One of my classmates wrote an interesting article about the Latino vote in Texas. Their assertion was that even though the Latino population was increasing, it would have little effect on the Republican dominance in Texas. I would like to state right off the bat, that I agree. I don't think that Texas will shift democratic any time soon. That being said, I think that they made some valid assertions in their post, but unfortunately, they lack any sort of evidence to back up said assertions. For example, the first assertion they make is that Texas wont swing democratic because it "goes against their theory." But they don't elaborate on their theory, or state what evidence or reasoning they have to back up said theory.
My classmate did bring up a valid point, however, with what they said about Latino voters. A lot of people have estimated that Latinos are going to be a force to reckon with democratically due to their increasing numbers, and they will be the demographic that swings the state. And while I agree that the lack of voter participation gets in the way of democracy in the United States, I don't think that it is localized to any particular demographic in particular. While Latinos do have the lowest voter percentage of any major ethnicity, all groups could stand to do better there.
However; I do agree with them that Latino voters are probably not going to stay Democratic once they become established. When the Republicans realize the value of the Latino vote, and they realign their platform to be more supportive of immigration and naturalization, the two groups will have a lot in common with each other. Both are generally pro-Christianity and pro-life. Both groups also share a certain male dominated, machismo culture with high value placed on land ownership and the right to do as you please on it. That is a significant portion of overlap, and I think it will eventually draw the groups together.
The last part of their post about Julian Castro is a bit premature, in my opinion. Castro is a young guy and a rising star. Yes he is obviously Hispanic but to say he has no chance at ever becoming governor is a bold statement. It is also a statement lacking any sort of supporting evidence. In fact, I think that Castro's reelection may actually help support the opposition of their argument Castro is the fifth Latino mayor of San Antonio. Most of these Latino mayors have been elected recently, showing a distinct trend with San Antonio voters, and their increasing willingness to vote Democrats into office. To me, this is no surprise with the population of San Antonio at over 63% Hispanic. However, with Latino voters in San Antonio demonstrably swinging the vote to elect Democratic officials, this is factual evidence that directly conflicts with my classmate's assertion.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
"Here's Billy!"
...said in the most Jack-Nicholson-in-The-Shining-esque voice I can muster.
Judge William Adams is the man on my mind tonight. Many may remember the name, but not remember exactly where you remember it from. Let me refresh your memory. (WARNING, NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART) Oh yeah. That guy.
The video, for people who didn't want to watch, depicts Judge Adams roughly hitting his 16 year old, disabled daughter, with a belt. While screaming profanities at her, and threatening to hit her in the face if she doesn't submit, all while she screams and cries and pleads for him to stop. Why? For breaking the 11th commandment, of course: Thou Shalt Not Install Games On Thy Family Computer.
But why dredge up this now, a year later? Because the verdict is finally in! For getting caught beating his daughter "into submission" Judge William Adams got a year of paid vacation (at about 150k a year, by the way) and a public "tsk tsk tsk."
But really, so what? Things like this happen every day. Hell, things much worse than this happen every day. What does it really matter? There are a couple of significant points that I feel need to be brought up here:
This man previously judged many cases that included alleged child abuse. While many people in this neck of the woods, myself included, are in favor spanking children, and even corporal punishment, most of the people I have encountered are not in agreement with this level of punishment. If the honorable judge treats his daughter like this, how does this affect his judgement on child abuse cases that parallel this? How can this man preside over anything related to the treatment of children with the public casting a very wary eye in his direction? Well, in short, he can't. And the even Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct knows that, so he doesn't get to preside over these types of cases anymore.
While this is interesting, what I really want to call to attention here is not Judge Adams' actions. Like I said, in the grand scheme of things, this was small potatoes: a guy got caught beating his daughter. What really struck me as funny were the actions and ruling of the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct. You see, in the entire year that the judge was on paid suspension, the TCJC was hard at work for three days (August 15-17, 2012) reviewing the allegations against the judge. They interviewed several people including 15 local attorneys who regularly practiced in the judge's court. I'll do us all a favor and copy/paste the relevant parts:
On or about November 1, 2011, Judge Adams' adult daughter, Hillary Adams, released a videotape on the Internet.
The event depicted in the videotape occurred in 2004, when Hillary was 16 years old.
The videotape captured approximately seven and a half minutes of a scene occurring in the privacy of Hillary's bedroom, wherein her father, Judge Adams, struck Hillary forcefully at least seventeen times with a belt, yelled profanities at her, and threatened her with further physical harm.
Although surprised and disappointed by the scene captured on tape seven years ago, six of the attorneys interviewed by the Commission remained supportive of Judge Adams' return to the bench.
However, six attorneys believed that Judge Adams could no longer be effective in court because the conduct portrayed in the videotape created the public perception that the judge could not be fair and impartial in cases involving allegations of family violence, child abuse, or assault.
