“No One Is Allowed To Take Pictures of The Great and Powerful Wendy Davis!”

September 10th, 2014

Wendy Davis is signing at Austin book store Bookpeople tomorrow (September 11, 2014) at 12:30 PM. (Bookpeople, if you haven’t been there, is a nice independent bookstore that has all kinds of authors in for signings, not just liberal politicians, and Rick Perry signed there in 2008.)

The signing itself is not odd, it’s the conditions for the signing that are odd:

EVENT GUIDELINES

  • This event is a SIGNING only. Senator Davis will not give a public talk.
  • Tickets are required to join the signing line.
  • Tickets are available to purchase in-store and via bookpeople.com
  • Tickets cost as much as the price of one copy of Forgetting to Be Afraid plus tax.
  • Each ticket grants access to the signing line for ONE person and will be exchanged for ONE signed copy of Forgetting to Be Afraid at the signing table the day of the event.
  • There is a limit of one ticket/book per person.
  • The line for the signing will form first come, first served the day of the event.
  • Books will not be personalized.
  • Photos will not be allowed at the signing table.
  • No memorabilia will be signed at this event.
  • No talk, no photos, no personalization. It’s like it’s a privilege to be in the same room as her. And if I know Bookpeople, plenty of autographed copies will be available the next day for purchase, sans ticket.

    I know for a fact that such rules were not in place for signings there by Neil Gaiman or Neal Stephenson (both of whom, I’d estimate, are considerably more famous that Wendy Davis). Indeed, the “no personalization/no photo” rules were not even in place for Hillary Clinton’s signing there.

    Why does a failing gubernatorial candidate merit more high-and-mighty treatment than a former Secretary of State, First Lady and losing Presidential candidate?

    If I had to guess, it would be that her handlers are scared to death she’ll make a gaffe…

    Tomorrow is 9/11. What Is the Obama Administration Doing To Keep America Safe?

    September 10th, 2014

    Tomorrow is the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorists attacks on World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Thanks to the Obama Administration’s feckless and spineless responses to terrorism both here and abroad, Americans feel less safe than ever:

    The exclusive poll reveals that 47% of Americans believe the country is less safe now than before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That’s a significant increase from even a year after the twin towers fell when in September 2002 just 20% of the country said the nation was less safe. The level of fear across America also is up substantially from last year when 28% felt the same way. In fact, just 26% of Americans now feel the nation is safer than before 9/11.

    Americans are worried about America’s safety because Obama seems manifestly disinterested in national security concerns. Americans are being killed by jihadists abroad and Obama can barely trouble himself to break away from his golf game to address the issue.

    Tonight Obama is going to give a speech (in Obama’s Big Pop-Up Book of Governing America, “Give A Speech” provides the same universal panacea as “Shoot” does in the Far Side’s book on equine medicine) on ISIS.

    Here’s one thing I don’t expect to hear addressed: What is the Obama Administration doing to protect America tomorrow on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. America’s jihadist enemies have frequently observed this anniversary by launching attacks, such as the 2012 embassy attacks on Benghazi and elsewhere.

    This is especially worrisome given reports of missing Libyan airliners possibly in the hands of jihadists.

    When it comes to foreign policy (or, really, anything beyond electoral politics and advancing a left-wing agenda), Obama shows a distinct inability to learn from his own mistakes. Will there be heightened security at American embassies tomorrow? While their be fighter planes in the air flying CAP, or at least fueled and ready for takeoff on the ground, in case of another 9/11 attack? This piece suggests that government officials are “bracing” for possible attacks, but fails to give any details. If there is another attack, are we going to see another roundup of all the security lapses like we did after the Benghazi attack?

    The most essential job of government is protecting the lives, liberty and property of its citizens from enemies both here and abroad. What I want to known is: What is the Obama Administration actually doing on Job 1?

    Raining on the Viking Women Warrior Parade

    September 10th, 2014

    Last week a story made the rounds claiming that a new archeological examination of graves showed almost as many female Viking warriors as male Viking warriors.

    There’s just one tiny problem with these claims: they’re bunk..

