My response on Lydia James' blog on April 29, 2013.

I beg to differ.

Forgive me for the brevity of this message. I could potentially write pages on this one.

The most common argument for legalizing same-sex marriage is indeed the fact that two people regardless of gender and sexual orientation/preference should be allowed to marry each other as much as the “traditional” couple next door. The reason why they are not allowed can be explained in more ways than one. Unfortunately, I do not believe your argument is remotely one. The closest justification you may be looking for is the fact that our politicians are so obsessed with winning elections that they can’t give up the idea that church and state are separate, and they always have been. We do not go by “heavenly” values, we have never done so! We are the wealthiest and most powerful nation because we know how to squash and silence those who don’t serve our interests (U.S. Corollary is a good start should you wish to explore). And we do not do it in the name of anyone but us!

I do not agree that the government’s motivation to not support or legalize gay marriage is because it believes in the superiority of marriages between opposite sex as opposed to same sex. Given the rate of divorce and children born off wedlock, it would be comical to believe that children born from tumultuous environment are better off just because their parents are opposite sex (or straight). What shapes a human being may begin in the household. However, that is only part of the effort. Remember, “It takes a village” to raise a child. It is the schools, the elders, relatives, friends and the environment that shapes a child. Lack there of is part of the cause for many of our social issues in America (obviously this is true for the rest of the world as well). If the government knows anything, it should know this. The most recent US census reports on divorce are a testimony to that. There were half as much divorces for all the marriages that took place in 2009 (it doesn't mean there were 50% divorce rate due to other facts I'm not interested delving into). Gay couples or any couple is as much capable as anyone else in raising responsible and exemplary citizens that will serve the country well for generations to come. The only requirement is that one be equipped with the courage and know how that is necessary in raising an offspring.


Please understand that there are exemplary citizens that were born from a broken home. Our very President is an example. A mother, a stepfather and maternal grand parents raised him. Sure none were gay (as far as we know). I can list examples of the opposite scenario on and on. All I need to do is check any criminal’s prison records, and we got plenty of them right here in Texas. I am very certain that many came from wonderful, loving, straight parents. I do not even want to venture to good or bad parents who raised a homosexual with a success story. Does it mean the government does not want those? How about those who defended their country and did so with honor and dignity? Should we deny them equal rights because they may not raise as good a citizen as the government requires it?


So should the government punish married, straight couples whose child committed a crime because they did not “raise him or her right”? And reward those who “did”? Your message does seem to have ignored practically all avenues of measure to a conclusion that is nothing short of alarming.


The government is (or should be) in the business of providing the infrastructure and necessary tools to help us raise exemplary citizens of the future. That is why we pay taxes for. The government is NOT in the business of determining which kind of parents or people raise better people. It is not in the business of profiling based on gender or looks or race. Like many of my peers, I would like to believe America has moved on. So should those who came up with this sad, meaningless and one-dimensional theory.

Your dread is my opportunity

The recent horrific accident at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas has raised questions with regards to the role of Government. Although not much will be done in the very near future, Republicans, and everyone else resisting the "big government" should reconsider their convictions to that effect. The already hot issue in with Texas lawmakers is a clear indication that less regulation eventually comes in to haunt us. Texas tribune reported that Nim Kidd, Chief of Texas' division on Emergency Management w met with lawmakers today and faced tough questions on the irregularity of inspection. Most of the inspections have been addressing pollution concerns as well as safety and security of this highly flammable material from getting into the hands of the wrong people. However, a thorough inspection of the structural integrity of the fertilizer and preventative inspection has not been done since 2007. One cannot help but wonder how the Texas Government (and the Republican establishment) could credit the loss of fourteen and the 200 wounded to less Government, less regulation!