As further evidence of the perception that Judge Adams could no longer be fair and impartial, on March 12, 2012, Howard G. Baldwin, Jr., Commissioner for TDFPS, directed Richard Bianchi, the Aransas County Attorney, to "take action to prevent Judge Adams [from] hearing Child Protective Services cases."
Ok, so the facts have been established. Only 6 of the 15 people that work with the judge feel that he should come back to work. 6 go so far as to say that the judge can no longer work with children... which had been a significant portion of the judge's workload.
In the course of the Commission's investigation, ten witnesses, including at least eight of the attorneys who practiced regularly in Judge Adams' court, also described a pattern of incidents in which Judge Adams displayed anger and poor judicial demeanor toward certain attorneys appearing in his courtroom. Judge Adams often treated the nowformer Aransas County Attorney, Jim Anderson ("Anderson"), in an unprofessional and discourteous manner, and frequently exhibited angry, undignified, and demeaning conduct when interacting with Anderson in the
courtroom.
This part was interesting too. It came up that the judge was demeaning, unprofessional, and angry with some of the attorneys in his court... not the unbiased, impartial bastion of wisdom and law he is supposed to be. This is also against the rules...
Canon 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part that, "A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, .. . "
Canon 4A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states that, "A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do not: (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge; or (2) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties."
Article V, § l-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states, in pertinent part, that a judge may be disciplined for "willful or persistent violation of rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Texas, incompetence in performing the duties of the office, willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice."
Go on...
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Adams' actions depicted in the 2004 videotape, once publicly released, cast reasonable doubt on his capacity to act impartially as a judge and interfered with the proper performance of his judicial duties, in willful and/or persistent violation of Canons 4A(l) and 4A(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Commission further concludes that Judge Adams' treatment of certain attorneys in his courtroom, particularly the now-former Aransas County Attorney, Jim Anderson, fell far below the minimum standards of patient, courteous and dignified courtroom demeanor expected of judicial officials, and constituted a willful and/or persistent violation of Canon 3B( 4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Now we are getting somewhere! Found in violation of judicial ethics! Found that he was not impartial in his duties! This is going to be good! Where is my popcorn?
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Article V, § 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, and Canons 3B(4), 4A(l), and 4A(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commission's decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING to the Honorable William Adams, Judge of the County Court at Law in Rockport, Aransas County, Texas...
(Source: http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/pdf/actions/FY2013-PUBSANC.pdf)
Wait, what? The commission found that he was biased, unprofessional, demeaning, unfit for his duties as a judge, and they let him go with a slap on the wrist and a year of paid vacation? On top of that he can return to his job immediately. Where do I sign up for this gig? More importantly, where do I get friends like his? How can this not look like anything but judges looking out for their own?
Well. It looks like justice will just have to prevail democratically. The judicial system in this state is designed such that the public will hold bad judges accountable for their actions through the election process. Maybe I shouldn't hold my breath, however; this Republican judge campaigns on his support of "conservative family values." And who doesn't want to vote for that?
Judge William Adams is the man on my mind tonight. Many may remember the name, but not remember exactly where you remember it from. Let me refresh your memory. (WARNING, NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART) Oh yeah. That guy.
The video, for people who didn't want to watch, depicts Judge Adams roughly hitting his 16 year old, disabled daughter, with a belt. While screaming profanities at her, and threatening to hit her in the face if she doesn't submit, all while she screams and cries and pleads for him to stop. Why? For breaking the 11th commandment, of course: Thou Shalt Not Install Games On Thy Family Computer.
But why dredge up this now, a year later? Because the verdict is finally in! For getting caught beating his daughter "into submission" Judge William Adams got a year of paid vacation (at about 150k a year, by the way) and a public "tsk tsk tsk."
But really, so what? Things like this happen every day. Hell, things much worse than this happen every day. What does it really matter? There are a couple of significant points that I feel need to be brought up here:
This man previously judged many cases that included alleged child abuse. While many people in this neck of the woods, myself included, are in favor spanking children, and even corporal punishment, most of the people I have encountered are not in agreement with this level of punishment. If the honorable judge treats his daughter like this, how does this affect his judgement on child abuse cases that parallel this? How can this man preside over anything related to the treatment of children with the public casting a very wary eye in his direction? Well, in short, he can't. And the even Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct knows that, so he doesn't get to preside over these types of cases anymore.
While this is interesting, what I really want to call to attention here is not Judge Adams' actions. Like I said, in the grand scheme of things, this was small potatoes: a guy got caught beating his daughter. What really struck me as funny were the actions and ruling of the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct. You see, in the entire year that the judge was on paid suspension, the TCJC was hard at work for three days (August 15-17, 2012) reviewing the allegations against the judge. They interviewed several people including 15 local attorneys who regularly practiced in the judge's court. I'll do us all a favor and copy/paste the relevant parts:
On or about November 1, 2011, Judge Adams' adult daughter, Hillary Adams, released a videotape on the Internet.
The event depicted in the videotape occurred in 2004, when Hillary was 16 years old.
