Your teacher showed you his what?!?!?

Here are my thoughts after reading this very informative post by my classmate, Julie B....


Uuhhh… you mean they don’t do background checks for teachers at public schools in Texas? I’m appalled that this is just now happening. This policy should have been in place from day one! I’m glad I read your post, Boolie. I am thinking back to my days in elementary school now and wondering how many of the faculty had criminal records with offenses that would’ve kept them from getting a job there. How scary! I’m very glad that this is finally being done. I wonder what the numbers are of children who’s safety has been compromised because a trusted faculty member was criminally-minded. And what’s even more frightening to me is that this issue has never even crossed my mind. I don’t know if I speak for anyone else, but I guess I’ve just always assumed that our public school systems hire responsibly and that there WAS a system to keep felons and persons with minor-related offenses out of our children’s schools. Maybe I’m being quick to judge, but I feel like we should be embarrassed as a state that we are just now doing this.

YouTube exposes the House

So, apparently there is a place for YouTube in Texas politics. In response to public outcry over YouTube videos depicting Texas legislatures’ habit of “ghost voting” on the House floor during legislative session, 10 new fingerprint-activated voting stations are being installed in the House chamber. These new voting stations will be placed outside the brass rails that surround the chamber floor giving members the ability to cast a vote even when they are away from their desk. The idea behind this is to compromise with the public without surrendering their capability of utilizing the “ghost vote”. This new system is not even going to be a mandatory practice. Only members that wish to use the new machines are required to submit their fingerprints to the House computer’s database. While House members will attest that this unconventional voting practice is not being abused, it has been well documented that some lawmakers have voted for their colleagues without their permission or even in their absence. Many members of the public, including myself, are shocked to learn that this practice is widely accepted on a government platform where you would think that the accuracy and integrity of voting would be treated with great regard. However, lawmakers are not only okay with it, most of them seem to hold the position that is a necessary mode of operation. A few legislatures have presented the argument that because of the large number of issues being tackle, combined with the fact that they are only in session for 140 days every other year, that voting has to take place in a fast-paced environment, and for this reason it is impossible for every member to be at their desk for every vote. While I, myself, do not claim to know the intricacies of the house floor, it does seem to me that we ought to be able to provide a more logical remedy to this situation.

A reaction to this post on this blog...

While I usually don’t hop on the “legalize it” bandwagon very quickly, you make a pretty decent argument for the cause. It IS quite curious that the government seems to prefer booze and tobacco over weed, considering the grip they have on society and death toll associated with them. There’s no doubt that enormous revues would be generated from the taxation of marijuana, but you forgot to mention the decrease in crimes that are associated with the distribution of illegal substances. As a result of making it legal to possess it, all crime associated with its distribution would be no more. That’s a lot of crime! Imagine how many organization’s operations are dedicated to the movement of weed. These groups stop at nothing to see that their business thrives, and the characters involved frequently do not shy away from breaking the law to see that it does. Also (as I’m sure you’ve noticed), alcohol is a far more intoxicating substance. Sometimes I am amazed at its legality considering the alcohol related death figures. Having had extensive experience with both substances, I can say that there is no amount of marijuana that one can intake that could deprive one of their faculties on the level that alcohol does. I agree with you whole-heartedly in that the reason that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not is “traditions of me”. We have written record indicating that the consumption of alcohol has been socially acceptable since the establishment of written record and marijuana didn’t come into the public spotlight until the early 20^th century. It still have a strange and unknown characteristic about it that the public hasn’t shaken yet. It would be very interesting to see what the fallout of legalizing cannabis would be.

Photo Fraud

Let’s see a show of hands. How many of you think that we ought to have to show a photo identification when we arrive at the polling booth to cast our sacred ballot? Apparently, the Republicans and Democrats in our state’s Legislature are going to quibble over this bill again at the upcoming 2009 session. This debate seems to divide the Legislature right down partisan lines. Republicans say that this is necessary to prevent voter fraud and non-citizens from voting. Democrats contend that it is discriminatory toward the lower class and minorities, and that fraudulent voting is not that serious of a problem. Here’s the question I find asking myself: “Why not?” Why shouldn’t you have to show a photo ID when you vote? I am a young person, who has paid little attention to the world of politics, and I was actually surprised to find out that you did not have to. I mean, you have to show a photo ID to do just about everything else in this society. Is there less responsibility involved in voting than, say, renting a movie at Blockbuster?

Some say that having to produce such identification is discriminatory against lower income citizens and minorities, arguing that for this group of people, it can be difficult to obtain. I am finding it hard to buy into this reasoning. While it may be a bit more difficult for some to make the trip to the DPS and dish out the 15 bucks it costs to get a photo ID, I find it hard to believe that it really is beyond someone’s means. If all else fails, Capitol Metro is always there to take care of any transportation issues one might have (if you can get to the polling booth, then you can get to the DPS). I cannot think of any good reasons why a responsible adult, who is a citizen, would not be carrying a photo ID. You absolutely have to possess one to function in society. It sounds to me like something people say when they don’t want to put forth the effort to do something.

Then there is the argument that the bill discriminates against minorities? Someone is going to have to explain this one to me. This is outright ridiculousness! Why on earth is this argument targeting minorities? What is it about minorities that makes it hard to get a photo…. oh wait a minute… oh no, they didn’t. Are they…? No… They’re not suggesting that illegal aliens should be able to cast a ballot, are they?? Of course they are. And they are admitting to that as soon as they make the argument that having to show a photo ID discriminates against minorities. I had no idea that you could put your foot in your mouth BEFORE you opened it. To me, it seems quite evident that the Democrats in the Texas Legislature are attacking this bill to secure votes for their party. By arguing that voter fraud is not that big of a deal, so we ought to let it slide without taking corrective measures is flat out irresponsible. It seems like those who stand by this line of reasoning are willing to sacrifice the integrity of an election for votes for their party's candidates.

