Burnt Orange Report

Ticket Splitters: Go to a Vote

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

List of E-mails of All Reps

Normally Ticket Splitting is a good thing in reference to SG. But a fellow Burnt Oranger here came up with a good name for the 5 people who purposefully left this Tuesday's meeting in order to kill any possible vote on Election Reform bills AB 18, 19, and 20.

The Splitters are-

Grant Stanis- Business Rep.- Grant.Stanis@mail.utexas.edu
Courtney Livingston- Lib. Arts Rep.- livingston@mail.utexas.edu
Henna Tayyeb- Two Year at Large- hennat@mail.utexas.edu
Clayton Stewart- Lib. Arts Rep.- cstewart@mail.utexas.edu
Jason Smith- Lib. Arts Rep.- Jsmith@mail.utexas.edu

Three of those are Liberal Arts reps, even though the other three Lib Arts Reps stayed to represent their college. Arguements were made by Clayton that the input he heard, from the Liberal Arts Council, was that they didn't like it. I'm sorry to say, but the LAC is not the Liberal Arts College at large. I'm in Liberal Arts, Ali Puente is in Liberal Arts, quite a few of the actual speakers at Tuesday's meeting were in Liberal Arts, most of the people I've talked to that are in favor were from Liberal Arts.

I'm sorry Clayton, Livingston, and Smith, but leaving without voting disables you from representing me or anyone else you claim to be representing. Though your vote no for the sake of the LAC seems misguided in my mind, your absence on Tuesday (and any absence on Saturday) is more than misguided, it's a mistake.

I encourage everyone that is a student to drop them a line along the theme of "Go to a Vote".

Here is the Daily Texan Op-Ed piece. My letter is below the fold.

List of E-mails of All Your Reps

Dear SG Representatives,

Karl-Thomas Musselman
Student
College of Liberal Arts

City Council Endorsement Meeting

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

First, a new semi-old pic of me with Katie Naranjo, our newest BOR writer and possible candidate for TYD Region 6 Thingamagig (which Byron is now).

Location: GSB 2.124
Begins: Saturday 2 April 2005 10:00am
Ends: Saturday 2 April 2005 12:00pm

UDems MEMBERS: This Saturday is a very IMPORTANT meeting.

It is our endorsement meeting for City Council. We will vote on the candidates that we support for Place 1, 3, and 4 and two ballot propositions. It will determine how we are involved with city council for the rest of the year.

Please come to vote for your favorite candidate. The speakers start at 10:30 AM, but free breakfast will be provided starting at 10:00. Please don't miss this important event. It will be in our regular meeting room: GSB 2.124.

Afterwards, we will be having a party of some sort that will involve free stuff for those who attend the meeting. Please make plans to spend the day with us. See you Saturday!!!!

Please note: the constitutional ammendment to limit voting members for this Saturday's meeting to only those who became members as of this past Wednesday passed unanimously.

NO MEMBERSHIP WILL BE GIVEN ON THE DAY OF THE ENDORSEMENT.

SG Meeting Called for Saturday

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Here is the e-mail from President Brent Chaney calling a special session of SG for this Saturday at 8 am to hopefully discuss and vote on the election reform bills. This is from the "secretive insider listservs" that I think some have claimed in the Texan, meaning, the representatives and committee/agency listservs.

Dear Student Government Members,

After watching our assembly debate last night for over six hours I do not personally agree that our assembly and Student Government members have all of the information needed to vote, but I will never be the one to stop a vote from taking place. Therefore, I am calling a Special Session for this Saturday at 8 AM in a location that will be sent out very soon (Glen Maloney Room, basement of the SSB as always).

I need every Representative to do more research until the meeting. It is obvious from the e-mails and calls I have received there are many different points of view among our student body. Many of them believe we are rushing this through at the last second. Student Government took one of the worst PR blows I can remember today. Everyone is responsible.

In comparison to most bills in the Assembly, it had more time for members to find out about it, do research, attend forums, etc. than other bills they complain are rushed. Is there any bill in the Assembly that has some level of controversy that isn't decried as being 'rushed'? If Brent went to more than one meeting on the Bill, and if general members actually showed up to the who knows how many different meetings on this bill, maybe they would be more informed.

Oh heavens, there are differnt points of view from the student body! Sound the "must not vote on legislation alarm" because we aren't all singing Kumbyah as we unanimously approve it by voice vote! Get serious Representatives, you use the same damn excuses for every piece of legislation that comes before the assembly that someone, usually Grant Stannis, doesn't like. I can't even think right now of one piece of legislation this year that was actually voted on if it was contested, and was instead tabled into non-existance without any vote up or down at all. If you don't like legislation, vote it down. Don't 'not deal with it' or worse as the case was this week, leave with your ball because you don't want to play.

The rest of the e-mail below the fold.

I encourage the authors of AB 18 to work with Representatives and students that still have unanswered questions and problems with the bill. The purpose of many of the changes to the way we conduct meetings this year are to ensure that nothing like last nights meeting happens. Take time outside of meeting to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly on Saturday. Please be conscious of the feelings of other people.

This will be the last meeting for this bill to be discussed our term. Whatever the outcome of the Special Session I hope that everyone will look beyond the outcome of one bill and celebrate the great many things we have accomplished this year. Please let Amber know if you will be unable to attend.

It has been a pleasure serving with you.

Best,
Brent

Perry's Office Lies About Gambling

By Andrew Dobbs

Sometimes I wonder how little regard the Republicans in this state hold the rest of us in. I mean, if you lie about something that is as easily disproven as a 30 second Google or Lexis-Nexis search, how can you possibly respect the person you are lying to? At least if it were hard to disprove I could give them credit for covering up their tracks in an attempt to defeat our clearly adequate research skills and memory. But no, they lie about things there is no reason to lie about.

Case in point- an Associated Press report from today quotes Rick Perry's spokeswoman Kathy Walt as saying

"There are a lot of conspiracy theorists around the capitol," said Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt. "The fact of the matter is the governor has never been a proponent of gambling."

Really? NEVER been a proponent? People who think otherwise are "conspiracy theorists"? Well, I suppose that Rick Perry might want to sidle up next to Alex Jones, since he himself has called himself a proponent of gambling.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 4-21-2004:

Less than two years ago, Gov. Rick Perry warned that any attempt to expand gambling in Texas would have a "short life span" on his desk. Now Perry wants to make revenue from new video slot machines a centerpiece of his school finance plan, leaving many gambling opponents, particularly those in religious circles, feeling betrayed and angry.”

From the Associated Press (the same author who wrote today's story, no less), 4-13-2004:

Last week, Perry proposed a plan that would lower property taxes for homeowners and businesses while shoring up additional revenue from an increased tax on cigarettes, video lottery gambling and an admission fee on adult entertainment events, among other sources.

From another Associated Press report (same author-- April Castro-- again), 4-6-2004:

Perry's plan does not include a significant new tax bill to replace the revenue that would be lost in tax cuts, but his office has floated allowing state-taxed video lottery terminals at racetracks and an increase in the cigarette tax to fund education.

Now to the good stuff. From Rick Perry's press office, 4-8-2004:

Perry said he will pay for his plan through a variety of revenue sources that target tax fairness, unhealthy behaviors or voluntary actions. His revenue proposals include a $1 per pack cigarette tax hike, fees on adult entertainment, closing the franchise and auto sales tax loopholes, and - if Texas voters approve - video lottery at specified venues.