The videotape captured approximately seven and a half minutes of a scene occurring in the privacy of Hillary's bedroom, wherein her father, Judge Adams, struck Hillary forcefully at least seventeen times with a belt, yelled profanities at her, and threatened her with further physical harm.
Although surprised and disappointed by the scene captured on tape seven years ago, six of the attorneys interviewed by the Commission remained supportive of Judge Adams' return to the bench.
However, six attorneys believed that Judge Adams could no longer be effective in court because the conduct portrayed in the videotape created the public perception that the judge could not be fair and impartial in cases involving allegations of family violence, child abuse, or assault.
As further evidence of the perception that Judge Adams could no longer be fair and impartial, on March 12, 2012, Howard G. Baldwin, Jr., Commissioner for TDFPS, directed Richard Bianchi, the Aransas County Attorney, to "take action to prevent Judge Adams [from] hearing Child Protective Services cases."
Ok, so the facts have been established. Only 6 of the 15 people that work with the judge feel that he should come back to work. 6 go so far as to say that the judge can no longer work with children... which had been a significant portion of the judge's workload.
In the course of the Commission's investigation, ten witnesses, including at least eight of the attorneys who practiced regularly in Judge Adams' court, also described a pattern of incidents in which Judge Adams displayed anger and poor judicial demeanor toward certain attorneys appearing in his courtroom. Judge Adams often treated the nowformer Aransas County Attorney, Jim Anderson ("Anderson"), in an unprofessional and discourteous manner, and frequently exhibited angry, undignified, and demeaning conduct when interacting with Anderson in the
courtroom.
This part was interesting too. It came up that the judge was demeaning, unprofessional, and angry with some of the attorneys in his court... not the unbiased, impartial bastion of wisdom and law he is supposed to be. This is also against the rules...
Canon 3B(4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states, in pertinent part that, "A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, .. . "
Canon 4A of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct states that, "A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do not: (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge; or (2) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties."
Article V, § l-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution states, in pertinent part, that a judge may be disciplined for "willful or persistent violation of rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Texas, incompetence in performing the duties of the office, willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, or willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of his duties or casts public discredit upon the judiciary or administration of justice."
Go on...
The Commission concludes based on the facts and evidence before it that Judge Adams' actions depicted in the 2004 videotape, once publicly released, cast reasonable doubt on his capacity to act impartially as a judge and interfered with the proper performance of his judicial duties, in willful and/or persistent violation of Canons 4A(l) and 4A(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Commission further concludes that Judge Adams' treatment of certain attorneys in his courtroom, particularly the now-former Aransas County Attorney, Jim Anderson, fell far below the minimum standards of patient, courteous and dignified courtroom demeanor expected of judicial officials, and constituted a willful and/or persistent violation of Canon 3B( 4) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
Now we are getting somewhere! Found in violation of judicial ethics! Found that he was not impartial in his duties! This is going to be good! Where is my popcorn?
In condemnation of the conduct described above that violated Article V, § 1-a(6)A of the Texas Constitution, and Canons 3B(4), 4A(l), and 4A(2) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it is the Commission's decision to issue a PUBLIC WARNING to the Honorable William Adams, Judge of the County Court at Law in Rockport, Aransas County, Texas...
(Source: http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/pdf/actions/FY2013-PUBSANC.pdf)
Wait, what? The commission found that he was biased, unprofessional, demeaning, unfit for his duties as a judge, and they let him go with a slap on the wrist and a year of paid vacation? On top of that he can return to his job immediately. Where do I sign up for this gig? More importantly, where do I get friends like his? How can this not look like anything but judges looking out for their own?
Well. It looks like justice will just have to prevail democratically. The judicial system in this state is designed such that the public will hold bad judges accountable for their actions through the election process. Maybe I shouldn't hold my breath, however; this Republican judge campaigns on his support of "conservative family values." And who doesn't want to vote for that?
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Wait... What? A Comment On Another Blog.
So I got the chance to go snooping around on what some of my class mates were writing. It was fun, informative, and helped me see where other people in my classes stand. It also helped me see where I stand in relation to my peers. Apparently, I might be on a somewhat smallish island.
One of the blogs I read was called Don't Tread On Me. The particular article I read was entitled Say No To The UN! The basic argument was that inviting UN officials to participate in poll watching in would lead to the downfall of the freedom of US citizens. I think this is more than a little far fetched and extremely alarmist.
It begins with the assertion that it is against Texas Election Code to have UN officials watching the polling locations. While it is true that TEC states that only registered voters of that precinct are eligible for poll watching, it is also true that the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that federal law, statutes, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. The UN's OSCE involvement in poll watching is part of the treaty (or commitment) by the US as a member of the UN that establishes this as within their conflict resolution scope. Therefore, as it has been accepted by the US Federal Government, the states must also abide by it. I would like to add that the UN poll watchers, the only actually actual non-partisan watchers, would be better suited to the job than Democrats or Republicans appointed to the position.
