Cheap Shot?

State Senator Patty Pansing Brooks (apparently reading from the Urban Dictionary)
State Senator Patty Pansing Brooks (apparently reading from the Urban Dictionary)

Lots of news as we wind up to Monday’s Iowa Caucuses.

As you may have seen The Donald has bowed out of the FOX debate tomorrow, citing the spectre of Megyn Kelly. Which means that the whole affair will be much less fun. I suppose I’ll still live-Tweet it, but there will be that much less gusto in my key-strokes.

But that doesn’t mean Trump has been, or will be quiet. He held a rousing press conference in Marshalltown, Iowa yesterday where he was hit with a number of abortion questions, though its not clear any solid blows were landed.

And a few reporters also followed up with Trump about Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse’s “question” from the Twitter.

You may remember that Sasse Tweeted at Trump:

“You brag abt many affairs w/ married women. Have you repented? To harmed children & spouses? Do you think it matters?”

Of course Trump has said that if Bill Clinton’s philandering is on the table, so is his. A little surprising that a U.S. Senator decided to ask if Trump had “repented”, but mission accomplished if the goal was to get people talking about it.

And Trump response to Sasse?

He started by saying…

“It’s a cheap shot. Yes of course it’s a cheap shot.”

And a few minutes later, on why it’s a cheap shot?..

“It’s NOT a cheap shot…I feel you can bring up whatever you have to bring up.”

In the mean time, Sasse is headed to Iowa on his Anyone But Trump Tour.

No idea whether Sasse would endorse Trump if he’s the GOP nominee. The guess here is that he would likely sit on the sidelines.

Only a few days before voting begins…

 

And if elected I will be inoffensive!

Back in Nebraska, The Rothenberg Report weighed in on a number of Congressional races across the country.

Their analysis of the race for Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional seat:

They’ve changed from “Pure Toss-Up” to “Lean-Ashford”

Republicans don’t have a top-tier candidate. Former state Sen. Chip Maxwell isn’t raising much money, and retired Brigadier General Donald “Bits” Bacon has been underwhelming, even to some GOP sources.

The partisanship of the district (Romney won it in 2012) and Bacon’s appeal Offutt Air Force Base community in Sarpy County could be enough to win.

But Ashford has been an inoffensive Member with strong ties to the Omaha business community, and some Republicans admit he has a good chief of staff and district director who keep the train on the tracks. The race isn’t over, but Pure Toss-Up understates Ashford’s standing in the district.

This analysis probably isn’t too far off base.

But it is always curious to think about who their “GOP sources” are that determine just how “whelming” someone like Bacon has been.

More to be seen once the hard-core campaigning for the primary begins.

 

Pansing or pantsing? (amirite!)

Now HERE’s a funny one from the Legislature this morning, passed along to Leavenworth St. by a Unicam watcher:

On Ebke’s gun bill this AM — Senator Patty Pansing-Brooks took time out to chastise members for using words they don’t know the meaning of in floor debate, and offending women.

She was referring to a couple of Senators who referred to gang members as “Gang Bangers”.

Now, this is pretty amazing.

If you Google the term, the porno-connotation doesn’t even come up first — the most widely known meaning is “member of a street gang”.

And it seems to me she was conflating a “gang bang” (which I don’t think is necessarily non-consensual) with a gang-rape, in order to bring this around to insensitivity to women.

This seems to say more about where her mind is than those she was condescendingly chastising — who were correct, by the way.

 

Maybe she’s seen Old School a few too many times?

No where else

And THIS folks is why you should read Leavenworth St. every day.
And subscribe!
And listen to my podcast interview with Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert on all things snow, fire and HDR!

59 comments

    • Irritated voter says:

      It is particularly interesting that Hadley voted with the second amendment supporters yesterday and Krist voted the bill out of committee.

      Did Krist admit that eh wasn’t smart enough to read the bill before he voted?

      • Sparkles says:

        That’s got to be embarrassing.
        ‘Lemmings’, wreaking havoc on the NRA’s well funded, robocall orchestrated, local governance snuffing piece of legislation, introduced by Libertarian Laura and championed by the entire braintrust of Kintner’s Kave.

