Don't Forget To Leave Your Green Cars Out Next to the Milk and Cookies This Year Kids

I couldn't agree more with Gershwin. It is outrageous to think that someone has to be a citizen of this country to enjoy the Christmas holiday. They may not be legal citizens of the U.S. but when did they stop being human beings? The "Don't Got a Green Card? Don't Get a Toy" blog really spoke to me and says everything I truly believe. I couldn't have written it better myself. Children are the foundation of our society and for organizations to deny Christmas to anyone based on their legal status is a crime to humanity. It pains me to see how our country has turned its back on those that helped build it. In addition, the same fringe of the right wing that are pushing policies such as this, are the same "holier than thou" Christian conservatives. There is nothing less Christian than caring for the needy, especially children. Who are we to pick and choose who Santa delivers to and who he doesn't?

A Plague in Austin That Takes Your Money?

There is a plague spreading throughout Austin. No, it’s not rats nor is it the Black Death. It is a plague known as panhandling. Corner after corner that I drive pass, whether it’s to school, work, or even the grocery store I see people with signs asking for donations from drivers stopped at traffic lights. There is continuous debate over whether or not there should be an ordinance against panhandling. In 2005, a judge ruled that an ordinance making panhandling illegal in Austin was unconstitutional because it violated their right of free speech. But how is it ok for these people to ask for our hard earned money and not have to do a thing for it?

Think about how many cars pass each corner and how long these panhandlers stand on a corner. If one out of every twenty cars gives a panhandler $1 and he/or she sees, oh let’s say, 500 cars in an hour, he/she is making $25 per hour. You know what is worse? The money these panhandlers are making is tax free. How is it fair, especially in the current state of the economy, for these people to stand on corners begging for money and not have to pay any taxes for it?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to sound heartless, but there are people out there, people that could actually work for a living, that shouldn’t be asking for our money. I understand there are those that can’t fend for themselves and need assistance; however, these others are making it harder on them. Not to mention, how do we know we are not just supporting their habits of alcohol or drug abuse? I think that instead of allowing panhandlers to sit on corners, the city should make a fund where if those that want to donate to those who actually need financial assistance or donate to already existing organizations that aid the homeless, they can, and can receive something to write it off on their taxes.

Making an ordinance to stop panhandling would also make people feel safe when stopped at a red light. Many drivers roll up their windows to avoid having to deal with talking to panhandlers, myself included. All in all, in my opinion, Austin would be a much more pleasant city to drive around if we didn’t have to worry about panhandling in our city.

A Cure at Our Fingertips

Jamie’s article, Medical Use of Marijuana, discusses a very hot topic today. Many people with chronic illnesses are dying each day from the effects of manmade drugs used for the purpose of curing their respective diseases. Jaime brought to light the seriousness of the situation by sharing her personal testament to the topic at hand. She makes a good stand for the medicinal use of marijuana only. There are those out there that abuse the use of marijuana; however, I agree with Jaime in that with the right legislation, the law can be written to give doctors guidelines in which to prescribe it. Americans spend millions of dollars each year to find cures for these diseases when we could possibly have had the cure at our fingertips this whole time. Marijuana has been growing naturally for years, just as tobacco has. Why not spend the hard earned tax payers’ money on testing the effects of marijuana on sick patients instead of wasting our money on trying to put people in jail for possessing it?

Texas Falls Short on the Civil Rights Train

What is that sound? Is it a train? No, it is the momentum of the civil rights movement happening throughout the country. There are, to this day, six states in the United States that have legalized some form of gay marriage. The majority of these states have done so in the past year. There is continued hope throughout the nation that the momentum that has been built by these states will continue to include the repeal of the federal law called DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

On September 21, 1996, Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. This act had two effects: 1) No state is required to recognize a relationship between members of the same sex as a marriage, even if the marriage is recognized in another state; 2) the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Almost ten years later, in 2005, an amendment to the Texas Constitution was passed by the Texas Legislature and presented to the public to vote on. The amendment, called Proposition 2, was passed with 76 percent of voters approving the ban. The ban reflected that of DOMA in that it defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman preventing same sex couples from the legal rights of marriage.

Many opponents to the civil rights movement have and continue to use religion as the basis to the purpose of the ban and Texas is no exception. Their claim is, because it is written in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, that members of the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender) community are second class citizens who shouldn’t be given the same rights as those in the heterosexual community.

There are many arguments I could make to the claim above, but I want to focus on a very broad argument that not only touches the gay marriage issue but other civil rights issues as well, the merge of state and religion. Part of the first amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America includes freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Our country thrives on the diversity of different religious views and beliefs. Some citizens don’t believe in God or the Christ of the Christian faith, so why are we using religion as an excuse to pass laws in Congress? Why is it okay with the federal government that another religion’s beliefs, including many sects of Christianity, be forced upon the citizens of our country? It seems to me that our nation is becoming one of hypocrisy. Not one state has passed a law forcing a Christian church, or any other religious establishment for that matter, to marry a couple of the same sex.

I write this in the hopes to reach out to my fellow Texans and Americans and show them that members of the gay community, myself included, are human beings. I ask those of you who deny us our civil rights to look back at the struggle our country had with the African-American and Latino communities and ask yourselves, “Are we, as a nation, going forward or backward?”.

