Get some Facts to answer the lies of the multi-million agriculture business. THEY have the money and the lies. We have the FACTS. Check out this video.

After seeing this video of Sen. Parson lying about the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act passed by voters in November, I attended a rally in support of the new law at the Capitol yesterday.  I carried a sign saying “Sen. Parson:  ‘YOU LIE.'”  It caught the attention of lots of people, including many with cameras.  I hope the story gets back to Sen. Parson.

The reason we were there was because the House was debating HB131 which would gut the new law.  The legislators who want to let a breeder have more than 50 females pregnant all the time in a space barely big enough to roll over or stretch out are heartless to say the least.  We had about 90 people there in the rotunda with signs mostly about letting the vote stand and respecting the vote of the people.

Several groups of school kids, both elementary and high school ages, came through.  Their first stop on the tour is the state seal emblazoned in the floor of the rotunda.  After the tour guides finished and led the kids to their next stop, I told the kids not to bother voting because the legislature would just overturn their vote.  Some of the teachers gave me a thumbs up. Others scowled at me.  Whatever.

A few of us joined Barbara Schmitz, director of the coalition that passed Prop B, to the governor’s office on the 2nd floor.  She had a petition signed by a bunch of folks.  The gov wasn’t there (actually I saw on TV that he was in Forest Park.)  An aide politely took the petition from us and let a photog take our picture for a national animal magazine (All Animals?)  No signs were allowed in the photo, but she let me hold my little American flag.  (no comment)

I learned after I got home that HB 131 was “laid over,” and, according to the Bill Tracking page on the General Assembly website there is no further action scheduled at this time.  

I heard opposite predictions yesterday from two people who know a lot more about how these things work than I do.  One said not to give up because there are good things happening behind the scenes.  The other said there is no way we’re going to stop the repeal/dismantling of the new law.   So it’s a toss up at this point.

Look at these photos of puppy mill conditions.  I know it’s hard to see this, but we have to do it for the dogs’ sake. Call your state rep and state senator and tell them how disgusted you are with this whole attempt to repeal a reasonable improvement of care standards at these facilities.  Send them these photos and ask them how they can sleep at night.   If you are lucky enough to have a rep and senator already supporting Prop B, tell him/her thank you and to please forward the photos to colleagues.

 

Evidently, public school teachers are a threat to civilization as we know it.

HB 628 — Teacher Continuing Contract Act

Sponsor:  Dieckhaus

This bill changes the laws regarding teacher contracts and establishes the Teacher Continuing Contract Act which will apply to teachers in all school districts, including St. Louis City, beginning July 1, 2012.  In its main provisions, the bill:

(1)  Bases 50% of a teacher’s evaluation on teaching standards under the professional continuum developed by the State Board of Education within the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education;

(2)  Eliminates the minimum teacher salary for holders of a master’s degree;

(3)  Specifies that the current Teacher Tenure Act and the St. Louis City Tenure Act will remain in effect until June 30, 2012;

(4)  Requires an annual evaluation of each school administrator and bases 50% of his or her score on the professional continuum for administrators developed by the state board and adds a component, also to be weighted at 50%, that evaluates an administrator on his or her instructional leadership by assessing the performance of the instructional personnel for whom he or she has supervisory capacity;

(5)  Specifies that a contract between a school district and a teacher will be known as a continuing contract and will continue in effect for up to two or more years, while probationary contracts last one year;

(6)  Establishes transition provisions for the interim placement of teachers on probationary contracts until salary schedules are developed based on student performance data and data is available;

(7)  Allows for novice and transfer probationary teachers’ contract lengths in specified situations;

(8)  Establishes contract lengths in accordance with scores on teacher evaluations in four tiers;

(9)  Allows elements other than years of service and highest degree held to be added to salary schedules including, but not limited to, additional certification areas, certification in high-need subjects, mentoring, and demonstrated ability to improve student performance;

(10)  Establishes a salary schedule effective July 1, 2013, based on performance, with teachers above the thirty-third to sixty-sixth percentile receiving a performance pay increment of no less than 10% over the base pay of the bottom 33% of teachers; the next 17% will receive a pay increment that is no less than 25% over the base of the third tier of teachers; and the top tier will receive an increment no less than 60% of the second tier;

(11)  Adds unsatisfactory performance to the list of reasons for which a permanent teacher may be terminated and requires teacher evaluations to be considered in determining professional competence; and

(12)  Requires teachers to be evaluated at least annually and twice in the final year of a continuing contract, places equal weight on student performance and achievement of teaching standards, and limits teaching standard scores in the top 33% to no more than 40% of a building’s teachers.

