Dare to Be Drug Free!

I fully agree with Ms. Jazz that those at the top should be treated the same as those at the bottom, but since I don't agree that those at the bottom should have to be regularly subjected to drug tests I disagree with her overall message.

I have a problem with testing for drugs, because I feel that the testing method is seriously biased. Marijuana stays in a person's system much longer than say cocaine (or many other hard drugs) making it much easier to detect. Personally I would rather hire someone that smoked a little marijuana every now and then opposed to someone who dabbled with the harder drugs that don't always get detected in a drug test.

The high profile instances of politicians with drug addictions have usually involved an addiction to prescription meds (that can be just as dangerous as many street drugs), but standard drug testing doesn't pick up on those meds. Alcohol is another drug that leaves the system relatively fast. I personally don't want an alcoholic representing me in government, but a drug test probably won't catch that problem.

There are certain cases where I am in full support of drug tests. I know that Capital Metro gives their employees a drug AND alcohol test at the beginning of every shift. Their staff is responsible for the lives of hundreds of people everyday, so I can see how this is a reasonable precaution.

While politicians may have our fate in their hands, one drug test given at the beginning of their term does nothing to convince me that they are in any way drug free. I believe all we can do as a voting public is elect those that we feel are best qualified, that have a proven track record and then cross our fingers and hope that they are in good moral standing and are drug-free.

Texas' Energy Crisis- Is Coal the answer?

Energy is a HUGE industry in Texas. We have established this state on the back of oil companies, we are the number one producer of alternative energy in the U.S. but there is no doubt that petroleum is king. Petroleum companies are extremely powerful in both Texas and the U.S. We subsidize them tremendously giving consumers a false perception of the true price of oil. On top of that price, some would add the price of the Iraq war, due to its oil ties, bringing the true price of a barrel of oil to much higher than currently given.

With most of the oil our nation currently uses coming from the middle east, with Texas' oil reserves dwindling, and the with current forecasts concerning global warming, Texas' economy especially is in jeopardy. In this atmosphere Texas needs a new approach.

Regardless of our addiction, by the oil companies' own predictions, oil will run out in 40-60 years. We need to wean ourselves of petroleum now! Wind and solar are making huge advances in Texas, but wind and solar only produce electricity. They don't provide a solution to the transportation issue unless we make readilly available an electric car.

Texas' response to this issue is let's go back to using coal! There are over 11 new coal plants in the works right now that due to a pay out to Governor Perry are on the fast track to being built. Coal also does nothing to solve the problem of transportation and will only provide the energy for electricity. Coal is a product of petroleum and is a non renewable resource that can only sustain us for slightly longer than oil, and then there is the pollution issue. Coal is notoriously dirty. China uses coal as a major source of power and has just surpassed the U.S. in CO2 emissions. The effects of China's air pollution can be detected all the way in California! Coal is dangerous to mine (who will be doing this job?) and environmentally hazardous in the process. There is a coal fire burning in Centralia, Pennsylvania that will continue to burn for at least another 200 years in the place of what used to be a mining town.

I don't understand why Texas will not take this opportunity to be the leader in alternative energy. We will eventually be forced to use something other than petroleum to feed our energy loving society why not put Texas at the forefront of that effort? The main response of the oil companies when asked about alternative energy is that it will be economically damaging because they will be out of a job, well yes they will be out of a job in the oil business but there will be other jobs created in the alternative energy sector. I'm sure that candle makers were very upset with the advent of the light bulb but that is a free market society for you.... or that would be a free market society if the oil companies weren't paid by the government and given a stake in government regulation meant to protect the masses not a source of fuel and an industry built around that fuel.

Texas should just say no to coal! Why trade one bad energy source for another?

