Posted by William Gee
In a shroud of secrecy and wonderment, Governor Rick Perry has yet to reveal his intentions on running for the presidency. He is certainly creating some big time hoopla in the political arena. But would Rick Perry really be the best Republican candidate? In Christina Hastings article titled, Texas and the Presidency, she seems to think so. She dotes on the governor's "charisma and credibility," and makes note of how he saved Texas by creating jobs, scoffed at federal funds, and how his conservative values make him revered by all. However, not everybody is without faults, as she mentions just a fragment of the controversial issue regarding the HPV virus on our young girls. It is obvious that Miss Hastings upholds conservative values and I do not fault her for supporting Rick Perry if he chooses the path to the presidency. After all, this is democracy in America.
Though the article praises Perry and all the things he has done for Texas, I would like to take this opportunity to disagree. I think Rick Perry has everyone hoodwinked into thinking he is responsible for creating jobs, he is responsible for the great Texas economy, and he never raised taxes. Of course this is what mainstream media headlines report. Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to Perry because he is a conservative. I don't care if he was with the Polka-Dot Party. I am just a person who sees a politician, who's sole purpose is to further his own career by pushing his own agenda without the voice of the people. Does Rick Perry deserve the credibility? Let me point out some of the truths that Perry has taken credit for, then you can decide for yourself.
Texas, indeed, has seen an increasing amount of jobs. I believe upwards of 280,000 throughout the entire state. Miss Hastings is absolutely correct that DFW and Houston has the highest job growth rate in the nation. The majority of these created jobs occur in the areas of education, health, and government. However, information like this is all the majority of Texans know because Rick Perry proudly trumpeted these facts with the help of the media. What most people do not know is the fact that when these 280,000 jobs were created, about 50,000 jobs were lost. In the current state of our economy and eyes looking towards cuts in education and healthcare, how many of these "created" jobs do you think will be left? Historically in Texas, it has been a trend for job growth to rise when the cost of crude oil rises. The Barnett shale oil in DFW and the Eagle Ford shale oil in South Texas have increased in production, as well as, tripled in value. This is the #1 reason for job growth in Texas. This has always been the reason long before Rick Perry even took office.
My other argument with Perry has to do with his involvement in our economy. Perry prides himself on low taxes, state sovereignty, and big business. State sovereignty is not a bad thing and he is king at it. As far as taxes go, he claims to have never raised them in all his terms as governor. Though he won't admit it, he has done this numerous times. For example, he has raised business taxes in order to lower property taxes. This may seem like they cancel each other out, but in reality, it produced an increase in tax revenues. On the big business end, I do believe that Perry has contributed a small amount in bringing them here. But only in the form of million dollar grants and tax incentives. While Perry deserves a little credit for this, the fact is Texas' low cost of doing business, low taxes, and the low cost of living is what truly brings business here. And once again, Texas was like this long before Perry took office.
While the nation's economy was starting to tank, Perry was first in line to boast our state's booming economy. We can recall his Texas sized ego when he refused the Federal Stimulus Funds that were offered to the states. But just a week or two later, Perry accepted the 14 billion dollars while at the same time publicly making Texans believe we didn't need it. 2 years later and 65 billion dollars more in federal funds to balance the current budget leads us to where we are today. In fact, the only federal funds that Perry didn't accept was 550 million to be used towards the Unemployment Funds. This resulted in a shortage of 1.5 billion dollars in the Unemployment Trust Fund. The unemployment rate at this time was at 6%. Texas' current unemployment rate is 8.2% and the national average is 9.2%. No matter how great Rick Perry said we were, the Texas budget problems and declining economy were always leading to where it is now. 27 billion dollars in the hole.
Although I disagree with Perry's credibility and his stance on certain issues, he has done some good for Texas. It just seems that a lot of people are being misinformed about what is really going on in Texas' government beyond the mainstream media's headlines, the showboating, and the smoke and mirrors.
