Houston Democrats: March 2005 Archives

Main | April 2005 »

March 31, 2005

Jay Aiyer Kicks Off Campaign for Houston City Council

Last night, Jay Aiyer kicked off his campaign for Houston city Council, At-Large Position Two.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Kyle Johnston - Campaign Manager
March 31 2005
713-398-7670

JAY AIYER KICKS OFF CAMPAIGN FOR HOUSTON CITY COUNCIL

Jay Aiyer, candidate for Houston City Council, At-Large Position Two, kicked off his campaign last night at the Four Seasons Hotel, with a well-attended event by Houstonians from across the city, that included the outgoing incumbent Council Member, Gordon Quan.

Aiyer, a current Houston Community College Trustee, told the approximately 150 guests of his ideas to continue to move Houston forward. "This is a great city, a city of opportunity", he said. "We face challenges - we need to add new public safety officers, build new parks and libraries, repair our aging infrastructure and improve our overburdened healthcare system. I believe we can meet these challenges by using smart, effective partnerships - with the county, state, other local government entities, and with the private sector - to solve problems, and deliver value to Houston taxpayers."

Council Member Quan, who is term-limited and cannot run again, enthusiastically endorsed Jay Aiyer to succeed him on City Council. "Jay is the right person to continue the work we have started, and he will be a great addition to City Council", Quan said.

Aiyer thanked Quan for his support, saying "I am truly honored to have Gordon’s support, and will have some very big shoes to fill at City Hall."

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Have You Read the Constitution?

We all talk about defending the Constitution, but how many of us have read it? I'm certainly guilty of that. An email from Sen. Robert Byrd and the DSCC reminded me that I've been meaning to download and read it, and now I'm reminding you.

I've placed a copy on this site. You can download it right here. Let's all read it so we can do a more effective job protecting it.

Email from Senatory Byrd:

An ill wind is blowing across this country. That wind blows the seeds of destruction and threatens to undermine the system of checks and balances described in the Constitution and the fundamental rights we hold dear. Our Constitution is the rock of our nation and has withstood every challenge for more than 200 years. But today, the Constitution is under attack and needs your help.

I carry a pocket-sized edition of the Constitution with me every where I go, whether I'm back home in West Virginia or speaking out on the Senate floor. Now you can too. You can download and print the DSCC's exclusive personal Constitution by clicking here:

http://www.dscc.org/constitution

Senate Republicans are ready to nuke debate in the Senate and stand the Senate rules on their head by severely restricting our right to filibuster these nominees. They want to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can force on us far right-wing judges, all in an effort to gag the world's greatest deliberative body.

We cannot let them do it.

Their view of the Constitution is based on the opinions of a fancy Washington law firm. Our view of the Constitution is based on the plain words of the Framers who wrote it. Now you can use your own personal Constitution to share those powerful words with your friends and family.

http://www.dscc.org/constitution

It is up to us to spread the word. You must be the new Paul Revere and tell your friends and neighbors about what is happening in the Senate. Tell them that our free speech is under attack. Tell them that our system of checks and balances is under attack. Tell them that the Senate should not be simply a rubber stamp for right wing judges.

Some say we don't need 200 years of American history. According to opponents of the filibuster, 200 years of history is a bore. It's simply passé. Old hat. They say the Constitution is nothing more than stale bread. Opponents of free speech see no need to rely on Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, or Hamilton. We know better.

We won't be muzzled by those who want to silence us. Delay, deliberation, and debate may be a waste of time to some, but it's free speech and the American way to all of us who love our country and our Constitution. The best way to defend the Constitution is to elect more Democrats to the United States Senate. That is the sole mission of the DSCC. You can help in that effort by sharing your own personal Constitution with your friends and family.

http://www.dscc.org/constitution

We must preserve free speech and the rights of the minority. There must be no gag rule for the United States Senate.

Sincerely,

Senator Robert Byrd

P.S. The DSCC is already gearing up to put more Democrats in the Senate in 2006. The midterm elections are closer than you think and you know that every single seat is going to matter this time around. If you care about defending the Constitution, please help the DSCC win in 2006 by making a generous contribution today.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 02:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The "Front Groups" protecting your family

You would think that our elected officials in Austin would be firmly protecting their constituents, but many are listening and being lobbied by special interest groups claiming to represent the interest of you and your family.

Texans should be asking, "Who are these special interest groups? why are they speaking for me and my family? And how much is this going to cost me?"

During the last Legislation session in Austin, a number of special interest groups, some would call "front groups" were busy advocating for limits on access to the justice system as if this was good for the consumer. When actually they were advocating for business interests and business interests only.

For instance, a group called Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) advocated for limits on our civil justice system and Proposition 12, which limited medical malpractice awards to $250,000. They have advocated for the use of mandatory arbitration stripping our Constitutional rights to a judge and jury. Their advocating has resulted in little if any reductions in consumer goods or protections for consumers, but has provided overwhelming protection from lawsuits for business interests.

The Texas Coalition for Affordable Insurance an organization composed of insurance companies such as USAA, State Farm, and Allstate, has also advocated for the consumer on insurance matters. Formed during the 2003 legislation session, their advocacy on behalf of your family has resulted in higher rates and less coverage. Again, only the business interests have been rewarded by their advocacy.

This session another organization call CLOUT or Citizens Lowering Of Unfair Taxes is advocating for the lowering of property taxes, much like the Texas Coalition for Affordable Insurance advocated for lower insurance rates.

CLOUT 's executive director, Edd Hendee, uses a far right radio talk show to promote CLOUT and their agenda. According to the Houston Press, Mr. Hendee has donated $20,000 to the anti-rail Political Action Committee chaired by Congressman John Culberson. And not surprisingly, Mr. Hendee has at least a personal relationship with anti-rail, anti-tax, Congressman Tom DeLay, even sharing bible study sessions with him. Congressman DeLay and Culberson have long been advocates of taxing schemes such as the flat tax. The flat tax sounds like a rationale and simple idea, yet in the end would unfairly tax lower and middle class families.

All of this, in itself, should not be cause for alarm or concern, until an organization such as CLOUT uses a radio station to promote reduction in property taxes and attends hearings in Austin on behalf of your family. What is not being told is how much the property tax cuts will cost the average family. Sure, everyone would welcome lower taxes, but not if the reductions in property taxes will be offset by a raise in sales tax, taxes on other goods, or reductions in fire and police service. In the end, the overall tax burden may be just the same, if not greater, with less service.

After all of the help by these special interest groups, our insurance rates have skyrocketed, our rights to the civil court system have been eroded, and tax rates have risen. Maybe it is time for them to stop helping us.

Posted by John Cobarruvias at 04:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I'm 'liberal'. Is that wrong?

As Democrats we are accustomed to being called liberal all the time by Republicans, so much so, the media commonly use the Republican meaning of liberal, which generally implies moral abandon, high taxes and big government, and secularity.

I just have to ask, "Why is being liberal bad, wrong, subversive, or as some imply: un-American." Since I figure most people who use the word probably don't really know what 'liberal' means, and I am a unsure myself, I reach for my dictionary.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, liberal is an adjective that means:

1a. Not limited to or by traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Well, that doesn't sound too bad. As children, we were generally urged to try knew things. Education and traveling help broaden our understanding of the world and our place in it. Tradition implies a heritage and culture that each one of us passes to the next generation as our ancestors taught us. While traditions, values, and religion can influence our actions, as liberals we are not limited to them and can grow from our beliefs and way of life. In so doing, we become something new and ideally something more than what we were before.

We are taught to question facts and established beliefs, religious or otherwise, not because we're trying to be subversive, but because the accepted way of operating may not necessarily be the best way. It is dangerous to believe unquestioningly in authoritative dogmas. Individuality with an understanding of some sort of common identity within society is important to the overall functioning of society. Bigotry should be avoided and as a liberal, we are open to new ideas, even radical ones. However, before acting upon them, we carefully evaluate the pros and cons to the best of our ability to help ensure that society benefits as a whole, not just ourselves.

I guess that means liberals don't try to legislate what goes on in the bedroom, that we should be free to make our own personal life choices with the full protection of our civil and human rights. We leave women to decide the fate of their bodies. We accept that other religions exist, and that if we chose to believe in God (or in a different god or gods) that all religions essentially acknowledge the existence of a higher being(s), but do so in their own unique ways.

