« March 2005 | Main | May 2005 »

April 30, 2005

Help a Great Friend of Democracy

Andy Stephenson is one of the heroes who fought against electronic touch-screen voting fraud and voter suppression in the last election cycle, and he desperately needs your help. He was recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and, being unemployed has no health insurance, he is in dire straits. He can be treated at Johns Hopkins if he can raise $25,000 for the surgery. We owe Andy a huge debt of gratitude for his work on election reform. If you can afford to donate even $5 to his medical fund, that will help. His friends are working hard to track donations. If you are able to donate, please send a note to info@dougzilla.com, with the amount of the donation, and that you heard about Andy at HoustonDemocrats.com.

This post from William Pitt of Democratic Underground includes instructions for donating to Andy's medical fund:

A great friend of the activist community named Andy Stephenson needs our help. Andy has been a tireless fighter for election reform in America for years. He worked closely with the Black Box Voting organization, spent every waking moment traveling and speaking on the issue of electronic touch-screen voting machines, and even ran for Secretary of State in Washington on a platform based on this specific issue.

I remember meeting up with him last August in Seattle for a Rolling Thunder event. The day was dedicated to a variety of group conversations on topics ranging from the Iraq occupation to environmental protection to electronic voting and the upcoming election. Every gathering where Andy came to speak was packed, and he described in eerily prescient detail what eventually happened in Ohio and elsewhere during the November presidential election.

Several weeks ago, Andy was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was recently told that he must undergo what is called a Whipple Procedure. This is a very serious surgery that few hospitals in America are skilled enough to perform well, and requires significant time for recovery. Fortunately, some friends managed to get Andy a slot at Johns Hopkins Medical Center, one of the premier hospitals for this type of procedure. He is slated for the procedure in the second week of May.

Unfortunately, the hospital requires a $25,000 down-payment before they assent to doing the Whipple, and requires another $25,000 once the procedure is done. They are expecting the down-payment immediately. Andy Stephenson does not have health insurance; activists like Andy rarely do, because there is little money to be made in trying to do good. In this, Andy is like millions of other Americans who do not have health insurance and thus face financial ruin if they get sick.

What Andy Stephenson is going through right now is a perfect example of why Universal Health Care for all Americans is needed, and needed now. When you get sick, you should be able to get help, period. Our for-profit health care system is a betrayal of the most basic of human requirements: Care for those in need. The quality of health care available should not be based on how much money you have in the bank, or whether you are fortunate enough to work for a company that can itself afford to offer health coverage, or whether you have friends who can help you.

Andy’s friends have to date managed to raise about $7,000 to put towards the fee for his procedure. So much still remains to be done for him, and must be done soon. Andy Stephenson is one of the main reasons why people have become aware of the gross flaws and potential for fraud that exists with the new corporate-owned electronic touch-screen voting machines. Even though he is sick, he is still speaking to whoever will listen, wherever they may be, to continue to press this issue. He is one of the most dedicated people I have ever been privileged to know.

If you can, please give to the fund for Andy. You can do this electronically via PayPal:

http://www.paypal.com

After logging in, choose "Send Money" and enter Andy's email address as the recipient:

Andy_Stephenson@comcast.net

If you prefer to donate via check outside the electronic process, please send to:

Andy Stephenson
P O Box 25624
Seattle, WA 98165-1124

Thank you so much.

William Rivers Pitt
Editorial Director
Progressive Democrats of America

Posted by Lyn Wall at 08:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

April 29, 2005

"The next Governor, of the Great State of Texas..."

Completing this week's Democratic trifecta was last night's happy hour and update with prospective gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell (who made a point of introducing himself to me -- as if he needed to. Turns out he's a family friend.)

With the bragging dispensed, let me work in a little history:

There's an article by Patricia Kilday Hart that appeared in Texas Monthly that the campaign prepared copies of for distribution. Here's an excerpt from it:

The chance of a Democratic upset in the 2006 governor's race is about as likely as, well, Bill Clements winning in '78. Or Mark White winning in '82. Or Ann Richards winning in '90. Or ...

... Although political pros believe that Republicans start out with a built-in ten-point advantage over Democrats in any statewide race, a battle for governor is so high-profile that it can transcend party loyalties. It happened in Texas when Republicans were on the way up, and it could happen now that the shoe is on the Democrats' foot. Deeply red states like Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, and Oklahoma have recently elected Democratic governors. "It's a high-visibility race," notes pollster Richard Murray, of the University of Houston. "There's more independent voting for governor. Independents can swing one way or another, and voters don't like living in a one-party state. The minority can win."

You might also have heard about this little redistricting thing that happened down here in Texas, which resulted in among other things Bell losing his seat in Congress, and then he filed a little ethics complaint against a certain House Majority Leader, and then things got a little vitriolic from there.

Don't mean to put much emphasis on the diminutive ...

You may in addition be aware of the pleasantries already being exchanged between our state's top two former cheerleaders -- Rick "Goodhair" Perry and Kay "Bighair" Bailey Hutchison -- despite the Senator's so-far-missing announcement that she is running for the Governor's seat. Standing just outside the ropes in case Bighair gets cold feet is state treasurer Carole Keeton McClelland Rylander Strayhorn (Cougar Mellencamp), whose wrestling ring nickname is "One Tough Grandma". (Can't you visualize the lime green tights, the black raccoon makeup, the black cape with the big orange letters: "OTG"?)

Sooooo, the GOP primary is well under way, whether they want to admit it or not, and dammit, I don't think we've popped enough corn.

Into this environment then steps the former Houston city councilman and former Congressman whose wife, Alison, just happens to be undergoing chemotherapy at the moment. Suffice to say that meeting these two courageous people last night was a privilege.

Bell brought to light a statistic I hadn't heard before; that 40 to 55% of Republican primary voters in Texas consist of the party base. The GOP base, for any of you who've been missing out on first-hand experience, are the most rabid, fanatical Republicans you can find anywhere in the country. In the Texas legislature, for example, their representatives can currently be found pushing legislation that outlaws gay foster parent adoption, that quashes campaign finance reform, and a host of similarly bad laws.

These folks love Rick Perry, because Rick Perry is far and away the most reactionary conservative governor this state has ever had. Which makes it entirely possible that KBH might beat on him badly (the governor's popularity statewide plummeted during the redistricting fiasco); she could certainly force him to spend millions and millions of dollars, and she could still lose. Which would leave Perry bloodied and staggering just in time for the general election.

Hypothetical chess matches aside, Bell intends to wage a campaign where his top priority is public school education (and not just the appropriate funding of it). One of my favorite phrases of his is: "Budgets are moral documents." Which highlights the fact that the decisions our lawmakers make significantly affect peoples' lives. That people actually do live, or die, according to the dictates of the state. Indeed, Bell cited a case (at the West Houston Democratic Club meeting last month) of a San Antonio child who had starved to death because the state's funding cuts to CPS had left that department too short-handed to intervene in time. "What would Jesus do? I don't think he would balance the budget on the backs of poor children," Bell said.

Bell also declared that those of us who shared his concerns about the state of our state -- and our nation -- were the "new mainstream".

I like the sound of that, too.

Posted by Guest Blogger PDiddie at 09:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Places to Go, Things to Do, Sites to See

We have several action alerts, upcoming events and interesting sites for you to start off your weekend:

Places to Go

Things to Do

Sites to See

WHAT: Houston Janitors, Community Supporters Launch 'Justice for Janitors' Campaign

WHERE: George H.W. Bush Ballroom, George R. Brown Convention Center, 1001 Avenida de las Americas, Houston

WHEN: Saturday, April 30, 2005
1 p.m. - 2 p.m. Pre-Convention Press Conference
2 p.m. - 4 p.m. Justice for Janitors Kick Off Convention
4 p.m. Janitors march from GRB Convention Center to Rally
4:45 p.m. Rally

WHO: Hundreds of Houston janitors, Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza, City Councilmember Carol Alvarado, ACORN, TMO and community supporters, SEIU Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina, and janitors from other cities

The J for J campaign has been instrumental in bringing dignity and a livable wage to thousands of Americans. For example, think about what you spend $106 on each week. Gas for your car? Groceries? Dinner and a movie out? Imagine if you only made $106 each week, and had no health care benefits. How would you get by? Take care of your family? Unfortunately, for the janitors who clean Houston's office buildings, this is a reality they've lived with for too long.