Sources
http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=38554
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/dunnam-is-gov-rick-perry-a-hypocrite-257084.html
http://blog.chron.com/thelist/2011/03/rick-perrys-business-income-tax-is-bad-for-employment/
Friday, August 5, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Will The Real Rick Perry Please Stand!
Posted by William Gee
As Governor Rick Perry continues to dip his toes into the presidential "waters," many people are wondering why he is suddenly changing his tune on specific issues. For instance, he pushes for legislation in the Texas government but opposes similar issues in the national political arena. Or how about the fact that recently, he has been putting out "feelers" on issues in search of the biggest piece of the action. Just how many sides are there to Rick Perry? This "how to win friends and influence people" approach is getting him nowhere. If he had any decency, he would stick to his principles instead of trying to appeal to everyone at the same time. In this article, I will explain the many flip-flop tactics Governor Perry has undergone, not only as governor, but in his current actions in seeking a presidential bid.
First, in the midst of glorifying the Texas economy, it is known that Perry boasted the 9 billion dollar Rainy Day Fund as being the safety net for Texas. He had dilligently stated on many occasions that the savings fund should and will not be used for recurring expenses. Then just a few short months later, by an almost unanimous vote by Congress, Rick Perry withdrew 3.1 billion dollars from the savings fund, solely to be used to aid the 2011 fiscal budget.
Immigration policies are another example of 2 sided tactics. If you recall Perry's Texas Dream Act, signed in 2001 with a unanimous Replublican vote, allowed undocumented immigrants the right to in-state college tuition. However, just recently when the Democrats wanted to pass a national Dream Act, guess who was against it. That's right, Rick Perry. The recent immigration laws sparked contraversy in Arizona and were condemned by Perry. He explicitely said that these type of laws were not for Texas. Not long after, he called an emergency session to propose an end to sanctuary cities.
There is no doubt that Rick Perry is a proud Texan. He refused the President's stimulus funds in one of these proud moments only to eventually take most of it later. He had always been opposed to any federal intervention and even more critical of accepting Federal handouts, that is, until Texas was overcome with wildfires just recently. He practically demanded assistance, while at the same time criticizing President Obama for the aid given towards Alabama's natural disasters. That's a fine display of compassion and gratitude. I particularly like the "bite the hand that feeds you" approach.
Most recently, we have seen the finest display of flip-flop political behavior by Perry. We are all aware of the upcoming Prayer Event in Houston featuring Rick Perry, the Christian public, and of course, the contraversial American Family Association. The AFA is a super right wing non-profit organization with an ideology consisting of radical anti-everything views. They are widely criticized as an anti-gay and lesbian hate group. However, don't you think it is odd that this event is being held in Houston? Afterall, Houston's Mayor, Anisse Parker is a lesbian who shares a warm friendship with the govenor. Regarding issues of a morally unacceptable nature, Rick Perry believes that it is a state's right to ban or approve certain issues through legislation. We all understand where he stands on gay marriage, however just a few days ago, the King of the 10th Amendment stated he was "fine" with the idea of the state of New York allowing same sex marriage, but then he shifted toward the Federal statute to nullify the decision. He most likely received a verbal spanking from his constituents.
So let's recap on the many sides to Rick Perry. We have the "boastful Texas economist turned big spender," the "I will bait you with benefits then send you back to Mexico guy," then there's the "Proud, I need aid-I don't need aid passive agressive ingrate," and who can forget the "Anti-gay for me, pro-gay for you, holy roller prophet." If I have left any out, I am sure if Perry decides to hit the presidential campaign trail, we will get to see how many Rick Perry's there really are. He might be the head of Texas, but he'll definitely be the butt of the nation.
*****UPDATE 8/4/2011
Just another incident came into view today in the news. Rick Perry has long been opposed to stem cell research. However, it has just been revealed that his back surgery that took place last month involved an experimental method of using stem cells. Hypocrite!