    This paper absolutely does not conclude that these women were warriors, or that the army had an even split of male and female fighters:

    These results, six female Norse migrants and seven male, should caution against assuming that the great majority of Norse migrants were male, despite the other forms of evidence suggesting the contrary.

    Note the use of the word “migrants,” not “warriors” or “fighters.”

    So this is a case of feminists taking good science and turning it into bad reporting by distorting what the original paper actually said.

    An academic reading the actual paper comes to the same conclusion: “Whenever we read second hand information, it is essential that rather than instantly spreading what may be misleading information, that we try to discover if it’s accurate first.”

    Eric S. Raymond expands on the theme:

    Reality is, at least where pre-gunpowder weapons are involved, viciously sexist….

    There is only very scant archeological evidence for female warriors (burials with weapons). There is almost no such evidence from Viking cultures, and what little we have is disputed; the Scythians and earlier Germanics from the Migration period have substantially more burials that might have been warrior women. Tellingly, they are almost always archers….

    If a pre-industrial culture has chosen to train more than a tiny fraction of its women as shieldmaidens, it would have lost out to a culture that protected and used their reproductive capacity to birth more male warriors. Brynhilde may be a sexy idea, but she’s a bioenergetic gamble that is near certain to be a net waste.

    Firearms changes all this, of course – some of the physiological differences that make them inferior with contact weapons are actual advantages at shooting (again I speak from experience, as I teach women to shoot). So much so that anyone who wants to suppress personal firearams is objectively anti-female and automatically oppressive of women.

    (Hat tip Instapundit.)

    “Wallace Hall Was Right About UT All Along”

    September 9th, 2014

    That’s the headline on this Dallas Observer story by Jim Schutze (who you may remember from my piece on Tom Leppert’s term as Dallas Mayor).

    The Hall piece details what members of the conservative Texas blogsphere (myself included) have been saying for over a year: Hall was right, his critics were wrong:

    When Hall began to criticize the way UT-Austin was run on strictly administrative grounds, he was roundly denounced as a sort of fifth-columnist for Perry’s assault on tenure. Later when he accused the university of corruption, he was hunted like a witch.

    A campaign launched against Hall included impeachment proceedings in the Legislature and a criminal complaint brought to the Travis County district attorney. Even the establishment press turned on Hall, whose greatest sin was doing what the press is supposed to do — ask questions that make powerful people uncomfortable. An unbroken chorus of editorial page shrieking from Texas’ biggest newspapers denounced Hall and called for his resignation.

    The dramatic denouement is threefold: Hall has been vindicated of charges he abused his role as a regent. The charges of mismanagement and corruption he brought against UT are all being re-investigated because now people are admitting he was on to something. And finally, Hall’s biggest accusers are starting to look like the biggest rats, the ones who had the most to hide.

    In fact it’s hard to recall a case in Texas history where a person so roundly denounced has been so completely vindicated.

    More:

    Williamson, the reporter at The National Review, said in an email: “The Texas dailies have fallen down on the job covering this story, mainly because reporters perceive this as a confrontation between Rick Perry and the University of Texas, and they are reflexively hostile to Rick Perry.

    “I’ve spent most of my life in the newspaper business, and I know bias when I see it: If there were a suggestion that Rick Perry were twisting arms to get family members into A&M, it would be on the front page of The Austin American-Statesman. But when the malefactors are UT administrators and the whistle-blowers are Perry appointees, reporters in Austin, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio become strangely incurious.”

    While there isn’t a whole lot new to Schutze’s piece if you’ve been following the story on this and other blogs, the fact that even lefty alternative weeklies now have the same take on the scandal as Michael Quinn Sullivan is a big step forward for justice and transparency, and I commend the entirety of the piece to your attention.

    (Hat tip: Push Junction.)

    LinkSwarm for September 8, 2014

    September 8th, 2014

    A Monday LinKSwarm to kick off your week with:

  • Surprise, surprise, surprise: Obamacare discourages work.
  • Media: ObamaCare is fading as an issue. GOP strategists: LOL.
  • “Obama has overseen a shocking decline in America’s standing in the world. Everyone is mad at, or disappointed in, the United States.” As far as I can tell, Obama’s foreign policy is to do nothing until Americans are killed, and then to do nothing some more…
  • More on the theme:

    “Obama says what he has to say to make reporters stop asking about it.”

