Rebuttle Arguement to Testing a Pissy Situation

While reading a colleague's blog, I was moved to give a different point of view to Amanda Thompson's blog entitled  "Test Or Not To Test"http://kidnappedanddraggedtotexas.blogspot.com/.  Drug testing of welfare and unemployment recipients will be doing just the opposite of the reason David Dewhurst gave, "We owe it to Texas taxpayers to structure our welfare and unemployment programs in a way that guarantees recipients are serious about getting back to work."  This statement will not be the case.  In fact, it will cost either the taxpayers or the very people it's intended to help.

 In an article by A. Miranda, CBS Houstonhttp://houston.cbslocal.com entitled  "A Closer Look At Welfare Drug Testing" had wrote "As of Dec. 2010, Texas had 18,106 adults and 103,852 children receiving assistance for a total population of of 121,958. Temporary Aid to Needy Families, TANF, says that 3.8% of this population are drug users. A report from TANF says that the numbers are too small to justify using resources to test this small population."  She went on to say, "Without accessibility to housing, supplemental income, food, employment assistance and training, banned recipients will have a higher risk of becoming the responsibility of the criminal justice system."

Jason Stanford said, “In Texas, we pay welfare moms with three kids $260 a month. In other words, our welfare moms don't have enough money to buy drugs or enough time to take them. But don't worry, Rick Perry has a solution for a problem that doesn't exist: He wants to make welfare recipients take drug tests.” www.huffingtonpost.com

Maranda also wrote, "The average cost of a drug test runs $35-76.  The ACLU  says there are additional incalculable costs that include personnel to administer the tests to guard confidentiality of the tests, confirm the tests and carry out legal services. Other costs associated with testing are retests. In order to be protected against false positives, tests would have to be repeated. The cost of catching one drug abuser will run $20,000-$77,000.00 per individual."  Therefore, it is apparent that Dewhurst interest doesn't lye with the benefit recipients nor the tax payers.  Most likey he and those supporting this atrocity have stock in the pharmaceutical companies which will profit from in need people's misfortune.

A Pissy Situation

An article by Michael King entitled “Point Austin: We Want Your Urine”www.austinchronicle.com caught my attention the other day.  Apparently Perry is attempting to pass a bill which will start welfare recipients and unemployed workers to have to take drug tests in order to receive benefits.  While Perry fights the US government for states’ rights to decide how he wants medical coverage and same sex marriage to go, he pisses on the poor and needy by violating their rights.

Now these are people out of work, sick, elderly, or one parent households.  These people need assistants.  They are not forming at the mouth fends nor are they riding the revolving doors of incarceration for drug offenses.  They are regular Americans who have been dealt a bad hand.  These are people who need and deserve a second chance at the American dream.

The good ole boys of congress can attempt to justify their actions by saying it will only be used in pacific cases, but we all know what that mean; stereotype.

Jason Stanford said, “In Texas, we pay welfare moms with three kids $260 a month. In other words, our welfare moms don't have enough money to buy drugs or enough time to take them. But don't worry, Rick Perry has a solution for a problem that doesn't exist: He wants to make welfare recipients take drug tests.” www.huffingtonpost.com

A.G. Sulzberger of The New York Times www.newyorktimes.com added, “Advocates for the poor say the testing policies single out and vilify victims of the recession, disputing the idea that people on public assistance are more likely to use drugs. They also warn that to the extent that testing programs were successful in blocking some people from receiving benefits, the inability to get money for basic needs would aggravate drug addictions and increase demand for treatment”.

Basically our blundering bureaucracy has done it again.  While our good ole boys in congress fight tooth and nail to separate the state from the union, fight to preserve gun rights, and fight to stop same sex marriage, it seems they still have time to piss on the commoners.

20/20

Hindsight is 20/20 vision; therefore, foresight must be less than that.  Someone once said that if you don’t know history, you are doomed to repeat it.  If we look back over time, history shows us many mistakes we have made in our course of evolution.  For instance: the holocaust and the civil rights movement. If you had a chance to go back in time, would you follow the path of least resistance, or would you have stood up to the status quo. 

The 14^th amendment clearly states, “No State shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In a CNN Politics article at www.poltical ticker.blog.cnn.com by Rebecca Stewart, Perry was quoted saying, “It’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue.  Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me.  My stance hasn’t changed.” This statement by Perry clearly shows that he is totally willing to disregard the 14^th amendment and separation of church and state to further his personal views.  Just as in the past the Austrian charismatically took Germany’s pain and created the holocaust or angry mobs burned black churches in the south because African-Americans wanted to vote; today law makers use loop holes to prolong the rights of some Americans.  Today it is not a skin color, it is a sexual preference. 

