California budgetin'

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Sacramento Bee has the good news:

The California Legislature voted early today to approve a massive budget package of tax increases, spending cuts and borrowing to close a $40 billion deficit after granting major concessions to one holdout Republican senator.

Some things to consider:

1) The budget -- or, rather, passing it -- is a huge victory for Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Democrats. It pulls the state, and one of the world's largest economies, back from the brink of disaster.

2) The deal required that that "holdout Republican," Sen. Abel Maldonado, get a lot of what he wanted, including the elimination of "the 12-cent additional gas tax, which was estimated to bring in $2.1 billion through June 2010," which, while partially offset by a state income tax rate hike, would have gone a long way towards helping the state get through what is expected to be a difficult year ahead. (Such a disincentive to buy and use gas also would have been good for the environment.)

3) The problem in California is that budgets require two-thirds supermajority legislative support, meaning that the minority party -- in this case, the Republicans -- can often block passage indefinitely, as long as it has one-third-plus-one support. Which is what they were trying to do here, the party united enough that it took a pretty sweet deal for one of them for the majority Democrats to have enough votes to pass the budget.

And let's be clear about this: The overwhelming majority of Republicans oppose the budget.

As the Bee puts it: "The deal comes at a time when California was headed for fiscal calamity, already unable to pay all its bills and on the precipice today of suspending 374 construction projects that were valued at $5.58 billion and could have affected more than 90,000 jobs statewide." Which is to say, the Republicans oppose a budget that will prevent "fiscal calamity," that will keep construction projects going, and that will save tens and tens of thousands of jobs.

Once again, as federally, the Republican Party has positioned itself as the party of ideological extremism at a time of historic economic crisis, at a time when the American people, including the people of California, need help just to stay afloat. It isn't just the do-nothing party, which would be bad enough, it's the party against the people, the party so far divorced from reality, and decency, that it would rather stick to its anti-tax guns than rescue the state from impending disaster, that would rather promote its partisan political interests than protect jobs.

The economic crisis, which has shaped the debate over the stimulus package in Washington, the debate over the state budget in Sacramento, and other such debates all over the country, has provided us with the opportunity to peer directly into the soul of the Republican Party.

And what an ugly sight it is.

On Big Brothers -- U.S. Intelligence/Security

By Carol Gee

Internal Big Brothers inside government: Homeland Security is implementing a program within the department for all employees to watch each other carefully for signs of being spies or terrorists. To quote a couple of articles:

• Types of behaviors that could be foreign espionage -- (from the CQ Behind the Lines newsletter, according to a memo obtained by the AP's Eileen Sullivan.) AP: Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff . . said employees should suspect espionage if, for one example::




"A department employee has a personal relationship with a foreigner that seems suspicious."



• "Homeland Security setting up counterspy unit" from USA Today (8/12/08) via ProPublica. To quote:
  
  

  Concerns about foreign spies and terrorists have prompted the Homeland Security Department to set up its own counterintelligence division and require strict reporting from employees about foreign travel, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.
  
  The new directive comes as the federal government increases its counterspy efforts across all agencies and raises the awareness of intelligence vulnerabilities in the private industry as well as in protecting government secrets.
  
  The Homeland Security Department "is vulnerable to adversaries who seek information about our nation's homeland defense programs,classified or unclassified," Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote in the Aug. 4 memo to employees obtained by AP.

Homeland Security AS your Big Brother when you travel -- To quote a recent e-mail from Carolyn Frederickson of the ACLU:

Planning a vacation? Thinking about traveling outside the country? If you travel outside the United States, you can kiss your right to privacy, and perhaps your laptop, digital camera and cell phone, goodbye.

With no suspicion and no explanation, the U.S. government can seize your laptop, cell phone, or PDA as you enter the United States and download all your private information -- including your personal and business documents, emails, phone calls, and web history. The Department of Homeland Security confirms that this is the official policy.

What happens if you refuse to let the agents download your personal photos? Or if you have encrypted your private information? Then Border Patrol -- which is now an agency of the Department of Homeland Security -- can simply copy your entire hard drive or even take your device and hang on to it indefinitely.

