The author of the blog Lone Star Lefty discusses in the blog Dallas man arrested over online threat against Obama a recent ad made by a Dallas resident to kill President Obama and the rest of the government after the recent passing of the Health Reform Bill. Although it may seem as just another random act of violence, the issue is very relevant today with several “political” groups around the country toeing the line between citizen action in politics and citizen hatred toward politics.
After the election of President Obama in 2008 and the passing of several reform bills (economic reform bill and health reform bill), groups of citizens around the United States have come together to express their concern with Obama’s administration. On the surface these groups appear to be a healthy part of a democratic government, but as more and more are being learned about them, these groups appear to have an underlying motive of racism and hatred. Most of these groups have come together under the heading of the Tea Party Movement which has grabbed considerable headlines because of their fanaticism.
The author’s intention of the article appears to hint at an overall distaste for these groups in general, although using this specific incident makes the blog more intimate to the reader – seeing the actual reality of what some of these fanatics are doing. I think the author touched on a subject that just about any reader would sympathize with because of the fanatic behavior of this individual, which I think leaves the reader questioning the legitimacy of these fanatic groups as a whole – possibly the intention of the author. Even though criticizing these “right-wing” groups would appear to be the mark of a “leftist” (which possibly the author is), the subject goes beyond the boundaries of left and right and touches a human aspect of what can and does happen in politics.
Some of these groups protesting the Obama administration are healthy for democracy and appear to display their feelings in a healthy and productive way, but the more radical groups are crossing the line. As seen in this video, some of these groups are “hurting” the integrity of the United States of America and the United States Constitution. Under the guise of being concerned about “unconstitutional” acts made by the Obama administration and concern with “big government” some of these groups clearly have other factors driving them. I’m glad the author was courageous enough to blog about this subject, and I hope that all the readers leave the article concerned about these “radical Americans.”
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Texas Immigration: At the Border or After the Border?
There has been a lot of commotion in recent days in Texas following Arizona’s “get-tough immigration law” which requires all immigrants to carry with them their immigration documents, and gives police the authority to ask for documents from anyone who “is considered suspicious.” This has caused several demonstrations in Texas cities, protesting this law and making sure Texas Governor Rick Perry understands that there are a large number of people who would not support this in Texas. Possibly feeling the pressure of these demonstrations, Perry recently stated, through a spokesman, that this law would “not be the right direction for Texas.”
At the same time, a common issue facing Texans today is the threat of violence and illegal immigrants spilling from Mexico across the US-Mexican border into Texas. Gov. Perry has recently been lobbying for federal financing from Washington to make improvements along the Texas-Mexico border in order to minimize the effects of the illegal immigration, and following meetings in Washington this last week, Perry left with “a real good feeling.”
So, from bits of information gathered from the comments and actions of Gov. Perry, it could be seen that Perry believes that stopping the flow of illegal immigration at the border will have the highest impact (or at least the most ethical impact) on illegal immigration and that hassling “suspicious” people in Texas cities would not be as effective or as ethical.
Agreeing with Gov. Perry, it seems that if illegal immigrants are able to find their way safely across the border, it would require too many exceptions to American’s freedoms to allow for nearly unwarranted questioning of people’s immigration documents. This would also leave out the possibility of criminal practices of police officials using this law to harass people based solely on the individual officer’s opinion. In a recent article in the San Antonio Express News, this dilemma of an officer’s judgment as to who is considered suspicious and who is not is discussed. Along with Perry, I too think that it is important for Texans, as well as Americans, to address the problem of illegal immigration into the United States at the border and not after the border. This prevents any civil liberties being threatened or potential harassment, and allows officials to focus resources and finances into one project, as opposed to spending resources on things such as suits that could arise from laws similar to Arizona’s.
In conclusion, Governor Perry and Texas citizens should steer clear of laws such as Arizona’s that potentially infiltrate innocent Texas citizen’s lives, and spend all efforts better securing the border (if that is considered a top priority to Texas citizens). Acknowledging that the violence spilling from Mexico into Texas is a legitimate problem facing Texans today, I do believe that this would be greatly reduced if efforts are concentrated on the border, and this in turn, I believe, would ease Texan’s fear of illegal immigrants in general, therefore, making any “get-tough immigration law” unnecessary.