The idea of "less is more" in Texas politics (as is with all Republican leadership in the country) is as old as the country itself. What one should weigh in is the crucial truth of State government's involvement in securing its citizens safety and security. A regulation of private companies is stifling to businesses; that far is correct. However, what the supporters of this gimmick do not understand is that corporations (or companies) are primarily concerned with their shareholder value. The safety of citizens, along with pollution or security is secondary to say the least. A business in a small town is indeed beneficial to many in more ways than one. So is an active oversight with the same or greater regard for public good. The same message goes for texting and driving. Just as with less regulation on businesses, Gov. Perry opposed the House Bill as it infringes too much on the decision making process of citizens. There is no denying that we live in an individualistic era. What benefits us is what we will care about; what's in it for me! Mitt Romney's "Corporations are people..." serves a purpose here. Just like individuals, corporations serve their interests, not Joe the plumber's or the neighborhoods within which they operate. That is exactly why there should be guidance from those we entrusted with our safety.

Piece of my mind on Jessica Flippen's "Please don't make me buy ANOTHER reusable bag because I forgot mine"

Hello Jessica,

All things being equal, we should not have Government dictate our personal lives and most of the choices we make. Unfortunately, we elect or vote an authority to do (in part) exactly that. We are humans with unlimited wants and needs and very limited resources. While ironic, it is true. If it were not for Government intervention and laws, we would not have regulations that have made us the most productive, healthy, strong citizens that are the envy of so many other nations. I was one of them and I am grateful for this system.

This brings me to your blog on Plastic bag ban in Austin. The benefits of removing plastic bags from stores are far more advantageous to the lingering concern to our environment in the future, which is devastating. According to healthguidance.org, approximately 300 million plastic bags end up in the Atlantic Ocean, which threatens the integrity of the ocean in sustaining pollution free environment for marine life. Fish and birds mistake plastic bags for food, which if consumed can block their airways leading to unwanted death. On a larger scale (and it is already a concern, hence the law in many countries including the U.S.), this would certainly be a devastation for all animals and aquatic organisms that come in contact with the bloody thing, which would affect us directly (unless we all convert to vegetarianism!).

 

The other issues with plastic bag (and most other plastic for that matter) are the longevity of its existence. These bad boys hang around long after you and me and our great great great great great grandchildren are long gone. A plastic landfill lasts a thousand years or more before it disintegrates, damaging the earth even at its smallest state. Not to mention the amount of fuel oil required to make the darn thing. I am certain we can both agree there has got to be a better place to spend it (heating, vehicle fuel, for instance).

Finally, I found your last point on your blog a little amusing, rather in a good way. Reusable bags do get dirty and disgusting, very true. But that is exactly why they are "reusable". They are so because we can clean them. Do you wear disposable clothes? Do you throw away your running shoes every two/three days and buy a new one because they have gotten sweaty and wet? Grocery bags are of the same category. We have to wash them and keep them clean, just like we do with our dishes and clothing (genius is whoever created dishwasher and washing machine). I sincerely hope this provokes your thoughts and reconsider your original argument. Plastic bags are a burden to our wellbeing. In the long run, they are far worse than our temporary contact with germs. Because the latter, we can wash away.

Texas should curb its prison population

In his book "Texas Tough: The Rise of America's Prison Empire," Robert Perkinson shares an insightful data on the ballooning growth of the Texas Penal System.

·Number of state prisons built in Texas between 1980 and 2004: 94
·Total number of university campuses in Texas: 94
·Percent increase in Texas corrections spending between 1980 and 2004: 1,600
·Ratio of growth in Texas corrections to higher education spending between 1980 and 2000: 7:1

Given population increase and the lack of opportunities for inmates following the completion of their sentences, it is not unusual to estimate an increase of the overall Texas penal system. For example, although the overall prison population declined, it has not been enough to avoid that sad distinction of being the number one state in the nation in prison population, surpassing the state of California. Texas had 156,000 inmates in 111 prisons alone (this figure does not include those on parole or probation). What our great state should adopt is a comprehensive rehabilitation and reform system that reintroduces former inmates to communities and nurture a productive citizen out of them. A recent bill introduced by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) is a promising one among other state officials that have done the same in the past. Rep. Thompson's HB 1188 will challenge the possibilities of lawsuits to businesses who hire former inmates who have reentered society. Although many companies in Texas are very reluctant to hire former criminals, it makes this particular house bill very unique due to the support it has garnered from Texas Trial Lawyers Association as well as the first time involvement of the Texas Association of Business, the biggest business group, Texas Tribune reports. At this stage the bill excludes sex offenders who have been released from prison and registered. However, given the fact that only less than 20% of sex offenders are convicted again while 90% of sexual predators are first time offenders, registered sex offenders and recently released ones should not be marginalized and subjected to the ever-rising recidivism pool that breeds more of the same, on steroid.

