Surprise, Suprise. Abbott sues Obama again...
In what is becoming a routine affair, Attorney General and Governor-Elect Greg Abbott is suing the Obama administration again. In fact, Abbott has even said himself, "I go into the office, I sue the federal government and I go home." Texas has spent $2.58 million since the Obama administration took office in 27 separate cases. Now, Abbott is suing the Obama administration over something that is clearly legal and has precedent.
Abbott, with the support of Senator Ted Cruz, has filed suit against the administration over Obama's use of executive action regarding undocumented immigrants. What seems strange however, is that this executive action is very legal, and in fact has precedent. Both George H.W. Bush and Reagan both used executive action to grant amnesty to families of immigrants. At the time, nobody batted an eye at the orders. Bush's order helped around 40% of illegal immigrants, which is the same percentage that the recent Obama action would protect.
However, what Abbott and Cruz have failed to do, is propose or support any other option for immigration reform. At this point, it's more about being anti-Obama than being a productive member of the state or national government. If the GOP were really serious, they would put half the effort they put into suing the administration into creating a plan of their own. Abbott claims that this action is directly negatively affecting Texas, but doesn't have too many facts to back that up. Everyone who participates in the President's plan will start paying taxes into the system they now can take advantage of.
In all, the upcoming Abbott administration will have a tough time in their legal battle over this action. While they might not like it, nothing illegal has been done. There are other ways to settle this disagreement, the best option being cooperation across party lines. However, this solution now seems further than ever, especially with the Republican dominated Congress taking office in January. We can only hope something gets done, and sooner rather than later.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Say "No" to Marijuana
In Ms. Tran's article "Say 'No' to Marijuana", she argues that legalizing marijuana would be detrimental for Texas, especially its children. She argues that marijuana is harmful and that it is the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens from harm. She goes on to say that the legalization of marijuana will in fact increase crime, increase addiction rates, and be more costly for the state.
Starting with the last point, legalizing marijuana will in fact be a cost saver for the state of Texas. Between the tax revenue from the sale of marijuana and the savings in incarcerations for minor marijuana offenses, the state and tax payers would make a profit from the drug. According to the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, Texas spends almost $4 million per day on inmates jailed for simple possession. Everyone in Texas can speak green, and a savings of $4 million per days is not a small amount of money.
Her claim that it will increase crime rates also falls short of reality. In June of this year, Colorado released its six-month report on the effect marijuana legalization has had on its crime. According to the report, crime in the state is down over 10% from last year, with violent crimes down 5.2%. A lot of the crime associated with marijuana, especially in Texas, is from cartels and gang rivalries over territory. If we can eliminate the gangs purpose of dispensing marijuana, the crime associated with that can be eliminated as well. Having a responsible, government regulated dispensary sell the drugs is a much better option than an unregulated black market.
Last, she points out that marijuana is not safe for consumption. While it is not a good argument to point out that something else is worse, it is worth noting that annually 88,000 people die from alcohol related causes, 300,000 from obesity related causes, and 480,000 people died from tobacco related causes. All of these causes are clearly preventable, as is marijuana related deaths. However, marijuana related deaths are in the double digits, significantly less than the other top preventable death causes. To point out two deaths that have happened as a result of marijuana is sensationalizing the negatives of the drug.
The drug is not perfect - it does have a 9% addiction rate, it does impair motor functions and cognitive abilities, and it does just make you lazy. We absolutely should teach children about the dangers of not just marijuana, but also alcohol, fast food, and other preventable causes of death. But when the time comes and they are of age, be that 18 or 21, they should be able to make their own decision on how they want to relax over the weekend. To keep it illegal means to keep the gangs and cartels involved in our neighborhoods and it means spending millions of dollars each day to lock up nonviolent, simple possession prisoners.
In Ms. Tran's article "Say 'No' to Marijuana", she argues that legalizing marijuana would be detrimental for Texas, especially its children. She argues that marijuana is harmful and that it is the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens from harm. She goes on to say that the legalization of marijuana will in fact increase crime, increase addiction rates, and be more costly for the state.
Starting with the last point, legalizing marijuana will in fact be a cost saver for the state of Texas. Between the tax revenue from the sale of marijuana and the savings in incarcerations for minor marijuana offenses, the state and tax payers would make a profit from the drug. According to the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, Texas spends almost $4 million per day on inmates jailed for simple possession. Everyone in Texas can speak green, and a savings of $4 million per days is not a small amount of money.
