“only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”

You can bet that I wasn’t one of the votes for that change to the Constitution (Proposition 22). In fact, I was hanging out with some friends watching the results roll in. 4,579,386 voted for the new language, and 2,897,689 voted against the language. It was disappointing to say the least.

Today, we made some progress, and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds (from today’s decision, In Re Marriage Cases, S147999):

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

In re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court, May 2008, p 120.
There is still some distance to go.

Of course, although the Domestic Partner Act generally affords registered domestic partners the same substantive benefits and privileges and imposes upon them the same responsibilities and duties that California law affords to and imposes upon married spouses, the act does not purport to (and lawfully could not) modify the applicable provisions of federal law, which currently do not provide for domestic partnerships and which define marriage, for purposes of federal law, as the union of a man and a woman. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) In light of the current provisions of federal law, the many federal benefits (and the amount of those benefits) granted to a married person or to a married couple on the basis of their married status are not available to registered domestic partners. Included within this category are significant benefits such as those relating to Social Security, Medicare, federal housing, food stamps, federal military and veterans’ programs, federal employment programs, and filing status for federal income tax purposes. All of these important federal benefits, however, also would be denied to same-sex couples even if California designated the official union of such couples a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, because, as noted, federal law defines marriage for purposes of federal law as “only a legal union between one man and one woman.” (1 U.S.C. § 7.)

In re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court, May 2008, pp 44-45.

U.S. Representative Dale Kildee has a terrific way of referencing the appropriate role for the federal government in education. He says that providing education is a state responsibility, a local function, and a federal interest. We appreciate the interest and assistance of our federal partners, but I argue for a federal role that is supportive of state efforts – not one that attempts to control our important work - or that seeks to simply penalize our schools without providing sufficient resources to address areas that need improvement.

Through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB), the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government has a new set of requirements for public education that hopes to improve schools through a strict accountability process. Public schools that receive federal Title I funds are subject to a progressive list of sanctions based on student performance on state standardized assessments. If a certain percentage of students do not score “proficient” on the state assessment, a school is labeled as “in need of improvement” and faces increased sanctions until removed from the list for improving their test scores.

I have specific concerns with NCLB, which are detailed below, but primarily focus on the policy’s assumption that the worth of a school can be measured by the average test score of its students. Although academic achievement is a critical goal, I believe schools have a much more nuanced role for students and communities than raising test scores on math and reading. Despite its limitations, NCLB has shed light on achievement gaps between groups of students in our schools, and we must remain ever vigilant in our efforts to close those gaps through concentrated focus and support. State efforts such as Indian Education for All, Quality Educator Loan Assistance and various scholarships available for summer and postsecondary programs represent important steps towards meeting the needs of ALL of Montana’s students. I will work to continue such programs, and ensure their existence in the face of federal requirements.

I see the role of State Superintendent in relation to the federal government as two-fold: conduit and advocate. Not only will I provide strong leadership as a conduit - interpreting and implementing complicated federal legislation, but will work as an advocate to represent the needs of Montana in the creation and enforcement of federal education policies. Let me expand on these two important roles:

Conduit: The State Superintendent must have a sophisticated understanding of the complex and fluid requirements and funding mechanisms in a federal law such as NCLB, and how these requirements translate to local contexts in Montana communities. It is my job to lead the Office of Public Instruction in interpreting and implementing the law to fulfill these requirements in the ways most responsive to the needs of Montana. My experience as an attorney, teacher and state-level administrator uniquely equips me with the experience and skills needed to apply complicated legislation to local educational contexts.

