(BOR community member Vik Verma brings us this guest post in response to Pete Hoekstra's offensive Superbowl ad that ran in Michigan last weekend. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Well, it has happened again. Another sad conservative ad that uses a ridiculous, demeaning stereotype. Another sad conservative ad that thinks that a foreign accent in combination with broken English is good for cheap laughs. Another sad conservative ad that projects the narrative that some people are just plain "inferior."
Yes, I'm talking about the "DebbieSpendItNow" ad. Personally, I thought the ad wrong on its merits. But quite frankly, its merits -- or lack thereof - are a moot point. When you make an ad that becomes a minstrel show, the message is meaningless, right or wrong.
In 2010, the US Chamber of Commerce came up with the "Thank you, Bill Halter" ad during the Democratic Primary in Arkansas. Basically, the Chamber came up with an ad that showed Indians thanking Bill Halter for outsourcing jobs to India. Or more accurately, the ad showed actors that may or may not be Indian thanking Bill Halter. Let's just say that some of those accents were pretty bad.
What's so ironic about the Chamber ad is that this is an organization that really has no problem with outsourcing jobs to India - I'm sure that they support outsourcing in general. Yet when it suits them, the Chamber chose to cheaply denigrate the same group of people. And the GOP wonders why it trails badly among minority voters.
Now, Pete Hoekstra has unveiled the "DebbieSpendItNow" ad. Again, the irony is rich. It once again uses the "us against them" theme to denigrate the Chinese in a mocking manner while professing support for the American worker. Please! Does anybody truly think that Pete Hoekstra truly cares about the American worker?
And Pete didn't even use another organization to put out this ad. He did it himself. He approved this xenophobic message. How do I know that? He said so himself in the ad.
In short, there are those in the GOP who embrace xenophobia because it is a cheap and easy way for them to make political hay and help their friends. In the process, it attempt to breeds division amongst those of us striving for a better nation and world. It is contemptible and speaks to the worst of humanity.
And yet I'm not surprised. That's the sad part. The problem is that this is typical behavior for way too many people. I suppose I could express outrage. Yet, a depressed resignation is what I feel. Because it is way too common.
One of the things that I heard some conservative Republicans say to me is that we should not be "hyphenated" Americans. Well, as an Indian-American, I don't feel that these people have the right to tell me or others what we should be or should be called. But going even further, the hypocrisy of decrying "hyphenated" Americans is exposed when seeing their actual behavior. The most obvious example is the treatment of President Obama. Our first African-American president is viewed as a "foreigner." He is accused of not being born in the United States. His loyalty to the United States is questioned. Never mind that he was born in Hawaii.
In short, some conservative Republicans say we should all just be Americans. Too bad they don't treat all Americans the same. If you are a person of color or an immigrant, they will treat you as "different" - hyphenated or not.
Maybe they don't believe the xenophobia they spread. Maybe they just do it to get votes.
But in the end, it doesn't matter. Because the hurt is the same.
The White House recently dodged what was a bit of a pickle this past week. The administration's policy decision to mandate that all employers cover contraception in their insurance plans drew quite a bit of controversy from religious institutions and conservatives, who said it violated their first amendment rights.
The Catholic Church is opposed to providing birth control to women despite the fact that research studies show that almost all of Catholic women (98%!) use birth control at some point in their life.
Catholics for Choice President Jon O'Brien told BOR:
"It's a fact that 98% of Catholic women have used a form of birth control banned by the Vatican. They have no religious objection to contraception, and the majority of Catholics support insurance coverage of it regardless of who provides the insurance. Students at Catholic universities deserve the same preventive health coverage as everyone else, and the right to follow their own conscience in deciding whether birth control is right for them. By demanding an expansive and unjustified exemption from providing preventive healthcare for women, the Catholic bishops are claiming that their right to religious freedom trumps everyone else's. That isn't a principle that Catholic universities should be teaching their students."
In a much more fluid and simple policy maneuver President Obama simply took the burden off the employer and placed it squarely where it should be, on the insurance companies, requiring that they provide comprehensive access to contraceptive coverage. As the article states, "every insurance company will be obligated to provide contraceptive coverage."
"Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventative care that includes contraceptive services no matter where they work," he (Obama) said at the White House, adding, "no religious insitution will have to provide these services directly."
