#Thinkwing: Mon,11/21/2016, 9PM @KPFTHouston 90.1FM. TOPICS: Should the electoral College decide for Hillary? Are there any precedents for such an outcome given the present circumstances? More., more. Open Forum! [AUDIO]

Leave a reply

SHOW AUDIO: Link is usually posted within about 72 hours of show broadcast. We take callers during this show.

Please take a moment to choose THINKWING RADIO from the drop-down list when you donate.

POSSIBLE TOPICS: Should the electoral College decide for Hillary? Are there any precedents for such an outcome given the present circumstances? More.

Welcome to Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig (@ThinkwingRadio), a listener call-in show airing live every Monday night from 9-10 PM (CT) on KPFT-FM 90.1 (Houston). My engineer is Bob Gartner.

Listen live on the radio or on the internet from anywhere in the world! When the show is live, we take calls at 713-526-5738. (Long distance charges may apply.)

For the purposes of this show, I operate on two mottoes:

You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts;
Houston Mayor Annise Parker [L] with Mike, just before the show. (Dec. 7, 2015)
An educated electorate is a prerequisite for a democracy.

SIGNOFF QUOTE[s]:

“HELP US ELECTORAL COLLEGE. YOU’RE OUR ONIY HOPE.” ~ first noted here: Phil Braniff ‏@PhilBraniff Sep 8, 2016, “Help us electoral college, you are our only hope!”

Trump isn’t even president yet and he already looks like the most corrupt, kleptocratic, nepotistic, ignorant, autocratic president in my lifetime. (And that’s when I’m at a loss for words!)

Hillary is ahead by 1.6 million votes in the latest count I can find this evening.

United States presidential election, 1824 (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia): The United States presidential election of 1824 was …held from Tuesday, October 26, to Thursday, December 2, 1824. John Quincy Adams was elected President on February 9, 1825.
- The election was the only one in history to be decided by the House of Representatives under the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution after no candidate secured a majority of the electoral vote. It was also the only presidential election in which the candidate who received a plurality of electoral votes (Andrew Jackson) did not become President, a source of great bitterness for Jackson and his supporters, who proclaimed the election of Adams a corrupt bargain.
- Since no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes, the presidential election was thrown into a contingent election in the S. House of Representatives. Following the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment, only the top three candidates in the electoral vote were admitted as candidates in the House: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and William Harris Crawford. … Adams was elected President on February 9, 1825, on the first ballot,with 13 states, followed by Jackson with 7, and Crawford with 4.
- Adams’ victory shocked Jackson, who, as the winner of a plurality of both the popular and electoral votes, expected to be elected president.
United States presidential election, 1876 (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia): It was one of the most contentious and controversial presidential elections in American history.
- The results of the election remain among the most disputed ever, although it isn’t disputed that Samuel J. Tilden of New York outpolled Ohio’s Rutherford B. Hayes in the popular vote. After a first count of votes, Tilden won 184 electoral votes to Hayes’s 165, with 20 votes unresolved. These 20 electoral votes were in dispute in four states. … The question of who should have been awarded these electoral votes is the source of the continued controversy concerning the results of this election.
- An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes. In return for the Democrats’ acquiescence to Hayes’s election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South to end the Reconstruction Era of the United States. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers, who went on to pursue their agenda of returning the South to a political economy resembling that of its pre-war condition, including the disenfranchisement of black voters.
- This was the first presidential election since 1852 in which the Democratic candidate won a majority of the popular vote. This is also the only election in which a candidate for president received more than 50 percent of the popular vote, but was not elected president by the Electoral College, and one of five elections (in addition to 1824, 1888, 2000 and 2016) in which the person who won the most popular votes did not win the election. To date, it remains the election that recorded the smallest electoral vote victory and the election that yielded the highest voter turnout of the eligible voting age population in American history, at 81.8%.
- Terms of compromise:
  1. The compromise essentially stated that Southern Democrats would acknowledge Hayes as president, but only on the understanding that Republicans would meet certain demands. The following elements are generally said to be the points of the compromise:^[3]
  2. The removal of all^{[citation needed]}S. military forces from the former Confederate states. At the time, U.S. troops remained in only Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida, but the Compromise completed their withdrawal from the region.
  3. The appointment of at least one Southern Democrat to Hayes’ cabinet. (David M. Key of Tennessee was appointed as Postmaster General.)
  4. The construction of another transcontinental railroad using the Texas and Pacific in the South (this had been part of the “Scott Plan,” proposed by Thomas A. Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad; he had initiated negotiations resulting in the final compromise).
  5. Legislation to help industrialize the South and restore its economy following Reconstruction and the Civil War.
  6. In exchange, Democrats would accept the Republican Hayes as president by not employing the filibuster during the joint session of Congress needed to confirm the election.^[4][5]
- After the Compromise, a few Democrats complained loudly that Tilden had been cheated. There was talk of forming armed units that would march on Washington, but President Grant was ready for that. He beefed up military security, and no one marched on Washington.^[6]
- Hayes was peacefully inaugurated. Points 1 and 2 of the compromise took effect. Hayes had already announced his support for the restoration of “home rule,” which would involve federal troop removal, before the election. It was not unusual, nor unexpected, for a president, especially one so narrowly elected, to select a cabinet member favored by the other party. Points 3 and 4 were never enacted; it is possible there was no firm agreement about them.
- Whether by informal deal or simply reassurances already in line with Hayes’s announced plans, talks with Southern Democrats satisfied the worries of many. This prevented a Congressional filibuster that had threatened to extend resolution of the election dispute beyond Inauguration Day 1877.^[7]