Advocate: An equally important role of the State Superintendent is to be an advocate for the state when the federal government creates such legislation. NCLB is scheduled for reauthorization most likely within the next two years. Representative George Miller (D-CA), as well as the Department of Education, has already put forward a number of proposed changes and members of Congress are soliciting feedback from the states. I have developed some important recommendations for how these changes can best serve a state such as Montana. For example:
- Provide flexibility for rural states so schools can get back to their job of educating the “whole student” – including Montana’s long tradition of arts and humanities. NCLB has narrowed the curriculum and has teachers spending the entire month of March preparing students to “take the test.” We need to vitalize our schools, ensuring that learning remain joyful, balanced, and works toward a sense of good citizenship, not just high math and reading achievement.
- Develop additional ways to determine the quality of schools that go beyond a single test score, since we all understand that one test score does not paint the entire picture. For example, an evaluation of a school should consider its contribution to the growth of students in academic areas (test scores, grades, courses taken, graduation rates) and social areas (attendance, behavior, attitude towards school, civic participation, etc).
-Properly fund the legislation on the federal level so NCLB is no longer an “unfunded mandate”. NCLB includes many requirements that place additional financial and administrative burdens on both the state and districts, without providing additional resources to help school out of the sanction process.
-In addition to highlighting and working on areas of potential improvement, we need to also promote the good things that are happening in our schools every day. Montana is full of bright, capable and motivated students, teachers and administrators who deserve to be recognized for their many accomplishments.

Pograba has claimed his candidacy as an effort to open a state wide dialog on education. and while they are extreme long shots for winning the primary on June 3rd, their campaign feels like a complete success so far. As I noted Don’s piece in the Billings Gazette over the weekend, I see that there is a piece by Chuck Johnson in the Helena IR. You see, without these guys getting off their butts and running on what they believe in, readers would not be seeing a headline that reads Pogreba: State hasn’t met school funding decision and they wouldn’t be reminded of things like this:

“I think more money for education will prevent the need for more money for corrections,” he said. “I’ve never understood why we want to send more money for jail cells and not for textbooks.”
[snip]
“Our philosophy is we shouldn’t be looking to 1950 for our economic solutions,” he said. “We should be looking to 2050. By that, we should not assume that resource extraction is a long-term solution for our economy.”

These are good words for folks to be thinking about over their morning coffee. Without this candidacy, they would not likely be reading anything of the sort tomorrow morning. As my hero George Ochenski points out:

Instead of talking about school funding issues, which are once again back in court, or mentioning teacher salaries, school district consolidation, or cleaning out top-heavy administration, (Roy) Brown’s big education proposal is this: “Roy will urge the Montana High School Association (MHSA) to establish tournaments of champions, so athletes in virtually all sports, and in all communities have a chance to perform and succeed on a higher level.”

It’s this kind of frustration with the current candidates for governor that motivated the two teachers to consider raising the bar by entering the race. And while they say Schweitzer has done “a great job” as governor compared to the Republicans before him, they also think the entire education debate would be well served by bringing it to the forefront of the campaign. If it’s just Schweitzer versus Brown, they say, “we’re not overwhelmingly optimistic there is going to be a great discussion of education in a general election campaign.” Because Roy Brown is so far to the right, Pogreba says he thinks it would be “good to engage Governor Schweitzer right now.”

This is an important discussion to be having, and I give major kudos to Don and Jason for making sure that we are having it. In the past I have viewed non traditional candidates with a wary eye as ‘attention seekers’. I suppose that is exactly what Don and Jason are doing, only this time it isn’t out of vanity.

Note: This piece is a discussion of the Pogreba/Neiffer campaign and should not be considered as and endorsement any more than this note should be considered as a lack of one.

Rather than acknowledge funding shortfalls, conservative critics of education would like you believe that Montana is already spending too much on its education programs. Despite laudable increases in the last few years, statistics demonstrate that Montana has failed to keep pace with the spending necessary for quality education. The conservative American Legislative Council just issued some troubling statistics about education spending in Montana. According to their research, we rank dead last in the nation in compensation for education professionals, and 42nd in the rate of growth in education expenditures, from 1986-2005.
[snip]
The people of Montana have a choice to make. We can either look backwards to 1950, focusing on resource extraction that will primarily benefit multinational corporations, or we can look ahead to 2050, focusing on the best-educated, most creative people in the world, giving them the tools to create their own destinies because we had the sense to invest in them.

