Texas School Board Set to Strike a Blow for Jesus

Here in the Bible Belt, in Texas, where people still cling to their guns and their Bibles, we have a religious war brewing.

A Jihad for Jesus, if you will.

The war is set to be fought in the meeting room of the State Board of Education, where 15 school board trustees are getting set to vote on whether to include an infamous phrase in each and every section of the state’s science curriculum.

Specifically, we are talking about the “strengths and weaknesses” clause. One requirement that is in the current curriculum, in examination of scientific theories holds that students should be able to “analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.”

This clause is cut and pasted into every section of Chapter 112 of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills that can be found at the TEA website here.

On its face it appears that the board wants Texas public school students to engage in higher level thinking where they evaluate the validity of scientific theory.

You know, like the Theory of Relativity, or the Kinetic Theory of Matter.

But in reality, the clause is really only meant to be used in one discipline, and really in one theory within that discipline.

Specifically, biology, and the “Theory of Evolution.”

Yes, the clause is there specifically to ensure that students would question the strengths and weaknesses of that theory, even though it is presently included as line 3A in every section of the chapter.

This is a fairly blatant attempt at appearing to be even-handed, even though whenever the clause is debated, only Darwin’s theory comes up.

And not Einstein’s Theories, or Superstring Theory.

Now here is the rub. Even though that clause has been in the TEKS for 10 years now, teachers generally ignore it.

And for good reason. Most science teachers that I am aware of are themselves not equipped to question the validity of scientific theories. This is really the stuff of ivory tower science, not something that can be adequately discussed in K-12 classrooms.

Why then, if teachers are not really qualified to question scientific theories, does the school board think that children are?

The truth is, they aren’t and that is where it gets really interesting. If teachers and students alike cannot make use of “scientific evidence and information” to evaluate a theory’s strengths and weaknesses, who can?

Answer: textbook authors.

See? It’s not about higher level thinking, it is about reading someone else’s evaluation of a theory and memorizing it for later regurgitation. That’s about as low as you go as far as complexity and quality of cognitive domains.

But what is really and truly insidious is that when textbook authors are required to include in their scientific discussion an evaluation of validity, it opens up the possibility of inclusion of analyses and opinions made in the past that have been offered and subsequently rejected.

But without some rather sophisticated knowledge that lies far beyond graduate school, students and some teachers have no way of knowing this.

Knowing, for example, that natural selection had nothing to do with the Cambrian speciation explosion, yet that event is held up as evidence that natural selection is a weak theory because it cannot explain the event.

Knowing, for example that evolution per se is not the theory in question. That “Darwin’s Theory” is not the “Theory of Evolution.” “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution” is a misnomer. Those words are shortened from the title of Darwin’s book “On the Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection.” There is no real argument that evolution has not taken place. Evolution is a biological principle, not a theory. A biological principle simply states what happens. A theory attempts to explain how a phenomenon happens, not whether it does.

So it looks to me like the Texas State Board of Education is getting ready to really downgrade the quality of science education by making outlandish demands of textbook authors to lie, essentially, to young readers.

And quite frankly, this is not a state issue, it is a national one. Publishers have little desire to create multiple versions of a textbook, ones that are individually written to suit the demands of individual states. Texas, as it turns out, is a huge textbook customer so what is written for Texan tastes also get shipped to states with lower textbook demands. So what the Texas Board demands of publishers will have an effect on the quality of science education across the country.

So despite the fact that Bush and the Texas Mafia have made a sudden exit from the national scene, Texas keeps on giving the finger to the nation through its religious reactionary school board.

I am thinking of founding a new national organization: “Americans for the Secession of Texas.”

I bet I can get a pretty big membership list.

Fixed Noise: Is Obama Really President?

Well it didn’t take the crazies down at Fox News any time at all to glom on to the botched up oath that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts delivered to President Obama yesterday, did it?

Fox’s Chris Wallace, forever the constitutional law inept, gets it all wrong again.

“You know, Megan, I have to say, I’m not sure that Barack Obama really is the President of the United States because the oath of office is set in the Constitution and I wasn’t at all convinced that ah, even after he tried to amend it that John Roberts ever got it out straight and that Barack Obama ever said the prescribed words. I suspect that everybody is going to forgive him and allow him to take over as President but I’m not sure that he said what is in the Constitution there.”

Or you can watch his idiotic performance here.

Why is this so idiotic?

If the exact recitation of this oath is the acid test by which the very fact that a person becomes President is based, then this country has never had a valid President. Here is what it says in the Constitution:

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Period.

Yet every President since George Washington has added the final phrase, “…so help me God.” And by custom that phrase has even been included in the oath that the Chief Justice utters for the President to repeat. Washington added the phrase voluntarily.