Join these hard working citizens as they kick off a campaign to secure family health care, fair wages, full-time work, and better working conditions by uniting to form a union with SEIU (Service Employees International Union), the nation's largest union of janitors and other immigrant workers.

The janitors, with the backing of community, religious and elected leaders in Houston, are holding a convention and rally this weekend to help publicize their fight to form a union and strive for better working conditions for all. The organizing campaign is joining the ongoing community-wide efforts of ACORN, TMO, business and political leaders, and others to improve access to secure, affordable health care for all working people in Houston.

At the convention, these workers, part of Houston's "invisible workforce," will tell their stories of working hard, but struggling to provide for their families and pay for health care, and why they are uniting to achieve a better life.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Democracy for Houston Events

Here are several events that you can get involved with to help Democracy for Houston, including information about Democracy for America's DeLay Fest on May 14th.

Your Chance to Get Involved.

The Tom DeLay billboards are going up in Houston and Galveston next week!

Please join us for a visibility event at either of two locations on Tuesday, May 3rd at 4:30pm to launch these billboards paid for by Democracy for America! Here is the plan: We will meet at the billboard site during rush hour with DFA rally signs and create energy (and possibly a press buzz) for our message! If you can join us, please RSVP to one of the following sites:

Downtown Houston Billboard near Minutemaid park (This one is huge!)

Meet at an establishment called "The Bus" at 1800 Texas Ave at 4:30pm on Tuesday, May 3rd (Click here for a map). We will walk over to the billboard location for the visibility event. To join us, please RSVP here.

(Please note, the event details on this page say "Drexler's" in the text - please ignore - we will meet at the The Bus near the ballpark.)

Galveston Area Billboard off of I-45 South near Vauthier Road
Meet at the northwest corner of I-45 and Vauthier Road on Tuesday, May 3rd at 4:30pm for this event (Click here for a map). Rally signs will be provided. RSVP here for this location.

These events will be short - sweet and high energy! Please join us! RSVP today!

For more information: e-mail Democracy for Houston.

SAVE THE DATE! May 14th!

Save America Without DeLay Festival Democracy for Houston is proud to announce the that we have finalized plans for a dynamic family event. Click here for more information.

Please join us Saturday May 14th from 4:30-7:30pm
Tom Bass Regional Park III - Pavilion #4
15108 Cullen Road
(Just minutes South of Houston at Hwy 288 and Beltway 8)

RSVP here.

This event is designed to energize the grassroots and to empower those of us who are tired of the brand of corporate-sponsored politics practiced by Tom DeLay and the right-wing Republicans.

Bring the whole family to enjoy: Games, moonwalk, pinatas (Does that one look like the hammer?), prizes, free hot dogs, chips, drinks, bands, speakers (Including potential candidate for Texas Governor Chris Bell!), and grassroots training,

Bring a "Dessert for Democracy" and books to send to soldiers in Iraq. Please RSVP.

If you would like to volunteer for this event or if you are a member of a Democratic or Progressive club/organization who would like to participate in this event, please e-mail us. (We need lots of help to make this event a success! Volunteer today!)

See you at the park! Meanwhile - watch for two DeLay billboards sponsored by Democracy for America near downtown and off the Gulf Freeway!

Update: Here's the postcard that's being sent out for the May 14 event:
Save America Without Delay!

Democracy for Houston
www.democracyforhouston.org

Posted by at 01:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 28, 2005

Are these not underhanded reporting tactics? -- You Decide

An account of my first-hand experience with biased media:

Today was an extremely exciting day down at the Harris County Democratic Headquarters. At about 1:20 pm Susan Gates, HCDP Executive Chair, received a call from KTRK Channel 13 News requesting someone to come do an interview with Art Rascon as part of his "City View: The Community as a Whole" program to be aired this Sunday at around 11 to 11:30 am.

As many of you may know, I volunteer every Thursday at HCDP Headquarters. Most of the time the shift isn't too exciting, but it's a chance to be surrounded by Democrats and I can plug away on doing research for the blog or other tasks that need attention.

Today, I was in for a much bigger surprise, far more than the time when I had to inform a caller that "No, the Democratic Party does not sell chewing tobacco."

However, none of what we accomplished would have been possible without everyone's help at Headquarters.

Here's the story...

At about 1 pm, I was getting ready to go home, and was in the process of showing Ross McDonald, the afternoon volunteer, the task he would be working on. I had spent a good part of the morning calling fellow Democrats to remind them about the Real Texas Heroes event on Friday, May 6 and Ross was going to continue working on making calls. As I was in the process of showing him the names and who I had already contacted, I hear this exclamation from the next room: "Marc! Would you like to be on TV!"

I'm thinking, me?! Is this some kind of joke? Apparently not! Susan said someone named Rick Slagerman from KTRK Channel 13 called and needed a "replacement" for the Sierra Club representative. He told Susan the Sierra Club representative who had been scheduled to do the interview about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) had cancelled, and he was looking for someone to represent the opposition to drilling in ANWR. KTRK already had two other people lined up to represent the case for drilling in ANWR. However, that 'someone' had to be able to get to the KTRK studios at 3310 Bissonnet Street by 2 pm. This is despite the fact that the show will not be aired until around 11 or 11:30 am this Sunday. It seemed like a reasonable request (other than the fact it was very short notice), and most of us in the office were wondering why the Sierra Club would cancel at the last minute. I will have more to say on the supposed "cancellation" by the Sierra Club in a moment.

Just keep in mind this is all occurring at just past 1 pm, so there is less than an hour to get ready.

Susan said that because I am a young person, and because I follow environmental issues fairly well in addition to the other topics I post about here on the blog, I should be the one to go down to do the interview, if I was free to do so. Well, I had kind of planned to go back and work on a presentation for class, but the chance to be on TV kind of excited me, and a chance to speak against drilling in ANWR is not one to be turned down. So, there went any plans I may have had. I kind of replied with a dazed voice, "Sure, I'll do that. It's no problem." I'm sure I looked flabbergasted at being asked to do an interview on TV.

Susan and I talk for a little while. We considered how feasible getting to KTRK would be. I have very little experience getting around Houston since I live in Spring on the northwest side of town, so directions to KTRK were going to be crucial, and even then uncertain because directions don't always work in reality and are much harder to follow in heavy traffic.

I then called Rick Slagerman back and told him I would be willing to do the interview. Apparently he was at a bank (It sounded like a drive-through bank since I could hear a lot of background motor noises and birds chirping.) He said he would call me back in just a few minutes. While I was waiting, Phil Donovan, the afternoon office manager arrived, and in very little time unbeknownst to him, he would become a lynchpin in our operation. Susan Trapp also arrived and would play a role too.

We all set about figuring out how I am going to get ready in time to be at KTRK by the set 2 pm interview time. I start rushing to find maps and directions on the internet. I realized that I was wearing a plain green t-shirt and jeans, and that I wasn't really dressed for an interview. After all, it's not everyday I wake up and think, "You know what? I feel like wearing a suit today." Of course there are no idle suits lying around the office, and Ross and Phil are the only other guys there, and they just happened to be as careless as I was to not wear a suit today. Plus, this is the Democratic Party, if we all wanted to act like pampered millionaires, we would be Republicans. Martha Cottingham, our invaluable precinct chair organizer, offered to phone a niece in town to see if she had a blazer available. Susan thought about calling Charles Soechting's wife to see if they could lend a coat. Then, we all realized Phil Donovan lives near the KTRK studios, and he just returned from getting his delectable barbeque sandwich from the reastaurant next door. He hadn't had lunch yet.

Just then the phone rings. He is saved by the bell, for the time being anyway. It's Rick again. He thanks me for being willing to fill in at such short notice and proceeds to tell me how to get to KTRK. I ask what the format of the interview will be and what he would recommend I wear. He asked me what size jacket I wear, and of course I'm a guy, so how would I know, never mind the adrenaline rush I am getting from the fact I am supposed to do an interview on the spur of the moment. In addition, I asked what specifically the ANWR interview would be about since I wanted to read up on the issue in the little time I had. I figured I could be reasonably successful since I had majored in environmental and internationl studies in college. Rick said he really didn't want to tell me anything specific because the show, "City View," is intended to reflect the views of general citizens in our community, but he suggested I might be able to get some talking points from the Houston Chapter of the Sierra Club.

