Express-News Headline: Guilty for Life

Today the Express-News endorsed Susan Reed for District Attorney (surprise, surprise).

While the endorsement of Reed was a foregone conclusion, I take issue with this portion of the Express-News' endorsement:

LaHood’s arrest in 1994 for selling 200 Ecstasy pills to an undercover officer at a gentleman’s club is cause for major concern. The case resulted in deferred adjudication so there is no permanent conviction on his record, but it is not the type of incident that fits comfortably on the résumé of anyone seeking the top prosecutor’s job.

The involvement of Thomas J. Henry in the LaHood campaign is deeply disturbing. The plaintiff lawyer’s gargantuan contribution of nearly $700,000 to LaHood’s campaign effort is unheard of in a local race and raises serious questions about LaHood’s judgment.

The message is loud and clear.  On the first point, a person's mistakes are never forgiven and they are forever emblazoned with a scarlet letter.  Message to young people: don't screw up, you'll never get over it.  As we've said before, it would be a nice change at the D.A.'s office if there was someone in charge who saw the justice system from the perspective of not just a prosecutor, but also a defendant. 

To the second point, some how I bet if we delved into the Express-News' archives we'd find plenty of candidates they endorsed who received "gargantuan" contributions from a few contributors.

Susan Reed: I'm Good at Not Prosecuting Child Abuse Cases

In her interview with the Express-News Editorial Board, Bexar County DA Susan Reed stated, "Because I'm good at what I do."

If that's the case, then Susan Reed is good at not doing her job.

39% conviction rate on cases of indecency with a child and we're #2 in the state of Texas when it comes to incidents of child abuse and neglect.

Currently 1 in 4 girls will be sexually abused for their 18, and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before their 18.

If this is Susan Reed being good at what she does, I'd hate to think what this county would be if she were bad at it.

Susan Reed, Out of Ideas & Out of Time

Currently the Express-News has about 5 minutes of footage from each of the candidates running for Bexar County District Attorney when they appeared before the editorial board.

A big caveat of course is that the conversations were more than 5 minutes, so it's difficult to gleam too much from just 5 minutes...BUT, if these 5 minutes are any example of the larger conversations we can easily sum them up this way:

Susan Reed: Vote for me because I'm Susan Reed

Nico LaHood: Vote for me because I have a plan for a better justice system in Bexar County


In the two interviews:

Reed is initially asked to make the case for why she should be re-elected. She says, "Because I'm good at what I do."  Then she sorta rambles for a minute about improving mental health and some summit on gun violence.  Never really making a case.

Reed is then asked about her office's use of pre-trial diversions.  She states it only covers 17 - 21 year olds.  When asked why not adults, like those who slip up later in life, Reed says, "I think by 21 your character is pretty well built."  Again she seems to kinda ramble on bringing up deferred adjudication as a solution for the adults.

Reed is next asked about the Uresti case or cases.  For anyone not familiar, check out Brian Chasnoff's column from 2013 where it looks like Reed did some favors for Sen. Carlos Uresti (D) in not arresting or prosecuting some potential cases against his son.  She prefaces her statement with one of these classic politician lines of "What I remember..."  So now if something is wrong, she just didn't remember correctly.  For someone who seems to infer that she may not recall every detail of the case, she seems to remember it pretty well.

Reed is next asked about a backlog in the felony courts.  She deflects the question by saying she cleaned up the backlog in the misdemeanor courts.

Finally, Reed is asked if has anything to say about her opponent Nico LaHood.  I bet if she were hooked up to a blood pressure monitor, we would have seen it spike at this moment.  She talks about we a big city and she sits on all these important national boards.  She then questions putting someone in charge who dealt drugs.

LaHood starts out with a very good argument of Reed may be tough on crime, but is she effective on crime.  He brings up the statistics about the low conviction rate in regards to crimes committed against children.

LaHood is then asked about the criticism against him that he lacks the experience or proper background to be D.A.  LaHood then talks about his experience with various types of cases such as white collar crimes and felony cases.

LaHood is asked about pre-trial diversions.  LaHood agrees with pre-trial diversions, but believes Reed is ineffective at it.  The reason he cites in the interview is the age limitation.