Several current provisions regarding teacher tenure will remain unchanged including, but not limited to:

(1)  Modifications of continuing contracts;

(2)  Leaves of absence, except that a leave of absence due to teacher reduction may be granted for two years rather than three years and seniority are removed from consideration when rehiring after a reduction in force;

(3)  Board member civil liability for charges against teachers; and

(4)  Prohibition on teacher participation in school board election campaigns.

[emphasis added]

The bill inadvertantly left out “let’s take’em all out back and beat the crap out of them.”

In addition to getting rid of teacher tenure (which, at present, makes school boards follow procedure and show cause for teacher dismissal) the bill says so many other interesting things.

“…Eliminates the minimum teacher salary for holders of a master’s degree…” Because we don’t want people teaching our kids to bother acquiring even more professional training.

“…Establishes contract lengths in accordance with scores on teacher evaluations in four tiers…” Because we don’t want the best teachers tackling the tough teaching assignments. From the bill:

…3. Each district shall rank-order its teachers by the totals of their performance-based evaluation scores and their student performance scores…

“…Board member civil liability for charges against teachers…” Because school boards always follow procedures and policies and never ever make decisions based on personalities, petty concerns, or their past traumatic experience on their junior high student council.

“…Prohibition on teacher participation in school board election campaigns…” Because indentured servants shouldn’t be able to speak out about elections.

Ah, this may explain some of the bill:

…Prior to his service in the legislature, Rep. Dieckhaus worked as an office manager for Custom Security Services, LLC. He also worked as an educator from 2002 too 2007. He taught World History and Psychology for three years at Hermann High School and American Government, American History and World Geography for one year at St. Clair High School…

Previously:

Campaign Finance: because a republican Attorney General would cater to the right wingnut base (March 14, 2011)

Campaign Finance: Attorney General Chris Koster (D) has a really good day (March 12, 2011)

Attorney General Chris Koster (D): let the fundraising commence, part 2 (January 30, 2011)

Attorney General Chris Koster (D): let the fundraising commence (January 27, 2011)

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C031159 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER [pdf] 3/16/2011

Kenneth McClain

308 W. Maple

Independence , MO 64050

Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, P.C. Attorney

3/16/2011

$25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Contribution in Excess of $500 Received Within 48 Hours

C031159 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER [pdf] 3/16/2011

Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers & Glass, P.C.

120 S. Central Avenue Suite 130

St Louis , MO 63105

3/16/2011

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

Contribution in Excess of $500 Received Within 48 Hours

C031159 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER [pdf] 3/16/2011

GSLAA PAC

13616 Manchester Road

Saint Louis, MO 63131

3/16/2011

$5,000.00

MADA Dealers Interested In Government

PO Box 245

Jefferson City , MO 65102

3/16/2011

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

No, that’s not the arts people, it’s the car dealers.

St. Louis Activist Hub has a fine posting up that summarizes how local Tea Party activist John Burns has regularly collaborated with James O’Keefe in smearing their political opponents. These two and the crew they work with have no conscience … and one wonders about the issue of a soul, as well.

Just to give you the flavor of their dishonesty:

I wrote back in November about an innocent victim of a Breitbart/O’Keefe smear campaign. Loesch and others had claimed that the video showed that New Jersey teachers union members called students “the n-word” and focused their attacks on a teacher named Alissa Ploshnick. Actually Ploshnick did not call a student “the n-word:” rather, she described that another teacher had done so while telling a story about how difficult it was for teachers to be fired. Nevertheless, she was initially suspended from her job after O’Keefe’s smear video came out. It turned out that Ploshnick was a heroic teacher who had previously thrown herself in front of a van to protect her students.