The time is now about 1:15pm, 45 minutes remaining

I told Susan the interview was a 'go,' and she asked if Rick had given me directions, but I realized I had neglected to ask for the street address. I have to say the internet is really great at finding information on a moment's notice. I hopped on the nearest computer to look for maps and directions, which weren't too hard to find. I then turn to Google to figure out the Sierra Club's Houston number since I don't have a phonebook for a brain. In exactly 0.20 seconds, I find Evelyn Merz's number. She is Sierra's Houston Group Chair.

Fortunately, she was in her office and answered immediately. I hurriedly recount our predicament, and she explains why the Sierra Club did not send someone to the interview. She was quite understandably upset, because KTRK had called her just prior to phoning Susan to ask for someone to do the interview. Furthermore, Evelyn added that this is not the first occasion the station has done this to the Sierra Club. That's when I realized what KTRK was up to.

The Sierra Club had not "cancelled" as Rick told Susan, but had declined simply as a result of a lack of time to locate and get someone to the television studios to do the interview. (We found out over the course of the afternoon that this is a very difficult thing to do.)

This sounds highly suspicious when you consider that KTRK already had two industry representatives lined up (possibly for days in advance), and the show doesn't air until this coming Sunday. It makes you wonder why today at 2pm, had to be the exact time. Nevertheless, Evelyn Merz kindly accepted my request for information about ANWR and promised she would fax it immediately.

Time: 1:30 pm, 30 minutes remaining

By this time, Phil is in the middle of enjoying his sandwich, and Susan and I set upon him, asking if he had a coat and shirt that I could borrow. He does, and we agreed that Phil would go ahead to his house to pick up the items and that I would meet him at KTRK's studios. Unfortunately, in his rush to get home, he dropped his sandwich while trying to open the office door. Sue Trapp assumed command of the office manager's desk and remained along with Ross and Martha to support Susan Gates with running the office. While waiting for Evelyn's fax to arrive, I down a quick bite to eat, part of a roast beef sandwich Sue picked up at Randalls on her way in from home.

At 1:40 pm, after what seems like an eternity, but in reality was probably only about seven minutes, Evelyn's fax arrived. She called to confirm to ensure I received both pages, and I thanked her for the help she provided under the difficult circumstances. Finally, after gathering my things I am ready to set off to KTRK.

Time: 1:44 pm, 16 minutes remaining

I turn right onto the 610 Loop feeder, right onto Durham Street, right on Kirby, and then another right onto Bissonnet. The traffic was fairly heavy but at least it never got too congested. I finally see the aerial antenna of KTRK come into view at 2:14 pm. Under the circumstances, being only 14 minutes late was pretty good. KTRK probably didn't expect anyone to be able to show up anyway. Phil was waiting in the main lobby with a pressed shirt and coat. I quickly dressed in the lobby while the secretary and security guard watched me, talk about entertainment (It must have been a dull afternoon).

Once I finished, the security guard escorted me through to the studio where Art Rascon was already in the midst of interviewing the staunch oil industry supporter (I don't remember his name or the oil company he represents, but it is one based in Houston). I am told to wait at the back of the room until Art Rascon is through interviewing him.

After about 40 or 50 seconds, the segment is completed, and they go on commercial break. Then Rascon said he still had another segment to do with the industry representative, following some taped footage of Rascon in Alaska. There was a series of shots showing all the good things that corporations are doing while Rascon narrates that these villagers want the corporations there to drill oil because they want new schools and more business, etc., etc.... (Nothing was mentioned about what will happen when all the oil is depleted and the corporations leave.)

The interview begins:

Once the footage ends, Rascon began questioning the oil industry representative, which took another 40 to 50 seconds. All this time the industry supporter was the only other person on stage with Rascon, receiving ample time to make his points and to spout the corporate mantra the big oil companies expound upon incessantly.

I should mention that in addition to the oil industry representative I've already mentioned, KTRK invited another energy industry representative from Energy Magazine, which the man told me is a publication that represents an array of energy corporations, both fossil fuel based ones and renewable energy companies. I discovered after I returned home that it is produced by Business Communications Strategy, Inc.

Quite honestly, it was very hard to figure out his position at first. He kept agreeing that I raised significant points, but kept disagreeing with the information I stated. I came to the conclusion he is more middle of the road than the oil industry representative, but still inclined towards the oil industry. I represented the sole person in opposition to drilling in ANWR. If I had not been able to show up, no one would have been available to support the environmental cause. Art Rascon probably would have made some remark about having offered environmentalists a chance to speak, but that they declined the interview.

Once the segment was completed, Rascon summoned me to sit across from him on stage. The other individual being interviewed came up as well and sat between us. One of the technicians set me up with a microphone during another segment of pre-filmed footage in Alaska. This time you saw the frozen tundra, covered in thick ice and snow as a herd of caribou runs across it. You hear Rascon narrating that a Native Indian is having trouble meeting his catch of caribou for the year in order to make leather goods to sell, so he can feed his family. Only briefly, for a period of about 10 seconds, does Rascon spend time interviewing a lone Gwichin Indian who opposes drilling in ANWR. Then the segment breaks away to another commercial break, during which time Rascon explains how the interview will work.

Rascon would open the segment by saying something to the effect, "Many people are against drilling in ANWR. With us here today is Marc Olivier, Environmental Specialist for the Harris County Democratic Party, and the other guy's name." Thus, I discovered that those titles displayed on screen can be trumped up as well. While being relatively knowlegeable about environmental issues, I don't see myself as a 'specialist.' Rascon added there would be only one take (or filming) for us to have our say. So, despite the fact that the interview is being taped on a Thursday and is going to be broadcast on Sunday, the director did not allow the possibility for a second take if we made any mistakes. It was as if we were doing the show live.

Rascon said he would address his first question to me and then alternate between the two of us. However, by setting up the interview this way, the Energy Magazine representative always had the opportunity to rebut anything I said. I never had an opportunity, not once, to specifically reply to his statements. Plus, we were told to keep our statements as short as possible because there wasn't much time left in the story for our interview. Of course here I am, I had just seen the oil industry representative have two full segments for a combined total of at least two minutes, maybe more, I can't say since I was still just trying to get there. Furthermore, from what the Energy Magazine representative said to Art Rascon, it seemed like he had already participated in an earlier segment, probably about 40 to 50 seconds in length. I guess we'll find out about that on Sunday. Clearly, you can see the case was stacked against me and the oppposition to drilling in ANWR.

Throughout the two segments in which the Energy Magazine representative and I were a part, I probably only had Art Rascon's attention for about a total 30 seconds, maybe 40 seconds. (It's really hard to judge time when you're being filmed. It seemed like it was longer during the filming, but I can't imagine it was much more than that.) Unlike the staunch oil industry supporter, our time was divided in half, or even less when you consider that Rascon asked us more questions per unit of time than when he interviewed the industry representative.

Of course, I realized during the interview that by making me jump through the numerous hoops to get ready on such short notice that my adrenaline was pumping the whole time. As a result, I was somewhat off my footing when it came to giving quick, concise, and powerful answers. While I did not hesitate in response to any questions, the short time format and my adrenaline rush meant I was not able to give the most effective responses possible.

I had many, many things I wanted to say in response to the oil industry representative, the Energy Magazine representative, and the previously prepared footage, but I never had the opportunity. During the breaks I was thinking about everything I could say and realizing there would be only a minuscule amount of time in which to express my thoughts. Rascon basically steered my response to his questions to some degree by phrasing his question in a manner that fairly obviously favors the oil industry.

Evidence of bias:

To give an example of his bias, after the first segment of the three of us were on stage. All of a sudden Rascon decides he is going to change the next segment title. He announces that it will be called, "Corporations provide millions in revenue to Indians," or something very close to that. I noticed he had his talking points on the table in front of him and I was able to read the original title as he scratched it out. I think he saw me, but I didn't care. I understood what he was doing. By the way, the original segment title was something like "Native Indians depend upon the environment to survive." Ok, you tell me what you think he was trying to accomplish by changing the title. Obviously, one is phrased in a manner that heavily favors big oil corporations, and paints them in a favorable light.