The same quote was used in a press release on April 13, 2004. Very similar was a line from his April 8, 2004 speech outlining his education proposals in San Antonio:

My plan includes a $1 per pack cigarette tax hike, fees on adult entertainment, closing the franchise and auto sales tax loopholes to make them fairer, and - if Texas voters agree - video lottery terminals in approved areas.

Finally, and most damning, from his proclamation calling the 2004 special session on 4-15-2004:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of the state of Texas, by the authority vested in me(...) do hereby call an extraordinary session of the 78th Legislature(...) for the following purposes: (...)

To consider legislation and amendments to the constitution that authorize and allow the placement and licensing of video lottery terminals at licensed racetracks and certain Indian reservations, providing that the revenue derived from such activity is dedicated to the Educational Excellence Fund, providing that the racetracks and tribes sign a contract with the state.

So three news reports, two press releases, a public speech and the proclamation from Perry's office all say that he supported gambling. How stupid does he think we are? All of this stuff was either on Lexis-Nexis or his very own website. At least the Communists were respectful enough to take stuff out of the records before they lied about it. Rick Perry is a two bit crooked politician and possibly the worst governor in Texas history. All this does is convince me even more that he'll be the easiest to beat in 2006.

Terri Schiavo Dies

By Byron LaMasters

Thankfully, this national tragedy is now over, but it won't stop Tom DeLay from shameless hypocrisy and overarching hysteria on the issue. My thoughts and prayers are certainly with the entire Schiavo family, and I hope that our nation can benefit from this national incident. Please join Jim's request and fill out a living will. At the very least, speak with your loved ones, and make sure that they know what treatment that you wish to receive if you are incapacitated or otherwise unable to make such decisions.

Anyone Surprised?

By Zach Neumann

This morning, the NY Times reported that U.S. intelligence pertaining to WMD’s in Iraq was patently incorrect. I don’t think this comes as a shock to anyone. Check out the story:

A report made public this morning concludes that American intelligence agencies were "dead wrong" in almost all of their prewar assessments about the state of unconventional weapons in Iraq, and that on issues of this importance "we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude."

It adds, "The harm done to American credibility by our all too public intelligence failures in Iraq will take years to undo."

The Economist had something along these lines last week. I guess it goes without saying that the greatest tool in the war against terrorism is information. Given the fact that the application of conventional military force does little to halt the spread of non state militants, it is vital that we fully develop our special forces, elite police units and intelligence agencies. Despite arguments made to the contrary by the Bushies in the National Security Strategy (NSS), America’s primary response to the threat of terrorism is still regime change. This has not (and will not) work. Though I’m not a fan of Donald Rumsfeld, I think he realizes this to an extent. While he has (obviously) supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, he has also attempted to revamp the capabilities of the U.S. military to deal with unconventional threats. To a large extent, this has included major changes to our intelligence infrastructure. Hopefully, his proposals will be taken seriously (despite suffering a significant setback last week).

Austin Place 3 Candidate Forum

By Byron LaMasters

It's tonight at 7:30 in the Jester Auditorium. Karl-Thomas and Katie will be busy performing their duties as UD officers, but Andrew and I will try and liveblog it if there's a decent wireless internet connection. You can read my thoughts on the Austin City Council races here.

Update: The forum went well. The wireless was down, so Andrew and I didn't have the chance to liveblog. I got bored 15 minutes into the forum and went outside where I chatted with Andrew, several of the campaign staffers and DNC member David Holmes. Holmes's boss, State Rep. Hubert Vo (D-Houston) attended the meeting. Another one of Vo's staffers is volunteering for Jennifer Kim, and wanted to attend the meeting, so Vo and Holmes ended up attending as well. After the meeting I decided to pick up dinner at Freebirds, and use my free burrito card that I won last time I ate at Freebirds. Interestingly enough, David Holmes and Hubert Vo were also in the mood for burritos, and after running into them again, I ended up sitting down and eating dinner with them.

It was nice to have the opportunity to chat with Representative Vo. I told him that I was looking forward to working with other bloggers to help his 2006 campaign, at which point he made a kind remark of Houston blogger Greg Wythe. Greg did a lot of voter registration work in and around Vo's district. Regardless, it was fun to sit down and chat with Hubert Vo and his staff.

Waste During Wartime

By Byron LaMasters

I'll give Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) credit for one thing. He's standing up to oppose wasteful military spending during wartime. Read the letter that he sent to ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton in PDF format, here.

There are currently around 4000 Texas National Guardsmen and women serving on active duty in addition to the tens of thousands of Texans on active duty.

This issue is now before the House Armed Services Subcommittee chaired by Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-El Paso). If you are interested in this issue, call Reyes defense LA, Julie Marberg, at (202) 225-4831.

Is this Racially Insensitive?

By Byron LaMasters

We report. You decide.

I'm posting the email that I received from Wick Allison of D Magazine last night. The email is related to my comments regarding the Park Cities People editorial that wrote that it is an "unpleasant fact" that "Anglos will be a minority in North Texas". In response I wrote this:

I agree - we should talk about race, and the serious factors regarding our changing demographics in north Texas. High teen birth rates, high dropout rates and declining household incomes are serious problems that must be solved. My point is that the Park Cities People editorial addressed those issues in a highly insensitive manner. Stating that Anglos being a minority is an "unpleasant fact" suggests racial insensitivity at best, and blatant racism at worst. We'll never solve our problems by scapegoating one race or ethnicity or another. We'll solve our problems by working together towards common ground with mutual respect - something that the writers of the Park Cities People editorial page certainly lack.

Now, Wick Allison has responded by saying that the Park Cities People editorial was correct as he stated via email that "Anglo society is superior to Hispanic society". I would say that such a statement is racially insensitve at best, and is reflective of the attitude held by many north Dallas and Park Cities Republicans that is usually said in private, but usually does not make waves into the mainstream media. Read the full email in the extended entry:

But it IS an unpleasant fact. Anglo society is superior to Hispanic society. Why do you think so many Hispanics want to be here? How many Anglos are fleeing the other direction? Read, for example, the Catholic thinker Michael Novak on Spanish Catholic thinking vs. American protestant thinking and how this divergence formed two very different societies in the Americas. Mexico, for example, has some of the wealthiest families in the world, but it is not (Novak's point) a wealth-producing, wealth-sharing society. Ask Argentinean political analysts about their society, and they will tell that it is a "take" society vs. the Anglo "build" society. It is a fine and wonderful thing to celebrate the different cultures that form our country, but it would be suicide to acquiesce to them. Hispanics flee their culture for a reason. The point of the editorial was to point out the dangers if we do not spend money now to educate and enculturate the new majority, which by the way increasingly consists of illegal aliens. I think the use of the word "alien" is interesting, because they are alien to our culture and way of thinking. So were the Jews and the Italians and the Irish at one time, but the nation made a whole-hearted effort to "Anglicize" them--that's why public education was started in the first place.