So no President has ever taken the oath of office as set down in the Constitution.

Now as to who administers the oath, the Constitution is silent on that issue. But by convention and custom the task has fallen to the Chief Justice. So in reality, Obama did not have to allow the Chief Justice administer the oath. His wife could have done it (and as it turns out, should have).

And given their recent history that as US Senators, both Obama and Biden voted not to confirm Roberts as Chief Justice, perhaps President Obama should have considered the possibility that Roberts might intentionally create this mar on an otherwise near-perfect ceremony.

Not sayin’ that he did it on purpose. Just sayin’.

No, the only real foul-up in the ceremony was including the “Simple Gifts” quintet in the agenda. Now I really appreciated the big names that were called to perform this American classic, and the likes of John Williams to create the arrangement, but what they did to that otherwise pleasant song is truly a crime.

But that’s not the worst of it. The worst of it is while they were sawing through that abominable arrangement the seconds past noon were ticking and Bush’s term had already officially expired.

Had expired, and we didn’t yet have a President.

Well, actually we did. Since Joe Biden had taken his oath of office before the quintet ground out that atrocity, we did have a President. It was Joe Biden, and he continued to be President for a full four minutes.

Pull Your Pants Up

With my television tuned to the all day coverage of inauguration weekend on MSNBC, I was listening to an interview with the new junior senator from Illinois, Roland Burris on this day when we celebrate the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Burris was addressing all of the young men to straighten out their lives, and at one point actually said this: “pull your pants up.”
This is something a classroom teacher has to say repeatedly, especially when it appears that a young man’s jeans are just about to hit the floor.

So I was quite taken with Burris’ comment, one that I thought was unique until I discovered that he wasn’t actually the first to utter those words.

Barack Obama was.

It was in an MTV interview that Obama gave just before he won the election in answer to this question, posed by Sway:

“I know people have piercings, tattoos. Eric, in particular, is talking about a ban on sagging pants. Do (you) feel like people should be penalized?”

Obama replied:

“Here is my attitude: I think people passing a law against people wearing sagging pants is a waste of time. We should be focused on creating jobs, improving our schools, health care, dealing with the war in Iraq, and anybody, any public official, that is worrying about sagging pants probably needs to spend some time focusing on real problems out there. Having said that, brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What's wrong with that? Come on. There are some issues that we face, that you don't have to pass a law, but that doesn't mean folks can't have some sense and some respect for other people and, you know, some people might not want to see your underwear — I'm one of them.”

“Brothers should pull up their pants.”

And you know what? If Martin Luther King were alive today, I think that he would be saying the exact same thing.

And not because Six 8 says so, too.

Did You See the “We Are One” Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial Today?

Yeah, I did too. It was an amazing production. And from the lineup of speakers and entertainers, it is apparent that Hollywood is on vacation for a few days.

Here is the list of performers courtesy of Billboard:

Beyonce, Mary J. Blige, Bono, Garth Brooks, Sheryl Crow, Renee Fleming, Josh Groban, Herbie Hancock, Heather Headley, John Legend, Jennifer Nettles, John Mellencamp, Usher, Shakira, Bruce Springsteen, James Taylor, will.i.am, and Stevie Wonder.

I watched it with friends over a late lunch. We were all amazed when Garth Brooks sang three songs, not one of which was either Country or Western,

But the final event really wowed me. Pete Seegar joined this star-studded cast and sang his signature song, all 87 verses of “This Land Is Your Land.”

Well, I exaggerate a little, the Woody Guthrie song doesn’t have 87 verses.

But it very nearly does.

Pete Seegar.

You know, I made the observation to my friends that Pete Seegar was an old man when he became famous in the 60’s when he was an icon in the anti-war movement along with Joan Baez and all of those other old commies that helped to get us out of another unjust and illegal war.

And really, he doesn’t look much different now than he did then.

This coming May 3^rd, Pete Seegar will turn 90.

I looked on You Tube to see if anyone had uploaded today’s performance, and all you can find right now is footage of Shakira (naturally) and a video taken from the video phone of some of the event attendees singing along with Pete. So I thought I’d settle with someone’s paean to Pete – they used a cut of the song that was made when Pete Seegar was a much younger man.

When he was about my age.

Why Johnny Can’t Calculate Speed

FortBendNow has an interesting article that I just read, twice, about the state of science education in a local Texas school district. As a science teacher myself, I was interested to find out what administrators think about science instruction, and what they think will improve student performance.

Student performance as measured by a statewide science test, the Science portion of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills or TAKS.

A test that has become so discredited that it has been voted out of existence by the state legislature as of 2011.