LaHood is next asked about his personal views on the death penalty.  He believes in the responsible use of the death penalty and cites how the last 5 times Reed has tried and failed to get the death penalty in a case. 

LaHood is asked to address juvenile justice.  He talks about how he'd like to do in the adult system, what we do in the juvenile system in terms of getting involved on the front end.

LaHood is asked about Reed's single minded focus on LaHood's drug past.  LaHood points out that she doesn't want to talk about her record and speaks to an arrogance that Reed has.

Coming to an Election Near You: Corporate Suffrage

If there's any reason to ever pay attention to the goings-on in other countries this is a prime example.  There's a fight going on in New South Wales to give businesses in Sydney up to 2 votes in the local elections.  The whole thing is clearly aimed at the current Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore.  Moore was already successfully targeted by the current conservative state government a few years ago.  She was a state MP from 1988-2012.  In 2004 she became Lord Mayor of Sydney.  The conservative government successfully pushed through a bill that said a person couldn't be a member of the state parliament and a member of a local council. Now we have round 2.

What should worry those here is that now with all the publicity that this will likely make, we can probably expect some conservative, Tea Party controlled state to try and pass a bill that gives suffrage to corporations and businesses in this country.  We might not even need that if another Hobby Lobby case makes its way to the Supreme Court.

First Slate magazine which gives a little background:

The controversy, to be clear, isn’t over whether businesses should still get the vote. It’s just about whether they should be forced to vote.

As Marian Sawer and Peter Brent recounted in a 2011 paper, Australia’s odd tradition of corporate enfranchisement is a holdover from its 19^th-century colonial days. Early in the country’s history, men could vote wherever they owned property or a business, or paid enough rent. Everyone else was barred from the ballot box. In the 1850s, the country moved to universal male suffrage, and over the next half-century or so, property and business owners lost the ability to vote in multiple jurisdictions during federal elections. But in local politics, the right of out-of-town business owners and landlords to cast a ballot lingered on.

To get an Aussie view, Antony Green of the ABC does a good job:

It is hard not to see malice towards Independent Lord Mayor Clover Moore in the proposed bill. Put forward by Robert Borsak of the Shooters and Fishers Party, it expands the business roll by making business enrolment compulsory, making voting by businesses compulsory, and by giving businesses as defined in the bill two votes.

As Mr Borsak justifies multiple votes in his speech-

Others will ask: Why should business get two votes and why should it be compulsory? Eligible voters are required to vote—pure and simple; that is the law. The way to ensure accountability for any government is through the protection that the ballot box brings. This is called democracy. Everyone pays rates. A household pays only one set of rates, which is substantially less than a business pays. Yet most households have two or more eligible voters living there; they get to have a say for the payment of only one set of rates. If businesses are forced to pay rates those same businesses should have a say as to how those rates are used. Uninformed comment by those opposing this bill would have one believe that overseas investors will be able to vote in the City of Sydney council elections. They will not be able to vote. Only those entitled to vote at a State or Federal election will have that privilege. This bill is being introduced to try to give an honest reflection of what a majority of eligible voters want to see happen in the city of Sydney.

The paragraph is a wonderful bit of sophistry because the bill redefines what an eligible voter is, gives some of the newly eligible voters multiple votes, and then justifies the result because it delivers the will of the majority of eligible voters.

The logic here is trying to tap into the argument of the American revolution about no taxation without representation. Yet it is distorting this argument into one that says those who pay more taxes should get more votes.

When you think about the rulings from the Supreme Court over the years, you can easily see this as being one of the next steps.  We had the court recognize corporate personhood.  With Hobby Lobby, corporations can now practice a religion.

Updated: Just Develop a Cure

Sometimes there are times that just make you think, "Is there some listening device installed on me."

Temple University must have been listening in.  Rather than suppressing the virus, researchers there have been able to eliminate HIV from human cells.

If someone is listening in on me again...I'd like $5 trillion.
__________________________________________________________________________

This is going to sound so flippant, but let's face it, a cure or vaccine just needs to be developed for HIV/AIDS.

I come to this conclusion every time a news story talks about a rise in infection rates.  Today, Australia reported a 20-year high in HIV-rates.  The leading cause of these high rates in Australia has been attributed to unprotected sex.

