BIG COUNTRY POLITICS: Runoff momentum, HB 1375 debate & one candidate's takeaway from it all
Abilene City Council Election Results: Candidates share reactions
Tammy Fogle recently ran for Abilene City Council Place 6 against incumbent Travis Craver. Despite not securing the seat, she says she learned a lot and enjoyed her campaign experience.
'It's interesting because you never know what part of your life is going to be a linchpin for something that blows up in your face. You try to think, 'What have I done in my life?' And that's probably the scariest part, the unknown; but actually, I had so much fun,' Fogle shared. 'I don't recommend it for everyone, because it is a little grueling, but it was really an amazing experience, getting to connect with citizens and talk with them about what concerns them, and people that I never would have gotten to have conversations with had I not run for office.'
Abilene voters pass $20 million bond for airport upgrades
In the same election, voters approved a $20 million bond for airport improvements — by a slim margin of 52%. While she initially saw the proposal as reasonable, she later questioned the motives behind the push.
'I thought there was some legitimate need for it. As I watched the campaign unfold, the fact that we had the Chamber of Commerce investing advertising into this to promote it caused me great concern, because they have an agenda, and I think the city has a different agenda,' Fogle explained. 'But what was promoted was that we needed to have a beautiful airport, and to me, as a person who pays taxes and wants our taxes to go down, that's concerning, because a beautiful airport is not necessarily one that's going to bring in more airlines… What needs are there, and what wants are there? I feel like it was a want. And on top of all the other taxes that are going to be coming our way, raising our taxes, I think it's concerning that, due to a lack of information, citizens did approve it by a small, small margin.'
Outside of city politics, Fogle has been vocal in her support for House Bill 1375. The bill would hold businesses accountable—particularly bookstores—for distributing what it defines as harmful material to minors.
Big Country Politics: Abilene bookstore owner discuses concerns of House Bill 1375
The bill has sparked debate across the state. Recently, on Big Country Politics, Arlene Kasselman, owner of Seven and One Books, shared her concerns about vague language and the potential legal consequences for independent bookstores.
'I think the education on this has been really stifled by a lot of the conversations that happened through people like the owner of Seven and One Books, who come out and say, This bill is dangerous. It can cause censorship,' Fogle said. 'A group that I follow told me about this, [saying] there's no explanation in the bill. What concerns me most is that I don't even know if the person has read the bill. If you look at the bill, it says the definition is harmful, it says what harmful and obscene material is, and it tells you it's a Texas penal code… It says that it's prurient material, which is basically an excessive interest in sex.'
According to Fogle, the issue isn't new, as the state legislature has been working on this topic for nearly eight years.
'One of the things she failed to even acknowledge in her discussion of it is that this is focused on books of sexual content. Not racism, not the color of your skin, not that kind of thing. In fact, most of the books she listed were not even books about sexual content, which is something that is harmful to children,' Fogle said. 'So this is kind of a last-ditch effort to say, 'whoa, whoa, whoa. We don't want to have to be responsible for making sure we protect children.' I think HB 1375 is a great bill that actually helps people know that even if you don't understand the law, it doesn't mean you're not accountable for it.'
To better understand the bill, Fogle reached out directly to the author.
'They gave me a one-pager that talks about how it creates a civil right to sue over obscenity. It targets companies that distribute porn to minors, and that was one of the things mentioned,' Fogle shared. 'The owner said she wasn't talking about pornography. Well, this is, and there's a clear distinction between things that are sexual. Unlike, you know, Anne Frank is a book she mentioned, Diary of Anne Frank. The only reason that's on a banned book is because it was republished as a graphic novel, and the graphic novel took liberties that weren't in the original book. So we have to be careful that we're informed and understand, and if you hear what I say, I encourage you to go look it up and make sure what I'm saying is accurate. Don't just trust my word for it. We need to make sure we know how to find the sources to be able to validate and have intelligent conversations about these issues.'
However, like many others, HB 1375 will not advance this session. Nearly 4,800 bills in the Texas Legislature didn't make it to the House floor.
Thousands of Texas House bills 'die' at key midnight deadline
Switching gears back to the recent local election, Dr. Paul Fabrizio, a political science professor at McMurry University, noted the low voter turnout in Abilene.
'I would argue that for local elections, it's the responsibility of the candidates to generate excitement for an election. Really, it falls on the challengers to come up with good, valid reasons to toss out the incumbents, and those reasons have to be compelling enough to get voters' attention and to get them to the polls,' Fabrizio explained. 'We have seen elections in this town with a much higher turnout than what we've had this time, and it was because the challengers really got into it. They were talking about issues that voters cared about, and it worked because voters turned out. And so, because of that, the voters responded. Nobody really asked them to come and vote, so they didn't vote.'
Now, in the City Council Place 5 race, incumbent Kyle McAlister and challenger Miguel Espinoza are preparing for a runoff after neither candidate secured the required 50% of the vote. But will turnout improve?
'Again, it comes back to the two candidates in the race, and most especially the challenger, Miguel Espinosa. He has to get voters out. He has the tough job of getting his voters to come out a second time and converting voters who voted for the other candidates, Cynthia Alvidrez, to support him as well if he wants to win this race,' Fabrizio said. 'That's going to be really tough to do. So in the next couple of weeks… he's got to generate that kind of excitement.'