  1. The Grundle King says:

    In light of LB289’s failure at a hands of a few weak-kneed ‘conservatives’ who failed to muster enough guts to stand up to the former pistol-packer himself…Ernie Chambers…I would support a bill that would require cities like Lincoln and Omaha to place signs at every entrance to the city that fully explain their awesome local gun laws. That way, lawful gun owners will be fully informed as to the requirements when they enter the city, and the city can show off all the wonderful ‘safety measures’ they’ve concocted.

    While the initial placement of signage would surely come at significant expense, there may be an untapped potential for revenue here. You see, in order for someone to read through and (try to) comprehend all those wonderful gun laws*, it’s going to take someone a fair amount of time…so put in some parking lots with vending machines and pay-per-use restrooms! Make a little money, and probably frustrate gun owners to the point that they’ll no longer want to come into town anyways!

    Well…except for the gang members, because they don’t care about laws to begin with. I hope that’s not painting with too broad a brush so as to offend delicate Sparkles.

    *Wonderful gun laws — Among the more ridiculous bits of Lincoln’s Municipal Codes (LMC) are the following…get convicted for one of these offenses, and you’re forbidden from possessing firearms in the city of Lincoln for 10 years following conviction:

    -LMC 9.36.020 – Giving your 16 year old grandchild, nephew, or niece a knife with a blade longer than 3.5 inches (about the length of a paring knife) that he or she could use to to skin deer or clean fish. They’re legally old enough to hunt and fish…just not to clean anything they kill.
    -LMC 9.36.100(a) – Conviction for public indecency or indecent exposure. I get that those crimes are not cool…but does anybody think Melissa Midwest posed any kind of danger to anything but a few people’s delicate sensibilities?!
    -LMC 9.36.100(b) – Second offense conviction for DUI or refusal to submit to a chemical test. Sure, you’ll be able to drive again within a year or so (not a Constitutional right), but you’ll be banned from having guns for 10 years (is a Constitutional right).

    Of course, if you’re not intimately familiar with the Lincoln Municipal Code…and aren’t aware that such convictions preclude you from possessing a firearm in Lincoln, then you’re breaking the law simply by coming into to town and stopping for a bite to eat with your gun in the car.

  2. cob says:

    Apparently, the real purpose of FOX News is to elect the Pro-Choice, Anti-Second Amendment, Anti-Energy rabid Leftwing environmentalist Michael Bloomberg. — Who would’a thunk it?

    FOX owner Murdock six months ago begged Bloomberg to run for President as an Independent. Murdock is doing that again today. But we didn’t notice this until Rupert’s FOX Network decided to eliminate the GOP frontrunner who now refuses to talk to Murdock’s lackey Ailes and demands the spotlight on Murdock himself. Fair enough. For Bloomberg is no Republican and no Conservative. And Murdock is no benign builder.

    Murdock is the Fourth Estate. He makes his money out of Freedom of The Press that exists for voters to avoid tyrants being foisted on to them by guys like Murdock. Nobody is foisting Trump but Trump.

    Trump is ambitious but Murdock is scary. And it apparently dull too, because Bloomberg is a lackluster, wasteful candidate whose election during 9-11, while Bush was the most popular GOP president in history, and Bloomberg outspent his opponent 5 to 1, only got Bloomberg a win by 2 pts. Both Bloomberg and Murdock are so rich they make Trump seem poor but they approach elections like traditional campaigners. Trump proves that press can be gotten free if you have a personality and wits. Money can buy you many things but not campaigning sense.

    Fox News is a façade-like tool of anti-GOP Liberal interests. That’s the biggest surprise of this season. And frankly, it has nothing to do with Trump. But it is good to know.

  3. TexasAnnie says:

    Wake up Macdaddy, Grundle and all other naysayers about the Planned Parenthood “scandal” that was manufactured by the now indicted Center for Medical Progress. bynd, did you sympathize with the discredited undercover videos? I understand that Republicans generally do not want public monies supporting Planned Parenthood. But did you support the now suspected illegal acts on the part of the Center for Medical Progress?

    • bynd says:

      TA:

      Did I sympathize with the discredited undercover videos? Who discredited them? They made it through a “runaway” grand jury so it would appear they had no issue with them. So the videos are what they are, and PP has a bunch of arrogant, loud mouth ignoramus working for them. No matter how you look at it, if the baby is big enough to be dismembered, it is certainly to big to be aborted just because the mother is inconvenienced by it.

      I would think that the fact that many Downs are aborted just because they may be Downs would make you livid. Does it?