1b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Logically as part of being open to new ideas, we accept and even welcome reform. Reform entails abolishing abuse and malpractice, to improve, correct errors, remove defects, and to leave the system in a better condition than in which we found it. In fact, liberal actually implies tolerance of the beliefs, practices, or traits of others, even forbearance (tolerance, patience, restraint in the face of provocation). Additionally, a tolerant person is one who has a capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others. One who is broad-minded shows an inclination to respect views different from one’s own.

I don't know about you, but these traits don't sound very immoral or like reckless subversiveness to me.

1c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Well, liberalism means the state or quality of being liberal, so that can't be too bad.

1d. Of, being, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism.

As long as the party maintains the qualities of being liberal that's not bad either.

2a. Tending to give freely; generous.

Well, let's see, generous can mean liberal in giving in sharing. It can mean nobility and forbearance in thought or behavior, being magnanimous (courageously noble in mind and heart, generous in forgiving, unselfish, eschewing resentment and revenge.)

As long as that means serving families, not the narrow interests of wealthy individuals and corporations, and working with citizens from all regions and all walks of life, I can't find anything wrong with that. If generosity is providing quality education to all, universal access to quality health care and child care, affordable insurance, prescription drug coverage, and rewarding honest hard work with a livable wage and tax system that is fair to all taxpayers, I can't dispute any of those either. How can someone dispute the morality of preserving natural resources, clean air and water in order to provide a better quality of life and a safe environment for our children? If generosity is providing American workers and businesses, particularly small businesses, the basic infrastructure and advanced technology required to succeed in a changing economy instead of sending jobs overseas that sounds good to me. Sharing the right to freedom from government interference in our private lives and personal decisions and full protection of civil and human rights doesn't sound like moral abandon. The ability to accomplish these tasks while maintaining fiscal responsibility actually makes us liberals sound like we are conservative in the sense of being moderate.

2b. Generous in amount; ample.

As long as this refers to the values above, it sounds good to me.

3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate.

If not seeing an issue literally, not only in black and white, but from several perspectives seems like a good trait to have. If being loose or approximate means that we are not held to one way of rigidly doing things and able to adapt to changing circumstances, I'm for it.

4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum.

If the college or university promotes free-thinking, self-worth, while being aware of other people's values and ideas, that sounds fine too.

Actually the obsolete meaning of liberal might describe certain Republicans.

5b. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

A licentious person is one who lacks moral discipline or ignores legal restraint, and has no regard for accepted rules or standards. I'll leave it up to you to decide to whom or to those this might apply.

Futhermore, liberal shares the same Latin root (liber) with liberate and liberty. I can’t disagree with those, although it is absolutely preferable that liberty not be handed out on the end of a bayonet. If it must come by force, then it must be absolutely clear that all other measures were pursued to their fullest extent and that the reasons for force are transparent and honorable as well as well-founded.

We need to accept being liberal. Liberal is not wrong or bad or "un-American." Honestly, how can we really ever be truly un-American if we support the First Amendment? I think Republicans have been allowed to co-opt and demonize the meaning of liberal. If we do not speak up and support liberal values, then in a sense we are complicit in allowing others to define what it means and our personal beliefs. I think it would be helpful for self-proclaimed Republicans to see just how many liberals there are in society, and how many of them they might actually call their friends. I know I have surprised some people with the fact that I am liberal and they accept that. Whether or not someone agrees with liberal values, we must be able to fully articulate why we believe in them and stake a claim to our share of the moral pie.

I actually learned something about the meaning of liberal from reading the dictionary. Although, I would not recommend it as bed time reading, I hope that laying out the definitions of liberal helps to vindicate the values, morals, and ideology of being a liberal person.

So remember the next time someone calls you liberal, just smile and nod, and tell them "thank you." Living life liberally really is a great thing.

To get involved with the Harris County Democratic Party click here.

Click here to read the Texas Democratic Platform. Oh, I should mention that it is liberal, but not necessarily the final word on the values we support. It's always open for discussion and improvement for society's benefit.

Posted by at 01:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 30, 2005

Bay Area New Democrats Protest DeLay. Again

The Bay Area New Democrats greeted Tom DeLay and his small number of attendees at the grand opening of his Clear Lake office. The event was titled "The Snake in Clear Lake".

A number of people had called for weeks to find when this grand opening was to occur, but DeLay's office, up to the hour of the event, would just tell people "They were working on it". With just hours to go, our inside person was able to find out the daty and time and we russled (is that a word?) up a few Democrats to hold signs to greet the few people who attended.

Once we were noticed, DeLays goons called the Webster Police with 2 patrol cars, and 4 security officers from the building complete with tattoo filled arms, and goatees. They were quite a bunch to see.

One Webster Police copped an attitude after DeLay's goon ask him to confront us. He quickly lost the attitude once he realized he was being filmed.

Later members entered the reception area, but DeLay was no where to be found. It is believed he was avoiding interfacing with his "real" constituents. Those in attendance were the stuff shirt types. Many were on their knees kissing the ring of DeLay. (well, that really didnt happen, but it could have)

After an hour the place cleared out like roaches in the kitchen when the lights come on. How appropriate.

Posted by John Cobarruvias at 09:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Amy Goodman at the River Oaks Theater

Amy Goodman appeared in front of a standing room only crowd at the River Oaks Theater last at an event helped to celebrate KPFT's 35th Anniversary. Several HCDP members were in attendance, including myself and we all thoroughly enjoyed the evening.

The event opened with a video - Independent Media in a Time of War. It was the first time I've had a chance to see it and it was eye opening. Of course I've known for a long time that the mainstream media is a mouthpiece for the administrtion, but seeing the images of injured civilians - especially children was striking, especially in light of the fact that these images that never saw the light of day in the United States were broadcast on CNN International.

The first speaker was Javier Couso, who's brother José was one of the journalists killed by U. S. soldiers at the Palestine Hotel on April 8, 2003. He spoke eloquently through an interpreter about the struggle to find out the truth about his brother's death. He comes from a military family, who understands that soldiers just don't shoot at civilians without orders or approval from officers higher up in the chain of command. There is just too much about the administration's official explanation of the incident doesn't match up with the facts as reported by eyewitnesses, the government's story has been through several changes over time. For more information visit JoseCouseo.info

Shay Everitt, a 17 year-old high school student introduced Amy Goodman. She told us how Amy had inspired her to get involved at an appearance last year. Since then she has become a volunteer reporter for KPFT and will be studying journalism and political science in college. Expect to hear her name in the future - my guess is she will be a future leader in the struggle to wrestle media control from extreme right wing partisans.

It was fantastic to have the opportunity to hear Amy Goodman in person. She talked about the silenced majority - the mainstream that really does care about the effects of war - not just the outcome. She repeatedly reminded us to write and call our elected representatives to voice our concerns and displeasure with every aspect of the Iraq war. We cannot count on the TV news for balance. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, out of 393 so-called "pundits" appearing on CBS, NBC, CNN and even PBS, only 3 were advocates for peace. Most were ex-military personnel who were paid to promote war. Amy talked about her recent interview with Phil Donahue (if you haven't heard it yet - go over to Democracy Now it's a must listen) and recounted a story about her one appearance on the Sally Jessy Raphael show. She told us about her narrow escape for a massacre by Indonesian troops in East Timor. It always saddens me that the back story on these massacres always seems to include the sale of arms by the U. S. to the perpetrators.

Amy Goodman is one of the giants in progressive media and has always been a big supporter of KPFT and Houston's progressive community. KPFT is struggling with fund raising this year. If you can head over to their web site and join or donate.

Update: PDiddie does a great job blogging about last night here.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

“Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed.”

On March 31, Texas will celebrate the birth of cultural icon, labor, civil and human rights leader Cesar Estrada Chavez. To commemorate Chavez, I have borrowed some lines from the United Farm Workers’ biography of the late leader.

The story of Cesar Estrada Chavez begins near Yuma, Arizona. Cesar was born on March 31, 1927. He was named after his grandfather, Cesario. Regrettably, the story of Cesar Estrada Chavez also ends near Yuma, Arizona. He passed away on April 23, 1993, in San Luis, a small village near Yuma, Arizona.