Planned Parenthood touts the decision as a key policy decision aligning with one of their own tenets:
"As a trusted health care provider to one in five women, Planned Parenthood's priority is increasing access to preventive health care. This birth control coverage benefit does just that."
The Catholic Health Association said the revised policy, "protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions."
This marks the first week that the infamous Texas sonogram law was enforced. (It's been in effect at many clinics since the law was passed in October, but now there are some teeth behind it.) And not surprisingly, it a) hasn't changed any women's minds, b) is a major hassle for women already making a difficult decision, and c) is a hassle for doctors and clinics.
The law doesn't just require that women get a sonogram before getting an abortion. They also have to listen to the doctor describe the fetus' features and listen to its heartbeat. From a logistical perspective, this means women have to schedule two appointments - one for the sonogram, followed by one at least 24 hours later to actually terminate the pregnancy. So it's twice the sick leave, twice the child care, twice the transportation. You can read more about what exactly is involved, as well as the long and torrid legal history, here.
The director of Texas Right to Life claims in a very Orwellian twist that the sonogram law actually empowers women, and that we need to stop "underestimating the capability of women to make a decision with more information, not less." Indeed, she says, keeping this information from them is paternalistic. Except even these newly "empowered" women are making the same decisions that they had made before they were forced to endure the sonograms. According to the New York Times:
"Clinic directors said they have not had a single woman change her mind in the 24-hour period between her sonogram and her abortion. Abortion opponents and advocates for crisis pregnancy centers say that anecdotally, they have not heard of any either."
So it turns out that women tend to know what they're doing when they make major decisions about their health and families. Harassment doesn't really change it. Even the anti-choice groups haven't been able to rustle up any cases that indicate otherwise.
But unfortunately, the legal battle has been put to rest for now. Today the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request to reconsider the suit, so it looks like it's not going anywhere.
Maybe we should take a page from the book of a State Senator in Virginia who, in response to their own proposed sonogram law, introduced an amendment that "would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication."
(Time for the weekly NewsTaco roundup! Thanks to NewsTaco for providing this coverage. Make sure to follow them on Twitter and Facebook. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
Obama, Catholics, And Why I Walked Out Of Mass On Sunday - Last Sunday a priest misrepresented President Obama's directive concerning healthcare insurance in Catholic institutions, saying it forced women to have abortions, and then he said the congregants shouldn't vote for Obama. I walked out.
Through Film Ralph Lopez Tells Real Stories We Can Learn From - "Lilia" is a short film that was released last year directed and written by Sam Lerma and produced by Ralph Lopez and his first feature film, "Wolf" will be screened during the South by Southwest Film Festival in March.
Why Latinas Aren't Allowed To Be Angry, And Other Stereotypes - It's almost like, in our society, it appears that Latinas are not allowed to be angry. In a few very tangible ways, Latinas have it rougher than other folks. Not only do we often find ourselves in an ethnic/cultural/linguistic/racial minority, practically cueing others to pile on stereotypical expectations, but we're also female, which means that often times we might be the only woman in the room, and consequently bear the brunt of an entirely new set of stereotypical expectations.
For Latinos In 2012, It's Not Just About Immigration - The problem is, the issues that keep Latinos up at night-like double-digit unemployment rates, living at the poverty end of the wealth gap and having the highest high school dropout rates in the country-go well beyond immigration. Herein lies the challenge for President Obama. He must recast his connection with Latino voters beyond a narrow focus on immigration and engage Latinos as the multi-issue electorate they are.
US Rep Silvestre Reyes On Ed, Immigration, Rhetoric And More - Economic development, border security, education, healthcare, and protecting America's history as a diverse and immigrant friendly nation are all part of U.S. Congressmen Silvestre Reyes' re-election platform this year.
English Language Latino Media Heats Up - English-language Latinos represent a large market that is growing fast. In other words, they know what they are getting into and competing for, a big slice of the future pie.
I Want More Latinos On My TV - I would love to see a sitcom about first generation working class Latinos, one that doesn't make cheap, ethnic jokes about being a Mexicant (barf), one that isn't filtered through a white-male perspective. I want to see story lines about problems such as poverty, racism, and deported family members, problems that so many of us can relate to.
