Holy Cow - Joe Strauss stepping down

I could understand this for a school that had thousands of students. For a small school, it's indefensible, and it's indicative of a larger problem. In many rural areas, the school districts are the only meaningful economic players and job creators. These are borderline communist economies. That's why they freak out if anyone suggests any meaningful level of fiscal discipline. If the school district budgets aren't expanding, the local economy isn't expanding.

 

Bad parents are the root of the problem. They make kids and raise them to be irresponsible and undisciplined and therefore very difficult or impossible to educate. However, bad parents also often make bad voters. They elect irresponsible leaders who hire irresponsible people to run their schools.

The best, albeit imperfect, remedy is vouchers. However, liberals are quick to point out that in many situations, vouchers haven't improved test scores. They are correct, because vouchers aren't going to turn bad parents into good parents. (Of course, liberals deny this and try to come up with other rationales that justify dumping more money into public schools and restricting parental choices.) However, the point of vouchers is to provide opportunity on the individual level. It is to grant the handful of good parents with an option to avoid the consequences of the bad parents' decisions.

 

I'm a supporter of public schools because I think it is one of the most basic rights that we offer citizens, although I would suggest that our schools are getting way too big, and we are definitely spending way too much in some places for athletics.

I would like to see the school system start to do PSA's that tell parents that if you aren't reading to your kindergartner XXX hrs per week, he is going to fall behind. If your kid is playing more than XXX hours of video games on the weekend, he is falling behind, if your kid is not doing XXX hours of homework each night, he is falling behind. "Parents it is your job to make sure these things are happening"

Just like the people in N.O. and to a degree Houston that want FEMA to do all their planning and repairing for them, we have accepted this paradigm where it is a "Failing School" that is at fault, when in reality is "failing parents" and "failing communities" that are mostly at fault.

 

One of the problems is that some parents want to push off responsibility for raising their children to the schools, and the schools are happy to oblige as it gives them more power and more federal money.

 

They want the power and money that comes with that role but not the responsibility when it goes wrong.

 

Yee Haw
Good bye to Joe
hope he enjoys being a civilian.

 

Dennis Bonnen was elected speaker of the Texas House today

I am really disappointed with what came out of the Strauss years. One day 10 years ago, my state Sen came walking up my drive while I was working in the garden. We had a nice long chat. I went to town on Strauss. My Sen agreed with everything I said. But he had no explanation for why the House side could never get him out of there.

 

FIFY.

 

I had a conversation with my newly minted State House guy about 6 months ago and he got a little hot when I asked "Now, what are we going to do about this Straus guy". He came to our GOP breakfast a few weeks back and spouting nothing but love for Bonnen now.

But now that Straus is gone...The house wants to backburner the bathroom bill. What gives??

 

Texas House Speaker declares 'constitutional carry' gun bill dead after gun-rights activist shows up at his home

 

WRT to the guns-right activist showing up at the Lake Jackson home of Speaker Bonnen, the activist (Chris McNutt) had this to say:

"I didn't discriminate which homes I visited. There were hundreds of homes I placed these flyers on and only these elitist politicians seem to think they are above everyone else. DPS was so okay with what I was doing that they placed the flyer on Bonnen's door for me. ... This is pure political theater to try to make excuses for inaction. They are really upset because I visited the homes of several of their top donors. Campaign finance reports and accountability is a real nuisance for them."

 

"Constitutional carry" is such an idiotic name for this, and for these wingnuts to show up at members' homes is really out of line. Frankly, I don't understand why these gun groups keep putting idiots like McNutt in charge. (You'll notice that the NRA keeps these crackpots at an arm's length.) You have to really suck at legislative advocacy to lose pro-gun legislation at the Texas Capitol. Basically just shake your nuts on the Capitol grounds, and they'll crap out a pro-gun bill. Despite that, these dolts have screwed it up multiple times now. It's comical.

 

********. McNutt knew what he was doing. He's the one engaging in political theater, and he's an idiot. He's lucky he didn't get shot. Furthermore, he's hurting his agenda. There's a right way and a wrong way to do it. This is the wrong way.

 

You read his mind? Or you know this for a fact? Link please.

From what I have read, McNutt (who founded the org, Texas Gun Rights, so that is why he is in charge) went to Lake Jackson and canvassed the neighborhood, not just Bonnen's house. Nowhere does it say anything like he, for example, pounded on the door, shouted obsenities, whatever. He was placing flyers on the doorsteps of the houses in the neighborhood. Was it because it was Bonnen's neighborhood? Well sure it was, so what? So long as he did not target Bonnen's house exclusively, I don't see the big problem. As far as I can tell, he never even knocked on the door.