He learned about justice or rather injustice early in his life. Cesar grew up in Arizona; the small adobe home, where Cesar was born was swindled from them by dishonest Anglos. Cesar's father agreed to clear eighty acres of land and in exchange he would receive the deed to forty acres of land that adjoined the home. The agreement was broken and the land sold to a man named Justus Jackson. Cesar's dad went to a lawyer who advised him to borrow money and buy the land. Later when Cesar's father could not pay the interest on the loan the lawyer bought back the land and sold it to the original owner. Cesar learned a lesson about injustice that he would never forget. Later, he would say, “The love for justice that is in us is not only the best part of our being but it is also the most true to our nature.”

In 1962 Cesar founded the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers--the UFW. He was joined by Dolores Huerta and the union was born. By 1970 the UFW got grape growers to accept union contracts and had effectively organized most of that industry, at one point in time claiming 50,000 dues paying members. The reason was Cesar Chavez's tireless leadership and nonviolent tactics that included the Delano grape strike, his fasts that focused national attention on farm workers problems, and the 340-mile march from Delano to Sacramento in 1966. The marchers wanted the state government to pass laws which would permit farm workers to organize into a union and allow collective bargaining agreements. Cesar made people aware of the struggles of farm workers for better pay and safer working conditions. He succeeded through nonviolent tactics (boycotts, pickets, and strikes). Cesar Chavez and the union sought recognition of the importance and dignity of all farm workers.

Cesar was willing to sacrifice his own life so that the union would continue and that violence was not used. Cesar fasted many times. In 1968 Cesar went on a water only, 25 day fast. He repeated the fast in 1972 for 24 days, and again in 1988, this time for 36 days. What motivated him to do this? He said, Farm workers everywhere are angry and worried that we cannot win without violence. We have proved it before through persistence, hard work, faith and willingness to sacrifice. We can win and keep our own selfrespect and build a great union that will secure the spirit of all people if we do it through a rededication and recommitment to the struggle for justice through nonviolence.

Cesar Chavez completed his 36-day Fast for Life on August 21, 1988. The Reverend Jesse Jackson took up where Cesar left off, fasting on water for three days before passing on the fast to celebrities and leaders. The fast was passed to Martin Sheen, actor; the Reverend J. Lowery, President SCLC; Edward Olmos, actor; Emilio Estevez, actor; Kerry Kennedy, daughter of Robert Kennedy, Peter Chacon, legislator, Julie Carmen, actress; Danny Glover, actor; Carly Simon, singer; and Whoopi Goldberg, actress.

Cesar Estrada Chavez died peacefully in his sleep on April 23, 1993 near Yuma, Arizona, a short distance from the small family farm in the Gila River Valley where he was born more than 66 years before. The founder and president of the United Farm Workers of America, AFLCIO was in Yuma helping UFW attorneys defend the union against a lawsuit brought by Bruce Church Inc., a giant Salinas, Calif.based lettuce and vegetable producer. Church demanded that the farm workers pay millions of dollars in damages resulting from a UFW boycott of its lettuce during the 1980's. Rather than bring the legal action in a state where the boycott actually took place, such as California or New York, Church "shopped around" for a friendly court in conservative, agribusiness dominated Arizona where there had been no boycott activity.

On April 29, 1993, Cesar Estrada Chavez was honored in death by those he led in life. More than 50,000 mourners came to honor the charismatic labor leader at the site of his first public fast in 1968 and his last in 1988, the United Farm Workers Delano Field Office at "Forty Acres." It was the largest funeral of any labor leader in the history of the U.S. They came in caravans from Florida to California to pay respect to a man whose strength was in his simplicity.

Farm workers, family members, friends and union staff took turns standing vigil over the plain pine coffin which held the body of Cesar Chavez. Among the honor guard were many celebrities who had supported Chavez throughout his years of struggle to better the lot of farmworkers throughout America.

Many of the mourners had marched side by side with Chavez during his tumultuous years in the vineyards and farms of America. For the last time, they came to march by the side of the man who had taught them to stand up for their rights, through nonviolent protest and collective bargaining.

Cardinal Roger M. Mahoney, who celebrated the funeral mass, called Chavez "a special prophet for the worlds' farm workers." Pall bearers, including crews of these workers, Chavez children and grandchildren, then carried their fallen leader, resting at last, from the Memorial Park to Forty Acres.

The death of Chavez marked an era of dramatic changes in American agriculture. His contributions would be eroded, and others would have to shoulder the burden of his work. But, Cesar Chavez, who insisted that those who labor in the earth were entitled to share fairly in the rewards of their toil, would never be forgotten.

As Luis Valdez said, "Cesar, we have come to plant your heart like a seed . . . the farm workers shall harvest in the seed of your memory."

VIVA LA CAUSA!

VIVA LA UNION!

VIVA LA HUELGA!

y VIVA CESAR CHAVEZ!

Posted by Stace Medellin at 12:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 29, 2005

A Grenade in the Chicken Yard

That phrase sure paints a gruesome picture. It is a reference to a potential challenge to Governor Rick Perry by US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2006. The Former Texas Republican Party Chairman George Strake said that a Hutchison campaign would be "like throwing a hand grenade in a chicken yard."

If that's something you would like to see, you better get your ring-side season tickets to the Republican Party Smackdown Texas Style soon for the bouts between the two GOP heavyweights.

In 2004, Hutchison made a comment about the Texas governor race to former Democratic Governor Ann Richards.

The following is from a March 2004 Dallas Morning News article:

Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and former Democratic Gov. Ann Richards don't agree on much. But they both feel like it's time to return to Texas and get a dog. For Ms. Hutchison, a longtime senator who has recently adopted two children, returning home could mean taking on Republican Gov. Rick Perry in 2006. On Friday she told more than 200 women gathered at the Women's Museum for a conversation between her and Ms. Richards that she was considering a 2006 campaign for governor. The comments were yet another indication that she is aiming for the governor's mansion.

Even though Kay Bailey Hutchison is not an official candidate and the party primaries are still a year away, things are already beginning to get riled up in Austin. There is significant talk about a potential Hutchison run for the Governor's seat in 2006, and that is scaring some Republican power brokers who have recommended she concentrate on her 2006 Senate re-election campaign.

Hutchison responds saying that she is receiving encouragement from numerous Republicans and that no one has told her they like Perry's performance as governor. Hutchison says the opposition is fueled by Perry's political team. Although a run is not official, Hutchison has her fundraisers fast at work in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. Despite the fact Hutchison has not committed to a run for governor, a recently enacted federal law would permit her to shift funds from a Senate campaign to a governor's race.

Feeling the political intimidation of a Hutchison campaign, Rick Perry is making an early move to shore up his support. Having previously denied any connection to a 46 second video clip of Senator Hutchison and Senator Clinton, the Perry campaign took responsibility for it this week.

In the clip Clinton tells a group that she is "delighted that Kay is my partner on so many important fronts." The video shows the senators posing together, smiling, and embracing each other twice. The footage came from a March 3 event at the Sewall-Belmont House and Museum, dedicated to women’s history, on Capitol Hill in which Hutchison and Clinton had back-to-back speaking engagements.

Luis Saenz, Perry’s campaign director confirmed making the video after a statement made by Laura Nisbet of the museum in which she said that the two men taping the event identified themselves as working for Perry. Saenz acknowledged that the Perry campaign paid $2,000 to Upgrade Video, a Washington firm to tape the event at the museum (Source). Originally he said he had no idea where the clip originated and that the Perry campaign had no role in its distribution.

Chris Paulitz, Hutchison’s spokesman, states employees of Perry are using state Republican leaders to spread the video and "take silly political shots. Sen. Hutchison is doing her hob and, at this critical time, the governor should be doing his (Source)."

Terry Sullivan, who represents Hutchison's Senate re-election campaign in Austin, says, "I’m embarrassed they got caught in a lie. I’m a little bit more embarrassed that the governor has nothing better to do than stalk the senator halfway across the country, then be dishonest about it (Source)."

Saenz has also said, "potential opponents trashing my governor are not going to get a free ride (Source)."

However, Senator Hutchison is still standing ready for a fight. She launched back at Perry with a 1993 letter he wrote to then first lady Hillary Clinton in which he called her health care reform efforts "commendable (Source)."