Now, to your point about racism. It would be racist to suggest that Hispanics are prone to destructive behavior. It would also be untrue. "Have-nots"--white, black, brown--have patterns of destructive behavior that are not correlated to race or ethnicity. And D Magazine has published extensive research to show that patterns of behavior and even political ideas correlate to class much more than, even to the exclusion of, race or ethnicity. Once again, we have the Jews and the Italians and the Irish and so forth. So we have to take into account poverty as well as an entirely different cultural background--and treat these two phenomena separately. But we DO have to treat them. And we can't treat them if we can't talk about them without having some (highly intelligent, wonderful, nice) liberal yell "Racism!!" every time somebody tries to address it.

What do you think? Let's keep the debate going, and let us know in comments.

Privatization Hurts Young People

By Byron LaMasters

The College Democrats of America have a petition on Social Security that I hope that you all join me in signing.

Keep STAR+PLUS

By Byron LaMasters

It's a good program, and some of the GOoPers in the lege want to cut it. Read Hope Morrison's post on the topic and act on the issue if you have the chance. Pink Dome adds some thoughts as well.

Quorum Break Kills Ticket Bill

By Andrew Dobbs

Since no one had put up a post describing the ignominous death of AB 18 and the final meeting of the current Student Government, I figured I would.

According to the Daily Texan, the debate lasted six hours and ended not with an up or down vote, but rather with a quorum break coordinated by the bill's opponents (or, as I will now call them, the "Ticket Splitters"- i.e. they split as soon as the ticket bill came up...).

After six hours of heated debate, members of the Student Government assembly found themselves one representative short of a quorum necessary to vote on a measure to eliminate tickets from student elections.

Around 1 a.m. Wednesday morning, a motion to indefinitely table the bill failed. Several representatives who argued against the bill left the room, effectively blocking the legislation from a vote.

Supporters of the bill immediately criticized those members, calling their actions a "political maneuver."

"This shows the assembly should take a serious look at its procedures," said Matt Ross, a two-year-at-large representative, and sponsor of the bill. "I've never been this ashamed to be a part of SG."

Grant Stanis, business representative, defended his decision to leave, saying it was an issue the next assembly should handle. "We thoroughly discussed the issue, but we see too many issues and problems with the legislation," Stanis said. "We didn't feel like this was something that needed to be voted on now."

Now, I have said too many nice things about the Killer Ds to decry the action in and of itself, but I can say that I am disappointed. The Killer Ds split so they could protect the representation of Texans who would be otherwise de facto disenfranchised, Grant Stanis and his crew split to preserve a broken system. AB 18 was the best thing that could have happened to SG- internet voting means that there is no investment of time, effort or money in casting your vote. When people don't have anything invested, they are less likely to do the research needed to make an informed decision. Instead of picking from all the tickets for the most qualified candidates, they stick with one ticket for whatever reason. Some good people are elected, a lot of bad ones are too. Making everyone run as an independent means everyone has to do a lot of research and people will be chosen for their skills and their qualifications, not the fact that they are on the right ticket.

Furthermore, the system as it stands locks most people out of the process. In the real world we have two well established "tickets" and a host of smaller ones. Anyone who meets the legal requirements for office can run in any party's primary. Thus everyone has a chance to serve in public office. Under the ticket system, a handful of people who are at the top of the ticket- maybe 4 or 5- pick all of the candidates for all of the offices. If you aren't chosen, you can try another ticket (who are just as unlikely to pick you), or run as an independent (which means you will likely be defeated). Only the elect has the ability to run a race with a chance of winning, meaning well-intentioned and well-qualified candidates are locked out of the process. Under AB 18 this wouldn't have been a problem.

The good news is that the SG might call a special session for Friday morning to resolve these bills. But chances are the Ticket Splitters will just refuse to attend that meeting as well. I'm not sure if the executives can compel attendance, but if they can, they should. Whether this bill passes or not is of less importance to me now- it is simply time for it to get a fair hearing. Dozens of people showed up on Tuesday night to stick up for this bill. Their voices deserve to be heard.

$75,000 Ad Buy in Tom DeLay's District

By Byron LaMasters

It's good to see folks taking on Tom DeLay while he's taking heat from the nation media these past few weeks. The Campaign for America's Future is making a $75,000 ad buy in the TX-22 District:

Tom "the Hammer" DeLay leads the Republican majority in Congress, and epitomizes the blatant corruption, abuses of power and partisanship all too common among the extreme right wing. Help us air a new TV ad to call out DeLay’s corruption for hundreds of thousands of his own constituents and upwards of one million Americans. Corruption like...

• Taking campaign contributions from a polluting energy company in exchange for what company officials believed would be "a seat at the table" during Energy Bill negotiations.
• Strong-arming a Republican member of Congress to side with big drug companies and HMOs during the 2004 Medicare bill. (The Republican colleague originally accused DeLay of outright bribery.)
• For the first $20,000 contributed, the Campaign for America’s Future will match every dollar 4-to-1 to expose DeLay’s corruption for even more people. With this match, every $10 you contribute will put this ad in front of 160 households for a full week! Please contribute today.

More info from the Campaign for America's Future folks via email:

The Campaign for America's Future spot begins airing Thursday throughout Rep. DeLay's Texas district and on major news stations in Washington. The initial $75,000 buy runs for a full week. We've also created a website highlighting DeLay's corruption.

The Public Campaign Action Fund begins a $25,000 buy of television ads also calling on Rep. DeLay to resign this week in three districts represented by Republican members Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., and House Ethics Committee Chair Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.

More at the Daily DeLay. The Stakeholder is all over Tom DeLay as well. Even the Texas A&M Newspaper is running a column today opposing Tom DeLay.

Chris Bell Campaign Posts Kos Diary

By Byron LaMasters

Read it here, and recommend it if you're a dKos member.

I think I'm going to be sick...

By Zach Neumann

It’s been confirmed. The United States has (and probably) is deporting terror suspects to foreign countries to be tortured by governments not bound by petty little things like due process of law. The NY Times reports:

Maher Arar, a 35-year-old Canadian engineer, is suing the United States, saying American officials grabbed him in 2002 as he changed planes in New York and transported him to Syria where, he says, he was held for 10 months in a dank, tiny cell and brutally beaten with a metal cable.

Now federal aviation records examined by The New York Times appear to corroborate Mr. Arar's account of his flight, during which, he says, he sat chained on the leather seats of a luxury executive jet as his American guards watched movies and ignored his protests.

The tale of Mr. Arar, the subject of a yearlong inquiry by the Canadian government, is perhaps the best documented of a number of cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in which suspects have accused the United States of secretly delivering them to other countries for interrogation under torture. Deportation for interrogation abroad is known as rendition.

In papers filed in a New York court replying to Mr. Arar's lawsuit, Justice Department lawyers say the case was not one of rendition but of deportation. They say Mr. Arar was deported to Syria based on secret information that he was a member of Al Qaeda, an accusation he denies.

I understand that certain constitutional provisions have to be circumvented from time to time in the name of national security. However, I question if this is one of those times. I am posting this because I find myself in something of an intellectual quagmire. While my small-l-liberal sensibilities are shaken when I read about this case, I still understand that the government needs to be able to deal with potential terrorists quickly. It seems there is no right answer here. More than anything, this article makes me sad because I’m beginning to realize that security and liberty are not completely compatible. While this conclusion may seem obvious to some, it is one I’ve just come to accept. I am deeply disturbed by all of this.

