Blogs

Give Paul Burka, the Texas Monthly political blogger, credit for one thing: The man sure knows how to fire up a comment thread.

Yesterday, Burka ridiculed the Lone Star Project for claiming “Texas Democrats have filed their strongest slate of candidates in years.” As one commenter noted, you’d hardly expect a pro-Democratic PAC to say otherwise, even if the party were running a bunch of armadillos and yellow dogs—and certainly they couldn’t be expected, as Burka suggested, to say “nothing” about the very candidates they’re pushing. But Burka offered no quarter: “I know it’s nonsense, and everybody who reads it knows it’s nonsense,” he snarled. (See my different view here.)

If poking fun at Texas Democrats’ rare burst of optimism wasn’t enough to get those comments rolling in, Burka leapt into the thread with some similarly pointed comments about President Obama. Burka pronounced Obama’s year-old presidency ineffective, and then elaborated thusly:

“Democratic members are retiring everywhere you look, Obama’s legislative program is in shambles, the Republican party is resurgent, he waits several days before commenting on the attempt to blow up the plane. I don’t think we should be surprised by this. He ran on “hope” and “change” and he has no experience of working on major issues. He wasn’t ready to be president. I’m not a big Hillary fan, but she would have been ready to be president from day one. Obama wasn’t.”

Lordy, lordy: Where to begin? With a comparison to the presidential “readiness” of an Arkansas governor in 1993, perhaps, or a Texas governor in 2001? With the fact that Burka, who predicted Obama would lose, still can’t get Hillary’s “from day one” campaign line out of his head?

No, too easy. To borrow his term, the most “ridiculous” part of Burka’s blast at Obama is that business about waiting “several days before commenting on the attempt to blow up the plane.” Maybe Obama should have spoken sooner. But this was an attempt, thank God, not a horrifically successful act of terror. And Obama’s ultimate response (“a screw-up that could have been disastrous”) was thoughtful, tough and bracingly honest—just the kind of thing people elected him for. Even Clark Kent Irvin, a former Bush homeland-security official, called the president’s reaction “spot-on.”

“Paul, this is right out of Fox News,” an anonymous commenter noted on BurkaBlog.

In fact, Burka’s criticism did jibe cozily with the Fox/GOP spinbook. On Dec. 28 on Fox’s Hannity, Karl Rove had this exchange with guest host Tucker Carlson:

“CARLSON: This President was not notified until three hours after this incident became known. Is that a long time? It seems like a long time.”

“ROVE: Look, they woke him up immediately to tell him he won the Nobel Prize but couldn’t bother to interrupt his vacation for three hours to tell him a terrorist tried to bring down a plane on Christmas Day. And the President waits 72 hours before we hear from him, and it’s over 72 hours from the time of the incident to the time that the President spoke today, and then the President said some things that are simply not true.”

(Check out the video here.)

The right-wing repetition machine picked up on the latest Obama-bash and cynically used the 72-hour delay as further evidence of the president’s squishiness when it comes to combatting terrorists.

But the great terror-fighter himself, Rove’s buddy George W., was even slower at Christmastime in 2001 to speak about “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid’s attempt to blow up a jet bound for Miami. It took Rove’s man six days to say anything (and then very little) about Reid’s foiled terror attack—at a time when Americans were far more jittery about terrorism in the wake of 9/11.

a commenter pointed this out, Burka became uncharacteristically restrained and failed to respond. Maybe he didn’t have an answer. Maybe he was embarrassed. Maybe he was momentarily distracted by Glenn Beck. But for someone who started his post by criticizing Democratic spin, this little kerfuffle was mighty ironic to say the least.

I’ve never bought the argument that the death penalty deters crime. Would someone about to commit a murder not act because of the legal consequences? Seems like wishful thinking to me, but a new study from two well-respected universities suggests just that.

A study by researchers from Sam Houston State and Duke universities found a brief drop in murder rates in Texas in the month immediately following an execution.