The next part of the blog states that Texas attempted to pass a voter ID law that was struck down in federal court, but implies that the federal government overstepped it's bounds in doing so:
Texas did what they thought best by trying to pass a vote ID law to prevent voter fraud but the law was shot down once again by the power of the Federal government.
The federal government was doing it's job. It was protecting the rights of its voters from unconstitutional legislation passed by the state of Texas. Voting is a right in the US for US citizens. The law that Texas was attempting to pass would be putting more barriers between voters and the voting booth. It was designed to block lower income voters by putting what is essentially a tax on voting by requiring certain people to purchase voter ID cards. All of this is of course, to help prevent voter fraud, which has been proven time and time again to be somewhere between .001% at the highest to .000004% at the lower end. Furthermore, most of the voter fraud that does actually happen is perpetuated using absentee ballots, which does not require a photo ID present.
The next part of the post, however, is my real problem. It is based on the slippery slope argument that if we are to let UN officials watch some of our polling places, the next logical step is full scale invasion.
Do we really want to start relying on the UN to protect the citizens of Texas? You give some people a little power and that is not enough. Watch out Texans, if the UN poll watchers show up in your neck-of-the woods the next time they come they will be dressed in blue military uniforms with guns and besides losing your voting integrity you will be losing your right to be free.
Whoa there, Wolverine. This is one of the most extreme cases of the slippery slope argument that I have encountered. It is pure fiction. There is no evidence that anything remotely like this has or will happen in the US, and if the author has evidence of such, he should probably cite it. It seems to me that this type of extreme rhetoric is not based on factual evidence, but is an intended to create a fearful response in the attempt to persuade others to agree with them, and should be called out as such.
In conclusion, I find that this argument falls flat because there is no factual evidence presented to support the author's claims. All of the assertions are based on extreme rhetoric and I think that if the author wants to help people see their point of view, a couple of facts, cited evidence, or better presented arguments would go a long way.
One of the blogs I read was called Don't Tread On Me. The particular article I read was entitled Say No To The UN! The basic argument was that inviting UN officials to participate in poll watching in would lead to the downfall of the freedom of US citizens. I think this is more than a little far fetched and extremely alarmist.
It begins with the assertion that it is against Texas Election Code to have UN officials watching the polling locations. While it is true that TEC states that only registered voters of that precinct are eligible for poll watching, it is also true that the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that federal law, statutes, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. The UN's OSCE involvement in poll watching is part of the treaty (or commitment) by the US as a member of the UN that establishes this as within their conflict resolution scope. Therefore, as it has been accepted by the US Federal Government, the states must also abide by it. I would like to add that the UN poll watchers, the only actually actual non-partisan watchers, would be better suited to the job than Democrats or Republicans appointed to the position.
The next part of the blog states that Texas attempted to pass a voter ID law that was struck down in federal court, but implies that the federal government overstepped it's bounds in doing so:
Texas did what they thought best by trying to pass a vote ID law to prevent voter fraud but the law was shot down once again by the power of the Federal government.
The federal government was doing it's job. It was protecting the rights of its voters from unconstitutional legislation passed by the state of Texas. Voting is a right in the US for US citizens. The law that Texas was attempting to pass would be putting more barriers between voters and the voting booth. It was designed to block lower income voters by putting what is essentially a tax on voting by requiring certain people to purchase voter ID cards. All of this is of course, to help prevent voter fraud, which has been proven time and time again to be somewhere between .001% at the highest to .000004% at the lower end. Furthermore, most of the voter fraud that does actually happen is perpetuated using absentee ballots, which does not require a photo ID present.
The next part of the post, however, is my real problem. It is based on the slippery slope argument that if we are to let UN officials watch some of our polling places, the next logical step is full scale invasion.
Do we really want to start relying on the UN to protect the citizens of Texas? You give some people a little power and that is not enough. Watch out Texans, if the UN poll watchers show up in your neck-of-the woods the next time they come they will be dressed in blue military uniforms with guns and besides losing your voting integrity you will be losing your right to be free.
Whoa there, Wolverine. This is one of the most extreme cases of the slippery slope argument that I have encountered. It is pure fiction. There is no evidence that anything remotely like this has or will happen in the US, and if the author has evidence of such, he should probably cite it. It seems to me that this type of extreme rhetoric is not based on factual evidence, but is an intended to create a fearful response in the attempt to persuade others to agree with them, and should be called out as such.
In conclusion, I find that this argument falls flat because there is no factual evidence presented to support the author's claims. All of the assertions are based on extreme rhetoric and I think that if the author wants to help people see their point of view, a couple of facts, cited evidence, or better presented arguments would go a long way.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Prop 1 vs Austin
I’m sure everyone in this town has heard of the Central Texas Health Ratification Proposition 1 by now. Every time I turn on the radio, I hear something about it. With audio and visual assault for and against the proposition, what are we to make of it?
