B and B

Wal-Mart, Scenic Loop, and NPR

A battle againt Wal-Mart is being engaged in our neck of the woods.  Here is an article from the San Antonio Express-News a couple days back:

On the edge of the Hill Country, Helotes long has been known for its rolling green hills, spacious wooded lots and Willie Nelson shows at the John T. Floore Country Store, which never was a store but a hopping dance hall.

Opponents point out there already are four Wal-Marts within about 10 miles.    

Now the town of 4,285 in Northwest Bexar County is the latest stage for a showdown with the world's largest retailer.

Word that Wal-Mart is planning to build a supercenter has spurred residents to take a stand like never before. Some are marching door-to-door with petitions, declaring a big box store would spoil a scenic spot and possibly harm endangered species.

Others are trumpeting the would-be convenience of the store—"You can go to one place and get anything you want or need," area resident Shrille Murphy, 80, said—and projecting a 50 percent increase in the town's budget through sales taxes.

In the past few weeks, resident Carolyn Kennedy has bumped into people she hasn't seen in years.

"Everyone is coming out of the woodwork," said Kennedy, who has lived in Helotes for 47 of her 50 years. "They don't want this thing. It's really brought a lot of people together."

The Helotes opponents have joined a swell of community groups and unions bucking Wal-Mart supercenters, charging that the low-price behemoth underpays, decimates small-town retail strips and erects enormous blue-and-white eyesores for stores — stores they say contribute to the "genericizing" of America.

...

Long a quiet refuge, the town in recent years has seen banks and shops and restaurants pop up along its stretch of Bandera Road, where traffic moves fast these days.

That's what attracted Wal-Mart to Bandera and Scenic Loop roads, currently a brushy 30-acre lot dotted with squat trees. In September, the company made a deal with property owner Balous Miller, president of the Bill Miller barbecue chain.

Though neither side would disclose the selling price, Helotes Mayor Pro-Tem Charles James said he was told it was $3.5 million.

Residents took action, forming the Helotes Area Heritage Association and turning out en masse for a meeting with city officials and a Wal-Mart representative. In a show of hands, more than 200 opposed the project while three favored it.

...

In Helotes, "you can relax and step back in time a little bit," Kennedy said. "If the Wal-Mart is built, we're going to lose all of that."

We don't live in Helotes, but we're only a few miles away, and drive into that area frequently.  Scenic Loop Road, which is indeed quite scenic (at least for now), is our route into that area and I would hate to see it despoiled by as despicable a corporation as Wal-Mart.

So on NPR this morning, local Texas Public Radio ran a brief segment that began with a mention of the opposition to this proposed Helotes Wal-Mart, but then segued into an essay that described a Wal-Mart in a small town in Mexico.   It was a total puff-piece, suggesting that Wal-Mart was performing such a good service by providing such a wide variety of goods in such a back-water place.   It wouldn't have been out of place as a paid advertisement.  Damage control.  Public relations.  Run in a city that is gearing up to fight one of Wal-Mart's new "Supercenters".

A few minutes earlier, in the sponsorship promos during the NPR news segment, I had heard that NPR is now "brought to you" by, of all entities, Wal-Mart.

UPDATE:  Here is the link to the Texas Public Radio essay/promotion piece by commentator Kristina Ruiz-Healy.  Here is the intro, which sounds very similar to the intro that was read on the radio this morning:

Some residents in northwest Bexar County are very unhappy about plans for a Wal-Mart in their scenic neighborhood which, they say, could be harmful to endangered species.  But commentator Kristina Ruiz-Healy talks about a Wal-Mart that is a welcomed addition, even though it is within sight of the Mexican Pyramids.

Wal-Mart is not listed as an underwriter at Texas Public Radio's website.  Yet TPR's schedule on KSTX, the station on which Ruiz-Healy's commentary was played this morning, is dominated by NPR's programs, and NPR is very obviously underwritten by Wal-Mart.  The relationship between TPR and NPR is very close; the relationship between NPR and Wal-Mart is very close.  So what is the relationship between TPR and Wal-Mart?  Is there a conflict of interest here?

Texas re-redistricting news

Via The Stakeholder, the DCCC weblog, news comes that the Texas re-redistricting court case may be resolved early next year.  The issue, thanks to the Supreme Court's earlier ruling, is apparently whether the lines drawn "reflect a solely political intent".

The DCCC blog properly argues that if this case can't meet that standard, then nothing can.  And they pull out this quote from Jim Ellis, apparently Tom DeLay's "point man" on the re-redistricting:

"We've said all along that our motivation was political. And our goal was to maximize the number of seats a Republican would have the chance to win in."

