This article is in response to my class mate’s blog posting Texas, your fat.
In my opinion, obesity ranks second (first being education) on the list of the greatest social issues our society faces today. Having said that, you can see why I really like the idea of taxing foods which are deemed “bad” and using the revenue to bolster education. It's a win-win. I like the idea of having Texas’s growing population of obese people fund and educate Texas’s growing population of undereducated citizens; classic.
Both these issues are growing and getting worse with time, and both these issues are not currently being sufficiently dealt with. Having one fix the other , and in the process fix itself; Genius. It seems like a match made in heaven. A perfect place for government to get its nose into. The only problem now is to figure out what to tax and how much to tax it.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Ilegitmate New Security Measues at The Capital
In January a man walked into the state capital with a firearm, then on his way out (for what ever reason) fired the gun into the air. Though thankfully no one was hurt, his actions were not without consequence. In response to this incident, new security measures were enacted. These new security measures are typical in nature. They involve the installation of metal detectors and x-ray machines on the buildings entrances.
You’re probably thinking “that’s good and all, fine, whatever, they saw a problem regarding public safety at the capital and took decisive action to address it.” Here’s the funny thing though, even with these new security measures in place it is still completely legal for a person entering the state capital to carry a concealed handgun ( if they are licensed) and also to openly carry long guns (like rifles and shotguns).
So now what has this new $3 million measure established? Well seeing how it is, that they enacted these new measures in response to the January incident, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. What has been accomplished though is let's just say ridiculous. I don’t need to explain how this measure does not make anything any safer at the capital, because it’s obvious that there are still plenty of opportunities for anyone who wishes to do harm, to accomplish their goals. But what I will say, is that the only practical things that have been accomplished by this are: causing a nuisance to everyone that has to go through these security measures, and offering people at the capital a general false sense of security.
But don’t you think the people who enacted these new measures know this? Well of course they do! They didn’t get to where they are by being stupid, they got to where they are by doing whatever they need to do to get there, no matter how stupid it is. Meaning, that the capitol building board members who voted in favor of these new security measures, did it because they felt they needed to do it not because they felt it needed to be done.
When asked to comment on his decision, Lieut. Gov. David Dewhurst -one of the board members who voted in favor of these new measures- said "I could not forgive myself if I am not doing everything I can to protect Texans when they come into the Capitol.” But if he had said the true reason for his decision, it would’ve sounded more like: “In this Post 9/11 world, I will lose my job if I didn’t make some gesture in response to this, especially if an incident were to happen again in future.”
Everyone -the lieutenant governor, the public, the media- knows that this is not what you would call “doing everything” in order to ensure public safety at the capital. Now I’m not advocating more security or anything like that. In fact, personally I am in complete disagreement with the enactment these new security measures, and think there is nothing that can be done to completely protect the capital building from someone who wishes to do it harm, for they will always find a way to do it. Though that is not to say, that I would be against the enactment of a legitimate security measure with a practically legitimate security benefit. Unfortunately, these measures do not fit the criteria.
You’re probably thinking “that’s good and all, fine, whatever, they saw a problem regarding public safety at the capital and took decisive action to address it.” Here’s the funny thing though, even with these new security measures in place it is still completely legal for a person entering the state capital to carry a concealed handgun ( if they are licensed) and also to openly carry long guns (like rifles and shotguns).
So now what has this new $3 million measure established? Well seeing how it is, that they enacted these new measures in response to the January incident, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. What has been accomplished though is let's just say ridiculous. I don’t need to explain how this measure does not make anything any safer at the capital, because it’s obvious that there are still plenty of opportunities for anyone who wishes to do harm, to accomplish their goals. But what I will say, is that the only practical things that have been accomplished by this are: causing a nuisance to everyone that has to go through these security measures, and offering people at the capital a general false sense of security.
But don’t you think the people who enacted these new measures know this? Well of course they do! They didn’t get to where they are by being stupid, they got to where they are by doing whatever they need to do to get there, no matter how stupid it is. Meaning, that the capitol building board members who voted in favor of these new security measures, did it because they felt they needed to do it not because they felt it needed to be done.