As Governor Rick Perry continues to dip his toes into the presidential "waters," many people are wondering why he is suddenly changing his tune on specific issues. For instance, he pushes for legislation in the Texas government but opposes similar issues in the national political arena. Or how about the fact that recently, he has been putting out "feelers" on issues in search of the biggest piece of the action. Just how many sides are there to Rick Perry? This "how to win friends and influence people" approach is getting him nowhere. If he had any decency, he would stick to his principles instead of trying to appeal to everyone at the same time. In this article, I will explain the many flip-flop tactics Governor Perry has undergone, not only as governor, but in his current actions in seeking a presidential bid.
First, in the midst of glorifying the Texas economy, it is known that Perry boasted the 9 billion dollar Rainy Day Fund as being the safety net for Texas. He had dilligently stated on many occasions that the savings fund should and will not be used for recurring expenses. Then just a few short months later, by an almost unanimous vote by Congress, Rick Perry withdrew 3.1 billion dollars from the savings fund, solely to be used to aid the 2011 fiscal budget.
Immigration policies are another example of 2 sided tactics. If you recall Perry's Texas Dream Act, signed in 2001 with a unanimous Replublican vote, allowed undocumented immigrants the right to in-state college tuition. However, just recently when the Democrats wanted to pass a national Dream Act, guess who was against it. That's right, Rick Perry. The recent immigration laws sparked contraversy in Arizona and were condemned by Perry. He explicitely said that these type of laws were not for Texas. Not long after, he called an emergency session to propose an end to sanctuary cities.
There is no doubt that Rick Perry is a proud Texan. He refused the President's stimulus funds in one of these proud moments only to eventually take most of it later. He had always been opposed to any federal intervention and even more critical of accepting Federal handouts, that is, until Texas was overcome with wildfires just recently. He practically demanded assistance, while at the same time criticizing President Obama for the aid given towards Alabama's natural disasters. That's a fine display of compassion and gratitude. I particularly like the "bite the hand that feeds you" approach.
Most recently, we have seen the finest display of flip-flop political behavior by Perry. We are all aware of the upcoming Prayer Event in Houston featuring Rick Perry, the Christian public, and of course, the contraversial American Family Association. The AFA is a super right wing non-profit organization with an ideology consisting of radical anti-everything views. They are widely criticized as an anti-gay and lesbian hate group. However, don't you think it is odd that this event is being held in Houston? Afterall, Houston's Mayor, Anisse Parker is a lesbian who shares a warm friendship with the govenor. Regarding issues of a morally unacceptable nature, Rick Perry believes that it is a state's right to ban or approve certain issues through legislation. We all understand where he stands on gay marriage, however just a few days ago, the King of the 10th Amendment stated he was "fine" with the idea of the state of New York allowing same sex marriage, but then he shifted toward the Federal statute to nullify the decision. He most likely received a verbal spanking from his constituents.
So let's recap on the many sides to Rick Perry. We have the "boastful Texas economist turned big spender," the "I will bait you with benefits then send you back to Mexico guy," then there's the "Proud, I need aid-I don't need aid passive agressive ingrate," and who can forget the "Anti-gay for me, pro-gay for you, holy roller prophet." If I have left any out, I am sure if Perry decides to hit the presidential campaign trail, we will get to see how many Rick Perry's there really are. He might be the head of Texas, but he'll definitely be the butt of the nation.
*****UPDATE 8/4/2011
Just another incident came into view today in the news. Rick Perry has long been opposed to stem cell research. However, it has just been revealed that his back surgery that took place last month involved an experimental method of using stem cells. Hypocrite!