From FortBendNow:

“Herron noted that while the district has made significant gains on many areas of the TAKS tests in recent years, the science portion of the test is not producing the results that teachers and administrators believe that students are capable of achieving.”

In other words, despite all of its best efforts, Texas’ elementary science instruction endeavors have failed to improve its students’ TAKS Science test scores.

Have you ever seen a TAKS Science test? You can, you know. They released the 2003 to 2006 tests to the public and it is available here.

TAKS Science tests are truly exceptional instruments, and I don’t mean that in a good way. These tests contain some of the most obtuse concepts. You see countless questions that test a student’s knowledge of “The Scientific Method,” a mythical series of steps in scientific inquiry that no one uses out there in the real world.

You see entire series of questions where an existing system, or even one that no longer exists, is analyzed with a wide variety of science applications. Now this sounds really nice but in reality, testing a student’s knowledge of science by requiring a sophisticated analysis of applied sciences goes way beyond what is taught.

Goes way beyond what is in the curriculum.

And this is something that is special to Science TAKS tests. The other tests are far more closely aligned with what is actually taught.

But enough ranting over TAKS. It is going away and like the final exit of the Bush Administration, that day can’t come too soon.

The FortBendNow article also reports the areas that have been targeted by the district audit of its elementary science instruction – areas where improvement can be made.

These areas are:

• Professional development to build teachers’ science content knowledge.
• Professional development to build inquiry-based teaching strategies.
• Professional development to integrate technology into science instruction.
• Professional development to increase the rigor of science instruction.
• Enhanced resources for science instruction

Did you get that first one? Science instruction suffers because elementary school teachers don’t know anything about science.

Gee, no kidding.

Not to criticize my colleagues, but should anyone be surprised that a firm grasp of scientific concepts is not number one on the list of things elementary school teachers have? Or number 10?

But wait, there’s more. How many times does it happen that you tend to remember the first thing you learned about something? More often than not really. That’s something you learn when you take a class in the theory of learning. Elementary school teachers have the first crack at unleashing scientific knowledge on eager young minds. And sometimes, not surprisingly, they get it wrong.

I can’t count the number of students that I finally get as they are about to leave public school education who know for a fact that “the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean”.

Someone in elementary school keeps telling the kids this, and I want them to just stop it.

And finally, did you get the second one? Inquiry-based teaching strategies.

Someday someone is going to tell the school boards of this country the truth about inquiry. Yes, studies show that learning improves when the student is engaged in an inquiry-based activity. No one disputes that. Here are the two problems that an inquiry-based lesson has:

Inquiry-based lessons take too long.

For inquiry to occur, a student must be inquisitive.

After you subtract out all of the testing days, all of the days of distractions, that 183-day school year is more like a 120-day year. Given that, which lesson will a teacher opt for, a 2-day inquiry lab where Newton’s 2^nd Law is rediscovered, or a 45 minute lab that reconfirms it?

I’ll tell you why the 45-minute lab is the way to go. Many of today’s science students are not very inquisitive. They just aren’t all that curious. What they want to do is to extract from the teacher what it is they are seeing in the lab and write that down quickly so they can get back to playing games on their scientific calculators and texting their friends about what is on the Biology test.

Sorry, but that is what a classroom teacher sees, as opposed to what an Education PhD reveals when they unveil their latest flavor of the day.

So what is the solution? Don't ask me, I'm just a science teacher. But I have a couple of suggestions.

When you stop making it all about the grades and the test scores, when you start respecting teachers again and start paying teachers a living wage that will attract high quality professionals to the classroom, when administrators stop building impediments by embracing false educational myths and flavors of the day, when you do these things you will start to see positive change in student performance.

And America can get back to work building better mousetraps.

Why A Change in Texas Senate Rules This Year?

Two words.

Ben Sargent.

Texas House and Senate Switch Roles

Well it’s official. Partisanship again will be the rule and not the exception in the 81^st Texas Legislature. Now you would have thought that the Republican lunkheads in the Senate might have paid attention to the voting trends from last November elections. Even here in Red Texas Democrats made inroads in nearly every county except for that pocket way up there in the northeast – the tail end of what I have come to call America’s “Cracker Belt.” But yesterday the Texas Senate ensured a continuation of the political angst that so defined the 80^th Legislature.

Senate Republicans voted to do away with the 2/3rds rule. The rule that allows bills to come to the Senate floor for debate only after an aye vote from 21 of the 31 Senators. The rule was a good one that kept disorder, that was so prevalent in the Texas House in the last session, from intruding in the Senate. From The Chron:

“The so-called two-thirds rule is designed to foster consensus on issues, as opposed to the Texas House, where the party in control can pass bills without support from the minority party.”