Sullivan declared, "It’s a double standard. It’s the ultimate in hypocrisy (Source)."

In response, Saenz says there is no comparison between the 1993 letter written by Perry and Hutchison accepting praise in person from "a rather liberal New York senator (Source)."

Perry's letter falls far short of actually being an endorsement of Clinton's health care proposal. But it was written at a time when some commentators already were describing her plan of government-sponsored HMOs and health care cooperatives as "socialism."
Perry was state agriculture commissioner at the time, a position he had won in 1990 after switching from the Democratic to the Republican Party.

"I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation's health care system are most commendable," Perry wrote.

Perry asked Clinton to take special notice of the health care needs of farmers, ranchers and people in rural areas as she tried to overhaul national health care.

However, Hutchison has been taking heat from State Senator Bob Duell (R-Greenville) for comments made to him by Hutchison advisor Dave Beckwith at a presidential gala in January.

Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, said Hutchison adviser Dave Beckwith told him at a presidential inaugural gala in January that Hutchison would run for governor. He said Beckwith also said Deuell's support of Perry might land the first-term state senator a GOP foe as he seeks re-election next spring.
Deuell privately replayed his recollection of the encounter to other Senate Republicans shortly after returning from Washington. But he hadn't publicly characterized the exchange until a reporter inquired Wednesday.

During "the Best Little Ball in Texas," he said, Beckwith "went into a diatribe about 'Perry's not a leader and she is.' "
"I just said, 'You know, I like her, but don't think she wins the primary.'

"And he said 'It'll be an expanded primary,' and he said, 'You're up this time, aren't you?' And said 'You're planning to have an opponent,' kind of snidely, and then walked away. . . . I took that as a veiled threat," Deuell said.

Beckwith said he said "nothing like that" in a brief hallway conversation, adding: "It was extremely loud that night. ZZ Top was playing. . . . Maybe ZZ Top told him that."

Asked if he said Hutchison was running for governor, Beckwith laughed and said: "How could I say that? She hasn't made a decision."
Beckwith suggested that Perry's campaign was behind the comments.
Saenz, saying Deuell speaks for himself, called the described threat of an opponent for Deuell unless he backs Hutchison "shameful."
After a reporter called Beckwith for comment Wednesday, Beckwith telephoned Deuell.

"He said he was just having polite party conversation. . . . That's not how he meant his comments to be taken," the senator said. "He was not polite that night. He was upset."(Source)

In another sidelight, Sullivan confirmed that Chad Wilbanks, a Hutchison campaign staff member, called into a Fort Worth radio station earlier this month describing himself as "Charlie of Flower Mound." The staff member said that Hutchison is gubernatorial timber. According to Sullivan, the call was not part of a campaign strategy.

On the Democratic side it appears that Chris Bell is running for governor. Jim Turner, a Democrat who like Bell, lost his seat as a result of the Republican redistricting is considering a run. Kinky Friedman, the writer and country singer, has announced his candidacy as an independent.

This election is off to a fighting start. Hopefully the "grenade" will sufficiently fracture the GOP to make it possible for a Democratic candidate to take the governorship. We're long overdue for a Democratic at the top.

Welcome to the "best little brawl in Texas."

Posted by at 05:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Successful Opposition to Animal Cruelty

I received this update from William Galbraith who alerted me to HB 1962 and HB 1963 last week.

Congratulations to all who helped to ignite the firestorm surrounding these terrible bills. We won!

According to the El Paso Times, Chente Quintanilla insists that

Critics misunderstood the bill...

The two-term El Paso Democrat says he merely wanted to give judges more discretion so that people did not end up in state jail for lesser infractions with the state's law against animal cruelty.

I don't buy his explanation, but I'm glad to that this bad legislation won't see the light of day.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

March 28, 2005

The WSJ Rips DeLay

The following is an article from the Wall Street Journal that takes Tom DeLay to task over his political dealings. The article is significant due to the fact noted by the Daily DeLay that the WSJ editorial board is "tight with the market-driven, establishment Republicans in Washington."

Smells Like Beltway The real reason Tom DeLay is in political trouble.
Monday, March 28, 2005 12:01 a.m.

By now you have surely read about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethics troubles. Probably, too, you aren't entirely clear as to what those troubles are--something to do with questionable junkets, Indian casino money, funny business on the House Ethics Committee, stuff down in Texas. In Beltway-speak, what this means is that Mr. DeLay has an "odor": nothing too incriminating, nothing actually criminal, just an unsavory whiff that could have GOP loyalists reaching for the political Glade if it gets any worse.

The Beltway wisdom is right. Mr. DeLay does have odor issues. Increasingly, he smells just like the Beltway itself.

Here is the abbreviated rap sheet against Mr. DeLay. First, we have the imbroglio with the House Ethics Committee, which last year rebuked him on three occasions. Among his sins: He offered to endorse outgoing Representative Nick Smith's son in a GOP primary if Mr. Smith would vote "yes" on the Medicare prescription-drug bill. (Mr. Smith declined the offer; his son lost the primary.) Mr. DeLay has since changed Committee rules so that it can no longer launch investigations on a party-line basis, and by packing the Committee with loyalists.

Next, there is the Texas business. Ronnie Earle, the district attorney for Travis County (which contains Austin), last year indicted three DeLay associates involved in his Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee for money laundering and illegal campaign contributions. Mr. Earle also will not rule out a possible indictment of Mr. DeLay himself.

Mr. Earle, a partisan Democrat, has a record of making suspect accusations: In 1993, he indicted newly elected Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on evidence so weak the case was never brought to trial. The indictments of Mr. DeLay's associates came just six weeks before November's elections; Mr. Earle's primary aim, it seemed, was to derail Mr. DeLay's ultimately successful efforts to achieve the first Republican majority in the Texas delegation to the U.S. House since Reconstruction. Still, the "odor" stuck; last year Mr. DeLay had to fend off a stiff challenge from a complete unknown to keep what otherwise would have been his safe seat.

Finally, there are the junkets, three in particular. In December 1997, Mr. DeLay visited the Northern Marianas Islands in the company of lobbyist pal Jack Abramoff, now under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee, who just happened to be representing the garment industry there. Mr. DeLay later led a legislative effort to extend the Islands' exemption from U.S. immigration and labor laws.

In May 2000, Messrs. DeLay and Abramoff took a $70,000 trip to the U.K. (including a golf outing to the St. Andrews course in Scotland) in the company of two House colleagues and some staff and spouses. Depending on which account you believe, Mr. DeLay's expenses were picked up either by an outfit called the National Center for Public Policy Research, on whose board Mr. Abramoff then sat, or by Mr. Abramoff directly, who later charged the trip to his clients, the gambling Mississippi Choctaw nation. Under House rules, members are not allowed to have their travel expenses covered by a lobbyist.

In August 2001, Mr. DeLay and several House colleagues (including four Democrats) visited South Korea on a trip sponsored by the Korea-United States Exchange Council, which has close ties to former DeLay staff chief Ed Buckham and was registered as foreign agent just days before the trip. House rules forbid members from traveling at their expense, but it is unclear whether Mr. DeLay or his colleagues were aware of the Korean Exchange Council's status at the time of their departure.

Taken separately, and on present evidence, none of the latest charges directly touch Mr. DeLay; at worst, they paint a picture of a man who makes enemies by playing political hardball and loses admirers by resorting to politics-as-usual.

The problem, rather, is that Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits. Mr. DeLay's ties to Mr. Abramoff might be innocent, in a strictly legal sense, but it strains credulity to believe that Mr. DeLay found nothing strange with being included in Mr. Abramoff's lavish junkets.

Nor does it seem very plausible that Mr. DeLay never considered the possibility that the mega-lucrative careers his former staffers Michael Scanlon and Mr. Buckham achieved after leaving his office had something to do with their perceived proximity to him. These people became rich as influence-peddlers in a government in which legislators like Mr. DeLay could make or break fortunes by tinkering with obscure rules and dispensing scads of money to this or that constituency. Rather than buck this system as he promised to do while in the minority, Mr. DeLay has become its undisputed and unapologetic master as Majority Leader.

Whether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign-finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.