Speaking of recidivism, our reaction and treatment of released inmates or citizens with criminal records impact our society in the long run. Long gone are the days when law enforcement officials were looked upon with respect and gratitude, a good example of society. The more we focus on banishing former criminals with too little rehabilitation (and too much punishment), the larger the sphere of resentment. No longer is one individual that will feel the brunt, it will be an entire family, friends, and a community. And we just spent an average of $50.79 of our dues, per inmate, per day. Rep. Thompson's initial but important step is a great lead for others to follow.

There are brilliant ideas that other states have done to curb their prison population. For example, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana presented proposals to lawmakers that would encourage rehabilitation of drug offenders instead of incarcerating (Louisiana holds the trophy for the highest number of inmates). Other states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and South Dakota are implementing measures that would reduce inmate population and increasing rehabilitation. Menial jobs and positive behavior inspired activities aside, penal systems in Texas should take an example of a certain Cleveland unit in East Texas. By partnering with Baylor University, it is training inmates business entrepreneurship. Volunteering communities and investing on inmates while incarcerated is a sure way to sustain a future that is a citizen less resentful, less criminal and a productive member of society that bears the ideal social and political schemes. With over 700 per 100,000 Americans behind bars, this may seem overly ambitious and utopian, but it is very possible.

Even Australians have fewer prisoners than our great nation. And Australia was founded as a prison colony!

In Guns We Trust!

In The Weapons of MassRepercussions, Eileen Smith writes a satire-laced blog on gun-control laws and the inability of Congress to come up with any meaningful resolution to the demanding issue of gun control. I did chuckle when reading her argument to those who love to hoard weapons to ensure self-defense in case they are invaded. All jokes aside, Smith attempts to bring to light the significance of the matter and what has permeated our society with the obsession of gun ownership and the desire there of, especially following the conversation about gun control. Partly it seems that the mention of guns may have awoken the sleeping giant that is the gun totting crowd whose argument has little to do from constitutional standpoint and plenty full in emotions fueled through pure misleading.  And partly because of interests in the industry that is committed to share holder value than identify the underlying challenge. Yes! The NRA’s solution to the problem was a “good guy with a gun”. Yes, more guns seem the solution. If I could go ahead and stoop to that level, I would equate it with more drunk drivers on the road to be the key to less drunk driving related deaths. This brings me to Smith’s other opinion with regards to a training plan that will cost the state of Texas $9.3m in training teachers in preventing classroom gunfights. This proposal was put forward by Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston) whose goal is training two teachers per school in case of a shooter is in the school. Pretty fascinating, given the ever-declining education fund that in fact would have served better in cultivating a well-rounded citizen that would probably become a responsible gun owner. The whole thing seems in reverse order but I am very certain somebody is reaping the benefits and it sure is not a gun owner that is waiting for another 1776 to happen.

Eileen Smith’s lighthearted approach to reporting this hot issue is nonetheless a sure way to reach out many who do not have the “time”. It offers the option of entertaining the idea at a pace that is more manageable with a language many like myself can understand. Chuckles aside, it is a helpful way for some to be intellectually stimulated in digging further to the truth. After all, with the all the hoopla in the media and the folks in Washington that intentionally make it complicated and uninteresting, the likes of Eileen Smith (and Jon Stewart) may offer an avenue that would pique the interest of the reader or viewer to dig deeper. Lack there of would only be a self-induced ignorance followed by inaction.

No Money. More Problems.

The Editorial Board at Austin American Statesman published an article on federal spending. This is following the news on the ever so near Sequestration that will cut budgets on wide variety of public programs effective March 1 should Congress and the President fail to reach a middle ground. That is quite the feat given the party-line rhetoric that renders our elected officials the least productive in recent memory. The editorial focuses on the effects of sequester on the state of Texas. This is evident given the fact that $46 billion of the spending cuts will come from the defense department, which, among other things, affects our state significantly given the number of military bases and installations. 30,000 civilian employees and 5000 construction, contract and related civilian jobs will be lost from the two major bases in Killeen and El Paso alone. This will result the loss of over $180 million in salary and related payments that would have otherwise benefited the Texas economy. In total, Texas will suffer a loss of $2.4 billion as a result of sequestration that will mainly dent its Army, Air Force and naval facilities.