But now, with near parity in the House, Republicans may well find that they have to play nice with House Democrats rather than ram through divisive partisan legislation, as they did in 2007. Legislation that then died in the Senate because of the two-thirds rule.

The one lone Republican hold-out in the Senate, Senator John Carona of Dallas, explained his “no” vote, that it “sends a terrible message” to the voters in light of what has happened in the House, and how voters are crying out for a bipartisan legislature.

Carona, it should be noted, is from Dallas which flipped in its demographics in the past few years, and these days send only Democrats to positions in government. Indeed, Carona was re-elected to his seat by a comfortable 64% to 34% in 2002, but that lead shrunk to 56% to 41% in 2008. At that rate, Democrats should be at parity in SD 16 by 2014.

So the Texas House and Senate have switched roles. Now we will have a bipartisan spirit in the House reject the uber-partisanship of the new Texas minority – the Bible belt neocons, and a newly polarized right wing Senate that will lead the way to the vile agenda of the Dark Side.

Washington Court: Sex With Students Is Okey-Dokey

The State of Washington apparently has embarked on a unique teacher attraction/retention program within its boundaries. The incentive to teach in Washington? The courts there say it’s OK for a teacher to have sex with their 18 year old students.

Now you have to wonder about the motives that teachers have to work in Washington, especially with a news piece coming out regularly about one teacher or another being fired for having sexual relations with their students – of just about any age.

One sort of teacher it seems, accepts the low-paying, low-respect job as a public school teacher because they want to have sex with children.

So if Washington isn’t careful, it may just attract that kind of teacher to its shores.

The decision was handed down by a 3-judge appeals court panel. The case was one of a 33-year old male music teacher having sex with his 18-year old student in the closing months of the 2005-06 school year.

Because the child was 18, the court found, and not technically a minor, as the offending teacher pointed out, the state could not charge the music teacher with “first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor”.

At best, since there definitely is a school district rule against consensual sex with students, so there were grounds for firing the teacher, as well there should be. And you could also find the teacher guilty of poor judgment, social idiocy and poor classroom management skills.

But no jail time.

And thankfully no subsequent teaching job for this bozo.

Washington legislators are trying to fix the problem, making it a felony for a teacher to have consensual sex with any public school student – of any age up to 21. The bill was filed by a Richland state rep, Larry Haler, who was asked to do so by his local school district.

It seems yet another male teacher in Richland was caught making whoopie with one of his students.

Yes, they had two of them, and if they don’t move quickly, they are bound to have more.

As the Court Turns

Now how often does it happen that a government office holder starts to write a blog about the office he holds, and the goings on in the government entity he is a part of? Really, more often than you think.

Texas State Rep. Aaron Peña has maintained a blog on Blogger since 2005. North Carolina’s new governor, Beverly Perdue has started a blog on the state’s website. Former California governor Jerry Brown, now its Attorney General, also has a blog.

One reason, they say, that politicians maintain blogs is that it is a way to circumvent the mainstream media. It’s a clean, direct way to communicate to the voters without going through a media filter with all of their agendas.

And it’s a way for the public to be able to get an idea of what is going on inside government – again, without a filter.

One government entity that has maintained an element of opacity is Fort Bend County government. Unless you are a member of the media, it is almost impossible to know what is going on in county government: the public meetings are infrequent and always held when people are at work. Compare that to, let’s say, a school board. School board meetings take place in the evening, allowing anyone an opportunity to attend.

Where am I going with this?

Well, we just had a window open in Fort Bend County. Richard Morrison, newly elected Fort Bend County Commissioner for Precinct 1 has begun a blog. He has done this, he says, to write “about the "going ons" in Precinct 1, the Commissioner's Court and Fort Bend County as a whole.” Look on the sidebar. I have it on my blog roll now, right there next to Rep. Peña’s.

You should bookmark it, too.

As you can see, it’s an aptly named blog: “As the Court Turns,” alluding, I would guess, to the daily soap opera of long running (52 seasons!), “As the World Turns.”

But somehow I am reluctant to believe that this new blog by our new Democratic Commissioner will contain the same kind of lurid details that we see on the soap opera for which he has named his blog. I doubt, for instance whether Richard is going to be reporting on things on the order of the truth about whether Brian should tell Lucinda the truth about his sexuality. And whether Lucinda, having finally found happiness would be able to deal with that news.

But I wish he would.

Immigration Red Herring: Here We Go Again

As Texans from Texarkana to El Paso brace for tomorrow’s opening day at the 81^st Legislature, it appears that the same ridiculous immigration drama that played out last time is all set to be reprised.