An example of the Energy Magazine representative's rebuttal to one of my statements is the following. Rascon asked me something about the rising cost of oil and what do I have to say about that? I respond that in England where I lived for three years, the British pay the equivalent of $2 to $3 dollars per liter of gasoline (a liter is roughly about one-fourth of a gallon), which means per gallon the British pay at least $12. I continued by stating that we have the cheapest gas in the world and some of the cheapest in the United States since people in Hawaii are paying over $3 per gallon. The prices we are paying now are only going to increase and that it was ridiculous to have people driving Hummers that only get 8 miles per gallon. The Energy Magazine representative retorts with the fact that in England three-fifths of the total cost of gasoline is taxes and then goes off about how I raised an important point and that there needs to be more people like me who support the environment etc., etc.... You get the idea. He said stuff that is true, but distorts the intention of what I said, while saying flowery things about me, but really he opposed my statement.

During the break between the two segments, he even asked Rascon for a chance to rebut one of the details I said, and Rascon nodded his approval. Rascon then chided us for taking so long with our comments because there wasn't much time left in the segment. Of course he did not give us much time to begin with.

The Energy Magazine representative then turned to me and said that he agreed with much of what I said, and that Congress had passed some legislation to benefit renewable energy companies in the recent energy bill. I concede that statement is probably true, but the oil companies got a heck of a lot more help than renewable companies did. I responded to his comments that the gas mileage standards for passenger vehicles have not been increased since 1975 or 1977, during the last oil crisis, and that we could accomplish significant reductions in our fuel consumption by just improving the efficiency of our cars with technology already available on the market. I went on saying my 1991 Honda Accord gets better gas mileage than most of today's vehicles. Oh, I wished the cameras were rolling for that, but alas they weren't, and I never had a chance to make the point on air. Rascon cracked a thin smile when I mentioned the Honda Accord example, but I wasn't sure if he was smiling in agreement or because I drive a 14-year old car. The Energy Magazine representative was trying to console me by saying that oil companies are doing what they can to prevent pollution, etc., etc.... His overly comforting, talk-down tone made it pretty apparent to me what he believed.

Specifically, he wanted to respond to the fact I mentioned that Tom DeLay and Joe Barton who are both from Texas (They are the ones primarily responsible for ramming the energy bill through the House, and Joe Barton is Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) pushed the latest energy bill over the objections of Democrats who wanted to implement more incentives for renewable and alternate forms of energy. I added that the one-time tax break for the purchase of new hybrid vehicles is going to drop from $2,000 this year to just $500 in 2006, which will be a huge disincentive to the environmentally conscientious individuals who would like to purchase those vehicles.

I don't remember exactly how it all wrapped up, but the interview didn't last much longer. In summary, I had spent nearly an hour and twenty minutes to get to KTRK's studios for a total of only about 40 seconds of on air time in which to respond only to Art Rascon's loaded questions and not the other representative being interviewed.

Now, do you think that I, the Harris County Democratic Party, and the Sierra Club were given a good deal? You may insert your response [here] (Add expletives if you feel they are necessary).

If you believe we got a bum rap, here is the address of KTRK Channel 13 News studios in Houston and their phone number.

Write in or call them to explain we all deserve fair reporting and equal opportunity to hear the representatives being interviewed express their facts and views on the issue, not to be superficially glossed over by a biased anchor person. (It would probably be a good idea to hold comments until after the program airs Sunday)

KTRK Channel 13 News, "City View: The Community as a Whole," 3310 Bissonnet Street, Houston, TX 77005, Phone: 713-666-0713

I would say that in our favor, most of those who agree with drilling in ANWR are most likely to be those who will be attending church Sunday during the airing time (around 11 to 11:30 am). Therefore, they are likely to never know any of it ever happened.

I would also like to add that this experience was a very good first-hand look at our "liberal" media, one I have never experienced before, but has been very educational for me. I never thought much about what individuals are put through to get to a television studio on time for an interview. I had always had a fairly good regard for the job KTRK has done in the past, but today has changed my opinion of their news reporting in a very negative way.

I also would like to thank the following people:

Evelyn Merz the Houston Group Chair of the Sierra Club for providing valuable talking points on immediate demand;

Phil Donovan for dropping everything, including his sandwich, to run to his house so that I could look decent on camera;

Ross McDonald for assuming the position of acting office manager for the afternoon shift and taking phone calls as we rushed to get ready;

Sue Trapp for staying at HCDP headquarters the entire afternoon when she wasn't scheduled to in order to help run the office;

Martha Cottingham for her part in helping track down clothes; and

Susan Gates for generally just being a great Executive Chair who is always willing to give her time, to motivate us, and to do whatever it takes to get things done for Democrats (and I should say for people in general).

No matter how seemingly insignificant the task these people did today, there would have been no way, and I mean NO way that we could have succeeded on such short notice without each person's individual contribution. I don't wish to show myself in some kind of righteous, self-gratifying light. I am not particularly more qualified than anyone else, but instead just at the right place at the right time and willing to do whatever I could with the resources available, supported by a very capable team of committed Democrats to promote our common cause. Through all of us working as a team, we were able to push back against the biased media, even if it was only a little part on our hometurf that won't get any attention outside the city limits.

Clearly, you can see what we are up against in the world of the alleged "liberal" media, and what each of us must do:

We must present a united front to counter the disinformation that the 'yappers' propagate profusely in society today. Everyone deserves a chance to be heard and to voice their own views -- the community as a WHOLE.

I now call upon each of you to show KTRK what you think of their underhanded reporting tactics (It is probably a good idea to watch the interview and to call in after it airs Sunday).

KTRK Channel 13 News, "City View: The Community as a Whole", 3310 Bissonnet Street, Houston, TX 77005, Phone: 713-666-0713

Then go to the HCDP web site and help support the efforts of OUR Democratic Party, The Party for the People.

(Jaybird, I agree with you. John Edwards' term is certainly a keeper and a great imagery word. Please be sure to add the appropriate Carolinian accent.)

Posted by at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack

YOU'RE INVITED

Note: Due to the passing of Rep. Joe Moreno, the True Texas Heroes Salute has been rescheduled for June 10.

The Harris County Democratic Party will honor our Democratic Texas Legislators Friday, May 6, at the Longhorn Cafe in Houston.


Texas Democratic legislators from Harris Country, including our Congressional members have been invited.

The event will be held at the Longhorn Cafe on Friday, May 6, beginning at 6pm.

1200 McKinney and San Jacinto
4th floor of "The Shops of Houston Center"
Click here for a map.

Cost per person is only $35 and it includes a Mexican Buffet (available from 7-9pm).

Or, if you wish, you can be a White-Hat Sponsor. Sponsor levels available are $250, $500, or $1,000.

FREE parking will be available.

To register:
Pay on-line on http://www.hcdp.org/texas_heroes.html.

Or, mail a check to the Harris County Democratic Party
1445 North Loop West
Suite 110
Houston, TX 77008

For more information, please go to www.hcdp.org or call HCDP Headquarters at 713-802-0085.

Posted by at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

US House Ethics Committee Ends Deadlock

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has rescinded the Republican-backed rules changes, thus allowing the Committee on Official Standards and Conduct to break its four-month deadlock and to prepare to investigate Majority Leader Tom DeLay's allegations of ethical violations. At least initially, the investigation is likely to focus on DeLay's controversial private-paid trips abroad. Many legal experts believe he is in serious jeopardy of being found in defiance of House ethics rules.

From the Washington Post:

Lawyers who specialize in ethics cases believe that the Republican House majority leader from Texas might be in technical breach of at least a few congressional regulations. According to published reports, a registered foreign agent paid for one of DeLay's overseas trips and a registered lobbyist used his credit card to pay for another foreign airfare -- actions the rules prohibit. DeLay may also have accepted gifts that exceeded congressional limits, taken an expense-paid trip overseas for longer than the rules allow and not disclosed all of the benefits he received.

However, if DeLay is able to convince the congressional committee investigating him that he was not aware of what the lobbyists did, he could manage to emerge vindicated or with a minor reprimand. According to a lawyer involved with congressional ethics, House ethics rules are written in a manner that accepts the "I was unaware of who was paying" line of argument as a credible defense.

However, history proves that once an ethics investigation is initiated the member in concern usually does not emerge unscathed. In this instance DeLay could be admonished, censured, or expelled by a House vote. The panel investigating him will be divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats. The committee is free to look into other issues that they may discover during an investigation. At the moment, DeLay is not under consideration for criminal violations.