Unfortunately, seizing laptops and cameras at the border isn’t the only travel security measure that infringes on our civil liberties. Just last month, the U.S. government's "terrorist watch list" surpassed one million names and is growing by over twenty-thousand names per month. The watch list includes the names of prominent people, like Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), plus hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans -- many of them with common names like Robert Johnson and James Robinson. Your name might be on the list, but there's no way to know for sure until you are delayed -- or even detained for hours in a back room. If you discover your name is on the list, it's nearly impossible to get off. It actually took an Act of Congress to get Nelson Mandela off the list. No joke. An Act of Congress.

These abuses have something in common: They make all of us into suspects, with no rule of law and no accountability. . . Traveling shouldn’t mean checking your rights when you’re checking your luggage. It’s time for some sanity when it comes to security. Please, speak out now.

Tell Congress: it’s time to rein in travel abuses by the Department of Homeland Security.

Related to this is a possible travel remedy from my 8/13/08 CQ Behind the Lines newsletter: “Congress needs to set the rules for how border agents can delve into travelers’ laptops,” the Post opines.

State and local Big Brothers -- These items come from my 8/11/08 CQ Behind the Lines newsletter:

• "Some $4.5 million in federal funding for the Maryland State Police is imperiled by a probe into its use of a criminal database to track peaceful activists, The Washington Times tells. . ." Quoting further:
  

  The undercover infiltration of the protest groups appears legal under state law, legal analysts said. But entering a Baltimore activist's name in the drug-trafficking and terror suspect database without apparent justification could violate 1970s-era regulations stemming from revelations of domestic spying by national intelligence agencies. It also could breach Maryland privacy laws . .
  

• The local Institute for Security Studies has put together a DVD, "The Seven Signs of Terror," for people such as school police who could help spot terrorist activity, Las Vegas's CBS 4 News notes. To quote:
  
  

  The DVD, which serves the entire state of Nevada, illustrates the “Seven Signs of Terrorism” and explains how to report such signs. The “Seven Signs of Terrorism” are:
  
  • Surveillance
  • Information Gathering
  • Testing Security
  • Planning
  • Suspicious Behavior
  • Rehearsal
  • Getting Into Position
  
  According to the DVD, if a potential terrorist act is interrupted during any of the “Seven Signs” the planned act can be stopped. Ordinary citizens reporting suspicious activities they have witnessed is an important tool for law enforcement working to stop terrorist acts

Business Big Brothers -- from The Washington Post (8/12/08) comes this headline, "Some Web Firms Say They Track Behavior Without Explicit Consent," by Ellen Nakashima. To quote:

Several Internet and broadband companies have acknowledged using targeted-advertising technology without explicitly informing customers, according to letters released yesterday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

. . . The revelations came in response to a bipartisan inquiry of how more than 30 Internet companies might have gathered data to target customers. Some privacy advocates and lawmakers said the disclosures help build a case for an overarching online-privacy law.

. . . Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), [ ] created the Privacy Caucus 12 years ago. "Our responsibility is to make sure that we create a law that, regardless of the technology, includes a set of legal guarantees that consumers have with respect to their information."

Markey said he and his colleagues plan to introduce legislation next year, a sort of online-privacy Bill of Rights, that would require that consumers must opt in to the tracking of their online behavior and the collection and sharing of their personal data.

Previous S/SW posts on this subject:

1. Like An Ubiquitous Spook (Sept. 2007) Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV
2. Bigger and Bigger Brothers (Jan. 2008)
3. Ubiquitous Big Brothers (Feb. 2008)
4. The State of the Surveillance State (April 2008)
5. Understanding Your FBI (May 2008)
   

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Election bits from the experts

By Carol Gee

It is just a bit over three months until the 2008 elections. We will begin to get more involved and excited as we watch the conventions and the opinion polls. But right now, we have passed into the predictable -- negative campaigning, which often works, according to the experts.

The presidential campaign is getting really nasty reports one of my favorites, The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson. In my opinion the tactical change is the result of the Republicans' realizations that they stand a good chance of losing, not only the presidency, but a significant number of congressional elections.

An "Analysis: GOP Poised for Huge Losses,"(7/29/08) by Josh Kraushaar and Reid Wilson, can be read in full at Politico.com. As examples here are 10 of their predictions about races for the U.S. Senate seat.