  • Rotherham: “The local government tolerated sexual violence on a vast scale. Why? In part, because the criminals who committed these sickening acts were Muslims from the local Pakistani community, and noticing their depravity was considered insensitive at best, racist at worst.”
  • Illegal alien “children” with gray hair enrolling in public schools since the Obama Administration won’t let school districts check their ages.
  • After more than five years of Obama, the Los Angeles Times asks “Is economic stagnation the new normal?”
  • Obama starts the latest poker round by showing Putin his hole cards.
  • Iran bans women from many university courses. Now remind me what this whole “war on women” is about again…
  • Interview with the woman who runs the only Arabic language magazine of sex and erotica. Good luck with that…
  • Thanks to The Magic Power of Socialism, Venezuela is now importing oil.
  • Hey, remember when Bush attended three fundraisers and a wedding during the middle of the invasion of Iraq? Me neither.
  • “However stupid the creation of the euro was, undoing it will not be easy.”
  • UC Berkley wants to make sure “we can only exercise our right to free speech insofar as we feel safe and respected in doing so.” “And by ‘contentious’ speech, we mean ‘non-liberal’ speech. Or, as we like to refer to them, ‘hate crimes.'”
  • Military rifles, armor, and ammo sent to numerous Texas school districts. If anyone knows why Texarkana ISD needs a SWAT team, I’m all ears…
  • In a shocking and unexpected development, I actually agree with Keith Olbermann about something. Namely the idea that it was amazingly stupid for the Huffington Post to hire Donte “9/11 Truther” Stallworth to be a “National Security Fellow.”
  • This weekend there were numerous protests to wage fast food wages. What’s behind them? $3 million in union money.
  • Huffingotn Post fooled by scam story. Clip this headline out and save it and I’m sure you’ll be able to make use of it in the years to come…
  • Mandy Nagy, AKA “Liberty Chick,” is recovering from surgery following a stroke.
  • A little fun via the #ExplainAFilmPlotBadly tag:

  • Edmonton Beheading Update

    September 5th, 2014

    British police name the beheader as “Nicholas Salvadore, a 25-year-old would-be cage fighter who is believed to be a Muslim convert, who had been living a few doors from 82-year-old [Victim] Palmira Silva.”

    Seeing some reports that Salvadore is a Nigerian immigrant, but I don’t think that’s been confirmed.

    Weasel Zippers comments on possible Islamist influences. “You can be mentally ill and still be influenced by extremism.”

    British Police Claim Beheading By Convert To Islam “Not Terrorism Related”

    September 4th, 2014

    Another beheading in the UK, this time in Edmonton, north London, by what his neighbors claim is a convert to Islam, but “detectives said they had ruled out terrorism as a motive for the killing.”

    Well, isn’t that special. Funny how you can rule something out without apparently doing any investigation. It seems the spirit of multicultural political correctness is still alive and well in the UK.

    Racking my brain, I can’t seem to recall a single instance in my lifetime of beheading by a convert to Catholicism or Judaism…

    I’ll Take “Because I’m An Idiot” for $4,000, Alex

    September 4th, 2014

    I’m struggling to come up with fresh, insightful commentary on such weighty topics as ISIS or Rotherham, so instead let’s talk about a moron who spent $4,000 on a jacket she couldn’t afford.

    It’s an annoyingly discursive example (from the comments: “I think this might be the most obnoxious thing I’ve ever read”) of that most irritating genre, Essays That Seem Designed To Make You Hate New Yorkers. Most entries in that genre are about rich New Yorkers buying ridiculously overpriced garbage. But Mary H. K. Choi’s essay is particularly irksome, because she only aspires to run with that crowd.

    The well-to-do can afford status goods because they pay cash for them. Non-rich people buying expensive status goods they can’t afford tend to find themselves bankrupt.

    The first commentator on the story actually nails it: “No one else will say it, so I will. You bought a $4,000 coat that you couldn’t afford because you’re an idiot.”

    Says Choi: “The coat was the distillation of everything I’ve ever found seductive about not only living in New York but the prospect of belonging there, too.”