During last years legislative session, I was dismayed to see that there was a debate over this at all. To fund or not to fund while we have teachers buying classroom supplies from their own meager salaries. It just doesn’t make sense to me that legislators don’t seem to get the point that Don makes above: educating our children is far and away the best investment we can make.

With the recent defeat of mill levies to fund schools in Great Falls and Billings, we should see that there are some very serious issues with the regard for education in this state. In order to help deal with budget shortfalls Senators Ryan and Kitzenberg (also a candidate for OPI) will propose a special session to consider a bill that would add $30 million to fund Montana schools.

“We think such economic factors as rising gasoline and food costs were a big reason why people opposed levies,” Ryan said. “And we believe the state has enough surplus revenue to help prevent school districts from cutting too many teachers and programs.”

One important point that this statement should bring out to people is that the same budget issues caused by inflation facing individuals are also afflicting schools. While I applaud their effort to deal with the issues, I would also make the claim that there is something fundamentally problematic about the state’s attitude to school funding. Emergency funding is good but positive policies with long term growth plans would be so much better.

For instance, consider my own neighborhood here is Helena. New houses go in everyday, but the school has stayed the same size. Kids are just shipped further and further away. Builders should be putting money into building new schools in the area as they are the ones making the profit off of building the houses there. The increased value of the property will support the school, but it has to be built first.

As Don points out, we need a shift in the way that we think about school funding. It is not a sink hole, it is an investment.

Today is just such a day.

To anyone that thinks political blogging is easy, try it out for yourself, you will be quickly dissuaded.  I personally put my own opinions, thoughts and analysis out there on a several-times-a-month basis for public consumption.  We political bloggers are just persistant. 

The only way I know some of our elected leaders, is because I made the first contact.  That’s right, I reached out to them.  And frankly, anytime I have any questions, I have to seek them out and remind their assistants who I am.  It is not like I have their home or cell phone numbers or email addresses.

Everyone has heard me yelling at Max lately about the DC vote.  And even though I am a former favorite employee of his law school study buddy and friend, whose son did an internship with Max a couple of summers ago, I still have never talked to the guy.  I have tried, but I get the same standard response that everyone else does when I contact him over an issue. 

Schweitzer?  Well I think he knows who I am, I have run into him a couple of times, but never spoken with him personally.  Bollinger though, I went up to him at the Dem party returns in 2006 and tell him about the voter suppression tactics going on on Montana’s reservations.  He said he would check into it for me.   (Which begs the point, if I think native vote is important, of course I consider DC votes important; but that is a seperate issue.) 

Dennis, again, never met the guy.  Been to one debate he bothered to show up to and talk about issues, probably remotely somewhat at my prompting. 

Jon Tester?  Well I have met him once, and his mother and wife once.  All at debates, but at least they took the time to shake my hand.  My mother ran into him the other day at a local store, and he joked with her about his granddaughter taking her own sweet time.  I really appreciate him, and his follow through on promises made to Montanans.  For example, the independent ethics audit of his office.  Its not about votes, because it is a non-election year for him, it is about being honest and having it confirmed for Montanans.  Thanks Jon. 

The locals?  Well I can’t help that I know the Mayor, I just do.  And I know a lot of Helena’s local representatives in local and state government, from being involved at the local level.  Attend a few local debate meets, and you will know them too.  Some know who I am, and some don’t.  It is all good. 

The point is, to anyone who thinks that “demo” bloggers are somehow special, or singled out for particular attention and favors. . .you are so off base.  We are just average people, out there, in a public way, talking about what matters to us. No, I am not the most well known blogger in Montana.  And arguably, I have been surpassed in the female political blogger department by a couple of friends of mine.  It is all good.  (Frankly, I thank them for taking some of the pressure off).

The bottom line is this.  I don’t get paid one red cent for blogging.  I do this because it is important for me for people to know what I know.  And the truth is, I only know it because I take the time to research it out.  I like going more in depth on an issue than traditional media does.  I like that I have the time and the forum to do so.  It took work to have such a forum.