The AP reports today:

As many as 60 people might be alive today in Texas because two dozen convicted killers were executed last year in the nation’s most active capital punishment state, according to a study of death penalty deterrence by researchers from Sam Houston State University and Duke University.

A review of executions and homicides in Texas by criminologist Raymond Teske at Sam Houston in Huntsville and Duke sociologists Kenneth Land and Hui Zheng concludes that a monthly decline of 0.5 to 2.5 homicides in Texas follows each execution.

“Evidence exists of modest, short-term reductions in the numbers of homicides in Texas in the month of or after executions,” said the study published in a recent issue of Criminology, a journal of the American Society of Criminology.

The study examined data from 1994 to 2005, which is a pretty healthy set of numbers.

You don’t have to be a statistician to see all kinds of problems with this correlation. Small fluctuations in murders could be attributed to all kinds of causes — everything from changes in the weather to fluctuations in the economy. And the calculation itself is complex because the overall violent crime rate has been falling.

But it’s still an interesting hypothesis — that executions cause a short-term drop in crime. I can envision the scenario: an execution garners local media coverage, which could have an impact on murder rates while it’s on people’s minds. The numbers would soon return to the norm. There’s no lasting deterrent to crime, only a temporary drop.

It’s a fascinating idea that warrants more study.

With the filing deadline having passed quietly on Tuesday—quietly, that is, unless you’re the sickest kind of political addict—there’s cheerful news for Texas Democrats as they look to the 2010 statewide elections. Which is a strange thing to find myself typing, given their grim track record over the last couple of decades. Strange—but true. And surprising in equal measure.