Her claim that it will increase crime rates also falls short of reality. In June of this year, Colorado released its six-month report on the effect marijuana legalization has had on its crime. According to the report, crime in the state is down over 10% from last year, with violent crimes down 5.2%. A lot of the crime associated with marijuana, especially in Texas, is from cartels and gang rivalries over territory. If we can eliminate the gangs purpose of dispensing marijuana, the crime associated with that can be eliminated as well. Having a responsible, government regulated dispensary sell the drugs is a much better option than an unregulated black market.
Last, she points out that marijuana is not safe for consumption. While it is not a good argument to point out that something else is worse, it is worth noting that annually 88,000 people die from alcohol related causes, 300,000 from obesity related causes, and 480,000 people died from tobacco related causes. All of these causes are clearly preventable, as is marijuana related deaths. However, marijuana related deaths are in the double digits, significantly less than the other top preventable death causes. To point out two deaths that have happened as a result of marijuana is sensationalizing the negatives of the drug.
The drug is not perfect - it does have a 9% addiction rate, it does impair motor functions and cognitive abilities, and it does just make you lazy. We absolutely should teach children about the dangers of not just marijuana, but also alcohol, fast food, and other preventable causes of death. But when the time comes and they are of age, be that 18 or 21, they should be able to make their own decision on how they want to relax over the weekend. To keep it illegal means to keep the gangs and cartels involved in our neighborhoods and it means spending millions of dollars each day to lock up nonviolent, simple possession prisoners.
Monday, November 3, 2014
How To Get Your "Get Out Of Jail (Not) Free" Card
How To Get Your "Get Out Of Jail (Not) Free" Card
There are many aspects of Texas government that can use some improvements. The legislature only meets once every two years for 140 days. This is barely enough time to get anything done, and the only reason we have seen so many bills passed in recent years is the overwhelming Republican dominance of the legislature. When nobody is around to say no, it's pretty easy to vote yes. But one neglected area that is perhaps in the most dire need of reform is the judicial system.
Texas is one of eight states that have a partisan election process for judges. Other methods states employ are legislative elections, Governor appointments, and probably the best option, a nonpartisan commission. Texas' partisan election process means most judges have large campaign funds filled by interest groups and PACs. Even more horrifying, most of these donations do not have to be disclosed upon election and the contribution limit is completely voluntary. The judiciary is supposed to be a fair, nonpartisan entity equal all across the state. This process of running expensive campaigns means most owe large contributors undisclosed favors. This entirely defeats the purpose of a fair and equal judicial system. You should not be able to buy your way out of a sticky situation.
In 1995, Texas passed the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act, which limited the amount PACs and law firms could contribute to a judge's campaign. This was a good first step, but more is needed to get money out of our judicial system. One way to help eliminate most of the bias out a judicial system is to form a nonpartisan commission. There are 20 states that employ some form of a commission to select judges already, and many consider this process to be the most fair and unbiased. This commission would, in theory use a merit based system to create a pool of judges for the Governor or legislature to pull from. The committee would select these judges based on their accolades, fairness, and commitment to be honest and equal across all party, gender, race, religious and class lines.
While this process will take time, and heaps and heaps of money will be spent in opposition to it, I believe it is possible in the long run. Eventually, people will realize that wealthier individuals and corporations are getting preferential treatment in the courts system and rise to the occasion. There will be challenges to creating this system, namely who is on the committee and how they are selected. But these small obstacles are nothing compared to finally reclaiming our fair, honest and nonpartisan judicial system.
There are many aspects of Texas government that can use some improvements. The legislature only meets once every two years for 140 days. This is barely enough time to get anything done, and the only reason we have seen so many bills passed in recent years is the overwhelming Republican dominance of the legislature. When nobody is around to say no, it's pretty easy to vote yes. But one neglected area that is perhaps in the most dire need of reform is the judicial system.
Texas is one of eight states that have a partisan election process for judges. Other methods states employ are legislative elections, Governor appointments, and probably the best option, a nonpartisan commission. Texas' partisan election process means most judges have large campaign funds filled by interest groups and PACs. Even more horrifying, most of these donations do not have to be disclosed upon election and the contribution limit is completely voluntary. The judiciary is supposed to be a fair, nonpartisan entity equal all across the state. This process of running expensive campaigns means most owe large contributors undisclosed favors. This entirely defeats the purpose of a fair and equal judicial system. You should not be able to buy your way out of a sticky situation.
In 1995, Texas passed the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act, which limited the amount PACs and law firms could contribute to a judge's campaign. This was a good first step, but more is needed to get money out of our judicial system. One way to help eliminate most of the bias out a judicial system is to form a nonpartisan commission. There are 20 states that employ some form of a commission to select judges already, and many consider this process to be the most fair and unbiased. This commission would, in theory use a merit based system to create a pool of judges for the Governor or legislature to pull from. The committee would select these judges based on their accolades, fairness, and commitment to be honest and equal across all party, gender, race, religious and class lines.