Just, every once in a while, while you might not agree, take the time to thank a political blogger for all that they do to keep you in the play-by-play with the ground game that is going on, and bringing up great discussion points that get us all involved in our government.

That’s all really; thanks for the venting time.

Very truly yours;  Cece.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Wednesday the state has agreed to buy Helena’s 1960s-era shopping mall as the site for a $40 million history museum, but only if supporters can raise $13 million in private funds by mid-November.

If, and only if, museum supporters can raise 13 million by November, the state will buy the little mall for 6.5 million from a bond approved by the 2005 legislature. The entire project is estimated to cost 40 million dollars, but will be built in phases as money is raised.

If the deal is signed, the state would own the mall for several years, collect rent from its tenants and be responsible for its operation, while a new mall is built for the current businesses. Then, if enough private money is donated, the mall would be razed to build the new museum.

Lets be clear here: I almost always support the idea of museums and liberal arts, but something about this deal just seems off. Am I missing something here? If the museum folks can raise 13 million dollars, why don’t they just buy the mall site themselves? Or, better yet, rather than paying for a huge building that will ultimately be torn down, why don’t they just buy a piece of empty on the outskirts of town?

I have been to the current museum several times, I really like it. It is a very nice building and well laid out. The main complaint by the Historical Society is that they don’t have enough room to display all the artifacts and exhibits. When I have visited I ran out of time/interest before I ran out of stuff to look at. That’s just my opinion and I am positive that others will have different thoughts. If so, please do fill me in on what I am missing. I am open to changing my opinion here but I need some clarity.

[Update]: Pete points out in the comments that we can tell her until we are blue in the face and she isn’t going to listen. At Rebels Are We!, Colby points out that the superdelegates are the only ones who can really send the message. Demonstrate some leadership and pick a side.

I have mentioned my general distrust of economist in the past, so I am not going to spend a lot of time quoting them on why this is a bad idea. Suffice it to say that basically no economist will support the idea as a viable solution. You don’t need an economist to tell you why this is either an extremely poorly thought out policy or simple pandering. You see, gas prices go up in the summer because the refineries can not keep up with demand, which is the same reason that prices are high these days anyway. Gas prices rise and frivolous demand goes down and the available resources are distributed by necessity. Its the economics of scarcity, supply and demand and other sorts of voodoo.

It’s simple, if the 18 cent per gallon federal tax ‘goes on holiday’, the price of gasoline will simply rise to fill the difference. There is precedence for it and it will be done and to suggest otherwise is buffoonery.

This is pandering. The thing is that once again, we are not being asked to sacrifice and work together to find lasting solutions. Instead, we are being offered cheap gimmicks and feel good politics. Times are tough, but we need some perspective on this. The average Montanan uses about 544 gallons of gas per year, so lets assume that usage is distributed evenly throughout the year (I know that it is not), that means we go through about 45.33 gallons per month. At the current rate of $3.70 a gallon for mid grade, we spend around $167.72 a month. Even if the 18.4 cent gas tax holiday did lower the price, the average Montanan would save around $8.15 per month. That is the cost of two cups of coffee at Starbucks, four energy drinks, two packs of cigarettes or 2.2 gallons of gas. Even if it were to work, it really isn’t a lot of help at all.

Look back at that 2.2 gallons of gas though. All of the candidate’s ought to be asking us to sacrifice by dropping 2.2 gallons of gas from our monthly consumption. For the average Montanan, that is cutting 4% of their normal rate. That’s 61.6 miles of city driving in a Toyota Carolla or 26.4 miles in a Dodge Ram 1500. By lowering our consumption, we reduce demand which lowers the supposed purpose of rising prices. Additionally, consider the positive environmental impact. Sure, it might be a little uncomfortable. You might have to carpool, or pool your errands, but have we really come to the point where we are not willing to sacrifice a little? Are we that self focussed really?