The Texas Supremes

By Jim Dallas

The Texas Supremes came down to UH this morning to hear a couple of appeals in front of a student audience (press release). I had to sit down and watch one of the hearings. Here are my observations:

Chief Justice Jefferson is both taller and somewhat more soft-spoken than I had gathered. Just sort of exudes quiet dignity. Wowsa.

Justice Brister asked a lot of sharp, pointed, and occasionally amusing "stump-the-lawyer" questions. Which kept an otherwise dry (ok, dull) event interesting. In retrospect, I probably should have voted for him in November for that reason alone. Although I quiver at the thought of ever having to appear before him in some future career.

Justice Owen, often thought of as an appointee to a higher judicial office, asked a few questions, but mostly took notes quietly.

Appointee Phil Johnson sat in the audience taking notes.

The most inquisitive justices seemed to be (in descending order) O'Neill, Brister, Jefferson, Owen, Medina, Wainwright, Hecht and Green. In fact, I don't recall hearing Justice Green ask any questions.

Bush's Public Popularity Down!!! Slightly Happy.

By Katie Naranjo

The sad or serious face that President Bush will be wearing in upcoming weeks is due to a slide in his popularity with the public. What are the issues that might have added to this almost 10-point slide, one might ask. Well, a recent decision by the Bush administration to support controversial issues is one reason. Meaning the attempt to intervene in the Terri Schaivo hearings and family conflicts. Bush is also fielding much criticism about his proposal to privatize the social security system. Whether you are satisfied with the current system or not, the entire privatization of the social security system is a huge risk that could result in millions of elderly not receiving the same funds prior. The risks outweigh the benefits that do not seem to be materializing. So why am I writing about Bush's popularity, when you can watch CNN and hear. Simply I was excited, that after poking the Federal nose into none of its business it showed that voters are mildly informed about the Fed's actions.

Burnt Orange Report from the Floor

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Yes folks, it's the last SG meeting for those elected last spring before the new one is seated next week. I'll be live blogging it, updates marked with ----- lines (and yes Byron, I'll "extended entry" it after it's over in a few hours).

UPDATE:: I'm still updating but I'm sticking it into the extended entry. So just open it up and keep refreshing.

The room is crowded, with more people than I have ever seen at an SG meeting all year long (appropriations being the runner up now). Time for roll call.

-----
Open Forum time: A funny presentation on the life and times of Brent Chaney (with powerpoint baby pictures!) I wish I could only put it into words. Here are some selected quotes... which were followed by a audio montage of quotes, and some singing by his fellow Tejas buds???

...endorsement deal with cabbage patch kids

...a particular affinty for clowns arose after his return from a place called neverland

...though the role of Dorthoty may have been more fitting

...women have proven useful to Brent in other ways as well

-----
Flying Stress Stars being thrown by the Executive Board to the audience!!!

-----
Tim Allen spoke briefly in favor of AB 18.

A Mr. Dale(?), spoke about being possibly the only person in the room who was upset with the display just seen but he left with the comment of "Promoting ideal government should be the paramount objective of Student Government." Hear, hear to that.

A speaker from the Comm Council, and another I missed.

Next speaker: best quote: "If you are comfortable with this system then you need to re-evaluate what SG is about."

-----
UT Watch members spoke in favor of the Top 10% plan in regards to diversity. In short, they are supporting SB 333 and SB 936 and are opposed to SB 320 and SB 1546.

-----
After David Strauss of UDems and the Travesty, we were interrupted by 4 people chanting "where's our pool" dressed up in blue butched paper, carrying foam noodles, and spraying him with squirt guns. Beach balls were bouncing about the room. Oh heavens, it may be the last meeting, but this is not really professional. It's a joke, kinda like SG many might say...

-----
Katie Herbeck, member of the ESB this year, is speaking on behalf of AB 18. You may remember her name from the Daily Texan photography scuffle the night of election results (where the Texan made a stink about their constitutional right to shame and harass candidates that were crying in the name of "free speech").

-----
A motion by Matt Stolhandske to move some of the Exec reports after the debate over the bills failed. Normally motions are made when there are big things on the menu to push debate forward, but incoming VP Elizabeth Brummet spoke against it on the point that after seeing the ridiculousness of the first part of the meeting she wanted visiting students to see that SG wasn't just all "fun and games". No kidding, this place shouldn't be about fun and games, it should bore you OUT OF YOUR MIND, so that you NEVER COME BACK!!!!

Sorry, where was I?

Time for Executive reports...

------
President- Discussion about the latest on Top 10% reform over at the leg. Talk to Brent Chaney if you want more info. Tax Free Textbooks Bill update. Thanking Exec for all they have done this year. Thanks to Reps, thanks to Agencies (swoon, be still my heart!), LLAs, etc.

VP- OMG it's more gladhanding!!! Matt Hardigree (current president of the SEC on campus) , whom I'm IMing with right now, says that they should be playing "Time of your Life" by Green Day. That is sooo true.

Executive Director- Amy Chiou, gives her Academy Awards Acceptance Speech. And binders, don't forget the amazing binders and the new office space (which is awesome though).

Internal Finace- Jessica Rice in the House! Whoa, like, an actual report. The first one so far today! And she just looked over at the Agengy directors, and she looked at me, like right at me!!! And she gave props to the gender neutral bathrooms, saying she's going to keep working on them going forward. I <3 Jessica Rice. She's now moved into her Al Gore-esqe speech (but I really liked that speech too...)

External Finance- Dan Paschal, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Attorney General- Last AG report eva! (since the position has been eliminated) Some random stuff. Tone for the rest of the meeting: chill.

Secretary- Andrew Lara talks about an SG banquet. And he said Serrano's with a rolled R. Mmmmmm. And what was that about Brittney and Boy Bands in the SG office?

Time for Representatives are Privileged, oops, I mean Representatives Privilege. Really, there is not much of interest here.

Rep. Grant Stannis brings forth an issue of parlimentary procedure. He appealed the decision of the VP to make the passage of a Bill set at 22 votes, 50% + 1 of the 43 Assembly seats, even though there are about 3 empty seats from people who have resigned in comparison to the total number of representatives who are present in this meeting.

I would normally agree with his point, but this is obviously a political move to raise the bar for passage for tonight's bills. Nice try Stannis, but I think the Assembly is going to shoot this down.

Well it was killed by a about a 20-13-1 margin. Maybe a test vote for the later Bills tonight? A good sign if so.

-----
Committee and Agency Reports- I get to speak!!!

(Matt H Reporting From in the Closet, Rick Perry is nowhere in sight) Karl is following Danielle, that's rough, she's more entertaining than Stolhandske yelling out "Point of Order" every ten damn seconds. Just to prove that he's hardcore Karl's got his laptop on him and he's liveblogging and checking his email while he is making a presentation.

Karl Opens with a joke "I'd like to thank the Acadamy" and it fails like the Stannis Point of Parlientary Information. Okay, i just lost track of what is happening he just said more acronyms than I can keep track of. Something about the BLT and the GBA and maybe an HIV and a PSP. Man I want a PSP. Oh, something about a picnic! I love picnics. And Colby just yelled "K Tizzle" and I thought she was from SOUTH Tyler.

Thanks Matt, and my joke was funny, I swear!. Now for a 5 minute Recess.