Twelve or so bills have already been filed by the same characters as last time that deals with all manner of “immigration issues.” Issues that drew still more Hispanic voters to the Democratic side in the past election.

The bills deal with all sorts of issues, none of which any legislator really wants to see put right. The one I always like is the one that promises to punish with steep fines any employer who knowingly employs an illegal immigrant in his business.

This, anyone can tell you, is how Texas maintains its high standard of living at a relatively low cost, relative to other places in the country, that is. Home builders would have to resort to charging more for their houses. Farmers and ag companies would feel the pinch of higher labor costs, but a market resistant to unit price increases. Use of illegal immigrant labor in Texas is so institutionalized that any law that seeks to change the system will fail miserably, and everyone knows it.

But it looks good to file a law like that, and it looks even better when you argue about it in committees, and even better if it makes it to the House floor (which it never does).

Another anti-immigrant bill filed will impress anyone with a 6^th grade education or less. This is the one that seeks to close the so-called loophole that allows the offspring of illegal aliens to earn automatic citizenship by virtue of the fact that they were born in this country, even though the babys’ parents were there illegally.

It sticks in the craw of some people that United States citizenship is so cheaply earned by infants, but everyone else has to pay for an immigration lawyer in order to gain citizenship. But this law, absurdly deals in an area of the law that Texas state law has no purview.

That is, the State of Texas cannot pass a law that usurp a federal law. Texas can set up standards for citizenship in Texas, but not citizenship in the United States. That, like it or not, is the way things are in this country. It’s right there in the 14^th Amendment, a pretty good amendment that was enacted to let the former slave states (like Texas) know what they can and cannot do:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

That seems kind of clear.

But again, it looks really good to the truly ignorant when a bill like that gets filed.

And that’s it in a nutshell. That is the kind of thing we have to deal with every other year.

Placating the ignorant racists in this state.

Did You Get One of These?

I empty my mailbox once a week whether I need to or not. And what should I find in my mailbox this past week but an 8.5 x 11 inch envelope with an admonition to the postal carrier that he or she shall not handle it with an uncaring mind.

What should lie within the confines of this envelope? None other than my once-in-a-lifetime invitation to the glorious Inauguration of Barack H. Obama and Joseph R. Biden as President and Vice-President of the United States, respectively. (Click to enlarge) Alas, but I will not be able to attend, but it’s nice to be invited.

Instead I will be attending a far more local and less pricey (at $35) Inaugural Ball in the backyard of Tom DeLayville: the Sugar Creek Country Club.

A million of us, donors to the campaign of Barack Obama, received this invitation. But that’s really the best part of this story.

As reported here, Precise Continental, a printing firm in Brooklyn, New York was about to effect a 4-day work week for its 65 employees. Said shop owner Jim Donnelly:

“I was cautioning them about January that business didn't look good.”

In the meantime, the Obama campaign was looking for a strong union shop that used recycled paper for its feedstock. It settled on Precise Continental for those reasons. And the fact is, it turned a dismal holiday season into a boom.

“’The average employee went home last Wednesday with two-and-a-half-weeks check because of all the overtime they put in,’ Donnelly said. ‘You can buy a lot of Christmas presents with that.’”

So really, it’s more than just to be a one-in-a-million recipient of this union-produced memento of an historic event. It’s the story behind it.

A story that gives me hope for the future of our country.

There is an Obama Store in Austin

So for no apparent reason I woke up early this Saturday morning. And for no apparent reason I showered and shaved even though the only thing I had planned for the day was to do the laundry.

And finish my TEC filing.

But then around 9:45 AM Susan called.

“We’re driving up to La Grange today to get some kolaches at Weikel’s and to meet my friend from Bastrop County who has 50 Obama wine glasses to sell us. Then we’re going up to Austin to the Obama Store and to eat some barbecue. Wanna come?”

“Well . . .ahh . . “

“…If you want to meet us at the house at 10:30.”

It’s hard to turn down barbecue, but to finally lay my eyes on the famous Obama Store in Austin, now that was too much to pass up. Besides, I was up, washed, shaved and dressed.

At 10:30 I was there.

The long ride to Austin is made much shorter with the tales of trials and tribulations we shared. How our families fared in the Great Depression. How Fort Bend County government is filled with cronies who have little to offer the taxpayers but their undying friendship with county bosses.

How we are going to have a great Inaugural Ball this coming January 20^th.

And we finally arrived at The Obama Store. The Obama Store in Austin is easy to miss but not if you are looking for it. And with this street address, 1111 11^th St., it is difficult to forget

Democratic activist Glen Maxey runs the store and sells all manner of things Obama. The Fort Bend Democrats’ Obama Boutique has nothing on Maxey’s setup.