The allegations against DeLay that have been published in recent weeks are a blur of charge and countercharge. Two things are clear. First, the most serious allegations generally involve overseas trips that were organized by nongovernmental groups. Second, unless a link is established between the journeys and his official actions, it doesn't appear that DeLay will face any civil or criminal worries. For now, the issues involve House ethics rules, which are overseen by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, also known as the ethics committee.

If the ethics committee decides to begin a formal ethics investigation, something it has not done yet, a subcommittee composed of four lawyers would be formed to conduct a confidential inquiry. The inquiry could take as long as six months to a year in order to collect documents and to take testimony about DeLay’s trips.

The most serious evidence against DeLay so far:

10-day long London and Scotland trip (May-June 2000)
• DeLay’s airfare charged to American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist already being investigated by federal authorities and a Senate committee
• Lobbyists are prohibited to pay for a Congressional members’ travel, even if they are reimbursed by an authorized source
• DeLay billed $184 including phone calls, food, and other items to a credit card used by Edwin A. Buckham, another lobbyist
• Congressional members are prohibited from accepting any gift exceeding $50 and no more than $100 in gifts from any one source in one year
• DeLay may not have fully reported as required by House disclosure rules, the cost of his golf outings at St. Andrews in Scotland
• Congress members are not allowed to accept foreign trips from any group or corporation that last longer than a week

South Korea (2001)
• Trip paid for by the Korea-US Exchange Council, a business-financed entity and registered foreign agent
• Registered foreign agents are not allowed to pay for House members’ travel

Moscow (1997)
• Paid for by the National Center for Public Policy, a legitimate arrangement under House rules, but it is alleged business interests supporting the Russian government paid for the trip
• House ethics rules prohibit third parties to finance a member’s travel

Bobby R. Burchfield, an attorney for DeLay, said that none of these incidents presents serious jeopardy for his client. The primary reason, he said, is that DeLay believed that the trips were arranged and paid for by bona fide organizations unconnected to lobbyists or lobbying groups, and that DeLay had no reason to think otherwise.

DeLay and his staff considered the research center to be "reputable" and knew Abramoff to be a board member of the group, Burchfield said. Neither DeLay nor his staff knew that the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council had registered as a foreign agent, he added.

Burchfiled claims "Congressman DeLay cannot be held accountable for things that he did not know about.”

However the House ethics manual has this to say:

It is advisable for a Member or staff person who is invited on a trip to make inquiry on the source of the funds that will be used to pay for the trip.

Let the games begin...

Posted by at 03:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

John Edwards Speaks in Houston

John EdwardsI listened to John Edwards speak at the South Texas College of Law Wednesday afternoon. The event was arranged by the Texas Democratic Party. Talk about a great charismatic message. I have summarized the main points of what John said below, but he put it far more eloquently than I have.

John Edwards opened his address by reassuring everyone that Elizabeth is doing great and recovering well after being treated for breast cancer. She was diagnosed with cancer the day after the election. John said he had initially cautioned her that she didn't need to go public, but that she insisted on doing so in order to encourage women to go get an exam. Elizabeth believes that if she was able to get just one woman to do so and catch the cancer early on, she would be successful.

However, John noted that we still have "two Americans, one for the wealthy and privileged, and one for everyone else." He said that he and his wife were blessed that they were privileged enough to be able to afford the best treatment available, but that many Americans have to get by with less or none at all. He said that the right to health care should be a universal right.

John EdwardsEdwards began his speech by remarking on the political pundits on TV he affectionately calls "yappers." Following the election, the yappers stated the Democratic Party had lost its way and did not even know what it believed in anymore, even suggesting how the party might change its ways. Edwards responded that Democrats have believed in a set of convictions and that he was one Democrat who knew exactly what he believed, including health care for all, fighting the causes of poverty, preserving Social Security... That it is these issues that Democrats must fight the hardest for and believe in, not to allow ourselves to be swayed by others who say we should alter our position. He remarked on the large number of young people in the room and said that we need to work on engaging others to encourage them to become involved.

Edwards noted that he was chosen to lead the new Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, to promote an issue that receives far less attention than it deserves. His new position brings him back to his days as a child, and the fact his father had to borrow $50 just to be able to bring him home from the hospital. His father worked in a mill in South Carolina and John did as well when he was young. Edwards stated that working class Americans like his father went to work everyday because they believed they could create a better life for themselves if they worked hard.

John EdwardsHe gave an example of one woman, Loretta, who has been able to establish a small pizza shop. When asked how many employees she had, Loretta replied that "there are eight of us," not that she had seven other employees, but that each one of them considered the others as equals. He said that Loretta also takes pride in just being able to give he other coworkers paychecks.

John noted he has been fortunate to be very successful, but that he could have just as easily ended up still living in poverty, a state far too many Americans must live in everyday. He said that we can choose to face the causes of poverty or to turn away. Democrats created Social Security and many of the social programs to help the disadvantaged to raise themselves out of poverty, and that we need to fight to preserve Social Security for those who need it most, adding that Republicans are attempting to take the 'security' out of Social Security. He added that we also need to raise the minimum wage and to focus on programs that help individuals improve their standard of living.

One of the issues Edwards highlighted was freedom and that the current administration must do more than just talk about it, but to lead by example, not muscle. Edwards asked: if the woman in Saudi Arabia who wanted to vote in the recent elections but was not allowed to vote just because she was a woman is free, or if the man in Russia who spoke out simply for what he believed was right is free? Those in attendance all responded with a resounding "No!"

He added that while we are striving to spread freedom abroad that we should also be doing something to promote it at home. When an American votes, he or she should not have to wonder if his or her vote was counted, and that it was counted correctly. We should not have to need poll watchers and vote protectors. As a free society we should be able to vote without fear of intimidation, or even to be disqualified from voting. We should be working to ensure that every American can vote, not trying to disqualify Americans because they don't have a photo ID. Edwards asserted that Americans should have the best voting technology available so the next time we vote for the "Leader of the Free World" we can be certain that the person elected is in fact our chosen leader.

I thought that Edwards' talk was very inspiring. He does have a pervasive charismatic quality that allows him to connect with an audience. However, I would have liked for there to have been a town hall meeting component to the talk, but Edwards probably had another engagement to go to that prevented that format. Nevertheless, I was very glad to have had the chance to listen to him speak.

If anyone else who attended, there were several I recognized, remembers some aspect of his speech that I left out, I know I have, please add it below.

Posted by at 01:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The New Republican Dictionary

Maybe the fact that Republicans seem to have their own lexicon partly explains the breakdown in communication between the two parties.

For example, a Democrat supports alternative energy sources such as wind and solar power. What the Republican hears: I support alternate locations to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Or, the minimum wage is so inadequate, I have to work multiple jobs just to feed my family. To the Republican that means job growth is booming.

Via Left of the Aisle:

The New Republican Dictionary:

ACTIVIST JUDGE - n. A judge who attempts to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

ALARMIST - n. Any respected scientist who understands the threat of global warming.

ALLIES - n. Foreigners who do what Republicans tell them to do.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES - n. New locations to drill for oil and gas.

BALANCED - adj. 1. Favoring corporations ("A more balanced approach to the environment."); 2. Favoring conservatives ("Fair and balanced reporting.").

BIPARTISANSHIP - n. When conservative Republicans work together with moderate Republicans to pass legislation Democrats hate.

CIVIL LIBERTIES - n. Unnecessary privileges that you aren't afraid of losing unless you are a God-hating, baby-killing, elitist liberal who loves Saddam Hussein more than your own safety.

CLARIFY - v. Repeat the same lie over and over again.

CLASS WARFARE - n. Any attempt to raise the minimum wage.

CLEAN - adj. The word used to modify any aspect of the environment Republican legislation allows corporations to pollute, poison or destroy.

CLIMATE CHANGE - n. Global warming, without the annoying suggestion that something is wrong.

COALITION - n. One or more nations whose leaders have been duped, pressured or bribed into supporting ill-conceived, unnecessary, under-planned and/or illegal military adventures.

CONVICTION - n. Decision made before getting the facts, and clung to ever afterwards.

CULTURE OF LIFE - n. The most flexible concept in the Republican lexicon.