The Editorial also reports the effects of non-defense jobs that are at risk. According to a report by the Pew Center, 5.4 percent of the state’s economy is federal spending. Cutting that would harm public schools and universities, health care and most importantly (at least for those who rely on student aid to go to school) financial aid. I wish to leave the domino effect of all this up to everyone’s interpretation, but we will all agree that this is a personal matter and daunting to say the least. None of it could be taken lightly. And to those who claim to “get (or git) nothing” from the government, it will only be timely to say so otherwise.

Let’s face it, Sequester is an ugly word. And parties on both sides need to address this issue with much more resolve than what is at play. No one is interested in a crippled state and it does not warrant a lesson worth learning. Not at the expense of the deprived and desperate. However, The Statesman offers very little in the way of calculated, evidence driven analysis of the state’s predicament and the failures of both parties. Big numbers (job losses, et al) and a somewhat emotion driven, strong worded statement is destined to inflict fear to those in way of harm and instill despise towards those with different views. Republicans have the same stake at saving this state as Democrats. Emotions aside, the effects of the financial crisis are only here to stay until a resolution is reached based on empirical understanding of the American economy and the implications of spending based on a guarantee for reelection.

The Editorial fails to offer any tangible solution to the growing concern of national debt and its implications on our state. Like any other state, Texas receives federal grant for its programs. Part of the estimated $47 trillion that will be spent in the next ten years will certainly make its way to the state of Texas. If Congress has time to preach the cuts they wish to introduce to the amount of $1.2 trillion in ten years, then they should certainly be able to help the public understand why carving so little is not possible. The intended audience is certainly expected (or so The Statesman wishes) to rally behind not allowing the sequester to run its course. However, Texas is a largely conservative state. What is otherwise a mostly accurate analysis could have been fortified to voice the desperate concern: Cut federal spending responsibly. 

Exonerated, unhappy, rich and suffering!

Timothy Cole

The Austin American Statesman published on Sunday a very interesting aspect of the Judicial/Penal system in Texas. Texas is notorious for Capital Punishment and the "Ultimate Justice" was boastfully adorned my Gov. Perry during the Presidential elections (when people are most mindful of American Politics). In this Sunday article, however, Mike Ward indicates the State's generosity in compensating its exonerees with the same passion it punishes criminals. With the advancement of DNA testing, groups like IPOT are ramping up their efforts for inmates with credible claim of innocence. The stark example is the rise in the amount of compensation the State doles out every year. It has increased over 750 fold since 1992, averaging in excess of $65.9 million to date. Part of the increase took place following the Tim Cole Act of 2009. This was in honor of Timothy Cole, who died in prison fighting his innocence to a wrongful rape conviction. The other determining factor is the fact that former inmates, including those exonerated find it incredibly challenging to integrate to society. Legislators will be discussing bills that would require additional measures to curb wrongful convictions. These include video recording interrogations, implementing laws barring prosecutors from withholding any evidence that may prove them wrong and ensure those that claim their innocence while incarcerated have the scientific testing available to prove it. Although the state of Texas pays one of the highest compensations to exonerees, some of the bills that will be introduced do not suggest a measure that would eventually cut down on the exuberant spending we have seen thus far. A bill filled by Rep. Anchia, D-Dallas is one example. Rep Anchia introduced a bill that extends "health insurance benefits to the exonerees' families,” arguing that families suffer as much when a loved one is wrongfully convicted.  

Indeed touching, especially if one takes a moment to imagine such a circumstance in themselves. However, it begs the question of reality. By dolling out more in caring for the affected, are we truly to achieve what seems to be a growing problem of spending on what could have been prevented in the first place? I think not. Advances in science and technology have given us the opportunities needed to prevent, at the very inception, such a sad story from occurring. Laws that prevent a short-lived glory of prosecutors as well as law enforcement, at the expense of the suffering of many and the loss of taxpayer cash must be what the State should aim its attention.