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.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