At the same time, a common issue facing Texans today is the threat of violence and illegal immigrants spilling from Mexico across the US-Mexican border into Texas. Gov. Perry has recently been lobbying for federal financing from Washington to make improvements along the Texas-Mexico border in order to minimize the effects of the illegal immigration, and following meetings in Washington this last week, Perry left with “a real good feeling.”
So, from bits of information gathered from the comments and actions of Gov. Perry, it could be seen that Perry believes that stopping the flow of illegal immigration at the border will have the highest impact (or at least the most ethical impact) on illegal immigration and that hassling “suspicious” people in Texas cities would not be as effective or as ethical.
Agreeing with Gov. Perry, it seems that if illegal immigrants are able to find their way safely across the border, it would require too many exceptions to American’s freedoms to allow for nearly unwarranted questioning of people’s immigration documents. This would also leave out the possibility of criminal practices of police officials using this law to harass people based solely on the individual officer’s opinion. In a recent article in the San Antonio Express News, this dilemma of an officer’s judgment as to who is considered suspicious and who is not is discussed. Along with Perry, I too think that it is important for Texans, as well as Americans, to address the problem of illegal immigration into the United States at the border and not after the border. This prevents any civil liberties being threatened or potential harassment, and allows officials to focus resources and finances into one project, as opposed to spending resources on things such as suits that could arise from laws similar to Arizona’s.
In conclusion, Governor Perry and Texas citizens should steer clear of laws such as Arizona’s that potentially infiltrate innocent Texas citizen’s lives, and spend all efforts better securing the border (if that is considered a top priority to Texas citizens). Acknowledging that the violence spilling from Mexico into Texas is a legitimate problem facing Texans today, I do believe that this would be greatly reduced if efforts are concentrated on the border, and this in turn, I believe, would ease Texan’s fear of illegal immigrants in general, therefore, making any “get-tough immigration law” unnecessary.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Mexican Drug Cartel Violence
Reviewing the Texas State and Local Government – From the Inside Out blog, a recent post discussed the negative effects of the violence coming from Mexico and spilling over the US – Mexico border into Texas. The blog author chose a very relevant, yet sometimes neglected issue. The recent surge of violence coming from drug cartels in Mexico into Texas and other US – Mexico border states is highlighted in the blog as well as a discussion of what a possible solution could or should be.
The author appears to have written the blog as an attempt to call upon Texas citizens to take personal action against the Mexican violence – claiming, “Without it, we may all soon be a third world country.” The author did a great job of informing the reader of the problems the state of Texas faces, as well as a personal response that is, for the most part, free of overwhelming bias. Although the author mentions that the United States government has shown a lack of participation in this issue, the solution offered is one that is fairly reasonable, supported by evidence, and could most likely be agreed upon by most Texas citizens – that Texans need to find a solution themselves if the federal government cannot or will not provide assistance at this time. The author claims that the US government has not helped in the fight against Mexican drug violence, but leaves the reader believing that the US government has simply chosen not to help. The author should have supported this with evidence, as well as provided information as to why the US government may not be able to support Texas at this time.
Overall, the blog post was very effective in getting the reader’s attention as well as providing some motivation for Texas citizens to take some action. The violence coming from the Mexican drug cartels is devastating to both Texas and Mexico, and working against these cartels is fundamentally important to most people – even if they don’t have the resources to do so. A very well written and informative post.
The author appears to have written the blog as an attempt to call upon Texas citizens to take personal action against the Mexican violence – claiming, “Without it, we may all soon be a third world country.” The author did a great job of informing the reader of the problems the state of Texas faces, as well as a personal response that is, for the most part, free of overwhelming bias. Although the author mentions that the United States government has shown a lack of participation in this issue, the solution offered is one that is fairly reasonable, supported by evidence, and could most likely be agreed upon by most Texas citizens – that Texans need to find a solution themselves if the federal government cannot or will not provide assistance at this time. The author claims that the US government has not helped in the fight against Mexican drug violence, but leaves the reader believing that the US government has simply chosen not to help. The author should have supported this with evidence, as well as provided information as to why the US government may not be able to support Texas at this time.