Latinos More Likely To Be Wrong About Perceived Infertility - According to a recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, almost one-fifth of women and 13% of men between the ages of 18-29 who were polled perceived themselves to be infertile. These figures were higher for Latinos and other minorities.
Every now and then some good environmental news about our backyard comes along. It turns out that Austin, Texas is the number one city in America for clean technology industries according to SustainLane (“the premier online sustainability best practices knowledge base”), a recent Time Magazine article, and others.
There are a number of exciting advances in green technology happening in Austin.
Chief among them is the Pecan Street Project, the country’s largest urban ‘smart grid’ network. A smart grid allows utility companies to gain real time feedback from individual consumers across their entire network and should provide great increases in efficiency, reliability of service, and even enhanced security.
Austin recently opened the largest solar farm in Texas, a 30 megawatt facility in Webberville. The Webberville Solar Project is but one step in reaching the city’s goal of getting at least 35% of its energy from renewables by 2020. Other steps in this direction include the sale of the Fayette Coal Plant, a notorious polluter.
Clean tech companies like Joule Unlimited (a biofuels producer), HelioVolt (a thin film solar panel manufacturer), SolarBridge (which makes AC modules for solar panels), and many others make Austin a creative hot spot for the industry.
This great environment for the clean technology industry did not just appear out of thin air. A strong partnership between our local (city owned) utility (Austin Energy), the University of Texas’s Clean Energy Incubator (a program which provides venture capital funding and laboratory space to new businesses), Austin’s forward thinking city council, and state and federal funding sources provides the unique conditions for the clean tech sector to flourish. The Pecan Street Project, for instance, was partially funded through a large grant from the 2009 Federal Stimulus.
This year’s elections will have very real consequences for the burgeoning clean technology industry in Austin. While I’m sure Brigid Shea (a former councilwoman and Save Our Springs director) would be a stalwart environmental defender, Lee Leffingwell has some very real accomplishments he can point to. The partnership between public utility, university, private enterprise, and city council works in Austin in a way it doesn’t work anywhere else. I would be very cautious about making major changes here.
Today, State Rep. Mike Villarreal showed how our Legislature prioritizes energy industry donors over our state's children. This is a great angle, and very accurate.
New Data Show Natural Gas Tax Break Costs Schools $2 Billion
San Antonio - The state's high-cost natural gas tax exemption cost the state $2.3 billion during fiscal years 2010 and 2011, according to data provided by the state Comptroller's office. The dollar figure is roughly equivalent to the amount needed to cover the increase in student enrollment, which the legislature chose not to pay for in the current state budget.
"Texas voters know the legislature should prioritize schoolchildren over the natural gas industry," said Rep. Villarreal. "Instead of using this money to subsidize the gas industry and forcing schools to make deep cuts, we should invest these funds in hiring great teachers, keeping class sizes manageable, and making college affordable for hard-working students. If we want to create jobs and grow the economy, then we need to invest in our children's education."
During the last legislative session, as the legislature was cutting $5 billion for public education, Republican legislators voted down an amendment by Rep. Villarreal to suspend the business subsidy during years when education funding declines or when natural gas prices were clearly high enough for the market to spur significant production.
The subsidy cost the state $1.3 billion in 2010, while the natural gas production tax yielded $700 million for the state. In 2011 the exemption totaled $1 billion and the state collected $1.1 billion from the tax. The majority of the revenue goes into the state's general revenue fund, which is available to fund education and other essential services.
A recent study by the Legislative Budget Board found that the subsidy cost the state $7.4 billion from 2004 to 2009. The report found that over half of natural gas wells now qualify for the tax subsidy that was designed to only serve "high cost" wells. The LBB reported that the natural gas industry paid no state severance tax at all on approximately one-third of wells. Over half of the refunds audited by the state Comptroller proved to be fraudulent.
The primary season is upon us, even if we don't have legislative maps or a primary date. That's not going to stop the eager Democratic activists of Travis County from kicking off the club endorsement season! Last night, the South Austin Democrats held their forum, and voted to endorse in several Travis County primary races.
The SAD endorsement is viewed as one of the more valuable ones to earn in Travis County, since the group has often mailed yellow postcards to Democratic voters who live south of Lady Bird Lake touting their chosen candidates. Here are the results, from their Facebook page.