From the same article, I noticed this other quote from Ellis:

"We must stress that a map that returns [Martin] Frost, [Chet] Edwards and [Lloyd] Doggett is unacceptable and not worth all of the time invested into this project."

So there is some good news.  Democrats indeed lost four seats from the Texas delegation due to the re-redistricting, but of the GOP's top three targets, only one (Martin Frost) fell.  Chet Edwards and Lloyd Doggett won their elections and will be returning to Congress.

Texas GOP up to no good (again)

In the San Antonio Express-News today is a story about how the state GOP may attempt to overturn the results of two, or possibly three, elecitons that went against them for spots in the state House:

Two Republicans defeated Nov. 2 will submit paperwork today asking the GOP-majority Texas House to throw out official vote tallies and name them winners of their respective races or force new elections, advisers predicted Tuesday.

A third defeated candidate, Republican Rep. Ken Mercer of San Antonio, will decide by today whether to join the others in contesting his 498-vote loss to Democratic challenger David Leibowitz, his campaign manager said.

A recount already has been scheduled for next week for Rep. Talmadge Heflin, R-Houston, who fell by 32 votes to Houston businessman Hubert Vo.

...

Eric Opiela of Karnes City, who lost a House race to Democratic candidate Yvonne Gonzalez-Toureilles of Alice by 835 votes, reaffirmed his plans to challenge the results, based on what he says are many instances of ineligible voters casting ballots.   

...

Lawmakers would be asked to judge the elections after they convene in regular session Jan. 11. They could uphold the official vote tallies, overturn them or order Gov. Rick Perry to call new elections.

The story of Hubert Vo versus Talmadge Heflin, who at least used to be the chair of Appropriations committee, has been moderately well publicized since election day.  But this is the first I have heard of the stories of Gonzalez-Toureilles versus Opiela and Leibowitz versus Mercer.

Fellow Texas blogger Charles Kuffner is incensed over the recent developments in the Vo-Heflin story.   And Greg Wythe tells us how we can take action.

Bold experiment at the Grand Canyon

Back in the late 1990s, the U.S. government conducted a unique experiment to try to restore the sandbars and banks along the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon.  The riverbanks and its ecosystem have apparently been severely damaged by the lack of periodic flooding in the canyon ever since the completion of the Glen Canyon Dam back in the 1960s.  The experiment released huge flows from the Dam in order to simulate a week-long flood, with the hope that sand deposited on the river bottom would be redistributed along the banks, restoring sandbars and beaches that had slowly been eroding away.

As it turned out, that experiment did not work.

But I am glad to read, via the New York Times, that the government is trying again with a new, modified experiment.

The current $3.5 million venture, supported by more than a dozen government agencies and interest groups, is planned differently and will take advantage of some new instruments.

It ends Thursday, but how well it works will not be known for months.

...

The new flood is taking place immediately after three heavy rainstorms in September and October pushed an estimated 800,000 tons of sediment out of the Paria and into the Colorado.

Even though the West is suffering from a serious drought, specified amounts of water are released to states downriver from the dam and timing of the releases is flexible.

Dam operators kept water levels low since the beginning of September to preserve any new sand that arrived.

The flood will peak at 41,000 cubic feet of water per second for two and a half days, then drop back to 8,000 cubic feet per second.

According to a model developed by Dr. Stephen Weile of the Geological Survey in Tucson, Ariz., some places along the river might build sandbars in as little as 13 hours.

It's a balancing act, Dr. Rubin said. "This time we're running high water for 60 hours instead of 168 hours,'' he said. The goal is to throw as much sand as you can onto the sandbars without pushing more sand downstream than you need to."

I'm looking forward to seeing how this one turns out. 

GOP Outrage of the Week

Ezra Klein at Pandagon suggests a way for Democrats to more effectively focus our attempts to fight the GOP's outrageous actions as the governing power:

Democrats need to pick an outrage of the week and pound on it until they win. No diverting attention, no denunciations of new and upsetting bills, no distractions. We must pick and choose among the Republican's unjust, unfair, unpopular actions and settle on one to obsessively publicize and publicly reject. The issue must be small enough that the Republicans can concede it without offending too serious of a constituency (we don't want them to fight to the death over it), but flagrant enough that voters will find it an outrage. The idea is to rack up a string of public victories on measures that, after hearing about 10 of them, will leave the American people convinced that the right is corrupt, entrenched, and fighting against their interests.