1. Democrat Mark Warner could become Virginia's new senator.


2. Democrat Tom Udall might win New Mexico's senate seat.


3. Ted Stevens' indictment leaves Alaska's Republicans very vulnerable.


4. Former Democratic Gov. Jeanne Shaheen might beat Republican Senator John Sununu.


5. Colorado hosts another Udall contest (in this case Mark U. leads in the polls) against Republican, Bob Schaffer.


6. The authors believe that Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu "is the most, and perhaps the only, vulnerable Democrat this year."


7. Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith sometimes votes with the Democrats and thus might be vulnerable to defeat by his Republican constituents, is the thought.


8. Republican North Carolina Senator Elizabeth Dole is a fixture in the Senate but the DSCC has reserved nearly $6 million in ad time in the state, believing that state Senator Kay Hagan will run a good race.


9. Mississippi's Republican appointed senator may not be able to take his election to a full term. He is running against a former governor.


10. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) also votes with the Democrats at times, but "polls show this race may be a blowout for Collins."

"The Party Registration Gap"(7/17/08) by Ed Kilgore at The Democratic Strategist, is a story that adds interesting information to the above analysis. To quote:

Keep in mind that only 29 states (plus DC) register voters by party. So [Cook's] national numbers--a total increase in Dem registration of about 700,000, and a decline in GOP registration by about a million--just show part of the picture.

But far more significant are the trends in some of the battleground states. Combining D and R numbers, the net shift towards Democratic as opposed to Republican registrations since November of 2004 has been 124,000 in Oregon, 94,000 in Iowa, 60,000 in both Colorado and Nevada, 33,000 in New Hampshire, and 30,000 in Arizona.

"The Ethics of picking a Vice-President", (7/15/08) was written by Bruce Weinstein, PhD. (he calls himself "the ethics guy") in Business Week. He makes these thoughtful points, which I quote:

. . . for ethical reasons, the question of how a Vice-Presidential pick would help Obama's or McCain's electability cannot be the sole concern.

. . . it might be easier to have a yes-man or yes-woman as Veep, but with so much at stake for the country and the world, such a person might allow a troublesome decision to go unchallenged.

. . . If McCain or Obama believes a person is not going to be the best Vice-President and best potential successor, that candidate should simply not be considered, no matter how appealing on the ticket.

. . . It's not just McCain and Obama but all of us in leadership roles who should keep in mind that what it's all about is making a positive difference in the lives of others. This is why ethics must be a central concern—not an afterthought—when the time comes to find the best person to succeed us.

Voters exercise expertise and leadership as they fact-check, talk to people they know about politics, or get involved in working for a campaign, either local or national. If you do it well, you are the best expert I can think of to safeguard this republic.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

"I can say with authority that George Bush is the worst president in American history."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And just who made that statement? Dennis Kucinich? Someone at Kos? Me, perhaps?

No, it was actually Alaska Republican Vic Vickers, who is challenging incumbent U.S. Senator Ted Stevens -- the indicted Ted Stevens, the arrogant, ignorant, corrupt Ted Stevens -- for the Republican nomination.

Yes, it seems that Mr. Vickers, like many Republicans around the country, are actually running against their own party -- and certainly against the president.

As Eve Fairbanks explains, this "American historian" who has "studied every president" (his words) is not your typical Republican: "Vic Vickers is a George-W.-Bush-hating, Exxon-despising, Iraq-War-loathing Republican who wants to 'put an end to the stranglehold that Big Oil' has on Alaska and has an Iraq withdrawal plan -- if the Jordanians and Saudis don't start cutting big checks, you just pack everyone up and come right home."

He's a self-styled "Bull Moose, a Teddy Roosevelt Republican," you see, and that sets him well apart from much of the rest of the GOP. "Pressed to identify a Republican he admires in Alaska besides himself, Vickers could not come up with a single one." Even Governor Sarah Palin, who has "authorized the hunting of wolves by helicopter" and, it seems, the shooting of wolf pups in the head -- "barbaric," according to Vickers, and I agree. And, what's more, one of Vickers's closest allies in Alaska politics is -- gasp! -- a Democrat, Tim June, currently running for the state Senate as a reformer.

