The Texas anti-cheerleader bill is dead.

The measure was approved in the Texas House on May 3, with supportive lawmakers waving pompoms as the bill moved to the Senate's Education Committee, where the cheering abruptly stopped.

'We will not be hearing it,' committee chairwoman Sen. Florence Shapiro said Friday.

'We have some very important work to do in the next two weeks, and that's not one of them,' said Shapiro, R-Plano.

Rather than being a 'mandate from the state,' she said, the problem of students performing suggestive acts should be addressed by parents and school districts.

Hat tip to gcotharn, who is now atop the leader board in my fantasy league. Guess who's at the bottom?

Posted by: annika at 07:33 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well he won't be in first for long! And i had no idea about this cheerleader bill...it seems this bill combined with the recent one to take foster kids out of the homes of gay parents shows that the Texas legislature is full of nincompoops, pretty much like the rest of the country. Of course they're never as bad as California...and I'm a california boy so I know!

Posted by: Scof at May 15, 2005 10:14 PM (OHbSQ)

2 It's what we've come to expect from the Texas Republican Party. At least if they're wasting their time with cheerleaders they are unable to push their Platform: http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf p.4 #10: "We oppose conservation easements on our natural resources administered by organizations unaccountable to tax payers and voters." (That means land trusts and conservation groups would be declared unconstitutional.) p. 4 #18: "We oppose the Endangered Species Act." pp. 7 and 8: "We reject the establishment of any mechanism to process, license, record, register or monitor the ownership of guns." p. 9 The party opposes highway speed limits based on environmental standards of any kind. p. 10 The party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseaseas. p.13 " ... gradually phase out Social Security tax for a system of "private pensions.." p.15: Supports abstinence only sex education p.15:"The Party urges Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development p.18: supports teaching of intelligent design p.17: prohibits reproductive health care services in high schools. p.23: The party opposes one-world government... p.24: The Party urges Congress to evict the United Nations from U.S. soil.

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 08:00 AM (wkfsI)

3 Preston, I don't see where any of that is objectionable. For example, we've been paying excessively high Social Security taxes for years. Congress took that money and spent it. Tell me where we wouldn't be better off with the money invested in a private account? Move to New York. Your kind will be happy here.

Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2005 08:29 AM (oQofX)

4 So much for the 'big tent', Mark. Well, the easy ones: 'intelligent design' isn't true and 'abstinence education' doesn't work. Is it so radical to ask for a government that bases its decisions on reality?

Posted by: preston at May 16, 2005 08:34 AM (wkfsI)

5 Some of that shit is okay, some is well, shit. But saying that prohibiting a private organization from claiming an easement on public lands would make such organizations unconstitutional betrays a lack of understanding of easements, constitutional law and just plain sense.

Posted by: annika at May 16, 2005 08:39 AM (zAOEU)

6 It would sort of defeat the purpose of founding a conservation land trust if your work was illegal. You could do it but what's the point?

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 08:49 AM (wkfsI)

7 Buy the land. Then it's yours and you can do what you want with it. Including not building strip malls. Is it radical to ask that the federal government stick to its enumerated powers and leave the rest up to the states to decide? It's not going to happen, but I can dream...

Posted by: Mark at May 16, 2005 09:58 AM (oQofX)

8 Mark, conservation land trusts are not a 'public taking' of property: http://www.lta.org/aboutlt/faq.shtml

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 10:13 AM (wkfsI)

9 But on the larger point: Do you feel like a community has no right to shape its future? Is it ok if a slaughterhouse or a Wal-Mart opens next door to your house?

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 10:16 AM (wkfsI)

10 for Preston - a smaller point: The bill was introduced, and tirelessly promoted, by a Democrat: State Rep Al Edwards, D-Houston.

Posted by: gcotharn at May 16, 2005 01:13 PM (OxYc+)

11 That's too bad, but like I said: at least if they're wasting their time with cheerleaders they aren't threatening Texans with the GOP platform.

