Ya Basta

I've been a busy little activist today, and so has everyone else. I received a second-hand email from moveon.org saying that today is the day in the Texas Senate. (Yes, Virginia, the governor called a 3rd special session to push through redistricting, and one weasel Democrat broke solidarity and went back, so the rest of them did too, and now the nine-lived thing is hitting the floor. Possibly also the fan.) So I went down to the Senate with a number of other fine folks, and we acted as laugh track for the floor action.

I don't recall that I've ever seen a legislative body in session. It has great potential for mind-numbing boredom. I salute those folks who take on the job of picking nits day after day in the interest of democracy. The staff seems to work pretty hard, but the reps are constrained (as a corset constrains) by parliamentary procedure, protocol, and manners. I give the Senate credit for their courtesy towards each other (though it was early in the day when I was there).

This is what I heard, minus the requests for permission and courtly forms of address. Of course, I am merely an ignorant MBA of so few skills that my president and his buddies have to outsource their jobs to other nations, so take it all with a grain of salt. Rosely comments are in [] brackets.

Senator 1 (party unknown): We have a rule against placards and signs, but I think we ought to suspend that and put up a big map of the old redistricting map with the proposed one as an overlay.

Rest of Senate: Yeah, sure.

Senator 2: I support this motion, but I want to put up my proposed amendments as overlays too.

Senator 3 : And the House's proposed map too.

[Is anybody else thinking this is going to be one thick bunch of overlays? BTW, the House has ramrodded their map through. It doesn't match the Senates. The Rs have not been able to agree among themselves. This may be the best chance for failure.]

Democrat 1: I propose that we read the bill in its entirety so that the people of Texas know what is being done to them.

Turkey in Chief (possible Lt. Gov. Dewhurst): Not now.

Republican 1 (also committee chair): I propose that the legislative legal eagle sit by me so he can answer technical questions about this bill.

Democrat 2: No.

R 1: But it would facilitate debate.

D 2: I'm against redistricting, and my only weapon is parliamentary procedure. I will oppose this and any other motion.

D 3: Would this be a conflict of interest since the legal eagle also works for the House?

R 1: No. He has no position on the issues.

D 4: Even though he'd be sitting by you, could the rest of us ask him questions?

R 2: Is this a debatable motion?

TiC: No. And it requires unanimous consent, and there are objections, so it fails.

D 1: I want the whole bill read.

Staff and Rs shudder. Squabble about whether this can happen, and the TiC says anyone can call for the bill and the journal to be read. [Hot dog! Reading the journal ought to take them at least a week.]

D 5: If this is too hard on the staff, some of us who actually care can read parts of the bill.

Secretary keeps starting to read, but is interrupted several times.

R 3: I propose we don't read it.

Vote. Motion passes. Secretary sighs with relief.

D 6: I want to give a personal privilege speech. [your basic rant]

He begins, but is interrupted.

D 7: I thought during personal privilege we have to sit down, shut up, and pretend we're listening. [There's a technical term for that she used, but I've forgotten it.]

They do so, but TiC makes a phone call.

D 6 elaborates on how

• 90% of Texans oppose redistricting.
• It's unnecessary, uncalled for, and unprecedented but would set a very bad precedent.
• The House railroaded their bill through with practically secret committee meetings and no witnesses to speak of.
• Of the 38 witnesses to appear before the Senate committee, 35 opposed redistricting, 2 spoke neutrally, and only 1 favored it.
• The current map is fair to both parties; proposed map effectively disenfranchises minorities by splitting up their districts and dumping them into districts halfway across the state that are full of suburban Republicans.
• Both the governor and lieutenant governor have repeatedly opposed bringing up redistricting, because it wouldn't have the required 2/3 support to bring a bill to the floor.
• They just changed the rule to a simple majority so that they could get it on the floor.
• The first time it failed fair and square, so they just kept redoing it.
• Etc.

Cheers from the gallery (us). TiC warns for the last time that we have to be quiet or he'll pitch us out.

D 8: Should we even be discussing this bill. According to Rule 123, we should only discuss such bills on Thursday, and it's Tuesday.

I have to leave; my diabetic cat needs his shot. But I go assured that my elected reps will continue to pick nits, split hairs, and stall to glory in hopes a miracle will occur.

I pause to compliment a guy on his T shirt, which has a Dennis K bumper sticker plastered on and the words "Ya Basta." In 'Merican, that means, "Enough already!"

 

Amen, brother.

 

On the way out I pass a tour group of 15 senior citizens. "Hey, they're debating redistricting in the Senate. Go to the gallery and check it out." Their faces brighten, and they scuttle off on their walkers. I feel good; I've replaced myself 15 times.

And this, boys and girls, is how democracy works. There will be a test on Friday.

Here's a group of progressive Texas bloggers who'll keep you up to date on our fair state.

Granny Says, "Vote!"

Granny D is going on tour to make sure working women get registered to vote. She's not coming through Texas (duh), but she's going to 36 other states. Maybe yours. She'd probably be glad for the help of women who would like to be working but aren't. Granny says:

"We have a duty to look after each other. If we lose control of our government, then we lose our ability to dispense justice and human kindness. Our first priority today, then, is to defeat utterly those forces of greed and corruption that have come between us and self-governance."

11:26:01 PM    

comment []

Bible -101

Does W lie about everything? Check out this Al Franken interview in which Al asks Bush about a Bible book Bush allegedly studied for two years. Bush didn't know anything about it. The book was Acts. Full name: Acts of the Apostles. Do you think perhaps in two years they might have gotten as far as the title, which would be a big clue as to what the book is about? Bush mentioned that Acts contained the parable of the talents. Franken knew that that story was in Matthew, which was a surprise to Bush. Now the other book in the two-year Bible study was Luke, and sometimes stories appear in more than one gospel. So it could be an honest mistake, but nope, the talents tale is confined to Matthew.

Bush probably likes it because the story concludes with "For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away," which is as close as he comes to having an economic policy.

But my point--and I did have one, but it's running around the room yapping and gnawing on the furniture--is that anyone with any exposure to Christianity probably knows that:

• parables were spoken by Jesus
• the sayings and doings of Jesus are in the gospels
• the gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Now you know more about the Bible than the President, who claims to love it dearly, to have intensively studied it, and to read it everyday. This last item is also suspect, according to the interview. Why lie about it? Or why not say, "I've forgotten today's reading." Or made something up, since that sort of thing doesn't bother him. The parable of the talents, for instance. Sheesh. He's not even a good liar.

Update, wiping off the egg: A kind reader sent me an email instead of flaming me on site (which I deeply appreciate), pointing out that it was Don Evans, Secretary of Commerce, who went to scriptural boot camp for 2 years with Bush. Evans thought the parable of the talents was in Acts. It's not known what Bush knows from his 2-year study, though I would sure enough like to ask him. As the reader suggests, probably my political bias was showing, but I think also my rage over one more lie and being on the edge of a glaring migraine for 3 days contributed as well. Apologies, all.

10:19:15 PM    

comment []