Overall, the blog post was very effective in getting the reader’s attention as well as providing some motivation for Texas citizens to take some action. The violence coming from the Mexican drug cartels is devastating to both Texas and Mexico, and working against these cartels is fundamentally important to most people – even if they don’t have the resources to do so. A very well written and informative post.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Seperation of State and Religion
In a recent blog I discussed the changes going on within the Texas State Board of Education and the problems of separating strong religious beliefs from the school systems. This details a legitimate problem in Texas, as well as the rest of the United States, with separating church and state. Recently the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) has been discussing a revision of curriculum, potentially removing a “liberal bias” within school textbooks and curriculum. Replacing this “leftist ideal” would remove such figures as Ted Kennedy and Cesar Chavez and add subjects such the National Rifle Association and focus more on the “conservative resurgence of the 1980’s and 1990’s.” Also being debated is if Christianity should get more attention in the new curriculum.
The United States was founded by a group of people seeking religious freedom, and to give this idea integrity the separation of state and church was included in the United States Constitution. Through the years, especially in southern states, this line has been blurred and seems to be coming about in a direct way with the recent SBOE discussions. This issue infiltrates other cultural aspects of Texas life in ways such as the gay-marriage debate, and even in immigration issues. The idea that Americans are “Anglo-Christians” has not only raised heated debate in Texas, but breached the integrity of the “American Dream” – that America is a place where anyone can come regardless of age, race, or creed and fulfill their happiness.
Embracing this idea that Americans are people of all different backgrounds and beliefs, in my opinion, builds a stronger nation. As mentioned in Texas Politics, pluralism, which says that “competing interests balance each other,” is essential to a strong government, and I think that this can be applied also to cultures in the United States – accepting different people builds a stronger government and nation. With the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States in 2008 and litigation with gay-marriage rights (hey, it’s a start), the country has made significant progress in confronting the stubborn and closed-minded ideas that are all too pervasive in the American culture.
With that being said, it is time for Texas to follow the lead of the rest of the nation and make a change in their perspective of a nation. The discussions in the SBOE are the forefront of this debate in Texas (although some claim it has nothing to do with religion) and I hope that the best interest of the state and the citizens is put first and not biased ideas about what people think is “right.” I understand that this argument in itself could be seen as “leftist” or even borderline religious, and aside from my feelings about how people should treat one another with acceptance, love and respect, I feel that our state will continue to be crippled if the separation of church and state continues to be blurred but that it would flourish if we make a stand here – but hey, I might have just learned this all in school.
The United States was founded by a group of people seeking religious freedom, and to give this idea integrity the separation of state and church was included in the United States Constitution. Through the years, especially in southern states, this line has been blurred and seems to be coming about in a direct way with the recent SBOE discussions. This issue infiltrates other cultural aspects of Texas life in ways such as the gay-marriage debate, and even in immigration issues. The idea that Americans are “Anglo-Christians” has not only raised heated debate in Texas, but breached the integrity of the “American Dream” – that America is a place where anyone can come regardless of age, race, or creed and fulfill their happiness.
Embracing this idea that Americans are people of all different backgrounds and beliefs, in my opinion, builds a stronger nation. As mentioned in Texas Politics, pluralism, which says that “competing interests balance each other,” is essential to a strong government, and I think that this can be applied also to cultures in the United States – accepting different people builds a stronger government and nation. With the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States in 2008 and litigation with gay-marriage rights (hey, it’s a start), the country has made significant progress in confronting the stubborn and closed-minded ideas that are all too pervasive in the American culture.