News should be informative and neutral, without the ‘false equivalence’ often utilized to create ‘debate’.
- Media editorial boards are not required to be neutral, and should not be. They should not ‘cozy up to’ and ‘normalize’ Trump and his cronies.
Obama can appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court if the Senate does nothing, By Gregory L. Diskant April 8, 2016 By Gregory L. Diskant April 8, 2016 [Washington Post] Gregory L. Diskant is a senior partner at the law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and a member of the national governing board of Common Cause.
It appears that Trump is already declaring war on ‘lying’ media. Media should also take off the gloves.
- Donald Trump’s media summit was a ‘f—ing firing squad’, By Emily Smith and Daniel Halper (NY Post) November 21, 2016 | 5:12pm | Updated
  - “The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.
  - “Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong. He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out [CNN’s] Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was network of liars.
Meanwhile, in an almost breathtaking bit of amateur hour:
- Official [Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach] exposes Homeland Security notes in photo with Trump, By Bob Fredericks [NY Post] November 21, 2016 | 5:32pm
You’re not just imagining it: the Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump vote totals do look rigged, By Bill Palmer | November 17, 2016 | [http://www.palmerreport.com]
Here’s what Trump was cited as saying:
- So in the event of a Trump loss, he’s hinted at challenging the results or calling for a recount similar to 2000. “If Al Gore or George Bush had agreed three weeks before the election and waived their right to a challenge or a recount, there would be no Supreme Court case,” Trump argued in Ohio. “In effect, I’m being asked to waive centuries of legal precedent designed to protect the voters.” (TIME’s David Von Drehle explains here why Trump’s comparison to the 2000 doesn’t hold up.)
- Trump surrogate Roger Stone has gone farther, saying there will be a “bloodbath” if Democrats “steal” the election.
- But if Trump either doesn’t challenge the results or does and is still found to be the loser, he has said that Hillary Clinton would be tried for crimes in office and impeached. Two nights before the election, he said Clinton’s time in office would be ““likely to conclude in a criminal trial.” On November 2, he said, “If Hillary Clinton were to be elected, it would create an unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis,” and raised the specter of impeachment:
- Huge: Court strikes down Wisconsin GOP’s Assembly map as unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, By Stephen Wolf Monday Nov 21, 2016 3:13 PM CST [http://www.dailykos.com]
  - Foes of partisan gerrymandering scored a monumental victory Monday when a three-judge federal panel struck down the Republican-drawn map of the Wisconsin state Assembly as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. State Senate districts could also be affected since they consist of three nested Assembly districts. Wisconsin is one of the most heavily gerrymandered states in the country and Democrats won the statewide popular vote in 2012, but this map helped give Republicans a majority of seats. But critically, this new ruling could reverberate well beyond Wisconsin because the case now sets the stage for a future Supreme Court decision that could set major limits on partisan gerrymandering nationwide.
  - … When Republicans have gerrymandered 55 percent of congressional districts and most state legislatures nationwide, that could have far-reaching consequences, indeed.
Trump has a plan for government workers. They’re not going to like it. By Lisa Rein, [The Washington Post] 11/21/2016
- President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are drawing up plans to take on the government bureaucracy they have long railed against, by eroding job protections and grinding down benefits that federal workers have received for a generation.
- Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, a ban on union business on the government’s dime and less generous pensions — these are the contours of the blueprint emerging under Republican control of Washington in January.
- Breitbart headlines also provide a possible insight into [Stephen K. Bannon’s] views, with federal employees described as overpaid, too numerous and a “privileged class.”
- “Number of Government Employees Now Surpasses Manufacturing Jobs by 9,977,000,” the website proclaimed in November. There are 2.1 million federal civilian employees.
- “It’s nearly impossible to fire somebody,” said Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “When the overwhelming majority do a good job and the one bad apple is there viewing pornography, I want people to be held accountable.”
- Gingrich said the Trump administration probably would look for guidance from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who stripped public employee unions of most of their collective-bargaining rights and forced workers to pay more into their pensions and for health care in what became a bitter political fight.
  - Federal employees behind in pay by 34 percent on average, salary council says, (By Eric Yoder (Washington Post) October 31, 2016: Federal workers earn 34.07 percent on average less than private-sector employees doing comparable work, according to the government’s official, although not universally accepted, tally of how salaries compare.
  - The figure was announced at Friday’s annual meeting of the Federal Salary Council, a group of union representatives and outside experts on compensation that oversees the General Schedule, the pay system for white-collar workers below the senior ranks.
See Robert Hooks’ Opinion Piece: Nov 11, 2016