While this process will take time, and heaps and heaps of money will be spent in opposition to it, I believe it is possible in the long run. Eventually, people will realize that wealthier individuals and corporations are getting preferential treatment in the courts system and rise to the occasion. There will be challenges to creating this system, namely who is on the committee and how they are selected. But these small obstacles are nothing compared to finally reclaiming our fair, honest and nonpartisan judicial system.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Freedom to Preach
In Charles Blain's article "Freedom to Preach", Blain describes how the city of Houston is attempting to subpoena many local religious leaders for speaking out against a new city ordinance. The author argues that the city does not have any standing to subpoena the clergymen, as this would be a violation of their first amendment rights. He claims that the pastors were speaking out on moral grounds, which is allowed by the church's tax-exempt state. However, the city argues that the pastors "used their pulpit to do political organizing".
The author is speaking to his fellow Christian conservatives. He believes that their rights, especially free speech, are being restricted, specifically in Texas. He cites how Tea Party groups were also targeted by the IRS in 2010. What he fails to say, however, is that Texas is perhaps the most Christian conservative state in the Union. With some urban exceptions, the vast majority of Texas is Christian Conservative, and you cannot get elected to office without wholeheartedly endorsing those same views. Their freedoms are not being restricted in any way. In fact, I would argue that they attempting to force their views on the rest of Texas, and getting away with it. The author is a credible source, having an undergraduate degree in Political Science which makes his claims all the more incredulous.
The author may be correct in saying that the city has a hard case to make, but many of his reasonings and other assertions appear just as shaky. A church may speak on political issues based on moral grounds, but they cannot organize the congregation for political purposes. The city will have a hard time proving that the pastors were attempting to organize politically, but the church has been known to push the limits of what they can and cannot say from the pulpit. Since most of the members of both the national and local legislatures are Christian, I don't foresee any changes being made to restrict or better monitor what pastors say.
In Charles Blain's article "Freedom to Preach", Blain describes how the city of Houston is attempting to subpoena many local religious leaders for speaking out against a new city ordinance. The author argues that the city does not have any standing to subpoena the clergymen, as this would be a violation of their first amendment rights. He claims that the pastors were speaking out on moral grounds, which is allowed by the church's tax-exempt state. However, the city argues that the pastors "used their pulpit to do political organizing".
The author is speaking to his fellow Christian conservatives. He believes that their rights, especially free speech, are being restricted, specifically in Texas. He cites how Tea Party groups were also targeted by the IRS in 2010. What he fails to say, however, is that Texas is perhaps the most Christian conservative state in the Union. With some urban exceptions, the vast majority of Texas is Christian Conservative, and you cannot get elected to office without wholeheartedly endorsing those same views. Their freedoms are not being restricted in any way. In fact, I would argue that they attempting to force their views on the rest of Texas, and getting away with it. The author is a credible source, having an undergraduate degree in Political Science which makes his claims all the more incredulous.
The author may be correct in saying that the city has a hard case to make, but many of his reasonings and other assertions appear just as shaky. A church may speak on political issues based on moral grounds, but they cannot organize the congregation for political purposes. The city will have a hard time proving that the pastors were attempting to organize politically, but the church has been known to push the limits of what they can and cannot say from the pulpit. Since most of the members of both the national and local legislatures are Christian, I don't foresee any changes being made to restrict or better monitor what pastors say.
Monday, October 6, 2014
What Abbot and Davis' ads say about them
In Bethany Albertson and Joshua Blank's article, they attempt to define the campaign strategies of the two main gubernatorial candidates based on the ads they have been running leading up to the November Election. They argue that since the Democrats, hence Davis, have not been in power for many years, they are attempting to use anxiety driven ads to prompt the electorate into taking a second to pause and think about how things have been done the last decade or so. They assert that the Davis campaign's logic behind this is that maybe the voter will do more research, and see that the status quo isn't all it's hyped up to be. In Abbott's case, the authors claim that his ads have a more hopeful message. They say that according to his ads, things have been going well for Texas, so there's no need for a change in leadership.
In this op-ed piece, the authors are attempting to dissect the emotional strategies behind the two campaigns for the voters. They are providing an analysis for the electorate to better understand what emotions each campaign is trying to play on in order to drum up support. The authors appear to be credible sources, one an assistant professor at UT, the other a grad student at UT, and also the manager of a political research project.