And we are back. Time to talk about AB 18. Or maybe not, since Stolhandske is offering up an Amendment, but people want new copies of the bill which has been updated for some reason from what people have. But we are going to debate an amendment for changes in how much each type of candidate can spend.

Rep. "Amendment to your Amendment" Stannis proposes now to eliminate all spending caps. *eye roll* Voting: what's that I hear, No's all around... HAHAHA. 34-2 smackdown.

Limits, Limits, Limits. Keep them low, whatever. Just vote people. Oh, and another amendment to the amendment by Laura Gladney-Lemon! It failed miserably. Then another amendment by Elizabeth Brummet to index college level Reps to $50 a rep, with a $100 floor for any school. I'm mixed on this one, $75 a slot might be better but I don't have a vote. Whoops, Stolhandske just pulled it out from under us, added it as a Friendly amendment, and now we are moving on to the general, original Amendment, which has been whored out too much tonight. And it passes with one vote against!

Onto the general bill. Laura Gladney-Lemon (LGL) is making some confusing amendment about candidate pairings, which no one understands and will vote down I think. The Committee gave it's "negative report" which was silly because in the commite it was a tied vote, 1 for (Chris Kennedy) 1 agains (Grant Stannis) 1 Abstain (E. Brummet), and the chair, Omar Ochoa broke it with a no vote. Let's see, the two people who benefited by the system because they are going to be here next year, voted no or not at all. So I'm not taking the committee report for anything, considering I was there.

And Gladney-Lemon's 1st Amendment ramblings are really driving me bonkers because I don't think it has anything to do with this bill. If there is a problem, I'm sure someone will figure it out. Not a reason to fear the bill.

LGL's Amendment to remove pairings of all types actually passed. But not soon after was an amendment to reinstate all of that PLUS adding back into the mix college level coalitions! Can we say, undercover tickets and changes the intent of the bill? This would fall under the Brent Chaney Baby Steps plan. Ali Puente, UDems VP and SG gadfly gave a slap down of SG being weak and got a standing ovation from the back section where I'm sitting. We totally overclapped VP Rachel McGinity who is the chair of this meeting.

Oh NO! Another LGL Amendment! And people are falling asleep on the floor back here. And a motion to make all votes standing or roll call votes which passed!

-----
I can't even tell what we are debating on anymore. LGL cried after getting attacked by another Rep on her continious amendments. Her amendment failed and now we are on something else. I'm so confused.

And now we have a motion to move out of AB 18 and go to AB 24 because the author has homework. Don't we all, don't we all.

AR 24 passes! On to AR 20! And it passes as well! (After Stannis slowed things down by having them explain the bill. gasp!)

Back to AB 18, LGL's last amendment failed. Call to question failed. Back to debate. Motion for 10 min. of debate total. Now for the impassioned speeches.

Arguements against include regulation of cookies on the west mall. I don't like this, there seems to be a bit of a long line.

Chaney now wants to just not vote on this. This is absolute bullshit Brent. Let the Assembly vote and stop threatening us with the next assembly overturning it. I'd like to seem them try and deal with the press coverage.

Now, there is a motion to table indefinitly. That is even more insane. Let it come to a vote. Stop copping out. This is why I hate Student Government sometimes.

Matt just had a good point, this is more than a political manuever, it's political manure. Motion to Table failed 22-7.

Grant Stannis has left the building along with Courtney Livingston breaking quorum.

HJR 6 Hearing

By Byron LaMasters

Speaking of gay marriage equality.... HJR 6, the amendment to the Texas constitution banning gay marriage is scheduled for a hearing next Monday, April 4. I would encourage people to attend the hearing. I may stop by for a little bit to fill out a witness affirmation form. The Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas has more information:

HJR 6, the Anti-Gay Texas Marriage Amendment, would put unequal treatment for gay and lesbian Texans into our Texas Constitution by permanently banning marriage for gay and lesbian couples. It would deny thousands of Texas families access to health care, fair inheritance and survivor rights, and the ability to make medical decisions for loved ones. We believe HJR 6 will be scheduled for a hearing to take public testimony on Monday, April 4, 2005. We need people to do one of three actions:

1. Testify verbally,
2. Submit written testimony, and
3. Sign a witness affirmation form.

HJR 6 will officially post for a hearing on March 30, and we will have more details at that time. The committee hearing will start "at 2pm or upon adjournment," and it could last well past midnight. We need families from across the state to testify that HJR 6 hurts real families!

LGRL also has some "quick facts" on HJR 6. They're good talking points for all of you out there. Read them in the extended entry:

The Texas Marriage Amendment hurts Texas families. It would deny thousands of families access to healthcare, fair inheritance and survivor rights, and the ability to make life-saving medical decisions for loved ones.

Our Constitution should be used to protect people, not hurt them. But that is just what the Texas Marriage Amendment would do. Our Constitution is for protecting our most basic and important rights. It should never be used to settle partisan, religious or ideological disputes. There is no question that many Texans disagree about marriage for gay and lesbian couples, but those disagreements do not belong in our Constitution.

Changing the Constitution is never simple. There are over 1000 protections, rights and responsibilities that go along with civil marriage. Many, like immigration rights and veterans death benefits, cannot be covered by contracts or legal planning. The Texas Marriage Amendment would permanently deny access to each of these family protections to gay and lesbian couples and their families.

This bill DOES NOT “reinforce” heterosexual marriages. The typical reason legislators give for supporting this legislation is that it reinforces traditional marriages. However, they have provided no reasoning to support the idea that barring same-sex marriages in any way contributes positively to heterosexual marriages, or that recognition of same-sex marriages threatens existing opposite-sex marriages. It seems the real motivation behind such legislation is homophobia.

Exactly. Please attend the hearing if you're in Austin, and if you're in Houston give Martha Wong's office a call (see below).

Martha Wong Feels the Heat from the GLBT Community

By Byron LaMasters

GLBT activists in Houston have targetted State Rep. Martha Wong (R-Houston) as a possible vote against a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage equality. Wong serves on the State Affairs Committee where she is a possible swing vote. Wong represents the wealthiest state house district in the state including West University Place, Bellaire, River Oaks, etc. Wong also happens to probably represent the gayest district in Harris County as she represents much of the Montrose area.

Despite this, Wong voted against the Dignity for All Students amendment to HB 2 earlier this month proposed by State Rep. Garnett Coleman (D-Houston), which would provide more protection for GLBT students in schools. Even Rep. Todd Baxter (R-Austin) voted for this amendment - I guess Todd Baxter learned something after coming within less than 200 votes of losing, and having the GLBT community raise roughly $30,000 for his opponent. Still, Wong is a potential swing vote on the marriage issue, and Houston activists are taking the lead in educating her district on the issue. KHOU reports:

Texas lawmakers are expected to begin debate this week on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. And that's throwing Houston Representative Martha Wong into a political minefield.

Gay activists have been blockwalking in Montrose to put pressure on State Rep. Martha Wong.

Back in her home district, gay activists have been blockwalking for a cause dear to their hearts. And they're talking to neighbors about their state representative.

Wong could be the gay marriage swing vote on the State Affairs Committee.

So the activists are burning up shoe leather to get the message out to sympathetic voters.

"These people understand how destructive it is to have an anti-gay marriage amendment being discussed for the next six months," said Maria Gonzalez, president of the Houston Gay-Lesbian Political Caucus.