And Vickers is not alone:

To establishment Alaska Republicans, Vickers might seem like a peculiarly bad headache, but he's really only part of a larger phenomenon this year: candidates signing up to run on the state or local GOP ticket who then publicly deride the party or pioneer their own esoteric political philosophies. Call them the weakened GOP's opportunistic infections: people like Montana's Bob Kelleher,whose campaign website intially stated he was a member of the Green Party, or North Carolina's Carl Mumpower, who put out a press release calling for Bush's impeachment and, shortly thereafter, put out another release informing the public that angry officials from his own party had kindly requested he "impeach himself."

Of course, these are the exceptions, not the rule. Most Republicans still fall in line behind Bush and remain loyal, well past the point of fault, to their party.

Still, the rise of these anti-Republican Republicans is yet another sign of the deep unpopularity of the Republican Party this year.

If there were ever a good time for the Democrats to capitalize on the problems of their opponents and a political landscape almost entirely in their favour, this is it.

California Supreme Court issues historic ruling on same-sex marriage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Fantastic news from California. Here's the L.A. Times (see also the S.F. Chronicle):

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.

I have long been a proponent of the legalization of same-sex marriage and have celebrated recent moves here in Canada and elsewhere to that end. And now, in California, the people, the state's highest court, and even the governor are on board.

There is still much to be done in the U.S., of course -- and the bigoted opposition, much of it on the christianist right, is both organized and powerful -- but there is no doubt that this decision is a major victory for the forces of justice.

Make sure to read Glenn Greenwald on this: "Critically, the Court emphasized at the outset that its ruling had nothing to do with the political views of the judges with regard to gay marriage, but rather, was based solely on its legal analysis of past precedent interpreting the relevant provisions of the state Constitution." Glenn anticipates opposition to the ruling, and refutes it soundly.

And Andrew Sullivan: "[O]n the deeper question, the court is unequivocal in arguing that our modern understanding of sexual orientation -- that it is an orientation, not a choice, an identity and not an act -- makes the equal protection of gay families a core value."

And Melissa McEwan: "[B]ecause California already offers domestic partnership which afford same-sex couples the same legal rights as opposite-sex married couples, it doesn't leave opponents of this decision much wiggle-room: If domestic partnerships already guaranteeing the same legal rights are not good enough, there's not a hell of a lot of space to provide yet another alternative to fully. equal. marriage."

And Digby: "It's fitting that in an election year where we are dealing head on with all these issues of race and sex that we're going to have a showdown on gay marriage in the most populous state in the union. The chances have never been greater to defeat the forces of bigotry and discrimination. It's a risk, but there will probably never be a better time to take it. Bring it on."

(Find more reaction at Memeorandum.)

And just to be clear, Obama supports the ruling, as does Hillary, and McCain doesn't. (Although I wish Obama were a supporter of marriage and not just equal civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Like Pam and Melissa, I think they're wrong to fall back on states' rights and "marriage equality." Couldn't they -- shouldn't they -- be more excited about this historic ruling?) Ben Smith has their statements here.

Rudy's return?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It was inevitable, but it looks like Rudy Giuliani -- shameless exploiter of 9/11, would-be torturer-in-chief, and neo-fascist thug, not to mention presidential campaign failure -- is looking to restart his political career, the New York Post is reporting:

In the latest twist in New York politics, Rudy Giuliani is eyeing a run for governor in a special election this fall should Gov. Paterson be forced to resign, sources say.

Of course, this is all rather premature. Paterson has admitted to past infidelities and drug use, yes, but "those disclosures have raised little outrage, either from the public or his colleagues in Albany," and, barring further disclosures or revelations, he may have succeeded in putting his personal past behind his political present.

Still, Rudy will come back at some point -- if not this November, then a November to come, and likely sooner rather than later, or perhaps as a high-ranking official in a possible McCain Administration.

About which I say to the people of New York:

Please, please, please don't let this happen. You wouldn't be able to do anything about a political appointment, but if and when he's ever on another ballot in your state, vote for someone else.

Don't unleash this repugnant man upon yourselves -- nor upon the country, nor upon the world.

It is long past time for Rudy's political career to be over for good.

The appalling bigotry of Sally Kern

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It didn't get much attention when it broke a few days ago, not nearly enough attention -- the national media are alternatively oblivious and complicit with respect to the right-wing agenda that drives the news -- so here's the story:

At a recent event in Oklahoma, Republican Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern gave a speech in which she claimed, among other things, that homosexuality is "the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam" and that proponents of "the homosexual lifestyle" "want to get [children] into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them." She also made the remarkable, and remarkably stupid, claim that "no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades."