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Abstinence Doesn't Cut It
Posted by William Gee
In Texas, there is an alarming trend of teen pregnancies occurring. In an effort to prevent teens from having, what conservatives call "relations", Governor Rick Perry set forth the abstinence only sex education plan in our children's schools. This program is producing very disappointing results, as it not only prevents teens from having sex, but it is causing an increase in unplanned pregnancies. In Kaylin Jureczki's article, Texas, why so many unplanned pregnancies?, she brings a valid argument to this issue. She expresses the need for teaching teens properly about sex education in schools, the importance of birth control, and the government assissted programs that help to curb unprotected sex.
The times are changing. Our kids are changing. Why doesn't the Board of Education realize this? Why is Governor Perry afraid to admit that his "glorious plan" is backfiring? Miss Jureczki states that teens are becoming more sexually active at younger ages than that of a decade ago. I believe this is true. But, does every generation say this about each successor? If I recall, I was still playing hide-and seek and hitting lightning bugs with wiffle ball bats when I was in my early teens. I am laughing at myself as I write this when I remember that "1st and 2nd base" were a young boy's coming of age triumph, so to speak. I was taught sex education in middle school. You could feel the tension in the classroom and the nervous snickering amongst the students. For most, I believe that this was enough to prepare or prevent from engaging in sexual activity. The idea of teaching abstinence sounds like the right thing to do, however, by saying, "don't do this" or "don't do that" will only bring out a negative reaction by teens. The constant pressing of abstinence by the school, church, and parents will not supercede the peer pressures a teen experiences in this stage of their life. Miss Jureczki's article accurately expresses the need for a change in how our teens are being properly informed about sex and the consequences that can come from it.
The article also points out another concerning issue. Recent budget cuts to Planned Parenthood will also adversely affect the prevention of teen pregnancies. For sexually active teens, Planned Parenthood is a necessity for accessing birth control and important education to prevent unprotected sex and unplanned pregnancies. This is another ridiculous measure by our governor, who recently signed a bill, de-funding Planned Parenthood. I agree with the author that we need to keep this "lifeline" open to the low income citizens who make up the majority of unplanned pregnancies.
While the article stated viable solutions to the prevention of teen pregnancy, there appeared to be a missing source. What are the parents of these teens doing to prevent this? It is not enough to rely on our schools to "babysit" our teens. Being divorced and a father of 3 teens, 2 sons and a daughter, I feel it is very important to talk to them. Having that one time birds and the bees talk is not enough these days. No matter how embarrassing it is for teens, and the parents for that matter, it is important to continuously remind them. I am not advocating that they have sex at this age, but it is equally important to educate them about having protected sex. The old saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" comes to mind.
Overall, I found the article to contain valid arguments to a very concerning issue. Abstinence programs are failing our younger generation, and a change in education is urgently needed. Texas conservatives need to admit that their sons and daughters are having "relations" behind their backs and it is up to these majorities to accept defeat, embrace change, and allow our kids a prosperous future.
In Texas, there is an alarming trend of teen pregnancies occurring. In an effort to prevent teens from having, what conservatives call "relations", Governor Rick Perry set forth the abstinence only sex education plan in our children's schools. This program is producing very disappointing results, as it not only prevents teens from having sex, but it is causing an increase in unplanned pregnancies. In Kaylin Jureczki's article, Texas, why so many unplanned pregnancies?, she brings a valid argument to this issue. She expresses the need for teaching teens properly about sex education in schools, the importance of birth control, and the government assissted programs that help to curb unprotected sex.
The times are changing. Our kids are changing. Why doesn't the Board of Education realize this? Why is Governor Perry afraid to admit that his "glorious plan" is backfiring? Miss Jureczki states that teens are becoming more sexually active at younger ages than that of a decade ago. I believe this is true. But, does every generation say this about each successor? If I recall, I was still playing hide-and seek and hitting lightning bugs with wiffle ball bats when I was in my early teens. I am laughing at myself as I write this when I remember that "1st and 2nd base" were a young boy's coming of age triumph, so to speak. I was taught sex education in middle school. You could feel the tension in the classroom and the nervous snickering amongst the students. For most, I believe that this was enough to prepare or prevent from engaging in sexual activity. The idea of teaching abstinence sounds like the right thing to do, however, by saying, "don't do this" or "don't do that" will only bring out a negative reaction by teens. The constant pressing of abstinence by the school, church, and parents will not supercede the peer pressures a teen experiences in this stage of their life. Miss Jureczki's article accurately expresses the need for a change in how our teens are being properly informed about sex and the consequences that can come from it.