Representative Wong has twice convinced voters to send her to the state legislature in a district Republicans redrew to defeat a Democrat. But now, she faces a dilemma over gay marriage.

For Wong, this is a classic no-win situation. Her district is mostly Republican, but it includes the Montrose area -- the heart of Houston's politically active gay community. No matter how Wong votes in Austin, she's going to tick off a lot of her voters here in Houston.

"But, more importantly, I think some of her more moderate Republicans take a dim view of government regulating certain types of privacy issues," said 11 News political analyst Bob Stein. "We've seen this in the Schiavo affair and it may very well be that this may come back to haunt her."

Wong told us by phone she hasn't decided how to vote on the gay marriage amendment. She wouldn't talk to us on camera because she says she's trying to keep a low profile on this issue.

But gay activists won't let her.

They say they've printed up 5,000 door hangers, which they're circulating throughout Wong's district. They're targeting homes that they've previously identified as sympathetic to gay causes.

Martha Wong has an easy decision to make. She represents a district with more gay people than any other in Harris County. Will she actually represent her constituents? Or will she toe the party line?

Politically, it is certainly in her best interest to side with the gay community. She represents the wealthiest and one of the best educated districts in the state. Yes, it leans Republican, but these are County Club Republicans that care the most about low taxes - not the social conservatives that could hijack her in a Republican primary. If she votes with the gay community on this issue, Wong will greatly lessen the scale of attacks and money leveled at her by the gay community come election time.

Ick

By Jim Dallas

Petition drives, lobbying, and letters to the editor are the way to go people, people, not threats of bio-terrorism.

Wingnuts Buy Shiavo List

By Byron LaMasters

Read Kos to see the those who support the parents of Terri Shiavo. Shiavo's parents have profited by selling their fundraising list to a right-wing fundamentalist pro-life organization.

Student Government Not a Wash?

By Katie Naranjo

Tickets, are they really Satan's work? Whether or not you agree with tickets, the arguments against tickets have been stacking up. Ali Puente spoke tonight on the topic of SG tickets and what is best for the students at the University of Texas. The continued domination of one ticket over the other looks to be the future of SG if there is not a change in the current system. If there is anyone who can prove that the mindset and system inwhich candidates are chosen will change in the future, please do post. Now that being said, i also have concerns with changing the system, to a complete abolishment of tickets. As a former candidate, i am fully aware of the time and financial burden that candidates carry. Tickets help to aliviate these restraints. My hope for the end of this meeting is that there is a resolution to the issue inwhich students are not alienated and do not have to foot the bill alone.

Race based admissions is a controversial topic, along with the top 10%. President Brent Chaney spoke on the Top 10% caps and race base admissions. He mentioned the Longhorn Scholar program as a key to diversity for the University of Texas. While I have been in the room listening and watching, I decided to count the number of minority students. Out of over 90 students, give or take a few, 12 minority students, of which less then half are representatives in the assembly. Thus the speeches from LULAC and UT Watch hit home as students looked around the room.

As a person who has attended a number of SG meetings, this meeting has proved to be the most eventful thus far. Maybe it was the random water gun people in masks that sprayed Brent Chaney, or the issues that are relevant to students. You decide. If there are any issues you feel are important to students at UT, stop by Tuesday nights at 7:oo pm, in the Glen Maloney room.

Open Letter to SG (plus e-mails)

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

I'll keep this one short, I just wanted to post the letter I sent to SG Reps today. Included is an easy to copy list of all the SG reps if you only have time for a copy and past job.

To: GymQueen7@aol.com, ByronLongAtLarge@yahoo.com, lamanda@mail.utexas.edu, karawong@mail.utexas.edu, ebrummett@mail.utexas.edu, elsalvrod@mail.utexas.edu, chrisken@mail.utexas.edu, omar.ochoa@bba02.bus.utexas.edu, bella@mail.utexas.edu, matt_ross@hotmail.com, matt.stolhandske@bba02.bus.utexas.edu, hennat@mail.utexas.edu, mary.donaldson@gmail.com, jess4ut@mail.utexas.edu, revisorer@mail.utexas.edu, Grant.Stanis@mail.utexas.edu, mfullerwigg@mail.utexas.edu, lyndsay@mail.utexas.edu, wonder.rios@mail.utexas.edu, sfdave@mail.utexas.edu, mercury42t@aol.com, mwindle@mail.utexas.edu, coachsil@aol.com, lgladney@mail.utexas.edu, yamissette@mail.utexas.edu, cesarmartineze@mail.utexas.edu, sarabearut@mail.utexas.edu, DilenK@aol.com, timliu@mail.utexas.edu, clivingston@mail.utexas.edu, Jsmith@mail.utexas.edu, cstewart@mail.utexas.edu, justinbroyles@mail.utexas.edu, stacygurevitz@yahoo.com, michazel@mail.utexas.edu, AugustusPerez@mail.utexas.edu, andreacarter@mail.utexas.edu, LKarchmer@mail.utexas.edu

Dear SG Reps,

Hopefully I'll be seeing you all at the meeting tonight, I'll be back
over on the right side in the corner as usual. And I'll be blogging
about the SG meeting for www.burntorangereport.com as well.

I want to encourage you to vote YES on AB 18 & 19 tonight. Though by
no means in depth and comprehensive, I want to present you with two
pieces of commentary on Tickets that have been posted to the Burnt
Orange Report already today (we have a daily readership of about
2,000).

http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/003588.html

http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/003586.html

I've talked to a lot of students about this issue in casual
conversation, people who are so far removed they will never show up at
a meeting and I've talked to people that loyally vote every year, even
if they don't feel that it makes any difference at all. And both
groups of people have been almost 100% behind the concept of moving
out of a Ticket based system. Yes, for some it's just in the hope
they won't have to bombarded with fliers. But even that is telling of
the fact that the current system is turning off a great segment of our
student population. For many others, it's because they wish they felt
that their vote was going to make a difference.

Students are not connected to SG, as hard as we try, because they are
not connected to the individuals in SG. Had you had to run last year,
focused entirely on your college, or in a way where you had to
interact only with your voters, (and not get them for other people on
your ticket), then students might have a tighter bond with you, as a
Representative. As it is now, students are tied to a ticket name, a
party that doesn't even live beyond 2 weeks each spring. Students are
at best tied to a semi-anonymous entity, hardly individuals, and
those, blame the entire body, and worse, the entire SG process and
apparatus anytime something "stupid' happens. And any credit at best
is given to the SG president or the body at large. Tonight you have a
chance to match accountability to good governance and a chance at
making Student Government about connecting with Students and real
Government.

There has been many opportunities in the past 3 weeks to express
concerns and input on this bill, believe me, I've been at many of
them, and there were still ones that I missed. If you personal issue
with any part of the bill tonight hasn't been addressed, please be
cordial about it, as there has been many chances before tonight to air
it. Of course, don't hesitate to bring up an issue, that is of course
what debate is all about.

Please don't let this issue die tonight out of fear of the unknown,
out of a concern that candidates and voters won't be able to figure
out a new system, or out of loyalty to a system that you feel you owe
something to. Step boldly tonight, let your last meeting, your last
votes (for most of you) be about stepping boldly forward and trusting
students, and giving them a reason to trust SG again.