2012 South Austin Democrats Endorsements
Tax Assessor Collector: Bruce Elfant
District Attorney: Rosemary Lehmberg
Sheriff: Greg Hamilton
167th District Judge: David Walberg
Commissioner Pct. 3: Karen Huber
Constable Pct. 3: Sally Hernandez
Constable Pct. 4: Maria Canchola
The 167th race initially went to a run-off between Wahlberg and Efrain de la Fuente, after no one failed to clear the 50% endorsement threshold in the first round of balloting. (Attorney Bryan Case is also in the race.) Wahlberg prevailed in the run-off.
SAD didn't endorse in the County Commissioner Precinct 1 or Constable Precinct 2 races, but to be fair, they are the South Austin Democrats, and those races are Northeast and Northwest, respectively.
Next up, the Austin Progressive Coalition will hold its endorsements a week from Saturday on February 18th. At that time Central Austin Democrats and the University Democrats will vote on the candidates of their choice. Any candidate who receives both endorsements gets the coveted APC endorsement. APC in turn will distribute thousands of fliers touting their endorsements to doors across Central Austin. This is widely considered to be one of the more valuable endorsements in the local election scene.
In other primary news, the San Antonio court moved up the date of the next hearing on redistricting/maps/primary dates from the 15th to the 14th. That's good news if you want to spend Valentine's day with your fellow redistricting litigants, I guess.
(What's going on in Big D? James Van Sickle is here to tell us. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
While speculation and bargaining continue for how the 2012 maps for Congress, State Senate, and State House will look, I wanted to take some time to look at the contested Democratic Primary races in Dallas based on current filings. Once the maps are finalized, I will post another article discussing changes we get when the filing period reopens for a brief period of time. It should also be noted that this article will be discussing only races contained solely within Dallas County and not any statewide or multi-county campaigns. All tables in this article are sorted by Contributions in descending order.
United States Congress, District 30
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson is currently serving her 10th term (20 years), and is actively campaigning for another term in office. So far two candidates have risen to challenge Congresswoman Johnson in Democratic Primary. State Representative Barbara Mallory-Caraway (HD-110) filed for a ballot position, along with Taj Clayton who is a litigator at international law firm Fish and Richardson.
It should be noted that only the below table only looks at reporting period totals between 10/1/2011 to 12/31/2011.
In theory, State House Districts 110 and 107 should be hot primary races. The ongoing issue regarding our maps is putting all of that into question, however. Regardless of how the maps come out, District 110 will be a hot race because it will be to replace Barbara Mallory-Caraway as she runs for Congress. HD-110 is a safe Democratic district with a large African-American population. Right now there are three candidates for HD-110, but this could easily change depending on how those maps lines come out. Once the maps for 2012 have been finalized, I will put together a follow-up article discussing who is and who is not running for each State House district in Dallas County.
District Judge, 162nd Judicial District
The 162nd Judicial District has been held by Lorraine Raggio since her initial election in 2004. Judge Raggio announced her retirement, several candidates have announced or filed for this seat.
Phyllis Lister Brown is currently a municipal judge in the City of Dallas. According to the city charter, city appointees and elected officials must resign their position when seeking higher office. Judge Brown has argued that she does not have to do so given past precedence of when municipal Judge Elizabeth Frizell ran in 2006 for higher office. Dallas City Council voted on January 18 to remove Phyllis from office. Phyllis' lawyers filed a restraining order against the removal, and the city attorney appealed this order. Now it appears that this will be going to court to decide whether Judge Brown gets to keep her seat on the municipal bench or be removed. (See Judge Phyllis Lister Brown Will Soon Get a Shove Off the Bench or a Day in Court)
In the interest of transparency, it should be noted that I am providing technology and communications support to Maricela Moore in this race.
Criminal District Judge, Count No. 4
John Creuzot is the incumbent judge for Criminal District Court 4, and has served since 2008. Judge Creuzot has indicated that he will be retiring and not seeking re-election. So far two candidates (JR Cook and Dominique Collins) have filed to run for this seat. Races for the criminal bench tend to be low dollar affairs compared to their judicial counterparts in Civil Court (i.e. 162nd Judicial Court).
In the interest of transparency, it should be noted that I am providing technology and communications support to JR Cook in this race.
