ago recruited one of their own to challenge me. It is obvious from the election results that we were outnumbered. Twice as many votes were cast in early voting as on election day. Most younger and working people don’t have time during the workday for early voting, but the retirees can. I was down 70% to 30% from early voting. On election day that margin was too large to overcome... I had a much better run campaign than my opponent, but she was part of the 'old guard' that I was not going to persuade no matter how many advertisements I sent."

So... you got elected by persuading the voters you supported what they supported. Then you voted against the interests of those who supported you. Since you know this, obviously these people spoke to you personally and brought you their grievances... and, apparently, you blew them off. That's what I get from reading this.

Now, this example would seem to demonstrate that Libertarians, once elected, will follow their own agenda and pay no heed to the desires or needs of their constituents. This is NOT a good thing, since the only way a political party can win is by persuading the electorate that its candidates will serve the voters, not themselves, once elected.

But wait- there's more:

"In my first campaign 2 years ago the LP was a significant factor in my victory and I believe it can be for many libertarian candidates in small city municipal races. I did not run around telling everyone I was a Libertarian as this election was non-partisan. There is no reason to use a party label in such a race. However I never deny my affiliation with the LP and because of that I am known as a Libertarian. In that respect the party label can be an impediment."

So, wait. In your campaign you kept silent about your Libertarian association... and because of this you're known as a Libertarian?

And you begin the paragraph saying the LP was of significant aid, but end it by saying it's an impediment?

And finally:

"Additionally, this community is much more aware of the term “Libertarian”. I predict in 2008 that Lago Vista will have a significant increase in Libertarian voters."

Um... the same electorate which brought you in in 2005 threw you out pretty overwhelmingly in 2007, after having experience of you for two years as a person who didn't call himself a Libertarian but was one... and you predict this experience will INCREASE support for the party in Lago Vista?

For blowing an opportunity to show that Libertarians can be office holders that respect those who vote for them... Pat Dixon, this week's Corn Flake!

(Hopefully, though, Pat won't reappear in this feature. What I've seen of Pat is positive- a sensible, businesslike person with a level head on his shoulders. I don't think he's bad or inherently nutty- I just think, in this case, he really, really blew it for himself and our party. And since no Libertarian won in last Saturday's non-partisan elections, it's highly probable that we'll have to wait another two years or so for another chance to prove to Texans that Libertarians can be trusted in power. Hope whoever we have then has a clearer idea of what an officeholder's responsibilities to constituents are than Pat did.)

Michael Badnarik stars in RETURN OF CORN FLAKE FRIDAY!

I missed a lot of chances to point out a lot of people who embarrass pro-liberty folks during my unplanned vacation from politics. However, just as I'm coming back, I get handed a whopper by a man who I've considered a corn flake since at least September 2004.

Michael Badnarik first ran for office in 2000, seeking a seat in the Texas legislature. In a two-way race against a Democrat he got 17% of the vote- about average in a better-than-average year for Libertarians in Texas. In 2002 he entered a three-way race and pulled about 2% of the vote. With this experience, and pretty much nothing else, under his belt he entered the race for the Libertartian Party nomination for President in February 2003, about the same time as talk show host Gary Nolan. Despite raising the least money of the three frontrunners for the nomination, and despite losing seven primary elections to Nolan and winning none, he came from behind at the national convention to win nomination on the third ballot.

I'd heard Badnarik speak before the nomination, and I was less than impressed. Badnarik was actually poorer than I was at the time- he didn't even have a car to his name! His speech centered on a plug for his self-published book It's Good to Be the King, restating its basic premise: you don't have to ask government permission to exercise a right. He took this position to extremes- he advocated the right of felons and lunatics to purchase firearms without restriction, he called for the total repeal of all traffic laws, and he supported the position that persons descended from people who were citizens prior to ratification of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, not being subject to the laws thereof as stated in that amendment, were exempt from all laws passed by the federal government.

