Will Texas Have Clout In The Primary ?

I guess some people just choose to live in an optimistic world rather than face the real world the rest of us inhabit. Recently, a number of states, including some very big ones, moved their primaries up to the first part of February 2008. The idea was to give them more clout in the choosing of a presidential candidate. It will probably work.

But Texas was not one of these states. Our short-sighted lawmakers decided it would be too much trouble to move up our primary and make sure Texas has a voice in choosing a candidate -- before most of the candidates dropped out.

Parag Mehta is one of those who live in that optimistic world of make-believe. The Democratic National Committee training director and Temple native says he believes that Texas could still have an impact on the choosing of the Democratic candidate. Here is his reasoning.

He says the four current frontrunners have their strength in different regions -- Edwards in the South, Obama in the Midwest, Clinton in California and New York, and Richardson in the Southwest. He says if each of these candidates does well in his specific region, Texas could play king-maker.

There are a couple of things wrong with this logic. First, it assumes that the field will at least be cut in half when it gets to Texas. So if you are a supporter of Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel or Biden -- tough luck. I hope you have a second choice.

The other thing is that it's very unlikely that even four candidates will come to Texas with a real chance of winning. Far more likely is the real chance that only one or two candidates will have such a large delegate lead that Texas, being a proportional state and not a winner-take-all, will just add to that lead.

I once had a dream of being able to choose between all the candidates, but our stupid and short-sighted lawmakers have seen to it that we won't have that opportunity.

Setting A New Standard For Stupid

This story was just too good to pass up. This guy seems to be trying to elevate stupidity to an art form. We know the 18-year-old is pretty stupid to begin with because he's a gang-banger. But this Fort Worth teen is not content to leave it at that.

He's got to show how macho he is by standing in his front yard at 10:00pm and flashing gang signs at the passing cars. He doesn't know who is in these cars -- it could be rival gang members who are armed. But as luck would have it, one of the cars he flashes the gang signs at contains undercover Fort Worth gang officers.

They call for uniformed officers to come and arrest the youth for disruptive behavior. But the teen's stupidity doesn't stop there. When the uniformed officers pat him down, they find a bottle of Xanax. The 18-year-old does not have a prescription for the pills and cannot explain why he has them.

Even then, the young man is not ready to stop being stupid. When the officers ask him for ID, he tells them it's in his bedroom and invites them inside to retrieve it. When they go inside, the officers find a small bag of what appeared to be cocaine. They then get a search warrant.

Upon searching the house, the police find 3.6 kilos of cocaine, a pound of marijuana, an Uzi, an AR-15 rifle, a 44 magnum pistol, a 12 guage shotgun, several other pistols and $65,000 in cash. Now the young man is looking at many years in prison. He also probably has his fellow gang members very angry with him. After all, he just lost thousands of dollars in gang cash and drugs, along with their armory.

I believe this teen has to be a great candidate for stupidest person of the year!

Maryland Judge Releases Rapist

This case is clearly a travesty of justice. Last week in Maryland, Montgomery County Circuit Judge Katherine Savage dismissed all charges against a man accused of raping and repeatedly molesting a seven-year-old girl. She said he had been denied his right to a speedy trial.

The man had been arrested in August of 2004. Why had his trial not been held? It turns out that he is a Liberian immigrant, and his native language (Vai) is only spoken by about 100,000 people in a small region in Liberia (and part of Sierra Leone).

Even though the man had attended both high school and community college in the United States, and had spoken english to the police who investigated the crime, a court-appointed psychiatrist recommended that an interpreter be found for the man. The court agreed.

The court clerk said she had contacted the Liberian embassy and courts in all but three states. The first interpreter left the courtroom in tears because she couldn't take the graphic details of the horrid crime. A second interpreter was dismissed for faulty work. A third couldn't show up at the last minute because of personal family problems.

Finally, a suitable interpreter was found, but the judge ruled it had taken too long and dismissed the case. I believe her ruling was in error, and I hope the prosecutors can get it overturned on appeal.

The Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial was to prevent prosecutors from jailing someone for a long period of time while they continued to search for evidence. That does not apply in this case.

The prosecutors have been ready to go to trial for three years, but have been prevented from doing so by a defense request for an interpreter. I have doubts that an interpreter was really needed in this case, but if one was, it was to help insure the defendent got a fair trial. It was not a prosecution attempt to delay the trial while they searched for evidence.