When asked to comment on his decision, Lieut. Gov. David Dewhurst -one of the board members who voted in favor of these new measures- said "I could not forgive myself if I am not doing everything I can to protect Texans when they come into the Capitol.” But if he had said the true reason for his decision, it would’ve sounded more like: “In this Post 9/11 world, I will lose my job if I didn’t make some gesture in response to this, especially if an incident were to happen again in future.”
Everyone -the lieutenant governor, the public, the media- knows that this is not what you would call “doing everything” in order to ensure public safety at the capital. Now I’m not advocating more security or anything like that. In fact, personally I am in complete disagreement with the enactment these new security measures, and think there is nothing that can be done to completely protect the capital building from someone who wishes to do it harm, for they will always find a way to do it. Though that is not to say, that I would be against the enactment of a legitimate security measure with a practically legitimate security benefit. Unfortunately, these measures do not fit the criteria.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
They Might Be Doing What's Right
This article is in response to my class mate’s blog Response to Health Care.
All else aside, its crucial that the republicans voice their opinions on this bill because that’s what they’re supposed to do. Politics aside, no mater if your republican or democrat, if your for or against health care in whatever fashion it may be, the concerns being raised are legitimate. Not only because they may be right, but also because its their right to have them and express them.
The issue regarding the legality of this health care bill, as I understand it, relates to whether the federal government is infringing on the constitutionally protected right of the citizen in its passing of this piece of legislation. More specifically, (and I hope I’m right on this) does the federal government have the right to mandate the purchase of a marketed good (health insurance in this instance), under penalty of a fine (if they don’t), as one of this bills articles forces upon the citizen. This is an important constitutional issue with wide ranging implications.
I expect and would hope, that the Attorney General of Texas and every other state, no matter what their personal politics are or what the predominant political leanings of the particular state are, that they question the constitutionality of every new or existing statute, and oppose it if they see fit, as they are suppose to. It is the Attorney Generals duty to do so, as it is the duty of the opposing party’s (in this case the republicans) place to criticize and expose any issue they might have with any and all legislation brought forth. Its not only their right to use whatever legal methods they might have to contest anything they wish, but its also their duty to do so as (elected or appointed) public officials.
Its easy to get carried away with the “baby killer” or “Obamacare” type slogans that are being used by both sides. But all this serves to do, is to confuse the issues and breed animosity. Opposing the efforts to question the legitimacy of this bill on the basis of favoring universal health care, just isn’t right. There is always another way to attain universal health care if this provision of the bill gets struck down. Or at least, lets establish right now whether or not its within the federal governments limits to do this.
Even if I am wrong about the facts involved in what I think the republicans concerns are with this bill. Even if they’re wrong and it is in fact completely legal. Even if their motives are indeed geared towards dealing a blow to this bill just because it advocates universal health care, rather than the noble cause of upholding the citizens right under the constitution. I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one; I don’t care even if they’re doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. As long as it’s the right thing to do, then someone should be doing it.
All else aside, its crucial that the republicans voice their opinions on this bill because that’s what they’re supposed to do. Politics aside, no mater if your republican or democrat, if your for or against health care in whatever fashion it may be, the concerns being raised are legitimate. Not only because they may be right, but also because its their right to have them and express them.
The issue regarding the legality of this health care bill, as I understand it, relates to whether the federal government is infringing on the constitutionally protected right of the citizen in its passing of this piece of legislation. More specifically, (and I hope I’m right on this) does the federal government have the right to mandate the purchase of a marketed good (health insurance in this instance), under penalty of a fine (if they don’t), as one of this bills articles forces upon the citizen. This is an important constitutional issue with wide ranging implications.
I expect and would hope, that the Attorney General of Texas and every other state, no matter what their personal politics are or what the predominant political leanings of the particular state are, that they question the constitutionality of every new or existing statute, and oppose it if they see fit, as they are suppose to. It is the Attorney Generals duty to do so, as it is the duty of the opposing party’s (in this case the republicans) place to criticize and expose any issue they might have with any and all legislation brought forth. Its not only their right to use whatever legal methods they might have to contest anything they wish, but its also their duty to do so as (elected or appointed) public officials.