Electoral College:
- When do they meet? Dec 19, 2016
- What is their Constitutional role?
- Are they expected to vote in the interests of the country?
- In the Federalist Paper #10, there is this:
  - … in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against “an interested and overbearing majority” and the “mischiefs of faction” in an electoral system. He defined a faction as “a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.“
- I could interpret that as being a definite act of overt voter suppression across large parts if the United States by a “faction” “…adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
- I think it’s time for the Electoral College to step up. That IS what the Electoral College is for.
Electoral College (United States), From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- “Although no elector is required by federal law to honor a pledge, there have been very few occasions when an elector voted contrary to a pledge.^[8][9] The Twelfth Amendment, in specifying how a president and vice president are elected, requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president.^[10][11]”
- Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against “an interested and overbearing majority” and the “mischiefs of faction” in an electoral system. He defined a faction as “a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” What was then called republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.^[25]
- Federalist No. 10, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  - 10 addresses the question of how to guard against “factions“, or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Madison saw factions as inevitable due to the nature of man – that is, as long as men hold differing opinions, have differing amounts of wealth, and own differing amount of property, they will continue to form alliances with people who are most similar to them, and they will sometimes work against the public interest, and infringe upon the rights of others. Thus, he questions how to guard against those dangers.^{[citation needed]}
  - Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9; it is titled, “The Same Subject Continued: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection”. The whole series is cited by scholars and jurists as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution. Jurists have frequently read No. 10 to mean that the Founding Fathers did not intend the United States government to be partisan^{[citation needed]} and others have argued that given Madison’s clear understanding that partisanship is inevitable, he suggests that a representative republic form of government is more effective against factions than a direct democracy.^{[citation needed]} Thus, Madison saw the Constitution as forming a “happy combination” of a republic and a democracy and with “the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures” the power would not be centralized in a way that would make it “more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried.”
- The Anti-Federalists vigorously contested the notion that a republic of diverse interests could survive. The author Cato (another pseudonym, most likely that of George Clinton)^[26] summarized the Anti-Federalist position in the article Cato no. 3:
  - COUNTER ARGUMENTS TO FEDERALIST #10
  - … the Anti-Federalists appealed to both historical and theoretic evidence. On the theoretical side, they leaned heavily on the work of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. The Anti-Federalists Brutus and Cato both quoted Montesquieu on the issue of the ideal size of a republic, citing his statement in The Spirit of the Laws that:
  - It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.^[32]
  - Greece and Rome were looked to as model republics throughout this debate,^[33] and authors on both sides took Roman pseudonyms. Brutus points out that the Greek and Roman states were small, whereas the U.S. is vast. He also points out that the expansion of these republics resulted in a transition from free government to tyranny.^[34]
- Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  - The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
  - The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
  - The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.^{[Note 1]}
  - The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.^[1]

LINKS:

· PETITION: Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

· PETITION: We require special procedures when the electoral college and popular vote do not match.

