What’s at stake in tomorrow’s election? Only the future of life as we know it on this planet

The only way we can preserve sustainable life on this planet we call home is to reduce greenhouse emissions to absolute zero sometime in this century. That’s the headline from a report issued yesterday by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So how do we achieve that goal? Simple: Eliminate the burning of fossil fuels.

Simple to say, but certainly not simple to do. The reason why eliminating the burning of fossil fuels is impossible is because, obviously, fossil fuels are the product of the massive oil and gas companies who actually run things here on Earth. No it’s not elected officials: Most of them – particularly Republican office holders in the United States — are merely puppets controlled by the oil and gas industry. The industry has bought them. The industry owns them. They will do and they will vote as instructed by the industry. In fact, if Republicans win control of the U.S. Senate in tomorrow’s election, the new chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will be Oklahoma’s Jim Inhofe. Here is his reaction to the IPCC’s report, a report, incidentally, supported by 97 percent of the scientific community, according to the NASA website Global Climate Change:

Sen. Jim Inhofe

"The idea that our advanced industrialized economy would ever have zero carbon emissions is beyond extreme and further proof that the IPCC is nothing more than a front for the environmental left. It comes as no surprise that the IPCC is again advocating for the implementation of extreme climate change regulations that will cripple the global economy and send energy prices skyrocketing. The United States is in the midst of an energy renaissance that has the potential to bring about American energy independence, which would strengthen our national security and energy reliability for generations into the future. At a time of economic instability and increased threats to American interests, the IPCC’s report is little more than high hopes from the environmental left."

Like I said: a puppet for the oil and gas industry, whose trying to switch the subject of the debate from renewable power sources to high cost of oil and gas. This is the same clown who said we don’t need to be concerned about glaciers melting because, like ice melting in a glass of liquid, it simply displaces the ice, so the oceans won’t really rise. What the idiot doesn’t realize is that the ice being talked about is ice from land, not already in the water — try adding a lot more ice cubes to that glass of liquid and see what happens.

The IPCC was created more than a quarter of a century ago to assess global warming and its impact. Its latest report reviews 30,000 climate-change studies that establish with 95 percent certainty that most of the warming since the 1950s is man-made.

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett

Of course, here in Texas, there is little we can do to stop the flow of red. A Democrat hasn’t won a statewide race in Texas in 20 years and that certainly won’t change tomorrow. I recently relocated from Dallas to Central Texas where my U.S. Representative, at least, is a progressive thinker and also a former associate from my days at the University of Texas, Lloyd Doggett. (Doggett was president of the UT student body which also made him head of student publications when I was the assistant managing editor of the university’s daily newspaper. We had numerous encounters in those roles.)

Wendy Davis

In Texas, the magic number progressives will be looking at is 42.3. That’s the percentage of the total votes won by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White in 2010. This year the Democratic standard bearer is, of course, Wendy Davis, who is seen, by some (I am not among those) as the straw horse for an eventual Democratic takeover of the state. If this is true, she must win more than 42.3 percent of the vote. I would say, in order for her campaign to be called "successful," she needs to win at least 45 percent. If she wins less than 42.3 percent, her campaign will go down as an unmitigated disaster and a huge setback for Democrats’ hopes here in Texas, especially when you consider all the attention — even outside of Texas — Davis’s campaign has received. She is considered more than just a candidate by many; she has been elevated to "folk hero" status. It will also be interesting to see if she can collect significantly more than the 2.1 million votes White received four years ago. I sincerely hope she does, but I’m certainly not willing to wager anything of value on the possibility.

Austin's new 10 member city council districts

As a Dallas transplant as well as a significant player in the city’s transition from an at-large city council election system to a single-member district system, it’s fascinating to watch as Austin holds its first city election in which all 10 city council members will be elected from individual districts, with a mayor, of course, being the one at-large candidate. It’s interesting because in Dallas, where African Americans city council representatives fight tooth-and-nail to preserve four black city council districts, even though it could be argued the numbers no longer support that, in Austin only one district is considered winnable by an African American candidate and even in that district African Americans comprise only 35 percent of the voting age population. It would be enough to drive Dallas City Council members Dwaine Caraway, Carolyn Davis, Tennell Atkins and probably even Vonciel Hill over the edge. The black population here is quite evenly dispersed throughout all sections of the city because Austin leaders did not practice the systems of overt racism that resulted in the racially split North-South Dallas.

I will also give Austin credit for holding its municipal elections in November, which, of course, will mean more voter interest and a higher voter turnout than municipal elections in Dallas, which are held in May, when no other elections that might generate increased voter participation are on the ballot. On the other hand, I will give Dallas credit for doing rail right.