Again, saying a cure needs to be developed is probably the understatement of the century.  And let me add another understatement, it's easier said than done, but it needs to be done. Why?

Basically, I come to this conclusion because people are 1) just plain stupid and/or 2) they act stupid (whether they think about it or not).

People are going to have unprotected sex.  People are then not going to get tested.  People are then going to inadvertently spread the virus.

Yes, this is a very simplified solution/explanation to a complex issue.  I know.  Some people may not get tested because what's the point of testing positive only to find out you have no way to afford the expensive drugs it costs to suppress(?), treat(?) the virus.

No matter what, to me, it all boils down to a simple solution: develop a cure.

Who Wants to Be San Antonio Mayor?

We have now have four candidates for mayor.  Not exactly a surprise, we knew it was going to be from a select group of 10 people.

By next Tuesday we'll have our new mayor.

The City Council laid out the selection process last month, and it is so boring.

I was really hoping they might spice up the selection process with a Dating Show style selection.

Or even a Who Wants to Be a Millionaire San Antonio Mayor?

Let's face it, you know the council members are playing Let's Make a Deal right now.

 
As long as the city doesn't get Zonked...

Or to put it another, the City is collectively saying, "No Whammies, No Whammies, No Whammies...Stop!"

I Call Bulls**t on TX GOP Chair Steve Munisteri

In an interview with Texas Public Radio, TX GOP Chair Steve Munisteri attributes the passage of "reparative therapy" for gays to a quote: parliamentary trick.  I call bulls**t.

Having attended enough conventions, at least on the Democratic side, from precinct to state senate to state to national, there was no parliamentary trick.

Not ever having attended a Republican convention I have no knowledge of how they do things, but for the Democratic conventions at the state level, the platform usually is passed late on the last day of the convention.  The last day is when we on the Democratic side have the vote for party chair, which can get contentious.  After that vote, the convention moves to start going through the party platform.  This means resolutions upon endless resolutions that most people never stay for (count me as one of those people).

Most delegates are aware of the important or contentious resolutions.  In fact, those are usually brought first because most delegates are still at the convention.

Let's go a step further, most of the time, what the top brass wants, the top brass gets...especially if it avoids embarrassments.

What I'm going to guess is there was no parliamentary trick.  What I suspect happened is that most of the delegates had left by the time of the platform adoption leaving the most fervent supporters of certain items to stay and pass their resolutions.  There wasn't a parliamentary trick.  Munisteri and others were just outmaneuvered.  Their side didn't stay to the bitter end, the other side did.

And there was this gem from TPR:

Texas GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri said the two-week delay in releasing the platform had to do with some clerical errors and nothing to do with controversy surrounding the document.

Again, I call bulls**t.

If I had to guess, a number of people, i.e., wealthy donors, maybe gay Republicans (god what an oxymoron), some elected officials and candidates who were catching flack over the issue, called and complained to the point where Munisteri had to finally issue a statement.

Julian Castro and his After-Cabinet Future

All the chattering classes have pretty much decided that should Mayor Julian Castro become HUD Secretary, he's all but guaranteed the Vice President slot on a presidential ticket led by Hillary Clinton.

So, we were wondering what about past Cabinet members?

At least 86 men and woman have gone on to some other elective office* after serving in a president's cabinet.  *The term is used somewhat loosely since there was a time when for instance U.S. Senators weren't directly elected.

So which department has been the most popular position for appointees to leap from?

What might be thought of nowadays as the least political (in terms of domestic politics) for Cabinet Secretaries has seen the most success.  But when you think about it, it's a pretty good spot to launch a for president from. 16 times a Secretary of State has gone on to elective office after serving in the Cabinet.

Thomas Jefferson: Vice President & President
Timothy Pickering: Massachusetts Senator & Congressman
James Madison: President
James Monroe: President
John Quincy Adams: President
Henry Clay: Kentucky Senator
Martin Van Buren: Vice President & President
John Calhoun: South Carolina Senator
James Buchanan: President
John Clayton: Delaware Senator
Edward Everett: Massachusetts Senator
Daniel Webster: Massachusetts Senator
William Evarts: New York Senator
Elihu Root: New York Senator
Philander Knox: Pennsylvania Senator
James Byrnes: South Carolina Governor

The next most popular is Attorney General. 13 men have gone on to elective office after.

