Of all the things done poorly in Texas, including the extreme regressive tax, appalling school system, lack of insurance for our children, income distribution gap, lingering backwards thinking, among many other thing, there is one thing that Texas can be applauded for: operating on a balanced budget.
America would not be in the sinking position we are in today if it were not for credit. Obviously, credit has helped us achieve many of the things that made us the most powerful nation, but irresponsible spending can be deadly, literally. Maxed Out is a small documentary on the credit spending of America. In the movie four people commit suicide because they let their debt get so out of hand. I believe that the bad example set by the government, leads people to believe it is ok to spend what they do not, and will not have. This is not ok. If we do not shape up, we will continue in the disastrous downfall as a nation.
Texas on the other hand operates on a balanced budget, meaning what comes in is the same as what goes out, similar to a debit card. This is a very responsible way to lead a government. While it can sometimes mean budget cuts, and making compromise, it is the RIGHT thing to do and hopefully can set an example as the nation continues to fall apart.
If we, as a nation and a people, can recognize this deadly habit, and work to change our attitudes about what we “have” to have, maybe we can save our country’s economy and our children’s future. If we do not, I don’t know what this country will look like in 10 or 15 years, but I know it will be scary. It is unacceptable to say that we “cannot” live with out credit. If a government in charge of the well-being of a state of 24 million can operate a balanced budget, we as people and families can too.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Edited Writing is Part of Making a Professional Aurgument
I agree with Jaimee’s argument, in the blog Who let these sublime?, that homosexuals are taxpaying citizens and should reap the benefits like any straight couple. I am very happy to see that Austin, despite being part of a heavily republican state, is making efforts to increase equality. Like she mentions, some people are upset because this is no way close to “fair”, but baby steps ARE steps. This baby step is something to be very proud of, for I thought there was NO way that Austin, because of our location, would be making headway on this issue for a few more years.
My issue and critique comes more from the writing. I say this with the utmost kindness and respect and only mention it because she is majoring Journalism. I expect most people to have poor writing skills because our education system IS failing us and many students get out into the real world without that skill. This is not their fault. But because you, Jaimee, are a Journalism student, and writing will be your occupation, I think it is something that you need to work on. I wrote actively on my highschool newspaper for four years and know Journalistic style. I was awful at writing, so I know it is a learned and practiced skill, not an inherent trait. It is not a good fallback to rely on editors and spell check to do your work. Many of your sentences are fragments because instead of using commas to separate phrases, you put a period. This makes your blogs choppy and confusing, but it is an easy fix. Again, I say this with the utmost respect and kindness.
My issue and critique comes more from the writing. I say this with the utmost kindness and respect and only mention it because she is majoring Journalism. I expect most people to have poor writing skills because our education system IS failing us and many students get out into the real world without that skill. This is not their fault. But because you, Jaimee, are a Journalism student, and writing will be your occupation, I think it is something that you need to work on. I wrote actively on my highschool newspaper for four years and know Journalistic style. I was awful at writing, so I know it is a learned and practiced skill, not an inherent trait. It is not a good fallback to rely on editors and spell check to do your work. Many of your sentences are fragments because instead of using commas to separate phrases, you put a period. This makes your blogs choppy and confusing, but it is an easy fix. Again, I say this with the utmost respect and kindness.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Annual Legislative Sessions
Texas’ current constitution was written in 1876 and some would say it has served the state well over the last 133 years. Others argue that it is not perfect, which is why there is the ability to amend the constitution to suit the state’s growing and changing needs. Since 1876 the population has grown from a little over a million to over 24 million. Texas has grown out of a dominant farming/ranching region to become an urban state. In addition, the landscape has changed physically, politically, culturally, and economically. Texas is not the state it was in 1876. That’s why 456 times voters have approved legislation to alter our constitution, but never have we made an amendment to change our biennial legislature to an annual one.
Having legislative sessions every other year is a very unhealthy way to run a state as large as Texas. Not only is the land mass of Texas massive, the population growth has just moved Texas from the third most populous state to the second and its still growing. To have legislators who come in every two years and work a 140 day session is not enough. There is to much work to be done to keep up with the changing times. Especially knowing how politics normally play out, one can assume that much of a legislator’s time is thrown away with lobbyists, partisan issues, and personal pursuits. To think of how much time is actually spent on real law making work is very sad. That’s why the only way to get more done and operate at a faster more efficient rate is to have annual sessions. It wouldn’t hurt to make the sessions longer either. There needs to be full-time legislators who are actually keeping up with Texas, instead of some vacationer who comes to chat every other year for a few months.
Now convincing these legislators to come and actually do their job might be a little tough, seeing as they have family in their home districts and constitutes to please, but if there was an actually salary involved with the position, it might make a difference. $20 a day is not enough for anyone and is leading to the corruption and political crap taking place. To even get elected requires a lot of time off from a person’s real job and most often a back ground of money. To hold office, and leave your job every other year for 140 days, and only receive 7,200 a year (plus their daily stipend while in session), requires a lot of money. This means that most of the legislators come from money or have a really good job. There needs to be legislators whose job is to represent and guide Texas, not to have a side job making some laws for Texas. There needs to be a reasonable salary involved so the legislature can start legislating and will include more than just those privileged with money. There needs to be a legislature representing the diversity of Texas.
Once legislators are actually getting paid minimum wage, there will be much less up roar about having sessions annually. Once there are sessions annually, the legislature will be able to watch and alter their bills more frequently, spend more time developing the best solutions, be able to over-ride more Governor veto’s, and keep up with the rapid growth of Texas. Since it is absolutely not possible for human nature or the system to eliminate partisan politics, lobbyists and hidden agenda, there needs to be enough time for the actual law-making stuff too. Sessions every other year is only enough time to cover the BS and slap some half-assed work together. The only way for Texas to properly unfold in this twenty second century is to go to an annual legislative session with legislators getting paid a decent salary.
Having legislative sessions every other year is a very unhealthy way to run a state as large as Texas. Not only is the land mass of Texas massive, the population growth has just moved Texas from the third most populous state to the second and its still growing. To have legislators who come in every two years and work a 140 day session is not enough. There is to much work to be done to keep up with the changing times. Especially knowing how politics normally play out, one can assume that much of a legislator’s time is thrown away with lobbyists, partisan issues, and personal pursuits. To think of how much time is actually spent on real law making work is very sad. That’s why the only way to get more done and operate at a faster more efficient rate is to have annual sessions. It wouldn’t hurt to make the sessions longer either. There needs to be full-time legislators who are actually keeping up with Texas, instead of some vacationer who comes to chat every other year for a few months.
Now convincing these legislators to come and actually do their job might be a little tough, seeing as they have family in their home districts and constitutes to please, but if there was an actually salary involved with the position, it might make a difference. $20 a day is not enough for anyone and is leading to the corruption and political crap taking place. To even get elected requires a lot of time off from a person’s real job and most often a back ground of money. To hold office, and leave your job every other year for 140 days, and only receive 7,200 a year (plus their daily stipend while in session), requires a lot of money. This means that most of the legislators come from money or have a really good job. There needs to be legislators whose job is to represent and guide Texas, not to have a side job making some laws for Texas. There needs to be a reasonable salary involved so the legislature can start legislating and will include more than just those privileged with money. There needs to be a legislature representing the diversity of Texas.
Once legislators are actually getting paid minimum wage, there will be much less up roar about having sessions annually. Once there are sessions annually, the legislature will be able to watch and alter their bills more frequently, spend more time developing the best solutions, be able to over-ride more Governor veto’s, and keep up with the rapid growth of Texas. Since it is absolutely not possible for human nature or the system to eliminate partisan politics, lobbyists and hidden agenda, there needs to be enough time for the actual law-making stuff too. Sessions every other year is only enough time to cover the BS and slap some half-assed work together. The only way for Texas to properly unfold in this twenty second century is to go to an annual legislative session with legislators getting paid a decent salary.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Hyped up Hypocrisy
The Texas Rainmaker is an openly conservative and fairly critical blog, and as a young person trying to find identity, I think it is important to expose myself to what both the Republicans and the Democrats are up to and how they view issues. I do this not only to compare myself to the views to see where I really stand because I feel like I lean a little left, especially socially, and want to really know, but also because I want to see how absurd some opinions, from both sides, can be. For instance, one of Texas Rainmaker’s posts was titled “Barack Obama Hates White People” Come on. Really?
I think if we were all calm, rational citizens that we would be able to consider two sides of an argument without throwing names, but we are all very immaturely human. I know that the left side is just as guilty as the right, as an extreme is, well, extreme, but I was very surprised to find a post of Rainmaker’s that I agreed with and found to be an interesting point of view.
Two posts on the same issue are a little old,"Friday the 13th" and "Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion" posted on July 14th, 2007 and April 18th, 2007, respectivley. One refers to abortion and specifically the Supreme Court upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that Bush signed into office in 2003 and the other is about a Louisiana Gov. signing legislation that would penalize doctors who prefom late-term abortions. This interesting comment makes a very good point on a prime example of political hypocrisy:
“I still find it ironic that many of the same liberals that defend this procedure that involves “partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then puncturing or crushing the skull” also argue that lethal injection of a convicted murderer is ‘cruel and unusual’.”
A post following that post is also mentions abortion in the context of people fighting for the “human” rights of a chimpanzee. Now I know nothing about this monkey, or why lawyers had to fight for the “right to life” for him, but found it interesting people were fighting to have “Hiasl” declared a ‘person’. Rainmaker comments, “Now if only liberals would fight as hard for unborn human beings”. I think this is a very good point. Rainmaker is obviously a bible-thumpin’ hard core Republican, and I generally don’t like those extremely religious people, not being religious myself, because they can be even more nasty and evil than the nasty, evil people they complain about.
My own view on the abortion issue is that the compromise that came out of Roe vs. Wade is fantastic. I believe in a woman’s right to control her body, to limit the size of her family, and have the ability to get out of a really bad mistake, etc. I think that limiting in abortions to the 1st trimester is wonderful. I don’t believe in limiting the time frame because you’re killing unborn children, because, in reality, the children cannot support themselves out side of the womb. I mainly believe limiting it is safer and more ethical (when it does come down to 3rd trimester and partial birth abortions). A fetus is not a child. A fetus is egg and sperm mush that is growing. The question of when a fetus becomes a child, and then a self-sustaining child, will forever be in question, so why not eliminate the possibility of that argument and keep it to 1st trimester. That keeps both sides relatively happy. The ONLY option in a situation like this IS compromise. We can’t have it either or because there will always be people extremely passionate about their cause on both sides. And this goes for any issue, especially largely controversial issues that deal directly or indirectly with religion.
As for Rainmakers comment, I do think it is hypocritical for liberals to fight against lethal injection on the basis of “cruel and unusual punishment” and not think that late term, partial birth abortions aren’t cruel and unusual punishment. Also, if we are gonna fight for a monkey’s “human rights” we damn sure better be fighting for unborn children. That would be hypocrisy to ridiculous to even fathom. Knowing how conservative he is, I’m sure he considers any abortion “cruel and unusual” and evil and against God’s will, but as for me, I am only against the very gruesome practice of partial birth abortions. Thought it was an interesting point and worth mentioning. (Worth noting that most liberals are against this practice unlike his comment states)
If anyone is really interested in seeing an Obama slam that seems really distorted and mislead, but worth checking out none the less, see Rainmakers blog post “Obama Supports the Right to Abort Children Born Alive”, posted this day a year ago. It’s a pretty horrific claim, which I hope has just been taken out of context.
I think if we were all calm, rational citizens that we would be able to consider two sides of an argument without throwing names, but we are all very immaturely human. I know that the left side is just as guilty as the right, as an extreme is, well, extreme, but I was very surprised to find a post of Rainmaker’s that I agreed with and found to be an interesting point of view.
Two posts on the same issue are a little old,"Friday the 13th" and "Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion" posted on July 14th, 2007 and April 18th, 2007, respectivley. One refers to abortion and specifically the Supreme Court upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that Bush signed into office in 2003 and the other is about a Louisiana Gov. signing legislation that would penalize doctors who prefom late-term abortions. This interesting comment makes a very good point on a prime example of political hypocrisy:
“I still find it ironic that many of the same liberals that defend this procedure that involves “partially removing the fetus intact from a woman’s uterus, then puncturing or crushing the skull” also argue that lethal injection of a convicted murderer is ‘cruel and unusual’.”
A post following that post is also mentions abortion in the context of people fighting for the “human” rights of a chimpanzee. Now I know nothing about this monkey, or why lawyers had to fight for the “right to life” for him, but found it interesting people were fighting to have “Hiasl” declared a ‘person’. Rainmaker comments, “Now if only liberals would fight as hard for unborn human beings”. I think this is a very good point. Rainmaker is obviously a bible-thumpin’ hard core Republican, and I generally don’t like those extremely religious people, not being religious myself, because they can be even more nasty and evil than the nasty, evil people they complain about.
My own view on the abortion issue is that the compromise that came out of Roe vs. Wade is fantastic. I believe in a woman’s right to control her body, to limit the size of her family, and have the ability to get out of a really bad mistake, etc. I think that limiting in abortions to the 1st trimester is wonderful. I don’t believe in limiting the time frame because you’re killing unborn children, because, in reality, the children cannot support themselves out side of the womb. I mainly believe limiting it is safer and more ethical (when it does come down to 3rd trimester and partial birth abortions). A fetus is not a child. A fetus is egg and sperm mush that is growing. The question of when a fetus becomes a child, and then a self-sustaining child, will forever be in question, so why not eliminate the possibility of that argument and keep it to 1st trimester. That keeps both sides relatively happy. The ONLY option in a situation like this IS compromise. We can’t have it either or because there will always be people extremely passionate about their cause on both sides. And this goes for any issue, especially largely controversial issues that deal directly or indirectly with religion.
As for Rainmakers comment, I do think it is hypocritical for liberals to fight against lethal injection on the basis of “cruel and unusual punishment” and not think that late term, partial birth abortions aren’t cruel and unusual punishment. Also, if we are gonna fight for a monkey’s “human rights” we damn sure better be fighting for unborn children. That would be hypocrisy to ridiculous to even fathom. Knowing how conservative he is, I’m sure he considers any abortion “cruel and unusual” and evil and against God’s will, but as for me, I am only against the very gruesome practice of partial birth abortions. Thought it was an interesting point and worth mentioning. (Worth noting that most liberals are against this practice unlike his comment states)
If anyone is really interested in seeing an Obama slam that seems really distorted and mislead, but worth checking out none the less, see Rainmakers blog post “Obama Supports the Right to Abort Children Born Alive”, posted this day a year ago. It’s a pretty horrific claim, which I hope has just been taken out of context.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Red Line Rebuke
Last week the Capital Metro Board, Austin’s public transit system, approved a $164.7 million operating budget for 2009-2010. $2.6 million of that budget will be taken directly from $26 million of federal stimulus money, dollars targeted for long-term improvements and projects for Austin current and future needs, to post-pone inevitable fare increases. Fare hikes were planned for August 2010, but earlier this year staff members said increases should be moved up to January 2010 drawing much opposition. The solution was to take $2.6 million, 10% of the stimulus money, needed to create a better, more comprehensive metro and rail system, and use “one-time money for continuing expenses,” said Chairwoman Margaret Gomez.
In the opinion section of today's Austin American Statesman one writer shined light on the new budget proposal and the "is-it-ever-going-to-run Red Line rail service. In The delay that makes no sense, the anonymous author was subtly critical of this “short-sighted” approach and also of the Red Line rail service that is almost two years behind opening schedule. His argument was very logical. Why would we want to briefly post-pone fare increases, which are twenty years over due, when the Red Line needs money for development and enhancement for success when it does finally open? He describes it as “a fix that isn’t going to last long enough to deserve the label of ‘temporary’.” That right there nails it on the head. Although this author did not cite any of his facts, he writes with journalistic creditability, including data and quotes, and refrains from being overly opinionated to the point of rudeness. While he does claim that the Red Line delay is “unacceptable”, he does advise patience “until Cap Metro can deliver a system that runs as smoothly and safely as possible”.
When it comes to his disdain for using stimulus money to delay fare increases I agree 100 and 10 percent. Inflation and price hikes for anything is inevitable and Cap Metro has delayed fare increases for 20 years. If we don’t pay the price here, we will just have to pay it else where. I would even go so far as to say that the increases should be substantial enough to cover the twenty years of inflation and then we would have the money to open new rail systems on time. If we had gradual increases in fares over the years, we would have an even better bus system and rail line right now.
Thankfully, the January fare increase will be discussed again later, due to a provision in the budget vote at the urging of Gomez. It seems that the author is hoping he can sway enough folks to “weigh in on the folly” and I hope he can. It would be a shame to see this political budgeting disaster go through.
In the opinion section of today's Austin American Statesman one writer shined light on the new budget proposal and the "is-it-ever-going-to-run Red Line rail service. In The delay that makes no sense, the anonymous author was subtly critical of this “short-sighted” approach and also of the Red Line rail service that is almost two years behind opening schedule. His argument was very logical. Why would we want to briefly post-pone fare increases, which are twenty years over due, when the Red Line needs money for development and enhancement for success when it does finally open? He describes it as “a fix that isn’t going to last long enough to deserve the label of ‘temporary’.” That right there nails it on the head. Although this author did not cite any of his facts, he writes with journalistic creditability, including data and quotes, and refrains from being overly opinionated to the point of rudeness. While he does claim that the Red Line delay is “unacceptable”, he does advise patience “until Cap Metro can deliver a system that runs as smoothly and safely as possible”.
When it comes to his disdain for using stimulus money to delay fare increases I agree 100 and 10 percent. Inflation and price hikes for anything is inevitable and Cap Metro has delayed fare increases for 20 years. If we don’t pay the price here, we will just have to pay it else where. I would even go so far as to say that the increases should be substantial enough to cover the twenty years of inflation and then we would have the money to open new rail systems on time. If we had gradual increases in fares over the years, we would have an even better bus system and rail line right now.
Thankfully, the January fare increase will be discussed again later, due to a provision in the budget vote at the urging of Gomez. It seems that the author is hoping he can sway enough folks to “weigh in on the folly” and I hope he can. It would be a shame to see this political budgeting disaster go through.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Police Pissed
This article appeared in last Friday’s Austin American statesman and really caught my attention. People are posing as police officers in online blogs and in reader comment sections on local media Internet sites, posting defamatory and possibly libelous statements. It went so far that the website Twitter had to be shut down because someone was posting official Austin Police Department bulletins.
This just baffles me that people would attempt to do something so rude, but it is relatively easy to get away with right now. Hopefully, it won’t be so easy to get away with soon, as a new law went into effect on Sept. 1 making it illegal to post messages on social networking sites with out the owner’s permission when the intent is to “harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten.” It’s not just a misdemeanor either; it is a third-degree felony. The police have looked into their legal options and are considering opening formal investigations. The sad part is they suspect it might be department employees who posted some of bogus comments.
Read this article!
This just baffles me that people would attempt to do something so rude, but it is relatively easy to get away with right now. Hopefully, it won’t be so easy to get away with soon, as a new law went into effect on Sept. 1 making it illegal to post messages on social networking sites with out the owner’s permission when the intent is to “harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten.” It’s not just a misdemeanor either; it is a third-degree felony. The police have looked into their legal options and are considering opening formal investigations. The sad part is they suspect it might be department employees who posted some of bogus comments.
Read this article!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