Its easy to get carried away with the “baby killer” or “Obamacare” type slogans that are being used by both sides. But all this serves to do, is to confuse the issues and breed animosity. Opposing the efforts to question the legitimacy of this bill on the basis of favoring universal health care, just isn’t right. There is always another way to attain universal health care if this provision of the bill gets struck down. Or at least, lets establish right now whether or not its within the federal governments limits to do this.
Even if I am wrong about the facts involved in what I think the republicans concerns are with this bill. Even if they’re wrong and it is in fact completely legal. Even if their motives are indeed geared towards dealing a blow to this bill just because it advocates universal health care, rather than the noble cause of upholding the citizens right under the constitution. I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one; I don’t care even if they’re doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. As long as it’s the right thing to do, then someone should be doing it.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Texas Should Get Onboard Education Reform
On the state level, funding for education in Texas consumes more than a third of the state’s budget. This money (more than $25 billion) only supplies about a third of the money that Texas education programs currently receive. The majority of funds (more than 50%) come from local school districts, and less than 10% comes from the federal government. So it's easy to see why the state government wouldn't like to spend more on education, perhaps they feel that spending a third of their budget on it makes it a justifiably satisfactory amount.
Unfortunately though, when it comes down to it, the truth of the matter is that the Per-pupil spending on education in Texas ranks us near the very bottom of the scale when compared to the rest of the nation (bottom third). This means that educational programs in most other states have more money to spend on each of their students than Texas does. And if we’re honest, money matters. The more money spent on a child's education the better the child's education is likely to be.
The fact that Texas’s students are at a disadvantage when compared to the rest of the nation is ridiculous. The importance of public education to society is perhaps the most important concern of government. The more educated the populace: the higher the standard of living will be, the more money the economy will generate, the more taxes the government will be able to collect, the healthier the middle class will be…
The federal government is proposing new educational standards, which can greatly benefit Texas’s weak educational system. Though the adoption of these new standards does come with certain strings attached, the benefits far outweigh the costs. Most importantly, Texas will be more on par with the rest of the nation when it comes to the level of education being provided. Also, federal government will increase the amount of funding that it gives to Texas for education. The consequences for Texas, include having to pay more money and surrender some of the micromanagement control it has over educational policies. Both of which are frankly not entirely a bad thing for Texas.
So the next time one of these offers comes knocking on Texas's door, we should answer. Let's not pass up the opportunity to fix the problems of tomorrow, today. Federal standards and money, though often labeled or viewed as evil are more often than not, the better thing to do.
Unfortunately though, when it comes down to it, the truth of the matter is that the Per-pupil spending on education in Texas ranks us near the very bottom of the scale when compared to the rest of the nation (bottom third). This means that educational programs in most other states have more money to spend on each of their students than Texas does. And if we’re honest, money matters. The more money spent on a child's education the better the child's education is likely to be.
The fact that Texas’s students are at a disadvantage when compared to the rest of the nation is ridiculous. The importance of public education to society is perhaps the most important concern of government. The more educated the populace: the higher the standard of living will be, the more money the economy will generate, the more taxes the government will be able to collect, the healthier the middle class will be…
The federal government is proposing new educational standards, which can greatly benefit Texas’s weak educational system. Though the adoption of these new standards does come with certain strings attached, the benefits far outweigh the costs. Most importantly, Texas will be more on par with the rest of the nation when it comes to the level of education being provided. Also, federal government will increase the amount of funding that it gives to Texas for education. The consequences for Texas, include having to pay more money and surrender some of the micromanagement control it has over educational policies. Both of which are frankly not entirely a bad thing for Texas.
So the next time one of these offers comes knocking on Texas's door, we should answer. Let's not pass up the opportunity to fix the problems of tomorrow, today. Federal standards and money, though often labeled or viewed as evil are more often than not, the better thing to do.
Friday, March 19, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, March 8, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