      Do I support altering a drivers license to gain access to PP? I have seen a lot of journalist commit worse crimes. They were considered heroes. With all that goes on in this society, no, such a minor matter does not bother me. But 20 years in prison for doing such a thing?

      And whether it be PP or groups such as Moral Majority, if you want to be public and spread the word as the self appointed representative of a group of people, many of whom don’t agree with your stance, I have no sympathy for you when others try to take you down by any means except violence. I have always tried to work on the principle, if you have to hide it, you probably shouldn’t be doing it.

      I get so tired of this subject. In the end, as a believer, God said let him judge and punish. Sounds good to me!

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bynd, Where is the proof grand jury was a runaway, Harris County announced the bill and expressed no disagreement. Does TX even allow runways, indictments on which prosecutor does not sign on, and if so can DA np them.

      • bynd says:

        RL:

        The comment came from the unbiased lawyer for the video folks. I suppose now you will tell me he isn’t to be trusted? My faith in humans is now destroyed!

    • The Grundle King says:

      TexasAnnie,

      If you’re asking me if I support Planned Parenthood selling (but thankfully, not profiting) from the parts of hacked-up unborn children…all because of some *suspected* wrong-doing on behalf of the makers of those videos, my answer is a resounding, “Hell f***ing no.”

      And if you’re asking me whether I support the CfMP, I guess my answer would be that I’ve never really ‘supported’ them, I just happen agree with their desire to get Planned Parenthood off of the government’s teat. Some folks don’t want murderers executed on their dime…well, I don’t want unborn children butchered on mine.

      Is that clear enough? And what does this have to do with your endless crusade for ‘tax justice’ (however you define that), or government treatment of state wards? Or is this your ‘little-l’ libertarian side kicking in again?

      • bynd says:

        TA:

        As to number 1, whether for profit or not or whether legal or not, I am not in favor of selling/giving baby parts to anyone.

        What it had to do was with your first post where it asked me to answer those question.

        I have no crusade for tax justice, there is no such thing since it is in the eye of the beholder.

        I can not think of to many people connected with state wards of any type being satisfied with the way the state handles them. I’ll wait and see what the legis. does and if the Downs folks request my daughter’s help then I will get involved. I doubt it goes any where any how no matter who supports it. And if they are not getting involved, I guess that answers the question.

  4. TexasAnnie says:

    Hey Mark Andrews: There’s an article in the OWH for your edification. It’s all about special education funding in Nebraska. Proposed LB826 suggests a more rational means to property tax reduction than just moving monies from the state income tax to a state property tax fund! But I must caution you, this article implies that whatsoever special education services are deemed needed, are then provided, regardless of which level of govt. ends up paying (local school district, state or federal govt.). And that’s simply not true! The wards of the state and other children with disability do not get many of the services they need. But of course I’m sure your nephew gets what he needs, so you may not BELIEVE what’s been reported here.

    bynd, repenting lawyer, Sparkles, Oracle: Each of you have accepted my obsession with this topic gracefully in the past. Will you check out this OWH article and talk it up now?

    • Sparkles says:

      TexasAnnie,
      “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

      Our legislature shouldn’t require more deliberation, or greater motivation greater than this.
      Yet, for our bible toting, God fearing ‘conservatives’ in the state legislature, the very words of their Lord don’t seem to suffice.
      Not for Medicaid expansion to Nebraska’s working poor, nor for the hate prone Catholic groups who are right now fighting the removal of unenforceable, discriminatory language from our state constitution.

      • bynd says:

        Sparkles,
        I do believe it was the Dems who started, I won’t vote the way of my faith if elected. JFK had a huge problem over coming this. Ironic, if the conservatives vote their faith you bitch and moan, if the conservatives don’t vote their faith, you bitch and moan. Come to think of it, all you do is bitch and moan. Makes you’re postings rather tedious and irrelevant.

        And to base anyone’s actions on one verse in the Bible, is ignorant. Especially when one is a non believer. As the Bible states, it is foolishness to one who doesn’t believe. You have verified the point.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bynd, What JFK said was that he wouldn’t follow directives of Church leaders regardless of his own judgment as to the best interest of the Country. It was preVatican II and as with Al Smith a large problem was now repudiated Papal statements on religious liberty and separation of church and state, particularly the famous letter on the Americanist heresy of Leo XIII. Smith’s answer, largely prepared by Father Duffy, was he had never heard of most of this. While America , the Jesuit magazine was critical, I think JFK was very close to Vatican II’s doctrine of the centrality of conscience.
        Sparkles has caught the interrelationship between the First and Second Great Commandments stated in the description of the Last Judgment.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Sparkles, given that we still have not removed the State Constitutional provision on teaching in foreign languages declare UnConstitutional in the 20s, perhaps NE tradition is being invoked by the Bishops.

