The Daily Hurricane

If At First You Don't Succeed---Quit

2010-09-03T22:01:10Z

After Wednesday night's debate debacle Arizona Governor Jan Brewer-Angle-Palin has decided she's not going to make that mistake again. She's taking her message to the people of Arizona "in a different venue" (presumably one where they don't ask questions, or only ask the ones Brewer wants to answer). Besides, she only did the first one for the money. From the Arizona Daily Star:

"Incumbent Republican Jan Brewer said Thursday she has no intention of participating in any more events with Democrat Terry Goddard. She said the only reason she debated him on Wednesday is she had to to qualify for more than $1.7 million in public funds for her campaign.

"I certainly will take my message in a different venue out to the people of Arizona," she said.

[...]

Brewer conceded that her performance in Wednesday's debate, and her refusal to answer a question from reporters afterward, was not well-handled [Ya think?]. That includes an opening statement when she lost her train of thought and went silent, and walking away after the event rather than answering questions about her prior statements about headless bodies in the desert.

Brewer blamed part of her post-debate activities on her gaffe in her opening statement. The governor also said she presumed reporters would want to talk to her about some of the issues raised during the hour-long, televised debate.

"All you guys were doing and talking were beheadings, beheadings, beheadings," the governor said. "That is something that has stuck with you all for so long, and I just felt we needed to move on."

Brewer insisted later that she has been misquoted [about the location of the headless bodies]. "I never said 'Arizona,' and it's unfortunate that it was construed as 'Arizona.' "

Governor, let me introduce you to the Google. It took all of 15 seconds to find this:

I guess it was "construed as Arizona" because you said "our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert." I don't speak fluent Tea Party, but I would assume "our" means this side of the border, Gov.

What a maroon.

The Young Vote

2010-09-03T19:26:57Z

I remember sitting in political science classes as a freshman and sophmore at TCU. It was then that I learned the most interesting and powerful fact in politics. Young people don't vote. This shocked me. I remember filling out my first vote for Bill Clinton as a high school senior. I grew up in a political household. My dad was a political science major and history teacher as well. It just seemed natural.

Furthermore, I remember thinking at the time that other demographic groups voted less. Not true. The youth vote in horrible numbers historically. In the 2008 election, the youth was energized like it had never been before. MTV and other pop culture centers have tried to motivate the 18-25 group. They've used phrases like "Rock the Vote" and "Vote or Die". These are all somewhat successful, but the fact remains that the youth have to find politics relevant to them. Midterm elections are always a hard sell for all voting blocs, but this time around might be more crucial than most.

Democrats have a lot riding on the youth this time because of all the things youth represents. Young people tend to be more Democratic than the older groups normally, but these are historic times. The youth are more crucial than they have ever been before. Consider the following facts when it comes to our 18-25 crowd.

Young people tend to be more tolerant than older people. In an election cycle where the right is trying to crack against Islam and subtely crack against minorities in general, we need the young to vote because they generally don't care about race, creed, or sexual orientation.
The young are more adept technologically. Although this is not universally true, they are also better trained at determining what is a good source of information. Gullibility is usually more heavily associated with young people, but we are seeing the older crowd buying into information that could charitably be called dubious.
Young people are more energetic when they have something they care about. The right has the power of money and power on their side. Energy is the best defense for that. If you have boots on the ground in a campaign you can overcome money, power, and lies.

When I taught government and economics, it was my mission to make sure that my students became good consumers of information. No, I didn't succeed all the time. Teaching students how to research for research papers or just to be knowledgable was often frustrating. However, it has to be done. We cannot continue to have people go on and accept everything being told to them. You have to consider the source. What interests and biases do they have? Is anyone backing them up financially that might cloud their judgment. Have they reported falsehoods in the past? These are all questions our children must learn to ask. In the interim, we need those same young people that were so dedicated two years ago to return in full force now.

I'll Follow, But Only At A Distance

2010-09-03T18:45:52Z

I'll follow, but only at a distance.

Tug pulling cargo earlier this summer in Tacoma, Washington.