The defense should not be allowed to make demands that delay a trial for years, and then profit from that delay by having the case dismissed for lack of a speedy trial. Furthermore, this defendent has not been incarcerated during this wait for his requested interpreter. He only spent one night in jail, and then was released on $10,000 bond (another travesty).

This judge was wrong. She allowed the defendent to delay the trial and then rewarded him for it. She should be ashamed of herself for turning this child molester loose on society!

$100 Laptops Ready To Start Production

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) organization says it is now ready to mass produce their $100 laptops. They have instructed their hardware producers to ramp up production, and hope to have many computers ready for sale in October of 2007.

The computers are meant for poor children in emerging nations. OLPC says the main purpose of the computers is educational, but they will also be able to connect to the internet through WiFi. OLPC is hoping to connect children all over the world through the tiny green and white 1GB computers.

The computer is a pretty stripped down model compared to the computers we in the developed nations are used to. They really wouldn't be able to perform modern office functions, but they should be very functional for the educational and communication needs of these children.

The computers have a rugged plastic water-proof case and have been engineered to be very energy-efficient. They don't even need to have electricity available, since they are designed to run off solar-power, a foot-pump or a string-pull charger. The machines use a stripped-down version of open source software.

The machines have been successfully tested in Nigeria and Brazil. Curently they cost $176, but OPLC believes that with mass production and bulk sales they believe they will get the cost down to $100 (they need to sell 3 million to get this done).

Even though the machines were meant for sale to the governments of emerging nations, there is now talk of selling the machines to the public at large. One idea is to require the consumer to buy two (with the second going to a child in a developing country). So far, orders have come from the governments of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Nigeria, Thailand, Libya and Pakistan.

I think this is a brilliant idea, and I hope that governments and charitable organizations all over the world will purchase millions of them and put them into the hands of poor children. It's just a fact of life today that both computer and educational literacy are a must if we expect these people to join the modern world.

I hope they sell many millions of the little green and white machines.

FEMA Still Harming Katrina Survivors

I can remember when FEMA was one of the most respected agencies of the federal government. We all knew that wherever disaster struck in our country, FEMA would be there to take care of the situation and lend a helping hand to those in need. But that was before Bush was elected and placed his sycophants in the agency's leadership positions.

Their total and utter incompetence was exposed when Katrina struck New Orleans. Even though there were repeated warnings of the impending disaster, FEMA was caught totally unprepared. They finally arrived far too late with far too little and generally screwed up what little help they were able to offer. Even Republicans were embarrassed by the agency's shortcomings.

There was some hope that after the humiliating Katrina debacle, the agency would make necessary changes to restore its competence and its good name. But those hopes were in vain.

FEMA finally did provide 120,000 trailer houses to the Katrina survivors, but even this turns out to be a blunder. Many of these trailers were inundated with formaldehyde fumes. When people complained of the fumes, FEMA's answer was to tell them to open all the doors and windows. Anyone who's experienced a southern summer knows this is not a real option -- air conditioning is a necessity in these stuffy trailers.

Breathing formaldehyde fumes can cause respiratory problems and even cancer in high doses. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health requires workers to use respirators if they work in conditions where there are 0.016 parts per million of formaldehyde.

FEMA tested one trailer after hearing many complaints. They found 1.2 parts per million! Did they warn these thousands of survivors that they were in danger and immediately test all the trailers, removing those who were being dangerously exposed?

That's what they should have done, but it's not what they did. No, they stopped the testing on advice of their lawyers (it might provide legal liability problems) and tried to hide the testing results. Now it looks like some people have died and many others were injured as a result of living in this toxic environment.

As far as I'm concerned, this goes beyond legal liability. The agency that's supposed to help and protect victims of disasters actually put them in mortal danger and then tried to hide and cover-up that fact. This was a criminal act and should be prosecuted as such.

Good job, Brownie!

Home Foreclosures Up In Metroplex

The Dow-Jones stock market index topped 14,000 a couple of days ago, setting a new record for the stock market. The talking heads on the news were all gushing about it, saying it was a sign of our "great" economy. I have to wonder whether these people ever took an economics class.

The stock market is not a real indicator of how the economy is doing. It is simply a gambling game played by the rich. If you really want to know how the economy is doing, a much better indicator is housing -- and that is painting a much different picture.

Housing sales are slumping all across the country. Even worse, foreclosures are close to their all-time highs set in the 80's -- the last time the real estate bubble burst. In Tarrant county, foreclosures scheduled for auction in August have reach 1,348 (as compared to only 897 last August). It is the first time since the 1980's that foreclosures topped 1,300 in Tarrant county.