Karl-Thomas Musselman
Student
GLBTAAA Co-Director
University Democrats Webmaster

Soechting Offers Opinion on Dallas County Meeting

By Byron LaMasters

Texas Democratic Chair Charles Soechting has issued an opinion on who should chair the Dallas County Democratic Party Executive Committee meeting on this Saturday, April 2. The current chair of the Dallas County Democratic Party, Susan Hays had appointed precinct chair 1802 Robert Franklin to chair the April 2nd meeting. The chair appealed to party rules in making her decision. Susan Hays will be resigning on April 1st.

The petitioners, disputed the appointment by Susan Hays, saying that the decision was in conflict with the Texas Election Code. They then asked for an opinion from the state party chair, Charles Soechting. Soechting opined that the chair of the meeting should be appointed by the secretary of the Dallas County Democratic Party - David Wilkins. Now, a letter from Robert Franklin is posted on the Dallas County Democratic Party webpage:

State Party Ruling regarding April 2nd Meeting

DATE: MARCH 28, 2005
FROM: BOB FRANKLIN
RE: TEMPORARY CHAIR OF DCDP FOR APRIL 2

There has been some controversy over the selection of a temporary chair for the April 2 meeting of the Executive Committee for Dallas County. It is the ruling of the Texas Democratic Party that only David Wilkins, party Secretary, has the authority to appoint a temporary chair for the purpose of conducting a meeting to choose a successor to resigning chair Susan Hays.

I urge all Democratic precinct chairs to attend this meeting and cooperate with Mr. Wilkins in the conduct of the hearing. A repeat of the chaos of the February 28 cannot be permitted. Please support and help Mr. Wilkins to chair a productive and orderly meeting. If all segments of the party work together for our common goals, we shall continue to enjoy greater and greater success in the future.

Sincerely,
Robert Franklin

Now, all that is needed is for the Party Secretary to choose a temporary chair and for a quorum to show up for the meeting. It is important that Dallas County to have a strong Democratic Party going into the 2006 election cycle, and for that reason it is critical that all precinct chairs show up for the meeting. If you are a precinct chair in Dallas, please attend the meeting at 2 PM at the Hall of State in Fair Park.

Let the Ticket System Burn

By Zach Neumann

Tonight Student Government will be voting on a bill that would fundamentally alter the nature of SG Elections here at the University. I am very much in favor of this proposal and here is why. (I apologize for grammatical errors, I’m writing this in a hurry.)

1.It makes student government considerably more democratic than it is today—

Right now to be a student government representative, you have to be a participant in one of a few organizations on campus. These include spirit groups (like the Orange Jackets and Tejas), Fraternities/Sororities (See Chi- Omega) and mainstream political organizations (like the University Democrats). In other words, tickets recruit students to run for office based on who can gain the most support from the biggest organizations on campus. While this is sound political strategy, it is very harmful to the development of a democratic SG. Students not plugged into the SG pipeline of Greek, Spirit and (to a lesser extent) political organizations have no opportunity to serve or even participate (before you angrily comment, realize that I am aware that anyone can volunteer for campaigns or apply for appointments). Thus, instead of having an intellectually and economically diverse assembly, tickets instead tend to be composed of suburban, upper middle class students with fairly moderate political views (and if I might add, a penchant for towing the administration’s line). The abolition of the ticket system would allow students from underrepresented parts of campus to take part in the decision making process. Something they have long deserved.

2. SG needs new blood-- The narrow and highly discriminate stratification of SG leadership among certain groups on campus has led to the election of several weak (although popular) presidents. As I said before, if you do not have strong affiliations with several spirit groups and the Freshman Leadership Organization (the slave labor force for SG campaigns) you will not be SG president. As a result, hopeful candidates for SG president do not spend time developing contacts at the capital or developing their advocacy skills but instead spend most of their college careers cultivating other suburbanites in campus based social clubs. While this cultivation is understandable, it leads to exceptionally weak leadership. Though presidents have, in the past, overcome such obstacles, such instances are rare. The elimination of the ticket system would allow students of a political persuasion with strong skills to make viable campaigns for office. This would lead to stronger recruitment in all positions as students would be forced to rely on raw political talents instead of their club friends. Not only would this lead to a wider array of legislation, but it would also make SG a much more formidable advocate for student interests. Though people like Matt Stolhandske, Jordan Buckley and Andrew Dobbs will never be elected SG president as long as the ticket system persists, their candidacies would gain real weight if they were allowed to take on other candidates without the presence of a large ticket apparatus. This would give SG the opportunity to develop some solid leadership.

3. The Need for Ticket Unity— Opponents of the bill (like Omar Ochoa and Grant Stanis) have argued that tickets need to be united so they can achieve certain goals within the context of the assembly. This argument is irrelevant. As most SG presidents will tell you, the assembly is fairly worthless. Though they can pass all the resolutions they want, these heavily debated pieces of paper do very little in achieving student interests. Lobbying by the executive and members of the assembly goes much further in getting things done both on campus and at the capitol. Eliminating the ticket system would allow for politically talented students to be elected, improving the efficacy of SG even if it is at the cost of unity. However, in my opinion, relative SG unity is a given. If you compare platforms from the past several years… gasp… they are almost exactly the same. Is this because SG people lack original thought? No. It’s because student interests are unchanging. Everyone wants lower tuition, more student services, greater access to parking and a better answer to diversity issues. Since platforms are fundamentally similar, elections tend to come down to who will do a better job representing these limited ideas in office (at least hypothetically-- in actuality it seems that people vote for their friends or fellow club members). By eliminating the ticket system, student government elections will become a contest for who has the best political skills (given that all ideas are about the same). People who have better political skills also tend to be better at harassing the administration and lobbying the legislature, qualities that are desperately needed right now. Before I close my SG unity rant, allow me to also point out that SG unity has resulted in some of the most unoriginal and mundane legislation (not to mention a lack of it) over the past two years.

Ok guys, I have to write a paper, so I’m going to leave it at that. I invite all comments. Good luck at the meeting tonight everyone.

Ticket Voting and "Baby Steps" Chaney

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

The Texan has an article up today on tonight's Student Government meeting where a couple of issues will be voted on in the name of SG Election reform, the big one being the elimination of large Tickets for campaigns.

I'll harp on some comments made by SG President Brent Chaney first.

SG President Brent Chaney, whose Focus ticket swept the 2004 election by 100 percent, said though he believes the election process needs reform, SG needs to take "baby steps" toward change.

Oh please, enough with baby steps in Student Government. If you want to know why people feel SG doesn't get anything accomplished it's because it's baby stepping around all the time. Want to know when they are recognized for actually doing something? Big, single issue, clear moves: Increasing Webmail Space, Student on the Board of Regents, Tax Free Textbooks. And seeing that Mr. Chaney is responsible in large part for 2 of those 3, one would think he understands the nature of bold moves.

However, the English senior said one weakness of running individually was a possible separation of the president and the assembly, who could be pitted against one another if not sharing the same basic goals.

Oh heavens, like Washington, DC, or Austin? Maybe there would be more discussion and student imput and lobbying of Student Governement if it was more like an actual government instead of a jolly glee club where everyone can pat each other on the back because they are all so awesomely the same.

He said the main focus of the elections should be to increase voter turnout and to educate voters.