Sherriff
In 2008, Lupe Valdez solidly won re-election in both Primary and General elections. Sherriff Valdez has remained very popular in local Democratic circles. In 2011, Dallas County Jails passed inspection for the 2nd year in a row, which was a top issue for Republicans and other opponents in 2008. An individual named Charlie J. Thomas has filed to run against Lupe in the Democratic Primary, but I have no information about his candidacy at this time.
County Commissioner, District 1
In 2010, Democrats gained majority on the Dallas County Commissioner's Court, and have subsequently redistricted District 1 to be a Democratic-opportunity district. This seat is currently held by Maurine Dickey who along with her husband owns the Dickey's BBQ franchise. Originally, it was rumored that there were over 7 potential candidates interested in running. Since the map was finalized, that number has now sized itself down to 3.
In the interest of transparency, it should be noted that I am providing technology and communications support to Theresa Daniel in this race.
County Commissioner, District 3
Commissioner District 3 had been held by John Wiley Price since 1985. On June 27, 2011, FBI agents searched Commissioner Price's offices and home, and were looking for documents relating to fraud, bribery, money laundering, and tax evasion allegations (See Commissioner John Wiley Price's Office, Home Searched). The investigation is still ongoing, and no charges have been filed against Commissioner Price. Commissioner Price has drawn three opponents in the upcoming 2012 Primary.
While Bennie Brown did file the required January 15 campaign finance report, they failed to mention the $1,250 filing fee paid to the Dallas County Democratic Party in the campaign finance report. According to Dallas County Elections Department, neither Betty Culbreath nor Micah B. Phillips filed their January 15 campaign finance reports. All candidates are required to file campaign finance reports on January 15 and July 15 each year as long as they have a treasurer appointment on file.
Commissioner Price wrote "N/A" under the Cash On Hand line item for his campaign finance report, which is why I left question marks under that section.
DCDP County Chair
In a previous article, I had mentioned that an individual named Lymon King was looking to run for County Chair. Mr. King has since decided against running in 2010, and made this announcement through a robocall to his supporters. No one else has indicated about a run for County Chair so it appears that Darlene Ewing will be starting a fourth term, which she announced will be her last as County Chair.
Unopposed Countywide Races
Here is the list of countywide offices up for re-election in 2012 that so far do not have a primary opponent.
What a long strange primary season it has been. We started our BOR GOP Debate Watch events five months ago, with Rick Perry's first appearance in a debate. Since then, Rick dropped out, Romney muddled along, Gingrich briefly grabbed the lead, and now Santorum has surged from the rear once more.
Through it all we've watched Republicans use anti-immigration and anti-Latino rhetoric that has grown increasingly offensive. From opposition to the DREAM Act to varying forms of ineffective border fences to outright racism, Republicans seem determined to do everything they can to alienate Latino and progressive voters.
Now, the Republicans are heading to Arizona, and we're going to hold our final GOP Debate Watch to highlight the anti-immigration and anti-Latino views that will surely be on display.
From SB1070, the draconian "Papers, please!" immigration law, to elected Republican officials like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former State Senator Russell Pearce, Arizona has become infamous for terrible anti-immigration and anti-Latino policies. Now, those same policies are being echoed by the Republican candidates for President.
Join us for the GOP debate in Arizona. We'll have games, prizes, and surprises to emphasize the anti-immigration stance of the Republican Party.
"Do I Look Illegal?" Arizona GOP Debate Watch Wednesday, February 22, 6:00-9:00 p.m.
Angie's, 1307 East 7th Street,
Austin, Texas 78702
RSVP on Facebook
Join BOR as we shine a light on the anti-immigration and anti-Latino rhetoric of the Republicans, and watch what is hopefully one of the last GOP debates this cycle.
(Great guest post from a long-time BOR reader, featuring content from Cuentame. We hope you will be hearing more from both Nick and Cuentame in the future. - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)
What happens if you privatize prisons is that you have a large industry with a vested interest in building ever-more prisons." -- Molly Ivins, 2003
For the past three years, the small West Texas town of Littlefield has had to come up with $65,000 a month to service a loan on an empty prison it never needed. To avoid defaulting on its prison loan, Littlefield has laid off workers, cut every department's budget, raised property taxes, increased fees, raided its municipal sewer and water fund, and even delayed its purchase of a new police car.