The dominant Republicans, of course, have long known what to expect on their side: A potentially divisive battle at the top of the ticket between Sen. Kay Bailey “Will I, Won’t I?” Hutchison and Gov. Rick “States’ Rights” Perry. Otherwise, precious little drama in their statewide primaries—and only token opposition in the statewide races where they’ve batted 1,000 since 1998. Just two months ago, Democrats hadn’t the slightest clue about what to expect—aside from yet another year of near-certain futility. After all but one of the state’s potentially viable Dems had wussed out of the governor’s race, the party’s likeliest ticket-topper was Fort Worth businessman and George W. Bush pal Tom Schieffer, who could have raised more money and garnered more enthusiasm in his 10-month exploratory campaign by stationing himself at a busy intersection with a cardboard sign reading: “I’m a Democrat—really! Please help!” Nobody of note was stepping up to challenge Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. And it was the same on down the line, statewide race after statewide race: It looked for all the world like the GOP was going to sail to another sweep, getting to focus its money and energies on salvaging its slim majority in the state House. But lo, unto the Dems a savior appeared: wildly popular Houston Mayor Bill White, who switched from gunning for Hutchison’s fictionally available Senate seat and gave his party a reason for optimism that’s anything but fictional. And over the next six weeks, the Democratic blanks began to be filled in down the ballot (with the one inexplicable exception of the race for the powerful Comptroller’s office, where party officials couldn’t find a single soul willing to challenge the less-than-invincible incumbent, Susan Combs). Maybe the best news for Texas Dems—aside from White’s blessed reversal—is that they’ll actually have party primaries that might create a few fireworks and stir some interest without tearing the party apart. The party’s top statewide vote-getter from 2006, East Texas rancher Hank Gilbert, will face off against Kinky Friedman, who dropped his inexplicable run for governor to try for (Inexplicable Part II) Agriculture Commissioner. The winner could have an outside shot at knocking off the Republican functionary now running Ag, Todd Staples. The Lite Gov primary will offer less sideshow entertainment than Gilbert vs. Friedman. But for Democrats—and potentially, for any Texan interested in good and honest government—it offers far more consequential stakes. Former Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a white-hatted hero to many progressives for prosecuting Tom Delay, Sen. Hutchison and even himself, threw his hat in the ring. And then Linda Chavez- Thompson—sharecropper’s daughter, national labor leader and vice chair of the Democratic National Committee—followed suit, potentially giving Democrats a boost in Latino turnout. (See her announcement here.) (A momentary digression into obligatory fairness: Austin deli mogul Marc Katz is also running for the Dems’ Lite Gov nomination and swearing he’ll spend gobs of cash. Ditto Houston hair-care mogul Farouk Shami, who’s running against White for the gubernatorial nod. Nobody but Katz and Shami quite knows why.) Compared with what the Dems very recently had every right to expect—no, fear—it’s almost too good to be believed. Not since the ill-named “Dream Team” (John Sharp for Senate, Tony Sanchez for governor, Ron Kirk for lieutenant governor) raised—and then dashed—Democratic hopes in 2002 has the party faithful enjoyed such a season of hope. [CORRECTION: As commenters helpfully pointed out, Sharp was the lieutenant governor candidate in 2002, while Kirk ran for Senate.] How hopeful do things look? Look no further than this: Even The Dallas Morning News has been moved to recognize the outside chance that White, at least, could break the GOP’s long winning streak. In part, the relative strength of the Democrats’ statewide ticket for 2010 is a reflection of the undeniable fact that the GOP’s hold on Texas is slowly eroding. The eye-popping turnout for the 2008 Obama-Clinton shindig was just one sign of that. The Democrats’ near-miss in retaking the state House later that year was another. The Dems now rule Dallas, dominate Houston, and continue to reap the benefits of the Republicans’ tone-deaf immigrant-bashing in winning the loyalties of Latinos. Harvey Kronberg, editor and publisher of Quorum Report, says that the GOP’s demographic “structural advantage” has already shrunk from its apex of 1.5 million statewide to about a half-million—an edge that White, especially, is well-situated to overcome with his strong base in Harris County and its environs. In that vast metro stretch with about one-third of the state’s total votes, Gov. Perry’s been unusually popular, Kronberg notes. He would normally expect to roll up a huge and probably decisive margin there—against any Democrat but White. Another of the state’s most astute political observers, SMU’s Cal Jillson, is quick to note—accurately enough—that it remains true until proven otherwise that “you could lose a lot of money betting on Texas Democrats.” Anybody foolish enough to bet on the Dream Team debacle of 2002 certainly lost a mint. Aside from the Republicans’ persistent—though waning—edge in voter loyalty, the Democrats’ biggest enemy in 2010 could be their own, perfectly understandable, lack of faith. How many times can you work up your hopes, have them mercilessly crushed, and keep coming back for more? “In the last half-dozen cycles, Texas Democrats were so beaten down that they sort of went to ground,” Jillson says. “They didn’t have really good candidates, didn’t put money behind them, so you got late into each race and Democrats would see their candidates a dozen points behind. They’ve never really had the horses to bet on. In this race, they do have that in Bill White.” Will they make the bet? Democrats were turning cartwheels when White announced, and they’re still dizzy with unfamiliar excitement. But the test, Jillson says, is “whether they will see White and others on the ticket and get behind them. Will they put some money in, so national Democrats can see that commitment and add to the pot?” And will they have the juice in their ground game to counter the Republicans’ organizational edge in voter turnout? “If that happens,” Jillson says, “we could have an interesting race.” By God, we could.

The other day I received a comment to my last blog “What Will Become of Mexico in 2010?” The commenter lives in Central Mexico and took me to task saying my piece was “full of inaccuracies and ridiculous exaggerations” and was “sloppy, shameful work.”

Since I am often critical of sensationalistic news stories about violence in Mexico and on the U.S.-Mexico border I wanted to respond to my commenter called (gtodon). But when my response turned into several paragraphs I thought I better turn it into a blog instead. So here goes.

What so incensed my commenter among other things were my following statements:

“Friends and family in Mexico used to take solace in the view that the kidnappings and killings were isolated events that only happened to those involved in the drug trade.

That old view is disappearing. It’s being replaced by fear and a nagging insecurity. These days being in the wrong place at the wrong time can get you killed. The Mexican Army shoots with impunity and cartels exact their revenge in the streets. Innocent bystanders, many of them children, are routinely killed.”