We don’t need politicians who pander to us. We don’t need politicians who propose feel good legislation. We need leaders who will put forward lasting solutions to our very real issues. We have all acknowledged that we are facing real problems and as American’s, we should be willing to stand up and fight the good fight. We should be willing to make the sacrifices needed, not cozy up to politicians who promise they will fix everything for us. They can’t and nohing will ever get fixed that way.

I worked for a few years as a door-to-door canvasser, and one of the campaigns I was involved in was the ANWR drilling issue. This was about five or six years ago, but the numbers haven’t changed all that much since.

• The USGS estimated roughly a six month supply of oil at current use rates. That’s based on an estimate of 3.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil over the life of the project and an annual usage in this country alone of about 7 billion barrels. Do the math.
• It was projected to take anywhere from 7 to 12 years for the first drop to come out of the pipe. 2002 consumption rates would likely be wildly inaccurate by then.
• There were not, nor are there now, any guarantees that the US would even see the oil. It could be sold by the big players in the project anywhere in the world. Wherever they could get the biggest profits.
• Oil prices wouldn’t come down noticeably. It was estimated that the price of a barrel of oil would drop about 30 to 50 cents with the addition of ANWR oil on the market. That was based on the figure of $27/barrel — even allowing for a per barrel price of ten times that in the next ten to fifteen years, that would only be about a 3 to 5 buck difference.

None of this even takes into account the potential environmental devastation this would unleash. This scheme to drill ANWR has been shot down numerous times already. It’s time to bury it for good. At a time when we need to be putting our efforts and our time and our money into alternatives to fossil fuels, we shouldn’t even be considering this foolishness anymore. To sacrifice much of the fragile arctic for a last-gasp effort for quick oil profits speaks poorly of us.

Super-delegates have been waiting for a chance to fall behind her, and it is looking more and more like they will get their chance; more polls like this one will only fuel Hillary’s argument that she is the stronger candidate.

The notorious Mark T. pointed out in comments here that if that were the case, Pennsylvania was the perfect opportunity. While Colby’s gut feeling hasn’t panned out, with endorsements going to Obama at a rate of 2 to 1 this week, all of this discussion is a little troublesome.

[UPDATE TO THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE: Obama picks up three super delegates in Illinois and a Texas super delegate announced support today]

The point of super delegates is not that they are party insiders per say but rather that they are party leaders. We shouldn’t have to be discussing this in terms of poll watching and public opinion. I have said it before: If we are to maintain the super delegate system, then they must do their jobs as leaders of the party to insure that we exit the convention with a strong Democratic candidate. If they were not in the equation, this race would have been over weeks ago. Since they are in the equation, it is time to make a decision.

Now, I will point you to a letter written by the most recent super delegate to announce his support. Joe Andrew is the former DNC Chair, and his announcement doesn’t just count for a win for Obama, but also as a loss for Hillary. In my opinion, this man showed an amazing blaze of leadership that would be refreshing to see from some of our own leaders:

The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today. We have an embarrassment of riches, but as much as we may love our candidates and revel in the political process that has brought Presidential politics to places that have not seen it in a generation, we cannot let our family affair hurt America by helping John McCain.
[snip]
The simple answer is that while the timing is hard for me personally, it is best for America. We simply cannot wait any longer, nor can we let this race fall any lower and still hope to win in November. June or July may be too late. The time to act is now.

The letter, both eloquent and inspiring, explains in detail why he has chosen Obama over Clinton, but that is not my point here. My point is that it is time for our leaders to start acting like leaders and let their vote be known. Every day that this continues is another day that our potential candidate get weaker. Don’t tread the line any longer, don’t fear raising the ire of some of us over doing the right thing. This isn’t the time for vote counting and poll watching. I think that Wulfgar said it best:

Governor Schweitzer and Senator Tester, we are Montanans. Most of us don’t have time for your little power games. If you want Hillary, go with Hillary. If you prefer Barack, then fracking say so. Put an end to this thing … now … before we end up with the inevitable President Gelding McCan’t. And Senator Baucus, you do whatever you think will favor you. Montana expects little else. But would you please just make a choice so that we don’t suffer for your status as a special little snowflake?