The first response I heard, and the response I seem to be hearing more often than not is something akin to “No more taxes!” or “The liberals want to steal my money!” or some other Texas-style-no-taxes-ever! or I-got-mine-already-so-screw-the-rest-of-you! crowing. Quit frankly, I find this disappointing. When I first heard about this, I thought, “finally, we can get some decent health care in Austin!” Improved medical care is a good thing. Medical schools are not only good, but necessary for the advancement of medicine and the training of good physicians. This seems like a no brainer to me.
What does prop 1 give us? In a nutshell,
1) Prop 1 will open up a medical school at UT that will educate and train doctors in Austin. While doctors are in no way obligated to stay in the same area that they completed their residency in they tend to do just that. This means more access to doctors for everyone in Austin. More specialists. More GPs. Quicker turnaround times. Less waiting. Better, more personalized care.
2) It will allow the establishment for clinics for the uninsured to receive health care. (I think I just heard someone crow in outrage.) How dare I suggest their money go to some migrant worker, or illegal!? Everyone worth their salt in Austin can afford health insurance (but somehow can’t afford a negligible tax raise). Right? Wrong. Texas is the most uninsured state in the union. According to the stats, 1 in every 3 people you know is likely uninsured. And every single one of them will need health care sometime. Right now, their course of action is to wait until they are in an emergency situation to receive medical treatment at an emergency facility. The rates for emergency medicine is astronomically higher than preventative, scheduled treatment. When they can’t pay, the hospital doesn’t just write that off. They pass it off on those who can pay. Ever wonder why those staples in your leg cost $84 dollars a piece? Or why that gauze was $9 per dressing? Now you know! And the insurance company wont just eat those inflated prices either. All of us who can afford insurance now have jacked up premiums to help the insurance companies recoup their expenses. So the net effect of having clinics for the uninsured? Less unpaid medical bills for hospitals. Less markup on your medical care. Lower premiums. Yes, this is a non fictional version of trickle down economics.
3) It would create 15,000 new jobs in Austin. How? Well, with more doctors practicing we will need more supporting staff, for starters. We will encourage a boom in Austin’s medical tech economy. Not to mention clinic workers and all of their supporting staff. The projected increase is about 2 billion dollars of economic activity. Lowering unemployment in Austin. This seems pretty self explanatory.
4) It would enable us to receive 129 million a year in matching federal funds. This is a biggie. This is, in essence, money injected straight into the medical field in Austin that the people of Austin don’t even have to pay for. In fact, Austinites only have to pay 10% of the entire bill. Seton, UT, US government fund matching, and a few others will be footing 90% of the bill. That is a hell of an ROI if you ask me.
5) This one is obvious, but I feel that it needs to be said. DECENT HEALTH CARE IN AUSTIN. Being a person, in a world, I have a grandmother. I remember when my grandmother had heart issues, we wanted to get her the best care we could afford. So we took her to Scott and White. In Temple. I can’t tell you how backwards it felt that we were leaving the educated center of Texas, in order to go to Temple, Texas. There were better people in Dallas, but my grandmother refused to have us drive her that far. Gas alone was much more than 9 dollars a trip. A trip we made sometimes up to 6 times a month. On top of that, I can’t imagine a car trip to and from Dallas or Houston with a loved one puking from a wonderfully potent combination of car sickness and chemotherapy.
But what will be giving up? $9.00 a month. Yes, that’s it. To fund this, Austin (and the surrounding area) residents who own property would have to pay an additional 9.00 a month average of increased property taxes. (Austin, I would like to add, has by far the lowest property tax of all 5 of the largest cities in Texas.) This isn’t a tax leveled against lower income residents or students who can’t afford to own their own homes. No, this tax increase would be on people who are generally well enough to do that they own on average a $214,000 home in Austin. While I am definitely not saying that everyone who owns a house in Austin is well to do, I am saying that people have the cash flow to pay for a mortgage can spare 9 dollars a month. They might have to skip two blended venti carmel macchiatos to hit this goal, but I have faith in them. I can hit 9 dollars at Chipotle if I’m feeling frisky and opt for a heaping scoop of guacamole on forearm sized burrito. I would be ok (and probably better off just by) giving up a loaded burrito every month in order to be granted to better local health care.
I won’t tell anyone how to vote. That isn’t my place, but personally I would rather be shorted $9.00 a month while having ample medical staff around me when I need it. In my opinion, that extra $9.00 a month is going to be poor compensation when we are forced into driving our loved ones or ourselves to Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio in order to receive proper medical treatment. But, really, how can prop 1 compete with two super sonic bacon double cheeseburgers pried from our starving mouths every single month?
The first response I heard, and the response I seem to be hearing more often than not is something akin to “No more taxes!” or “The liberals want to steal my money!” or some other Texas-style-no-taxes-ever! or I-got-mine-already-so-screw-the-rest-of-you! crowing. Quit frankly, I find this disappointing. When I first heard about this, I thought, “finally, we can get some decent health care in Austin!” Improved medical care is a good thing. Medical schools are not only good, but necessary for the advancement of medicine and the training of good physicians. This seems like a no brainer to me.