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists, by Akhil Reed Amar, Nov. 8, 2016 Updated: Nov. 10, 2016 2:19 PM ET
Electoral College (United States), From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Federalist No. 10, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cato no. 3: COUNTER ARGUMENTS TO FEDERALIST #10Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“How to effectively talk to your member of congress”, by Emily Ellsworth
No, Electors in States Trump Won Should Not Vote for Clinton: The electoral college is a terrible device. But it is the rule each candidate ran on, by Garrett Epps (TheAtlantic.com) Nov 11, 2016
Mitt Romney says Donald Trump will change America with ‘trickle-down racism’, By Theodore Schleifer, (CNN) Updated 4:28 PM ET, Sat June 11, 2016
After the Election: ‘What a Pathetic Thing Is Decadence’, James Fallows (theatlantic.com) Nov 2016. Trump Nation: An ongoing reader discussion led by James Fallows regarding Donald Trump’s rise through the primaries and his potential role as president. (For a related series, see “Trump Time Capsule.”) To sound off in a substantive way, especially if you disagree with us, please send a note: hello@theatlantic.com.
Here’s What Donald Trump Says Will Happen If He Loses on Tuesday, By Tessa Berenson @tcberenson (TIME.com) 12:03 PM ET Updated: 2:06PM ET Updated: Nov. 7, 2016 2:06 PM

The 4^th Industrial Revolution: The robots are coming. And they’re coming for your job.
- The First industrial revolution This process began in Britain in the 18th century and from there spread to other parts of the world. Although used earlier by French writers, the term Industrial Revolution was first popularized by the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee (1852–83) to describe Britain’s economic development from 1760 to 1840.Jan 20, 2016. Industrial Revolution | Britannica.com
  - , economist.com/node/21553017: THE first industrial revolution began in Britain in the late 18th century, with the mechanisation of the textile industry. Tasks previously done laboriously by hand in hundreds of weavers’ cottages were brought together in a single cotton mill, and the factory was born. The second industrial revolution came in the early 20th century, when Henry Ford mastered the moving assembly line and ushered in the age of mass production. The first two industrial revolutions made people richer and more urban. Now a third revolution is under way. Manufacturing is going digital. As this week’s special report argues, this could change not just business, but much else besides.
  - The first two industrial revolutions made people richer and more urban. Now a third revolution is under way. Manufacturing is going digital.Apr 21, 2012
McCain Vows Supreme Court Blockade Will Continue Through Clinton’s Presidency, By Jonathan Chait [nymag.com]
- The new rule is that a president needs 50 senators to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
- If Clinton wins and Democrats pull enough Senate seats, Republicans will oppose her nominee, and then, eventually, Democrats will change the rules to abolish filibusters of Supreme Court nominees. (Republicans will decry this foul measure and justify any subsequent actions of their own as justified revenge.) If Clinton wins and Republicans hold on to 51 seats, they will simply refuse to let any nominee through. The fact that it is McCain, a personal friend of Clinton and as strong an institutionalist as can be found in the Senate, … is proposing to extend the blockade indefinitely shows just how deep the commitment runs through the party.
- The implication of this claim, though, is that if Hillary Clinton wins the election, Republicans will give her latitude to appoint a reasonably well-qualified, non-extreme jurist to the vacant spot. I have long been skeptical that Republicans would actually go along with this if it comes to pass. And now John McCain confirms it. In an interview touting fellow Republican Senator Pat Toomey, McCain pledges that he and his party will continue the Supreme Court blockade throughout Clinton’s term. “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said. …
- Senate Republicans have formed a united front around the principle Barack Obama should not be able to appoint a replacement for Antonin Scalia, and that the seat should instead be selected by the winner of the 2016 election. This “principle” rests on a wildly selective reading of senatorial history, according to which it is somehow improper for a president to fill a Supreme Court seat in his final year. In reality, this principle has never existed before and was concocted on the fly in order to justify the simple exertion of power.
Extreme weather:
- Not all climate change is global warming, but global warming is driving all climate change.
- Progressives settled on the term “climate change” after the Right began using the term and confusing the issue with cold ‘weather’ as a contradiction to “Global Warming.”
- ‘Extreme Weather’ Film Connects Nature’s Fury to Climate Change, Brian Clark Howard
Yawn: China’s Space Program Is Making Advances Look Routine: Since 2003, manned space flights have become almost routine in China, [Blogs.WSJ.com] Oct 17, 2016 7:38 pm HKT
- What will it take for the US to take China’s competition in space seriously?
- Will it be Taikonauts say, “Ni hao,” from the moon?
It’s happened before: Are we seeing the breakup and re-formation – whatever it will call itself – of a major political party in our lifetime?
- Is there room in the GOP for an “Ana Navarro Wing” of the party?
  - Republican strategist, Ana Navarro Flores (born December 28, 1971) is a Nicaraguan-born American Republican strategist and political commentator for various news outlets, including CNN, CNN en Español,^[2] ABC News and The View.^[3]~ from WIKIPEDIA
- CNN’s Ana Navarro Demolishes Trump In 2 Languages: ‘He Is A Flat-Out Racist!’; “Es un racista.”, by Rebecca Shapiro Senior Editor, The Huffington Post (10/06/2016 11:26 pm ET | Updated 10/7/2016)
- The Real-Time Crack-Up of the GOP Is Happening Right Now on Twitter, by Marcus Wohlsen [WIRED Business) OCT 16.