Public Safety or Cash Cow?

An October 14, 2009 blog in Grits for Breakfast titled “Proposed Austin Traffic Ordinances Hype Fear, Generate Revenue, Without Improving Safety”, brought to light a couple of city ordinances up for vote on October 22nd by the Austin City Council. Authors Radley Balko and Scott Greenfield warn Austin citizens how the ordinances are merely a way for the city to increase revenue and not a way to increase safety as it should. The two ordinances consist of “a ban on texting while driving and a requirement that cars come no closer than 3 feet to pedestrians, cyclists or other ‘vulnerable road users’.”

Balko and Greenfield do a great job of showing just how useless the ordinances really are. They resourced the Austin Statesman to quote Council Member Sheryl Cole saying “the ban will be tough to enforce but is worth enacting to bring attention to the dangers of texting behind the wheel,” and then they find that Council Member Martinez has no plans on advertizing the new ordinances which would make sense to do if you want to “bring attention to the dangers of texting behind the wheel.”

I completely agree with Balko and Greenfield in that these ordinances are more about making money than showing concern about our safety. An example of just how ignorant these ordinances are, the authors further discuss the fact that Austin police have laptops in their car, but because they have no policy against it, it is not considered a problem. According to APD’s highway enforcement unit, the “officers are trained to be aware of the hazards”. I’m siding with the authors when they say that it is hypocrisy to allow the police department to type on a laptop but then persecute citizens for texting while driving. Not to mention that even if the ordinance is passed, it would be extremely hard for the APD to catch or prove the use of texting while driving.

I find our authors to have prime credentials on the issue. Radley Balko is senior editor for Reason magazine and a former policy analyst on civil liberties issues for the Cato Institute. Scott Greenfield, on the other hand, is an attorney and counselor at law. Both show political or legal background but most importantly they are citizens in their respective cities, and they too are required to follow city ordinances.

Endangered WD-40 Texas House Democrats - One Man Down

In the October 2, 2009 Midland Reporter-Telegram, Reporter Dave McNeely wrote an Opinion article, titled “Farabee Retirement Could Cause Shift in Power of Texas Politics”. McNeely highlights State Representative David Farabee’s (D-Wichita Falls) recent announcement of not running for re-election. Farabee is one of the last so called, WD-40’s (White Democrats over forty) in the Texas House of Representatives. McNeely believes this not to be good news for the Texas Democratic Party. He says it is presumed that without a tenured Democrat who is skilled in battling over Republican territory, the seat will fall to a Republican.

McNeely has touch on what is indeed bad news for Texas Democrats seeking to reclaim the majority. The Texas House is currently split 76-74, and the uphill climb to retake the speakership, lost in 2003, will prove even tougher with Farabee’s retirement, as it almost guarantees a Republican House seat pick up for District 69. McNeely is a Texas Capitol veteran and a longtime political reporter who brings credible arguments in his opinion article. His intended audience in this particular Opinion article is the public at large, but he seems to be ringing alarm bells, and calling attention to Democrats on the seriousness of Farabee’s retirement.

I disagree with McNeely’s assessment that national debates on healthcare and the economy will have much effect on the November 2010 HD-69 race. This strongly conservative legislative district only remained in Democratic hands and will doubtfully remain as such, because Farabee’s name identification in the district (his father is a popular former State Senator), his ability to fundraise, and his impeccable fiscal and social conservative record. Any potential Democratic candidate in this race will be hard pressed to match any of these criteria.

State Board of Education Continues to Stir Controversy

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-edboard_18tex.ART.State.Edition1.4bcc6be.html

An interesting read from the Dallas Morning News exemplifies the continuous politicization of curriculum standards for Texas students. After past embarrassments during the deliberations of Science and Health curriculum standards including evolution and sex education, the State Board of Education (SBOE) continues to draw criticism. The 15 member board, which is overwhelmingly comprised of Republican social conservatives, is revising the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum standards to be incorporated in new Social Studies Textbooks. Many agree that some of the committee “experts” appointed to make recommendations to the full board for passage are unqualified. Some of the more controversial members of the advisory committee include: David Barton, former vice chair of the Texas Republican Party and head of the Christian-right organization WallBuilders and Peter Marshall, a far-right evangelical minister from Massachusetts. These members are thought to be pushing their political agenda against the teaching of multiculturalism by advocating the removal of civil rights leader Cesar Chavez and Brown vs. Board of Education Attorney and former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall from current Social Studies Curriculum. Both members of the committee are also known opponents of the separation of church and state, believing that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and on biblical principles. Peter Marshall has stated “Chavez is hardly the kind of role model that ought to be held up to our children as someone worthy of emulation.” The decisions made by the SBOE have significant impact not only for Texas students, but also the students of several other states which purchase these textbooks. Publishers often use Texas standards in writing textbooks because of Texas’ mass market. I strongly encourage any parents of Texas students to become more actively involved by offering public testimony at these SBOE meetings to bring more balance to deliberations and to reduce the influence of political agenda toward our childrens' education.