      • Sparkles says:

        RL,
        Oversight and/or disinterest would be a fair analogy, were the Nebraska Family Alliance and the Nebraska Catholic Conference -not- actively standing before the legislature in protest of modifying our state constitution to properly reflect a historic decision passed down last summer by the Supreme Court of the United States.
        A historic decision by the highest court in the land that strikes down the very ban these religious leaders seek to keep ingrained in our state’s constitution.

        Their open contempt for the rule of law, as well as the opinions and proclivities of their own adherents, is offensive.

        As reported in The Christian Post (Aug 27, 2015), a study by the Public Religion Research Institute found:
        60 percent of all U.S. Catholics said that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry.
        51 percent of Catholics said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Sparkles, The language declared unconstitutional in Meyers has been on the ballot a couple of times recently with explanation and has been retained. Do not agree with Bishops but not surprised given that they have never accepted Roe and hope for a reversal. In any event are you also critical of those who similarly reject Citizens United or the 2 2nd Amendment Cases, all 5 to 4. Rejection and even active opposition to SCOTUS decisions is as old as the resistance to some of Marshall’s decision by Spencer Roan and the VA courts. What the Bishops are asking for is a purely symbolic gesture. That their folks disagree and are ignore should not surprise given continued opposition to disapproved methods of birth control which sees openness to reproduction as central to understanding of nature of the marital bond. The objection to same sex marriage follows logically from the position on birth control.

      • Sparkles says:

        RL,

        I appreciate your always insightful questions. As with many subjects, but especially with the legal matters in which you are so well versed, I will plead ignorance to anything nuanced, or for that matter anything beyond the most broad scope of the subject.
        Specially regarding whether I take offense over Citizens United and 2nd Ammendment –
        1) This election cycle seems to prove CU largely irrelevant. All the money in the world can’t by the Rickett’s, the Adelson’s, or the Koch a seat in the White House. On the state level, it’s likely a bit of a different story. Clearly Richey Ricketts bought his beloved Death Penalty a spot on the ballot. But alas, plutocrats are likely to continue do what plutocrats do, regardless of case law. Money, like water, will always flow to the lowest levels.
        2) Re the 2nd Amendment – I don’t recall Nebraska’s ‘liberals’ demanding special extra-constitutional consideration when the Assault Weapons Ban (supported by Ronald Reagan and George HW) was allowed to expire in 2004.
        Imagine if Ernie Chambers and Patty Pansing Brooks demanded such a ban be permanently inscribed in our state’s constitution, as ‘a purely symbolic gesture’. Caravans of Nebraskans would literally take up arms and descend on our state capital, post haste.
        Plus, why would anyone accept our state constitution harbor ‘a purely symbolic gesture’ whose intent is the continued discrimination and demonization of our fellow Nebraskans?

        Finally, the biblical yarn that marriage and reproduction are inseparable, is a fable that should be relegated to the footnotes of history, alongside the practice of bloodletting. witch burning and seeking counsel of an Astrologist when setting dates for historic Presidential engagements.

        A record number of women are waiting longer to have children, or not having children at all.
        According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Sparkles, Taking the language out is as much a symbolic gesture as leaving it in Neither has any legal or practical significance. You see removal as serving to adopt Kennedy’s stigma theory and reinforce it. Maybe, but the truth seems to be that a lot of folks are of the we will live with it but we will not like it club Not really that surprising in NE. Time will change that.
        Catholic vision of marriage owes as much to Natural Law tradition as Scripture. Stoics may have a lot to answer for.

    • Sparkles says:

      It’s always Khamenei that you, Fox “News”, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones…, like to quote.
      Khamenei is the -religious- leader of Iran, and it’s long been known he’s a nutball. He leads a diminishing faction of Iran’s old, highly religious, socially regressive, war mongering populace.