Along with the requisite Obama T-shirts, buttons and bumper stickers he has mouse pads, Obama 2009 calendars, coffee mugs, plastic cups with Obama’s smiling face printed on it, Obama straws, Obama tote bags, Obama carpets and blankets, Obama posters and rally signs.

An Obama children’s book entitled “My Momma voted for Obama”.

An old Texas politics warhorse and former State Rep. from Austin, Maxey was asked not to participate or campaign for Democrats in Austin. It seems he opposed an African-American woman in the March primary for Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector, so his services were not required. This was manna from heaven for Maxey.

Instead of campaigning for Democrats, Maxey was free to sell Obama merchandise, an enterprise that has resulted in the settlement of all his political debts.

Now since its primary, Texas has not seen hide nor hair of Barack Obama. All of their numbers said that whatever they did, Texas was not yet ready to elect an African-American to the highest office, so there was nothing they could do – Texas was a write off.

So they wisely stayed away.

But this had a singular unexpected effect. There was a “campaign vacuum” in Texas. Obama supporters were everywhere, but no one could find a place to get a yard sign or a T-shirt. You could buy one online at the Obama store but there was a backlog of orders and the waiting time was long.

So some of us, Maxey in Austin, and the Fort Bend Democrats in Rosenberg and Stafford, took it upon ourselves to try and satisfy the growing market for Obama paraphernalia.

Face it, these things will be quite valuable one day – memorabilia from a truly historic event.

We were there for about a half hour. Never was there a lull in business. Now this is absolutely true: it is 3 months since the election, and 9 days before the Inauguration and the store was filled with customers looking for anything with Obama on it.

How long this will last, no one really knows.

But one thing I know for sure. Glen Maxey will be forever grateful to the local political machine for their unofficial blackballing.

It’s true what they say, you know. When one door closes, another one opens.

Supremes Going After Voting Rights Act

Today the Supreme Court announced that it will hear a case brought to it by a tiny utilities district in Austin, a district that claims that Texas is no longer a place where personal voting rights are in jeopardy.

At issue is the central provision of the Voting Rights Act, where any changes in voting procedures need to be reviewed by the feds first. It seems that some areas of the former slave states try to suppress minority voters from casting their ballot, and this provision seeks to level the field.

Make things fair.

But now, the enforcement of this provision of the VRA in some areas and not others is viewed as discriminatory by the utility district, whose boundaries fall within the areas of VRA enforcement.

It’s a "badge of shame", it is claimed. No, they really say that.

As reported in the Washington Post, Gregory Coleman, the lawyer who brought the suit which asks the Supreme Court to eviscerate the VRA makes this curious and ironic point:

“The America that has elected Barack Obama as its first African-American president is far different than when [the law] was first enacted in 1965.”

This is absolutely true. But what America did in November 2008 has nothing to do with what Texas did, does it. Texas did not lend its electors to elect Barack Obama, did it? Isn't it ironic that this guy uses the election of Barack Obama as a tool to attack the law that prevents minorities from having their votes not counted? That's real chutzpah.

Most of the other former slave states followed Texas' example. That's how far we have come since 1865.

But that doesn’t keep Coleman for giving credit to his utility district where credit is possibly undeserved. Voter suppression in former slave states, and in some areas in the former Northern aggressor states for that matter, is alive and well.

But now that the Supreme Court has been stacked with Republican justice, the shining star and legacy of the Johnson Administration is about to be rendered ineffectual.

My question is, where are all of those people who used to scream and howl when the Supreme Court executed its unconstitutional legislative powers?

Because that is exactly what is happening here.

Finally Some Sanity in Digital TV Switchover

Barack Obama’s transition team today questioned whether this country was ready for the analog to digital TV signal switchover, mandated by government fiat when it was completely controlled by Republicans.

Finally, someone is listening to me.

Years ago a young salesman at a big box electronics store tried to convince me to buy a digital TV. “You won’t be able to watch TV in 2009 if you don’t,” he warned. I said then that was completely ridiculous. There was no way, no how, America would be able to effect that kind of massive switchover.

People would be left without a TV signal.

When that happens, people sue.

Now it seems that some shade of rationality has descended on DC, and this February 17, 2009 deadline just may be moved back. Too many poor and elderly have yet to make the switch. The program to provide government-guaranteed $40 coupon to help defray the costs of buying a digital converter box has fallen far behind, and there is still a miles long waiting list just to receive the coupon, let alone find a converter box on the store shelf.

They say the converter boxes disappear off the shelves as fast as they appear.

Well, my prediction of “no way, no how” would have fallen flat had we continued to elect Republicans, wouldn’t it? Especially in view of the fact that the analog frequencies have all been auctioned off.