The article also points out another concerning issue. Recent budget cuts to Planned Parenthood will also adversely affect the prevention of teen pregnancies. For sexually active teens, Planned Parenthood is a necessity for accessing birth control and important education to prevent unprotected sex and unplanned pregnancies. This is another ridiculous measure by our governor, who recently signed a bill, de-funding Planned Parenthood. I agree with the author that we need to keep this "lifeline" open to the low income citizens who make up the majority of unplanned pregnancies.
While the article stated viable solutions to the prevention of teen pregnancy, there appeared to be a missing source. What are the parents of these teens doing to prevent this? It is not enough to rely on our schools to "babysit" our teens. Being divorced and a father of 3 teens, 2 sons and a daughter, I feel it is very important to talk to them. Having that one time birds and the bees talk is not enough these days. No matter how embarrassing it is for teens, and the parents for that matter, it is important to continuously remind them. I am not advocating that they have sex at this age, but it is equally important to educate them about having protected sex. The old saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" comes to mind.
Overall, I found the article to contain valid arguments to a very concerning issue. Abstinence programs are failing our younger generation, and a change in education is urgently needed. Texas conservatives need to admit that their sons and daughters are having "relations" behind their backs and it is up to these majorities to accept defeat, embrace change, and allow our kids a prosperous future.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Texas School Board of Gym Teachers
Posted by William Gee
The Texas School Board of Education is once again divided about the educational material that is to be used in the teachings of Science. The constant debate between the Creationists and "intelligent design" advocates vs. Evolutionists is one that may never be laid to rest. Some school board members believe that additional educational material should be made available to students that would include other possible theories that contradict Darwin's theory of evolution. If this were to happen, I fear that science as we know it will eventually fade away as our youth will be exposed to unproven beliefs that will ultimately merge science and religion.
Being raised by parents who taught me that faith comes from within, led me to view science as being the study of all things natural and religion as being an interpretation of something transcendent. As a geology major and very science minded, I cannot deny the unified concept of evolution. The scientific facts are there and can no longer be proven otherwise. I guess the same goes for trying to prove to a true believer that God does not exist. One is based on facts, while the other is based on deeply rooted beliefs. However, those who hold to their religious beliefs must understand that science and religion should be viewed in a different context. Science has no claims to absolute knowledge, whereas, religion claims it does. Science should be taught as being practical without any regards to spiritual beliefs, the relativity of these beliefs, and in no way shared as common knowledge.
I do not believe that science is out to prove religion wrong(Earth is 4.5 billion years old), but rather to establish the validity of how or why things are the way they are. Merely using God as the answer to all of these questions does not safisfy the nature of science. In the issue of evolution, this scientific knowledge must be passed on with certainty through its demonstration of proven theory and must not be filled, included, or replaced with unnatural notions or guiding beliefs that cannot be proven.
Ultimately, in the debate with the Texas School Board of Education, the conclusion was made to allow alternative online material to be taught with evolution as the standard Science curriculum. This is a disappointing blow to the field of science. Can't we for once accredit "man's"achievements to science without the contradiction of an interpretation of the Bible? What will happen to the science curriculum when the board of education seats all right wing fundamentalists?
Neither science nor religion should ever meet in the middle. Religion is much too influencial and those who it influences shrug science in fear of turning their back on God. Both are viewed as either a whole truth or a whole lie. In any case, I hope I am right to believe in evolution. If not, there is always God there to forgive me, right?