      It was Iran’s moderate President Hassan Rouhani with whom the Obama admin struck the historic nuclear arms agreement. An agreement heralded by leaders around the world.
      The very same moderate President Hassan Rouhani with whom Pope Francis met, and prayed with on Tuesday.
      The same Rouhani with whom, just this morning in Paris, the French have heralded “a new chapter” in French-Iranian relations.

      Members of Rouhani’s cabinet boasts more PhD’s from American universities than Obama’s cabinet. Rouhani’s political team has earned advanced degrees from MIT, LSU, Cal Poly, George Washington, Cal State, University of Denver, Cal Berkeley, San Francisco State and San Jose State.
      Rouhani himself has a law degree from Glasgow Caledonian University, in Scotland.

      Over 60% of Iran’s 80 million people are under the age of 30. This is a generation that embraces modern, western, culture and desperately seeks a peaceful and prosperous place among the world’s nations. A place where they can pursue a career, buy a home, raise a family and live in peace. The same dream shared by every person on the planet.
      These are the people of President Rouhani, this is the future of Iran.

      But you, and Fox, and Limbaugh and Beck, you keep quoting religious nutball Khamenei.
      I’m certain Khamenei will keep quoting our GOP nutballs, like Cruz, who promised to carpet bomb the mideast and turn the sand into glass, Or Trump, who promises to ban all muslims. Or Carson, who compared muslims to “rabid dogs”.

      • bynd says:

        Sparkles,
        They quote Khamenie because he is in charge. As to the number of degrees in Rohani’s cabinet, how does that compare to the real power of the Republican (ironic) Guard? The current real power in Iran. If a serial killer purposely kills one less than the one before him, does that make him an enlightened progressive?

        And how is that Arab Spring working out for all the oppressed in the Middle East? And didn’t Ahmadinejad, the regressive, oppressive, follow Khatami the moderate? The immediate and foreseeable future belongs to those with the might. You know, nature’s rules that you libs so much to try and change, might makes right, survival of the fittest. But you and the Pres. and other liberals keep praying to the god of progressiveism hoping it will come forward and kumbaya the world. How is that working for you folks!

      • Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of Iran. That’s his title. He outranks the President of Iran. He appoints all the military leaders and a slew of civilian leaders. Rouhani serves only because Khamenei allowed him to serve, because Khamenei’s Guardian Council disqualified much of the opposition. His Guardian Council has the power to veto laws. It was the final authority on their crooked 2009 election.

        You’re probably a little more impressed than I by a Ph.D. from the University of Denver.

        Iran is a theocracy, and Sparkles is an apologist for theocracy.

  5. Question says:

    If a gang members are engaged in a gang bang what is the PC term for that? Would that be considered a gang banger’s gang bang? From a historical context it should be noted for the record Lisa Sparks holds the record for the biggest gang bang, with 919 men in 2004.

    That day was also the record for ice sales.

  6. Trouble Brewing says:

    Today in debate on wild-life license plates, a Senator mentioned “beavers”. Some Senators will be offended (well, one maybe).

  7. bynd says:

    RL:

    The basis I use for all of my responses is, Jesus never cared, nor participated nor had any interest in the Roman government. That should be a huge clue for us to follow him and do the same. People like Sparkles who read a few things from the Bible but study it not for true knowledge of what the intent and meaning are at best nauseating, at worse insufferable buffoons. Those secure in their faith have no time for such Micky mouse games. As to the legislature and their faith and their votes, if Sparkles wants a “Christian” government, he is a fool. And to continually hammer on such stupidity encourages many to go that way. If you’re going to be accused, you might as well do it. As to pointing out hypocrisy. Is it hypocrisy to not vote your faith but for the welfare of the people as you see it? They can be mutually exclusive to today’s cultural christian.

    Remember, the Bible does not instruct us to have the government accomplish the responsibilities given to us. We are to do it. (We are to follow the secular government’s rules as long as they don’t contradict His rules.) Which negates any point people, like Sparkles make with their one liners. That is also the best argument I see to tax churches. But that is another whole can of worms.

    Your faith beliefs should be your deepest held beliefs because they are the foundation for you being saved. If you can put them aside for any reason, then they are not what you profess them to be. As such, this whole discussion of faith and elected office is a bunch of claptrap. Whether by those of faith of those not of faith. Because the final fact is, any person or any politician can vote for anything they want and their basis for such a vote is not outlawed by any section of the Constitution. And non believers are no more pure, or less so, than believers in this area. And both sides are very much self righteous jerks.