Reaching to Make a Point?

Now, I’m all for people being self-sufficient and not using government services as a crutch or excuse to be lazy, but Bill Jolly, the author of this editorial I found on the Lone Star Times blogsite, may be a little too quick to bring down the gavel in this case. His article is commenting on an October 16th story from the Houston Chronicle’s website reporting that FEMA is denying claims of some victims of Hurricane Ike whose needs have not yet been met and are on the verge of becoming homeless. Jolly is contending that the Houston Chronicle’s editorial staff is liberally biased despite their claims that they are neutral. He’s using this article as evidence of his contention. I am not going to argue against his claim. It does appear that the article does have somewhat of an agenda that it is promoting; and for the most part, I think that his argument is justified. However, there is one aspect of Jolly’s rant that strike’s me a tad hypercritical. He asserts that Joyce Washington is entirely at fault for her situation and that the Houston Chronicle’s editors are intentionally spinning this as a sob story (which may very well be the case). Washington’s situation is that her FEMA claim is being denied on account that he residence is inhabitable, but Child Protective Services will take her children away if they find they are living in such an unsafe environment.

Jolly’s reaction to this is “How much you want to bet it isn’t habitable because she hasn’t gotten off her arse and cleaned the place up?”—which is normally the same kind of reaction I would have. But in the article, it says that her ceiling came down. To me, that sounds like a mess that me might not be able to be entirely responsible for. Who knows what the situation is with the apartment complex that she was living in—or the status of the building for that matter. This may actually be a legitimate case where someone is getting screwed by FEMA. One this is for certain. There is definitely something awry if FEMA claims her residence is “habitable”, but CPS would not let her kids live there. Despite the fact that I agree with his belief that people ought to get up off their “arse” and help themselves instead of relying on the government, I’m given the impression that Bill Jolly is being overly judgmental in this instance in order to help his case that the Houston Chronicle is written by liberals.

The second women’s story appears to be less complex. It seems that her situation is being portrayed as one in which she is a helpless victim being shunned by the FEMA and the Red Cross when in fact, it looks like she can easily take care of her own situation. Her FEMA claim application is being held up because she cannot provide proper identification as her purse was stolen. It is not that difficult to obtain identification. The article is also telling us that she has no way of getting around. She is quoted in the article as saying, "Even if (the FEMA adjuster) called and said OK, we're going to go out and look at your property, what am I going to do? Thumb it?" Um, ever heard of public transportation? Basically, I agree with Bill Jolly, but I do think he may be reacting a little too harshly in the case of Mrs. Washington.

Dear God, why does the Texas Supreme Court suck so much?

Here’s a commentary written by The Editorial Board of the Austin American Statesman denouncing a Texas Supreme Court decision overturning a verdict against members of a church in Colleyville. A jury’s original decision awarded $188,000 to a young women who claimed she was held down and restrained for four hours because she was believed to be possessed by a demon. The court’s ruling was based on the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right of freedom from religous oppression. Why does the author of the this commentary appear to make more sense than the Texas Supreme Court? That’s what I want to know. Among several good points being made, the author points to the obvious conclusion that based upon the court’s ruling, obeying the law is optional as long as one’s actions are based within the realm of religion. I agree 100% with the position this editorial takes. This is an absolutely ridiculous decision the TSC has handed down. Who knows what the real reason is behind 6 of the 9 justices voting in favor of the church. I think it is quite obvious that it is not logic. There is a funny comment to the editorial posted by the pseudonym “Not gullible” placing blame not on the church, but on the parents and praising the decision. While, yes, I believe that some of the responsibility lies in the hands of the young lady’s parents (she was 17 when the incident took place), people must be held responsible for their own actions. By attending a church, in no way are you signing off on the possibility of having an exorcism attempted on you. The members of the church are directly responsible for the events that took place, because those events were their own actions. It’s not rocket science, I promise. A few quotes from Justice David Medina, who was among the three justices who voted in favor of reason and logic were included in the article that I found to coincide with the honest resolution to this case. This decision by the Texas Supreme Court is quite interesting and leads one was ponder: “what the hell is going on up there?”.

Trust your vote to a machine?

So apparently there is a problem with the electronic devices Travis County is using to record the votes of its citizens. This article from The Austin Chronicle reports that U.S. 5th District Court of Appeals has upheld a prior decision denying the Texas Democratic Party’s request that Hart InterCivic’s eSlate machine be fixed or taken out of circulation for use in elections held in Texas. According to the TDP, the Austin-based company’s machine has a glitch that will void the voter’s selection when selecting a straight ballot, as well as a selecting the name of a particular candidate. Another article I found indicates that the court’s reason for the decision is based on the fact that the fine print at the beginning of the voting process on the machines and the summarization at the end displaying the finished product of the ballot give the voter ample opportunity to vote effectively. A recount in Madison country brought light to this matter when an “inordinately high number” of ballots were left blank.
It seems pretty obvious to me that there is room for error here. The Texas Democratic Party is merely asking that a problem resulting in a discrepancy between voters and votes be mended. And I am left asking myself, “what on earth could be more important that solving such a pitiful problem?” Are they saving money by not doing so? Is one party actually gaining some kind of advantage with this? It doesn’t make sense. I’d love for someone to explain this one to me…... Anyone??