So Americans already stand to reap a huge benefit by turning out the kleptocracy that has raped and pillaged our country: they get to hold on to our real national pastime for a little while longer, until we are more ready to deal with this government edict.

We may yet retain our option to entertain ourselves to death with analog TV.

For a little while longer.

Maybe.

W Will Leave DC on the 20th and Fly to . . . Midland?

I couldn’t think of anything more appropriate. When George W. Bush flies over the crowd assembled to watch Barack Obama be sworn in as the 44^th President of the United States, his first destination will be Midland, Texas.

Midland, where when it rains, it rains mud.

Midland, just a hop skip and a jump from . . . Odessa.

Midland, the armpit of Texas.

Midland, the home of Tom Craddick.

It turns out that Midland, Texas is where Bush celebrated his big send-off in January 2001. Midland.

So in order to come full circle, they have arranged to receive Citizen Bush in the exact same place where President-Elect Bush departed from.

I guess it’s sort of like how Barack Obama plans on taking the same train trip from Springfield to DC that Abe Lincoln took when he took office in March 1861.

OK, not really.

But just imagine how nice it will be for Midlanders who will be the first to celebrate the fact that George W. Bush is no longer President. I imagine Tom Craddick (R - Midland) will be there to welcome his good friend home. And why not? It’s not like he is going to be extremely busy at the beginning of the legislative session.

I guess that’s one of the percs of being shown the door by his ex-friends and 70 Democrats.

And I guess that’s something Tom and George will have slightly in common, huh?

George figuratively, Tom literally.

Democrats the Big Winner with Selection of Joe Straus

I know it’s a little hard to take, but there were some of us out there who were not happy to see Tom Craddick go, and I’m not talking about the right wingers of the Republican Party either.

Democrats were sorry to see Craddick have his hat handed to him by moderate Republican Joe Straus.

The argument goes that Craddick created such bi-partisan angst in the 2007 session that it helped elect Democrats to the House in 2008.

Maybe so, maybe so. It’s an interesting point. I wonder, though, whether Texas could have withstood another legislative session like the one we all witnessed in 2007.

But more to the point, I think that the selection of Joe Straus will be a windfall for Democrats next year. No, not because he is going to let Democrats run him, although that is a nice thought. No, it’s because Joe Straus evokes such bitter bile from the right wing evangelical neoconservatives of the Republican Party that, it is hoped, a deep rift will form in the party of the Dark Side, marginalizing their ability to carry out their conservative agenda.

In short, it could create a new coalition of moderate conservatives and Democrats, a possibly bullet-proof veto-overriding new majority that could just possibly make this place a better place for your average everyday person to live and work.

Want proof? Witness the reaction of House District 26 State Rep. Charlie Howard to the news that he would be having Joe Straus as his Speaker in the next legislative session, as found in the Fort Bend Herald:

“If Mr. Straus is elected, he will be elected by Democrats and a very, very small number of Republicans. So what does that tell you? That tells you the agenda will be set by Democrats rather than the Republicans and that’s not something I support.”

See? According to the numbers, Craddick had somewhere between 53 and 58 supporters in the House, leaving somewhere between 18 and 23 Republicans in this “very, very small number” and a schism appears to be forming between the two factions, if you bank on Charlie Howard’s assessment of the situation.

And any time I see Charlie Howard upset over the state of things in the House that can only be a good thing.

What’s In It for Me, Al Franken?

Remember that signature line of his on SNL? You do if you remember what the “Me Generation” was. Well, it seems that the titular head of the Me Generation has just been declared and certified as the winner of the race to fill a US Senate seat from Minnesota.

Senator Al Franken.

But think about it, people used to laugh at the thought of Ronald “Bonzo” Reagan being called President Reagan.

Franken and Coleman were in a remarkably tight race. Coleman finished in the unofficial count up by 215 votes on November 5^th. And now 7 weeks later, after a laborious recount of the votes tallied, plus all of the provisional votes and votes that were excluded for one reason or another, here we have Al Franken leading with a commanding 225 vote lead.

Former DSCC chair Chuck Schumer hailed the result:

“While there are still possible legal issues that will run their course, there is no longer any doubt who will be the next senator from Minnesota. With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible.”

John Cornyn, who is the current chair of the NRSC was less than enthusiastic at this outcome, and was critical of Schumer, who will chair the Senate Rules Committee, the committee that has oversight of contested elections, for making conclusive remarks like that:

“Senator Schumer will likely play a key role in determining who ultimately assumes this Senate seat," Cornyn said. "Prejudging the outcome while litigation is still pending calls into question his ability to impartially preside over this matter when it comes before the committee, as it most certainly will.”