In the Metroplex as a whole (Dallas, Tarrant, Denton and Collin counties), this months foreclosures sit at 3,870, a 31% increase over this time last year. It wouldn't surprise me if the figures across Texas and the nation were very similar to the Metroplex figures.

The economy may be great for the corporations and the rich. After all, those are the people the Republicans have been looking out for since they came to power. But there are a lot of middle and working-class people in our country that are hurting. Just another reason why we need to elect a lot more Democrats next year.

Carding Granny

This article is about the growing trend of ID'ing everyone who wants to buy alcohol, no matter what age they look. We already have a state law which basically says that anyone who looks even near the age of 21 must be ID'd. I don't have a problem with that. I do, however, think asking to see identification from someone who is obviously a senior citizen is taking things a bit too far:

These days, more and more stores are demanding identification from anyone buying beer and wine, and some customers — including Cantrell — are unhappy about it.

“That’s the way most retailers are going,” said Sgt. Charlie Cloud of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s enforcement division. “They’re trying to be cautious and make sure the law isn’t violated, and their people are checking IDs.”

Getting snagged in the paranoia are folks such as Cantrell, who has degenerative arthritis, an ever-present pair of glasses on a chain around her neck, little patience for fools — and 72 years under her belt.

There is a picture of this woman at the link provided above. Though she looks great for being 72 years of age (she could easily get away with saying she's a decade or two younger), any person with eyes could see that she is well past the legal drinking age.

Funny thing is — the store was within its rights, if nowhere near what would seem reasonable to most folks.

“The store has a right to refuse service to anyone, and they have a right to request your ID,” Cloud said.

Yes, they most certainly do have the right to refuse service to someone who is unwilling to show their identification. In cases like this, however, it really isn't good business. I'm still young enough that all I have to do is think about alcohol and I get carded, and that's okay. I can't reasonably expect a clerk to assume that they aren't breaking any laws by selling me alcohol without carding me. The same thing can't be said about millions of other consumers though, and in cases like this, a clerk will only offend a customer by asking for ID when the tiniest bit of reason shows that there are no laws being broken.

The trend toward universal carding and tightened store policies is leading to confusion and misinformation about the law, TABC spokeswoman Carolyn Beck said. “I get phone calls and e-mails from people saying they’ve been told it’s the law,” she said. “People are frustrated because they don’t want to be carded, and they don’t want to be given wrong information.”

The confusion might have been prompted by Tennessee’s law change, which went into effect this month, requiring universal carding of anyone buying beer in retail stores. Tennessee is the first state to enact such a law, and supporters say it will prevent clerks from having to guess the ages of customers, thereby reducing underage drinking. After the law was passed, Comer Wilson, a 66-year-old Tennessean with a long white beard, was carded while buying beer. He told the Associated Press, “It’s the stupidest law I ever heard. You can see I’m over 21.”

Guessing the age of customers shouldn't be a problem with people who are several decades older than the drinking age. I don't understand how we've become so paranoid about selling alcohol to minors that we feel the need to card senior citizens. Like I said, I have no problem with laws that say anyone who looks to be within a certain age range should have to show ID to purchase alcohol, but carding everyone under the sun is over-kill.

Richardson Tops Edwards In N. H. Poll

It's not happening fast, but Bill Richardson looks a little better with each poll and each passing day. On the 17th, a new CNN/WMUR poll was released on the race in New Hampshire. The poll was conducted by the University of New Hampshire, and surveyed 333 voters who said they were voting in the Democratic primary.

Bill Richardson is now sitting at 11% in the poll. But even more remarkable is the fact that he's now sitting in third place among the Democratic candidates. A month ago, John Edwards was in third place with 14% support, but his support has slipped since then. Edwards is now sitting at 9%, putting him in fourth place behind Richardson.

And the poll had some great news for a candidate like Richardson, who has had to claw his way up from the bottom (he started with less than 3%). It seems that most New Hampshire voters are not locked in to a particular candidate.

Only 10% of primary voters say they have definitely decided on who they will vote for. Another 26% say they are leaning toward a particular candidate. But a full 64% of New Hampshire Democrats say they are still trying to decide who to vote for in the upcoming primary. With nearly 6 months left, it looks like New Hampshire is still up for grabs.