With just 6,507 residents during the 2000 census, Littlefield did not need a new prison. The city's elected officials decided to build one anyways. Littlefield issued $10 million in revenue bonds for construction of a 310-bed for-profit detention center as part of the city's economic development strategy in 1999. Revenue bonds are a special type of municipal bond that do not require voter approval, because they are backed by the expected revenue a project will generate. Littlefield's politicians built the prison believing it would pay for itself, pump money into the local economy, and expand job opportunity.
The nonprofit organization Cuéntame produced the excellent video below about the experience of Littlefield, Texas with speculative for-profit prison construction. Take a look:
As a result of this experience, Littlefield's bond rating was downgraded to junk status, and Littlefield taxpayers were saddled with millions in debt after discovery of mismanagement by for-profit prison operator Geo Group led the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC) to terminate its contract and remove its prisoners in 2009. When IDOC cancelled its contract, Geo Group bailed on Littlefield by terminating its contract and laying off 74 workers.
The Idaho Department of Corrections discovered Geo Group's mismanagement when it conducted an audit of the Littlefield lock-up. The audit was prompted by the suicide of Randall McCullough, one of Idaho's inmates, at the prison. McCullough had been placed in solitary confinement for more than a year as administrative punishment for a fight that was never criminally prosecuted. The IDOC audit revealed that Geo Group chronically understaffed its facility. On the night that McCullough died, the facility was so short on staff that the warden worked the midnight shift.
Of course, extreme right-wing organizations like the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council defend privatization of prisons, schools and social services by peddling sanctimonious twaddle about the "innovation," "competition" and "efficiency" associated with private entrepreneurship. The most common way for corporations like Geo Group and Corrections Corporation of America to save money in running a prison is to cut guards' salaries, though (innovative!).
It turns out that when prison guards are paid wages as low as grocery store cashiers and fast food workers, they don't stick around very long. And when prisons are understaffed or have high turnover, they end up with inexperienced staff, higher rates of prisoner-on-guard assaults, more escapes, and more contraband violations as evidenced by higher rates of positive urine tests for drug use. Or, they might just be plain understaffed, à la Geo Group.
I would continue from here, but Molly does it better:
"The right says that, in the private sector, pay and performance are related. I look at the CEOs of American corporations, and if there's a connection between pay and performance there, I missed it.
What you get when you privatize and outsource is something like the Department of Defense and the military-industrial complex. We spend $399 billion a year on defense, and if you think that money is well spent because much of it gets run through defense contractors, you have not been paying attention.
DOD is the happy home of the $700 hammer, the endless cost overrun, and the revolving door, with accompanying conflicts of interest and dubious contracts. It's a fiscal nightmare. The Pentagon once had to announce that it couldn't account for $17 billion.
You get nightmare public policy consequences, as well. What happens if you privatize prisons is that you have a large industry with a vested interest in building ever-more prisons. The result is even more idiocy, like the three-strikes law and long terms for small-time drug possession."
--Molly Ivins, 2003 Syndicated Column
Amen.
The video in this post was produced by Cuéntame. Cuéntame is an online platform where the Latino community and the public at large can address social, political and cultural topics through social media, videos, interviews, and docu-series. Cuéntame translates "count me" or "tell me your story," and Cuéntame facilitates conversations about everything from soccer and music to immigrant detention and the anti-immmigrant legislation crafted by extreme right-wing, corporate-funded organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council. Find out more about Cuéntame or tell your own story by following Cuéntame on Facebook or Twitter.
This week, the UT community started posting thousands of Forty Acres-specific memes to the new UTexas Memes Facebook page.
The student-generated memes poke fun at everything from bikers on campus to Texas A&M.
One of the most popular memes takes the biggest joke on campus as its subject: the College Republicans.
Well done.
In December, Burnt Orange Report broke the national news story about Cassie Wright, the second UT College Republican president in a month to post something terribly offensive and racist on Twitter.
We're happy to see UT students have taken note of the shame brought upon their school by the College Republicans...and aren't happy about it.
Some of you may remember the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as a major Biden initiative from before he was cool (and by cool I mean Vice President). The National Organization for Women called it "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades." Phyllis Schlafley called it proof "that the feminists control the Democratic Party." So you can guess where John Cornyn stands.