The Public Campaign Action Fund's petition for Tom DeLay to resign now has over 18,600 supporters.

Posted by at 09:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Scientists discover main risk factor leading to abortion!

In 2000 through 2001, 10,683 women obtaining abortions were surveyed about their reasons for having an abortion. Forty-six percent said that they had not been using contraceptives when they became pregnant, and thirty-seven percent said they had been using contraceptives, but not consistently.

Oooh, I can hear members of the Konservative Kristian Koalition (KKK) howling right now that abstinence works 100% of the time and that sex outside of marriage is the cause, and not the lack of contraceptives. Oh, yeah? What about the married women who sought abortions? Silly me, there I go, pointing out the division between science and religion.

Yes, well, let us take a few moments to meditate on the history of Church Teaching vs. Science.

Religious Police
Photograph by permission of the artist,
Linda Griffith (copyright protected)

Meanwhile,as we wait for the religious police to catch up with modern medicine, check out some of the findings of this new study.

Abstinence is 100% effective if 'used' with perfect consistency. But common sense suggests that in the real world, it can and does fail.

So, exactly what is the definition of abstinence? What sexual behaviors should be abstained from? A recent nationally representative survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Seventeen Magazine found that half of all 15-17-year-olds believed that a person who has oral sex is still a virgin. Even more striking, the APS study found that the majority (55%) of college students pledging virginity who said they had kept their vow reported having had oral sex. While the pledgers generally were somewhat less likely to have had vaginal sex than nonpledgers, they were equally likely to have had oral or anal sex. Because oral sex does not eliminate people's risk of HIV and other STDs, and because anal sex can heighten that risk, being technically abstinent may therefore still leave people vulnerable to disease.

So what's the answer? Comprehensive sex education, that's what. Not only does sex education address the need to protect the public health, it is also covered under the First Amendment. Let's safeguard the protection, safety, and well-being of the public while we uphold our freedom of speech! Now that's All American!

Celebrate Freedom
Photograph by permission of the artist,
Linda Griffith (copyright protected)

Posted by at 08:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

An "Ethics Emergency"

Chris Bell, a potential candidate for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, declared an "ethics emergency" today in Austin (Source). He strongly criticized two bills currently in the Texas House, HB 913 and HB 3148.

HB 913

Mary Denny (R-Aubrey), who is chair of the House Elections Committee, proposed HB 913 that is sometimes called the "Ronnie Earle Bill" or the "Politician Protection Act" because it will essentially make it impossible to prosecute election law violations.

If enacted, HB 913 will create a special office within the Texas Election Commission responsible for conducting election code violations such as Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's two-year investigation of the Texas Association of Business, Texans for a Republican Majority, and House Speaker Tom Craddick.

A prosecutor who wants to file charges for violations of the state election code will have to first notify the special office in writing and include a report describing the facts and circumstances of the alleged violation. The special office will then have 45 days to review the report and determine if an offense has been committed. A prosecutor may initiate a criminal investigation if the special office decides that an offense has been committed or if it does not make a decision about a case within the prescribed 45 day period. However, if the special office determines no offense has been committed, an attorney may not prosecute anyone for the alleged violation.

Denny claims her bill will aid "local prosecutors who need help filing complaints against local officeholders, such as justices of the peace or city council candidates and give such cases a higher profile (Source)." Apparently, she said that stymieing prosecutors "was the last thing on my mind" and that her "intent is not to make it so that the Ethics Commission has the final say (Source)." She acknowledged just days after filing her bill in early February that it may be flawed. However, she has not taken any action to amend HB 913.

It should be noted that the Texas Election Commission's eight members are all appointed by Governor Rick Perry, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, and House Speaker Tom Craddick. Additionally, Mary Denny is a member of Tom Craddick’s leadership team, one of the people Ronnie Earle is investigating (See Off the Kuff). Furthermore, the Texas Election Commission has never issued a subpoena for witnesses or documents in connection with a complaint and never has recommended a case for criminal prosecution. Again Off the Kuff has more about this.

HB 3148

HB 3148, would eliminate civil lawsuits against candidates who violate campaign finance laws. It would allow political candidates and committees to violate legal restrictions on contributions without being subject to civil, monetary penalties.

Oddly, it was filed by Speaker Pro Tem Sylvester Turner (D-Houston), a member of Tom Craddick’s leadership team. According to Turner, the measure goes farther than he intended and he says that he will scale it back to only include minor violations of campaign-reporting requirements. When asked about the bill, he said that he would have to "look to see what’s all included in there" and that the bill came from another legislator Turner refused to identify. He should have looked to see what HB 3148 would do before he filed it.

HB 3148 repeals the sections of state law used by five losing Democrats to file a civil lawsuit alleging that Texans for a Republican Majority illegally used corporate cash to influence in the 2002 state elections. HB 3148 would not affect the outcome of the suit, but it will prevent similar suits from being filed in the future.

Turner says that he wants to restrict lawsuits brought over a candidate's failure to fully identify all political contributions, including addresses, on campaign finance filings. Honestly, this situation does not require legislation, but a careful proofreading of financial reports. If a candidate doesn't fully disclose their finances that should be their fault, and it should be possible to hold them accountable for it. If a candidate is not willing to disclose their financial sources, then maybe the candidate should not accept them in the first place.

I guess that means Turner does not support HB 1348 (note different number), the bi-partisan legislation to keep corporate and union money out of Texas elections. For more about HB 1348 see "Don't say the "magic words"" from March 10.

Contact Representative Mary Denny:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=63&rep=mary.denny
Phone: (512) 463-0688
Fax: (512) 463-0658

Contact Speaker Tom Craddick:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=82&rep=tom.craddick
Phone: (512) 463-1000
Fax: (512) 463-7722

Contact Representative Turner:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=139&rep=sylvester.turner
Phone: (512) 463-0554
Fax: (512) 463-8380

Posted by at 08:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - Pending Legislation Affecting Voting Rights

Several bills pending in the state legislature, seek to make it harder for legitimate voters to cast their ballots. That is unfathomable to me. The good news is that Jesse Jones (D-Dallas) has introduced the one bill that would actually benefit individual voters.

The Good - HB 1385

This bill, authored by Rep. Jesse Jones (D-Dallas) would allow voters who will be of voting age by the general election, to vote in primary elections as long as they meet all of the qualifications for voiting except for age. It makes sense to give voters who will be asked to make a choice in the general election, an opportunity to help select the candidates by participating in the primary election.

The Bad - HB 1706, HB 1402 and HB 1293

In eaither an overzealous attempt to prevent fraud or an overt attempt to make it more difficult to vote for the masses, State Sen. Mary Denny (R, Flower Mound) has introduced HB 1706 which will require Texans to show photo identification along with their voter registration card when they go to the polls to vote. Additionally, voters who cannot present their voter registration card would be required to sign an affidavit stating that they do not have the certificate in their possesion at the polling place. HB 1402 and HB 1293, introduced by Lois Kolkhorst (R, Brenham) and Joe Nixon (R, Houston), both require voters to present either one form of photo identification or two forms of identification that do not have photographs in addition to their voter registration card.

Our own Stace Medellin at Dos Centavos alerted us to these bills on 3/17. Kuff also reported on them..

The Ugly - HB 1269

HB 1269, introduced by Dwayne Bohac (R-District 138) would require a voter to submit a completely new registration form in the event of an error on their registration card. This is overly cumbersome. Currently you as long as you haven't changed your county of residence, you can file name and address changes online at http://www.texasonline.state.tx.us/NASApp/sos/SOSACManager

All of these bills are currently pending in subcommittee.

I would like to see the legislature impose as stringent requirements for proof of validity on voting machines as they are proposing to impose on individual voters. Voting machines without verifiable paper trails and software that can be audited by independent experts are a much greater threat to the electoral system than voters without picture identification.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

March 26, 2005

Get Involved From the Comfort of Your Home or Office

I've added a new section for online activism to the sidebar. Most of the sites offer petitions and/or services that email your representatives on various issues. The list is far from comprehensive, and I will continue to add to it.

Currently available action alerts:

I've done some volunteer work for Progressive Secretary. They do fabulous work - please sign up with them. They will email you about issues and all you need to do is click a link in the email if you would like them to send the proposed letter on your behalf.