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 01:27 PM (wkfsI)

12 p.13 " ... gradually phase out Social Security tax for a system of "private pensions.." you've obviously not read the 1932 speech by FDR proposing SS. that/this was his plan.

Posted by: louielouie at May 16, 2005 03:00 PM (i7mWl)

13 p.24: The Party urges Congress to evict the United Nations from U.S. soil. I'm moving to texas!!!!!

Posted by: louielouie at May 16, 2005 03:02 PM (i7mWl)

14 "you've obviously not read the 1932 speech by FDR proposing SS. that/this was his plan." I'm afraid you've read too many right-wing talking points... FDR was talking about a transition _to_ Social Security _from_ the temporary payments to the elderly who hadn't contributed to SS as workers. http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003

Posted by: Preston at May 16, 2005 03:13 PM (wkfsI)

15 using KO as a source????? moonbat publishing.

Posted by: louielouie at May 17, 2005 10:43 AM (i7mWl)

16 Eh? it was the first thing to come up when you Google 'FDR phase out' The point is that Britt Hume took FDR out of context and rearranged his quotes to make it seem that FDR supported 'privatization'. Would you prefer the Nation? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/opinion/main678638.shtml

Posted by: Preston at May 17, 2005 10:55 AM (wkfsI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Back in March i alerted you to the silly Texas bill that seeks to outlaw suggestive cheerleading routines. As a former high school cheerleader this is an issue close to my own heart, although i will admit the routines have gotten racier in the ten years since i used to shake it on the track. But i'm still a libertarian on this issue.

i'm sure there's a heck of a lot more urgent problems that they could be worrying about in Texas than sexed-up cheerleaders or even this lowlife? Both are symptoms of bad parenting - a failure to teach kids the meaning of "respect" - but not a reason for the state to crack down on freedom of expression.

The committee's revised bill was weakened somewhat, removing the former draconian punishment of suspending the team for the rest of the school year and the punitive reduction in the offending school district's funding.

Instead, the revised bill gives the school district the authority to "take appropriate action against the performance group and the group's sponsor, as determined by the district." Pretty vague, but of course the whole law is hopelessly vague, in my opinion.

Speaking against the bill at the March 29th hearing were two ACLU representatives (see trolls? i can agree with the ACLU sometimes), including eighteen year old high school senior Margeaux Goodfleisch (that's got to be a stage name, right?), who made this quite reasonable point:

I agree that sexually suggestive performances are inappropriate for school events and school-sponsored competitions, but exactly what is a sexually suggestive performance? It could be someoneÂ’s opinion that any time a group of young, attractive girls dance, itÂ’s sexually suggestive. If you put on paper those moves we specifically cannot do, we would be more than happy to comply.

Texas House Bill 1476 was voted out of committee by a vote of six to nothing, with three committee members absent. Today the Texas House of Representatives approved the bill by a vote of 85-55 with three present but not voting. Next, it goes to the Texas Senate for consideration.

See also: Grits For Breakfast with props for Margeaux.

Yet more: Blogger Jason Plotkin was apparently in the chamber for the debate and recorded these fun snippets:

What was funny is how they also had the song 'shake, shake, shake, shake, shake your booty' in the background at one point, I'm assuming, someone in the gallery played it.

. . .

'This is a ridiculous bill. I don't know how it got to the floor,' said Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston in a Chronicle article. 'We don't have any business mandating anything. We are spending time on "2-3-4, we can't shake it anymore." It's an embarrassment.'

. . .

Rep. Carter Casteel, R-New Braunfels, who agree legislators should not be legislating morality or telling people what to do, but she voted for the bill.

. . .

'When I was 15, anything a cheerleader did was interesting to me. When I was 17, I knew better' said [Rep. Rene Oliveria (D-Brownsville)]. Oliveria brought up how President George W. Bush, Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson were cheerleaders and we should recognize them to vote no.

Finally, In The Pink Texas gives us a timely warning about what happens to cheerleaders gone bad. And Frank J makes the connection between terrorism and slutty cheerleaders... sort of.

Posted by: annika at 07:20 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 649 words, total size 5 kb.