Note that she referred to Islam as a threat in and of itself. Note, too, that she thinks that gays and lesbians are more of a threat to the United States than terrorists. As for her claim that societies that embrace homosexuality don't last long, societies are only now coming to do so, of course, and I suspect that my country, Canada, will be fine, as will other countries, like the U.K., Spain, and Germany, that have adopted equal rights for -- or, rather, recognized the equal rights of -- gays, lesbians, and others outside the heterosexual "lifestyle."

But why bother responding at length? Kern is an idiot and a bigot. She did not realize her hateful speech was being recorded -- yes, this is what (some) Republicans talk about in private, when they don't think anyone's listening -- but recorded it was, and it made its way onto the Internet, including YouTube (see below). The media didn't pick up the story -- too busy have they been sensationalizing the Obama-Clinton race (and the relatively tame Powers and Ferraro comments, the former much tamer than the latter) -- but some smaller outlets did, as did some in the blogosphere, including Crooks and Liars. Meanwhile, Chuck Wolfe of The Bilerico Project posted an open letter to Kern, and, on the whole, voices were raised in opposition to this appalling bigotry.

But Kern refused to apologize for her remarks -- indeed, she continued to defend them after the fact, claiming that she "said nothing that was not true" and "said nothing out of hate." And it's not just that she made those claims. From what I can tell, she genuinely believes that she was speaking the truth. And therein lies the problem. These bigots, bigots like Kern, actually believe in their own honesty and righteousness. For them, such bigotry just isn't bigotry at all.

What is concerning as well is that Kern is an elected official, not just some crazy bigot spewing hatred from some remote corner of the blogosphere. She is a former social studies teacher who promotes creationism. As a legislator, she is chair of the House Social Services Committee and a member of the Education Committee, and a promoter of creationism, bringing religion into the schools, and anti-gay legislation. (On this last point: "[T]he very first act of this sad, delusional and obsessed woman when she managed to get into the legislature in 2005 was to introduce a bill, H.R. 1039, which urged library officials to restrict children's access to books with homosexual themes. The following year she introduced H.R. 2158, which would have mandated the state to withhold funding to any library that refused to 'segregate' books with homosexual or sexually explicit material from children's sections.")

And on Monday she received a standing ovation from her fellow Republicans in Oklahoma's House of Representatives. Rather than censuring her, which is what she deserves (at a minimum), her colleagues are celebrating her. Yes, it seems, Kern's bigotry plays well with like-minded bigots.

Pam Spaulding has more here, here, and here. (Thank you, Pam, for covering this story so extensively.)

Should I stay or should I go now?

By Carl

No doubt you've heard the tale of woe of New York's Democratic (you're welcome, Stewart) Governor, Eliot Spitzer, who unwittingly got caught up in a money laundering operation that revolved around an online prostitution ring.:

The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer's suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials.

I dare say, this is one of those infrequent moments in politics when you lean back and exhale. It was only sex (so far).

Many in the opposing camp of NY State Republicans, chief among them the ethics-challenged Joe Bruno, have called on Spitzer to resign.

Eliot. No. Don't do it. There is no legitimate rationale, based on what's been made public thus far, for you to resign and indeed, to resign might hamper New York politics far more than the battles you will face going forward.

You have a short window of opportunity to put this behind you quickly. From all accounts, this was money you spent out of your own pocket, and the time taken away was your own time. There have been no allegations that state police accompanied you to the DC hotel or stood guard over you.

The real damage you have done is to yourself and more, to those whose trust you have earned over these past forty eight years: your family.

You've made a general apology, no doubt on the advice of your attorney, and kept it ambiguous, again, on the advice of your attorney. That attorney is likely in negotiations with Federal prosecutors to swing a deal.

Here's the deal you should swing:

-- A blanket but specific apology to the people of New York, to your family and your friends.

-- An acknowledgement that you exhibited poor judgement in your personal life.

-- A refusal to resign. Personal weakness is no reason to give up what could yet be a great governorship. Promise to double your commitment to the job and more, to your family.