Here are the results of the latest poll:

Clinton...............36%

Obama................27%

Richardson........11%

Edwards.............09%

Biden.................04%

Kucinich............03%

Dodd..................*

Gravel................*

No opinion........09%

Florida To Resume Legal Killings

There is some bad news for those of us who don't think our government should be killing humans (even bad humans). The right-wing governor of Florida has decided that his state can't get along without executing some people. Yesterday, he ended a seven-month moratorium on the death penalty by signing his first death warrant.

Last December, Florida badly bungled an execution. They were trying to kill convicted murderer Angel Diaz by lethal injection. In a lethal injection, the victim is supposed to be unconcious after about three minutes, and the entire killing should be over after fifteen minutes.

But the killing of Diaz didn't happen like that. Diaz was still moving around and trying to speak after 20 minutes. He had to be given a second dose of the killing drugs, and was not dead until at least 34 minutes had elapsed. It more closely resembled a torture session than a modern execution. The execution was botched so badly that Republican Jeb Bush declared a moratorium on state-sponsored killings.

But Florida, like Texas, is currently run by right-wingers, and these people must satisfy their bloodlust. So Governor Crist has sent his executioners back to killing school, and says they now know how to do it right. Florida will resume its legal killings in November.

Maybe someday our country will progress beyond vengence, but I doubt it will be soon.

Do Candidates Understand Healthcare Problem ?

After seeing the healthcare plans of several of the presidential candidates, I am beginning to wonder if they really understand the medical care crises in the United States. Most of the plans that I have seen are very superficial, including that of my own candidate, Bill Richardson.

The candidates seem to think that the only problem we have with medical care is that the poor do not have medical insurance. But the truth is that this is only a small part of America's healthcare crises. The fact is that only the rich have adequate healthcare coverage in this country.

A lot of the middle-class think they have adequate coverage, but that is only because they have not had a truly serious and longterm health problem. When they do, they'll quickly learn that their insurance is not nearly as good as they were led to believe.

The real problem with medical care in this country is that we have put the insurance companies in charge of making our healthcare decisions, and these companies are not guided by altruism. The sad fact is that the less an insurance company pays out for medical care, the larger their profits are, and profits are the name-of-the-game with these companies.

Most of the candidates' plans would just extend private insurance coverage to poor Americans. That would mean a lot more money for the insurance companies, but it would not solve our country's medical care problems.

There is only one way to really solve our healthcare crises. We must get the insurance companies out of healthcare completely. The only people who should be making medical decisions that affect our health are DOCTORS -- not insurance company executives trying to maximize their profits.

The only rational answer to our healthcare crises is institute a government-run single-payer system. Anything less is just putting a bandaid on a gaping and festering wound.

Republicans - Scare People Or Lose In 2008

The Bush administration released another intelligence report today telling us that we should be terrified of another al-Queda attack on American soil. They are obviously trying to revive the fears that Americans had after the attacks of 9/11.

They want us to believe that Osama and his cohorts are once again growing stronger and targeting our country. But if you read a little deeper into the intelligence report, you'll see that it admits that no specific threat has been uncovered and there is no evidence of terrorist infiltration into the United States.

Personally, I'm more than a bit tired of Bush and his Republican cronies crying "wolf", but I understand why they're doing it. They're in a lot of trouble and they know it. The American people are mad. They're mad because the Republicans got us into a war for no good reason.

The people are overwhelmingly against the futile quagmire of the Iraq war. They understand that American soldiers are dying every day in that useless war, and absolutely nothing is being accomplished. The people are ready to take their anger out on Republicans in the coming election.

The Republicans are running scared. Even Republican districts that once were considered safe are now coming into play, and may actually be won by Democrats. Even the few Republicans that are trying to distance themselves from Bush are not doing themselves much good. They're still not willing to withdraw our troops from Iraq, and that is what the American people want.

This leaves the Republicans with only one tactic -- the scare tactic. They hope to scare the American public into voting for them. They want to once again portray themselves as brave warriors against the terrible terrorist menace. They hope that if they yell "9/11" loud enough and often enough they can be re-elected.

But I don't think the scare tactic will work this time. Americans are beginning to see through it, and they're beginning to ask some questions. If Republicans are such great protectors against terrorism then-

Why hasn't Osama been caught and brought to justice?

Why are al-Queda and the Taliban growing stronger?

Why did they make such a bloody mess of the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

What has the "war on terrorism" accomplished?

The Republicans can't answer these questions. That's why they are running scared. That's why they are going to lose big in 2008.

Richardson Also Getting Celebrity Funding

In the last few weeks, much has been made of celebrity donations to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In fact, to read the mainstream media, a person would think that those are the only candidates that are receiving any celebrity funding. But that is just not true.