Austin voters will decide tomorrow if they want a light rail system in the city. I am a major proponent of mass transportation, especially in urban areas, but I have yet to make up my mind on Austin’s proposal. Dallas transportation visionaries (hopefully that’s not an oxymoron) wisely saw mass transportation as a regional issue and created, though a public referendum, a regional transportation authority that included 13 other municipalities in addition to Dallas. Plus, it isn’t just a light rail service: it operates buses, commuter rail and HOV lanes. DART is its own regulatory body. It is financed through sales taxes administered by all member cities.

Austin's proposed rail line

Austin is going the light rail route on its own, with a proposal for only one line entirely within the city limits of Austin. It would be located along a north-south line just west of Interstate 35 until it crosses the Colorado river south of downtown where it would veer off to the southeast. One of the arguments against the rail proposal is that there is not that much rider ship along that corridor, that it should be located more to the west where more commercial areas are located. The problem is advocates agree with that assessment, but counter with the argument that "someday there will be more rider ship along the proposed route." I am not convinced that’s a compelling argument, but more than anything else I am chagrined that the rail proponents are thinking only locally and not regionally, especially when such neighborhood cities as Round Rock, Cedar Park, Kyle (my new home) and San Marcos (the fastest growing city in the United States the last two years) are growing as fast as they are. They need to be included in any transportation plan and Austin is shutting them out. In addition, the transportation system will be completely controlled by city government and will be funded by increased property taxes and a hoped-for windfall from the federal government (which probably won’t come if Republicans gain control of the Senate tomorrow).

I moved down here less than a month ago to retire close to the home of my son and granddaughter and I’m not going to live long enough the effects of mass transportation plans in Austin, let alone global climate change. (Neither are the heads of the oil and gas industries which is why they don’t give a damn if they destroy the planet – just as long as they continue to make their obscene profits). So I guess I shouldn’t be concerned about these things, but as the scorpion said to the frog, "It’s my nature." And if you don’t know what I mean by that last statement, rent and see the marvelous film The Crying Game, which, incidentally, a lot of us may be playing (the game, not the movie) this time tomorrow.

Will he or won't he

One of the big questions being debated locally these days is whether Da Mayor is going to run for re-election or opt to seek the U.S. Senate seat that now belongs to Kay Bailey Hutchison. But for DA Mayor to take that latter route, he has to be sure that Hutch ain't seeking another term and she has been quiet, as usual, about her decision.

Here's my thinking right now. Although trying to figure Hutch is even a more difficult task than collecting my recycling, I'm thinking she's going to run again. She shouldn't, though. The Texas Tea Party Idiots are smelling the blood in the water and know that Hutch is vulnerable. TTPI hero Gov. Hair made her look foolish in her bid for the Republican nomination for governor. Me thinks the TTPI will try to outflank Hutch on her right by supporting the bids of Weatherford car salesman Roger Williams or Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams to unseat against her.

And even if Hutch recognizes she has no hope of winning another primary election and drops out, Da Mayor shouldn't waste his time trying to win the nomination. He is not going to be a darling of the TPPI who have kidnapped the Republican Party in Texas. Not only that, the recent track record of big city mayors running for statewide office in Texas -- Ron Kirk and Bill White -- are not favorable to Da Mayor.

Betting windows are open for one-term Dallas City Council members

Last year's freshman class on the Dallas City Council was the largest that I can remember since the inception of 14-1 election system. Half of the 14 individual council members are serving their first terms. The question for today is: How many of those are serving their only terms? Never one to shy away from stepping into the breach, here's the way I see it.

Place 7 member Carolyn Davis is toast. She's gone. Absolutely no chance she'll be back. Zero. Nada. First of all, she wasn't the choice of the voters the first time around. Billy J. Ratcliff was. Trouble was that after he filed for the election and was told he met all the qualifications to run, the City Secretary came back and said "Oh, gee, I'm so sorry, Mr. Ratcliff, but the district boundary line runs down that street there right in front of your house and, guess what?, your house is on the wrong side of that line." Ratcliff was declared ineligible, very early in the process. Trouble was, however, it wasn't early enough to remove his name from the ballot. Nevertheless, he didn't campaign and it was made clear a vote for Ratcliff was a wasted vote. STILL, HE WON THE ELECTION. Over a quarter of the voters casting votes in that district's primary cast them for Ratcliff. That's how much the people in that district favored him. Well, you'll never guess what has happened since. Ratcliff up and moved and now his residence is in the district. If he could beat Davis like a drum when he didn't campaign and wasn't eligible, think how one-sided this is going to be when he is eligible and does campaign. Not only that, Miss Davis has been an embarrassment on the council and a poor reflection on her constituents. Like I said, she's toast.