SOURCES WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO OTHER DISCUSSION:

======================================================

The HISD Prop 1 Question: Yes or no? Do you feel lucky??
- The weight of elected local elected officials is for a “NO” vote.x
- [VOTE YES:] HISD proposal simply matter of pocketbook: Writing check will be cheaper than losing property to the state, By Scott Hochberg, October 22, 2016 [HOUSTON CHRONICLE]
  - Hochberg (R) is a former state representative of southwest Houston from 1993-2013. He served as a member of the House Committee on Public Education his entire 20 years in the Legislature.
- [VOTE NO:] Robbing HISD: Voters should say ‘no’ to putting district under the Robin Hood recapture plan. Houston Chronicle EDITORIAL, September 23, 2016 (Updated: September 24, 2016 7:53pm) Houston Chronicle
Budget Basics / Proposition 1: What you need to know about recapture: $162 million “Robin Hood” payment is on the November ballot, by HISD
- “Do you feel lucky?”
- This is a ONE-TIME, NO GOING-BACK referendum choice.
- “No” on Proposition 1 is a “Yes” for a Tax Increase, by Dale Craymer (Contact: Kirsten Voinis (kvoinis@kvoinis.com) 512-922-7141)
  - Houston Independent School District (ISD) voters face an unhappy choice this November – vote “YES” on Proposition 1 to authorize the state to recapture roughly $160 million of the school district’s property taxes or just vote “NO.” It seems like a no brainer. School board members, several other local officials and the Houston Chronicle editorial board are urging a “NO” vote, as a way to protest a state school finance system commonly referred to as “Robin Hood.”
  - What folks aren’t being told, though, is that a “NO” vote is a “YES” vote for higher taxes.
  - The election is required because the value of property relative to the number of its students has grown so rapidly that Houston ISD is now considered a “wealthy district” under the state’s school funding mechanism. For Texas’ school finance system to meet constitutional muster, revenues must be equalized – a system commonly referred to as “Robin Hood.” Wealthy districts have to share a portion of their taxes with poorer districts. The simplest way to do that is for Houston ISD to write a check to the state – something that must be authorized by local voters,
  - and what Proposition 1 would allow.
  - Nobody wants their local tax dollars to leave the district, so “NO” seems like an easy vote. Unfortunately if “NO” prevails, the Commissioner of Education by law MUST detach approximately $20 billion of high – value business
  - properties from Houston ISD and assign them to a less wealthy district.
  - That equates to approximately 40 percent of all business property and 12 percent of the total taxable value of the district. This is not a one-time process. The Commissioner will have to continue to detach more property each year as Houston’s values rise.
What Prop 1 Does: Don’t let state bureaucrats take a billion dollars from Houston schools and deny our kids a quality education.
- A vote for HISD Proposition 1 will transfer more than $1 billion from HISD to state bureaucrats in the next four years, close neighborhood schools, lay off thousands of teachers – more than 1,400 in the first year – and drastically curtail other resources critical to health and learning that keep students in school, off the streets and on track to graduate.
- The closure of schools and rapid decline of our local education system will also decimate neighborhoods, hurt our economy and make Houston unattractive to businesses and people looking to relocate here.
- Yet, if voters vote against the proposition, state law allows the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to take the funds by detaching commercial properties such as office buildings or large shopping centers from the HISD tax rolls—and assigning them to the tax rolls of other school districts (where they are likely to be taxed at higher rates).
- So why vote AGAINST the HISD proposition?
  - A consensus has emerged that the only way to force the legislature to pass comprehensive school finance reform is to fight back—by refusing to authorize this massive transfer of our school funds to other districts.
  - State law required HISD to put this proposition on the ballot, yet every HISD trustee and the superintendent oppose it. A vote against recapture by the largest school district in Texas will throw a wrench into the current, unfair system.
  - No school district has voted against a recapture measure and the TEA has never before tried to enforce its authority to detach properties from a school district’s tax rolls. HISD is certain to challenge the TEA in court and that in turn will create a crisis for state legislators and force them to deal with this issue in the upcoming session.
  - It’s a novel approach but the alternative for HISD is much worse. This election is the only chance that voters will have to intervene. Once a district votes to authorize recapture payments, it can never go back.
- That’s why a growing coalition of people and organizations that typically disagree—Democrats, Republicans, business and labor leaders—are coming together to oppose HISD Proposition 1, protect our public schools and keep our city from falling into economic decline.
Donald Trump Losing by a Landslide Would Heal the Nation: It would signal that the GOP’s scorched-earth political tactics don’t work, By Cody Cain [TIME.com] Aug. 29, 2016 10:33 AM ET (est.) Cain is a writer
- When our two-party system of Democrats vs. Republicans is functioning properly, there is much to recommend it. …
- In recent years, however, something has gone terribly awry. The Republican Party made the deliberate calculation that its best prospects for success lied not in abiding by the system and offering its superior ideas for governing, but instead in undermining the system by seeking to destroy its opponent.
- This deplorable strategy from our political leaders is hardly the sort of conduct that our great democracy was designed to foster.
- If Trump were to win the election in November, this would send a horrible message. A Trump victory would loudly proclaim that all of these underhanded political strategies of creating gridlock and sowing the seeds of frustration and division are indeed successful strategies…