The Beckapaloozers

2010-09-03T03:05:06Z

Idiocracy is here:

Tbogg nailed it:

"If the terrorists are smart, they will give up on trying to attack us and just sit back and wait, because eventually our entire country is going to be so stupid that people will start sticking their tongues in wall sockets just to see what electricity tastes like."

Governor Brewer Loses Her Place....and Runs Away From Reporters

2010-09-02T22:22:07Z

Watch as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer kind of .......uhhh, loses her place in her opening statement during last night's debate with Democratic challenger Terry Goddard:

But it got even weirder. During the debate Goddard asked Brewer to retract her ridiculous statement about the alleged beheadings in the Arizona desert. Brewer evaded the question. Afterwards, several reporters posed the same question to Governor Brewer. First she gave a non-answer, then did her best Sharron Angle impersonation and ran away. Watch:

Doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo. You've just left the Brewer zone.

Blue Dogs Set to Get Started on Republican Agenda

2010-09-02T17:17:39Z

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) on the GOP's "first move" should they gain the majority in the mid-terms:

"House Republicans' first move in the majority would be to extend tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.) suggested Wednesday evening.

Pence, the third-ranking Republican in the House, said that House Republicans would look to extend the tax cuts they helped President George W. Bush pass in 2001 and 2003, which are set to expire at the end of the year. "

Blue Dogs to Rep. Pence: Don't sweat it Mike, we got this:

"Democrats in Congress are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party's effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy.

Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have been eager to extend the breaks for individuals who earn less than $200,000 annually and joint filers who make less than $250,000. Those who earn more would pay higher, pre-2001 rates starting next year.

However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. Many face electorates that recoil at the mention of any tax increase. Some represent areas that are loaded with wealthier taxpayers. Further, some incumbent senators who don't face voters this fall are reluctant to increase taxes on anyone while the economy remains sluggish.

Without their support, the push to raise rates on the rich probably will fail."

Well, Lord A' mighty, whatever we do, let's not piss off the wealthy taxpayers.

UPDATED: Another Fire in the Gulf

2010-09-02T16:17:59Z

UPDATED: At 9 am CDT, a fire on the platform at South Vermilion Block 380 was reported. The production platform, owned and operated by Mariner Energy, is reported standing in about 340 feet of water. Mariner is in the process of merging into Apache Corp. At the time of the fire, there were 13 workers on the platform, all are accounted for and in the water in exposure suits. Current reports are that it was producting about 1700 barrels per day of oil. The last reported incident I can pick up on the BOEMRE site was a small leak in 2000.

This platform actually sits on the bottom, unlike deepwater facilities, that actually float. The production trees, valves and piping are all on the platform, making this easier to get under control than one with subsea facilities.

We'll be watching and report anything new we pick up.

Update: Mariner says the platform was in production at the time of the fire producing 1,400 barrels per day and about 9 million cubic feet of gas. All 13 workers were picked up out of the water and 10 are reportedly being treated at a hospital in Houma, Louisiana. There were apparently 7 wells producing to this platform, which also served as a pipeline hub transporting oil and gas to the beach. The emergency shut-in system worked, and the fire was put out.

Even though this incident was contained with a successful shut in, having yet another incident in the Gulf this close to the Deepwater Horizon disaster is Simply. Not. Good. Mariner is a well run company and has a good reputation, so, obviously, this was something of an anomaly. The problem, though, is that when you string a bunch of anomalies together, you get a trend. This accident also highlights just how dangerous this business can be, with dire consequences should even the smallest thing go wrong. This is a shallow water platform, one of the many that the industry said were safe and should not be subject to any regulatory reform. Obviously, that argument just went out the window. If there ended up being little or no spill, that will be a very good fact, but the heat (no pun intended) just got turned up on the industry.

We'll keep following.

My Brief Exchange With Harris County Judge Exec. Ed Emmett About Election Integrity

2010-09-02T15:12:18Z

Here is a posting offered up two nights ago by Harris County, Texas Judge Executive Ed Emmett on his campaign related Facebook page----

"Early voting starts in just 9 weeks. Bev Kaufman, our County Clerk, and her staff are doing a great job responding to the disaster of losing our voting machines in a fire. Too bad some folks are trying to play politics with the situation." (I added the link for this blog post.)