After his nomination, things only got worse. The Troika- three activists whose campaign management had led to modest successes in Indiana and other Midwest states- took over Badnarik's campaign and forced him to tone down his message. It came out that Badnarik had not paid a dime of income tax for seven years- had not even filed, despite having more than enough income to make it required. Badnarik had left California for Texas, by his own admission, solely to avoid having to register his firearms. Badnarik had no driver's license- because he regarded government-issued identification as an invasion of privacy.

Despite all this, I endorsed Badnarik and supported him to the best of my ability once he was nominated. (Let's be blunt- the alternatives were Bush, a pro-war Democrat, an elderly and senile if not insane man best known for killing a model of automobile, and a pair of unknowns representing the Green Party and Constitution Party. Compared to them, Badnarik was Solomon without the temple and the 700 wives.) Although Badnarik set a record for Libertarian performance in Texas and especially in my home county, his nationwide result of 0.36% of the vote underperformed both of Harry Browne's runs. I'd thought, at the time, that his career as a Libertarian candidate was over.

Wrong.

In 2006 Badnarik ran for US House, while at the same time making large talk about using a Congressional seat as a springboard for his 2008 Presidential run. This time his campaign manager was one Allen Hacker, an unknown who claimed experience and success as a marketing manager and consultant. (I've posted about him before.) Badnarik's campaign was pitched to Libertarians as the one place to concentrate all fundraising- the one race that could be won on the federal level. The campaign raised over $400,000, draining other campaigns of fundraising opportunities.

In a three-way race Badnarik ended up polling only 4.6%- only slightly higher than average for a three-way race and behind two or three (depending on how you count it) other Libertarians running for Congress in Texas in three-way races, one of whom spent not one penny on his campaign. Although Hacker's blatant misuse of campaign funds did a lot to ensure the defeat, the final blame must be laid at Badnarik's feet- for hiring Hacker, for sticking by Hacker and his "spend big, advertise small, secret plan" policies far beyond the point where they had obviously failed.

For his positions, for his campaign tactics, and for his results, Badnarik deserves the title of Corn Flake. However, that was all long before I began this blog, so it doesn't count... or didn't count, until now.

You see, Michael Badnarik- who has retired from political candidacy- has publicly endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for President in 2008.

Um, Mike?

Ron Paul is a Republican.

Yes, he's a life member of the Libertarian Party, and yes he appears regularly at LP events, but he's said repeatedly that the Libertarian Party should be dissolved and its members join the Republican Party. Furthermore, he's said repeatedly that he will not seek the Libertarian nomination if he loses the Republican race. (In Texas, in fact, he CAN'T be the Libertarian nominee- if he files to run in the Republican primary, he becomes ineligible to appear as an independent or on any other party's ballot spot in November.)

For telling Libertarians to abandon the only party that represents smaller government and support a candidate seeking to directly succeed George W. Bush... plus all the other dumb shit he's done... Michael Badnarik, this week's Corn Flake!

Texas Immigration Issue Update

By the way, in today's Houston Chronicle is an article which outlines a report from the Texas Comptroller's Office saying that illegal immigrants contribute to the economy far more than they take from it in government services.

The quick numbers: illegal immigrants boost the Texas economy, as a whole, by 17.7 billion dollars- $17,700,000,000. That's the wealth they produce- not how much they pay in taxes. They DO pay taxes, though- about $1 billion in state sales taxes and other fees, $582 million in school property taxes, and $513 million in local sales and property taxes, for a total of not quite $2.1 billion paid into state and local government treasuries. From this they get nearly $1 billion for education, $1.4 billion for indigent health care, and about $270 million to lock them up and deport them each year.

So yes, they're getting about half a billion dollars more out of the system than they put in... but poor people across the board always get more out of government than they put in. As a general rule, we try not to tax people with little or no money.

The worrying thing is, though, that the vast majority of the $2.6 billion comes out of local government's pockets. The government in Austin actually makes a profit on illegal immigration, if the Comptroller's Office numbers are to be believed. Unfunded mandates- devolving a government program to a lower level without paying for it- are a chronic problem in Texas, one which neither of the two big parties gives the least attention to.

