Repeat Tweets: Justice for All

Repeat tweets from May, 2015:

• May 1 2015: "None of us will know peace until we see justice for all, so it's time to take the blinders off." What she said. Destiny Herndon-DeLaRosa
  
• May 1 2015: To support his anti-gay bigotry, @DonMcLeroy pretty much says women are not created in the image of God. Just wow. TheEagle.com
  
• May 2 2015: Interstellar (2014): Wormhole shows humans way off dying Earth. Mishmash of ideas. Explains plot with dialog not action. Waste of talent. D+
  
• May 4 2015: "There is a pattern of the state leadership pandering to the fringe of Texas politics rather than the mainstream." texasmonthly.com
  
• May 4 2015: "It's possible to think both that this event was in bad taste, and that the response was utterly unacceptable." frontburner.dmagazine.com
  

After the jump, more repeat tweets.

Changing the City Charter

Now that the city council election is behind us, now that Mayor Laura Maczka has left the building, it's time for Richardson to turn its attention to something that's been bubbling away on the back burner for months: the work by the charter review commission to amend Richardson's City Charter. If all goes as expected, the voters will be deciding whether to amend the city charter in the November, 2015, election.

But before we dive into just what changes the commission has come up with, let's first look at the process. There seems to be some charges circulating that the commission is illegitimate, that it's a tool to provide a smokescreen for the city to change the charter to its own advantage and to the disadvantage of the citizens. Is there truth to that?

Review: Dept. of Speculation

Amazon

From Dept. of Speculation, by Jenny Offill:

"'I think I must have missed your second book,' he says. 'No,' I say. 'There isn't one.' He looks uncomfortable; both of us are calculating the years or maybe only I am. 'Did something happen?' he says kindly after a moment. 'Yes,' I explain."

After the jump, my review.

Sweet Jesus, $47 Million? - Amen

Earlier, I argued against giving targeted tax breaks to developers. Reader Steve Benson raised two counter-arguments.

First, development can sometimes result in added tax revenues greater than the cost of the city services consumed by that development, thus reducing the real tax burden on other taxpayers.

Second, if cities are prohibited from offering targeted tax breaks, some development projects in the category above won't proceed.

Is Steve correct? And if so, should I change my mind about the Palisades development in particular, and targeted tax breaks in general?

Selma (2014)

IMDB

Selma (2014): Powerful portrayal of fight for voting rights. Tips towards MLK and against LBJ. Voting rights under threat again today. B+