Ban on Trans Fats

While I agree with the Tex Report that Texas and for that matter the whole U.S. has a huge obesity problem, I do not believe that this bill, if passed, is the answer to that problem. I too am conscientious of my health and of the types of foods that I consume. I believe that being educated on nutrition is the first step to fighting diet related illness. Restaurants should be transparent about nutritional information and of the ingredients in their foods. A Dunkin' Donut without trans fats has just the same amount of sugar and fat, and with or without the trans fats is not exactly considered a health food. Adults have to make their own health related decisions, and as long as nutrition information is made mandatory they can make those decisions in an educated manner. If consumers push for healthier choices, restaurants will provide for them or risk losing business to another restaurant who does provide a healthier choice. Dunkin' Donuts didn't need a government regulation to decide that banning trans fats was a good choice for them, and I imagine if it brings business and good publicity to them, other restaurants will follow suit. I feel a little differently in the case of childhood obesity, in my opinion it is a parent's responsibility to instill good eating habits at home, and a school's responsibility at school. So a ban on trans fats in school cafeterias is a bill I would like to see!

Why I a Democrat am for the Voter ID Bill (after much debate)

Unfortunately one of the most talked about pieces of legislation this session is a bill that doesn't address any of the major concerns I currently hold for my state. For this reason, my first reaction to the voter ID bill was "Here we go again a whole session devoted to debate over something meaningless", but after reading about this bill ad nauseaum in the paper I started to think maybe I should give it a little more credit.

My first question was why is this bill such a partisan issue with almost all Republicans in favor of its passing and all of the Democrats in opposition? I have to assume that Democrats are aware that they already have a harder time at the polls, and so will oppose anything that could make voting any more difficult, especially for those voters that may be facing harder times and statistically are more likely to vote democrat. So why are the Republicans pushing so hard for this bill? I have to assume that Republicans know that their main voting group which is comprised (generally speaking of course) of financially stable Caucasian voters will not be affected by this bill and that it sends a strong anti-immigrant message that plays right into the fears of many of their voters... The immigrants are coming in undocumented to steal our jobs, rob our state of money, and take over the system while stealing our identities and voting democrat with them.

The immigration issue is precisely the reason I have decided (tentatively and after much debate) that I am for this bill, but not for the fears about immigration listed above. I do not believe that illegal aliens are committing voting fraud if fraud is in fact happening at all. I am married into a Mexican family whose members who reside in this country vary from citizens, to documented residents, to undocumented illegal residents. Of those eligible to vote maybe one does. The rest are hampered by their embarrassment of their broken English and lack of understanding of the system and the issues. My in laws, who are here legally, won't even go to a english speaking restaurant without my husband or one of his siblings due to embarrassment of their lack of English.

The point is I do not think that this bill, if passed, will hamper the democratic vote. Statistically those that will be most affected by this bill are those that are already least likely to vote. Right now, to vote, you have to take the time to register, find the right precinct, and hopefully bone up on the issues your voting for. Bringing along ID is not that much more to ask (presuming there is a wide range of what constitutes proper ID).

Relating to immigration, I do believe it is irresponsible to have thousands of undocumented people in our country both for safety reasons and for an immigrant's own protection from inhumane business practices. If this bill makes it harder to live here undocumented I think that is a good thing. Alternatively we need to remember that for decades our businesses have practically been inviting people over simply by employing them. Now that we are educating their youth and tending to their sick we see that employing immigrants isn't as cheap as we initially thought. So yes I am for tightening regulations on employing illegal aliens, renting to illegal aliens, and generally making it harder to be an illegal resident, but I'm also for finding a comprehensive plan for dealing with those hardworking people who are already here, who have families here, and are only trying to make better lives for themselves and their kids. We need to work closely with these people's home countries, because a shaky economy is usually what forces people from home, and we need to make sure that any program we set up for those wishing to come here in the future is monetarily feasible for even those coming from the most destitute situations. Lastly we need to remember that we are dealing with people's lives most of whom are no more criminal than you and I, and although immigration is a serious political issue, at the end of the day more than political this is an issue of humanity. For every person here taking advantage of the system, there are hundreds more working incredibly hard and living honestly, they should not be criminalized.

Race still a Factor?

