Stop Trying to Make “Hail Satan” Happen, Greg Abbott (UPDATED)

Greg Abbott never could decide exactly how to respond to the stunt planned by his former staffer, Lorenzo Garcia, who is currently the UT chapter chair of Young Conservatives of Texas. As Joe Deshotel describes at Burnt Orange Report, he first threw Garcia under the bus, but then decided this was a good opportunity for political cheap shots. Most notable, of course, was his attempt to resurrect the “Hail Satan” nontroversy from this summer. He couldn’t even do that right, of course, claiming that it was a series of chants during Wendy Davis’ filibuster. It actually occurred during the protests that started with the second special session, and by all appearances it was actually a handful (at most) of kids who clearly did not realize that many people would actually take them seriously.

I tried to find any media coverage of the incident that wasn’t overblown and sensational. U.S. News and World Report called it heckling, which seems fair. The Blaze offered a grudgingly fair assessment with a shout-out to the nutters: “Obviously, it is much more likely that the abortion supporters were chanting ‘Hail Satan!’ to mock pro-lifers rather than actually hailing Lucifer, but anything is possible.” Of course, Natural News (via Infowars, of course), let the crazy fly:

Obviously, not all abortion activists are Satan worshippers, but you’ll notice that none of them have denounced the Satanists, either. By failing to denounce it, they effectively embrace and welcome Satan worship as part of their cause. [Emphasis in original.]

Somewhat hilariously, the episode drew the ire of actual Satanists: Continue reading

Share

The Young Conservatives of Texas Chicken Out

By Lilly M (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5)], via Wikimedia CommonsThe University of Texas at Austin’s chapter of the Young Conservatives of Texas planned on hosting an event today called “Catch an Illegal Immigrant.” According to the group’s chairman, Lorenzo Garza, the purpose of the event was to “spark a campus-wide discussion about the issue of illegal immigration and how it affects our everyday lives.”

Well, it sparked a discussion. A big one. The discussion got so big, that the group canceled the event.

After denunciations from both major political parties and University of Texas President Bill Powers, the UT chapter of Young Conservatives of Texas has called off a “Catch an Illegal Immigrant” event set for Wednesday.

In a statement, Lorenzo Garcia, the group’s chairman, said members were concerned “that the university will retaliate against them and that the protest against the event could create a safety issue for our volunteers.”

If it hasn’t happened already, let me go ahead and nip any claims conservatives may try to make that the whole event was “just a joke” in the bud. This is not satire. It’s not even a good joke. By tucking their tails and running, the organization is showing that they are bullies who wilt in the face of confrontation. They are worried that they might have to face the sort of treatment they were planning on doling out to others. Whatever sort of “discussion” they hoped to “spark,” apparently it did not involve serious and vehement disagreement.

It’s worth noting that a similar event in Michigan in 2006 cost someone their job: Continue reading

Share

Generation Opportunity Prepares College Kids for Future Emergency Room Visits

"Backyard tailgate party" by tobo [CC BY-SA 2.0], on Flickr

Not pictured: The actual Generation Opportunity tailgate party

I have long suspected that much of the motivation behind opposition to the health insurance mandate aspect of the Affordable Care Act comes from an “It won’t happen to me! attitude. I never suspected, however that they would actually go and state it as bluntly as Generation Opportunity did last weekend.

The Koch brothers-funded Generation Opportunity — famous for its series of over-the-top advertisements trying to scare young Americans into not buying health coverage through Obamacare’s insurance marketplaces — took its opposition to health care reform to a whole new level on Saturday. The group threw a tailgate party during the University of Miami-Virginia Tech football that featured flashy cars, drinking games, models, a DJ, and plenty of “educational” material about why young people shouldn’t take advantage of Obamacare.

“We rolled in with a fleet of Hummers, F-150’s and Suburbans, each vehicle equipped with an 8’ high balloon bouquet floating overhead. We hired a popular student DJ from UMiami (DJ Joey), set up OptOut cornhole sets, *beer pong tables, bought 75 pizzas, and hired 8 ‘brand ambassadors’ aka models with bullhorns to help out,” wrote David Pasch, Generation Opportunity’s communication director, in en email to the Tampa Bay Times. “*Student activists independently brought (lots of) beer and liquor for consumption by those 21 and over. Oh yeah, and we educated students about their healthcare options outside the expensive and creepy Obamacare exchanges.”