However, while both respectable author's make a valid point, they fail to take to entire picture into account. Recently, I have personally seen negative ads from Abbott's campaign, and Davis does have hopeful ads on her website. The authors may have been accurate when the political ads first started rolling out months ago, but their article is only a week old. The authors do concede at the end that neither side is running a strictly positive or negative campaign, but they fail to provide any evidence of this. The author's should have done a more thorough search of the differing ads available, especially from the Abbott campaign, and not just stuck with the original ads that came out. While the die-hard politico's from each side will remember the old ads, I think much of the electorate will have forgotten them come November. The majority will only remember the last ad they saw, so we can expect an upturn in frequency of both positive and negative ads from both sides in the month ahead.
In Bethany Albertson and Joshua Blank's article, they attempt to define the campaign strategies of the two main gubernatorial candidates based on the ads they have been running leading up to the November Election. They argue that since the Democrats, hence Davis, have not been in power for many years, they are attempting to use anxiety driven ads to prompt the electorate into taking a second to pause and think about how things have been done the last decade or so. They assert that the Davis campaign's logic behind this is that maybe the voter will do more research, and see that the status quo isn't all it's hyped up to be. In Abbott's case, the authors claim that his ads have a more hopeful message. They say that according to his ads, things have been going well for Texas, so there's no need for a change in leadership.
In this op-ed piece, the authors are attempting to dissect the emotional strategies behind the two campaigns for the voters. They are providing an analysis for the electorate to better understand what emotions each campaign is trying to play on in order to drum up support. The authors appear to be credible sources, one an assistant professor at UT, the other a grad student at UT, and also the manager of a political research project.
However, while both respectable author's make a valid point, they fail to take to entire picture into account. Recently, I have personally seen negative ads from Abbott's campaign, and Davis does have hopeful ads on her website. The authors may have been accurate when the political ads first started rolling out months ago, but their article is only a week old. The authors do concede at the end that neither side is running a strictly positive or negative campaign, but they fail to provide any evidence of this. The author's should have done a more thorough search of the differing ads available, especially from the Abbott campaign, and not just stuck with the original ads that came out. While the die-hard politico's from each side will remember the old ads, I think much of the electorate will have forgotten them come November. The majority will only remember the last ad they saw, so we can expect an upturn in frequency of both positive and negative ads from both sides in the month ahead.
Monday, September 22, 2014
School district removes books from English class
http://www.statesman.com/ap/ap/texas/texas-school-district-temporarily-bans-7-books/nhRzM/
A Dallas-area school district has removed seven books from its high-school approved list after parents complained that the books contained "sex scenes, and a reference to rape, abuse, and abortion". While the removal is only temporary, according to district superintendent Dawson Orr, the process of reviewing the books for potential reinstatement into the curriculum could take months. Teachers will send home permission slips for students if the books in class contain mature content. If the parents decide not to let their child read the book, they can request another option to read for class.One parent stated that this was not about banning books, as the book was still available in the library. However, she was not happy that the book was mandatory reading in the class room.
I think this is important because too often are our children shielded and protected from perceived dangers. Parents are either ignorant to what their children are exposed to on a daily basis outside of school, or they just don't care. We shouldn't be banning these good books just because a few loud parents don't want their child exposed to this. I think it's better that they are exposed to sex and other mature content in the controlled environment of a classroom, rather than on TV or on the internet. Students, especially once in high school, have easy access to all sorts of sex and violent programs from other sources, so why shouldn't they be receiving a little education in the process? This problem seems to be getting worse, as every year we hear about another school district banning another book just because there's a naughty word in it that the student has almost surely heard from other sources before.
http://www.statesman.com/ap/ap/texas/texas-school-district-temporarily-bans-7-books/nhRzM/
A Dallas-area school district has removed seven books from its high-school approved list after parents complained that the books contained "sex scenes, and a reference to rape, abuse, and abortion". While the removal is only temporary, according to district superintendent Dawson Orr, the process of reviewing the books for potential reinstatement into the curriculum could take months. Teachers will send home permission slips for students if the books in class contain mature content. If the parents decide not to let their child read the book, they can request another option to read for class.One parent stated that this was not about banning books, as the book was still available in the library. However, she was not happy that the book was mandatory reading in the class room.
I think this is important because too often are our children shielded and protected from perceived dangers. Parents are either ignorant to what their children are exposed to on a daily basis outside of school, or they just don't care. We shouldn't be banning these good books just because a few loud parents don't want their child exposed to this. I think it's better that they are exposed to sex and other mature content in the controlled environment of a classroom, rather than on TV or on the internet. Students, especially once in high school, have easy access to all sorts of sex and violent programs from other sources, so why shouldn't they be receiving a little education in the process? This problem seems to be getting worse, as every year we hear about another school district banning another book just because there's a naughty word in it that the student has almost surely heard from other sources before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)