This TX blog addresses a core issue that I have heard a lot of lately. Is race still an issue in America? The author argues that, in the case of a traffic stop in Dallas where a NFL player was stopped and bullied by the police while rushing his family to the hospital, the fact that the officer was White and the player Black is not important. The argument is that it should be looked at instead as a flagrant misuse of power on the officers part. As much as I hate how often "the race card" is unnecessarily played, in this case I have to disagree with the author.

The Author validly makes the point that the officers actions were inhumane no matter what the driver's race, and validly, with another recent example, shows that inhumane police behavior is not limited to those of color, but when an officer is showing such a lack of compassion one must ask why? Is it color? Is it the driver's car? Is it dress? Is it Speech? Everyone has their own prejudices and police officers are no exception.

This article notes that Ryan Moats(the NFL player and driver) was offered an apology (that obviously makes up for the fact that his mother-in-law passed away during his detainment by the officer), but offers no ideas on how the officer should be taken care of. It is my opinion that all of this officers previous stops and arrests should be evaluated. Is there any sign of past discretion (towards anyone). Is the ratio of those stopped disporportionately those of color? If not the officer should be retrained... if so he should be fired.

Unfortunately there are those out there that still see in terms of race. These people should not be tolerated in certain fields where their personal prejudices will affect their everyday work.

Clearing the Air

This editorial from The Dallas Morning News argues in favor of a statewide smoking ban. While I agree with the author's standpoint I think his argument would be stronger if he mentioned the places smoking would still be allowed... will it be allowed on designated patios, private member only clubs, Hookah and cigar bars? Also whose job is it to police this plan? Will it be left up to club and bar owners? Will a restaurant owner be held liable if someone lights up in his restaurant? This article points out the obvious. It is well known in this day and age that second hand smoke is detrimental to ones health. This article could be much more relevant if it delved into the other side a bit.... is it an infringement on a club or bar owner's rights for the government to make this decision instead of leaving it up to each individual establishment? I feel that this article is geared toward the reader who is already in agreement with the article and serves as a little reminder to the voters that this piece of legislature out there. As far as swaying someone who doesn't support this legislation, I don't think it would.

Equality for All?

READ THIS ARTICLE FROM TEXAS MONTHLY!
As a mother it is disturbing to think about how I would feel if society (and my government) constantly questioned my mothering abilities. It is appalling to me that gay parenting is such a big issue here in Texas when in 2008 there were 14,295 children added to our already crowded foster care system. It is sickening that instead of judging potential parents by their emotional stability and ability to raise and love a child we judge them by their sexual orientation. I can’t imagine explaining to one of the many 18 year old foster kids that leave the system each year that after a tumultuous child hood and sometimes still no home he could have had a stable and loving home and permanent parents that wanted him as much as he wanted them if only the state hadn’t put a ban on adoptions by gay couples.

It boggles my mind that this article mentions a well known woman who is supposedly educated and that confuses being gay with being a pedophile. This to me is synonymous with accusing every Middle Easterner of being a terrorist and thinking that every terrorist is a Middle Eastern Muslim. The 1st amendment to the US constitution outlaws the government from establishing a national religion, but the biggest opposition to gay rights is that many Christians believe that being gay is a sin. In some Native American religions it is believed that a person with both a male and female soul (LGBT) should be highly honored. This is never brought up in the struggle for gay rights because the government seems to have come to accept Christian interference and accepted its moral standings above all other religions.

When it comes to parenting I believe a child is much better off with two loving and stable parents whether they be the same or different gender than in unstable foster homes, with an often struggling single parent, or in two parent homes that aren’t as loving. I also wonder what it feels like for a child to have to worry if next TX legislature they might be separated from their, sometimes biological, parents that just happen to be of the same sex. San Antonio, a major Texas city, is labeled by this article as the Mecca for Gay Parenting with 1 in 3 gay couples having children. This is obviously a very pertinent issue in Texas and it gives Texas an opportunity to lead the way in Gay rights instead of lagging behind (as we did with civil rights) and prove that Texas cares about all of its citizens and about providing as many children as possible with safe loving homes.