Hypocrite Doesn't Begin to Describe It

During this past campaign, Texas governor Rick Perry ran campaign ads which presented him as a crusader on border security- that he was, essentially, the only thing standing between us and a mass migration of Mexican nationals into the USA. These ads were probably what got him over the forty percent threshhold in the vote, and might even have been what held off Chris Bell and Carole Keeton Strayhorn- especially with highly bigoted anti-Hispanic anti-immigration groups pushing hard in Texas in support of closed-border policies and candidates.

Well, Perry got 41% of the vote and won the election thereby. Now that he's not on the stump, he's entirely changed his tune on the issue. Now he opposes building a fence along the border- plus he calls for a guest-worker program, essentially following the lead of his patron George W. Bush.

And, y'know, look how well that proposal served him.

Most telling to me, though, is the following quote from the Houston Chronicle's coverage:

"Let's create a guest-worker program that takes these workers off the black market and that legitimizes their economic contributions without doing the same for their citizenship."

Translated: "I want them Mexicins mowin' my yard, but I don't want my daughter ta marry one."

And that's the crux of it. The Republicans in general don't object to illegal immigrations for any reason associated with labor or law; they object because they don't want immigrants, legal or not, who aren't white and rich. They'll never admit to that in public, but if you follow their policies and their actions, you'll see the trend for yourself.

Now for a few facts.

Fact #1: The more people you have at labor in a society- regardless of their legality- the more jobs and more wealth there is. Labor produces wealth, be it by manufacturing or simply by doing something that other people find annoying or distasteful. The more wealth there is in circulation, the more people spend; the more people spend, the more jobs there are; the more jobs there are, the more wealth in circulation.

Fact #2: There is no argument, aside from "rule of law" concerns, against illegal immigration that cannot also be applied to LEGAL immigration. Immigrants have always accepted lower wages than native-born citizens, because they're used to a lower standard of living. In the past people have complained that blacks, Irish, Italians, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Jews, etc. etc. etc. were "stealing jobs away from good (white) Americans." Those immigrants have always sent money back to family members who remained in the old country- would that American families retained that ethic! These immigrants, for the most part impoverished by our standards, take disproportionate advantage of government mandated services like emergency medical care- because (a) we provide it to those who need it regardless of circumstance, and (b) they can't afford anything else.

Fact #3: Many Americans- and especially Texans- are descendants of illegal immigrants. At the time of the Texas Revolution, only about ten thousand Texans were in the district legally according to Mexican law- either native-born Mexicans or authorized settlers under land grants chartered by the Mexican government. The rest, including such people as William Travis, Sam Houston and Davy Crockett, simply jumped the border and settled illegally. Other places- Santa Fe, NM, Deadwood, ND, Atlanta, GA, the Cumberland valley of Kentucky and Tennessee, the entirety of Connecticut and Rhode Island, the entire eastern Gulf Coast including Florida- were settled in direct violation of the prevailing laws of the time- even the prevailing WHITE MAN'S laws of the time. I'm not even considering the (valid) arguments of Indians here.

Fact #4: America is NOT overcrowded. In fact illegal immigrants over the past decade have shifted from urban to rural migration. Even east of the Mississippi there are vast regions underdeveloped or completely undeveloped, with fewer than four persons per square mile. We still have plenty of room for immigrants- so there's no good reason to restrict them on that count.

There is a valid purpose to having borders- to repel conquering invaders and to stop criminals and known terrorists from entering the nation. However, don't believe conservative propoganda- most Mexicans are NOT members of Aztlan and do NOT support a Reconquista. They want to get away from crushing poverty and corrupt government- just as our ancestors did, centuries ago. People like Rick Perry want to use these people and then throw them out when their usefulness is gone... but they're willing to lie about that belief in order to get the votes they need to retain power.

The ethical stance- the Libertarian stance- is to let them stay so long as they don't violate the rights of others.