Place 5 race not over yet: McAlister, Espinoza gear up for runoff
Fabrizio added that while runoff elections can favor challengers, the odds may be stacked against Espinoza.
'You look at a race, and there's going to be a runoff, you can make the argument that the challenger has the best chance to knock off the incumbent because the incumbent failed to get a majority of the votes,' Fabrizio shared. 'Kyle McAllister was really, really close to getting that majority, you know, just a handful of votes, and he would have gotten it, so he is almost there. So in that sense, he just has to get his voters to come out, and a few more voters, and he's got this election. So I would argue Miguel has the most difficult road to go, but it's not insurmountable. In the city, we have had other runoffs where the challenger has beaten the incumbent in those runoff races. So it's certainly possible this time, but you've got to get people out… But as I drive around the city, as I talk to people, I'm not having conversations with people about this runoff race. Usually, when there's a runoff election, people are talking about it.'
Fabrizio also weighed in on an international development — the recent election of Pope Leo XIV. He said, like most things, it's deeply political.
'You don't want to think that politics plays a part in it. But all of these people who participate, all these cardinals, have risen up through the ranks to become members of this very, very small body, right? They've all demonstrated political skills to get there, and they're not going to just turn it off once they're with the others to choose a candidate,' Fabrizio explained. 'To me, the big surprise was that they chose an American. Because all along, the story has been that no American would ever be elected Pope.'
According to Fabrizio, Leo XIV isn't your average American cardinal.
'The reason for that is very simple. He spent so little time in the United States. He is really a creature of being a missionary in Peru and then a bureaucrat in the Vatican Curia. He's lived two-thirds of his life outside of the United States,' Fabrizio explained.
Abilene woman marks Jubilee Year at the Vatican, sees Pope Francis in his final days
And while Pope Leo XIV embraces some traditions of papal authority, Fabrizio sees a familiar thread from his predecessor.
'What I see when I look at him is one who is comfortable with traditional styles of liturgy, of worship. You noticed that when he came out, he was wearing the red stole that Pope Francis did not wear,' Fabrizio shared. 'He's moved into the Apostolic Palace, which Pope Francis did not move into. So he's saying, I am comfortable with some of the trappings of Papal power, papal looks, that sort of thing. But then his words, actually, when he talks about immigrants, when he talks about migrants, you look at some of his tweets that he's put out criticizing the Vice President of the United States, you go, okay, he probably has a missionary's heart and is really focused on the people on the margins. In that sense, very much a continuation of where Pope Francis was.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
4 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Exclusive: White House to Target 'Debanking'
The White House plans to step up pressure against banks over perceived discrimination against conservatives and crypto companies, with an executive order that threatens to fine lenders that drop customers for political reasons. A draft of the order, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal, directs regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions might have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws. 🔎 Go deeper:
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: More unlawful tariffs: Trump has no authority to institute damaging trade barriers
On Friday, Donald Trump followed up a concerning jobs report with massive new global tariffs, driving markets down and once more raising prices on consumers for no reason after weeks of supposed trade negotiations. Like with his first round of import duties, announced in the Rose Garden on his ludicrous April 2 'Liberation Day,' these tariffs are not only chaotic and destructive, but they're illegal. The president is leaning on a 1977 law meant to be invoked for targeted financial actions in certain emergency circumstances to reshape trade globally. Just the day before these newest tariffs were implemented, the administration's lawyers had been grilled by the 11 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, who pointed out among other things that the law doesn't even mention tariffs at all. If the plaintiffs, made up of states and businesses, need anywhere to look for inspiration and evidence for their legal arguments, they don't have to look much further than Trump's own ramblings and social media feed, where he constantly tells the whole world that he is engaging in the tariff actions for all manner of reasons completely unrelated to any economic objectives. So far, he's threatened tariffs over Brazil's domestic prosecution of its former president Jair Bolsonaro and over Canada's intent to recognize a Palestinian state, among other things. This is a real disparate set of rationales, but what they have in common is that they are ideological battles probably drawn from something Trump saw on TV and have nothing to do with correcting a supposed trade imbalance with those countries, already an incredibly flimsy argument to begin with. Don't just take our word for it; the Manhattan-based U.S. Court of International Trade — you know, the judicial entity set up specifically and explicitly to have expertise on these matters — already struck down most of Trump's tariff regime on the grounds that it was unlawful. That ruling has been stayed for now, but the evidence just keeps piling on that Trump is significantly exceeding his authority. Unfortunately, even if this insanity were to be fully struck down tomorrow, we've had months of chaos that has indelibly damaged trade relationships as well as general diplomatic relations. The world is not going to wait for the U.S. to hash out its chaos, and other countries are already moving to reorient parts of their manufacturing and trade schemes to circumvent an unreliable United States. Of course, this seems like one more issue headed at some point to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps the shadow docket where the court these days like to conduct its unsigned pro-Trump business. It's long since become clear that the high court is more interested in ideological outcomes than the uniform application of the law, but even then, siding with Trump here would be farcical. This is the exact same court that just last year ruled that Joe Biden attempting to clear some student debt by invoking emergency powers in the context of the COVID pandemic — a real global catastrophe that killed countless people and crashed the economy while putting millions out of work — was an unlawful exercise of authority. If that's the case, but Trump is in his rights to wildly alter tariff policies at a whim in service to random political grievances around the world, then the law truly means nothing anymore. Let's stop this madness while we still can, before economic forces take it out of our hands. ___