The Texas School Board of Education is once again divided about the educational material that is to be used in the teachings of Science. The constant debate between the Creationists and "intelligent design" advocates vs. Evolutionists is one that may never be laid to rest. Some school board members believe that additional educational material should be made available to students that would include other possible theories that contradict Darwin's theory of evolution. If this were to happen, I fear that science as we know it will eventually fade away as our youth will be exposed to unproven beliefs that will ultimately merge science and religion.
Being raised by parents who taught me that faith comes from within, led me to view science as being the study of all things natural and religion as being an interpretation of something transcendent. As a geology major and very science minded, I cannot deny the unified concept of evolution. The scientific facts are there and can no longer be proven otherwise. I guess the same goes for trying to prove to a true believer that God does not exist. One is based on facts, while the other is based on deeply rooted beliefs. However, those who hold to their religious beliefs must understand that science and religion should be viewed in a different context. Science has no claims to absolute knowledge, whereas, religion claims it does. Science should be taught as being practical without any regards to spiritual beliefs, the relativity of these beliefs, and in no way shared as common knowledge.
I do not believe that science is out to prove religion wrong(Earth is 4.5 billion years old), but rather to establish the validity of how or why things are the way they are. Merely using God as the answer to all of these questions does not safisfy the nature of science. In the issue of evolution, this scientific knowledge must be passed on with certainty through its demonstration of proven theory and must not be filled, included, or replaced with unnatural notions or guiding beliefs that cannot be proven.
Ultimately, in the debate with the Texas School Board of Education, the conclusion was made to allow alternative online material to be taught with evolution as the standard Science curriculum. This is a disappointing blow to the field of science. Can't we for once accredit "man's"achievements to science without the contradiction of an interpretation of the Bible? What will happen to the science curriculum when the board of education seats all right wing fundamentalists?
Neither science nor religion should ever meet in the middle. Religion is much too influencial and those who it influences shrug science in fear of turning their back on God. Both are viewed as either a whole truth or a whole lie. In any case, I hope I am right to believe in evolution. If not, there is always God there to forgive me, right?
Sunday, July 17, 2011
WWPD? What Would Perry Do?
Posted by William Gee
Governor Perry has "got the fever!" The fever for JeeeZus! Yes, it seems the Texas Miracle is going to his head. As the Governor has been testing the waters for a possible Presidential bid, he has called for a Day of Prayer event as a stage to strengthen the faith of the American public. It looks like he's putting the "fun" back into fundamentalist. Can I get another Amen! OK, all joking aside, I was raised a Christian and I'm not one to put down a person's faith, but this is a cynical use of politics. In fact, it kinda pisses me off. If I wanted religious authority running government, I would move back to Utah. No offense to the Latter Day Saints. In case you haven't heard the latest,watch the video below and decide for yourself if this is an appropriate action for a member of our government.
Gov. Perry's Invitation to The Response from The Response USA on Vimeo.
What happened to Separation of Church and State? To see an entertaining blog, check out In The Pink's, Livin' On a Prayer. This blog article describes the sudden transition from Rick Perry's modest Methodist faith, into an evangelical prophet. It is a witty and humorous description of the Governor's "born again" type politics. Even though this blog is intended for the left-leaning, the Perry supporters could appreciate the overall tone of this article. In fact, it would appear that the entire blog is an anti-Perry campaign and somewhat opinionated more than factual. The award winning Austin blogger, Eilleen Smith, may even convince a few to reevaluate why they support him at all. I think the inclusion of the Methodist Church's philosophy, of how it separates its influence from the government institutions puts a perspective on how Perry's antics will not win him much support. Good for the Methodists for not pushing their moral agendas onto government. Anyway, read the article, decide for yourself, and don't drink the KoolAid at the Reliant Stadium. I think I'll agree with the article's overall message....Sell your bull&#$@ someplace else, 'cause we're all stocked up here!
Gov. Perry's Invitation to The Response from The Response USA on Vimeo.