Quite frankly, I am a little put out that there are 13 states with some form of "constitutional carry" and Texas is not one of them. Bonnen referring to those that would like to "constitutional carry" as criminals shows where he stands on the issue - he just needed a good excuse to drop the legislation. “I could no longer watch as legislators and their families are incessantly harassed by fanatical gun-rights activists who think laws preventing criminals from carrying a gun should be repealed,” Bonnen said. Seriously, dude? That is not a cogent argument - "criminals" convicted of a felony cannot legally own a gun, so what the hell are you talking about?

 

The Fox News article doesn't suggest he was merely out canvassing and putting flyers on homes, and what he posted on social media suggests otherwise (posting a picture of another member's house with his street name in the photo). Hell, the bill's author (Rep. Jonathan Stickland) isn't standing by McNutt, who is appropriately named. Link.

The bill is being pushed by idiots who don't know how to advocate. They did it in previous sessions, and they just did it again. It's hard to screw this up. You have to be really, really stupid to do it.

He didn't describe those who want to "constitutional carry" (whatever that means) as criminals. He's worried that the bill will make it a lot easier for a criminal to get and carry a gun, and he's probably right. That doesn't necessarily make the bill completely bad, and there's room to pass some sort of legislation, but acting like a dumbass is a pretty sure bet to screw it up and get nothing. (And again, it's hard to screw this up.)

 

Based on what? Make it easier for them to get a gun? How, specifically, does this bill do that?

The article you linked says he did nothing. Bonnen himself said he did nothing. I agree with McNutt - this is a gross overreaction in order to kill a bill you don't like. No where does it state that McNutt did *anything* threatening or intimidating at any of the representatives houses. You are inferring exactly what Bonnen wants you to infer, even tho his own statement does not back that up.

Did he stage this thing to bring attention to non-action on a bill he favors? Sure he did - but he did nothing crazy or illegal in any way. Why is it OK to paint him as a nutcase just because Bonnen and his wife say so?

Criminals are gonna break the law - why do we have to punish everyone else who had nothing to do with it as our response? That is just plain stupid. Why don't we not let sober people drive since a drunk person might hit them and kill them? That is how gun control works.

And you know damn good and well what "constitutional carry" means so knock off the cute remarks if you want to have an adult conversation.

 

Because it makes it easier for everybody to get a gun, and by eliminating the permit requirement, a cop would have no basis to ask someone carrying a gun to see his license. Accordingly, though a felon would still be prohibited from carrying a gun, it would be very hard for law enforcement to know if a felon was carrying a gun.

He "did nothing" because he was approached by DPS officers, which made him back down - smartest move he made that day.

Why do you think Bonnen knew to send DPS officers? It's because this doofus had already posted photos on social media of members' homes with their street names. He didn't fully doxx them (like the guys who doxxed the GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee and are now going to the slammer), but he walked on the line. Guys like that don't get their way for obvious reasons.

Illegal? No. Crazy and titanically stupid? Yes. First, Bonnen has a 22-year record of being a no-******** guy and of being pro-gun. That's why people tend to trust him. Second, it isn't just Bonnen and his wife saying he's a not. It's the Texas State Rifle Association. Hell, it's Jonathan Stickland, and he's carrying the friggin' bill and has balls that'll barely fit through the House chamber's doors. If anyone would defend McNutt, it would be Stickland. He's very conservative and fears nobody including Bonnen. Despite that, he has the sense to condemn this clown and not want him associated with his bill.

Of course we let sober people drive after they take a test and qualify for a license. Keep in mind that Dennis Bonnen has an A rating from the NRA and has always been pro-gun. He's not a gun control supporter. He's a supporter of requiring safety training and a permit - like we would require for someone who wants to drive a car. Pretty reasonable.

I'd have a better idea of what it means if the gun people would settle on a definition. Sometimes they're referring to open carry. Sometimes they're referring to getting rid of the permit requirement. Sometimes both. Either way, it's still a stupid name, because the Constitution says noting about state permits or open carry. It's fine to advocate for those things, but there's no basis to wrap it up in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with it. It's like AOC talking about a "constitutional healthcare plan" or a "constitutional Green New Deal." They're tossing in an adjective to give the proposal a legitimacy it doesn't have.

 

DPS was not at the other places he visited, why is there no reporting of the awful, hurtful things he did there? If he such a dangerous nut-job, why would the presence of DPS deter him from making a scene?

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Why do we force public schools to babysit disruptors who don't want to be there? Plus we force the kids to go to school. This does not work and is the reason public schools remain in a toilet spiral. We need to develop more alternative schools where the hooligans go for their last chance. If they can't make it in the alternative school - send them to Juvenile Delinquent Detention as a preparation for prison.

Better yet, make all but the poorest parents pay for part of their children's education. If you have to pay, you will be more interested in the outcome.