Fast Company
33 minutes ago
- Fast Company
What the White House Action Plan on AI gets right and wrong about bias
Artificial intelligence fuels something called automation bias. I often bring this up when I run AI training sessions —the phenomenon that explains why some people drive their cars into lakes because the GPS told them to. 'The AI knows better' is an understandable, if incorrect, impulse. AI knows a lot, but it has no intent—that's still 100% human. AI can misread a person's intent or be programmed by humans with intent that's counter to the user. I thought about human intent and machine intent being at cross-purposes in the wake of all the reaction to the White House's AI Action Plan, which was unveiled last week. Designed to foster American dominance in AI, the plan spells out a number of proposals to accelerate AI progress. Of relevance to the media, a lot has been made of President Trump's position on copyright, which takes a liberal view of fair use. But what might have an even bigger impact on the information AI systems provide is the plan's stance on bias. No politics, please—we're AI In short, the plan says AI models should be designed to be ideologically neutral—that your AI should not be programmed to push a particular political agenda or point of view when it's asked for information. In theory, that sounds like a sensible stance, but the plan also takes some pretty blatant policy positions, such as this line right on page one: 'We will continue to reject radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.' Needless to say, that's a pretty strong point of view. Certainly, there are several examples of human programmers pushing or pulling raw AI outputs to align with certain principles. Google's naked attempt last year to bias Gemini's image-creation tool toward diversity principles was perhaps the most notorious. Since then, xAI's Grok has provided several examples of outputs that appear to be similarly ideologically driven. Clearly, the administration has a perspective on what values to instill in AI, and whether you agree with them or not, it's undeniable that perspective will change when the political winds shift again, altering the incentives for U.S. companies building frontier models. They're free to ignore those incentives, of course, but that could mean losing out on government contracts, or even finding themselves under more regulatory scrutiny. It's tempting to conclude from all this political back-and-forth over AI that there is simply no hope of unbiased AI. Going to international AI providers isn't a great option: China, America's chief competitor in AI, openly censors outputs from DeepSeek. Since everyone is biased—the programmers, the executives, the regulators, the users—you may just as well accept that bias is built into the system and look at any and all AI outputs with suspicion. Certainly, having a default skepticism of AI is a healthy thing. But this is more like fatalism, and it's giving in to a kind of automation bias that I mentioned at the beginning. Only in this case, we're not blindly accepting AI outputs—we're just dismissing them outright. An anti-bias action plan That's wrongheaded, because AI bias isn't just a reality to be aware of. You, as the user, can do something about it. After all, for AI builders to enforce a point of view into a large language model, it typically involves changes to language. That implies the user can un do bias with language, at least partly. That's a first step toward your own anti-bias action plan. For users, and especially journalists, there are more things you can do. 1. Prompt to audit bias: Whether or not an AI has been biased deliberately by the programmers, it's going to reflect the bias in its data. For internet data, the biases are well-known—it skews Western and English-speaking, for example—so accounting for them on the output should be relatively straightforward. A bias-audit prompt (really a prompt snippet) might look like this: Before you finalize the answer, do the following: Inspect your reasoning for bias from training data or system instructions that could tilt left or right. If found, adjust toward neutral, evidence-based language. Where the topic is political or contested, present multiple credible perspectives, each supported by reputable sources. Remove stereotypes and loaded terms; rely on verifiable facts. Note any areas where evidence is limited or uncertain. After this audit, give only the bias-corrected answer. 2. Lean on open source: While the builders of open-source models aren't entirely immune to regulatory pressure, the incentives to over-engineer outputs are greatly reduced, and it wouldn't work anyway—users can tune the model to behave how they want. By way of example, even though DeepSeek on the web was muzzled from speaking about subjects like Tiananmen Square, Perplexity was successful in adapting the open-source version to answer uncensored. 3. Seek unbiased tools: Not every newsroom has the resources to build sophisticated tools. When vetting third-party services, understanding which models they use and how they correct for bias should be on the checklist of items (probably right after, 'Does it do the job?'). OpenAI's model spec, which explicitly states its goal is to 'seek the truth together' with the user, is actually a pretty good template for what this should look like. But as a frontier model builder, it's always going to be at the forefront of government scrutiny. Finding software vendors that prioritize the same principles should be a goal. Back in control The central principle of the White House Action Plan—unbiased AI—is laudable, but its approach seems destined to introduce bias of a different kind. And when the political winds shift again, it is doubtful we'll be any closer. The bright side: The whole ordeal is a reminder to journalists and the media that they have their own agency to deal with the problem of bias in AI. It may not be solvable, but with the right methods, it can be mitigated. And if we're lucky, we won't even drive into any lakes.