With that being said, it is time for Texas to follow the lead of the rest of the nation and make a change in their perspective of a nation. The discussions in the SBOE are the forefront of this debate in Texas (although some claim it has nothing to do with religion) and I hope that the best interest of the state and the citizens is put first and not biased ideas about what people think is “right.” I understand that this argument in itself could be seen as “leftist” or even borderline religious, and aside from my feelings about how people should treat one another with acceptance, love and respect, I feel that our state will continue to be crippled if the separation of church and state continues to be blurred but that it would flourish if we make a stand here – but hey, I might have just learned this all in school.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Update on Texas State Board of Education
I posted earlier about the issues around the Texas State Board of Education - here is some more information from another blog concerning the subject.
Overcrowding in Texas Prison System
In an interesting blog on Grits for Breakfast, the issue of the Texas prison and jail system is analyzed. Commenting on a story in the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the author comments on some important information left out of the report. Most noticeable to the author is the fact that most counties “now receive more inmates back into their communities than they send to TDCJ” because of a full prison system. The author then goes on to list several statistics about the percentages of people within the prison system who fall under different offense categories such as drug-related offenses, robbery, and violent offenders. Another issue addressed in this blog is counties “underutilizing” the Texas SAFP program which is a drug treatment program.
Addressing the citizens of Texans on the issue of the full prison system in Texas, the author uses a lot of statistical information to get across to the reader that some changes in the way criminals are handled according to their crimes needs to be addressed. Although this is a “left leaning” blog, the author does a great job of showing very little bias throughout the article. If there is any bias to be seen at all, it is in the author’s view of how criminals should be handled, which is scarcely, if at all, found in the article. The author’s blog is very interesting information, but there does not seem to be much logic or an overall statement to the argument, it just appears to be an overview of the newspaper article referenced to in the post. Essentially, the author using data speaks for itself, and very little commentary is given.
Personally, the most striking evidence in this blog post is the low statistics on the amount of drug offenders sent for drug treatment at the SAFP programs. As discussed in another blog, the treatment of criminals is the most sure-fire way to make sure that overcrowding in Texas prisons starts to become resolved. We wonder why there are so many repeat drug offenders showing up in prisons (36.5% of parole revocations)? Understanding that a majority of these people have a disease, and all that some of them need is some help, would be beneficial to everyone involved – especially citizens of Texas. It would reduce the amount of repeat drug offenders, help with the overcrowding of the prisons, and add people that contribute to society and Texas communities. Having “unused SAFP beds” is unacceptable to me. As it appears was the blog author’s strategy in the summary of the article – the statistics speak for themselves.
Addressing the citizens of Texans on the issue of the full prison system in Texas, the author uses a lot of statistical information to get across to the reader that some changes in the way criminals are handled according to their crimes needs to be addressed. Although this is a “left leaning” blog, the author does a great job of showing very little bias throughout the article. If there is any bias to be seen at all, it is in the author’s view of how criminals should be handled, which is scarcely, if at all, found in the article. The author’s blog is very interesting information, but there does not seem to be much logic or an overall statement to the argument, it just appears to be an overview of the newspaper article referenced to in the post. Essentially, the author using data speaks for itself, and very little commentary is given.
Personally, the most striking evidence in this blog post is the low statistics on the amount of drug offenders sent for drug treatment at the SAFP programs. As discussed in another blog, the treatment of criminals is the most sure-fire way to make sure that overcrowding in Texas prisons starts to become resolved. We wonder why there are so many repeat drug offenders showing up in prisons (36.5% of parole revocations)? Understanding that a majority of these people have a disease, and all that some of them need is some help, would be beneficial to everyone involved – especially citizens of Texas. It would reduce the amount of repeat drug offenders, help with the overcrowding of the prisons, and add people that contribute to society and Texas communities. Having “unused SAFP beds” is unacceptable to me. As it appears was the blog author’s strategy in the summary of the article – the statistics speak for themselves.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Bipartisanship: Regression, not Progress
The editorial, Let’s find cure for GOP ill will, discusses the reaction by Texas Governor Rick Perry and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott concerning the recent passing of the Health Care Reform in the United States Congress. According to the editorial, Perry and Abbott, both members of the Republican Party, have announced an opposition to the newly passed Health Care bill and future plans to sue the United States government so as not to make law in Texas what the bill declares. The author gives evidence of the overwhelming problem of lack of health care insurance in Texas (number 1 in the United States in number of people without health care), as well as the proposed benefits of the new bill for Texas citizens.