Make it part of your day, every day to visit The Hunger Site daily. Sponsors donate food, books, funds for various causes each time you click the links on the different pages. They also offer merchandise that makes great gifts, with the profits going to these good causes.

Even if you don't have time to get involved, you might be able to make time to advocate for issues when it just takes a click of the mouse.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 25, 2005

Pre-TAKS Student Dumping: Senator Gallegos Speaks Out

The Houston Chronicle is reporting that Democratic Senator Mario Gallegos is questioning why Houston-area charter schools seemed to have "dumped" as many as 407 school kids between November 2004 and February 2005--the week before the TAKS test.

Gallegos said it isn't fair for a public school to take on a child just weeks or days before the testing is done. He said if it is happening in the Houston area, it is probably going on around the state.

"It's just astonishing," he said. "The (public) school has had to take on the burden of the charter, and the teachershaven't had a chance."

Still, Gallegos is looking for an investigation. He said if the charter schools want to be in the business of teaching, they should be held responsible for their own actions.

"We are talking about keeping a child up to a certain point and then dumping that child due to low performance," he said. "Any way you paint it, that is wrong."

Thanks to Senator Gallegos for fighting for Texas schoolchildren in a time when they are seriously under attack by the Republicans.

Posted by Stace Medellin at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 24, 2005

Tell Congress to Put First Responders First

From the First Response Coalition:

What's At Stake! Tell Congress - Put Emergency Responders First
The alarming decline in first responder funding from the federal government combined with the FRC's new estimate that first responders will be under-funded by $100.2 billion by 2008 raise troubling concerns about the security of America's homeland. The First Response Coalition believes now is the time for dedicated action to help first responders meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

The funding commitment promised in the public pronouncements of our elected officials must be real. It is simply wrong for policymakers to promise needed funds to first responders and then fail to deliver. This puts communities and first responders that protect them in danger. As Congress embarks on the 2006 budget process, first responders must receive increases in appropriations, not the reductions contained in the budget documents. The money should flow directly to the communities. It is the responsibility of both political parties to live up to their promises.

In this time of budget deficits, the FRC understands the need for financial sacrifice. However, it is far worse for first responders to expect to receive needed funds and then discover the money is not coming than to be informed that it is just not possible to fund a certain program in a given year. At least with honesty about budget shortfalls, first responders are not waiting on resources that will never arrive and they can plan accordingly.

Federal leaders must make sufficient funds available to first responder needs in hiring new officers, achieving communications interoperability, and purchasing new equipment. The FRC will vigorously pursue all opportunities to ensure first responders receive the resources they require to continue protecting our communities at the outstanding level of service all Americans have come to expect.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 09:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

What shall we talk about?

What indeed? *taps fingers on mousepad*

Lyn said talk about whatever, but it seems all the good topics have been beaten to a vegetative state.

Tom DeLay? Nah, others have that covered. The only thing that would surprise me at this point is if he showed up in the well of the House with Terri Schiavo on his arm, a la Weekend at Bernie's. (I know; that was bad...)

Al Edwards, maybe? Does 'out to lunch' always count as "present, not voting"? (Hey, this fellow represents me and that gives me carte blanche to give him a dig...)

Perhaps I could prattle a little about the 2006 gubernatorial jockeying. Hopefully we'll have our state's two head cheerleaders smacking each other down for the right to face Chris Bell. But if one of them suddenly pulls a hamstring or strains a groin, it's my fervent hope that the one left standing gets to square off with One Tough Grandma. Yes, there would be nothing finer than to watch Carole Keeton McClelland Rylander Strayhorn Cougar Mellencamp piledrive Little Ricky or rhymes-with-witch-slap Kay Bailey around in the Republican primary.

They put the "goober" in ... oh, never mind.

Maybe I could just riff in general about the full bore multi-front assault on sensibility the GOP levels every single day, with only the most recent offronts being the nominations of John "Milk Moustache" Bolton and Paul "Spit Comb" Wolfowitz, to the hypocritical farce that is 'privatization' of Social Security, right down to the insinuation that Congress can decide better when a person is allowed to pass away with or without some measure of dignity.

I know what you're thinking: borrrrrriing.

Did anyone watch The West Wing last night? If Republicans ran a real-life candidate like Alan Alda I might consider voting for him ...

... kidding. If the Republicans ran Alan Alda I wouldn't vote for him. And I love the guy. Thank goodness he's not a Republican.

Hey I know what we can talk about! Did you hear that Michael Jackson gave those kids steroids and forced them to play baseball?

Posted by Guest Blogger PDiddie at 04:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

March 23, 2005

Bills Would Reduce Animal Cruelty Penalties and Legalize Cockfighting

Montrose Area Democrats (MAD) passed a resolution opposing two bills - HB 1962 and HB 1963 that would reduce penalties for cruelty to animals from a felny to a misdemeanor. Why would anyone want to do this? To pave the way for cockfighting of course! There would be absolutely no penalty for abuse of fowl.

According to MAD, Max Mixon, Senior Cruelty Investigator at Houston SPCA 713-869-7722, confirms that the SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) is, in his words, "vehemently opposed" to HB 1962 and HB 1963. If anything, our animal cruelty laws need strengthening.

Anyone wishing to read the text of these two bills can go to the Texas Legislature online at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/

or for HB 1962 go directly to
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=01962&VERSION=1&TYPE=B

and for HB 1963 go directly to
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=01963&VERSION=1&TYPE=B

Surprisingly, these bills are being introduced by State Representative Quintanilla - a Democrat. William Galbraith of MAD contacted Representative Quintanilla to find out why he is sponsoring these bills. He reports on the phone call:

I spoke to Representative Quintanilla this afternoon about the bill he is sponsoring that would REDUCE Animal Abuse Cruelty ( beating, torturing, starving ) from a Felony to a Misdemeanor... Talk about someone being arrogant and belligerent, WOW !!! this guy is "world class" obnoxious !! He claims that 80 % of the people in his district support his pro Animal Abuse bill and has had only about 15 people have voiced any opposition statewide. He also told me that we were both "Macho" and I corrected him saying people who participated in and supported Animal Abuse are not "Macho", but in fact, Cowards.. call him... he's a real piece of work !! tel. 512 463-0613 (Austin) 915 859-3111 (El Paso office)

Here are some folks you can email to protest this outrage:

Representative Quintanilla: chente.quintanilla@house.state.tx.us
El Paso Newspaper: opinion@elpasotimes.com tomfenton@elpasoinc.com
Humane Society: Bgonzales@HumaneSocietyElPaso.com
Animal Rescue RehabRanch@hotmail.com
T.V. news@ktsm.com kvia@kvia.com bwatkins@kdbc.com
Democratic Party: mlavigne@txdemocrats.org

RESOLUTION AGAINST CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
PASSED BY THE MEMBERSHIP OF
MONTROSE AREA DEMOCRATS

WHEREAS: Montrose Area Democrats was founded by citizens to promote a just society and to improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods, our city, our state and our nation; and

WHEREAS: It is universally recognized that a sense of responsibility and empathy towards other creatures is a necessary component of a just society and a decent quality of life; and

WHEREAS: Those who commit cruelty to animals or permit animal cruelty are themselves degraded by doing so; and

WHEREAS: The laws of the State of Texas are already insufficient to protect animals from cruelty; and

WHEREAS: Two bills currently before the Texas State Legislature, HB 1962 and HB 1963, would, if passed, further reduce the penalties for cruelty to animals and send the message that Texas sanctions inhumane practices; and

WHEREAS: Animal rights organizations, humane societies and ordinary citizens throughout Texas are outraged by and opposed to these odious bills;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the membership of Montrose Area Democrats vehemently opposes the passage of any measure that would reduce penalties for cruelty to animals, and specifically strongly opposes passage of HB 1962 and HB 1963, and further urges all Texans to help defeat these measures and to work toward strengthening existing laws against animal cruelty.

Unanimously passed in full meeting March 22, 2005

Posted by Lyn Wall at 05:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Harris County Democratic Party Chair Speaks Out on HB3

Just received from HCDP.org

A good friend whom I respect and admire greatly just told me he read my recent post about the vote on HB3 and thought I was saying that I support that legislation. I was aghast. Let me be absolutely and unmistakably clear: HB3 is a terrible piece of legislation which (for the most part) is contrary to the values of the Democratic Party and must never be permitted to become law.

