Despite efforts by the Senate to revive the bill, House Speaker Bill Howell ruled the amendment to another traffic bill “not germane.

“Falls Church City Council member David Snyder said the demise of photo red “shows an increasing lack of any concern for the well-being of northern Virginia and other large urban areas.” Falls Church is one of the localities using the technology.

Critics deride the use of cameras as an invasion of privacy and don’t like the practice of ticketing the car’s owner, even though the owner can avoid a fine by stating that someone else was driving the vehicle.

The state government won’t interfere with your privacy when you’re in your car and break the law, but will get into your business if you decide what you want to do with your body or who you will marry.

Republicans: Hypocrites.

While the “Jeff Gannon” story is still bouncing around the journalistic circles, it’s clear that the hard questions about why Jim Guckert, Gannons’ real name, got a day-pass to the White House pressroom for two years, without a legitimate news organization as his employer have not been answered.

As an S.F. Chronicle editorial put it, “It’s hard to say which is worse: That the White House had no idea who it was allowing to be within shouting distance of the president — or that it knew exactly who Jeff Gannon was and why he was there.”

Why isn’t this story being dissected by the MSM (mainstream media) 24-7? I think Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix put it best

Of course, the difference is that if, say, a Gore or Kerry administration had brought in a gay hooker to act as a ringer at news conferences, it would have quickly exploded into the biggest story in the country. Fox News would devote hours upon hours to it. So would Rush Limbaugh. So would the Pat Robertsons and the Jerry Falwells and the James Dobsons. Needless to say, so would the Republican Party. And here’s where the difference between liberal and conservative sex scandals, and how the mainstream media handle them, becomes clearly visible. When there’s a scandal on the left, there is a built-in machine, already in place, to spew shock and outrage on a 24-hour-a-day basis, and the mainstream media naturally cover that. But when there’s a sex scandal on the right, there’s really no one to speak out. Do liberals really care that men are having sex with each other? Or that Jeff Gannon supposedly has been paid as much as $1200 for one weekend for the pleasure of his companionship? To ask these questions is to answer them: no, and no.

The paradigmatic example is the Monica Lewinsky story. You may recall that the investigation into Bill Clinton’s sex life was driven not by the media, but by a $50 million official government investigation and a congressional witch-hunt led by the Republican majority. If the Bush White House really does become embroiled in a sex scandal — and, at this point, it looks like a genuine possibility — well, who is going to push this into the hyperstory realm? There simply are no liberal equivalents of Sean Hannity and Rush. Al Franken? Please. He’d be laughing too hard to take this seriously. And Howard Dean is not likely to position himself as the Democrats’ sexual inquisitor.

It’s clear to me that the single greatest media agenda setter are the right-wing talk organizations. Whether it’s Fox New, Limbaugh or increasingly CNN, if they cover it, the MSM will. If they don’t, it’s a quieter story.

It’s up to all of us to demand greater coverage. Howard Kurtz of The Post has treated this as a blogger story. In his online chat earlier this week he identified the more important questions the Gannon affair raises, but he doesn’t seem to have done much digging to find out what the story is.

And that all comes down to who screams loudest and longest. Here’s Kurtz’ email address. Drop him a line.

I’ve had five members of the House come up to me to tell me personally that they were glad that we had killed a number of the more controversial bills that had passed the House. They told me that they had voted for them because they felt pressured to by the political environment, but that they thought it was terrible legislation.
My thought to that was, ‘How disgusting.’ If they felt it was bad legislation, then they should have voted against it in the first place themselves.
—Sen. Russ Potts (R-Winchester)

Many think transportation will be the overriding issue in the November campaigns — for governor and the other races. The Hampton Roads Daily Press has a great editorial about the obfuscations many politicians throw out there about it.

Spare us the promises of “restoring trust” to the transportation trust fund. Creating a “lockbox” or some other contrived malarkey for trust funds will only deny the legislature needed flexibility in the future – the kind of flexibility, when faced with a recession and dwindling receipts, that comes in very handy.

Same goes for the proposed constitutional amendment to “protect” the transportation trust fund. It’s meaningless at best and, at worst, could inspire similar efforts to protect this fund or that fund. Really want to protect transportation monies? Then just do it and desist with the stop-me-before-I-kill-again legislation.

Likewise, put the quietus to the sloganeering, label-as-remedy approach to transportation policy. In the current session, legislators have proposed a virtual parade of new “funds.” There’s the “public-private partnership incentive fund,” the “local congestion migration fund,” the “rail enhancement fund” the “commonwealth transportation incentive fund” and the “transit capital fund.”

You may collectively refer to these as the All-Utility Blue Smoke and Mirrors Funds. Each, by its lonesome, is unobjectionable and intentionally so. You put a little dab of money in and it fits nicely into your campaign brochure.

But if “Virginians have lost faith and confidence in how their tax dollars are spent on transportation,” as we’re constantly told, it is because the political system – for nearly two decades – has rested more upon resume enhancement than real, cold-cash road building.

If, for instance, your big idea is to divert revenue sources that currently flow into the state general fund – insurance premiums, for instance – you haven’t done anything but that. You have moved money from one purpose to another and probably with little discussion about the effects upon the first purpose.

Which is how I also feel about the car tax rebate. Those who promote getting rid of it and having the state reimburse localities just means we need to replace one tax with another or cut funds.

Or, if you just go out and borrow against future federal highway funds – which Virginia did a few years ago – while not being candid about the transaction and debt-maintenance costs, then you’re just kidding yourself and deceiving others about what has actually been achieved.