In fact, he is even has an excellent proposal for the first "GOP Outrage of the Week":

The first target the Democrats should unload on is the Republican's attempt to make fast-forwarding through commercials illegal. Whether on VCR or TIVO, millions of Americans have spent years happily speeding past the Dell guy. Thanks to the Republican party, they're going to wake up criminals. Our job is to make sure they know it. Were the Democrats smart, tomorrow morning would find newspaper readers opening to op-eds by Democratic Congressmen decrying the bill. All Democratic flacks, no matter what program or question, would be returning to this unbelievably atrocious and absurd proposal. "The Republicans can't pass intelligence reform to protect us from terrorist attacks, but they can outlaw your VCR? What sort of priorities are these? Are they fighting for Americans or corporate donors?"

Great idea.  Let's get to work.

Ronnie Earle versus Tom DeLay

Ronnie Earle is the long-time Travis County District Attorney who has been heading up the investigation into Tom DeLay and his cronies' abuses of Texas campaign financing laws. With the House GOP's sleazy actions to attempt to save DeLay's neck getting some flack in the press, DeLay and friends have launched a predictably vicious counter-attack against Earle.

Mark Kleiman asks "Who's got Ronnie Earle's back?":

Is anyone rallying the law enforcement folks behind Ronnie Earle?

I've only met him at a few conferences, but I know his reputation, and he rates about as high on professionalism as any D.A. in the country. But that doesn't mean that Earle won't get spattered by the current slime-and-defend if people don't speak out for him.

We all need to stand up for Earle. NPR last night actually did a great take down on the GOP's slander of Earle, pointing out very prominently how, back when Texas was controlled by Democrats, Earle was known for his prosecutions of abuses by Dem politicians. But we can't expect the rest of the media to actually bother to look up, much less present, the facts. So we need to let them know.

Should Dems propose eliminating the NEA?

Jon Chait suggest, in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, that, in an effort to lesser their casualties in the culture war, the Democrats should propose eliminating the NEA. I think he makes an excellent argument.

The mere fact that art has many salutary effects on our culture is not enough of a reason for Washington to subsidize it. Opinion magazines such as the New Republic or the National Review also have an important role to play in our national life. They provide a forum for political debate and ideas for policymakers. They're also almost inherently unprofitable. To suggest that the federal government write checks to such magazines, though, would be absurd. The solution is to find wealthy individuals who are willing to support them.

The other reason not to publicly subsidize magazines is that it would put Washington in the position of making tricky, subjective decisions about what to fund. And that's exactly the problem with the NEA. It puts the government in the business of deciding which ideas are worthy and which are not. I may not be offended by an AIDS nude-a-thon, but others are.

There's an unsolvable conundrum at the heart of the NEA's mission: Either it screens out politically offensive art, or it doesn't. If it's the former, then the government wields undue control over ideas and what gets produced. I don't see why government-approved art ought to have a financial leg up over art that makes Washington squeamish. On the other hand, if it's the latter and anything goes, then taxpayers are forced to fund art that offends their basic values. (And if mocking Christianity doesn't offend you, imagine the government supporting arguably racist or anti-Semitic art.)

NEA advocates like to boast that the dollars it provides matter less than what they call the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" conferred by NEA support. Once a project has that seal of government approval, they argue, private donors are more eager to jump on board. But that vetting role is exactly what government should not do.

Kevin Drum, while agreeing with this, wonders what this would accomplish for Democrats.

But as a strategy for Democrats, what exactly is this supposed to accomplish? A wedge issue is something that forces the opposition party to make a difficult choice, but in this case it would be easy: if Democrats were on board too, Republicans would almost unanimously — and gleefully — vote to eliminate NEA. It wouldn't hurt them a bit. And I'd venture to say that not one single Democrat would pick up one single red vote for having championed this.

So what's the point?

Republicans have controlled the government completely for two years now, and the Congress for most of the last ten years. If they really wanted to cut off the NEA they would have done so by now. Chait notes that "NEA backers are disproportionately rich and powerful, and the single consistent rule of Bush's domestic policy is that on every issue he supports whichever side is richer and more powerful." I also suggest that Republicans like to keep the NEA around so every once in a while they can get in a huff about "Piss Christ" or its equivalent and rustle up a few extra votes.

So, to answer Kevin Drum's question, the point of Democrats proposing to eliminate the NEA is to get rid of this GOP strategy. Such a tactic is obviously just one small piece of the puzzle of defeating the GOP. And more of a defensive one than an offensive one. But still, from what I've read about this, it sounds like a good idea to me.

Pro-criminal GOP leadersip

As most probably already have heard, yesterday the House Republicans voted to eliminate a rule that would have required a member of their leadership to relinquish his post if indicted by a grand jury.  Not coincidentally, GOP Supreme Honcho Tom DeLay is facing possible indictment for breaking Texas campaign finance laws in the 2002 elections.

