Bipartisan Corruption in the Texas Legislature the Media Mostly Ignores

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Wallace Hall is a University of Texas Regent appointed by Gov. Rick Perry. He is presently facing impeachment and possible jail time for uncovering what looks and smells like systematic corruption in the enrollment process of the University of Texas system due to interference from members of the Texas legislature. The Speaker of the Texas House is implicated. The Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has decided to retire. A powerful state senator is in the crosshairs. The heads of the University of Texas may be involved. And the media, both in Texas and nationally, is largely silent.

http://www.redstate.com/2014/05/29/b...ostly-ignores/

[Crius of CoH]

I don't wish to send this off in a tangent, but it's examples like this that answer those who are outraged at Edward Snowden and ask why, if he feels like he did his patriotic duty, he doesn't just come home and defend himself.

Cracked.com had an article some months back that featured a woman who worked for a major bank as an internal auditor; she uncovered a major financial issue and was promptly fired and has been out of work, unemployable and in the coourts for, IIRC, over 5 years now. For doing her job.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

I don't think that is a tangent at all - it is one of the several very relevant facets of this matter.

[Ali Infree]

I admit the OP's use of the term "the precious" to describe UT's advertising clout is quite good. Institutions of that size and stature make pretty difficult targets--the Penn State-Jerry Sandusky connection is reminiscent, if not at all comparable.
Getting into state university law school is a good subject for review by a state authority--the resultant mess seems to be a great subject for journalists.
This is starting to answer a different question for me--why newspapers are failing to be profitable. I know locally that the editorial viewpoints are predictable (not to my liking personally) and I don't expect critical stories to come from them about local people or institutions.
Another argument for net neutrality?

Ali

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by Ali Infree

Another argument for net neutrality?

Ali

I did not think net neutrality was about content at all. Please explain.

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

I did not think net neutrality was about content at all. Please explain.

Net neutrality is basically the principle that all content and services on the Internet should be treated equally (as bits) by the ISPs. While those in favor of not trying to enforce that by laws and rules have said that it's not content itself but the method of delivery (streaming, for example) and service providers (telephony, for example) that wouldn't be treated equally, proponents of net neutrality have argued that without it ISPs would be free to restrict certain content. For example, if an ISP lets Netflix have faster access to customers for streaming then it implies those who don't pay for that won't have it and also requires that the ISPs have an active mechanism for filtering content. Nothing would prevent them then from, for example, limiting or even cutting off content. A lot of providers have said that's a bit far-fetched but proponents have pointed out that they're already doing it by making deals with individual content providers for better access. Besides, say the proponents, it should be a fundamental principle that providers should have no control over content of any kind.

It gets a bit complicated with peering relationships and communication law but I would say that (at least from the point of view of Neutrality proponents) it's all about equal treatment of content (and services).

(I'm not taking a stand here. I hope I don't sound biased. FTR, my point of view is that in markets where the ISPs have a de-facto monopoly or little competition they should be regulated like common carriers and be required to treat all bits equally. In markets where there is plenty of competition, they should be free to throttle content or services to their hearts' delight and at their own risk.)

[BamaRainbow]

Not really seeing the "bipartisan corruption" here. The Governor of Texas is a Republican. The Speaker of the Texas House is a Republican.

Unless Redstate is trying to push more support to Tea Party GOPers, I'm really not seeing where there's any "bipartisan corruption."

(And no. I did NOT read the Redstate article. I don't believe anything that's connected to Erick Erickson. Unless some highlights are posted detailing the culpability of Texas Democrats as well as the aforementioned GOPers, there's not enough money in the world that would make me read anything AT that far-right-wing piece of crap.)

[crocoduck_hunter]

Yeah, this "bipartisan" thing seems to be more of a "there's totally people on the other side who are involved in the corruption, we just can't name them" attempt to make it look like their side isn't doing this by themselves.

[Rebochan]

And the media, both in Texas and nationally, is largely silent.

Uh...yea...largely silent...

House committee faces historic decision on UT Regent Wallace Hall
Lawmakers target a UT regent who asked uncomfortable questions.
House panel finds grounds exist for impeaching UT Regent Wallace Hall Jr.
Perry comes to defense of UT regent Wallace Hall
Governor Issues Statement After House Panel Delays Wallace Hall Impeachment Vote

Notably, most of the coverage is local coverage. Also notable, only the Wall Street Journal took the side of Wallace Hall. Hmmm. It's almost like there's some reason for that...

