This past week has been a difficult one and that is particularly in Texas. Kate Cox was a normal Texan with two children and she and her husband were hoping for a third. 20 weeks into the pregnancy something horrible happened. They were given the kind of diagnosis that no one wants to hear. Their baby was no longer viable and it would threaten her life if it were brought to term.

The Texas law prevents abortions that late into the pregnancy. Cox asked for an exception since the baby was not viable, her health would be in danger, and performing the procedure now would preserve her ability to have children in the future. The district court heard the evidence and granted the exception.

Ken Paxton in his own special way filed an immediate appeal and threatened to have anyone that assisted her prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The Texas Supreme Court dragged their feet so Cox travelled to an unknown state and had the procedure done. Just to be thorough, the Texas Supreme Court then ruled that the district court’s ruling was null and void. There will be no exceptions.

As a cradle Catholic, I am really torn on this one. I tend to be against abortion in most instances. The key term is most. If the baby can be had safely and the baby is viable I much prefer adoption over abortion. However, I have to acknowledge two very important distinctions. The first is that all pregnancies are different and come with their own challenges. In Cox’s case, she wanted the baby, but that was no longer a legitimate possibility and the outcome was going to be crushing if not deadly.

Doctors and families are the ones that should make these calls. Is the mother’s life in danger? Is the baby in danger? Is this a case of the child having a abnormality that would impact its quality of life or will the child literally die shortly after birth? The fact is that no one carries a child to that point and chooses to have an abortion because the child is an inconvenience.

The second consideration is that abortion is a personal choice. I would never choose to have an abortion unless my life or the life of the baby were in danger. I will never be pregnant. It’s not my choice. If we believe in free will then we also believe that people ultimately have the choice to make decisions that we might think are bad ones. We may disagree with the choice.

In Cox’s case, that question is moot. The child wasn’t going to survive. So, what are we doing exactly? Why is Paxton being such a jackass? This was never about Cox. She had the means to go elsewhere to take care of her procedure. I think if you shot them up with truth serum they would admit that the law really wasn’t about her or women like her.

It was a signal to women in general. We have control over you. We control your reproductive health, your health in general, and your future. We make all of these choices for you because we can’t trust to make them on your own. It was a signal to everyone else that your situation doesn’t matter. You had your opportunity and you didn’t take it. The idea of prosecuting doctors for performing live saving care is beyond repugnant. You almost want to paint one of those curly mustaches on Paxton to complete the illusion that he is a megalomaniacal villain chortling in the background. We can do better Texas. We have to do better.

I’m obviously late to the party with this one. As everyone knows, Governor Greg Abbott sent his own version of a Christmas gift to Kamala Harris when he sent upwards of 50 migrants in a bus to her Washington D.C. residence. I can easily go in any number of directions here and most of them are visceral emotional reactions to the story. Most of these visceral responses are the kind of responses that MAGA folks want us to say. It’s almost like a Pavlovian response. They do something outrageous and we respond with outrage, Mission accomplished.

So, where I choose to go from here is to a place where I am going to assume that one or more of them might stumble to this place and actually read these words. The regular readers already know this stuff, so you can treat this as more of a tutorial for other people. However, it is something I feel I need to say because I’ve seen the responses from both sides. Progressives respond with outrage as I suppose they should. Conservatives usually say something to the effect that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden need to solve the problem.

Let’s start with the outrage. All of us know about trolls. Essentially, mainstream conservatives are becoming an endangered species. In their place are what I lovingly call performance artists. If you think back to the scandals concerning the National Endowment for the Arts you will remember the different exhibits that caused so much consternation. There were sculptures of Jesus made out of dung or Jesus being submerged in human urine. These were all designed to create a visceral reaction. All forms of art are created to elicit a reaction. So, these maneuvers by Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis are created to elicit an emotional response. Again, mission accomplished.

Performance artists aren’t interested in solving any problems. Problems exist to be exploited. They exist for fund raising. They exist for sound bytes. They exist so that you can frighten your base by expanding and distorting the truth. Greg Abbott has no issue in solving immigration. He has no interest in helping migrants. He has no interest in adjusting policies so that the strain on our institutions and budget are alleviated. Of course, it could be credibly claimed that many progressive politicians aren’t interested in solving the problem either. They can fundraise against Abbott and DeSantis as easily as those two can fundraise themselves.

This brings us to the second point. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can’t solve this issue on their own. It’s a problem with the low information voters. This is an issue that must be addressed in Congress. So, you can send these people to the White House or to Kamala Harris’ private residence, but the stunt doesn’t provide them any additional incentive to solve the problem. Harris literally has very little real power to do anything beyond helping those exact people. This is where you call or write letters to your elected representative asking them to work with other members of Congress to actually pass comprehensive changes to our immigration policy.

Whether one considers this just performance art or an act of cruelty, the end result is just the same. Someone decided that jerking these people around was better than actually helping them. At this point, I’m not going to judge if someone decides they can’t help them. I understand. We can’t help literally everyone that needs help and it can be hard to decide where that cut off should be. They are human beings. They deserve better than this. If we can’t help them then the least we can do is not hurt them. It’s one thing to have a sculpture made out of dung to enrage the masses. It is something else entirely to use actual living and breathing human beings for your performance art.

