Seriously Fred?

After reading TexasFred’s blog posting in response to the AP story about the dire situation on the Mexican border Fear Grips Mexican Border Families Amid Violence, my initial response was “is this guy serious?” I understand that he is frustrated by the situation and by our government's sedentary approach in dealing with it, but the policy approach that he is advocating is - to say the least –nonsensical. What I find most frustrating about his statements, is that he seems to be taking advantage of the necessity of greater security to justify his attitude towards all the complex border issues that exist.

First of all, his constant demand that there be “boots on the ground” is somewhat redundant. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn't that exactly what the current border patrol already in deployment are doing? This also somewhat applies to his request that there be a presence by the National Guard. OH I'm sorry, not just the National Guard but the National Guard equipped with “Bradley Fighting Vehicles, M1A1/M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks, AH-64 Apaches, 240-Bravo machine guns, M-249 Squad Automatic Weapons (SAW), land mines, dogs, Night Vision Glasses (NVGs)”. How is this beneficial in any way? I mean, tanks & landmines, seriously? Is he suggesting that we should turn the southern border into an active battlefield? Furthermore, how on earth can he believe that we should be engaged in a policy where our border security has “a GREEN LIGHT to shoot anything crossing OUR border at anything other than a LEGAL border crossing!” ? The majority f the illegal crossing taking place is by civilians attempting to go somewhere were their is hope for the future. The same things many of our ancestors were doing when they first came to Texas.

He claims to be making these suggestions because he “STILL stands for America 1st and the sovereignty of our borders”. But what does that mean?? If he cared so much about America and wants to uphold its values then how do his suggestions really do that? They just don't. I think that the border policy which best fits our American values and ideals, should be one of compassion and restraint, instead of isolation and combativeness.

It is wrong to simply distance and separate ourselves from the issue by bolstering our border. It is wrong to simply blame the Mexican people and its government for the difficult situation that they find themselves in. I think that the policy he advocates, is one that punishes the innocent Mexican civilian population, exacerbates the violence, and blames (as usual) the Mexican “socialist” government for the problem.

What the United States should do is enact a policy, where we devote the bulk of our resources on bolstering the Mexican government's attempts to quell the violence. There should be a comprehensive policy that supports the victimized civilian population on the border in their quest of pursuing happiness, by providing them with the opportunities that they seek so desperately, regardless of which side of the border they are on.

By supporting the Mexican government efforts to quell the violence you will in effect eliminate the need for heavy border security. By legally enabling Mexican civilians with their quest of pursuing of happiness, whether it be on our side of the border or theirs, we will effectively eliminate their suffering and plight - and in doing so largely eliminate the heavy illegal crossing activities.

Is it money well spent right now?

Note: I urge the readers to please refrain from hastily dismissing the reasoning of my arguments in the following writing on the subject of Austin's animal shelters. As a pet owner myself, I fully understand the strong feelings that many people feel toward animals, and am fully aware of the inherent sensitivity pertaining to the following subject.


My critique is of the Austin American Statesman’s, editorial board’s opinion regarding Austin’s animal shelters, titled “Austin should make its animal shelter a no-kill facility”.

First off, what I find most frustrating about this editorial is that it is clear that the writer’s emotional involvement in the subject resulted in a complete and utter disregard of the stories inconvenient other side. The fact of the matter is that in our current difficult economic situation, Austin, like the rest of the nation is financially strained, and is having to make difficult governing decisions on all of its programs. This fact is ignored by the editorial.

The editorial goes out of its way, in what can suitably be labeled as “guilt tripping” the reader into blindly forming the opinion that they desire the reader to hold. They offer an impressive array of numbers and percentages that support their claim that Austin’s animal shelters are somehow not on par with the cities progressive beliefs on the issue. But in reality their figures do not really support their claims. If 10 years ago, the no kill goal embraced by the city led to a 30 or so percent decrease in the shelters kill rate, where is this new concern coming from? What kill rate percentage will be deemed satisfactory in the future?

Now, I'm not denying the legitimacy of their claims, and I don't disagree that we should do more, if not do absolutely all we can to keep Austin's animal shelters kill rate as low as we possibly can.

The issue I have with this proposal is that as dire as the animal shelter’s situation may seem, I doubt (as well as many of the readers might) that when compared to other cities are situation may not be as bad as one might think. More importantly I doubt that if this proposition were to be compared to a different proposition targeted towards the relief the local citizen populations human services needs.

What I'm trying to say here, is that a sad and depressing at the animal shelter situation may be, here are far more important issues at hand. Every day in Austin, and every other city in this nation - especially in these difficult times - there are countless issues relating to the far more important well-being of people that are not being addressed because of budget constraints.

At the end of the day, there is a finite amount of money that the government can spend, regardless of whether they raise taxes or not. Everyone must understand, every single penny of the estimated $1.1 million to be spent on this program, is money that (whether directly or indirectly) can be spent on far more pressing issues. This money can be going to programs that house the poor, feed the hungry, or provide desperately needed medical care to those who are ill and unable to afford it themselves.

So, I'm sorry, but you know what, with so many people in need of so much help - especially in today's difficult times - I would rather us be doing more to help them, rather than the animal's. I just don't know how the people pushing in support of this can justify it knowing that at the very same time their neighbor is also in their help.

The 2010 Census and You

Every 10 years, the US government conducts a nationwide census in order to get an up-to-date picture of the populace’s characteristics. As you might imagine this task is not easy. In fact, this momentous task is the largest nonmilitary operation conducted by the government. You might be wondering, why they even bother with it? Well, as it turns out, the census data collected is used by the government in many of the fundamental decisions regarding the allotment of such things as the granting of power in Congress and even appropriation of federal funds.

It is not only beneficial for the government to acquire complete and accurate census data. It is in the best interest of each individual living in the United States, to make sure that they are counted. For you see, not being counted puts you at a disadvantage, because the federal government will in effect allocate fewer political, financial, social resources to you, your state, and your local community.

To find out more about the challenges that you as students (in particular) might be facing in the upcoming census, and how the government along with other organizations are working to meet those challenges, please read the NPR article “Universities Push To Get Students In Census 2010”. You can also find detailed information at the US Census Bureau website.

Texas is expected to gain another seat in the US House, so BE READY to help make it happen. The census forms should be readily available by mid-March.