What happened to Separation of Church and State? To see an entertaining blog, check out In The Pink's, Livin' On a Prayer. This blog article describes the sudden transition from Rick Perry's modest Methodist faith, into an evangelical prophet. It is a witty and humorous description of the Governor's "born again" type politics. Even though this blog is intended for the left-leaning, the Perry supporters could appreciate the overall tone of this article. In fact, it would appear that the entire blog is an anti-Perry campaign and somewhat opinionated more than factual. The award winning Austin blogger, Eilleen Smith, may even convince a few to reevaluate why they support him at all. I think the inclusion of the Methodist Church's philosophy, of how it separates its influence from the government institutions puts a perspective on how Perry's antics will not win him much support. Good for the Methodists for not pushing their moral agendas onto government. Anyway, read the article, decide for yourself, and don't drink the KoolAid at the Reliant Stadium. I think I'll agree with the article's overall message....Sell your bull&#$@ someplace else, 'cause we're all stocked up here!
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Clean Air VS. Texas Economy
Posted by William Gee
Since the EPA started issuing higher air-quality standards, Texas' Rick Perry has been stalling in an effort to protect the mega business' from having to comply. Texas is known for oil and gas and all refining industries that go with it, which is why we are the worst polluting state. In an article written by Brian W. Shaw, EPA's cross-state rule will hurt Texas economy, from the San Antonio Express News, it only took me two paragraphs to decide to disagree with Mr. Shaw. In his article, he expresses that the EPA failed to give proper notice and comment on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. He implies this rule may jeopardize the Texas economy in many ways and that the EPA's rules are not intended to produce clean air, but rather force industries into paying excessive costs.
In an effort to understand Mr. Shaw, I realize the costs these huge firms must spend in order to reduce their carbon or sulfur emission output. However, I feel his blame is being misplaced. Our governor, Rick Perry, has been tangled in lawsuits with the EPA over compliance issues since February 2010, in which he has continuously protested. The interstate air regulations are not rules that were just dreamed up. This regulation is replacing the old CAIR regulation from 2005. This is not anything new to these huge polluters(campaign contributors) that Gov. Perry is protecting. In fact, a few of the largest firms in Texas such as, Exxon-Mobile and Conoco/Phillips have already started complying to the regulations, despite Rick Perry's stubborness, in an effort to reduce their pollutants from reaching other states. Perhaps these regulations will hurt some industries temporarily, but I hardly believe this issue will place them in any dire consequences. Mr. Shaw states that the EPA's rules are control schemes and mentions extreme ozone limits and "global warming." Notice in the original article how Mr. Shaw wrote global warming in quotatations. It's almost as if he thinks this is a made up scientific phenomenon. I urge you to read this article and by the way.... Mr. Shaw is the chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality!
Since the EPA started issuing higher air-quality standards, Texas' Rick Perry has been stalling in an effort to protect the mega business' from having to comply. Texas is known for oil and gas and all refining industries that go with it, which is why we are the worst polluting state. In an article written by Brian W. Shaw, EPA's cross-state rule will hurt Texas economy, from the San Antonio Express News, it only took me two paragraphs to decide to disagree with Mr. Shaw. In his article, he expresses that the EPA failed to give proper notice and comment on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. He implies this rule may jeopardize the Texas economy in many ways and that the EPA's rules are not intended to produce clean air, but rather force industries into paying excessive costs.