A friend asked me who I thought would win the governor’s race in Texas. We know who is going to win the governor’s race in Texas. We knew before Beto even entered the race. We knew it was Greg Abbott no matter what was said in any debate, any ad, or anything that might happen between then and election day.

Abbott has been governor for eight years. Ignore the thousands of deaths during COVID. Ignore the dozens of deaths during the great freeze. Ignore the numerous children killed in school shootings. Think back to any of the Abbott ads on the radio or television. Have any of them touted anything he has actually done as governor? How sad is it for a guy to basically run on the platform of “my opponent is too extreme” when he’s been governor for eight years?

One particular ad had a woman who lost her son to murder. The murderer had been let out on bail by the judge. The Abbott campaign is using this as a reason not to vote for Beto. Huh? The governor doesn’t set bail and Beto hasn’t held elective office since running for Senate in 2018. By any reasonable measure, Abbott has been a horrible governor and he is going to win re-election. Many around the state have given him the nickname Governor Death and he is going to win re-election. Dan Patrick has been a horrible lieutenant governor and he is going to win.

If you want any further proof then consider the case of Hershel Walker in Georgia. He is within the margin of error and he can’t find a coherent thought with a flashlight and road map. He actually flashed a toy badge on stage during the debate and said he was a cop. He paid off a girlfriend to get an abortion and tried to do it a second time and somehow claims to be pro-life. Yet, he could still win the Senate seat there.

It’s easy to blame gerrymandering and restrictive voter laws in these situations and that’s true to a certain extent. I’m sure that peels off five to ten percentage points and that can be enough in a number of races. However, we have to ask ourselves why that is enough when considering candidates like this. We have to ask why an attorney general that has been under indictment for his entire term will get another one.

Somewhere along the line we have to look inside and ask ourselves why a party that continually puts up smarter candidates with smarter policy ideas seem to lose to these dullards. These are policy ideas that a majority of the population support. There must be something else. I personally think it is a combination of things. I think it’s a combination of really bad branding like “defund the police” and other catch phrases that just backfire. It’s also the relative ease of taking things like “wokeness” and weaponizing it against the left. Most people don’t honestly care about gay marriage, transsexuals, or other issues one way or another. They are just tired of being told they aren’t sensitive enough.

Cohesive communication isn’t easy, but the Republicans have managed to do it for decades. Break it all down and it’s incredibly simple but it is darn effective. You find something that resonates and you keep repeating it. That’s what we don’t do. We are everywhere. We talk about climate change, the wealth gap, equality issues, saving democracy, and helping out kids with college, health care, and gun control. I know I’m leaving stuff out. It’s time to find a cohesive message that works and stick to it.

The NRA has been stumping for Greg Abbott pretty hard and heavy. I hear their radio spots at least a few times every day. Beto O’Rourke has an F rating according to the NRA. However, Greg Abbott has been governor for eight years. I’m still not sure why we should vote for him. The only thing he tells us is why we shouldn’t vote for Beto O’Rourke.

Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” I don’t know why that word popped into my head just now. It must be one of those random thoughts that have nothing to do with anything.

That same dictionary defines domestic terrorism as “the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator’s own country against their fellow citizens.” The Patriot Act said that people are engaging in domestic terrorism is they perform an act “dangerous to human life.” So, if we follow this random tangent to it’s logical conclusion we would have to assume that people that participate in mass shooting events are domestic terrorists.

Mind you, I’m not calling the NRA a sponsor of domestic terrorism. I’m simply defining terms. The city of San Francisco has already done that. Many Americans already agree with San Francisco. However, lets walk this through. You have an organization that opposes waiting periods, background checks, and any sort of regulation of semi-automatic weapons, age limits, licensing, or carry restrictions. They support an 18 year old’s right to openly carry an AR-15 whether they have passed a background check or not.

So, there is a sizeable gap between supporting any right to own a firearm and where the NRA currently stands. According to Gallup, as of 2020 only 32 percent of Americans owned a firearm and only 44 percent lived in a household with at least one firearm. However, that is in stark contrast to the number of firearms actually in the United States. So, if there are 1.2 firearms per person, but only 32 percent of people own a firearm then that means that the average gun owner has three or more guns.

Whether the NRA are domestic terrorists, support domestic terrorism, or are indifferent to terrorism is for shock jocks to consider. One could credibly claim that the NRA serves a very small segment of society. After all, even most gun owners are in favor of waiting periods, background checks, and restricting access to certain weapons. Most support age restrictions as well. So, when one earns an F grade from the NRA what exactly does that mean? I’d say it means he is a decent and reasonable human being.

A thought occurred to me when I heard the third version of the Greg Abbott attack ads against Beto O’Rourke. It seems he is too extreme on gun control. They played what was obviously an abrupt cut of him saying he would confiscate everyone’s AR-15. Then, they went on to talk about how he has an F rating according to the NRA in terms of his voting record.