What does prop 1 give us? In a nutshell,
1) Prop 1 will open up a medical school at UT that will educate and train doctors in Austin. While doctors are in no way obligated to stay in the same area that they completed their residency in they tend to do just that. This means more access to doctors for everyone in Austin. More specialists. More GPs. Quicker turnaround times. Less waiting. Better, more personalized care.
2) It will allow the establishment for clinics for the uninsured to receive health care. (I think I just heard someone crow in outrage.) How dare I suggest their money go to some migrant worker, or illegal!? Everyone worth their salt in Austin can afford health insurance (but somehow can’t afford a negligible tax raise). Right? Wrong. Texas is the most uninsured state in the union. According to the stats, 1 in every 3 people you know is likely uninsured. And every single one of them will need health care sometime. Right now, their course of action is to wait until they are in an emergency situation to receive medical treatment at an emergency facility. The rates for emergency medicine is astronomically higher than preventative, scheduled treatment. When they can’t pay, the hospital doesn’t just write that off. They pass it off on those who can pay. Ever wonder why those staples in your leg cost $84 dollars a piece? Or why that gauze was $9 per dressing? Now you know! And the insurance company wont just eat those inflated prices either. All of us who can afford insurance now have jacked up premiums to help the insurance companies recoup their expenses. So the net effect of having clinics for the uninsured? Less unpaid medical bills for hospitals. Less markup on your medical care. Lower premiums. Yes, this is a non fictional version of trickle down economics.
3) It would create 15,000 new jobs in Austin. How? Well, with more doctors practicing we will need more supporting staff, for starters. We will encourage a boom in Austin’s medical tech economy. Not to mention clinic workers and all of their supporting staff. The projected increase is about 2 billion dollars of economic activity. Lowering unemployment in Austin. This seems pretty self explanatory.
4) It would enable us to receive 129 million a year in matching federal funds. This is a biggie. This is, in essence, money injected straight into the medical field in Austin that the people of Austin don’t even have to pay for. In fact, Austinites only have to pay 10% of the entire bill. Seton, UT, US government fund matching, and a few others will be footing 90% of the bill. That is a hell of an ROI if you ask me.
5) This one is obvious, but I feel that it needs to be said. DECENT HEALTH CARE IN AUSTIN. Being a person, in a world, I have a grandmother. I remember when my grandmother had heart issues, we wanted to get her the best care we could afford. So we took her to Scott and White. In Temple. I can’t tell you how backwards it felt that we were leaving the educated center of Texas, in order to go to Temple, Texas. There were better people in Dallas, but my grandmother refused to have us drive her that far. Gas alone was much more than 9 dollars a trip. A trip we made sometimes up to 6 times a month. On top of that, I can’t imagine a car trip to and from Dallas or Houston with a loved one puking from a wonderfully potent combination of car sickness and chemotherapy.
But what will be giving up? $9.00 a month. Yes, that’s it. To fund this, Austin (and the surrounding area) residents who own property would have to pay an additional 9.00 a month average of increased property taxes. (Austin, I would like to add, has by far the lowest property tax of all 5 of the largest cities in Texas.) This isn’t a tax leveled against lower income residents or students who can’t afford to own their own homes. No, this tax increase would be on people who are generally well enough to do that they own on average a $214,000 home in Austin. While I am definitely not saying that everyone who owns a house in Austin is well to do, I am saying that people have the cash flow to pay for a mortgage can spare 9 dollars a month. They might have to skip two blended venti carmel macchiatos to hit this goal, but I have faith in them. I can hit 9 dollars at Chipotle if I’m feeling frisky and opt for a heaping scoop of guacamole on forearm sized burrito. I would be ok (and probably better off just by) giving up a loaded burrito every month in order to be granted to better local health care.
I won’t tell anyone how to vote. That isn’t my place, but personally I would rather be shorted $9.00 a month while having ample medical staff around me when I need it. In my opinion, that extra $9.00 a month is going to be poor compensation when we are forced into driving our loved ones or ourselves to Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio in order to receive proper medical treatment. But, really, how can prop 1 compete with two super sonic bacon double cheeseburgers pried from our starving mouths every single month?
Friday, October 19, 2012
Eileen Smith with In The Pink is fun to read
As I combed through Eileen Smith's blog, I realized a couple of things. She is witty. She critical. She's a cynic. Her posts drip with sarcasm. Her audience is anyone who is generally left leaning and likes to poke a bit of fun at others.
As a left leaning sarcasm dispenser, I love it. Kinda.
In her latest post, entitled We’ve Got Spirit! The Holy Spirit!, Eileen talks about the recent case concerning a certain group of Kountze ISD cheerleaders. For those not in the know, a group of cheerleaders in an East Texas town have gained temporary fame due to their insistence of using bible quotes on their football banners. Once the Kountze ISD told them that they could no longer do this, 15 families filed a lawsuit against the district for violating their freedoms of religion and speech. Thankfully, and Eileen points out, "a state judge stepped in and issued a temporary restraining order against the ban so now the pep rallies can double as prayer vigils and exorcisms." This same judge has also set the trial date to begin in late June of 2013. Strangely this coincides with the end of the school year of these cheerleaders. It's almost as if he is putting this injunction into place just long enough to allow these cheerleaders to do as they please for the rest of the school year.