    And there’s your reason: I live in New York City. I’m extra-special.

    I was in London last month for the World Science Fiction Convention, where I had lunch with friends at a pub just off Saville Row. I thought to myself “maybe I should think about getting a Saville Row suit while I’m there.” Then I looked at the prices, and went “Nope!” Now keep in mind that I could pay cash for a £3,750 suit (just over $6,000 at today’s exchange rates), and all it would do is eat into my “two years of emergency jobless living” savings. But since I’m not a millionaire, movie star, lawyer or politician, I would have precious few occasions to wear it. It didn’t make any sense for me to buy a Saville Row suit.

    But common sense seems to be a commodity that Ms. Choi does not possess in over-abundance.

    Actions have consequences. People who live within their means tend to have much happier, stress-free lives compared to wastrel spendthrifts. I suspect that Ms. Choi will soon be learning this lesson, good and hard…

    John Bucy III Campaign Claims Lien Was Filed Against John Bucy II

    September 3rd, 2014

    The John Bucy III campaign has issued another denial stating that the tax lien issued against 8609 Camelia Ln, Austin, Texas, 78759, was not, in fact, against candidate John H. Bucy III, despite his name being on the lien. But the press release does not go any farther.

    However, I have finally received answers from Brent Grady of the John H. Bucy III campaign to questions I sent in yesterday, and he confirms that the lien was against John H. Bucy II, the candidate’s father.

    My questions are in italics, and Grady’s answers are in bold:

    1. Is it true that John Bucy III is the son of John Bucy II, and works at the latter’s law firm?
    John Bucy III is the son of John Bucy II and offices out of 6633 E. Hwy. 290, but John III owns his own company and is not employed by his father.

    2. Did John Bucy II live at 8609 Camelia Ln, Austin, Texas, 78759, and was the actual tax lien filed against him?
    — Yes.

    3. Travis County records show that 8609 Camelia Ln, Austin, Texas, 78759 was sold to John Bucy II on May 30 of this year, and then the lease assigned the same day to “The Jarrett-Simmons Irrevocable Trust,” whose address is the same building that both John Bucy II and John Bucy III show as their respective business offices (6633 Hwy 290
    East, Austin, Texas, 78723). Is that correct?

    — Unknown. This house does not (and never did) belong to John Bucy III, nor did he ever live there.

    4. Does John Bucy II still live at 8609 Camelia Ln?
    — Yes.

    5. Did the IRS accidentally put the lien as applying to John Bucy III when they meant to apply it to John Bucy II?
    The lien was properly applied to John Bucy II. There was just a typo on the form, which put “III” on it, instead of “II,” and we notified the Dale campaign a week ago that it was a typo and not John Bucy III, the candidate.

    Thanks to Brent Grady of the John H. Bucy III campaign for helping clear things up. The answers have the virtues of fitting all the facts, and government agencies committing typos are hardly unknown.

    Absent any additional information from the Tony Dale campaign that the tax lien is indeed against John H. Bucy III rather than John H. Bucy II, I would consider the matter closed.

    Update: Response from the Tony Dale campaign:

    “Mr. Bucy’s ‘shocked and appalled’ response to the revelation that the IRS filed a $163,000 tax lien against him for unpaid taxes is misdirected. Mr. Bucy is running for public office and is subject to public scrutiny. The federal government believes he has not paid his taxes. If the IRS is in error, he needs to produce proof in the form of the removal of the lien in his name, not ask the citizens of Williamson County to simply take the word of the Democratic Party Chairman or his dad.” -Corbin Casteel

    Update 2: Attached find an IRS document sent by the Bucy campaign, but I hardly find it conclusive…

    10616347_1468973480029706_6268223197445174577_n-1

    Untangling the John Bucy Property Lien Issue

    September 3rd, 2014

    Given the John H. Bucy III’s campaigns strenuous denials that the $160,000 IRS tax lien was filed against their candidate, I thought I would further research the issue. It may be a case of a son being mistaken for his father, but I can’t say for sure without Bucy or his campaign answering some questions.