I could say a lot of things here and did when I was in the car by myself. A few of those things are words that shouldn’t be said around young children or anyone of a delicate nature. I could also say a few choice things about the NRA and have before. If I ever run for office they will be data mined and I’ll have to explain them off somehow. That’s kind of the point. This is the world we live in now.

If I translate my inner thoughts in the most delicate way possible, I’d say I couldn’t care less what the NRA thinks of me or my stances on gun control. I’m not looking for NRA approval after all. I’d rather be a good human being and promote policies that support life and public safety. If they would like to abrupt cut that and infer that I am saying they are not for supporting life or public safety they can go ahead. Hell, I’ll even underline and bold it for them.

As much as I or anyone else would like to call them domestic terrorists or people that sponsor domestic terrorists it wouldn’t be responsible for me to do that. After all, most people don’t make complex distinctions between sane and responsible gun owners and those that are insane and unreasonable.

The point is that when we advocate something we have to consider the feasibility of it getting approved and whether it would actually work. There are any number of ways of taking guns off the streets that don’t involve going door to door and taking it from their cold, dead hands. The unfortunate reality is that if you used the door to door method you would likely invite that outcome more than a few times.

Few things in this world make me more angry than gun violence. When I hear the stories of dead children, scared children, or frightened multitudes in any public place it makes me want to scream at every Republican politician and anyone with an A grade with the NRA. I’d like to say they can take their A grade and thousands in PAC contributions and shove it up their backside.

As Democrats, liberals, progressives, leftists, or caring moderates we must agree on one thing and only one thing. We want to make the world a better and safer place. I think all of us can agree on that. We may not agree on how to completely do that or what lengths we need to go to so that can happen. We need to focus on what we do agree on and move from there. In terms of gun control, we agree on background checks, waiting periods, and the ban of certain weapons. We agree that other weapons shouldn’t be legally owned or wielded by teenagers.

We need to enact these laws on things we do agree on and put our heads together on the rest. Confiscation is way too controversial and likely too dangerous to enact. Let’s think of other ways to regulate behavior without punishing responsible gun owners. We are smart people, so we can make this happen.

We take a break from our regularly scheduled programming to take a look at a couple of commercials from the Texas governor’s race between Greg Abbott and Beto O’Rourke. As it stands, I only hear pro-Abbott commercials. Three things have struck me from these ads.

Beto O’Rourke is for defunding the police

All Democrats and progressives please read the following sentence carefully. For the love of everything good and holy, please stop doing this. You come up with these slogans you think are winning slogans, but the other side just uses them against you.

Most people don’t understand nuance. I know you don’t literally want to eliminate police departments. I know you are not literally for anarchy. The average voter doesn’t understand the idea of spreading resources around to other agencies that would be in a better position to handle certain issues. They just see a hoard of criminals coming to your door.

Of course, Abbott has to throw in a reference to Black Lives Matter. Again, they have successfully linked BLM with crime and anarchy. Is it fair? Of course it isn’t. Are most of them lawless thugs? Of course they aren’t. People don’t stick around long enough for a lengthy explanation. So, being for BLM and being for police reform means you are pro-crime and for the forces that are bringing crime to our neighborhoods.

Beto is for Open Borders

Clearly he isn’t. He has said this multiple times. What he is for is streamlining our immigration policy and process so that people can enter the country safely and we can identify the bad guys quicker. He has talked about tearing down the wall because most experts agree the wall is virtually useless. Of course, most people only hear the first half of that particular statement.

So, this argument came down to two statements. First, hoards of drug dealers and mules are bringing over fentanyl. That’s oddly specific. That statement is both true and misleading. China actually produces the most fentanyl, but Mexico is seeing an increase. The one that got me was that the border between Mexico and the United States is the most dangerous border in the world. I almost pulled off the road into a ditch laughing. It is the most dangerous border in North America.

Beto is too dangerous for Texas

As we teach our students, pathos (emotion) is the most effectively logical appeal there is. To hell with facts or credibility. We just want you to believe that Beto O’Rourke would somehow kill thousands because he’s inherently dangerous. What happens if you are dangerously incompetent or reckless? A simple Google search on COVID showed that over 90,000 Texans have died from COVID since March of 2020. Most of those came in the first year when our beloved governor decided to lift protocols and keep local governments from imposing their own.

Remember the great freeze? You know the one where our grid virtually shut down statewide because we were in a hurry to deregulate everything that moves. Yeah, this is the one they still haven’t fixed and came close to having more blackouts this past summer. Yeah, THAT freeze cost 246 Texans their lives.

If you count the period when Greg Abbott was attorney general in Texas, we have had a rash of mass shootings in Texas. Take a look at the timeline. Most happened under his watch as governor. Yet, he and the legislature have hurdled head first into policies that would virtually give anyone unfettered access to any weapon they might want. Yet, we cannot predict or control what might happen at our schools and are just dumbfounded when these shootings happen. So tell me, isn’t Greg Abbott too dangerous for Texas?