    Although Sparkles is right about one thing. Marriage of gays etc has no bearing on marriage by any one else. Except maybe those who are still denied the right to marry who or what they wish. In that respect, Sparkles is no different from the Holly roller Hypocrite Christians who think our secular government should be a Christian one. And the fact the DOMA law of Nebraska was essentially written by one WOMAN with the second line add at her whim is what is offensive. The faith leaders should never have supported it, it is embarrassing to have them do it now even though I am not of their faith.

    Another rambling diatribe. I need to find better things to do with my time. Which, when you are retired, you have a lot of. Unfortunately for you folks:)

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Bynd, You and me both on too much time since retirement I agree Scripture is not a policy handbook but it provides guidance beyond the personal as your opposition to some abortions demonstrates. I do agree it is to easy for call others hypocritical. Name calling cutoff discussion.

  8. TexasAnnie says:

    No bynd. I have no faith in a god or gods or ancient astronauts or whatever. At one time I did have faith in our constitutions and governments, in our rule of law. But over the experiences of my adulthood, that faith has been slipping away, so an idea of ‘faith’ for me is limited to my own objectivity.

    The value of symbolism aside, wouldn’t it be better for clarity sake, for the constitution(s) to perfectly state what is meant? repenting lawyer says taking the language out or leaving it in has no legal or practical significance! And you denounce such secular pursuits as obligatory for Christians. I, take Sparkles position in that I want my constitution(s) kept accurate and up to date.

    Also: No I am not irate when learning that a prospective mother has chosen to terminate her pregnancy in cases of Down’s Syndrome. Nor do I resent the extra cost of a Down’s child in public classrooms. But I do become unsettled when folks watch SPED being defunded (remember the growth rate in SPED over this biennium is lower than all other categories of education spending there) and still won’t object! I urge you, don’t wait for the Down’s advocacy team to instruct you. Learn what you can about LB826 and take a stand!!!

    • bynd says:

      TA:

      My best guess would be that if you could resurrect those who wrote those documents from way back when you still couldn’t get exactly the clarity that you require. Although in the context of time, they would give a much better answer that what we have today. Look no further than the ACA. It is the same thing and those who wrote it still can’t tell you what is in it. Only what they meant to be in it.

      The only thing I trust man to do is to brake that trust. Since being saved, the big guy up stairs has never disappointed. But, to each their own. Which I trust no one to follow:)

  9. TexasAnnie says:

    Statutes and regulations are not constitutional edicts! We were discussing the CONSTITUTION(s). And now YOUR state constitution will forbid same sex unions, but by footnote acknowledge them as the law of the land! And you’re saying that’s okay, for it’s symbolic value???

    bynd, everybody beyond a junior high education KNEW (via Art. VII, Sec. 1, Neb. Const.) that all children in Nebraska between the ages of five and twenty-one have a RIGHT to a public education. Yet in the late 1990’s for three years running, the diabolical unicam chose not to fix the residency statute which was known to have caused confusion to such extent that some disabled children and some homeless children were literally DENIED a public education altogether. The fix didn’t come until the year 2000 and no sitting state senator at that time can say he/she was unaware of the problem. I made sure of that!

    Now why do you suppose that school administrators acted such that they deemed the old 1870’s residency statute as more authoritative than the plain language of Art. VII, Sec. 1? Was it because they didn’t have the needed funding to support disabled and homeless children! And why was that? Was it because of Ben Nelson’s LB742, 1995, wherein SPED funding had been capped without regard to enrollment growth?

    I have no doubt that your grandchild will get needed instructional, medical, therapeutic and recreational opportunities. My daughter did too. But who will speak for the wards of the state? Will it be bynd? Or does his JESUS neglect children with disability…

    • bynd says:

      TA:

      Cool your rockets Willy Ram jet. Your first paragraph is the complete opposite of what I stated. So go read again and get it straight.

      I did not judge you when you said abortion for Downs babies is alright with you. Yet you judge on my participation for neglected children. You have no idea what I do, so keep your judgement to your self until you know the whole story.