-- Personally see to your administration's involvement in the budget negotiations (New York's fiscal year ends March 31). Convene the Council of Three (Senator Majority Leader Bruno, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, and yourself) and hammer out the deal. No surrogates. You won't let this distract the state from its business.

This will probably satisfy the DoJ (particularly once Bush is out of office), who are more interested in the money laundering than in counting coup. There is no profit for them in pursuing a two-headed case of prostitution and money laundering. They'd rather focus resources on the real felonious behavior.

One more thing: insist that no charge be levelled against the prostitute in question, the so-called "Kristen". If you walk, she should walk, barring any knowledge of money laundering.

The public humiliation and refocus on your job, particularly in light of your now-dimmed reputation as a stand-up guy, will serve you well.

And make damn sure you remember your wife's birthday this year...

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Texas political climate -- pre-primary

By Carol Gee

Traveling to Texas this Monday would show the visitor that the mood regarding the presidential election is ambivalent. There may be close contests between McCain and Huckabee, and between Obama and Clinton.

Hillary Clinton may have the advantage in the Texas primary The New York Times says today. To quote:

But Mrs. Clinton’s most promising venues lie in the big March 4 primaries. One is Ohio, an emblem of Midwest economic change; the other is Texas, where Hispanics represent a dominant force.

The Clinton campaign evidently read that story. A Dallas Morning News blogger, Todd Gillman, tells us that "Hillary's coming to Texas." To quote:

The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary will be in El Paso on Tuesday night, and will spend the next day in Texas, too.

To paraphrase Davy Crockett: "My campaign may be going to hell and I will go to Texas."

Yesterday's Frank Rich op-ed column in The New York Times was headlined, "Next up for the Democrats: Civil War." It was a searing piece charging the Clinton campaign with "playing the race card." To quote: "The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall."

It would be a very good thing to come to Texas if you are in politics and need money. The Houston Chronicle carried this fascinating article saying that "Texas is a cash cow for candidates. In just a year, residents doled out $30.7 million to hopefuls in out-of-state races." This includes both Republicans and Democrats, but the flow does not go both ways. To quote from the article:

But the cash pipeline leading out of Texas is much bigger than the one returning to the state: Texas candidates received less than $9.9 million from the other 49 states, or one dollar for each three sent to the rest of the nation.

That 3-to-1 ratio applies to Texas Republicans and Democrats alike.

Out of Austin, the Austin American-Statesman newspaper has endorsed Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain. According to a blog in the Statesman, Texas Governor Rick Perry feels that the Republican race is all but over. Blogger Postcards said, to quote:

Gov. Rick Perry, who endorsed U.S. Sen. John McCain for president last week, doesn’t think Texas or the nation needs a competitive Republican presidential primary March 4.

Perry said Friday: “The primary election is over. I think anyone, if you gave them truth serum, would say… McCain will carry Texas. Do we work to go through this long arduous expensive divisive primary? …How long do we have to run? This (campaign) has been going on more than a year. To drag it on past March 4 is a waste of everyone’s time.”

Asked if he’s passed along his assessment to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who said Friday he believes he can yet overtake McCain, Perry said his conversations with other leaders are private.

Huckabee in Texas -- The New York Times had a story on February 7 that discussed how important Texas is to Arkansas Republican Governor Mike Huckabee. The headline reads, "Huckabee Claims Identity as Candidate of the South." To quote:

All of Mr. Huckabee’s public remarks on Tuesday night — his Scripture-laced victory speech, and his comments to reporters — were shaped around the idea that he is now the answer to the conservative nation’s quest for a candidate. And as the newly self-designated candidate of the South, he immediately read Tuesday’s results as a mandate for the remaining big regional prize, the March 4 Texas Republican primary, with its deeply conservative voters and its 140 delegates.

“Texas is going to be a big, big state for us,” he told reporters late Tuesday. “We’ll spend a lot of time there. I think it’s a natural place for us to do well,” he said, loquacious and ebullient after weeks of bad news, even as aides tried to quiet him, finally, for the night. Mr. Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, had just won in his home state, as well as Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and West Virginia, and he came close in Missouri.