- If the election turns out to be close—even if Trump were defeated—these vile political strategies would still flourish. The Republican Party would likely conclude that their tactics brought them near to victory, so these tactics are effective and should be pursued more vigorously.
- If, on the other hand, Trump suffered an enormous defeat in an overwhelming landslide, well, then, this would send a very different message. And imagine if this landslide also led to the Democratic Party gaining control of the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and various state and local governments as well.
- Republicans would be forced to face the reality that… their vile strategies of division and destruction incited the worst instincts in their party, led to the rise of the disastrous Trump candidacy and resulted in utter failure. They would be forced to abandon their scorched-earth tactics, and instead return to the good old-fashioned concept of what our system is all about in the first place. Namely, the Republicans would be forced into focusing less on destroying their opponents, and more on offering positive and constructive ideas of their own. They would also be forced to abandon their “my way or the highway” approach, and instead compromise with the Democrats to forge bipartisan solutions to governing.
- Our system would then be returned to balance, and the public trust in our government would be restored. A landslide defeat of Trump would not only dispatch with a dangerous demagogue, but it would also go a long way toward restoring the proper functioning of our democracy.
Longtime Republican consultant: if black people voted Republican, voter ID laws wouldn’t happen – Vox, Updated by German Lopez on September 2, 2016, 2:40 p.m. ET @germanrlopez lopez@vox.com
- If there was any remaining doubt that North Carolina’s voting restrictions — which require a photo ID to vote and limit early voting days — are about disenfranchising black people, recent comments by a top Republican consultant in the state should put that doubt to rest.
- William Wan reported for the Washington Post: Longtime Republican consultant Carter Wrenn, a fixture in North Carolina politics, said the GOP’s voter fraud argument is nothing more than an excuse.
- “Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” he said, explaining that Republicans, like any political party, want to protect their majority. While GOP lawmakers might have passed the law to suppress some voters, Wrenn said, that does not mean it was racist.
- “Look, if African Americans voted overwhelmingly Republican, they would have kept early voting right where it was,” Wrenn said. “It wasn’t about discriminating against African Americans. They just ended up in the middle of it because they vote Democrat.”
- From MIKE: Texas has the same logic, and even presented it in court, when the Texas Voter ID law was challenged. To paraphrase, ‘We’re not discriminating against minorities. We’re discriminating against Democrats.’
- “The Florida Bar says it has no jurisdiction. The state attorney in Leon County has taken a pass. So have the governor’s office and the Legislature, both of which could demand hearings if they wanted.“Imagine you were robbed and the prosecutor gave the suspect a pass after taking $25,000 from him. There would be universal outrage — and rightfully so. This is not the behavior of an ethical prosecutor. If Floridians want action, they should speak up. But it may be up to the U.S. Justice Department.When a prosecutor has been asked to investigate someone — and instead takes $25,000 in campaign cash from him — it’s the prosecutor who most needs probing. That’s why I began digging into this way back in 2013 — long before Trump was even a candidate for the White House.”The Orlando Sentinel’s Scott Maxwell – who uncovered Trump’s illegal political bribe to Bondi in the first place – was given the honor of publishing an op-ed column [“New records show Bondi needs probing in Trump mess, Maxwell says“] explaining that Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi deserved the bulk of the scrutiny as both a Republican elected official and as a lawyer who betrayed the public trust and that federal prosecution is the only genuine option available for the state’s top law enforcement officer:
- Donald Trump paid the IRS a $2,500 penalty this year, an official at Trump’s company said, after it was revealed that Trump’s charitable foundation had violated tax laws by giving a political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general.
- The Washington Post and a liberal watchdog group raised new questions about the three-year-old gift. The watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed a complaint with the IRS — noting that, as a registered nonprofit, the Trump Foundation was not allowed to make political donations.
- In that year’s tax filings, The Post reported, the Trump Foundation did not notify the IRS of this political donation. Instead, Trump’s foundation listed a donation — also for $25,000 — to a Kansas charity with a name similar to that of Bondi’s political group. In fact, Trump’s foundation had not given the Kansas group any money.
- The prohibited gift was, in effect, replaced with an innocent-sounding but nonexistent donation.
This is from Breitbart. It’s written as an inflammatory piece for their readers, but Progressives will actually read it as a tribute piece!
- Texas Grocery Magnate Forbids ‘Open Carry,’ Opposes School Choice, Supports Sanctuary Cities, by Merrill Hope3 Jan 2016 (BREITBART.COM): Charles Butt, the Texas billionaire magnate behind the H-E-B supermarket chain which forbid the open carry of firearms law that went into effect January 1, 2016, opposes school choice, funds anti-school choice lobbyists, and is even credited for his role in killing a 2011 state bill banning “sanctuary cities.”
- His vested interest in Texas public education includes H-E-B handing out $800,000 a year to public education pursuits through the Excellence in Education Awards. In 2006, he founded Raise Your Hand Texas, which lists Butt as an advisor. The Texas Tribune describes Raise Your Hand Texas as a “seasoned lobbying force on education issues at the Capitol.”