Last week, VAWA came up in the Senate Judiciary Committee for reauthorization. And while the Democrats on the committee voted it to the floor unanimously, Cornyn joined his Republican brethren in doing just the opposite. Fortunately, despite their best efforts, it's still moving on to a full floor vote.
Cornyn and the other Republicans on the committee tried to play down their opposition by pointing out that they supported an alternative of the bill. This "more fiscally responsible" alternative included things like shutting down the Office of Violence Against Women. And the version that did pass - they one they thought was too expensive - is already $135 million cheaper than the 2005 version. As with many other issues, this is the first time it's gotten really partisan. VAWA was passed in 1994 and has been reauthorized twice with bipartisan support.
We've come a long way since (and because of) VAWA. It was one of the first major pieces of legislation to recognize the severity of domestic violence. In fact, thirty years ago, spousal rape was not recognized as a crime. Many states didn't have a single domestic violence shelter or a hotline to help victims. It provided for stronger prosecution and law enforcement surrounding domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and provides grants for services and housing for victims, community violence prevention programs, and legal aid.
The best part of the VAWA reauthorization is that it now recognizes that domestic violence is not always an act perpetrated on a woman by a man. In an important (though overdue) step, the reauthorization bill also includes language that would ensure protections and services for all victims of domestic violence- regardless of gender and sexual orientation.
So Cornyn missed yet another opportunity to support basic human decency. But there's still a good chance the bill passes this year - and with some pretty big improvements.
While the US Senate is debating a bill that would revive the moribund Keystone XL pipeline while limiting legal challenges to the route, Joe Nocera of the New York Times published an ill considered OpEd today that shows he understands neither the risks nor the economics of tar sands oil.
Nocera makes at least four completely false assertions in his piece.
The first, which makes up the bulk of the essay, is that the Obama administration’s rejection of Keystone is driving the Canadian government into the arms of the Chinese and thereby endangering US energy security. Keystone was always aimed at the Chinese market. As a result of increased efficiency and the global downturn, US oil consumption has steadily dropped since 2005 (from about 20.5 million barrels per day to 19 million bbd in 2010). China’s demand, on the other hand, rose from about 6.5 million bbd to over 9 million bbd during the same period. Source: CIA Factbook. Over this same period, Port Arthur, Texas (the proposed endpoint of Keystone XL) undertook “the largest US refinery expansion to occur in 30 years” with major additions to Motiva and Valero refineries. That expanded refining capacity and easy access to the Panama Canal made Port Arthur the easiest and cheapest route for tar sands oil to reach the Chinese market. Tar sands oil has been in the US market for years it just never had an easy path to overseas markets. A recent Cornell University study on Keystone’s economic impact predicted that were the pipeline built, midwest gasoline prices would likely rise 10-20 cents per gallon. Also, though Joe asserts that Canada has a “newfound willingness to to business with China,” the Canadian logging industry has never had an issue with selling lumber to China.
The second, is that tar sands oil would allow the US “to become, if not energy self-sufficient, at least energy secure, no longer beholden to OPEC.” Not only is all that Canadian oil not bound for US markets, it will not endanger price points set by, in Joe’s words, “countries that don’t like us.” Countries like Saudi Arabia which possesses the world’s largest oil reserves and which recently indicated that it would keep global oil prices “around $100 per barrel” regardless of new supplies (tar sands) or supply instability (Iran). $100 per barrel is, conveniently, about the lowest price for tar sands oil to be economically viable, as the cost in extracting and transporting the sticky, nearly solid substance is substantially higher than traditional crude oil.
Nocera’s third false premise is that tar sands oil is just ” a little dirtier than the crude that pours forth from the Saudi Arabian desert, but is hardly the environmental disaster many suppose.” Tar sands oil is a lot dirtier than Saudi crude. It contains 10 times more sulfur and is 3 times more acidic than traditional crudes. When piped, it is subject to 3 times more pressure than crude oil, and contains a 3 times greater flow of abrasive quartz and silica than a commercial grade sandblaster. There already has been a major tar sands oil spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and the increased size and flow of the Keystone XL pipe would raise the risks of another, bigger, spill considerably. Also, just last week, Canadian officials announced a plan to start poisoning wolves in northern Alberta in an attempt to stave off the collapse of caribou herds which have been affected by massive habitat loss due to tar sands mining that destroys huge tracts of forest to get at the sticky substance underneath. If the massive deployment of strychnine is not an admission of an environmental catastrophe, what is? See it for yourself. This is what a tar sands strip mine looks like from space. This is a whole lot different from the “crude that pours forth from the Saudi Arabian desert.”
