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.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
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)