The line of reasoning, as I understand it, is that college-age people tend to have fewer healthcare needs than older people, and therefore do not need the same level of coverage—therefore, they should not have to have health insurance coverage because Freedom. I suppose one could say my bias is showing, but if even one insurance-eschewing kid at that tailgate had drank too much and, say, gotten alcohol poisoning, fallen and sustained an injury, or crashed a car, our great Socialist state requires emergency rooms to provide them with treatment. Guess who pays for it if the student (or more likely the student’s parent[s]) doesn’t have the cash to cover the tab? I guess it’s our patriotic duty to subsidize liberty-loving college kids’ love of liberty. Or not.

Hell, even insurance-eschewing kids who avoid drinking and all other risky activities could still get hit by a car driven by a less-responsible individual, or even by an entirely-responsible individual who has a car accident for a near-infinite number of reasons. Of course, college-age kids never unexpectedly get sick, or for any other reason find themselves in sudden need of healthcare. Or not.

America: We have raised irresponsibility to an art form.

Photo credit: “Backyard tailgate party” by tobo [CC BY-SA 2.0], on Flickr.

Share

The Chicago Way

Ever since 2008, I have heard people decry President Obama as a “Chicago politician,” as though that in and of itself is enough to condemn him to historical ignominy (yeah, I’m using $0.50 words today). I have never really been sure how Obama’s actions in office so far can have such purportedly obvious parallels to the erstwhile corruption of Chicago’s municipal government, but then I am not psychologically predisposed to dislike everything this president says, does, likes, touches, or looks at.

Here’s the problem, at least as I see it, with describing Obama as a “Chicago politician” without much in the way of context: it makes me think of Jim Malone in 1987’s The Untouchables, Sean Connery’s Oscar-winning performance:

You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way! And that’s how you get Capone.

If the rhetoric against the sitting president puts people in mind of the greatest speech of Sean Connery’s film career, or really any role ever played by Sean Connery (except maybe Zardoz), you’re probably doing it wrong.

Put another way, Republicans should not assume that they are Elliot Ness in this analogy.

Also, you might consider not calling it “Chicago-style politics,” because the only other thing to which the descriptor “Chicago-style” applies, to my knowledge, is really, really, really good pizza. Think about that.

Share

I’m Sure the Poll Is Skewed

Given that the respondents for this poll consist of MSNBC readers, I’m sure there’s a sampling error. Still, that’s a pretty overwhelming vote for millionaires (that was my vote, and this was the graphic it gave me.)

20131109-071248.jpg

Share

Wendy Davis Totes Saved Greg Abbott on Election Day…..Or Did She?

Domenichino [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsTexas Attorney General, presumptive 2014 Republican gubernatorial nominee, and general dweeb Greg Abbott might not have been allowed to vote Tuesday because of a voter ID law that he vigorously endorsed. His driver’s license has a different name than his voter registration. One says “Greg Abbott,” while the other says “Gregory Wayne Abbott.” Since we have to ensure that people have the same name on both documents (or else the terrorists win or something), this would have prevented him from voting altogether, but for an amendment to the law from State Senator and 2014 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis. Her amendment allows a person to vote anyway if they sign an affidavit confirming that both names are correct.

Of course, in-person voter fraud is not exactly an epidemic. One of the most prominent organizations supporting voter ID laws, True the Vote, states on their page “The Reality of Voter Fraud,” that “64 percent of Americans believe voter fraud is a serious problem.” Note that this is an opinion poll, not a statistic on actual investigations or convictions for actual voter fraud. The page goes on to cite more opinion polls, mostly Fox News and Rasmussen, but no actual statistics that would, you know, show actual voter fraud. They do add in a bit of anecdata, with the obligatory slam on ACORN, and a single incidence of alleged voter fraud, Hazel Woodard James of Forth Worth. James was indicted for conspiracy to arrange in-person voter fraud in May 2012:

Hazel Woodard James, 40, is accused of arranging for her son — who was not a registered voter — to vote on behalf of his father. The incident reportedly came to light when the father showed up later in the day to vote in the same precinct, 1211, for which James is now running to be chairwoman.

Now, I’m not trying to minimize the severity of the allegations against James, in part because I don’t think the severity can get much more minimal. Allegedly illegal, of course, but not exactly cause for a major overhaul of the voting system.

I tried to find any information on James’ case after early May 2012, but nothing comes up in a Google search, the Tarrant County Clerk (which would have the case if it is a misdemeanor) has no records, and the District Clerk (if it’s a felony) does not have online search capability. I don’t know if she was convicted or acquitted, if she entered a plea, if the state dismissed the case, or even if the state ever pursued a case in the first place. The news media saying she was “indicted” doesn’t tell me much of anything. I will try to follow up on this. At any rate, Greg Abbott does not have the best track record when it comes to identifying actual convictions for voter fraud in Texas, and neither do other proponents of voter ID laws.