Almost.
While I do love Eileen's style, and her wit is sharp, I feel as if she falls short of the kill. Her posts are generally short and well written, they don't quite run the whole race. For example, she doesn't directly mention anything about how in the United States, while it is a hot button topic, the general consensus is that it is best to keep religion out of school for many reasons. I wont go into all of the reasons I agree with this. Others have done much more eloquently than I ever will, but I feel that it should at least be mentioned that outside of deeply religious communities this behavior is generally not permitted.
Eileen also fails to mention the part about the judge allowing the cheerleaders to continue proselytizing by setting the case for almost exactly 2 weeks after the Kountze High School Graduation. To me, this is an obvious slap in the face to anyone who agrees with the actions of KISD or disagrees with the Christian faith. It is blatant, and effectively nullifies the KISD decision to remain religiously neutral.
I also find it strange that there is no mention of the 2011 case with Hillaire Soignet of Sislbee, Texas. (They may seem like completely unrelated cases, but hear me out.) Again, not getting into the details, the court ruled in this case that Hillaire's appeal be thrown out because she "had no right to refuse to applaud her attacker because as a cheerleader in uniform, she was an agent of the school." So, in effect, while in uniform, a cheerleader is an agent of the school. KISD stated that they don't want their agents/cheerleaders to promote their religion while in uniform. And yet, despite the Hillaire Soignet case ruling, a Texas judge is stepping it and saying that it's OK, this time. Because religion. Oh, and the best part? Kountze and Sislbee are less than 10 miles from each other.
So, the bottom line, in my opinion, is that while Eileen Smith is a wonderfully entertaining read, she stops short of the intelligent kill, and remains in the land of fun snark.
Friday, October 5, 2012
I'm going to have to agree with Sean Jordan...
I would like to share with everyone an article written for the Houston Chronicle that I found very interesting. The title of the article is "Transparency is the key to democratic system." I would like anyone reading this to absorb the title for just a second. The first thing that comes to my mind is a big resounding "duh." Followed by a somewhat sad, half resigned: "Why does it not surprise me that this is something that actually has to be said or written about?"
But, I could be jaded.
This article is about a law that exists in all 50 states. One of the core provisions of this law is that all meetings between elected or public officials must be prohibited from being closed from the public with matters that concern their elected office. In other words, if you are an elected official, you can't hide the details or decisions of your job from the people that elected you. ...And some Texan politicians are trying to get that overturned as a violation of the First Amendment. Go Texas!
This article by Sean Jordan is very well written. He is articulate and to the point, but not dry. His target audience is everybody. Everybody should be aware of what their elected officials are doing. Everybody should be aware that some of their elected officials may be attempting to take this right away from the public. As anTexan American, I feel that knowing what my leaders are up to is my right. I think that most people will agree with Mr Jordan.
As I was finishing up the article, I wondered about Sean's credibility. Sure, he has a point. Yep, I agree with it. But does he actually know what he's talking about? Well, according to a blurb after the conclusion of the article, it would seem that he has first hand experience with this:
"Jordan is an attorney in the Austin office of Sutherland Asbill and Brennan. As former principal deputy solicitor general, he served as the lead lawyer representing the state of Texas defending the Texas Open Meetings Act in the Asgeirsson case."
Jordan's assertion is that the public has a right to know what business elected official are conducting. Furthermore, their speech is not being limited by any provision of the Open Meetings Act, and they are free, if not encouraged, to say anything they want. Their speech is not restricted; however, they must disclose said free speech when it concerns official business. This was later confirmed by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when the appeal was rejected.
While everybody should be aware of their First Amendment rights, let's take a second to look at the actual text.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, lets compare this to the Texas Open Meetings Act (credit to www.tml.org):
Under the Texas Open Meetings Act (the Act), the general rule is that every regular, special, or
called meeting of a governmental body, including a city council and most boards and commissions
(depending on membership and authority), must be open to the public and comply with all the
requirements of the Act... A governmental body must post an agenda that includes the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting. The agenda must be posted at city hall in a place readily accessible to the public at all times for at least 72 hours before the meeting.
As with any governmental document, obviously there is much, much more to the act, but one gets the general idea from this overview of the meaning of the act. Clearly Jordan and the Appeals Court are in the right. There is nothing conflicting between the act and the First Amendment. The act does not prohibit any speech. It only requires that the speech be made known to the public.
To sum things up: I will be keeping my eye out for Jordan, as he seems to have a good grasp of what is going on.
But, I could be jaded.
This article is about a law that exists in all 50 states. One of the core provisions of this law is that all meetings between elected or public officials must be prohibited from being closed from the public with matters that concern their elected office. In other words, if you are an elected official, you can't hide the details or decisions of your job from the people that elected you. ...And some Texan politicians are trying to get that overturned as a violation of the First Amendment. Go Texas!