A good friend whom I respect and admire greatly just told me he read my recent post about the vote on HB3 and thought I was saying that I support that legislation. I was aghast. Let me be absolutely and unmistakably clear: HB3 is a terrible piece of legislation which (for the most part) is contrary to the values of the Democratic Party and must never be permitted to become law.

HB3 raises taxes on anyone making less than $100,000 per year. The Bush tax cuts have already favored tremendously the very wealthiest among us at the expense of the rest of us. Now HB3 seeks to do the very same thing at the state level - give a big tax cut to millionaires by raising the taxes the rest of us must pay.

How does HB3 accomplish that? It lowers state property taxes, but then raises state sales taxes by the same amount. Now, for many of us who are fortunate enough to own homes, property taxes on our houses are indeed too high, and should be reduced. But that can be accomplished by increasing homestead exemptions or limiting taxes on owner-occupied residential properties, especially on those having values of, say, less than $500,000. If we did that, we wouldn’t have to raise sales taxes (probably at all, but at least not to 9¼%). But HB3 lowers property taxes on all property - including commercial as well as residential property and on properties (like shopping centers or office buildings) worth many millions of dollars, and replaces those taxes with revenue generated by increasing sales taxes to 9¼% - the highest in the nation. So, your sales taxes go up by over 12% to give the Walmarts and the Trammel Crows of this state a huge reduction in their property taxes. Tax the middle class and the poor, this bill provides, to pay for tax cuts for big corporations and the wealthy.

Lots of Texans will never see a dime of tax relief from the property tax reductions: if they live in apartments, the landlord gets the tax break, but they don’t. On the contrary, their taxes go up, because they will have to pay more sales tax to finance the tax cuts for the apartment complex owners.

So how does a legislator like a Joe Nixon, for example, explain to his constituents why he voted for this bill? 62% of Nixon’s constituents live in apartments and so they won’t receive any benefit from the reduction in property taxes - only their landlords will. Yet their sales taxes will go up to 9.25% because of the bill he voted for. The real reason he voted for this bill is that his Republican leadership told him to - not because it’s good for the constituents he supposedly represents (it isn’t). Quite simply, he sold them out.

And as far as business taxes are concerned, HB3 creates a new tax on jobs to replace the current tax on businesses. Big companies will no longer have to pay franchise taxes; instead, small businesses will have to pay a tax on each employee on their payroll. I guess the Republicans in the state legislature think we have too many jobs in Texas, so they have decided to tax payrolls instead of corporate profits (which is what the franchise tax does). And if wages are income (and they are), HB3 creates a state income tax, since it imposes taxes based on how much money wage-earners make (up to $80,000 per year; earnings over $80,000 per year are exempt from this new tax). At all events, it ain’t right in my book to pass a tax on wages to pay for a reduction in taxes on corporate profits. But you see who gets the shaft here - working men and women - and who gets the goodies - big business and wealthy executives.

Now all this might be acceptable if it raised revenues we could use to improve education in this state or to provide health care, for example. (Notice I said might.) By and large, Democrats are willing to sacrifice to achieve those objectives, even if it means foregoing some tax cuts. But that isn’t the effect of HB3. It doesn’t raise one penny more for education or health care (or any other government program) than the current tax structure. It simply changes the tax burden to make poor and middle class Texans shoulder more of it, without increasing the pie one dime. Whatever taxes are raised by raising sales taxes to 9¼% are used to reduce property taxes (including for commercial properties and mansions). Whatever revenues are realized from the jobs tax go to relieve corporations from the franchise tax. There’s no new money for education or health care resulting from HB3. Just an increase in the taxes most Texans pay in order to give tax relief mainly to folks and corporations who don’t need it.

If there was any confusion about where I stand on HB3, let me be perfectly clear: this bill is a travesty, an abomination, an unmitigated rip-off, and an outrage - just what you’d expect from a House presided over by Tom Craddick.

Gerry Birnberg
Chair, Harris County Democratic Party

Posted by Lyn Wall at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

An American Dream turns to a Texas Nightmare

"It should be clear, trusting the homebuilding industry to advocate for your family is like trusting a terrorist to advocate for homeland security."

http://www.hadd.com/documents/lies.jpg

Audio of this commentary beginning at 15:29 is available at: http://www.kpftx.org/archives/kpftsignal/mp3/050322_173002news.MP3

If you, or a family member, become the victim of a shoddy homebuilder, you will quickly learn the biggest investment in your life has the least amount of consumer protection. Thousands of new homes are built each year and according to a Texas Senate report, 12% of all new home construction will have a defect requiring third party intervention.

The process to resolve a defect could be one of the most time consuming and frustrating experiences of your life. And your American Dream turned Texas Nightmare could leave you financially, physically, and mentally bankrupt.

Many victims are shocked to learn the consumer friendly Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act no longer applies to homebuilders. Instead it has been replaced with a long complicated process created by the homebuilding industry 15 years ago

This process, the Residential Construction Liability Act, or RCLA was the first “right to repair” law passed in the nation. It requires a long process of inspections and offers of repair. It limits the amount that can be awarded in a lawsuit. RCLA R-C-L-A also stands for Requires Competent Legal Assistance requiring a specialized attorney versed in construction law. The process can also last longer than it took to build the home with absolutely no guarantee of resolution.

Due to the complete failure of RCLA, our elected officials in 2003 created the Texas Residential Construction Commission or the TRCC pronounced appropriately TRICK.. House bill 730 was drafted by the homebuilding industry with absolutely no input from consumer organizations. It was filed by State Representative Alan Ritter of Beaumont. who is a member of the Texas Association of Builders and owns a lumber company, which sells lumber, to builders.

Needless to say, the Commission was flawed from the beginning and is well stacked against the consumer. It created a long, complicated, and costly dispute resolution process that must be followed before RCLA and before a suit can be filed. The processing fee is at least $350 and could take up to 3 months to complete with again, no guarantee of resolution or enforcement by the Commission. The Commission also created warranty standards so limited that a new $10,000 car has more protection than a new $100,000 home.

After following the long and costly procedures of RCLA and the TRCC, a homeowner will find they cannot sue the builder in front of a judge and jury, but instead are bound to a kangaroo court of arbitrators. Arbitration has been fond to be extremely costly, grossly unfair and the subject of 4 different investigations. This combination of Arbitration, RCLA and the TRCC also makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to find an attorney willing to tackle construction defect claims.

In response, Houston State Representative Jessica Farrar has filed HB3404 which will correct the major flaws of the TRCC. But the homebuilding industry will fight any changes to their Commission claiming it provides unprecedented consumer protection for homeowners.

The building industry has advocated for the consumer for over 15 years and consumers have little if anything to show for it. It should be clear, trusting the homebuilding industry to advocate for your family is like trusting a terrorist to advocate for homeland security.

Posted by John Cobarruvias at 07:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 22, 2005

Another Health Care Crisis Ignored

San Antonio Express-News columnist Carlos Guerra writes that while state leaders fight over how to minimally fund education and children’s health insurance, they seem to be ignoring what is already a health care crisis in Texas—a shortage of nurses and other healthcare professionals.

According to Robin Froman, Dean of the UT Health Science Center in San Antonio, Texas should be training more health care professionals as baby boomers live longer, yet suffer multiple and chronic diseases. She predicts that by 2020, the U.S. will be 1 million nurses short. Already, there is a critical nursing shortage in Texas, but it is acute in the Texas border area—-a heavily Hispanic area of Texas long ignored by Republicans.

To assure a safe and productive learning environment, nursing faculty are permitted as many as 10 students per course. Froman states that the capacity to teach more students is available, but that funding for additional faculty is non-existent. Houston also suffers from a critical shortage of nursing staff, although the infrastructure is available to produce more if those programs are adequately funded. By increasing funding to teach more prospective nurses, the Texas legislature would help lower indigent health care costs, thus producing additional funding to provide services to more patients.

While the Legislature acts to restore CHIP funding, thus increasing the federal government’s contribution to Texas coffers, it must also act to increase the number of professional health care workers. While higher education funding is slated to be increased by as much as $800 million for this coming biennium, there is no commitment to the training of nurses.