Think twice, maybe three times, before cosigning loans, and even then, you probably shouldn’t do it.
- In New Jersey Student Loan Program, Even Death May Not Bring a Reprieve, By ANNIE WALDMAN, (NY Times) JULY 3, 2016
Differences between Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians and neo-Conservatives
- Left–right politics, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  - History of the terms: The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms “left” and “right” to refer to the opposing sides.^[9]
- Greens and Libertarians: The yin and yang of our political future, by Dan Sullivan (originally appearing in Green Revolution, Volume 49, No. 2, summer, 1992)
  - … Libertarians tend to be logical and analytical. They are confident that their principles will create an ideal society, even though they have no consensus of what that society would be like. Greens, on the other hand, tend to be more intuitive and imaginative. They have clear images of what kind of society they want, but are fuzzy about the principles on which that society would be based.
  - Ironically, Libertarians tend to be more utopian and uncompromising about their political positions, and are often unable to focus on politically winnable proposals to make the system more consistent with their overall goals. Greens on the other hand, embrace immediate proposals with ease, but are often unable to show how those proposals fit in to their ultimate goals.
  - The most difficult differences to reconcile, however, stem from baggage that members of each party have brought with them from their former political affiliations. Most Libertarians are overly hostile to government and cling to the fiction that virtually all private fortunes are legitimately earned. Most Greens are overly hostile to free enterprise and cling to the fiction that harmony and balance can be achieved through increased government intervention.
  - Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.^[5][6][7]
  - Researchers have also said that the Right includes capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.^[8]