Ploshnick, at the time, commented on the deceitful manner in which O’Keefe’s collaborators operated:

“I felt like I was raped,” says Ploshnick referring to the moment she learned that what she thought was a private, even flirtatious, talk with a “nice” young man who bought her drinks was really part of a political scam to discredit her union in an web videotape called “Teachers Gone Wild.”

“Give me a smile and say hello and I’ll do anything for you,” says Ploshnick. “I’ve always done it. It’s hard to reteach your heart and your brain.”

Turns out that Adam at the Activist Hub recognized Burns in the video about Ploshnick and contacted the New Jersey Educational Association to identify him as one of the culprits.

Adam is well aware what Burns, Loesch, and some of the other local TPs are capable of. He shines a spotlight on their dirty secrets regularly. So he posted the piece to warn mainstream media in St. Louis that they should be very cautious about snapping at the bait of misleadingly edited videos.  

The Fix‘s Chris Cilizza speculates about Todd Akin’s intentions in regard to a Senate run:

… With the GOP field to face Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) in flux, Rep. Todd Akin (R) is now taking a closer look at the race.

Multiple sources confirm Akin has begun making phone calls to evaluate support for a potential GOP primary campaign.

Akin previously had ruled out running for Senate. But more recently, he said he would not rule it out. And now he is actively exploring a campaign.

“I do know that he is concerned that there be a good conservative candidate that can represent the state of Missouri,” Akin spokesman Steve Taylor said. “Beyond that, the congressman has made no announcement.”

It sure looks like Akin’s testing the water for a Senate run – apropos of which FiredUp’s report on Akin’s program ad at the St. Charles Lincoln Days even gives us a preview of his potential campaign slogan: “It’s Time for TAKIN back America.” Get it? Typography is important here: TAKIN = T. Akin. Not so subtle, especially when, as FiredUp‘s Sean observes:

Note in Akin’s program ad that he says it’s time for “true Patriots” to help elect Republicans to the U.S. Senate.

Akin’s concern that there be a “good” conservative candidate – by which he presumably means himself – takes on a special resonance since it looks more and more likely that Ann Wagner, who is what passes as a respectable Republican these days, is also going to get in the race. So we may see a primary race consisting of the Tea Party tweedle dum and tweedle dee (Steelman and Martin), the old-line Missouri GOPer, Wagner, and our sui generis Brother Akin. A good time for all may be in the cards – as long as we are prepared to take on boatloads of crazy after the primary.    

Plenty of local leftwing activists have been fuming about the Post-Dispatch not covering the union rally last Friday, and plenty of them wrote the P-D to complain. Those of us who did got this reply from editor Christopher Ave:

We had a reporter at the rally, but he was called away to help cover local reactions to the tsunami.

The Riverfront Times has picked up the story, linking to our site and to St. Louis Activist Hub. I especially appreciated RFT’s response to Ave’s form letter:

Pardon me, but who gives a rat’s ass what Joe Hoosier in south city thinks about the tragedy in Japan?

Apparently the Post still doesn’t get it. We feel as if it will cover Tea Partiers if they drop an extra lump of sugar in their drinks. But cover people fighting to preserve a middle class? How boring.

Activist Hub deconstructs Ave’s lame excuse and illustrates the disparity in the Post’s coverage of us and the TP:

Furthermore, compare this non-coverage to the fact that the Post-Dispatch bends over backwards to write a 600 word article about a tea party rally with 1/8 as many people last April. Would they even dream of ignoring a 1,000 person rally from the tea party, let alone a 4,000 person rally, in St. Louis? Of course not.

Jake’s on the air and the ad is just, well … jake (see definition #1). Count on him to have an ad with a sense of humor.

If you live in St. Louis County, you WILL vote on April 5th. For Jake.

File this under “your jokeing, write?”:

@FiredUpMissouri Fired Up! Missouri

Ummm… MT @DLHoskins: One of my constituents told me “God loves u because your pro-gun.” I will proudly support the 2nd amendment! 2 hours ago

We got this via our good friends at Fired Up! because:

@DLHoskins‘s Tweets are protected.

Only confirmed followers have access to @DLHoskins’s Tweets and complete profile. You need to send a request before you can start following this account.

And just think, that carry conceal stuff worked out so well for Representative Denny Hoskins (r) the last time.