    Let’s look at the deed history of 8609 Camelia Ln, Austin, Texas, 78759 via the Travis County Central Appraisal District web interface:

    # Deed Date Type Description Grantor Grantee Deed Number
    1 5/30/2014 WD WARRANTY DEED BUCY JOHN H II JARRETT-SIMMONS IRREVOCABLE TRUST 2014093500TR
    2 5/30/2014 WD WARRANTY DEED REES BURKE BUCY JOHN H II 2014093499TR
    3 8/29/2008 WD WARRANTY DEED WEST GEORGE MARC REES BURKE 2008165059TR

    CameliaDee

    Some clarifications, given my modest research into the issue:

    1. Burke Rees was (is?) a real estate agent (also here, with a different company), but he shows up as the owner of the property.
    2. I confirmed over the telephone with Ress he did indeed lease the property to a John Bucy, but he didn’t know whether it was John Bucy II or John Bucy III.
    3. The house is sold to John H. Bucy II (not III) in 2014.
    4. John H. Bucy II is evidently a lawyer who “specializes in business law including formations, acquisitions, securities, employment and other contract issues.” Also: “Besides business practice, attorney John H. Bucy, II also represents clients in real estate matters, including the purchase and sale of undeveloped and commercial properties, finances related to real estate projects, and the negotiation of commercial leases.” His law office address is 6633 Hwy 290 East, Suite 208, Austin, Texas, 78723.
    5. There is only one employee listed by name at that record: “John H Bucy III” who is described as a “Principal.”
    6. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that John H. Bucy II is, in fact, the father of John H. Bucy III.
    7. Note that the same day the house is sold to John H. Bucy II, the deed is then granted to “The Jarrett-Simmons Irrevocable Trust.”
    8. There’s not a lot of information on the Jarrett-Simmons Irrevocable Trust, except that: A.) It seems to be associated somehow with Paddington Property, LLC, B.) Their address is listed as “6633 E Highway 290, Austin, Texas, 78723,” and C.) The principal is one Bryan Jarrett.
    9. 6633 Hwy 290 East, Suite 104, Austin, Texas, 78723 is listed as the address for the Texas Charter School Academic and Athletic League, which lists “John Bucy” as founder and president; presumably that’s John H. Bucy III, as per his campaign website.
    10. John H. Bucy III’s official campaign filing address is the same address: 6633 Hwy 290 East, Suite 104, Austin, Texas, 78723.
    11. A John Bucy is listed as the owner of “6633 E HIGHWAY 290 STE 104 AUSTIN , TX 78723-1157.” An appraised value of “$4,744” suggests that he does not own the entire building, which seems to be a business condo.
    12. Bryan Jarrett seems to be involved with a number of enterprises run from that same 6633 Hwy 290 East address: Brant Management, Caretech International Inc., Complete Care Centers, Inc., Incolumus Inc., Texas Matrix Group, Mission Nursing Home Inc., Windcrest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Inc., and Plaza 290 Office Condominium Association (hmmm).
    13. In all these enterprises, he seems subordinate to an Anthony J. Langford.
    14. I note for the record that John H. Bucy III’s north Austin home he shares with his wife Molly is registered in the name of a Josh T. Brown of Santa Cruz, California.
    15. The house at 8609 Camelia Ln appears to be for sale (I say “appears” because you can never tell with real estate listings). The listed seller? Ellmaker Realty.

    What all this amounts to:

  • John Bucy III appears to be the son of John Bucy II
  • John Bucy II did own the house where the lien said John Bucy III resided.
  • Both Bucys appear to work out of the same building, which just happens to be the same building the trust which bought the house in question also operates out of.
  • I can think of a dozen different scenarios which fit the facts in this case, so I don’t want to speculate on which might be the case here.

    Yesterday I wrote the John Bucy III campaign, asking for clarification. I still haven’t heard back from them.

    But the big question remains: Why was the IRS lean against John H. Bucy III against the house lived in, and later owned, by John H. Bucy II?

    Finally, there is this set of court records for John H. Bucy II. I don’t know enough to decode the various charges listed. I merely include it for others to research.

    Update: The Bucy campaign claims that the lien is indeed against John Bucy II, not John Bucy III.