It is easy to say what you would have done to stop the atrocities had you been there.  Just as it is easy to say oh that doesn’t concern me.  It is easy to follow the path of least resistance, but easy is not always good.  Today it is time for us to stand up to the status quo.  It is time to stop the abuse of office, the injustice, and the inequality.  It is time for us to demand the rights of all Americans.

Banners or Not

In the updated article found I found in the Texas Tribune written by Morgan Smith “Texas Cheerleaders Keep Banners, for Now”,www.texastribune.org it seems that the lawsuit king attorney general of Texas has yet struck again.  It seems that a small rural town in Texas named Kountze’s independent school district can’t understand the separation of church and state.  While common folk may not be bright enough to differentiate, I would believe our ATTORNEY GENERAL and Governor would be able to comprehend simple laws. 

Abbot stated that “We will not allow atheist groups from outside of the state to use menacing and misleading intimidation tactics to bully schools to bow down at the altar of secular beliefs.”  In a comment blog signed as samdavis, “This is another idiotic political expedient move by the stats”.  He went on to say, “These aren't atheists bringing the suit any more than the people in Kountze are really Christian. The actions are being done on school grounds, it's a violation. No one is telling Kountze they can't have signs in the stands; they just can't have cheerleaders and representatives of the school, promoting religion even if it is the predominant one.”  Personally, I agree with samdavis. It is irrelevant whether or not atheists are behind this or not.

  The simple fact of the matter is, why make laws if we are not going to uphold them.  This situation is quite simple. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out.  Your beliefs are personal so promote them in the appropriate arena, not a state or government funded one.   

Tuition Freeze

An article by Mike Ward entitled “Perry endorses four-year tuition freeze” has divided the Texas community in half.  This freeze is not an actual freeze and is not intended for everyone.  The freeze is more like a rate guarantee, and is intended for freshmen.  The freeze will hold the tuition rate for freshman to about the same cost for four years. www.statesman.com

It seems that this idea has been floating around the legislators for quite some time.  “Senate Higher Education Committee Chairman, Judith Zaffirini and D-Laredo who was in the audience for Perry’s comments said, “A four-year freeze was discussed in 2009 but was not enacted into law” (Warner). The Senator went on to say, “One of the positive aspects of it is that it could be an incentive for students to finish their degree in four years.”

Along with this article there is a comment section which was very versatile in its comments.  Some people were for Perry's endorsement and some people were against it.  There was one comment from a person who signed AW that caught my eye.  AW graduated from UT in 2007 with a degree in Biology.  AW said, “Simply getting through in 3 isn’t the goal; GPA preservation is the key.” AW went on to say that it was hard to understand how Texans could allow state and local government to undercut education.  AW stated,”UT’s continuing decline in state support, coupled with this tuition freeze, is the epitome of burning the candle art both ends.”  AW went on to give support to President Powers’ efforts to make UT a university on par with the UC Berkley’s and UCLA’s of the world.

This is a very complex topic.  The freeze is a valid effort on Perry’s part.  It is ludicrous for a young person to enter the workforce baring the cross of dept for education.  On the other side of the token, it is self-destructive to force high education to turnout mediocre professionals.  I feel that the state’s legislators have a lot to consider in regards to this topic.  Hopefully they will find a solution.

(new article) Voters Require to Prove Existence

     Recently I read an article named "Abbott moves to lift ‘dead voter’ injunction", by Chuck Lindell
  the attorney general has filed against voters who's social security numbers were similar to those of voters who are now decease .  The attorney General used a law which was suppose to allow him to remove deceased voter from the active list; as in most cases, this is a simple case of law makers misusing the law.  When the attorney should have used his resources to make sure all his eggs where in the basket, he placed the responsibility on the voters to prove their very existence in thirty days. I believe this is unfair to place a burden on working people.  It wasn't their fault that he got them mixed up. Officials should have found all information needed to clear up any discrepancies that had to do with the concern of the use of social security numbers of the deceased.  Therefore, it should not be their responsibility to prove their case. In a nut shell, this seems like some type of political scheme or maybe I am  just a conspiracy theorist Statesman. This article is very informational by giving knowledge and insight to today's political arena. It makes on wonder what is going on !

texas voting mapping

The federal courts Texas republicans from instituting racial Jerry mandering as stated by Michael King on September 7, 1012 in the Austin Chronicle.It is sad that after Martin Luther King and many others marched and killed to gain equality. today the wicked hand of racism shows its ugly face. it seems the republicans unlawfulness drew maps cutting out voting districts of minorities to ensure positive results at the polls. The Federal courts found this very thing discriminating as read in the cbsnews.com on August 30 , 2011.I think that it is sad that some will undermined the democratic process for personal interest.Houston Chronicle