This article by Sean Jordan is very well written. He is articulate and to the point, but not dry. His target audience is everybody. Everybody should be aware of what their elected officials are doing. Everybody should be aware that some of their elected officials may be attempting to take this right away from the public. As an
As I was finishing up the article, I wondered about Sean's credibility. Sure, he has a point. Yep, I agree with it. But does he actually know what he's talking about? Well, according to a blurb after the conclusion of the article, it would seem that he has first hand experience with this:
"Jordan is an attorney in the Austin office of Sutherland Asbill and Brennan. As former principal deputy solicitor general, he served as the lead lawyer representing the state of Texas defending the Texas Open Meetings Act in the Asgeirsson case."
Jordan's assertion is that the public has a right to know what business elected official are conducting. Furthermore, their speech is not being limited by any provision of the Open Meetings Act, and they are free, if not encouraged, to say anything they want. Their speech is not restricted; however, they must disclose said free speech when it concerns official business. This was later confirmed by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when the appeal was rejected.
While everybody should be aware of their First Amendment rights, let's take a second to look at the actual text.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, lets compare this to the Texas Open Meetings Act (credit to www.tml.org):
Under the Texas Open Meetings Act (the Act), the general rule is that every regular, special, or
called meeting of a governmental body, including a city council and most boards and commissions
(depending on membership and authority), must be open to the public and comply with all the
requirements of the Act... A governmental body must post an agenda that includes the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting. The agenda must be posted at city hall in a place readily accessible to the public at all times for at least 72 hours before the meeting.
As with any governmental document, obviously there is much, much more to the act, but one gets the general idea from this overview of the meaning of the act. Clearly Jordan and the Appeals Court are in the right. There is nothing conflicting between the act and the First Amendment. The act does not prohibit any speech. It only requires that the speech be made known to the public.
To sum things up: I will be keeping my eye out for Jordan, as he seems to have a good grasp of what is going on.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Grits For Breakfast - A Blog Worth Reading
Looking over my news feed, I came across a story about how Austin PD withheld Brady material. According to the blog, Grits For Breakfast, APD infiltrated the #occupyaustin movement via undercover agents. Almost all police departments can and do regularly perform undercover operations to confirm illegal activity and make arrests accordingly. However, details from witness accounts suggest that these officers were not performing the actions of internal observers, but opportunistic perpetrators instead.
You see, normally, when protesters to their thing, the local government does whatever it can to "legally" remove the protesters. When protesters decide not to be moved, they end up violating the law, get arrested, get charged with a misdemeanor slap on the wrist, and generally end up doing what they should have done in the first place: protest, but protest with accordance to the rules. However, what Grits reports is that the officers may have gone for a little extra credit on this assignment. According to witnesses, the undercover officer purchased and built "dragon sleeves" for protesters to make it harder to be removed. This changes the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony under Texas law, as they were "in possession of a criminal instrument during the protest."
Upon being subpoenaed for records of his participation in this matter, Officer Shannon Dowell showed up to the court with only "a little note that I made here regarding [an Occupy] meeting." Somehow he had not only lost all text and email correspondence on his computer, but lost his thumb drive full of photos on the way to the courthouse that morning.
Needless to say, Judge Joan Campbell was not impressed. She ordered the prosecution to hand over the identities of the remaining undercover officers as witnesses.
Little worth reporting about this case has transpired since the publishing of the Grits article, however I think that this article is worth mentioning because of the non-partisan and factual emphasis that the writer utilizes. Despite being mostly fact-based, the Grits author presents the information in a way that makes it easy to enticing to read. In fact, every article that I have read on the Grits For Breakfast blog has been high on factual integrity.
You see, normally, when protesters to their thing, the local government does whatever it can to "legally" remove the protesters. When protesters decide not to be moved, they end up violating the law, get arrested, get charged with a misdemeanor slap on the wrist, and generally end up doing what they should have done in the first place: protest, but protest with accordance to the rules. However, what Grits reports is that the officers may have gone for a little extra credit on this assignment. According to witnesses, the undercover officer purchased and built "dragon sleeves" for protesters to make it harder to be removed. This changes the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony under Texas law, as they were "in possession of a criminal instrument during the protest."
Upon being subpoenaed for records of his participation in this matter, Officer Shannon Dowell showed up to the court with only "a little note that I made here regarding [an Occupy] meeting." Somehow he had not only lost all text and email correspondence on his computer, but lost his thumb drive full of photos on the way to the courthouse that morning.
Needless to say, Judge Joan Campbell was not impressed. She ordered the prosecution to hand over the identities of the remaining undercover officers as witnesses.
Little worth reporting about this case has transpired since the publishing of the Grits article, however I think that this article is worth mentioning because of the non-partisan and factual emphasis that the writer utilizes. Despite being mostly fact-based, the Grits author presents the information in a way that makes it easy to enticing to read. In fact, every article that I have read on the Grits For Breakfast blog has been high on factual integrity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)