The Republicans (as well as a few Democrats) must get off this so-called “tax reform” and “zero-sum budgeting” trip and act to increase funding substantially, and not trivially—as in Democrat Vilma Luna’s HB2345 (immigrant tax). As Texas population growth occurs at a rapid rate, the Republican legislature is acting irresponsibly by not taking the initiative to meet the needs of Texas families based on current and future estimates of population growth.

We must remind the Legislature that part of its job is to plan for the future needs of Texans. Republicans have proven that public education and public health are not as important as property tax cuts for the wealthy and for business interests. Although Democrats in Austin have provided strong and viable alternatives to Republican plans for education and children’s health care, we must also take the lead and demand funding for the education of nurses and other health care professionals. It’s called being proactive—a concept Republicans avoid at all costs—costs to those with the least.

The chances for proactive legislation coming out of a Republican legislature are low to non-existent. But it is truly an issue that Democrats must embrace and utilize in its quest to minimize the GOP-majority in 2006 statewide.

TAKE ACTION * TOMEN ACCION
HB2345--the immigrant tax--is sponsored by Democrat Vilma Luna and Republican Dianne Delisi. It has been referred to the Appropriations Committee for consideration. Now is the time to act! Contact committee members and tell them that Texas needs proactive legislation to assure the health security of Texas, and not legislation that targets indigent communities.

Appropriations Committee Chairs: (Click on names for Contact Info/Email Page)
Jim Pitts, Chair
Vilma Luna, Vice Chair

You may also write the committee, citing HB2345, at:
Cristina Self, Appropriations Committee Clerk
EXT E1.032
P.O. Box 2910
Austin TX 78768-2910

Or call: 512-463-1091 and voice your opinion.

Posted by Stace Medellin at 11:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

No Child Left Unrecruited

Included within the 670-page No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is Section 9528, which gives "Children are our future" a very different meaning. Congress passed the NCLB in 2002. Under Section 9528 of the NCLB, high schools must supply student directory information for seniors to the military or risk losing their federal funding. Schools receiving assistance under the Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 must give military recruiters the same access to high school students as they provide to colleges or to prospective employers. Previously, schools could share student information only with other educational institutions.

The NCLB refers to schools as local educational agencies (LEAs). An LEA includes public and private schools that receive funding under the ESEA. Private schools with a religious objection to service in the Armed Forces that is verifiable through corporate or organizational documents or other materials are not required to comply with the law.

Under Section 9528, an LEA must release a student's directory information, including a student's name, address, and telephone numbers to a military recruiter, unless the student's parent has "opted out" of providing the information. Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), an LEA must provide at least one notice to parents of the types of student information that it releases publicly (i.e. directory information). However, some schools have been late in notifying parents, and depending on a particular school's definition of directory information, other items about the student could also be released to military recruiters, such as:
- an electronic mailing address,
- a photograph
- date and place of birth
- major field of study
- dates of attendance at school
- grade level
- participation in officially recognized activities and sports
- the weight and height of members of athletic teams
- degrees, honors, and awards received
- the most recent educational agency or institution attended.

Click here to view the US Department of Education’s sample Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Model Notice for Directory Information.

Recruiting strategies may range from calling students to ask about what their plans are after graduating from high school, to setting up booths in hallways and cafeterias at lunch time. Another method of recruiting is the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). In 2002, 1.25 million students in over 14,000 schools took the ASVAB, about 90,000 more than the number of students who took the ACT college entrance exam (Source). The ASVAB is mandatory to enter into any military branch. Its main purpose is to classify prospective service members into suitable jobs. The test is offered to schools free of charge if they are willing to use it as a student aptitude assessment. Each test costs the Pentagon $150. However, some schools make the test mandatory.

The impetus for Section 9528 is the result of the military having trouble getting into 15% of the nation’s high schools to recruit. The Pentagon claims that during 1999, a total of 19,228 schools refused access to military recruiters (Source).

US Representative David Vitter (R-LA) sponsored the new recruitment requirement. He stated such schools "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive (Source)"

In the case that an LEA does not comply, the law requires a senior officer, a colonel or navy captain, to visit the LEA within 120 days. If the access problem is not resolved, the Department of Defense must notify the LEA within the state governor within 60 days. Any problems still unresolved after one year are reported to Congress if the Secretary of Defense determines that the LEA denies recruiting access to at least two of the armed forces (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force). At that point, it is expected that public officials will work with the LEA to resolve the problem. Schools could lose funds they receive under the ESEA.

Apparently, when Bush expresses his concern that "too many of our neediest children are being left behind," he literally meant 'behind', as in left at home instead of joining the military.

I don’t particularly have a problem with making some kind of requirement for citizens of the United States to give a year or two in service back to our country after completing an undergraduate degree, whether it is in the Peace Corps, VISTA, AmeriCorps, Teach for America, or other similar programs. These programs would provide participants with a unique learning experience and a different perspective of the world that they can bring back to the US, while improving America’s image abroad. I think serving in the military could be an option but only if that is what the person chooses. However, enlisting students straight from high school is too young for someone to go off and fight in a war. After all, many of these students will just have become legally old enough to drive and still be below the legal drinking age. On top of that, students are still trying to figure out what to do with their lives.

Despite what students put down as their interests on the ASVAB, they

Houston Democrats - March 2005

March 31, 2005

Jay Aiyer Kicks Off Campaign for Houston City Council

Have You Read the Constitution?

The "Front Groups" protecting your family

I'm 'liberal'. Is that wrong?

March 30, 2005

Bay Area New Democrats Protest DeLay. Again

Amy Goodman at the River Oaks Theater

“Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed.”

March 29, 2005

A Grenade in the Chicken Yard

Successful Opposition to Animal Cruelty

March 28, 2005

The WSJ Rips DeLay

Scientists discover main risk factor leading to abortion!

An "Ethics Emergency"

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - Pending Legislation Affecting Voting Rights

The Good - HB 1385

The Bad - HB 1706, HB 1402 and HB 1293

The Ugly - HB 1269

March 26, 2005

Get Involved From the Comfort of Your Home or Office

March 25, 2005

Pre-TAKS Student Dumping: Senator Gallegos Speaks Out

March 24, 2005

Tell Congress to Put First Responders First

What shall we talk about?

March 23, 2005

Bills Would Reduce Animal Cruelty Penalties and Legalize Cockfighting

RESOLUTION AGAINST CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
PASSED BY THE MEMBERSHIP OF
MONTROSE AREA DEMOCRATS

Harris County Democratic Party Chair Speaks Out on HB3

An American Dream turns to a Texas Nightmare

March 22, 2005

Another Health Care Crisis Ignored

No Child Left Unrecruited

Houston Democrats - March 2005

March 31, 2005

Jay Aiyer Kicks Off Campaign for Houston City Council

Have You Read the Constitution?

The "Front Groups" protecting your family

I'm 'liberal'. Is that wrong?

March 30, 2005

Bay Area New Democrats Protest DeLay. Again

Amy Goodman at the River Oaks Theater

“Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed.”

March 29, 2005

A Grenade in the Chicken Yard

Successful Opposition to Animal Cruelty

March 28, 2005

The WSJ Rips DeLay

Scientists discover main risk factor leading to abortion!

An "Ethics Emergency"

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - Pending Legislation Affecting Voting Rights

The Good - HB 1385

The Bad - HB 1706, HB 1402 and HB 1293

The Ugly - HB 1269

March 26, 2005

Get Involved From the Comfort of Your Home or Office

March 25, 2005

Pre-TAKS Student Dumping: Senator Gallegos Speaks Out

March 24, 2005

Tell Congress to Put First Responders First

What shall we talk about?

March 23, 2005

Bills Would Reduce Animal Cruelty Penalties and Legalize Cockfighting

RESOLUTION AGAINST CRUELTY TO ANIMALS PASSED BY THE MEMBERSHIP OF MONTROSE AREA DEMOCRATS

Harris County Democratic Party Chair Speaks Out on HB3

An American Dream turns to a Texas Nightmare

March 22, 2005

Another Health Care Crisis Ignored

No Child Left Unrecruited

RESOLUTION AGAINST CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
PASSED BY THE MEMBERSHIP OF
MONTROSE AREA DEMOCRATS