...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...
The Texas anti-cheerleader bill is dead.
The measure was approved in the Texas House on May 3, with supportive lawmakers waving pompoms as the bill moved to the Senate's Education Committee, where the cheering abruptly stopped.Isn't that what i'd been saying all along? Sheesh. What a waste of legislative time. That's the type of thing they do in the California legislature, but at least the boondogglers out here work full-time at it.'We will not be hearing it,' committee chairwoman Sen. Florence Shapiro said Friday.
'We have some very important work to do in the next two weeks, and that's not one of them,' said Shapiro, R-Plano.
Rather than being a 'mandate from the state,' she said, the problem of students performing suggestive acts should be addressed by parents and school districts.
Hat tip to gcotharn, who is now atop the leader board in my fantasy league. Guess who's at the bottom?
Well he won't be in first for long! And i had no idea about this cheerleader bill...it seems this bill combined with the recent one to take foster kids out of the homes of gay parents shows that the Texas legislature is full of nincompoops, pretty much like the rest of the country. Of course they're never as bad as California...and I'm a california boy so I know!
Posted by: Scof on May. 15, 2005It's what we've come to expect from the Texas Republican Party. At least if they're wasting their time with cheerleaders they are unable to push their Platform: http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf
p.4 #10: "We oppose conservation easements on our natural resources administered by organizations unaccountable to tax payers and voters." (That means land trusts and conservation groups would be declared unconstitutional.)
p. 4 #18: "We oppose the Endangered Species Act."
pp. 7 and 8: "We reject the establishment of any mechanism to process, license, record, register or monitor the ownership of guns."
p. 9 The party opposes highway speed limits based on environmental standards of any kind.
p. 10 The party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseaseas.
p.13 " ... gradually phase out Social Security tax for a system of "private pensions.."
p.15: Supports abstinence only sex education
p.15:"The Party urges Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development
p.18: supports teaching of intelligent design
p.17: prohibits reproductive health care services in high schools.
p.23: The party opposes one-world government...
p.24: The Party urges Congress to evict the United Nations from U.S. soil.
Preston,
I don't see where any of that is objectionable. For example, we've been paying excessively high Social Security taxes for years. Congress took that money and spent it. Tell me where we wouldn't be better off with the money invested in a private account?
Move to New York. Your kind will be happy here.
Posted by: Mark on May. 16, 2005So much for the 'big tent', Mark. Well, the easy ones: 'intelligent design' isn't true and 'abstinence education' doesn't work.
Is it so radical to ask for a government that bases its decisions on reality?
Posted by: preston on May. 16, 2005Some of that shit is okay, some is well, shit. But saying that prohibiting a private organization from claiming an easement on public lands would make such organizations unconstitutional betrays a lack of understanding of easements, constitutional law and just plain sense.
Posted by: annika on May. 16, 2005It would sort of defeat the purpose of founding a conservation land trust if your work was illegal. You could do it but what's the point?
Posted by: Preston on May. 16, 2005Buy the land. Then it's yours and you can do what you want with it. Including not building strip malls.
Is it radical to ask that the federal government stick to its enumerated powers and leave the rest up to the states to decide? It's not going to happen, but I can dream...
Posted by: Mark on May. 16, 2005
Mark, conservation land trusts are not a 'public taking' of property:
http://www.lta.org/aboutlt/faq.shtml
Posted by: Preston on May. 16, 2005But on the larger point: Do you feel like a community has no right to shape its future? Is it ok if a slaughterhouse or a Wal-Mart opens next door to your house?
Posted by: Preston on May. 16, 2005for Preston - a smaller point: The bill was introduced, and tirelessly promoted, by a Democrat: State Rep Al Edwards, D-Houston.
Posted by: gcotharn on May. 16, 2005That's too bad, but like I said: at least if they're wasting their time with cheerleaders they aren't threatening Texans with the GOP platform.
Posted by: Preston on May. 16, 2005p.13 " ... gradually phase out Social Security tax for a system of "private pensions.."
you've obviously not read the 1932 speech by FDR proposing SS. that/this was his plan.
Posted by: louielouie on May. 16, 2005p.24: The Party urges Congress to evict the United Nations from U.S. soil.
I'm moving to texas!!!!!
Posted by: louielouie on May. 16, 2005"you've obviously not read the 1932 speech by FDR proposing SS. that/this was his plan."
I'm afraid you've read too many right-wing talking points... FDR was talking about a transition _to_ Social Security _from_ the temporary payments to the elderly who hadn't contributed to SS as workers.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003
Posted by: Preston on May. 16, 2005Eh? it was the first thing to come up when you Google 'FDR phase out'
The point is that Britt Hume took FDR out of context and rearranged his quotes to make it seem that FDR supported 'privatization'.
Would you prefer the Nation? :)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/opinion/main678638.shtml