In an effort to understand Mr. Shaw, I realize the costs these huge firms must spend in order to reduce their carbon or sulfur emission output. However, I feel his blame is being misplaced. Our governor, Rick Perry, has been tangled in lawsuits with the EPA over compliance issues since February 2010, in which he has continuously protested. The interstate air regulations are not rules that were just dreamed up. This regulation is replacing the old CAIR regulation from 2005. This is not anything new to these huge polluters(campaign contributors) that Gov. Perry is protecting. In fact, a few of the largest firms in Texas such as, Exxon-Mobile and Conoco/Phillips have already started complying to the regulations, despite Rick Perry's stubborness, in an effort to reduce their pollutants from reaching other states. Perhaps these regulations will hurt some industries temporarily, but I hardly believe this issue will place them in any dire consequences. Mr. Shaw states that the EPA's rules are control schemes and mentions extreme ozone limits and "global warming." Notice in the original article how Mr. Shaw wrote global warming in quotatations. It's almost as if he thinks this is a made up scientific phenomenon. I urge you to read this article and by the way.... Mr. Shaw is the chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality!
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Texas' Propaganda Against Abortion
In May of 2011, Governor Rick Perry signed into law a new Bill stating that women seeking an abortion must, first, endure a guilt trip. By this, I mean the women must be given a sonogram with audible heartbeat along with a thorough explanation of the fetus given by the doctor and topped off with a 24 hour delay in order to give each patient a chance to change their mind. This law is already seeing its first lawsuit according to an article from the Tx Capitol Report. This article is important because it shows an intrusive government action on individuals freedoms. To read the article in full, click here. The Center for Reproductive Rights is taking a stand on behalf of the doctors, their clinics, and their patients claiming violations of the 1st Amendment rights, as well as, jeopardizing the doctor - patient relationship. Nancy Northup, president of Center for Reproductive Rights, makes a good point by quoting,
"When you go to the doctor, you expect to be given information that is relevant to your particular medical decisions and circumstances, not to be held hostage and subjected to an anti-choice agenda.”
Since abortion is considered an elective surgery, it is clear that women are not considering this procedure just to be talked out of it. It's like someone electing to have plastic surgery and as the doctor explains the procedure to you, he/she also shows you photos of Joan Rivers or Mickey Rourke as a way for you to opt out of the procedure. Crude example, I know. However, it still applies to the same principles of using propaganda to psychologically coerce the patient into changing their motives. Speaking from speculation, I am sure that most women have already struggled with their decision prior to going to the clinic in the first place.
This law is scheduled to go into effect on September 1, 2011. I stand opposed to this law as few studies have determined little scientific proof that this will do anything at all. So, if studies show that this law will not make any difference, why oppose it? I believe it will become a stepping stone towards newer and more infringing laws against a woman's right to choose this procedure. I feel this is an obnoxious act that our Texas government is requiring our doctors to do, not to mention, the manipulation intended for the patient. I think a better solution to this sensitive issue could be attained that would involve an unmolested approach on the individual's personal rights.
Sources:
Texas Capitol Report Texas Sonogram Bill Lawsuit, Zahira Torres June 13, 2011 web July 6, 2011
"When you go to the doctor, you expect to be given information that is relevant to your particular medical decisions and circumstances, not to be held hostage and subjected to an anti-choice agenda.”
Since abortion is considered an elective surgery, it is clear that women are not considering this procedure just to be talked out of it. It's like someone electing to have plastic surgery and as the doctor explains the procedure to you, he/she also shows you photos of Joan Rivers or Mickey Rourke as a way for you to opt out of the procedure. Crude example, I know. However, it still applies to the same principles of using propaganda to psychologically coerce the patient into changing their motives. Speaking from speculation, I am sure that most women have already struggled with their decision prior to going to the clinic in the first place.
This law is scheduled to go into effect on September 1, 2011. I stand opposed to this law as few studies have determined little scientific proof that this will do anything at all. So, if studies show that this law will not make any difference, why oppose it? I believe it will become a stepping stone towards newer and more infringing laws against a woman's right to choose this procedure. I feel this is an obnoxious act that our Texas government is requiring our doctors to do, not to mention, the manipulation intended for the patient. I think a better solution to this sensitive issue could be attained that would involve an unmolested approach on the individual's personal rights.
Sources:
Texas Capitol Report Texas Sonogram Bill Lawsuit, Zahira Torres June 13, 2011 web July 6, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)