The Texas political climate is anticipatory of having an important part to play in the election of our next president. That position was not something we could have predicted at the beginning of the year. But here we are and all of us will do our best, just as has everyone who has voted up to this point.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Let's hear it for prison rape!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You know, I didn't think much of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius's Democratic response to the State of the Union last month, and, to put it mildly, I don't think much of this:

The son of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is peddling a board game titled Don't Drop the Soap, a prison-themed game he created as part of a class project at the Rhode Island School of Design.

John Sebelius, 23, has the backing of his mother and father, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary Sebelius. Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said both parents "are very proud of their son John's creativity and talent."

Yes, that's right, Governor Sebelius is proud of her son for creating a game that is being marketed with this slogan: "Where no one playing enters through the front door!"

Get it? Huh? Get it? -- You know, drop the soap? Hey, you know what happens when you drop the soap, right?

The contact information at Son John's website is... can you guess? The governor's mansion. (Which, presumably, can be entered through various different doors.)

Thankfully, not everyone finds this so amusing. The Pitch, an alternative Kansas City newspaper, appropriately titled its article on the story "The Idiot Son: A Board Game," and, as The Kansas City Star is reporting, the game has been "condemned by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission" (yes, there is such a body, and it's a good thing there is). After all, the game -- and I use that word loosely -- makes references to "being cornered by the Aryans in the Shower Room," among other such delightful predicaments of prison life.

But the governor remains behind her idiot son: "I certainly don't condone rape at all," she said. "The game was made strictly for entertainment purposes."

Really, Governor, do you find it entertaining? Do tell.

Ratfucking New York

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Republicans are good with the dirty tricks, but something tells me it isn't a good thing to be on Eliot Spitzer's bad side.

If anyone has the balls to crush the ratfuckers, and the Republicans generally, it's Spitzer.

Don't run over Carl Kruger

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Who is Carl Kruger? He's the New York State Senator who is proposing a bill to "ban gadget use while crossing city streets," as WCBS puts it. Yes, you read that correctly: to ban them. That means you'd have to turn off your iPod, your BlackBerry, or whatever other void-fulfilling electronic device cuts you off from your fellow human beings -- aurally, spiritually -- whenever you wish to walk from one side of the street to another.

They're killers, you see. Or, rather, cars and other vehicles are killers. Or, rather again, the drivers of these vehicles are killers. It just helps to be able to hear the instruments of these killers -- the vehicles -- before they have a chance to kill you. Then you might not be killed.

Kruger explains: "We're talking about people walking sort of tuned in and in the process of being tuned in, tuned out. Tuned out to the world around them. They're walking into speeding cars. They're walking into buses. They're walking into one another and it's creating a number of fatalities that have been documented right here in the city."

Wait. People walking into one another is part of the problem? I can understand the danger posed by not being able to hear cars and buses as they come bearing down on you, but banging into someone?

Now, to be fair, I do find a good deal wrong with the iPodification of our culture, of our civilization. We are indeed tuning out and cutting ourselves off from one another, and -- as in the past, for such is the nature of technology -- we are incorporating these gadgets into our individual senses of self, more accurately into our very selves. Which is to say, they have become, and are increasingly becoming as they become more and more sophisticated, extensions of our being. You are not just you, you are the you with the trendy white gadget with the white cables running to the white buds in your ear. You are the you of your own personal techno-bubble. I have my own gadgets -- although aside from my cell phone I don't generally use them in public -- but I recognize just how unhealthy this phenomenon is.

But what is the use of banning them in this limited way? What is the use of banning them in any way? They are what they are and they're here to stay. And the problem will only get worse. If some of us tune out, so be it. If there are risks associated with the use of such gadgets, so be it. At some point -- and we passed that point a long time ago -- people must be left to navigate the dangers of society on their own. For dangers there will always be. They cannot all be regulated out of existence, even when government takes it upon itself to treat us all like children.

Besides, isn't there something Darwinian about this? If human evolution now means the absorption of technology into the human form, that is, if it means the leap from human to techno-human, shouldn't we rely on natural selection to weed out those who aren't able to survive the transition? If you can't walk down the street listening to your iPod without banging into other people and walking into buses, you may not exactly be a prime candidate for this evolutionary development. You're making an effort, I know, but perhaps your time has passed.

Am I being facetious? Yes. And no. Make up your own minds. If you can tear your atomized selves away from your gadgets for a moment.

[Creature's Note: Michael's words, my cut-and-paste. Ignore all references to me below.]