Nocera’s final wrong assumption is that if Keystone XL isn’t built, Canada will, with a sweep of its imperial hand, find its own “diverse buyers so it won’t be held hostage by American politics.” To do this, Canada would need an oil exporting terminal along with a pipeline bringing oil to it from Alberta. This has not proved easy for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s administration. Enbridge, a major player in Albertan oil, has proposed the Northern Gateway pipeline which would terminate in Kitimat along the pristine northwest coast of British Columbia. British Columbians, blessed as they are with natural beauty and clean waters, are not pleased with this plan and have been staging large protests ever since Northern Gateway was first proposed.
Joe Nocera should stick to issues he understands, apologia for Canadian oil profiteering is beneath him.
Contact your senators here to let them know that a revived Keystone pipeline is unacceptable. We have enough oil in this country, and it is dirty enough as it is thank you very much.
So why is it such a big deal for Greg Abbott if he succeeds in keeping the primary on April 3, or as early as possible before the Republican presidential nomination is totally sewn up? Perry's not in the race anymore, so what does it matter? The answer lies in Abbott's own future ambitions here in Texas, and his desire to serve the wealthy big-money donors who fund pro-corporate Republicans here in Texas.
Abbott needs to keep a unified primary on the highest-turnout date possible, to make sure Dewhurst wins--as well as the incumbent Republican Congressmen and State Senators--to please the big-money donors that will likely back Abbott when Perry decides he's not running for Governor again.
The Texas Republican Party is primarily dominated by extremely wealthy corporate interests, who in turn want to keep Republicans in office that serve their wishes, rather than the whims of the Tea Party. It costs money to campaign in Texas, and whether you're playing by the FEC's rules or the TEC's, in a state this big if you can't raise real money you won't get too far. In the ongoing Senate primary, Dewhurst is clearly the candidate of the big-bucks donors who backed Rick Perry's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns. While Dewhurst and Cruz both raised similar amounts of money in the last quarter ($1.5M and $1.1M respectively), and both have raised close to $4 million overall, Dewhurst's average donation is over $2000 (and remember, donors are hampered by limits of $2500 per donor, meaning that most of The Dew's donors are maxing out). Meanwhile, Cruz's average donation is a much more modest $319. It's a testament to Cruz's support from the right-wing grassroots / Tea Party / YCT sector of the Texas Republican Party. The big donors are opening their wallets for Abbott as well, who has over $10 million in the bank and raked in $1.6 million during a 10-day period in early 2011, unfettered by individual donor contribution limits. The AG has made it quietly clear that he plans to seek the top spot in the state, but first he's got to dispatch with Dewhurst to be next in line.
So what does the primary date have to do with anything?
As of Noon Tuesday, February 7, 2012, there are few things clear, and many more things unclear, about the status of Texas electoral calendar and the maps for Texas' U.S. Congressional and State legislative races.
THE SAN ANTONIO COURT HAS REJECTED PARTIAL COMPROMISE
First, it appears clear, as reported by detailed articles in both the Dallas Morning News, and the Austin American Statesman, and as discussed yesterday afternoon in Michael Li's 4:45 update on this story, the three Judge Panel in San Antonio is not accepting the "proposed settlement" offered by Attorney General Abbott and some, but not all, of the Plaintiffs suing the state to enforce the Voters Rights Act.
Specifically, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia has appeared to reject any partial deal as satisfying the Court's prior order and instead issued a court Order notifying the parties that "in the absence of a general agreement between all Plaintiffs and the State of Texas, the parties are reminded that they must follow all prior deadlines."
UNCERTAINTY REIGNS AS NEXT HEARING FOR MAPS IS 8 DAYS AWAY
Second, under the court's previously announced schedule, the next hearing on interim maps is not scheduled to occur until Wednesday, February 15, at 8 a.m.
Third, as many parties had previously stated that settlement was the last best hope for an April Texas Primary, the above items places the currently hoped for April primary in jeopardy and places the calendar for the future Texas 2012 primary in a total state of uncertainty.