DEMOCRACY - n. My way or the highway.

DEMOCRATIC ALLY - n. Any state - republic, monarchy, plutocracy, oligarchy, kleptocracy or dictatorship, and however ruthlessly tyrannical - that verbally supports American diplomatic, economic or military goals.

DEREGULATE - v. To facilitate the pursuit of one's avaricious and exploitative instincts.

DETAIN - v. To hold in an undisclosed location, without recourse to law, and to treat however one pleases.

ECONOMIC RECOVERY - n. Conditions under which three out of five software engineers who have lost their jobs to outsourcing and enabled to find part-time work as Wal-Mart greeters.

FAIR - n. Regressive.

FAITH - n. The stubborn convinction that God approves of Republican moral values despite the vast preponderance of textual evidence to the contrary.

FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE - n. Paying one's electoral debts.

FAMILY VALUES - n. Oppression of approximately half of the family.

FISCAL CONSERVATIVE - n. An unreconstructed Republican, fortunately in a pitiful minority.

FREEDOM - n. What Muslims want, but cannot achieve without American military intervention; in practice, this bears a striking resemblance to chaos.

GIRLY MEN - n. Men who don't grope women.

GROWTH - n. 1. The justification for tax cuts for the rich; 2. What happens to the deficit when Republicans cut taxes for the rich.

HONESTY - n. Lies told in short, simple, declarative sentences, as on bumper-stickers.

HUMBLED - adj. What a Republican claims to be just after winning a close election, just before proceeding to govern arrogantly.

INSURGENT - n. An Iraqi on the receiving end of American fire, irrespective of conduct, inclination, gender or age.

JOB GROWTH - n. Increase in the number of jobs an individual must hold in order to sustain a family at a minimal level.

JUNK SCIENCE - n. Valid scientific conclusions.

MORAL VALUES - n. Hatred in choir robes.

MANDATE - n. A state of being loathed by only 49% of the electorate.

MEDIA - n. Immoral, elitist, liberal traitors who should leave Republicans alone so that they can complete God's work on Earth in peace, behind closed doors.

MODERNIZE - n. Eliminate (e.g. Social Security, labor laws, tax code).

NEOCONSERVATIVES - n. Certainly not nerds with Napoleonic complexes.

OBSTRUCTIONIST - n. Any politician or citizen who dares to dispute the issues of the day with a Republican.

OFFICE OF FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES - n. The First Federal Evangelical Bank.

OWNERSHIP SOCIETY - n. A society in which Republicans own the rest of us, and are willing to sell cheaply.

Posted by at 12:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 27, 2005

John Edwards on the Minimum Wage

Dear Friend,

I want to let you know about an important new project I am starting as a part of our ongoing efforts to help lift people out of poverty. Today, I am joining with ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, labor unions, and other grassroots organizations to place minimum wage initiatives on the ballot in some states around the country.

As I have traveled across the country exploring ways to move people out of poverty and into the middle class, I have met many people who are working two or three jobs but are still struggling to get by. They are working hard, but it is impossible for them to survive financially on a minimum wage job.

In a country of our wealth, it is wrong for someone to work full time and still not be able to make ends meet. A job should be a bridge out of poverty - an opportunity to achieve the American Dream. But for America's minimum wage workers, especially those with families, it is not.

Minimum wage workers make just under $11,000 annually - about $5,000 below the poverty line for a single mother with two children. We must do better.

The last increase came in the mid 1990s and since then, inflation has completely wiped out its impact. Although the American people overwhelmingly support raising the federal minimum wage, the Bush Administration and Republican Congressional leaders continue to block attempts to increase the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. America's workers deserve better, and that's why I am proud to join ACORN to work for change in targeted states.

Together, ACORN, labor unions, other grassroots organizations, and I will work to create an America that rewards work, not wealth. ACORN has already begun working with community organizations and labor allies to place minimum wage increases on the ballot in some targeted states in 2006. Last year, ACORN led the successful campaign to raise the minimum wage in Florida by $1.00 an hour. I am honored to join ACORN in this important fight.

America is known as the land of opportunity. It is time for us to live up to that name. We need to raise the minimum wage so that working Americans are not living in poverty. They work hard for America. It is time for America to work for them.

Your Friend,

John

Click here for the blog posting and responses on the One America Blog

Posted by Stace Medellin at 05:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

This is Democratic Candidates Week

I'm also privileged to hear John Edwards and Chris Bell the next two nights, but the week opened with a meet-and-greet with US Senate candidate Barbara Radnofsky last evening.

With about thirty in attendance, Radnofsky used the hour to clarify her views and answer questions. There were some skeptics at my table; there's been a lively discussion here which serves as your backstory.

While my friend KG might have been more discreet had she poured gasoline on her head and lit a match, the fact that Ms. Radnofsky was responsive to her aggressive questioning -- and proved worthy of the challenge -- was far and away the highlight of the evening.

A few of the prospective Senator's positions:

-- Social Security: she objects to the "privateers" moving in on the nation's pension plan. (A great word to use, since it was also employed two hundred years ago by Jean Lafitte's PR man to try to reframe themselves as something besides criminals.)

-- Healthcare: one of Radnofsky's hot buttons is the surging number of uninsured children in the country. She counts the insurance companies as obstacles to solving this problem for all of us, but the kids need to come first.

-- a category I'll call global hegemony (because she didn't): Radnofsky detailed her father's involvement in his generation's war as a backdrop for her stance on the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thought I heard some objection to a draft in a references to "Bush's future wars", but the candidate generally comes down in the Howard Dean camp -- the so-called "Pottery Barn rule".

-- recent Cabinet confirmations: Radnofsky "probably" would have voted to confirm Condoleeza Rice, considers herself "uninformed" about John Negroponte, and would have opposed Alberto Gonzales' nomination to be Attorney General.

-- electronic voting: she strongly supports open source code and a voter-verifiable paper trail at the ballot box, and believes that anything short of transparency at the polls imperils democracy.

-- bankruptcy legislation: "never should have been proposed, much less passed".

Barbara Radnofsky has kept to a rigorous schedule of speaking before local Democratic clubs as well as locations throughout the state. I urge you to attend a meeting so that you can assess her candidacy in person. I'll have my own views cobbled together so they're coherent at a later time.

Posted by Guest Blogger PDiddie at 08:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Greg Wythe to Become TV Star

Greg Wythe of GregsOpinion.com who was instrumental in getting this blog off the ground will be making a TV appearance tomorrow night on Warner Channel 17:

May God Have Mercy On Televisions Everywhere!

From my PR consultant:

If you have been wondering who the guy behind www.gregsopinion.com is and what makes him tick, you are going to get your chance when he makes a one hour live appearance on Houston's longest running cable television show dedicated to politics - Texas Politics-The Real Deal, Thursday night 04-28-05 from 6:30 p.m.until 7:30 p.m.

That's right, Greg Wythe will be the sole guest of program hosts, liberal Democrat attorney David Jones and former Harris County GOP chair Gary Polland. You can find the show on Warner Cable Channel 17 (channel number is different depending on location within county). You will even get the chance to call in live with questions for Greg at 713-807-1794.

Greg is going to give his take on the political situation around us as well as talk about the ins and outs of blogging - the hottest thing going since sliced bread.

Tune in Thursday to Warner Cables Channel 17 (Houston Media Services) and find out who the guy behind gregsopinion is. Texas Politics-The Real Deal hosted by our own David Jones and their Gary Polland.

I'm sure I'll survive if I can figure out how to make french toast out of a blog. Now for a real challenge ... to see if I can rustle up some celebrity call-ins. In order of preference (in case anyone in blogville can make this happen):

1 - Nicole Kidman
2 - Dominique Sachse
3 - Joe Lieberman (my this list really took a turn for the worst)
4 - Chris Bell (who will promptly whine about not being #1 on this list)
5 - Jay Aiyer (who will no doubt give me an earful about being behind Chris Bell)
6 - Richard Morrison
7 - either Ed Kilgore (New Donkey) or Marshall Whittman (Bull Moose)
8 - Samantha Power (who, realistically belongs at the top of this list)
9 - Charles Kuffner (whose name may be used in vain if the hour goes poorly)
10 - Any member of The Ringwalds ... or maybe Weird Al

Look for a recap to be written late Thursday night

Posted by Lyn Wall at 07:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Whitmire Leads Efforts on CJ/Prison Reform

The Austin American-Statesman reports that sweeping reforms in the Texas criminal justice and probation system will be unveiled this week. Houston's own Senate CJ Committee chief, Senator John Whitmire (SD15) and House Corrections Committee chair Jerry Madden have been able to craft a draft proposal after negotiations with DAs, judges and probation officials.