My guess is that Senator Schumer won’t have the deciding vote in this. My guess is that the drama will play itself out in the courtrooms. And Cornyn should be happy with that, since Republicans do rather well when the result of an election is placed in the hands of some appointed judges.

Or am I the only one who remembers Bush v. Gore?

Did the Scales Just Tip?

Going by the numbers, with the “Gang of 11” Republican ABC bloc throwing their support for Joe Straus for Texas House Speaker, and with 64 Democrats having signed an “Anyone But Craddick” pledge, that gives you exactly 75 votes if the Democratic bloc throws in with the new anointed one.

That’s parity. That’s exactly half the Texas House. Not enough to elect anyone.

But wait, yesterday State Rep Aaron Peña took note of the new turn of events on his blog and had these words to say about Straus.

“I consider Rep Straus to be a close friend and half-jokingly call him a South Texas legislator, because part of his district lies on the boundary of cultural South Texas. By his selection this race for speaker has sufficiently narrowed to allow uncommitted members to make their selection. I would look for the other candidates to drop off and consolidate soon.”

Ever the cagey one, Rep. Peña falls short of declaring his support for his “close friend” but it seems clear that he is not entirely against the idea. That being the case, should this run its course, Peña is absolutely correct in his forecast that we should “have a better idea” of who will be the Speaker by the end of the weekend.

Peña, it should be remembered, is not one of the 64 signatories on the Democratic ABC declaration.

That makes his vote number 76.

And the scales just tipped.

Joe Straus is the New Messiah

Why not? In a time when we are on the rebound from “Joe the Plumber,” from “Joe the Anything,” why not “Joe the Messiah”?

That is what a bloc of eleven Anyone But Craddick (including Joe) Republican state house Members must be thinking. That and the hope that they can get the votes of 64 Anyone But Craddick Democrats.

The Dallas Morning News story summarizing it all also says this about the man chosen to save the Texas State House from the reign of the tyrant Tom Craddick:

“Straus is seen as even-handed and smart and someone who has worked with members on both sides of the aisle. He also is seen as a newcomer, which might cause some members to balk at elevating him.”

A newcomer he is, with only 3 years in the state body, although he has served in several Republican appointed positions during the Reagan and Bush-41 administration. He is also known for his family affiliation, the Straus family of San Antonio, which brought horse racing, and I assume pari mutuel betting, to San Antonio.

So Joe Straus seems to be a betting man.

A man who is betting that his very weakness, his lack of years in the state house compared to Craddick’s 4 decades of state house service, will be seen as his chief strength. He is known long enough to be seen as one who reaches across the aisle, but not long enough to have placed too many knives in the backs of his colleagues.

Something we cannot say about Tom Craddick.

Now I guess the only questions left to the 64 member ABC Democratic bloc in the House are these:

a) Is this guy named Tom Craddick?
b) If not, can they work with him?
c) If so, will Straus create a rift within his own caucus?

If the answers are, respectively, No, Yes, and Maybe then the way seems clear, doesn’t it?

John Cornyn to Al Franken: Drop Dead

In this three-ring circus that we are calling the US Senate these days, where one possible replacement for Hillary Clinton’s seat is being slammed for saying “you know” too much, another for being nominated by an ethically-challenged Illinois governor, and yet a third for being the victim of being the victor in a statewide recount, I have to say that the ridiculous has given way to the sublimely ridiculous.

My US Senator, John Cornyn saw to that today.

From the Dallas Morning News:

“John Cornyn of Texas says Republicans will launch a filibster if necessary to block any attempt by Democrats to seat Al Franken when the Senate gavels into order next week. the one-time Saturday Night Live comedian is leading incumbent Norm Coleman by less than 50 votes. And Franken supporters are predicting he will win the vote count and should be seated once the total is cerfied by the state.”

Now I can see why Cornyn would want to jump on this bandwagon and tootle his horn, but does this not look as uberpartisan to you as it does to me? I would ask whether Cornyn would be as equally strident in his objection if Norm Coleman was declared the winner by, say, one vote.

My guess is he would not.

No, according to the Republican neocon playbook, which Cornyn runs every day, it’s only an offense if the Republican loses.

And clearly, he is picking up on the current dustup among the Democrats over the Blagojevich/Burris conundrum. In that matter, the only thing that is out of line is the failure of the Illinois Secretary of State to certify Burris as the junior senator from Illinois.

The governor signed off on it.

Not so should Al Franken be declared the winner in the recount. The election would be duly certified by the state of Minnesota, and that, as they say, should be that.

And I have to ask, perhaps naively, how to you filibuster a swearing in ceremony?

Trojans Triumphant 38 - 24

Need I say more?