My theory, which I completely made up from my own imagination, is that Greg Abbott wanted to get turned away at the polls, which would make him a martyr to the cause of fighting in-person voter fraud. Wendy Davis screwed all of that up, though. He would have proudly ridden across the plains of Texas, tilting at the mighty windmills of fraudulent voters for the greater cause of liberty—if it weren’t for that meddling Wendy. I say we should support Greg Abbott in his quixotic quest, perhaps by encouraging him to do something about Texas’ serious unicorn problem.

Photo credit: Domenichino [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

If You Push Hard Enough, Maybe They’ll Finally Send the Black Helicopters

By Dmitry Pichugin [GFDL 1.2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/fdl-1.2.html) or GFDL 1.2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/fdl-1.2.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

What is this, Russia? In this picture, yes.

I came across an old complaint about the Affordable Care Act during my Googlings, which criticized a law professor’s attempts to alleviate concerns about the penalty aspect of the individual mandate. Walter Dellinger told the Senate Judiciary Committee back in 2011, according to Ann Althouse:

There’s a misimpression out there that… federal agents arrive in black helicopters dressed in fully equipped armed ninja costumes, kick down your bedroom door and drag you off at the point of bayonets to an insurance agency.

In fact, what — all that happens is that for those who are not otherwise exempted and — when they’re filling out their federal income tax return, if you’re not maintaining minimum coverage, you have to pay an additional 2.5 percent, much less than Social Security. That’s all that happened.

So in that sense, this great intrusion on liberty doesn’t approach any slippery slopes or exceed any understood limits in our legal culture.

The concern seems to be that the government will exercise its police power against people who refuse to cooperate with the insurance mandate, pay the fine, or respond in any way to what the law says. Believe me, I am very sympathetic to the argument that we must be vigilant against expansions of the government’s police power, but this is not one of those instances of government going too far. Besides that, I’ll be more sympathetic to concerns from the right over police overreach when they get more consistent about it. Continue reading

Share

“The last time hundreds of Texans showed up at the Alamo with rifles…”

20131018-210704.jpgJerry Patterson, the current Texas Land Commissioner and candidate for Lieutenant Governor, is promoting a rally (or some other sort of event with people) at the Alamo in San Antonio, at which everyone is encouraged to carry their guns openly. This would be in violation of a city ordinance that gun people think is unconstitutional, and openly flouting the law in massive numbers is just so much more fun than challenging it in court, right?

Anyway, there’s a term for this: civil disobedience. Of course, when liberals practice civil disobedience, they often expect to get arrested. We’ll see how the liberty-loving folk packing heat at the Alamo handle it today.

One thing Patterson said causes me some concern, though: “The last time hundreds of Texans showed up at the Alamo with rifles, they were hailed as heroes in their stand against a tyrannical government.”

They also all died.

Photo credit: “The Fall of the Alamo” by Robert Jenkins Onderdonk [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

The Quest to Repeal the 17th Amendment, Because of Reasons

By Udo J. Keppler, 1872-1956 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Apparently the 17th Amendment saved America from a giant octopus named Standard Oil, or something.

A movement is afoot among certain people on the right end of the political spectrum to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This movement seems unlikely to rile up the masses, given that the changes brought by the Seventeenth Amendment are pretty much presumed to be the status quo at this stage of America. Understanding what the 17th Amendment does, and why it was enacted in the first place, is at least as important as understanding why some people want to repeal it. I have some idea as to why it was enacted, ratified, etc., but I’m still working on understanding the reasons for seeking repeal.

What is the Seventeenth Amendment?

The Constitution, in Article III, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2, originally provided for election of U.S. Senators by state legislatures.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

The Seventeenth Amendment superseded the parts in bold. It pretty much took those provisions verbatim, except that it replaced references to state legislatures with references to “the people.”

Drawing from the resources available to me on a laptop in a coffeehouse (Justia and Wikipedia), I can say that much of the impetus for the 17th Amendment was “popular dissatisfaction with the operation of the originally established method of electing Senators.” As more and more people got the right to vote, people began to think that they should be able to elect senators directly. The idea had apparently come up multiple times since the 1820’s, but didn’t make it into the Constitution until 1913.

What’s the problem with directly electing Senators? Continue reading

Share

Post-Shutdown Thoughts, Penal Edition

Here’s a bit of wisdom from Australian astrophysicist Katie Mack.

I’m not saying her status as an Australian astrophysicist has any specific relevance to the matter at hand, but it sounds really cool.

Share