Levi Lincoln: Massachusetts Lt. Gov. & Governor
William Pickney: Maryland Senator
Ceasar Rodney: Delaware Congressman & Senator
John Berrien: Georgia Senator
John Crittenden: Kentucky Senator (Crittenden did it twice. He was AG for William Henry Harrison & John Tyler then was a Kentucky Senator. Then he was AG for Millard Fillmore and then served again as a Kentucky Senator)
Reverdy Johnson: Maryland Senator
Isaac Toucey: Connecticut Senator
George Williams: Portland, OR Mayor
Ebenezer Hoar: Massachusetts Congressman
William Evarts: New York Senator
Judson Harmon: Ohio Governor
Philander Knox: Pennsylvania Senator
Robert Kennedy: New York Senator

After AG there's a 3 way tie.  The positions of Treasury, Navy, & War each saw 12 men have a political career after their stint in the Cabinet.  Navy and War later became Defense.

Only 1 woman has successfully made the leap: Elizabeth Dole (Transportation then Labor): North Carolina Senator.

If you're counting by presidents, John Tyler had 8 men in his Cabinet who went on to political careers afterwards.  William Henry Harrison and Ulysses Grant each had 6.  Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and James Madison each had 5.

Does USAA Endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?

A valid question.  Below is a screenshot from the 2014 Texas GOP Convention:

As you can see there are numerous sponsors of the convention.

So the obvious question(s):

Does USAA endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Verizon endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Saulsbury Industries endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Breitling Energy endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Time Warner Cable endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Altria endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Anheuser-Busch endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does BNSF Railway endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Energy Future Holdings endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Atmos Energy endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does CenterPoint Energy endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does Oncor endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does the Texas Association of Realtors endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Do the Texas for Fiscal Responsibility endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?
Does George P. Bush endorse 'Reparative Therapy' for Gays?

I wonder if these companies, organizations, and candidate got their moneys worth?

Gay Marriage Map Update Re: Pennsylvania

And the map got bluer.

Courtesy of Wikipedia we get a new map of gay marriage in the United States.  With the addition of Pennsylvania, we're up to 19* states, plus the District of Columbia, that currently or will recognize same-sex marriage.  *Illinois won't become official until June 1.

I think we'll just categorize those striped states as being bi-marriage states.  They kinda swing both ways.

So what does this mean?

Adding Pennsylvania, and including Illinois, at least 137,000,000 people in the United States live (or will live) in a place where gay marriage is legal.

Gay marriage states account for 191 Representatives (including the delegates) in the U.S. House and 38 Senators in the U.S. Senate.

Percentage wise, that's about 43.5% of the U.S. population and the U.S. House; and 38% of the U.S. Senate.

Broken down by party...U.S. House: 133 Democrats, 58 Republicans. U.S. Senate: 32 Democrats, 4 Republicans, 2 Independents.

Those 19* states account for 231 Electoral Votes. *Including Illinois.

In terms of regions of the U.S:

New England became the first region to legalize gay marriage.  The Mid-Atlantic region has become the second.  With Pennsylvania making it official, the Northeast is now fully pro-marriage equality.

The Midwest will add it's 3rd state with Illinois.  Still 9 to go there.

The Pacific West has 4. (Only Alaska is left)

The Mountain West just has New Mexico.

When using the Census Bureau's designation of the South, there are 3 states* (Delaware, Maryland, & D.C.) that have legalized gay marriage.

What would happen if those bi-marriage states (specifically the red & gold ones) decided to swing to pro-gay marriage?

The number of pro-marriage states would expand to 28 or 56%! (MAJORITY)

The population living in states that are pro-marriage would be about 209,000,000 or about 65%! (MAJORITY)

The number of U.S. House Reps would be 271 or 66%! (MAJORITY)  (Broken down by party it would be 159 Democrats and 130 Republicans)

The number of U.S. Senators would be 56 or 56%! (MAJORITY)  (Broken down by party it would be 38 Democrats and 16 Republicans)

The number of pro-marriage electoral votes would be 347! (You only need 270 to be president)