Anyone remember Joseph Hernandez? I thought not. Anyone remember Ed Oakley? I thought so. To refresh your memory, Hernandez came within 147 votes of leading Dave Neuman in the Place 3 primary and only lost to Neuman by 285 votes in the runoff. Oakley, on the other hand, surprised everyone by making the runoff against Tom Leppert for mayor. He is a expert politician and a master corraler of votes. Plus I personally witnessed Oakley during the last redistricting process, when he represented District 6, carve District 3 to his own specifications with his election to that district his sole motivating factor. There's no question he's going to be seeking some political office next year. He's not only filed all the paperwork, he recently held a very successful fundraising event WITHOUT EVEN SPECIFYING WHAT HE WAS RUNNING FOR. If he decides to seek re-election to District 3, Oakley will hand Neuman his battered hat. Newman has worked tirelessly since his election to stay in contact with his constituents and he's done a good job at those attempts. What he has failed to do, however, is really connect to these constituents, at least not as well as Oakley has. If Ed runs, Dave's gone.

After that, I don't see any of the other members of the freshman class being that vulnerable. Sheffie Kadane in District 9 and Jerry Allen in District 10 have made some major enemies because of a few of their zoning decisions. But Lake Highlands doesn't like to turn on its own and Allen didn't even face an opponent last year. (This could change, of course, if former council member Bill Blaydes, who opposed Allen's most controversial zoning decision, decides he still has a taste for active city council politics. But the last couple of times I have seen Mr. Blaydes my first thoughts were ones of concern for his health.) As for Kadane, I believe that it's going to take someone with a profile higher than that of a Jill Kotvis or a gadfly like Albert Turner (the two candidates who narrowly failed to keep Kadane from winning his place without a runoff) to unseat Kadane. Someone like Advocate publisher Rick Wamre might pull it off as might Dallas School Board member Leigh Ann Ellis. I have no idea what Wamre might do if approached, but I am convinced Miss Ellis is passionately committed to improving the Dallas school system and will remain where she is. Former members Mary Poss or Gary Griffith could win it, but I believe Miss Poss when she says she's out of elective politics and I'm not sure Griffith has the heart for it again.

Neither Vonciel Hill nor Tennell Atkins have really distinguished themselves but I think Mr. Atkins has quietly worked to solidify his position with voters in his district and Ms. Hill might be like Mr. Kadane, safe unless she has to face a real heavyweight, which makes me wonder what Larry Duncan is up to these days.

That leaves Dwyane Carraway who is not only the safest bet among the Freshmen 7 to return, but probably the safest best for re-election on the council. Carraway is so not worried about his re-election chances, he's already laying the groundwork for his mayoral campaign that will take place in 2011 if Mr. Leppert decides one term is enough or in 2015 if Leppert stays the limit. That will be the year Mr. Carraway will be term limited in his council seat as well. Works out nicely, doesn't it.

Industrial Blvd. needs to be renamed after Carsar Chavez revisited

I am glad someone else is going on record about this, and for reasons, eloquently expressed, that I neglected to mention.

Industrial Blvd. needs to be renamed after Cesar Chavez

I have three good reasons why Industrial Boulevard should be named after Cesar Chavez and all three in one way or another are connected to the recent poll seeking citizen input on what the new name should be.

First, I voted for Cesar Chavez in the poll. I voted for it for a number of reasons but mainly because it was the best option of the six that were listed. Riverfront Boulevard, which will probably be the choice of the lackeys on the Dallas City Council, is a joke. It suggests that the Trinity is actually a river. It isn't. It's a stream or a creek, but it is definitely not a river. To qualify as a river, the body of flowing water in question must be one that someone would have to be in reasonably good shape to be able to swim across. You should not be able to walk across it, or hop over it, like you can the Trinity. It also suggests that the newly named road runs alongside this stream. It doesn't. The proposed tollway will run alongside it, but this road won't; that is, unless they are going to change the location of the current Industrial Boulevard. Trinity Lakes, another option, is just as laughable because it suggests those artificial ponds that will be placed out there are actually lakes. In order for a man-made body of water to qualify as a lake, there has to be a dam somewhere in the equation. The same holds true with such misnomers as Trinityview and Waterfront boulevards. All these make as much sense as renaming the McCommas Bluff Landfill something like Rose Garden Landfill.