Payday Lenders
- Usury: noun the illegal action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest. Archaic interest at unreasonably high rates.
- Interest Caps
- ‘Choice’
- Are the many high-interest payday lenders a direct result of bank deregulation and the attendant fees and penalties that came with them?
- How this Missouri man wound up paying $50K in interest after taking $2,500 in payday loans: ws/20onFHy pic.twitter.com/8krVicitx1
Time for a return of the 2 ½ contingency war strategy?
- Will we ever see a return of the “Peacetime Army”?
- Threat from Russian and Chinese warplanes mounts – USA Today

o How much do the Saudis own in U.S. Treasuries? After four decades, it’s no longer a secret, by Michael Hiltzik (LA Times) 5-16-2016

The Treasury Department on Monday opened the curtain on one of our longest-lasting, and strangest, state secrets: how much U.S. debt does Saudi Arabia own?
The Treasury Department on Monday opened the curtain on one of our longest-lasting, and strangest, state secrets: how much U.S. debt does Saudi Arabia own?
The answer, as of March, is $116.8 billion. That may sound like a lot, but it places the Saudis only at 13th on the list of major foreign holders of treasuries. Leading the roll among the foreign holders of $6.3 trillion in securities are mainland China ($1.245 trillion) and Japan ($1.137 trillion).

o Government Debt in the United States – Debt Clock: (www.usgovernmentdebt.us/): Total Federal Government Debt in 2016. At the end of FY 2016 the gross US federal government debt is estimated to be $19.3 trillion, according to the FY17 Federal Budget.

o India to ‘divert rivers’ to tackle drought, By Navin Singh Khadka Environment reporter, (BBC World Service) 16 May 2016

India is set to divert water from its rivers to deal with a severe drought… [affecting] At least 330 million people are … affected by drought in India.
The drought is taking place as a heat wave extends across much of India, with temperatures in excess of 40C (~104^oF).
The Inter Linking of Rivers (ILR) has 30 links planned for water-transfer, 14 of them fed by Himalayan glaciers in the north of the country and 16 in peninsular India.
Environmentalists have opposed the project, arguing it will invite ecological disaster but the [Indian] Supreme Court has ordered its implementation.
Of its 29 states, nearly half were reported to have suffered from severe water crisis this dry season.
The federal government in Delhi has had to send trains carrying water to the worst affected places.

What Are Cats Trying to Tell Us? Science Will Explain, By Carrie Arnold [National Geographic] PUBLISHED March 28, 2016
- Nearly all New York State pet owners talk to their pets like they’re fellow humans, according to a recent poll. Many believe their dogs and cats can respond with barks or meows that communicate hunger, fear, or simply the need to pee. But do the animals tawk back in a Brooklyn accent? That’s the sort of thing Swedish cat lover and phonetics researcher Suzanne Schötz is working to find out. After executing this strategy on every government program except the military and corporate welfare, is it now the turn of the Supreme Court?
The Science of Meow: Study to Look at How Cats Talk: A new project is underway to decode kitty communication—and figure out if cats really like all that baby talk.
- What Are Cats Trying to Tell Us? Science Will Explain
  
  [National Geographic Society]:

The dos and don’ts of open carry, By Robert Arnold – Investigative Reporter (click2houston.com) Posted: 9:37 AM, December 31, 2015 Updated: 10:04 AM, December 31, 2015
TERMINOLOGIES: Words Matter
- The term “Conservative” is so inaccurate as currently used by the Media, the Media and all of us really need to rethink their classifications and terminology.
- There are Liberals/Progressives and there are Conservatives. Both of those are fine and serve a useful purpose in civil opposition to each other.
- Today’s “Conservatives” are conservative in name only

__________________________________________________________________

KPFT is a 501(c)3 non-profit, and it can always use your tax-deductible support. Most of the folks who work and broadcast at KPFT are volunteers, but it still has fixed and variable expenses, and it still costs $150/hour, 24/7/365 to keep KPFT on the air.

KPFT Donation Page

Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig

"An educated electorate is a prerequisite for a democracy."

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

· PETITION: Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

· PETITION: We require special procedures when the electoral college and popular vote do not match.

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply