So I would have to say that Ben Slater's blog is one of the most thought out blogs I have seen. The amount of information given and the amount of references add to the substance of the information.
I am not sure how many times I have heard this argument and seen this data, though. I have nothing against cannabis and it's medical uses but lets be honest. The medical records would be flooded with an epidemic fluctuation of people with Alzheimer's, diabetes, Tourettes and incontinence when most of the people requesting it do not even know how to say the word, much less what it is.
Now let me back up and say not all cannabis users are... well, slow, but I am sure we all know that guy that goes... "DUUUDDE". There is a persona that comes with being a cannabis user and it is slow and with a comical laugh. People see Bill and Ted when they think about it and to change that thought process is what will change the legal classification. Till then people will watch G4TV and see Half Baked and HighMe and vote to stop it at all cost because no one wants a world of slow potheads.
Another argument is the amount of taxes it could bring in, like cigarettes do. Will this really happen? With the US working so hard at shutting down cigarette manufacturers do you think this maybe possible? Will we really see the amount of our state tax go up and would that be what is right? Granted, rich people will pay for it and the poor will too, but if it is really medical why would we get taxes from it at all? The argument is not sound, in my opinion. Medical means only a few people will actually buy it and it would be those with a sickness that justifies its use. I would love to see on TV an elderly man on the ground saying "DUUUUDE I've fallen and can not get.. uh wait who am I and where am I?" Then a guy in a cheap pin striped suit with a movie voice telling me I should reup if I am elderly and getting forgetful. It makes me wonder what the side effects would be and how they would be listed. Would they say it may cause death, diarrhea, numbness, and dizziness? I think they would list them and say, "Then dude you got some good $#%@ call us and give us your supplier" or "you got some bad $#@% throw it out".
Lets be honest the only way taxes will go up is if people who are voting for it are able to get it and stop growing it. We all know that, that cannabis comes from Bill who grows it in his closet and is not terrorists but is not the CEO of a corporation ready to pay taxes due to his 15 baggy a day sales trend. Maybe Bill should get a Pharmaceutical degree and then he could sell it upping the amount of income in his pocket allowing him to spend it on things he wants to help relieve the recession and contribute to some of that sales tax that is alluded to.
I realize just how rude this sounds and I am sorry because it is not meant to be an attack on you but an attack on the people you support. The issue to me is not the drug but the people who use it. You act like a fool and you will be seen as "less than" in society. This may be an American outlook on the issue but it is an issue that cannabis users will have to change. Just do not hide behind medical usages as a reason to get high, and we all know taxes are not going to happen - the only thing that will change is people will smoke it in the open and not hide it in a blunt. Ricky Williams is a prime example of how to handle your desire to legalize pot, just say "I do not want your millions I wanna get high".
Plus we all know the real reason you smoke cannabis is for cataracts - the smoke in the air makes the good eye focus as poorly as the bad eye and that solves the issue.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
My thoughts on politics
So I would be lying if I said I sat down and knew what to write today. So I sat here staring at the screen waiting for the words to appear.
Before this class I had little belief in the government and all it stands for. I feel government officials are sell outs long before they appear before us and they try too hard to meet the middle of the road.
Texas government however, I feel is a whole different dog. Not only does it look towards slander and ruining someone else's image but the people talking have little credibility.
Most officials seem to have an agenda that only betters themselves and not the people they work for. The whole system is top down backwards and other than mass media drama they are lifeless shells, in my opinion. One day they vote for an issue and the next they vote against it. It is like they do not care because in the end it does not matter.
Democrats, Republicans it does not matter they are the same person in a different color suit with their own personal and lobbyist agendas.
Yet somehow it is all working out, kind of. The rich get richer and as long as you have no issues Texas is a pretty good place to live.
Wonder why I sometimes have no real opinion on things; it is because politics is just that, politics. They tell us what we want to hear or what the news media will flip over. They do not care what makes my life better until the shit hits the fan and then the fingers fly. I believe there may be some good people out there fighting the good fight but who they are, I have no clue.
I personally met both of the Bush's and liked them. I found they were smart and a ton of fun, but “W” really made a complete and total fool out of himself and the US. Do I believe Obama is any better? Well, I hope so. This guy got office and I think over all does not give a crap who he ticks off, his agenda is his and so be it. Did I vote for him? No. And McCain was lifeless and not putting up any fight.
Rick Perry is not much better to me. He comes across as a tool and stuck on himself. I would be willing to bet when the polls fall on Obama he will make his run and the Republicans will throw lifeless corpses to "attempt" to dethrone him till then.
That is just what Texas seems to be to me, a series of well placed, well financed men with interests in their minds other than the people. Bush hired more people who were friends than anyone else during his time but I feel all politicians are like lobbyists. Their money is on all the horses in the race just in case one of them wins. Texas seems to be that breeding ground to me.
Yet somehow work gets done. It gets done because of re-election and ONLY if they mess up REALLY BADLY. Bloggers and others bring to light some of the issues but there is more lack of information than information. Let's just hope for the future and for more people willing to get involved and tell the truth. Who knows, maybe we can get an advertising company to attack politics; wonder how long they would be on the air?
Before this class I had little belief in the government and all it stands for. I feel government officials are sell outs long before they appear before us and they try too hard to meet the middle of the road.
Texas government however, I feel is a whole different dog. Not only does it look towards slander and ruining someone else's image but the people talking have little credibility.
Most officials seem to have an agenda that only betters themselves and not the people they work for. The whole system is top down backwards and other than mass media drama they are lifeless shells, in my opinion. One day they vote for an issue and the next they vote against it. It is like they do not care because in the end it does not matter.
Democrats, Republicans it does not matter they are the same person in a different color suit with their own personal and lobbyist agendas.
Yet somehow it is all working out, kind of. The rich get richer and as long as you have no issues Texas is a pretty good place to live.
Wonder why I sometimes have no real opinion on things; it is because politics is just that, politics. They tell us what we want to hear or what the news media will flip over. They do not care what makes my life better until the shit hits the fan and then the fingers fly. I believe there may be some good people out there fighting the good fight but who they are, I have no clue.
I personally met both of the Bush's and liked them. I found they were smart and a ton of fun, but “W” really made a complete and total fool out of himself and the US. Do I believe Obama is any better? Well, I hope so. This guy got office and I think over all does not give a crap who he ticks off, his agenda is his and so be it. Did I vote for him? No. And McCain was lifeless and not putting up any fight.
Rick Perry is not much better to me. He comes across as a tool and stuck on himself. I would be willing to bet when the polls fall on Obama he will make his run and the Republicans will throw lifeless corpses to "attempt" to dethrone him till then.
That is just what Texas seems to be to me, a series of well placed, well financed men with interests in their minds other than the people. Bush hired more people who were friends than anyone else during his time but I feel all politicians are like lobbyists. Their money is on all the horses in the race just in case one of them wins. Texas seems to be that breeding ground to me.
Yet somehow work gets done. It gets done because of re-election and ONLY if they mess up REALLY BADLY. Bloggers and others bring to light some of the issues but there is more lack of information than information. Let's just hope for the future and for more people willing to get involved and tell the truth. Who knows, maybe we can get an advertising company to attack politics; wonder how long they would be on the air?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
"Unemployment for Women" a cry for change.
So I will be honest I have been following Adrienne's blogs for sometime. Well ok since the Titty Tax blog. ;D I figured it was worth reading because anyone posting that for a school grade has something to say and no issue saying what they felt. Life is to short to beat around bushes and it seemed she had something to say catchy title or not. However it is also not right to go around offending people for the sake of offending. She seemingly keeps this in balanced and does not come across over opinionated, which makes her blogs a nice read.
My comments are in regards to her Unemployment for Women blog. Being a subject I am passionate about I would have to agree with her. She seemingly did not take a stance for or against the issues Perry is having with the Stimulus Package for Unemployment. She does however touch on the failures of the Unemployment program and its needs for reform in some way be it through the Perry accepting the package or not. Although the purpose of the blog is not entirely clear the problem stated is clear and easy to follow.
A friend of mine was let go from the same company I worked for, and he is also having trouble supporting his two daughters while on unemployment. The tech field in which we worked for is flooded with people and in the past 20 people applied for a job. Now I am hearing 1000 or more are applying for that same job. So his unemployment may last for sometime and the children may only hinder his schedule and possibility for employment at certain jobs.
With that being said I feel this article is gender based but I do understand that in most cases Texas tries not to separate the children from the mothers. So majority wins even though I feel gender is a part of this article creating a sympathy vote. Adrienne does note this in her article to her credit and I feel states the issue bluntly.
In the past the newspapers would have front page photos of mothers holding their children in a mile long line at the unemployment office. Today with the internet and the lack of gathering those stunning pictures do not appear. So if it is gender specific so be it but the problem is the same, something needs to give.
My comments are in regards to her Unemployment for Women blog. Being a subject I am passionate about I would have to agree with her. She seemingly did not take a stance for or against the issues Perry is having with the Stimulus Package for Unemployment. She does however touch on the failures of the Unemployment program and its needs for reform in some way be it through the Perry accepting the package or not. Although the purpose of the blog is not entirely clear the problem stated is clear and easy to follow.
A friend of mine was let go from the same company I worked for, and he is also having trouble supporting his two daughters while on unemployment. The tech field in which we worked for is flooded with people and in the past 20 people applied for a job. Now I am hearing 1000 or more are applying for that same job. So his unemployment may last for sometime and the children may only hinder his schedule and possibility for employment at certain jobs.
With that being said I feel this article is gender based but I do understand that in most cases Texas tries not to separate the children from the mothers. So majority wins even though I feel gender is a part of this article creating a sympathy vote. Adrienne does note this in her article to her credit and I feel states the issue bluntly.
In the past the newspapers would have front page photos of mothers holding their children in a mile long line at the unemployment office. Today with the internet and the lack of gathering those stunning pictures do not appear. So if it is gender specific so be it but the problem is the same, something needs to give.
HCR 50
This weeks news reels were anything but exciting. It seemed to be more and more of Perry not wanting to take the unemployment package. Mix in some sound management issues and a ton of separation of church and state issues and, well, there really was not that much. There was an interesting package to help the movie industry here which excites me and may spark interest in a new career in film, but really not much to read.
Then I came across this article.
Are you kidding me?
Perry is a leader of the country and stirring up dissention is not a good thing. In other articles it seems Perry is not really addressing issues but instead parloring the crowds for votes. Solve problems and stop with the drama. Wait this is Texas; A state where you can be voted into office not by your views and stances but by the slander you post about others. Is this really what we amount to?
Not like the media is helping. Watch the video and you will understand. First, grab the biggest redneck in a gun store and let him talk in that deep Texas Drawl. Then find a spiky-haired guy on a street corner and claim it is Texas. I think the only thing they missed was using that grenade launcher to hunt armadillo or maybe a car battery and a CREK. That's creek for the non-Texans out there.
Political Stunt... hell yes; legislation slow up, doubtful... an attempt to stop legislation from being able to accept the Unemployment stimulus... probable.
This all stems from a new bill HCR 50 the text is very hard to read but interesting.
Being unemployed myself, I do not fully agree with the federal government’s package for unemployment. I will not act like I know it or understand it but if it opens up unemployment to more people then piss on it. I have been working since I was 14 mowing lawns and making money, and this March has been the first time in my life I have been unemployed since then and everyday I am looking for work. I have known people with no jobs living off the government owning new cars and nice things. That has to stop in my opinion and opening the doors is not the answer.
Is the stimulus package all bad? Not at all. Roosevelt did it in a very similar way and people have their opinions about it's success and failures. The failure people talk about to my knowledge was that Roosevelt did not throw enough money at the issue, because he cut short it caused issues that may have prolonged it. Do they say that on the news... no it is sensationalism and not full facts.
Who knows what will end this recession but dissention is not the answer. People are looking for hope and for blame, blame is not the solution.
Then I came across this article.
Are you kidding me?
Perry is a leader of the country and stirring up dissention is not a good thing. In other articles it seems Perry is not really addressing issues but instead parloring the crowds for votes. Solve problems and stop with the drama. Wait this is Texas; A state where you can be voted into office not by your views and stances but by the slander you post about others. Is this really what we amount to?
Not like the media is helping. Watch the video and you will understand. First, grab the biggest redneck in a gun store and let him talk in that deep Texas Drawl. Then find a spiky-haired guy on a street corner and claim it is Texas. I think the only thing they missed was using that grenade launcher to hunt armadillo or maybe a car battery and a CREK. That's creek for the non-Texans out there.
Political Stunt... hell yes; legislation slow up, doubtful... an attempt to stop legislation from being able to accept the Unemployment stimulus... probable.
This all stems from a new bill HCR 50 the text is very hard to read but interesting.
Being unemployed myself, I do not fully agree with the federal government’s package for unemployment. I will not act like I know it or understand it but if it opens up unemployment to more people then piss on it. I have been working since I was 14 mowing lawns and making money, and this March has been the first time in my life I have been unemployed since then and everyday I am looking for work. I have known people with no jobs living off the government owning new cars and nice things. That has to stop in my opinion and opening the doors is not the answer.
Is the stimulus package all bad? Not at all. Roosevelt did it in a very similar way and people have their opinions about it's success and failures. The failure people talk about to my knowledge was that Roosevelt did not throw enough money at the issue, because he cut short it caused issues that may have prolonged it. Do they say that on the news... no it is sensationalism and not full facts.
Who knows what will end this recession but dissention is not the answer. People are looking for hope and for blame, blame is not the solution.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Texas is good for Big Business
So for the past couple of weeks I have learned a lot about Texas and how it is run. It has sparked much interest which has grown from one major conspiracy to another.
One of these thoughts is the idea that Texas is good for big business. I mean Rick Perry is well to do, George W. Bush was well to do, and many others in high places have made a name for themselves before government. It seems to me that these people would be insane to not ensure their well being after being in office by looking out for their needs.
Throw into the mix the confusing constitution we have and you have a prime example of "good for big business".
Case in point Entergy vs. Summers.
See John Summers worked for a contract labor company called IMC. Who was hired to keep the general maintenance of Entergy. While at work one day he was injured. I am not sure the reason or how he is injured and could find nothing online so we will go with he was injured.
John Summers was awarded Workman's Comp, and sued Entergy for negligence.
Now because of some wording in the contract and confusion within our own laws Entergy is claiming it can not be sued for negligence because it is not the employer and IMC is. Well they won the appeal and so far have to pay no damages.
I will say upfront there is a lot more to this story and tons of links to it and legal stuff to look at. Although to me it seems legit and like a valid argument it seems to remove the responsibility for corporations to be mindful of their employees contract or not.
It also seems like if a company wants to remove itself from massive litigation fees and possibility of being sued contract labor is the way to go. It releases them from any responsibility.
This is just wrong on so many levels. A company should be responsible if they are negligent and cause injury to someone. Looking up Entergy and injury on google I found many cases of this company being sued. Maybe they are being picked out of a long line up, maybe it is the work, and maybe they just need to step up their safety crew. Who knows.
What I am saying is Workman's comp really does not pay the brunt of the bill and if a company is found negligent the company should pay. I do not feel the company should be fleeced but it should pay.
I applaud the Texas Supreme Court for following the letter to the law but this favors big business and forgets the people working.
Links used and read all stating facts about the vote:
Workers' Comp Weakened
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Petitioner,
Case Analysis
Texas Supreme Court Draws Widespread Criticism
TTLA
Workers' Compensation Law Center
Hanna and Plaut LLP
One of these thoughts is the idea that Texas is good for big business. I mean Rick Perry is well to do, George W. Bush was well to do, and many others in high places have made a name for themselves before government. It seems to me that these people would be insane to not ensure their well being after being in office by looking out for their needs.
Throw into the mix the confusing constitution we have and you have a prime example of "good for big business".
Case in point Entergy vs. Summers.
See John Summers worked for a contract labor company called IMC. Who was hired to keep the general maintenance of Entergy. While at work one day he was injured. I am not sure the reason or how he is injured and could find nothing online so we will go with he was injured.
John Summers was awarded Workman's Comp, and sued Entergy for negligence.
Now because of some wording in the contract and confusion within our own laws Entergy is claiming it can not be sued for negligence because it is not the employer and IMC is. Well they won the appeal and so far have to pay no damages.
I will say upfront there is a lot more to this story and tons of links to it and legal stuff to look at. Although to me it seems legit and like a valid argument it seems to remove the responsibility for corporations to be mindful of their employees contract or not.
It also seems like if a company wants to remove itself from massive litigation fees and possibility of being sued contract labor is the way to go. It releases them from any responsibility.
This is just wrong on so many levels. A company should be responsible if they are negligent and cause injury to someone. Looking up Entergy and injury on google I found many cases of this company being sued. Maybe they are being picked out of a long line up, maybe it is the work, and maybe they just need to step up their safety crew. Who knows.
What I am saying is Workman's comp really does not pay the brunt of the bill and if a company is found negligent the company should pay. I do not feel the company should be fleeced but it should pay.
I applaud the Texas Supreme Court for following the letter to the law but this favors big business and forgets the people working.
Links used and read all stating facts about the vote:
Workers' Comp Weakened
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Petitioner,
Case Analysis
Texas Supreme Court Draws Widespread Criticism
TTLA
Workers' Compensation Law Center
Hanna and Plaut LLP
Friday, April 3, 2009
Phones in the Big House
Yesterday in the Statesman was an article that kind of shocked me. (link here) At the time I really had nothing to write about other than my amazement and shock but today another article came out and I changed my original blog to this subject, Phones in the Jail Cell (link here).
Now I understand life in a jail is hard, you gotta watch your own back and the amount of drama and stress can be difficult for most, but it seems we are getting easier and easier on people. We will not go into that and Allen McDuff issues that plagued Texas in the 1990's, but are phones really necessary?
They say it will help pay for taxes and other funds. They say it will help with rehabilitation. (link here) They do not say how often they will get access to it, nor do they mention times, or prices.
On the Statesman a "wife of inmate" writes a compelling argument for why inmates need a phone. Her husband took 4 years in the pen instead of the 10 years probation for a DWI, but should that allow him a phone while in prison?
I am no lawyer but per this website (link here) it seems that it may be a 3rd offense, or a combination of offenses. I have friends with DWI's and on the first offense 4 years jail time has never been mentioned, so I am guessing this is more than one offense. To me that means he did not learn after the first "warning", and in my mind should not get the full comforts of home. Would the family of the victims get a chance to call their child after his drunk car swerves and kills them? I think not, and things like that tick me off.
But it will make the state money and pay for other things. Well, that I am ok with but there has to be a line. Life in jail is not fun and may sometimes create worse offenders but that is another issue and not going to be solved by a phone in the cell.
I will admit first hand that I sit at home and watch a TON of Gangland on TV. If you have not seen it I suggest turning on your Tivo and watching a few episodes before you sign on the phone in the cells idea.
Almost every single episode is about a gang in some major city and how the gangs are run from members within the jail system. Now we all know these phone calls would be monitored but the codes can sometimes be complex and take time to figure out. Mean while gang leaders in the cells are able to call out gang hits and some where able to make MILLIONS of dollars all while in a jail cell.
It would seem most gangs on the outside are run by gangs on the "inside" to provide protection and safety while members are in the jail. This to me just seems to promote business while in the pen. Some want and need that connection with missing family members and children and so on, that I understand, but over-charging mostly impoverished families, and allowing criminals rights that may make business easier is a stretch in my book. I highly disagree with phones in the cells.
Now I understand life in a jail is hard, you gotta watch your own back and the amount of drama and stress can be difficult for most, but it seems we are getting easier and easier on people. We will not go into that and Allen McDuff issues that plagued Texas in the 1990's, but are phones really necessary?
They say it will help pay for taxes and other funds. They say it will help with rehabilitation. (link here) They do not say how often they will get access to it, nor do they mention times, or prices.
On the Statesman a "wife of inmate" writes a compelling argument for why inmates need a phone. Her husband took 4 years in the pen instead of the 10 years probation for a DWI, but should that allow him a phone while in prison?
I am no lawyer but per this website (link here) it seems that it may be a 3rd offense, or a combination of offenses. I have friends with DWI's and on the first offense 4 years jail time has never been mentioned, so I am guessing this is more than one offense. To me that means he did not learn after the first "warning", and in my mind should not get the full comforts of home. Would the family of the victims get a chance to call their child after his drunk car swerves and kills them? I think not, and things like that tick me off.
But it will make the state money and pay for other things. Well, that I am ok with but there has to be a line. Life in jail is not fun and may sometimes create worse offenders but that is another issue and not going to be solved by a phone in the cell.
I will admit first hand that I sit at home and watch a TON of Gangland on TV. If you have not seen it I suggest turning on your Tivo and watching a few episodes before you sign on the phone in the cells idea.
Almost every single episode is about a gang in some major city and how the gangs are run from members within the jail system. Now we all know these phone calls would be monitored but the codes can sometimes be complex and take time to figure out. Mean while gang leaders in the cells are able to call out gang hits and some where able to make MILLIONS of dollars all while in a jail cell.
It would seem most gangs on the outside are run by gangs on the "inside" to provide protection and safety while members are in the jail. This to me just seems to promote business while in the pen. Some want and need that connection with missing family members and children and so on, that I understand, but over-charging mostly impoverished families, and allowing criminals rights that may make business easier is a stretch in my book. I highly disagree with phones in the cells.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Voter ID and the Transgender plot
I really can not say this was my first pick for titles but as I looked into the topic I found more and more information. The point of views and the documents I found all scared me and for good reason but not what you would expect.
It started on Burnt Orange Report with this article Another Reason Why Voter ID is Voter Suppression. This blog explains about the pains of the transgender community and their need for the court proceedings to get their ID cards changed to show their transformation status.
I understand the purpose of this and was having a really hard time understanding the fuss. I looked through the Burnt Orange website and found other articles discussing gender or same sex issues. So being in Austin I am good with that but it just sounds like one group not wanting to jump through hoops to live their lives. I was even inclined to chalk it up to a who cares and move on but then I read this Point Austin: Removing the Mask.
Within the article the writer states:
On the other hand, based on the ongoing voter ID shenanigans in the Senate, relying on legislators to remedy the governor's shortsightedness is probably its own fool's errand. The voter ID theatrics, much like the governor's unemployment insurance posturing, is one more example of the triumph of ideology over self-interest – and I'm talking about Republican self-interest here, quite apart from any benefits to ordinary Texas citizens. In the GOP calculations, the only hope of holding off the political effects of ongoing Texas (and U.S.) demographic changes is to find ways to 1) energize the white/Anglo base and 2) suppress additional minority turnout.
Is it really an issue of people not wanting to jump through hoops, or is it a ploy to limit the amount of voters and their political agenda?
Or is it just something to "melt down the chamber" as Gary Scharrer from the Chronicle reference here.
I understand the need for such a Voter ID and with numbers like the ones I found on the Rasmussen Reports 47% of Texas Voters Support Governor's Opposition to Stimulus Funds I would like my voice to be heard.
Am I transgendered? No.
Do I have a need to be worried? Well it depends on who reads the new Bill and how "letter to the law" they go. I mean what they seem to be saying is profiling to me and if that is not allowed at the airports why here? Profiling maybe racial, transgendered, or just party lines.
Where does this line end and who gets to say you are not a male? The Army has a don't ask don't tell policy and although a 18 year old punk rocker should not get to vote for an 80 year old woman who is to say? What is the worst that can happen the Ballet Boxes could be lost somewhere in Florida?
Sometimes I feel this is another "fabric of society is being torn" issue and one group feeling oppressed. I feel that if you go through something like changing your gender there should be some red tape to some extent.
First to ensure the person doing it is sure that it is what they are wanting to do. It is not something that is done over night without pain and money, so let the court and lawyers deter some people who are unsure.
Second I feel it is for the transgendered society security, with ID frauds and so on going on this makes it finale for all areas in life including your credit.
Another argument is, if the courts say you are a different sex then what stops you from marrying. I do not understand the laws and I am not making lite of the issue. It just seems to me valid and a blessing in someways. This creates only a bigger hole for the protectors of the "fabric" to complain about and have no foot hold to stop it because the courts called it.
On the other hand profiling has its ups and downs. One hand I feel it should be done and on the other hand I do not want it to happen to me, and on that day for me to vote it will happen to me.
See this is my issue with it all, my name is Kim and I was born a male and am still a male. Call it twist of fate or a parents desire not to pick a new name when they saw they were wrong and it was a boy. I just have a hard enough time in classrooms with teachers believing my name, the last thing I want is a person at a voting booth telling me my ID is a fake.
So I will end with this:
"Show us what the problem is... We're pretty much just shooting in the dark. When we do that, we write the worst policy that this state could have."
Solutions not rants.
It started on Burnt Orange Report with this article Another Reason Why Voter ID is Voter Suppression. This blog explains about the pains of the transgender community and their need for the court proceedings to get their ID cards changed to show their transformation status.
I understand the purpose of this and was having a really hard time understanding the fuss. I looked through the Burnt Orange website and found other articles discussing gender or same sex issues. So being in Austin I am good with that but it just sounds like one group not wanting to jump through hoops to live their lives. I was even inclined to chalk it up to a who cares and move on but then I read this Point Austin: Removing the Mask.
Within the article the writer states:
On the other hand, based on the ongoing voter ID shenanigans in the Senate, relying on legislators to remedy the governor's shortsightedness is probably its own fool's errand. The voter ID theatrics, much like the governor's unemployment insurance posturing, is one more example of the triumph of ideology over self-interest – and I'm talking about Republican self-interest here, quite apart from any benefits to ordinary Texas citizens. In the GOP calculations, the only hope of holding off the political effects of ongoing Texas (and U.S.) demographic changes is to find ways to 1) energize the white/Anglo base and 2) suppress additional minority turnout.
Is it really an issue of people not wanting to jump through hoops, or is it a ploy to limit the amount of voters and their political agenda?
Or is it just something to "melt down the chamber" as Gary Scharrer from the Chronicle reference here.
I understand the need for such a Voter ID and with numbers like the ones I found on the Rasmussen Reports 47% of Texas Voters Support Governor's Opposition to Stimulus Funds I would like my voice to be heard.
Am I transgendered? No.
Do I have a need to be worried? Well it depends on who reads the new Bill and how "letter to the law" they go. I mean what they seem to be saying is profiling to me and if that is not allowed at the airports why here? Profiling maybe racial, transgendered, or just party lines.
Where does this line end and who gets to say you are not a male? The Army has a don't ask don't tell policy and although a 18 year old punk rocker should not get to vote for an 80 year old woman who is to say? What is the worst that can happen the Ballet Boxes could be lost somewhere in Florida?
Sometimes I feel this is another "fabric of society is being torn" issue and one group feeling oppressed. I feel that if you go through something like changing your gender there should be some red tape to some extent.
First to ensure the person doing it is sure that it is what they are wanting to do. It is not something that is done over night without pain and money, so let the court and lawyers deter some people who are unsure.
Second I feel it is for the transgendered society security, with ID frauds and so on going on this makes it finale for all areas in life including your credit.
Another argument is, if the courts say you are a different sex then what stops you from marrying. I do not understand the laws and I am not making lite of the issue. It just seems to me valid and a blessing in someways. This creates only a bigger hole for the protectors of the "fabric" to complain about and have no foot hold to stop it because the courts called it.
On the other hand profiling has its ups and downs. One hand I feel it should be done and on the other hand I do not want it to happen to me, and on that day for me to vote it will happen to me.
See this is my issue with it all, my name is Kim and I was born a male and am still a male. Call it twist of fate or a parents desire not to pick a new name when they saw they were wrong and it was a boy. I just have a hard enough time in classrooms with teachers believing my name, the last thing I want is a person at a voting booth telling me my ID is a fake.
So I will end with this:
"Show us what the problem is... We're pretty much just shooting in the dark. When we do that, we write the worst policy that this state could have."
Solutions not rants.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Stimulus package and Rick Perry.
With today's economy and the constant fluctuation of jobs it would seem like suicide to be a governor and to not accept a stimulus package from the government. Well, that seems to be what Rick Perry is doing within this article.
Some speculate Texas Gov. Rick Perry may reject aid from stimulus package
It sums up the fact that Rick Perry may reject the stimulus package, and some responsible lawmakers would like wording to be added so that they may bypass the governor. This in turn would allow the responsible lawmakers the ability to re-issue taxpayer money to the community to help with the already failing economy.
The article also continues to explain how Rick Perry does not want to be associated with any "bailout" which, it suggests, was an unpopular matter for voters on Wallstreet.
As a voter this angers me and makes me wonder how someone with money could be more concerned with a vote than the unemployed in his own state, which is when I came across this article.
Jobless-pay fund may run dry this fall
It appears that although Rick Perry may be looking at rejecting the stimulus bill, it is for good cause. $555 million of that stimulus money comes with a clause for the state to open up its wings and allow more people to qualify for payments. This could mean that by accepting this money we could be shooting ourselves in the foot by creating a much greater pool of people living off the system. This would last long after the stimulus money has gone and could result in new taxes and new issues.
The article mainly talks about the truly dire situation we are in with the unemployed number going higher and the amount of cash within the bank to help supplement them steadily decreasing. Looking at the possibility of unemployment in the near future myself, it angers me to see how this country is run and the people who abuse it, but it happens.
Both articles show how politics spin the media to help garner a vote or to show they are doing something. Some will want the money even though it may only help them short term. Some will read this and understand that the media can be one sided and there is much more to the story, over all. More free-loaders on the system will not help matters, and I am not talking about the people in trouble trying to make ends meet. I am referring to the people who abuse the system. We are in trouble and without the money there is no telling what will happen, but unemployment will only provide $154 a week for me if I were to lose my job. That does not even cover my electric bill, so it may not be the only solution.
Allison Castle spokeswoman for Perry summed it all up for me at the end of this article...
"He has to take a 40,000-foot view of how these types of decisions impact all Texans,” she said. “He represents all Texans — employed and unemployed.”
Some speculate Texas Gov. Rick Perry may reject aid from stimulus package
It sums up the fact that Rick Perry may reject the stimulus package, and some responsible lawmakers would like wording to be added so that they may bypass the governor. This in turn would allow the responsible lawmakers the ability to re-issue taxpayer money to the community to help with the already failing economy.
The article also continues to explain how Rick Perry does not want to be associated with any "bailout" which, it suggests, was an unpopular matter for voters on Wallstreet.
As a voter this angers me and makes me wonder how someone with money could be more concerned with a vote than the unemployed in his own state, which is when I came across this article.
Jobless-pay fund may run dry this fall
It appears that although Rick Perry may be looking at rejecting the stimulus bill, it is for good cause. $555 million of that stimulus money comes with a clause for the state to open up its wings and allow more people to qualify for payments. This could mean that by accepting this money we could be shooting ourselves in the foot by creating a much greater pool of people living off the system. This would last long after the stimulus money has gone and could result in new taxes and new issues.
The article mainly talks about the truly dire situation we are in with the unemployed number going higher and the amount of cash within the bank to help supplement them steadily decreasing. Looking at the possibility of unemployment in the near future myself, it angers me to see how this country is run and the people who abuse it, but it happens.
Both articles show how politics spin the media to help garner a vote or to show they are doing something. Some will want the money even though it may only help them short term. Some will read this and understand that the media can be one sided and there is much more to the story, over all. More free-loaders on the system will not help matters, and I am not talking about the people in trouble trying to make ends meet. I am referring to the people who abuse the system. We are in trouble and without the money there is no telling what will happen, but unemployment will only provide $154 a week for me if I were to lose my job. That does not even cover my electric bill, so it may not be the only solution.
Allison Castle spokeswoman for Perry summed it all up for me at the end of this article...
"He has to take a 40,000-foot view of how these types of decisions impact all Texans,” she said. “He represents all Texans — employed and unemployed.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