So which Republicans exactly voted to condone illegal activity by their leadership?  Josh Marshall has been trying to figure out the answer.  With the help of his readers, he has discovered that many GOP Representatives are too ashamed to admit how they voted on this motion.  In fact, while a few, the "Shays handful" as Marshall has dubbed them, admit to voting against the motion, many are silent, and many now claim that there was no vote at all.

Let's keep the pressure on and get to the bottom of this.

Sadly, it appears my representative, Henry Bonilla, not only voted in favor of pro-criminal GOP leadership, but was one of the driving forces behind it.

The Lackey Administration

So Bush has appointed a new Secretary of Education:

President Bush today nominated Margaret Spellings,his top domestic policy adviser, to be the next secretary of education,turning to another close White House aide to fill a vacancy created bythe resignation of a Cabinet member.

Spellings, 46, was named to the post opened by the departure of Roderick R. Paige, 71, whose resignation as education secretary was announced Monday.

Now Bush's previous cabinet wasn't exactly filled with shining stars, but at least it was populated by many people who had built their career independently of the Bush clan.  In the new cabinet, anyone not tied at the hip to the Bushies appears out the door.  And the replacements are Bush lackeys:  Alberto Gonzalez, Condoleeza Rice, and now Margaret Spellings.  The White House is extending its echo chamber out to encompass the entire executive branch.  The reality-based community is no doubt going to take even bigger hits in the future than it has taken in the recent past.  I dread what future horrors could lead to.

Harry Reid, Minority Leader

The over-the-top wailing by some progressives in response to Nevada Senator Harry Reid's selection as the new Minority Leader is embarrassing.  Some comments made in response to that post at Atrios' Eschaton:

"For the first time in 35 years I'm no longer a Democrat."
"All that remains is to select Vilsack as the DNC chair, and the status of the Dems as a permanent minority party will be secure."
"That is really horrible, horrible news."
"Reid is a shitty choice, because you cannot compromise with Nazi filth like the fratboy coward and the cat killer."
"A pro-life milquetoast from a red state as Minority leader-brilliant!"
"Great, we won't oppose a single thing of the Rebug agenda, but at least we'll get nice press for being so dignified when we roll over."
"sad. but not unexpected. let's face it: they don't want us, the noisy, fact-based few here on the internet. "

Fortunately, there are at least a few vocal, sensible progressives left:

"Al Franken on AAR [Air America Radio] just featured David Sirota from the Center for American Progress, and they both seem pretty psyched about Reid and seem to believe his assertion that he's not going compromise for compromise's sake. And Katherine agreed. Well, that's something, I guess..."

Here's a New York Times profile of Harry Reid from a few days ago.  It's Adam Nagourney, so it's not the best journalism, but it is still better than the above rants.

Mr. Reid's legislative skills are undisputed. He is a tough partisan with a command of Senate procedure and an ability to inspire loyalty that made him an effective whip, the No. 2 leadership position to which he was elected to in 1998. His ascension means that the administration's proposal to put a nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which Mr. Reid has successfully stymied, is even more remote.

Despite the charged political atmosphere, Mr. Reid has enjoyed warm relations with Republicans in Washington and back home in Nevada: in particular, with the man who was his Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

"I am a big fan of his," said Senator McConnell. Which is not to say, Mr. McConnell hastened to add, that he viewed the new Democratic leader as "a patsy."

"He can be as strong as a new rope when he needs to be," Mr. McConnell said.

And few people in Washington can, like Mr. Reid, claim as friends and financial supporters the former head of the Republican National Committee, Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., and the former president of Naral Pro-Choice America, Kate Michelman.

Mr. Fahrenkopf, a friend of 30 years from Las Vegas, described Mr. Reid as someone whose style allows him to negotiate difficult political terrain.

"You've got to remember that he is a Mormon," Mr. Fahrenkopf said. "So he's got some views that would be perceived as conservative by some of his more liberal colleagues. He's pro-life.

"But the question is, will he be faithful in putting forth the views of his caucus - because that's his job," he said. "The job he's done as whip, he has made very clear that he is good at putting forward the views of his caucus."

That said, in his new role, Mr. Reid is very likely to come under pressure to be less accommodating than he has in the past by a Democratic Party worried about what the next four years might bring. Allies and admirers say Mr. Reid's tenacity might come as a surprise to President Bush.

"I think that George Bush and the Senate Republicans are in for a big surprise," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic consultant who used to work for Mr. Reid. "Harry Reid is one of the toughest people that you'll ever meet and he's also one of the most determined people I've ever met."

 

 

 

Keep in mind that also that Harry Reid was the architect of the single biggest poltical win that the Democrats have had since the rise of the tyrant Bush:  the defection of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords from the Republicans, which stole the GOP's Senate majority out from under their nose in the spring of 2001.

 

Harry Reid is an excellent choice for the Democrats' new leader in the Senate.