The message of the editorial seems to be that it is time for political parties in Texas, as well as in the United States, to come to compromises and make progress with the problems facing Texans today as opposed to “political pandering,” or objecting issues instead of making any sort of progress. This bipartisanship seems to be a huge crisis in both Texas and the United States and has stood in the way of many attempts by both parties to make any sort of positive progress whatsoever. The opposition of the Health Care bill by both Perry and Abbott is just one of the many examples of this debilitating behavior going on in Texas politics.
The editorial appears to be intended for the entire Texas population, in effect saying, “Let’s get our act together!” Although the author appears to be a Democrat in political ideology, the message seems to be that regardless of political affiliation, it is time for us as Texas residents to make compromises and work together to face and make progress on the many issues we face today.
Coming from a Democratic perspective, the editorial lacks a little in overall presentation. The author’s Democratic affiliation shows up in the apparent applause of the passing of the Health Care bill and the frustrated thoughts of the Republican run Texas government, possibly losing the interest of a Republican-minded reader rather quickly. Although if the reader continues to read the entire article, it is clear that the intention of the author is to make clear the negative effects of the bipartisanship in politics, which both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. If the author focused more on the crippling effects of bipartisanship in politics, as opposed to whether the Health Care bill is “right” or “wrong,” I think that the message would be clearer and get through to the reader regardless of his or her political affiliation.
Personally, I applaud the attempt by the author to confront the issue of bipartisanship in politics in both the United States and Texas. Regardless of political ideology, we as a state face several vitally important issues that must be addressed and worked on, and when we continually run into each side’s opinions and disagreements we get absolutely nowhere. Even if a particular party passes a bill, it is not but a day later that the other party is opposing it instead of working with what is given and making it work best for the people. It will take courageous leadership from a Texas politician to confront this issue of bipartisanship, and it is up to us as the citizens of Texas and voters to express our concern and disapproval of this and make clear that it is time for someone to step up and make a change.
The message of the editorial seems to be that it is time for political parties in Texas, as well as in the United States, to come to compromises and make progress with the problems facing Texans today as opposed to “political pandering,” or objecting issues instead of making any sort of progress. This bipartisanship seems to be a huge crisis in both Texas and the United States and has stood in the way of many attempts by both parties to make any sort of positive progress whatsoever. The opposition of the Health Care bill by both Perry and Abbott is just one of the many examples of this debilitating behavior going on in Texas politics.
The editorial appears to be intended for the entire Texas population, in effect saying, “Let’s get our act together!” Although the author appears to be a Democrat in political ideology, the message seems to be that regardless of political affiliation, it is time for us as Texas residents to make compromises and work together to face and make progress on the many issues we face today.
Coming from a Democratic perspective, the editorial lacks a little in overall presentation. The author’s Democratic affiliation shows up in the apparent applause of the passing of the Health Care bill and the frustrated thoughts of the Republican run Texas government, possibly losing the interest of a Republican-minded reader rather quickly. Although if the reader continues to read the entire article, it is clear that the intention of the author is to make clear the negative effects of the bipartisanship in politics, which both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. If the author focused more on the crippling effects of bipartisanship in politics, as opposed to whether the Health Care bill is “right” or “wrong,” I think that the message would be clearer and get through to the reader regardless of his or her political affiliation.
Personally, I applaud the attempt by the author to confront the issue of bipartisanship in politics in both the United States and Texas. Regardless of political ideology, we as a state face several vitally important issues that must be addressed and worked on, and when we continually run into each side’s opinions and disagreements we get absolutely nowhere. Even if a particular party passes a bill, it is not but a day later that the other party is opposing it instead of working with what is given and making it work best for the people. It will take courageous leadership from a Texas politician to confront this issue of bipartisanship, and it is up to us as the citizens of Texas and voters to express our concern and disapproval of this and make clear that it is time for someone to step up and make a change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)