      I would never have expected such from you.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        NO! Judgment is in order. Because I have seen the heartlessness of Nebraskans in this regard first hand! I’m telling you, bynd, this is how the neglect of wards started: defund special education. In 1995, the cap on SPED. By 1997, school districts literally refusing to admit children living within their districts (a reading of a very old residency statute) without regard to what the constitution requires! By 1998, school districts refusing to admit children moved into the district by the Dept. of Health & Human Services. By 1999, bills filed; but nothing passed to alleviate the very clear injustice. That’s three years that the state senators defied their constitutional duty. And now what? Well, SPED funding growth over this biennium is kept slower then EVERY OTHER category of educational spending. And because y’all have to use the income tax to fund property tax rebates, theoretically, the state monies are consumed which means the local school districts must pick up even MORE of the cost (or simply neglect to provide SPED services in cases where no one intercedes, like for wards…).

        And this session, the unicam must cut the budget. Now here’s the kicker, bynd: when the cutting starts, will SPED be spared at least to the difference of it’s slighted growth rate? Or will SPED be cut equally with all other categories of educational spending? Here’s something you should know: SPED should not be cut at all, according to federal law… Problem is, you don’t have a federal representative who gives a damn about the disabled of Nebraska. I’m pleading with you to use some of your spare time to get involved.

        And as to the first paragraph, I apologize. I did misread what you wrote about DOMA. Don’t give way to frustration with me, I’ll be over at the next installment…

    • The Grundle King says:

      But Annie…if they are, in fact, wards of the state, then how is any responsibility for neglect put on bynd’s shoulders? I personally think you’re doing a piss poor job of fighting for the rights of unborn children, but I certainly wouldn’t count you among those with blood on their hands.

      Everyone has their own passions…the fact that others may not care as much as you, does not mean they don’t care at all.

  10. Bob Wiley says:

    Patty Pansing Brooks showed her ignorance when she told fellow senators to “look it up”.
    Nowhere in their testimony did the context in which they used the term remotely suggest the alternative meaning to which she was referring.

    This reminds me of the movie “What about Bob”

    Bob Wiley: [telling a joke] The doctor draws two circles and says “What do you see?” the guy says “Sex.”
    [everybody laughs]
    Bob Wiley: Wait a minute, I haven’t even told the joke yet! So the doctor draws trees, “What do you see?” the guy says “sex”. The doctor draws a car, owl, “Sex, sex, sex”. The doctor says to him “You are obsessed with sex”, he replies “Well you’re the one drawing all the dirty pictures!”

  11. bynd says:

    TA:

    I don’t doubt you believe what you say about SPED. But my wife was a Para for SPED in Papillion for 22 years. She never got mad at the state for funding, or lack thereof. Indeed, SPED wasn’t that much worse off than the other kids. People came from all over to Papillion for SPED, especially the military. So I can’t vouch for what you say. And that would be the answer you seek from me. If I tell my Senator my truth, it would not be much help in your cause. My grandson has had his very own para since he started school. And she will be with him for the foreseeable future. So, what could I say? Nothing worth value to you.

    • TexasAnnie says:

      Okay, we’ll continue the discussion here. I tried to look up both Papillion-LaVista ISD Annual Report (the latest was for 2013) and also a DoD report about Impact Aid to your school district. But I failed to get a number for you. However you should realize that extra federal monies are provided to offset any additional cost of enrolling military children.

      I’m glad you explained that your wife was a para for 22 years; that’s fab! However the demographic I observed at Omaha ISD was evidently quite different… (It’s easy to spot the state wards, they are usually unkept.) But if you say your wife did not notice a lack of funding for SPED, I must congratulate your fortune. At my daughter’s school, where every child had a ‘multiple disability’ classification, and had been certified for PT services, we didn’t always have a PT on staff. Which is not to say that my daughter did not get her PT; she had special treatment, because we required the school district to honor the law. But nobody was requiring lawfulness for so many of my daughter’s classmates. (A few of the parents inquired how my daughter got to continue school PT and I showed them the law.) The wards were most vulnerable, and there were a lot of them. At one point I called CPS to report a student arriving at the school in a short-sleeve t-shirt, and no coat, in freezing weather. I was told the bus was probably warm and they were too understaffed to investigate.

      Obviously you will have nothing to say to your state senator unless you do the homework. But you could start out with this simple inquiry: Why has every category of educational spending been granted a 3% growth rate over the next biennium EXCEPT special education. And, you could ask if the upcoming budget cutting will affect the SPED appropriation? (And remember, under federal law, states have a ‘maintenance of effort’ stipulation and are generally not allowed to cut funding.)

      Thank-you, as ever, for your polite communication.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.