A similar dance is now under way in the name of “public-private” partnerships. Why, if we just provide a few incentives here and there for greater private participation, we might transform how transportation services are delivered in Virginia!

No, you won’t. There’s a role for these sort of public-private efforts, even an expanding role. But at the end of the day a road is a road and profit is profit. The opportunity for mixing the two will always be limited.

So many legislators are now running around promising innovation and rising productivity as the answer to road woes that some, in fact, may believe it’s true. But you still have to provide the money. It has to come from somewhere. You would have better luck chasing after leprechauns than in believing that it will ever take something other than folding money – raised somehow, some way – to build roads.

When the Republican leadership in the House of Delegates, for example, gets up and says, as it did last month, that it was presenting “a transportation plan that does not include a gas tax or any other type of general tax increase,” then it was announcing that it didn’t have a plan.

It is that fact, indifferent to the wiles and artifice of political marketers, that sits now before the candidates for state office this year. Will they be honest about the cost of improving transportation in Virginia, and who will have to bear that cost? Will they talk about tolls? Will they talk about taxes? Will they talk, candidly and forthrightly, about the inevitable decline in economic competitiveness that will follow further inaction?

The 2005 General Assembly was nearly as big a flop on transportation as the one the year before. Now we’re going to have some campaigns. We will discover in short order whether the pretenders will be any more interested in what’s real and necessary than the present bunch.

I disagree with Tim Kaine’s position of phasing out the car tax, but give him credit for honesty — and courage — about transportation.

Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, the likely Democratic nominee for governor, said yesterday that a long-term financial fix for transportation, possibly including higher taxes, will be the “big thing” for Virginia’s next chief executive.

…”I’m not going to take anything off the table,” Kaine said.

But the Daily Press won’t be happy that he followed that remark with “But until we lock up the transportation fund, I’m not talking about new revenue.”

I’m with Kaine on this one. We have a right to some restrictions on how funds promised for one priority can be diverted to another.

That’s the way I feel about it. It think donations, cash or otherwise, should be disclosed, but limiting or other restrictions on political donations are a restriction of the first amendment. If the electorate is informed and we have a vibrant free and dogged press (both assertions are arguable, I admit), then all the money in the world isn’t as powerful as an informed voter.

“Obviously, there is an inordinate imbalance,” said Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. “That’s the field. That’s the way it’s played. Money talks. Constituents talk. Ultimately, constituents – the ones who cast votes – speak as loudly as corporations with lots of money.”

…in education

For every 100 freshmen entering high school, 68 will graduate on time. Forty will go on to college with only 27 returning for their sophomore year and just 18 receiving college degrees.

In what is becoming a total rejection of the anti-abortion agenda, another bill, this one that would ban the use of some state funds for abortion, was killed by a Senate committee.

All these votes, however, will be use in brochures of the radical right. I happen to think that the votes could also appear in brochures of progressives, if they are cleverly positioned.

The House passed an amended version of the Senate’s bill banning cell phone use by teenagers while driving. The House version would allow teenagers to use hands-free devices.

I’ve commented before that I think the use of the hands isn’t the issue but the mental distraction.

And why did a third of the House, mostly Republicans, vote against the bill?

The Senate will have a chance to remove the amendment and must vote on it again.

Any doubt about the agenda for those professing to protect religious freedom by expanding the Virginia constitution should be dismissed by this quote:

“Our country was built on the Christian principles of the Bible,” he said. “Today, our Constitution, in my opinion, has to be strengthened to protect those rights of all Christians around this country.”
–Del. Charles W. Carrico, the resolution’s sponsor

The Virginian Pilot has more.

Many supporters had hoped that the passage of HJ537 would open the door to organized prayer in schools.

The amendment’s author, Del. Charles W. Carrico, Sr., R-Grayson, initially said his amendment would allow formal classroom prayers if students’ parents requested it. Carrico later said he misspoke, after legal scholars who support his amendment said school-sanctioned prayers would still be unconstitutional.

Carrico, a retired state trooper, said he would reintroduce the amendment in 2007 because he believes judges are restricting the rights of students and adults to speak openly about their faith in schools.

Which led Sen. Dick Saslaw (R-Fairfax), who is Jewish, to recall his school days.

[Saslaw] recalled attending public school in Washington, D.C., when school-sanctioned prayer and Bible-reading were allowed. The school was divided between Christian and Jewish students, and Saslaw said, “There were kids that felt awful uneasy about it.”

Leaning toward Carrico, Saslaw asked, “What do you tell these other people that don’t read from your Bible … What do you tell those Muslim parents?”

“I don’t know what I would tell them,” Carrico replied. “I tell my children that you respect people of other faiths.”

Saslaw responded, “If you respect those other beliefs then you don’t impose your religion on them.”

Apparently, Carrico hadn’t thought so far as to consider other religions.

The whole issue is bogus.

Fortunately, a Senate committee killed the resolution.

From a Washingtpon Post story about how the budget conferees are doing the citizens’ work of crafting a budget.

Both sides have offered some concessions, but there have been few face-to-face discussions. Instead, both sides gathered separately — munching on Oreo cookies and watching college basketball games late into the night — while their staffs traded written offers that were swiftly rejected as “insulting” or “inadequate.”

…The negotiations have been interrupted at times by end-of-session dinners with lobbyists, including the annual Wild Game dinner, at which Callahan and others had the opportunity to munch on black bear, goose, pheasant, rabbit and squirrel. The dinner’s motto: “Hey, if it walks, crawls, swims or flies, it may be there.”