 

Yes. But parents already pay for their children's schooling through taxes. Yet another part of life where government and services need to be decoupled so that the service can be improved upon. My guess is they aren't going to give up the funding power they have over schools though.

 

He posted it on social media. That's how Bonnen knew to call DPS.

 

That does not address my point. He was not violent or disruptive at the houses of the other guys, he just showed up with his flyers. Bonnen over-reacted. Seriously, if he is such a friend to gun-rights people, why would he ditch the whole thing over the actions of ONE PERSON that he doesn't like? How it that being responsible to all the citizens of Texas?

 

You think he overreacted because you like the guy's agenda. Another guy who did something only a small step beyond (and was also nonviolent) is going to the slammer, and most of us (including, I presume, you) are fine with it. Again, you will notice that even gun rights people and the bill's author are condemning this guy. It isn't just Bonnen. Doesn't that yell you something?

Two reasons. First, if you reward people who behave inappropriately (which almost everyone agrees he did, including the bill's author), you encourage more of it. I don't expect everybody to hire a professional lobbyist or be a model of smoothness, but there is an appropriate level of decorum that civilized people follow when approaching public officials. This isn't it. You show up at the Capitol, argue your position, and make your case to the public (op eds, mailers, flyers, etc.). You don't approach the officials' families, and you don't show the world where they live. If it was your family and some weirdo was approaching them and was going to tell people where they lived because he was pissed off at you, you wouldn't like.

Second, Bonnen made his position clear. He opposes the bill as it's written and stated his reasons. He didn't BS about that. (Like I said, he's a straight shooter - always has been.) He was willing to let the committee hear the bill (which he is under no obligation to allow). You can be pro-gun and still disagree on one bill.

 

I don't disagree with you that what McNutt did was not the proper way to get done what he wanted done. I am saying it is childish of Bonnen to use that as an excuse to kill a bill he already did not like. That is not serving the people of the state properly, that is serving his need to be "the boss".

 

He did what any speaker from either party would have done. Yes, he's asserting his authority, but he's also protecting his members. If he had let the bill go through in the wake of this, what would have happened the next time this jackass or another jackass had gotten impatient with the the process? You'd see more of it or worse, somebody would up the ante.

I'm speculating on this, but knowing Bonnen and his record and his style, he probably wasn't overly hostile to the bill. If he had been, he would have told his committee chair not to set it for hearing at all and give a platform to people who would likely make a big and pretty public push for the bill, which they have every right to do. It also wouldn't make much sense. He has pretty much an unblemished record on Second Amendment bills for the last 22 years. I doubt that he hates this bill, even if he's not a big fan.

The committee has a Democratic chairman, but he's not a gun-hater, and the GOP has a majority on the committee. They likely would have referred the bill out as a committee substitute that cleaned up some language in the bill and yes, made some compromises (so long as they were OK with the author), and sent it to Calendars, which likely would have sent it to the floor. If that had happened, it would have surely passed.

I will say this though, and you won't want to hear it. The gun rights advocates are probably on the downward trend in terms of influence at the Capitol for two reasons. First, there isn't a whole lot left for them to do. The biggest items on their agenda that had broad support have already passed starting with the concealed carry legislation back in 1995. Second, the 2018 election scared the hell out of the Texas GOP leadership (Bonnen, Abbott, James Dickey, and even Dan Patrick). They see the suburbs slipping away from them (especially suburban women), and they know their majority and their lock on state offices won't hold up if they keep hemorrhaging suburban support. I'm not saying they're going to start pitching gun control anytime soon, but they're likely to be deemphasizing cultural and social issues (and gun rights are perceived as a cultural issue even if they actually are not) and putting greater emphasis on things that resonate with suburbanites (such as education, property taxes, etc.).

 

Everyone pays, regardless of if they have children in schools. The payment is so indirect for renters that they often don't realize they are paying. So they have the illusion of free, or worthless education for their children.

A direct payment to the schools, even a relatively small one, will awaken some, who will want accountability from the vendor in charge of educating their children.

 

I understand what you are saying 4th_floor. You are trying to inject a little market into the government school system. I agree that could have some positive effect. I was just expressing my concern that requiring more money to be paid by parents could be burdensome.

Practically, I would be all for parents paying part of the cost if those without children in school got to phase out their taxes used for schools. Meaning, after a certain age people no longer paid those taxes. We have to reduce the burden on people not raise it. It just hurts society more and more while giving the government more and more money and power.

Right now, I homeschool one of my children which means I pay for other people's kids to go to school while having to pay for my own out of pocket. There should also be vouchers or tax rebates for people who want their kids out of the government system.

 

I just heard that Dennis Bonnen (Speaker of the Texas House) is quitting.