Here is a pair of political strange bedfellows: ex-Senator Joan Bray (D-St. Louis) and Sen. Jason Crowell (R-Cape Girardeau). Bray doesn’t find it all that strange, really, that she and Crowell are on the opposite side of the fence from Gov. Nixon, opposing the governor’s bill to give Ameren $40 million to apply for a license for another nuclear plant. She says she and Crowell have always gotten along well, but they usually disagreed on issues. It’s nice to find something they can work on together.

Their common interest in this case is ratepayers. Noranda Aluminum, the state’s largest industrial user of power, is in Sen. Crowell’s district; and Noranda, along with Anheuser-Busch InBev, is upset that the proposed $40 million giveaway  did not contain promised funds for the Office of Public Counsel. That is where the interests of the two senators converge. Bray, too, thinks the Office of Public Counsel is ridiculously underfunded. Bray’s group, the Consumers Council, is a coalition of large industrial users (like Noranda and InBev), the AARP, and the MO Assn. of Social Welfare, all working with the Office of Public Counsel to defend rate payers against the rate hikes that the PSC so liberally hands out whenever Ameren comes begging. The Office of Public Counsel, in its attempts at sweet reason in the PSC hearings, is typically outgunned ten to one. Ameren uses the money we ratepayers are forced to fork over to finance lotsa lawyers, who then convince the PSC to wring even more money out of us. For Ameren customers, it’s like being forced to pay for the bullets of our own firing squad.

As head of the Consumers Council, Bray opposes, no question about it, giving Ameren forty million dollars to apply for the license. The Council’s first objection is that state law forbids giving utilities any funds for new plants until they actually come on line. Just as much of a sticking point is that we’re talking about a new nuclear plant, and that especially riles many green activists.

But Bray pointed out to me that as heartily as she opposes another nuclear plant in Callaway County, she must, as head of the Consumers Council, be aware of political realities. And the reality is that Ameren is almost surely going to get that forty mill. That being the case, the advocates for ratepayers had best get something valuable out of the deal if they can, and that’s what they’re aiming to do. To that end, when the bill came up for a hearing in Crowell’s committee, he stipulated that the OPC would get its funds from Ameren rather than from the state and that it would get appreciably more funding. That stipulation had been promised and then–oops–left out. If Crowell and the Consumers Council can stall the deal unless the Office of Public Counsel gets more funding, then at least the OPC can use its new funds to lobby against changing the anti-CWIP law–against, in other words, forcing ratepayers to cough up in advance for a second nuclear plant in Callaway County.

Hey, as long as we have to pay for the bullets that will be fired at us, shouldn’t we also be allowed to buy some ammo for our own defense? That’s only fair, especially since we’ll still be outgunned. Consider that the OPC, if it gets its funding from a dedicated stream taken out of Ameren’s profits, wouldn’t have the kind of moolah that the utility’s CEO can spend on lawyers and lobbyists. OPC would get somewhere between $3 and $4 million dollars. Ameren spent $4 million on its last rate case alone, whereas the OPC would have to use its funds for utility cases around the entire state. But the odds would be more even.

And just as important, the Office of Public Counsel would be protected from political vagaries. In these dire times for the state budget, when agencies and programs are being slashed on every side, who knows what might happen to the OPC’s funding? Instead of having one tenth the resources to argue a case that Ameren has, it might end up having 1/20th of the resources. Or none. It could be entirely defunded. We do have a Republican legislature.

The important ball to keep your eye on when it comes to this bill, then, is whether or not, if it passes, it includes a dedicated funding stream taken from Ameren to give the Office of Public Counsel some parity in litigating rate cases. If that happens, it will be because all the stakeholders on our side pooled their might. Big Bill Haywood, that famous turn of the 20th century labor leader, used to show immigrants who were trying to form unions an open hand and demonstrate how easily any single finger can be bent. But then he would make a fist to illustrate the strength that comes from unity. Perhaps the Consumers Council is about to experience itself as a fist.

As for whether giving Ameren $40 million it neither needs nor deserves could ever be considered winning? Eh, that’s a tough case to make. But getting four million dollars a year out of Ameren’s profits for the Office of Public Counsel would certainly take much of the sting out of that kind of “winning”.