The main goal of this reform is to avoid building new prisons. Because of current criminal justice law, the prison population is growing at a rate that would require the state to build another six prisons in the next five years at a cost of almost $300 million. There are better options, especially options that will save the state money, while assuring, as Whitmire says, a plan that is "tough on crime" and "smart on crime."

The following are among the proposals in the draft:

*Limiting probation for felony crimes to five years, from a maximum 10 years currently, with an option for judges to extend that time. Probation for state jail felonies — generally nonviolent, lesser crimes — would be reduced from five years to three years.

•Giving judges more flexibility in imposing sentences aimed at changing offenders' lives, including setting conditions that must be complied with in a particular order, such as completion of drug treatment, followed by community service time, followed by other community-based self-help programs.

•Allowing judges to terminate probation early for offenders who change their ways.

•Encouraging the use of community-based corrections initiatives, such as short trips to jail and proven programs to get offenders to stop using drugs and drinking, as a way to change patterns of criminal behavior at the local level rather than in a state prison.

•Leaving intact laws on deferred adjudication. Senate leaders had discussed abolishing deferred adjudication, under which a criminal charge can be dismissed once a person completes probation, but Whitmire said that idea proved controversial and has been dropped.

Whitmire said the draft Senate plan would give local community justice councils more say in crafting local probation plans by limiting community service time to 40 hours annually to make it an attainable goal and would remove mandates on judges in how they sentence offenders to probation.

* In addition, the Senate draft would allow judges to release state jail felons early from incarceration for good behavior. Those sentences are for a flat two years now.

Senator Whitmire has proven himself an effective legislator during the 79th Session on this issue. Contact your state elected officials and ask them to support the initiatives that have been developed to reduce the prison population, reduce costs, and ultimately, reduce crime and recidivism, thus assuring the opportunity for ex-offenders to re-enter the "real world" and become good, productive tax-paying citizens.

FIND YOUR HOUSE MEMBER

FIND YOUR SENATE MEMBER

Posted by Stace Medellin at 06:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 26, 2005

The Rats Begin Jumping Ship

The Washington Post reports today that Congressional members are hurrying to amend their travel and campaign records. Fear is rising among Congressional members that the seemingly unending tide of allegations and new evidence against Tom DeLay may eventually instigate an "ethics war," thus bringing greater scrutiny on the travel arrangements and official activities of other members as well.

Apparently, the Legislative Resource Center in the Cannon House Office Building has been abuzz as lawmakers compete with journalists and political operatives to file 'corrections' to their expense records before someone else beats them to it.

Many members have reportedly greatly limited their staff travel, while others have suspended their travel altogether because they fear a rigorous review in the not too distant future. Congressional members have been making sure they pay off outstanding restaurant bills, filing missing forms, and correcting erroneous ones. Apparently, the multitudes of journalists and political opponents scrutinizing their expense files makes them nervous. Maybe that's because the representatives know they have violated some of the same rules as DeLay.

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) wrote to the Federal Election Commission on April 15 to report that he had discovered that the Washington restaurant Signatures had not charged his credit card -- as he said he had directed -- for a 2003 fundraiser for 16 people that cost $1,846. The event was hosted by Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist and part-owner of the restaurant who is now under congressional and criminal investigation for his handling of millions of dollars in fees from Indian tribes. Abramoff was not at the event.

"I never thought about this event again until it was brought to my attention very recently that no payment or reimbursement for the event has ever appeared on our FEC report," Vitter wrote. He wrote to Signatures at the same time, directing the management to "charge my credit card today."

Right, you mean that you never would have thought about it again if Jack Abramoff hadn't been so careless as to become the center of a Justice Department probe, possibly tieing you to Tom DeLay's web of shame.

A DeLay staff member has stated that DeLay will hand over his records to the ethics committee. His records include such items as letters detailing travel arrangements. However, the ethics committee is still in deadlock as a result of the Republican rule changes that make it much easier to block an ethics investigation. Additionally, the new rules require a dismissal of an investigation within 45 days if the committee members have not agreed upon a course of action. Some members are now actually resorting to asking for an ethics investigation in order to clear themselves.

An aide to DeLay sent letters to the House clerk and the ethics committee on March 22 reporting that he "discovered today that I inadvertently neglected to file" two travel reports for conferences in December and January with a total reported cost of $1,500.

I think it may have been a good idea for DeLay to use responsible reporting methods and not the administration's "fuzzy math."

Out of fairness, it's not just Republicans who are updating their records. However, I think that Tom DeLay and certain Republicans have bent (or blatantly broken) the rules to a much more extreme degree than any Democrats have done in the past, at least in recent history. Republicans forced Former House Speaker Jim Wright to resign from Congress for selling a labor union several thousand copies of a book he wrote, something that pales in comparison to DeLay's glut of allegations of ethical violations. Nevertheless, it does not make what Jim Wright did right.

In another case, an aide to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had not reported a 2004 trip to South Korea until a Washington Post reporter asked her office about it. Eddie Charmaine Manansala, Pelosi's special assistant on East Asian affairs, filed a disclosure form for the $9,087 trip a few hours after the newspaper's inquiry and sent a note to the ethics committee saying, "I did not know I was supposed to file these forms and I apologize for its lateness."

Here's a case where Pelosi should have just known better. Honestly, you just shouldn't neglect to report any overseas trip, especially when it costs close over $9,000. If anything reporting would help to preserve one's image and provide evidence that one followed the rules if any allegations are made.

In support of Pelosi, she did provide cancelled checks proving a nonprofit group, not a lobbyist, paid for her 2001 trip to Puerto Rico. Two freshman Republican representatives, Patrick McHenry (NC) and Lynn Westmoreland (GA), alleged Pelosi "may have violated House Rules regarding" regarding her Puerto Rico visit. The controversy arose as a result of Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) listing the lobbyist as a sponsor.

Yesterday, an aide to Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-Tex.) filed a report saying she had not reported an $800 trip to Austin in January "due to pressing House business."

This case is an insignificant amount, but the principle is still the same: members should fully disclose their expenses.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) even asked the ethics committee to investigate him after a reporter for the newspaper Roll Call pointed out that a travel disclosure form from 2001 listed the lobbying firm Rooney Group International as paying for a $1,782 trip to Boston, which would be a violation of House rules.

His aides say they determined a nonprofit group, the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts, Abercrombie addressed on the trip reimbursed Rooney Group International. However...

House rules state that the prohibition against lobbyists paying for members' travel applies "even where the lobbyist... will later be reimbursed for those expenses by a non-lobbyist client."

Currently, the filing of travel reports is based on the honor system. It seems that is certainly in need of changing to ensure their completeness and accuracy. 'Not knowing' about having to report, or just 'overlooking' the need to report one's expenses is not a reasonable excuse, regardless of a member's political party. As a member of Congress, it is one's duty to understand the rules one must follow. I mean how often has saying, "I didn't know the speed limit was only 60 mph," worked for anyone? "Oh, I didn't know I was supposed to follow the speed limit. I thought they were just 'recommendations.'" Yeah right!

Additionally, representatives shouldn't be satisfied with stating a lobbyist paid their expenses, even if it is a true clerical error. Better yet, maybe every representative should audit themselves periodically to ensure their records are up to date and correctly filed. For example, Representative Tom Feeney (R-FL) listed a lobbying firm as a sponsor for a 2003 Florida trip, but after being asked about his filing, Roe apologized for the "clerical error." Similarly, in the case of Pelosi's 2001 Puerto Rico trip, Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones should not have been content with listing the lobbyist as a sponsor instead of the group that actually paid for the trip. Furthermore, Pelosi's office should have checked the record to ensure it was accurately reported. It appears Congressional members are only doing the minimum (or less) required and then just forget about it. Of course I do not know the exact story on these examples, but in any case, members should make it their perogative to ensure their records follow the rules, are comprehensive, and ultimately that they are accurate.