Well, SG seems to keep failing in this category. Beyond the fact that voter turnout was up because of online voting, it fell back down by 5 points this year in what everyone thought was a more contested election. And as far as educated voters? Well I know the 8 people on the Daily Texan Panel were but I dare say that more than a quarter of those who voted actually cared enough to cross ticket lines or have some real grasp on what they were voting for. Maybe it's because individuality has been squashed by the current system where 40 candidates become swallowed up by a Party label that has no meaning and dies as soon as it is elected.

Until the structural system of SG elections changes, I feel we will never reach a point where we increase turnout and voter education. It's not in anyone's best interest as a Ticket. If we leave the current system in place, I'm in favor of pushing turnout down to the point where it favors those people that actually make a discerning choice between candidates, not parties.

If you are available tonight, come to the SG Meeting at 7 pm in the basement of the SSB. Give your opinions in the Open Forum at the beginning. If you want a summary of the bills, SG fly on the wall, Tim Allen has AB 18 here and AB 19 here.

An e-mail listing of all Representative is located here, should you want to just drop them a short, "I'm in favor/opposed to XX Bill" e-mail. I'll be there tonight for a BOReport from the Floor of course.

Blog on the Move

By Karl-Thomas Musselman

Rep. Aaron Pena has moved over to blogspot for his blog, since his old one on his site was a bit, unlinkable. Of course, we here at BOR hope that we might get listed in Pena's blogroll but only if there is enough space of course?

Go check out the new space!

::Update:: Thanks to Kuff for informing me that I'm blind. We are listed as The Burnt Orange Report. Well, I'm proud to go to THE University of Texas, but we really are just Burnt Orange Report. We write lots of articles but we don't need one in our link. Oh, aren't you jealous of my masterful use of words!

Not Exactly The News

By Jim Dallas

I figure I might as well throw a little fuel on the fire since we're all watching the GOP's latest rendition of the timeless kabuki dance.

First, Rick Perry. I'm sure you will all be just plain shocked (SHOCKED!) to hear that Rick Perry was once a Democrat. Yes I know, that is totally and completely surprising... yawn.

However, Comrade Rick may not have been entirely forthright about his decision to switch parties. Consider:

In 1992, Rick Perry gave a little speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention:

Theme of the day: Aggies who used to be Democrats telling the Republican National Convention why they changed parties.

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Rick Perry started it off
Tuesday, talking to a much smaller and less attentive crowd than
the one that later greeted U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm. Perry is a
graduate of Texas A&M University; Gramm used to teach there.

In a five-minute speech about an hour before lunch, Perry
told delegates that he and his family voted for Jimmy Carter in
1976 because they thought he would be good for them and other
farmers. "We were dead wrong," Perry said.

As he spoke, most delegations talked and milled around, but
the Texas group listened, clapped and waved bumper stickers from
Perry's last campaign.

"Folks, I joined the Republican Party because I learned that
the Democratic Party could not be trusted to run the state of
Texas, much less the United States. That time, I was dead right,"
said Perry, a former state representative who changed parties in
1989.

He was elected agriculture commissioner the next year.

George Bush and Dan Quayle, he said, had promoted agriculture
by pushing for free trade and expanding markets for farm products.

And he denied that farmers are in trouble, saying the industry is
changing but not declining.

He touted the North American Free Trade Agreement signed last
week by leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada, saying
it could increase agricultural exports "by as much as $ 2 billion. "

He accused the Democratic candidates -- Bill Clinton and Al
Gore -- of ignoring agriculture at their convention in New York
last month and said the mentions of farms in the Democratic Party
platform are few and far between.

"Farming is a hard life, but it's a good life. I want my
children to have the same opportunity I had to live off the land
and make an honest profit from their labors," Perry said.

"That's why I won't be bothering to vote for another
Southern governor for president again."

Perry's Carter-bashing seems somewhat strange. Perry's hometown of Paint Creek is in Jones County, which unlike many of its surrounding counties is largely a wheat-producing county (as opposed to a livestock county, per the 1997 Agricultural Census) - and the value of short-term wheat futures, which is closely related to the market price of wheat - nearly doubled under Carter (rising faster than inflation), but back-tracked considerably under Reagan and Bush. Granted, Carter did, at the end of his term, make one decision which severely annoyed wheat producers - the grain embargo in response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. I'm under the impression that cattle prices did not do all that badly under Carter, either, although I can't find any hard numbers.

But of course, Rick Perry knows a lot more about agriculture than I do, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Carter was "bad for farmers" and that's why he switched parties - 8 years after Carter left office. As noted by Andrea in comments and by others, Perry served as Al Gore's state campaign chair in the 1988 Democratic primaries. Of course, this had nothing to do with mere political ambition:

The campaign that permanently established Rove's reputation for foul play was Rick Perry's race against Jim Hightower for agriculture commissioner, in 1990. Rove and media consultant David Weeks persuaded Perry, an obscure Democratic legislator from Haskell who had co-chaired Al Gore's 1988 Democratic presidential primary campaign in Texas, to switch parties for the election. West Texas was swinging Republican anyway, and Perry, who was discouraged by his failure to advance in the House leadership and thinking of becoming a lobbyist, had nothing to lose. Hightower was the darling of the liberals, a wisecracking and outspoken populist who had been a big vote-getter for the Democrats in 1986. With Rove and the collective financial muscle of the Texas Republican community behind him, Perry ran a tough, negative campaign, charging that the agriculture commissioner's office was rife with scandal and abuse and using photos of Hightower with Jesse Jackson to paint Hightower as a left-wing activist. Perry even tried to link Willie Nelson's support of Hightower to a Kentucky candidate, also endorsed by Willie, who favored the legalization of marijuana.

Meanwhile, I think we all know that Carole Keeton Strayhorn (then McClellan) was a big Mondale backer in 1984
.

Of course that leaves us with Kay Bailey Hutchison, the only one of the three Republican contenders who has actually been a Republican for her entire elected career (since her first election to the Legislature in 1972).

Even More Hillar-ity: OMG Perry is TEH SOCIALIST!!11!1!!

By Jim Dallas

Via Taegan Goddard, the Houston Chronicle reports on a letter being circulated by the Hutchison camp in which Comrade Rick once said something nice about Hillary-care:

Perry's letter falls far short of actually being an endorsement of Clinton's health care proposal. But it was written at a time when some commentators already were describing her plan of government-sponsored HMOs and health care cooperatives as "socialism."

Perry was state agriculture commissioner at the time, a position he had won in 1990 after switching from the Democratic to the Republican Party.

"I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation's health care system are most commendable," Perry wrote.

Perry asked Clinton to take special notice of the health care needs of farmers, ranchers and people in rural areas as she worked on trying to overhaul national health care.

"Again, your efforts are worthy, and I hope you will remember this constituency as the task force progresses," Perry said.

Clinton's efforts at health care reform failed. Perry has since described her plan as "a government-run, one-size-fits-all health system."

I think we should start empanelling a House Un-Texan Activities Committee before it's too late...!

Really, this is getting pretty sad, with Hillary-loving socialist sodomite elitist Democrat-Party types* like KBH, Granny Strayhorn, and Comrade Rick running (or threatening to run) in the Republican primary. I think I'm going to go down to the liquour store today so that I can make sure I'll have enough liquid courage to laugh, giggle, err, survive through these next few difficult months.

* I am, of course, kidding.