The second reason Industrial should be named after Cesar Chavez is because it was the clear choice of those who participated in the poll. Now, the City Council, stunned at the results of the voting, are already backtracking and coming up with excuses to thwart the will of the people. But in any election in which there are six options and one of them gets over 50 percent of the vote, that's pretty clearcut to me. I will make this prediction: The city of Dallas will never have a primary election with six candidates running for mayor (assuming all six are two-legged) and have one of them pull 52 percent of the vote.

But the third and final reason is because of the comments posted to this item about the poll on the Dallas Morning News' City Hall blog. I recently had a heated discussion with my son on the subject of racism in Dallas. I maintained it was rampant and when you got to the heart of most major policy decisions made in this city, race would be the ultimate deciding factor. I am still stunned by the fact that it wasn't that long ago that Cinemark was prohibited from locating what would have been then its first movie theater in Dallas because of racial animosity (but I was also somewhat gratified that Cinemark sued the City of Dallas over this and won a huge settlement.) All one has to do is read the comments that were posted to this blog entry to realize that blatant racism is alive and well here in Dallas, Texas. Admittedly, I did not read all the comments because the first 50 or so made me so sick to my stomach I couldn't continue.

I always thought the term "ignorant racist" was inherently redundant until I read these comments. Most of them have absolutely no idea who Cesar Chavez was. Far too many of these commenters (none of whom have the courage to use their real names) didn't even know Chavez was an American, born and raised in Arizona. Too many of them wondered why we would honor someone with no connections to Texas without realizing his direct impact on the fruit workers of Starr County in the mid-'60s. I'd bet all of these idiots would be shocked to learn that the Labor Day Holiday in Dallas is officially designated as Labor Day/Cesar Chavez Day, that the state of Texas officially recognizes his birthday on March 31, that there is a statue of him on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin and that in 2003 the United States Postal Service honored him with a postage stamp.

Of course these same jerks compound their ignorant status by arguing the city should select a name that isn't even one of the options and, in the ultimate admittance of their ignorance, many of them proclaimed "I didn't even know there was a poll going on."

So a large part of me simply wants to stick it to these lamebrains and renaming Industrial Cesar Chavez Boulevard would do just that. But I have more honorable reasons as well. It seems to be the will of the people of Dallas and it's the least we can do to honor a true American hero.

Of course, do I expect our Dallas City Council to have the courage to do the right thing? It's more likely they will come across like Big Brown at Belmont.

UPDATE: The City Council committee was even more cowardly than I thought it would be, voting to delay making a decision until the first week in August when any actions will be obscured by the city manager's budget recommendations. That's when the council, in a hallucinatory state unseen since the heyday of Timothy Leary will recommend changing the name to Riverfront Boulevard. Give me a break!

Yippie Ki Yi Yay

Me thinks Ed Oakley is whistling this these days.

Minor disagreements with fellow bloggers

Jim Schutze over at the Dallas Observer's Unfair Park blog apparently doesn't understand how TIFs are financed and Jeff Siegel at the Advocate's Back Talk Lakewood blog apparently hasn't been paying attention.

Mr. Schutze wrote another one of his mountains-from-molehills rants today about a parking garage planned for the Deep Ellum TIF, suggesting that the TIF is robbing the City of Dallas' General Fund of money that could be used to pay for more police officers. Don't believe a word of it. The money used to fund projects for TIFs comes from the additional taxes paid by owners of property within the TIF because their property increased in value based on the TIF. Here's an example. You have property worth $100,000 and you are paying property taxes on that valuation. Now that property becomes part of a TIF. Because of the improvements made on property within the TIF, the value of your property increases to $175,000 and your property taxes increase proportionately. Only the difference between the taxes you paid on the property when it was valued at $100,000 and the taxes you pay now go into the TIF. In other words, without the TIF, those revenues would not be available to the city for additional police officers or anything else.

Mr. Siegel is commenting on yesterday's runoff election in which Lowell Cannaday trounced Jim Bowles in the runoff for the Republican nomination for Dallas County sheriff. He writes: "Cannaday should go into the November election against incumbent (Democrat) Lupe Valdez as the favorite." Where has Mr. Siegel been? Has he failed to notice that Dallas County is now solidly Democratic and that the November elections will be, above all, a referendum on a widely unpopular Republican president, widely unpopular even here in the county where his library is going to be built. For a more accurate look at how this election is shaping up, I would refer you to Gromer Jeffers' column in today's Dallas Morning News in which he writes "Ms. Valdez looks as stable as ever."