The commenter said these statements were “absolute nonsense, and unsupported by any statistics.“  I admit I didn’t use any statistics and the paragraph is quite dramatic. It’s because I wrote it in a fit of frustration and utter despair over Calderon’s handling of the drug cartel situation, which is rapidly getting worse with no end in sight.

I wish my statements in my previous blog were ridiculous exaggerations…but unfortunately they are not. I will now back them up with more links to prove my point.

The commenter lives in Central Mexico. These killings are getting worse along the border and northern Mexico: Durango, Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila and Baja California for example. Sinaloa, Guerrero and Michoacan are enduring terrible violence also. The Mexican newspaper El Universal does a great job of covering the mess. They called 2009 the worst so far in terms of violence. Here is an info graphic they did of the killings state by state.

True, I don’t have any statistics for the number of children that have been killed in the crossfire. However, here’s a link from the El Paso Times, which has covered the violence in Juarez since it erupted. Just a scan of the headlines, and I count at least 10 children. One child is too many. Here is another article where three students were killed in Sinaloa.

What I have noticed from my daily reading of news clips from Mexico and the U.S. border is that the increasing militarization of the Mexican side of the border is leading to an increase in deaths of innocent people caught in the crossfire. The Mexican military is indiscriminately opening fire in public places in their pursuit of drug cartel members. Increasingly innocent children and bystanders are being killed. What exactly, does Felipe Calderon hope to gain from this? It’s time he explained what the endgame is to the Mexican people. How many more innocent people are going to die while the government and the cartels shoot it out in the streets? Does he really think the billion-dollar drug market is going to go away?

I’ll refer you to a recent case of a woman from Brownsville who was killed by a random bullet while sitting in her friend’s living room in Matamoros. The bullet came from a soldier’s rifle. The army was conducting a drug raid in a nearby apartment. Here is another link to a recent gun battle outside of Monterrey where you will see the army shoot a police officer down in the street in a residential neighborhood.

The drug cartel leaders need to be defeated no question. But has the Mexican government considered all of their options in crippling these cartels? What about wiping out their bank accounts so they no longer have the cash to corrupt the police and government officials? Consider this new book out in Mexico called El Narco: La Guerra Fallida, (Narco: the Failed War) which the LA Times mentioned in an article the other day.

The book written by the former spokesman for Vicente Fox Ruben Aguilar and former Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda is one of the first books to take an in depth look and criticize Calderon’s 3-year war on the drug cartels. According to the Times “it proposes some public-safety measures, including the creation of a national police force and a no-fly zone over southern Mexico. Rather than send troops to fight drug cartels, they argue, Mexico should focus on limiting the “collateral damage” that most aggrieves Mexicans: kidnappings, extortion, car theft and corruption.”

Not like the Fox Administration ever did anything to stop the cartels either, right? Still, I think it’s time to take a realistic and in depth look at this madness. Both the U.S. and Mexican governments need to do something radically different unless they want to see Mexico suffer even worse economic and security crises. In the U.S. we need to give up the ridiculous War on Drugs and start dealing with reality, which I touched on in my previous blog.

The commenter also wrote: “Many educated Mexicans who have the means to leave are choosing exile.” Some have left, true. But “many”? How about some hard numbers?

Mexicans with money and visas are leaving Mexico. Maybe I should say “some” instead of “many”?

I don’t know if there is any way to quantify how many. But I can say I know of two Mexican families personally right now looking for homes here in the United States because of the growing threat of violence and kidnappings. Not long ago, Alejandro Junco, the owner of the influential Grupo Reforma newspaper chain made headlines when he moved to Austin for his family’s safety.

How many more grenades, how many more kidnappings, how many more deaths will it take before the U.S. and Mexican governments change their tactics and their outmoded drug policies ? If they don’t I predict 2010 will set a new record for violence in Mexico. I really hope I can look back in 2011 and say this last statement was a “ridiculous exaggeration.”