Here is the reply I posted to this comment on the same Facebook page------

"Judge Emmett--As you know, Republican Party officials in Harris County have not merited the trust of wide segments of the population when it comes to elections being conducted in a fully fair manner. You could offer some leadership within your own party as so-called Tea Party groups financed by billionaires seek to suppress minority turnout. It is in this climate that the voting machine issue has become an additional and connected source of concern. You are on record as saying partisan leadership of the registration process is not the best way to go. Your previous views are of greater value than what you have said this evening on Facebook. Thank you." (Again, link added for this post.)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7041473.html

(Above is link to a Houston Chronicle article written by Judge Emmett about the idea of non-partisan leadership of county voter registration efforts that I included in my reply to the Judge,. )

Here is what Judge Emmett said in response as posted on my personal Facebook page.

"Actually, Neil, last night's post was in error. Early voting really starts in 7 weeks and election day is in 9 weeks. I encourage everyone on all sides to not play politics with the voting machine disaster. Hopefully, that is consistent with my earlier comments."

For what it may or may not be worth, Judge Emmett's first post was deleted on Facebook and replaced with the following status update---

"Election day is 9 weeks from today. early voting begins in just 7 weeks. Lot's to do between now and then."

I may be struck by lightning for this, but I really don't mind Judge Emmett despite the fact he is a Republican. I think he gets that a huge diverse county like Harris County can't be run as some Tea Party- no government- white people's republic. I wonder sometimes if he exerts a moderating force on a county Republican Party that might otherwise be even worse than it is already.

(Below--Lightning.)

The thing is, I simply don't trust Republicans in Harris County, or anyplace else, to do the right thing.

I especially don't trust Republicans to count the votes fairly as they see---sooner or later---Harris County and all of Texas slipping away as election results finally start to mirror the demographic realities of our region and of our state.

I'm an ideologically motivated partisan. But you can bet that if I was in charge of voter registration in Harris County, I would work hard to make sure that all people could vote regardless of what party they supported.

If Judge Emmett can show leadership in the weeks ahead to help make sure that all eligible voters in Harris County are able to take part in early voting ,and are able to vote on Election Day, then he will merit the thanks of the people of our county.

It is not just about the voting machines. It is about Leo Vasquez working in tandem with a partisan Tea Party group. While I trust Houston Votes, they are not the point. Mr. Vasquez is abusing his office.

Election results that nobody trusts will prove poisonous to democracy. If nobody believes that our representatives are fairly elected, our democracy will not be able to go forward. There must be some bottom line of legitimacy.

Judge Emmett's Democratic opponent in 2010 is former Houston City Councilmember Gordon Quan.

(Below--Judge Emmett taking oath of office in 2008.)

How Did We Get Here?

2010-09-02T14:52:49Z

How did we get here?

Given that Republican policies and practices led us to the brink of another Great Depression less than 2 years ago, how did we get to a world where the GOP polls ahead in every category dealing with the economy?

How did Democrats go from a clear mandate for change, as evidenced by voters giving them the White House and once-in-a-generation majorities in both Houses of Congress, to the increasingly real prospect of Republicans taking control of the House, and an outside shot at the Senate as well, less than 2 years later?

A few reasons. Timidity, over-willingness to compromise, the futile quest for bi-partisanship, underestimating the opposition, entrenched politicians who were more interested in protecting the status quo that doing everything necessary to fix the problem, running on change and then stocking the administration's economic team with Wall Street insiders and Washington re-treads, and ignoring the advice of anyone outside of those same insiders and re-treads.

A combination of all of the above, and it all started with the economic stimulus package. Economists from Paul Krugman to Joseph Stiglitz to Dean Baker, to name three, were warning that the proposed stimulus wasn't big enough given the size and scope of the economic meltdown. That the package should be in the neighborhood of $1.5-$2 trillion dollars with most, if not all, being spending to create jobs. They were also saying that there would be only one bite at this apple. If the administration went too small and it didn't work, there would be no will for Stimulus Part II. Better to go too big than too small. But the administration wasn't listening.

Of course Republicans balked, insisting that the Republican solution for everything, tax cuts, be included. Republicans, and even some Democrats, wanted to keep the number under one trillion just for the sake of optics, never mind what it would take to actually fix the problem. So the compromising and the search for bi-partisanship began. The result was that both got what they wanted--nearly half of the package was tax cuts, and it came in under $1 trillion.

What if the administration had pushed back against both the R's and the D's instead of capitulating so easily? Could it have shown them that this president would draw a line which he would not cross? We'll never know, but that sign of weakness and willingness to compromise only served as blood in the water for Republicans and so-called moderate Democrats which carried over into the health care debate and beyond.

Now the result is that Krugman, Stiglitz, and Baker were right. The stimulus was just big enough to stave off a complete collapse but not big enough and not stimulative enough in spending to create jobs. Unemployment is stuck at 9.5-10% and the tepid recovery is cooling. They were also right that there is no political will for more stimulus.

So Republicans take advantage of the situation, running on the theme that the stimulus is a failure and didn't do anything to create jobs. They ride voter's discontent back to power where they pass more of their answer for all the ills of the world---tax cuts---which puts the president in a box. He can veto their cuts and get slammed for that 'til the 2012 election, or he can sign them, they won't do anything for the recovery, the economy and unemployment remain stagnant at best, and the GOP runs on a bad economy in '12.

Too late to cry over spilt milk, but it all could have been avoided with a little fortitude, a little foresight, and a little more openness in listening to those who didn't have a hand in creating the mess for advice on how to fix it.

Lack of Respect

2010-09-02T12:49:19Z

I promise this isn't about sports, but sports was the impetus for this diatribe. I was discussing the Roger Clemens situation with other people online when the discussion disintegrated into a political discussion about the merits of Congress. I won't bore you with the facts of the case, so I'll boil it down to its simplest ingredients. Roger Clemens allegedly lied to Congress, so Congress has charged him with perjury. He was formally indicted and pleaded on all charges in the last week and a half.

As someone once said, these are the facts of the case and they are indisputable. Except, some fans seem to think Roger deserves a pass because people in Congress are lying sacks of excrement. At least, that's what they say. According to that line of thinking, following the rules that Congress establishes only matters if those in Congress reflect the feelings of those individuals. In other words, if he had lied to a group of conservatives then all bets are off and throw the book at him.

It got so bad as for one person to suggest that throwing Clemens in jail would be a miscarriage of justice because Bill Clinton got away with perjury in 1999. I guess. Legal experts have exhausted themselves pointing out why Clinton did not commit perjury even if he lied about Monica, but I'm not getting into a semantic argument because that's really not the point. The point of this whole excursion is to search our own souls to see what the state of decorum and respect is in this country.

Paul Krugman wrote an interesting piece earlier about the tough road Obama will have. My wife read and was incensed. See, she is a raging independent (right of center) that thinks both sides are guilty of this. Krugman argued that the 2010s are just the 1990s on steroids. He did skip the 2000s and that irked her. She thought that progressives, liberals, and Democrats were just as mean in regards to Bush as Republicans have been to Clinton and Obama.

On the one hand, I immediately disagreed because I recalled how easily the Democrats caved on the Patriot Act and war in Iraq. On the other hand, I remember the call for investigations and we've even had those arguments ourselves. This is not an admission of anything except for the fact that I felt the need to step back and ponder my own attitudes. One of the chief lessons we were taught in school is that even if you disagree with the president, Congress, or Supreme Court you always respect the office. I felt like I did that during the Bush years and I think most liberals, progressives, and moderates did the same.

However, I also recognize that one's man's garbage is another man's treasure. One man's Monicagate is another man's Watergate. Investigations we deem to be of vital importance are seen as obstructionism by the other side and vice versa. Is there a fair way to arbitrate what is a good investigation and what is simply balderdash? The final conclusion I came to even before the soul-searching hasn't changed. Lying to Congress is lying to Congress. Even if all 535 members cheat on their spouses, cheat on their taxes, and root for the Cowboys, you still can't lie to Congress.

I Got Your Trickle-Down Right Here

2010-09-01T17:26:09Z

But we can't raise their taxes, they're the job creators:

"The Institute for Policy Studies released its annual report on executive compensation today... [T]he report found that "CEOs of the 50 firms that have laid off the most workers since the onset of the economic crisis took home nearly $12 million on average in 2009." Those CEOs' combined compensation totaled $598 million, while at the same time, their companies eliminated 531,363 jobs despite reporting a 44 percent average profit increase for 2009.

[A]fter adjusting for inflation, CEO pay in 2009 more than doubled the CEO pay average for the decade of the 1990s, more than quadrupled the CEO pay average for the 1980s, and ran approximately eight times the CEO average for all the decades of the mid-20th century.

American workers, by contrast, are taking home less in real weekly wages than they took home in the 1970s."

One example:

"American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault took home the highest 2009 pay, $16.8 million, a sum that included a $5 million cash bonus. American Express has laid off 4,000 employees since receiving $3.39 billion in TARP funding."

You're welcome......asshole.

President Obama's Speech---2 1/2 Stars

2010-09-01T13:53:12Z

If President Obama's speech last night was a movie I'd give it 2 ½ stars, Not a bomb, but not an Oscar winner either. It was sort of significant, but not exactly an "historic moment," in my opinion. More like a baby step. An historic moment will be when the last American soldier leaves Iraq. And while it may be called "an end to our combat mission in Iraq" the facts are we still have 50,000 troops there with essentially the same duties. Combat operations by any other name are still combat operations when soldiers are shooting and being shot at.

The Iraqi government, such as it is, which is supposed to stepping up as we kind of step down, is a big question mark. Nearly 6 months after elections "a caretaker administration" is still in place. Andrew Bacevich writes:

"What we have at present is a gaggle of parties and interests that may be capable of conducting elections but have yet to demonstrate any capacity to govern--indeed, even to form a government. As a courtesy, we may refer to the government of Iraq, but it exists, if at all, only in a nominal sense.

[...]

Meanwhile, and most significantly, the jihadist insurgency continues. Bombs routinely detonate in the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, inflicting a level of mayhem that anywhere else would be seen as evidence of impending state failure."

As the president moved on to Afghanistan he spoke of the mission to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda." A little on the vague side since al-Qaeda isn't there any more. To me, the timetable for withdrawal wasn't re-assuring either. We will begin to transition to withdrawal "determined by conditions on the ground" next July.

Meanwhile the death toll continues to mount. Some of those recent "conditions on the ground" being that 21 Americans were killed in a 48 hour period this week, and General Petraeus said the fighting will "get harder before it gets easier." How it gets any easier between now and next July I don't think even General Petraeus knows.

President Obama also talked about "supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan's problems" and "transitioning to Afghan responsibility." How we expect a political resolution from an Afghan president who came to power via widespread election fraud, and how a government riddled with corruption---corruption which is aided and abetted by the CIA--can somehow suddenly become responsible isn't clear either.

On the economy, long on generalities, short on details. Put Americans back to work, strengthen the middle-class, give children the education they need, and end our dependence on foreign oil, to name a few. All those things are admirable goals, but whatever the specifics of them may be, I don't see how any of it gets through this Congress, not to mention the next one, which in a best-case scenario has smaller Democratic majorities and worst-case a Republican takeover of both the House and the Senate.

I know Oval Office speeches aren't usually the place for policy and legislative details, but these aren't usual times and circumstances, for the president or his party, and a lot is riding on the outcome of the upcoming mid-terms. Especially with Republicans having no interest in seeing any of the economic conditions improve between now and 2012. Republican control of the House, added to their de-facto control of the Senate by virtue of filibuster, would be an economic disaster for the country. Good for their prospects of winning the White House in '12, bad for everybody else.

All in all, to me it wasn't one of President Obama's better moments. Instead of sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office speaking in calm and relaxed tones he needs to be giving the Democratic base some motivation to get out and vote in November. Last night's end of the war that isn't really an end of the war could have been handled by a press release instead of a prime time address. And speaking of getting Democratic voters to the polls, crediting George Bush for his commitment to national security as evidenced by the Iraq War isn't going to do that. Just the opposite.

Government Has The Right To Make Us Do Stuff For The Public Good

2010-09-01T03:20:15Z

I got a safety inspection and emissions check today. The State of Texas mandates that cars get a safety inspection and that cars in high pollution counties get an emissions test.

Government has the right to mandate people to do things in order to serve the public good. Government has that right even in Texas.

Liberals and progressives should not be hesitant to assert this fact.

A few fearful people will tell you that stuff like this starts us on the path to a totalitarian state.

Yet these same people use public roads, depend on the public fire department, visit the public library and draw Social Security.

These same folks in Texas get their cars checked each year. I don't hear them complaining.

We must be assertive in proclaiming the virtues of government.

A government that has a role to play in our lives is an extension of the trust we have in each other, and is reflective of our hopes for an ever more fair and inclusive society.

Either government is of, for, and by the people, or America is not a land of freedom

Here are the details of vehicle safety inspection in Texas.

Focus on Legislature

2010-08-31T13:10:34Z

The gubnatorial race in Texas is getting a lot of attention as it should, but I wanted to put in a simple plug to pay attention to the races in our state legislature. This site gets out to a lot of folks in a lot of places, so I don't want to talk specifics. Each of you might have a different person representing you in Austin. I don't want to be a shill for Democrats in this race, so I just wanted to provide you with a sampling of questions to ask. If you can't ask, try to find out the answers.

The State legislature hasn't given any new money to education in several legislative cycles (or since Perry has been governor). Do you plan on changing that?

Folks, this is a deal breaker as far as I am concerned. Honestly, I don't care so much about our salaries as I do about having as many dedicated administrators, teachers, support staff, and paraprofessionals on the job. Study after study has been done, but you can't beat boots on the ground when it comes to education.

The state loves to mandate things without paying for them. Are you going to make sure funding is available to pay for the mandates you give to our teachers.

The concept of no child left behind is fine except money wasn't set aside to pay for it. Yes, it is a tragedy for any child to fall behind, but asking us to combat illiteracy and other societal ills without funding is like sending troops into battle without weapons.

Teachers that retire are a part of TRS. Currently we get 2.3 percent of our salary for every year we teach. Other state employees get 2.75 percent. It may not seem like much, but educators like my parents are living off this retirement and haven't seen a raise in the multiplier for a decade. Do you pledge to catch teachers up with other state employees and also what do you intend to do to keep TRS solvent.

We do not pay into social security. Because of that deuche bag Tom Delay, I cannot collect on my wife's social security. TRS is a great retirement system, but even it needs an occasional adjustment to allow for inflation. I hope my parents have at least 20 more years with me and they will need a cost of living raise eventually.

Our last raise as teachers came more than ten years ago. It was a $3000 across the board raise. I remember it well. Since then, we have had to get by with less. I don't complain much about salary, but if you want the best and brightest to be educators you have to pay them accordingly. The job is tough enough. Most teachers leave within five years because they find something else less stressful that will pay them more. That shouldn't happen. Bad teachers should leave, but good ones shouldn't leave just because they find a bigger paycheck. Sure, opportunities arise all the time. The numbers of those leaving is alarming. What are you going to do to make teaching more attractive to our young minds?

The question puts it simply enough. Believe it or not, we have a lot of talented young people. We need more of them to choose education. A talented and intelligent person can see that we haven't gotten a significant state raise in more than a decade. It's past due.

Perry Looking for Loopholes in Education Spending Requirements

2010-08-31T12:35:02Z

How any Texan can even consider voting for this clown for governor--again--is beyond me. Of course, now that we don't have any voting machines in Harris County (how convenient) it could make his re-election a bit easier.

First he takes stimulus money allocated for education, cuts the education budget by the same amount, and puts the stimulus money in the state's "Rainy Day Fund." So to prevent that from happening again, Congressman Lloyd Doggett added a provision to the recently passed aid to states to prevent teacher layoffs that Texas must maintain its current education funding in order to receive our $830 million share of the $10 billion package. The Gov's response?

"Perry Chief of Staff Ray Sullivan told the Austin American-Statesman that they'll look for ways around the requirement that the Texas governor assure that the state would maintain a level of education spending for the next three years."

C'mon fellow Texans, wake up. Don't subject us to another 4 years of this embarrassment.