Lawmakers should not place themselves above the rules. They are no different from us, except that they were chosen by the members of their districts to represent the people’s interests. By disregarding the rules, Congressional members dishonor and disrespect the contract between them and their constituents.

I think it would be a very good idea to place a statute of limitations on how long a member has to correct any filings. There is no reason why corrections should be made two, three, or more years after the fact. At least this would give Congressional members a much needed incentive to get their expense reports in order and compiled by a strict deadline. In addition, it may be beneficial to establish an independent commission to update and clearly state reporting rules and standards by which members must abide, if Congress is unwilling or incapable of doing so.

This Congressional stampede to the Legislative Records Center to refile expense reports only serves to highlight the hypocrisy and shady dealings that occur on the Hill by members of both parties. It seems Congressional members are throwing insults from their own glass houses and proving the adage that "it takes one to know one."

In any case, the House ethics committee held an hour-long "ethics briefing" to inform members and their staff on ethics rules, including rules on gifts, travel, campaigning, and outside employment. What's really pitiful is that these rules are PUBLICLY POSTED on the Committee of Official Standards and Conduct's web site. I haven't been able to find who or how many representatives attended the session.

If anything good can come out of the DeLay debacle, I hope that it will be a renewed from all Congressional members to make a renewed commitment to responsible and complete reporting of all their activities.

A piece of good news:

House Republican aides said yesterday for the first time that they believe they will have to reverse or modify the ethics rules that were passed on a party-line vote in January and have caused Democrats to refuse to allow the ethics committee to organize. Republican leaders had been trying to avoid a new floor vote over the rules, but aides said they now are convinced that they need to get the committee going so that Democrats cannot accuse them of squelching an investigation of DeLay.

Finally, some sense starts to return to the ethics process. Hopefully, Republicans will now follow through and reverse the rules changes. I appreciate the pressure Democrats have been putting on the Republicans to get them to admit their mistake in ramming the new rules through earlier this year.

Posted by at 03:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Watch Blogger James Robertson on Channel 2 at 4pm today!

Our own James Robertson, along with several other local Democrats will be on Channel 2 at 4pm today. This email announcement came from one of the participants, Joy Demark - Chair of Clubs and Organizations:

Giovanni Garibay of Harris County Tejano Democrats, James Robertson of www.blackdems.com and member of several clubs, Ernest McGowen, Jr of Houston Black American Democrats and myself watched the Presidential Town Hall in Galveston on Social Security – by Live Feed at Channel 2. To see our reactions – watch Channel 2 at 4PM today. Here’s hoping that what we said will not be too chopped. Thanks to Channel 2 and the Texas Democratic Party for getting our side of the story aired locally. And yes – Radar the weather dog has his eye on everything at the studios. He welcomed each of us – no doubt hoping we carried treats. While we were there – David Jones, our upbeat Democratic spokesman and Gary Polland (GOP) came in to do their political commentary – also to be aired at around 4PM.

Posted by Lyn Wall at 02:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Legislating Hate in Texas... Again

On Monday, the Texas House of Representatives lashed out yet again at Texas families. The House approved HJR 6, an anti-family marriage amendment to the Texas Constitution, which besides being discriminatory is totally unnecessary because Texas already amended its consitution last year with the discriminatory "Defense of Marriage Act" to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This resolution is simply an attempt to rally the Republicans' base and further divide Texans.

MARRIAGE ISSUE COMES BEFORE TEXAS HOUSE

Anti-Gay Agenda Hurts Texas Families

April 25, 2005

LGRL of Texas

AUSTIN, TX - One week after passing legislation that would rip children out of loving, stable homes, the Texas House of Representatives took yet another swipe at Texas families today. An anti-family marriage amendment to the Texas Constitution, known as HJR 6, passed the House on a vote of 102 to 29. The Constitutional amendment would mark the first time in history that discriminatory language would appear in the document designed to protect all Texans. (Emphasis added.)

[...]

Texas Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) says the amendment is unfair. "State Law already defines a marriage as between a man and a woman. Representative Chisum's attempt to amend HJR 6 is solely designed to discriminate against gays and lesbians," said Mr. Anchia. "Today's amendment by Rep. Chisum is not about marriage. It does nothing to strengthen marriage. It discriminates against law abiding hardworking men and women in loving relationships who must pay thousands of dollars to secure a fraction of the basic rights they are entitled to as Texans. In reality, it is a tax - it is the Chisum Gay Tax."

More from the LGRL here.

So much for the Texas Constitution protecting the rights of the individual, now bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance come before fairness, tolerance, and moderation.

In order for HJR 6 to become law it will now have to pass the Texas Senate with the approval of two-thirds of the members, 21 of the 31 senators. At the moment Chisum says no senator has agreed to sponsor the resolution. It would then be placed on the November 8th ballot. If voters approve HJR 6, it will become law.

If HJR 6 passes and becomes law, the only way it can ever be undone in the future is through another amendment that would require the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. Therefore, a minority of just one-third of the members of both houses could prevent a repeal of HJR 6.

What I find troubling is not only the number of Democrats who voted for HJR 6, but those representatives who did not show up to vote (I understand some were excused and hopefully for very good reasons.) or those that attended the session and did not vote. It is one thing to form an opinion either for or against an issue, but it is much, much worse to sit idly by and not even take a stance, especially on such an appalling, shameful, and polarizing resolution such as HJR 6 to amend the Texas Constitution.

Here's the unofficial totals from the Texas Legislature Online:

RV#396 — Unofficial Totals: 101 Yeas, 29 Nays, 8 Present, not voting, 7 absent, excused, 5 absent.

Yeas - Mr. Speaker, Craddick (R); Allen, R. (R); Anderson (R); Baxter (R); Berman (R); Blake (R); Bohac (R); Bonnen (R); Branch (R); Brown, B. (R); Brown, F. (R).; Callegari (R); Campbell (R); Casteel (R); Chisum (R); Cook, B. (R); Cook, R. (D); Corte (R); Crabb (R) ; Crownover (R); Davis, J. (R); Dawson (R); Delisi (R); Denny (R); Driver (R); Edwards (D); Eissler (R); Elkins (R); Escobar (D); Farabee (D); Flynn (R); Frost (D); Gattis (R); Geren (R); Gonzalez Toureilles (R); Goodman (R); Goolsby (R); Griggs (R); Grusendorf (R); Guillen (D) Haggerty; Hamilton (R); Hamric (R); Hardcastle (R); Harper-Brown (R); Hartnett (R); Hegar (R); Hilderbran (R); Hill (R); Homer (D); Hope (R); Hopson (D); Howard (R); Hughes (R); Hunter (R); Hupp (R); Isett (R); Jackson (R); Jones, D. (R); Keel (R); Keffer, B. (R); Keffer, J. (R); King, P. (R); King, T. (D); Kolkhorst (R); Krusee (R); Kuempel (R); Laney (D); Laubenberg (R); Madden(R); McCall (R); McReynolds (D); Merritt (R); Miller (R); Morrison (R); Mowery (R); Olivo (D); Orr (R); Otto (R); Paxton (R); Phillips (R); Pickett (D); Quintanilla (D); Raymond (D); Reyna (R); Riddle (R); Ritter (D); Rose (D); Seaman (R); Smith, T. (R); Smith, W. (R); Solomons (R); Straus (R); Swinford (R); Talton (R); Taylor (R); Truitt (R); Van Arsdale (R); West (R); Woolley (R); Zedler (R).

Nays - Allen, A. (D); Alonzo (D); Anchia (D); Bailey (D); Burnam (D); Coleman (D); Davis, Y. (D); Deshotel (D); Dukes (D); Dunnam (D); Dutton (D); Farrar (D); Gallego (D); Herrero (D); Hochberg (D); Hodge (D); Martinez Fischer (D); McClendon (D); Moreno, J. (D); Moreno, P. (D); Naishtat (D); Noriega, M. (D); Puente (D); Rodriguez (D); Strama (D); Thompson (D); Veasey (D); Villarreal (D); Vo (D).

Present, not voting – Castro (D); Chavez (D); Giddings (D); Gonzales (D); Jones, J. (D); Leibowitz (D); Turner (D); Wong (R).

Absent, Excused – Eiland (D); Luna (D); Menendez (D); Nixon (R); Oliveira (D); Pitts (R); Smithee (R).

Absent – Flores (D