It turns out that other candidates are also receiving their share, although the money is largely going only to Democratic candidates. Bill Richardson, who is fast fighting his way up to join the "big three", is also beginning to receive some celebrity support. This is the list of celebrities who have seen fit to give Richardson some financial support:

* Michael Douglas, actor: $3100

* Val Kilmer, actor: $2300

* Paul Newman, actor: $2300

* Edward James Olmos, actor: $2300

* Wendie Malick, “Just Shoot Me” actress: $500

* Steven Spielberg, director: $2300

* Kate Capshaw, actress, wife of Steven Spielberg: $2300

* Jodie Foster, actress: $1000

* Christie Brinkley, self-described as “Model/Mom/Environmental activist”: $500

* Bette Midler, actress/singer: $4600

* Sherry Lansing, former film executive: $2300

* William Friedkin, director: $2300

* James L. Brooks, producer/writer: $1000

Bill Richardson raised over $7 million in the second quarter of this year, most of it in small donations from "little guys" all over this country. I'm sure that will remain the major source of his campaign funds, even as his candidacy continues to grow.

But it is nice to see that he's beginning to tap the celebrity funding well just like the others. For a complete list of celebrity funding click here.

Campaign Giving Down In Texas For 2nd Quarter

The campaign donation numbers are in for the second quarter of 2007. Here in Texas, those numbers have gone down for all but three candidates. During the first quarter, Texas gave $8.4 million to the presidential candidates combined. In the second quarter, the donations fell to $6.3 million.

During the first quarter, the candidates were actually coming to Texas to tap what has traditionally been a very generous state. But a couple of months ago, our state legislature refused to move our primary up to February as many other states did, including some large and rich states. Since that time, candidate sightings in the state are becoming pretty rare.

Since the candidates are focusing their attention on the early primary states and not visiting Texas much, Texans have toned down their giving. But there were three candidates that bucked the trend of less giving here in Texas -- Republican Ron Paul and Democrats Barack Obama and Bill Richardson.

My favorite candidate, Bill Richardson, collected $394,696 in the first quarter. In the second quarter, he collected more totalling $560,234 (about 47% more). With any luck, Texas will give him even more in the third quarter. He's looking more and more like a viable candidate since hitting double digits in both Iowa and New Hampshire polls.

Barack Obama raised his contributions from $699,370 to $717,669, and Ron Paul raised his from $62,777 to $272,892. Paul got a definite bump from his performance in the early debates.

Nationally, campaign giving is still on a record-setting pace. Together, the candidates have raised over $265 million and it's still six months until the caucus' and primaries begin. Here's how the candidates are doing. Democrats are in blue and Republicans in red. The figures are in millions of dollars.

CANDIDATE......... 2nd Q......... TOTAL

Clinton..................27.0.............63.0

Obama...................33.1.............58.9

Romney.................20.9............44.4

Giuliani.................17.6.............35.6

McCain..................11.5.............25.3

Edwards................9.1..............23.1

Richardson...........7.0..............13.3

Dodd.....................3.2..............12.0

Biden....................2.4..............6.4

Brownback...........1.4...............3.3

Paul......................2.3...............3.0

Tancredo..............1.4...............2.8

Hunter.................0.8...............1.3

Huckabee.............0.7...............1.3

Kucinich..............0.7...............1.1

Thompson...........0.4...............0.8

Gravel..................0.1...............0.2

Justice Hecht Shows New Ethical Lapse

Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht got himself in some legal and ethical trouble a while back. He used his position on the state court to back his one-time girlfriend, Harriet Miers, for a position on the United States Supreme Court. Turned out that wasn't exactly kosher, and he racked up over $300,000 in legal fees defending himself.

He tried to get the legislature to pay his legal fees for him, but when the legislature found out what else he was doing that turned out to be too much even for the Republicans. The legislature dropped the bill.

What was he doing? He was begging for donations from private sources. This might have been alright, except those private donations came in large part from huge law firms -- law firms that regularly appear before the Texas Supreme Court.

Amazing! Did it never occur to him that at the very least, this had the appearance of serious impropriety? How can he hear cases presented by attorneys who have donated thousands of dollars to get him out of trouble?

It certainly looks like he is covering one ethical lapse by creating another. Judge Hecht is an embarrassment to Texas and to its Supreme Court.

It is time for Judge Hecht to resign before he damages what little credibility the Republican-controlled court has left.