[Johnny Slick]

Of course it's bipartisan, libs! On the one hand, you've got a bunch of Republican politicians! On the other hand, LIBERAL ACADEMIA.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by BamaRainbow

Not really seeing the "bipartisan corruption" here. The Governor of Texas is a Republican. The Speaker of the Texas House is a Republican.

Unless Redstate is trying to push more support to Tea Party GOPers, I'm really not seeing where there's any "bipartisan corruption."

(And no. I did NOT read the Redstate article. I don't believe anything that's connected to Erick Erickson. Unless some highlights are posted detailing the culpability of Texas Democrats as well as the aforementioned GOPers, there's not enough money in the world that would make me read anything AT that far-right-wing piece of crap.)

Did you read ANY of the articles? The governor is not implicated at all, and it is his appointee who is the whistleblower. And the Speaker of the House, while a Republican, was elected to the position with substantial support from both parties.

There are several legislators implicated in apparent abuse of the admissions process (i.e. political pressure to get the kids of connected individuals admitted) is state sen Judith Zaffirini, Dem. of Laredo. Also involved is state rep. Robert Alonzo, Dem Dallas. There are also several Republicans, but I mention these two because you challenged the bipartisan nature of the situation (while accusing people who were not at all implicated)
http://watchdog.org/146009/ut-admissions-branch/

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Did you read ANY of the articles? The governor is not implicated at all, and it is his appointee who is the whistleblower. And the Speaker of the House, while a Republican, was elected to the position with substantial support from both parties.

So.... a politician who is Republican but not off the reservation = bipartisan? Does that mean we can call the sausage-making that went into Obamacare bipartisan as well? After all, several conservative Democrats - Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman among others - with a lot of "bipartisan support" were brought in.

[wanderwoman]

Bwahahaha! Legislators in Texas are noobs when it comes to corruption involving universities. The former governor of Indiana made a big show of waiving his raise and living in his own house while he was governor, but then hand-picked the board of governors of Purdue University, who then hired him as university president. So he now makes nearly half a million a year, and gets to live his dream of suppressing academic freedom in the interest of promoting his personal religious beliefs. Texas can only continue to aspire to that level of corruption.

[RichardM]

Hey wanderwoman, I'll put our level of corruption up against any bodys. We're number 1!. Well unless you mean in actual educational ranking at the elementary and high school level, then we're number 49.

[firefighter_raven]

Originally Posted by wanderwoman

Bwahahaha! Legislators in Texas are noobs when it comes to corruption involving universities. The former governor of Indiana made a big show of waiving his raise and living in his own house while he was governor, but then hand-picked the board of governors of Purdue University, who then hired him as university president. So he now makes nearly half a million a year, and gets to live his dream of suppressing academic freedom in the interest of promoting his personal religious beliefs. Texas can only continue to aspire to that level of corruption.

Funny thing is just a couple of days after reading this, I see an article about Nebraska's governor lobbying for the UNL President's job.

[Rebochan]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Did you read ANY of the articles? [/url]

Did you read any articles?

No, Watchdog.org does not count as a "news source." Nor does RedState. We shouldn't have to keep explaining to you to use real news sources.

Reading actual news shows the guy is actually in trouble for breaking all kinds of laws because the university president didn't play ball with Perry.

Also, for what it's worth, Texas apparently doesn't impeach people lightly.


Dallas Morning News:

There have been few impeachment trials in state history and only two have been successful: Gov. James “Pa” Ferguson in 1917 and a district judge in 1975.

That article states with far less histrionics why exactly this guy is up for impeachment and it has nothing to do with protecting politicians.

[Ramblin' Dave]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

And the Speaker of the House, while a Republican, was elected to the position with substantial support from both parties.

The Republicans do have a pretty solid majority in the TX House, so even if the speaker did get support from Dems, the point is moot. (Besides which, those who voted for him are not responsible for his ethical lapses.)

[fitz1980]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Yeah, this "bipartisan" thing seems to be more of a "there's totally people on the other side who are involved in the corruption, we just can't name them" attempt to make it look like their side isn't doing this by themselves.

IMHO "bipartisan usually means 99℅ of Republicans vote for something and a hand full of conservative/centrist Democrats vote for it too.