Legality of Relationships

In reading classmate Emily's post on Gay Marriage I can't help but agree. Many Texans are proud of their so-called support of "Liberty" but don't feel the need to support others in their views.

Merriam-Webster's definition of liberty:
noun \ˈli-bər-tē\
the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

Texans appear to support just such definitions on paper, but throw them something controversial, such as gay marriage, and all of a sudden there's no law harsh enough.

C'mon Texas, don't be that state....again.

Just think, we could be awaiting trials on the constitutionality of laws against...bestiality? Maybe same-sex marriage doesn't sound so bad!

In "Defense" of the 2nd Amendment

A day late but hopefully not a dollar short!

Travelling this past weekend to the 'Wild West' of Las Vegas, I was reminded of how different some locations can be from the familiar. Gun enthusiasts and gun control are opposite sides of the spectrum as is the approach taken by both sides.

My husband participated in Movember this past month, and decided that he needed to run the Las Vegas marathon with a costume - as Lt Dangle from "Reno: 911" and his mustache was the perfect touch. He was the hit of the race with the participants, crowd, and especially law enforcement.

While working on his costume for the race in the hotel room, an interesting question was raised. Whatever would he do with his "handgun?" Would he be deemed a danger by those out to "protect and serve"? A quick search of Google proved the state of Nevada is "open carry" meaning that he shouldn't have any issues from anyone with his foam cutout 9MM (and check out that trigger discipline!).

I was curious regarding the crime rates of states like Nevada, who have more lenient gun control laws, versus states like California, which are for more restrictive. Texas gun control laws lean towards more Nevada's, but fall somewhere in the middle. According to NeighborhoodScout.com, the numbers actually seem to support a more restrictive policy towards guns. California shows to have a lower violent crime rate than both Nevada AND Texas. Nevada shows 6.61 violent crimes per 1000 residents, Texas has 4.5 per 1000, and California is reported with 4.41 violent crimes per 1000 residents. The numbers are rather surprising when one hears about football game -related stabbings just involving the Oakland Raiders!

Of course, we still fall behind other nations in security at places like airports. When I first landed in Brindisi, Italy in 1997, I was met by two uniformed Italian Military Police, M16s in hand. Of course, that may have been to deter Mafia activity (Brindisi is a very busy port city in the southeast part of the country) but the security was not apparent at any other foreign entry point in the city.

Also, one has to question the validity of any attack on Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights. The Democratic Party voted to remove any mention of gun control from the 2008 platform. Maybe if people actually read and did research they may notice things do change - and not always in a bad way!

Some Rational Thinking!

My colleague Ally Frueh recently presented a case for the widening acceptance of same-sex couples and their relationships. In "Marriage Equality in Texas", she identified a study performed by UT-Austin that demonstrates and definite shift in attitudes towards LGBT couples and the possibility of their legal union.

Ms. Frueh does an excellent job of pointing out the findings behind the study results and even quotes local statutes. Her usage of supporting legal language provides an intelligent and thought-provoking look at changes of society.

Other than the quoted numbers in the article, however, there is no further linking to prove this acceptance (right along the "90% of facts are made up on the spot. See? I just did it!). There is a fairly recent article that documents what could be a boon for political and governmental changes in the very near future, as it sets a legal precedent.

The State of Texas officially permitted the divorce of a lesbian couple in 2010. The couple was married in Massachusetts in 2004 soon after gay marriage legalization. They moved to Texas a subsequently adopted a child. In 2010 the filed for divorce. After several appeals and challenges by AG Greg Abbott, the divorce was granted in 2011 by the 3rd District Court of Appeals. http://www.dallasvoice.com/breaking-texas-appeals-court-upholds-gay-divorce-rules-ags-office-austin-case-1059966.html

News to Me!

I pulled out my voter registration card last week to brush it off and get ready to vote. I hadn't reviewed the card when it arrived in the mail so imagine my surprise when I noticed that my congressional district had changed. I was already located within what I considered a fairly "Gerrymandered" district, so I was curious what the court-designed maps had delivered.

It turns out my old representative's district moved a mile or so south of the former northern boundaries. The new district appears as a projection of just a mile wide and a few miles long from a boundary that includes Waco and College Station, but not Taylor or Temple. Great, now instead of voting with Houstonians, I get to vote with Aggies and Bears.

Best to review my new representation so off to the Google I went. I was able to find out the voting record and bills introduced by the incumbent, but am still looking for information about his challenger. In fact, were it not for the sample ballot, I might not even know there WAS a challenger. Judging by the coverage of signs by the old representative, it looks like many don't know their district has changed either.

At this point, I'm left with a guy that I can see where he stands, and the guy running against him. Presumably, by their names and government imagery they are both middle-aged white men. It's no wonder people show up at the polls with the sheer determination to vote AGAINST someone, rather than for a candidate. It looks like this girl will be under-represented in Texas, again.

Right or RIGHT?!

Being something of a serious writer (well, a value on coherent thought and argument), reading most blogs is an effort in futility most times. At times it feels like maybe Ray Bradbury was on to something all those years ago a la "A Sound of Thunder." Proper grammar and punctuation has unfortunately fallen far by the wayside in current publications.

Enter Kevin Fulton, new blogger on the republican-leaning site Big Jolly Politics. On his first posting to the site, "Voting is a Moral Obligation," he reaches out to like-minded readers by appealing to their well-documented platform, discussing Abortion, Racism, and Envy. His use of charged language fails to connect to those seeking non-combative information, however, only serving to further the gap between the parties.

With today's focus on the alleged "War On Women" covered by some news sources, and this blog posting seems to verify there is validity to this "war." Mr. Fulton refers to babies as "defenseless" and that Democrats try to convince people that abortion "is a viable method of birth-control." How is telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies NOT a war (of sorts) on the gender? However, this line of thought is directly relatable to the Republican Party base.

As an African-American, the author does have more of a unique view of potential racism within the Republican part. His argument claims there is not rampant racism within his adopted party; rather, the Democratic party was "built on racism." He justifies this theory by attempting to link the modern Democrat with the Southern Democrats responsible for the KKK and other discriminatory groups. Again, this serves to appease his target audience, who are already in agreement with him.

Finally, Mr. Fulton seeks to pin the blame for criminals solely onto the Obama administration's back. The President is (apparently) also responsible for the diviseness currently inhabiting the political discourse. Kevin refers to the "virus of envy" that must surely be blamed on policies enacted in the past four years, as if crime did not exist prior to 2008.

Obviously, the blog posting, being hosted on a Republican-leaning site, reaches out to its intended audience. It provides a view by a minority citizen which attempts to substantiate the positions posed by the Republican party. However, anyone not already of the same line of thought will be turned-off by the charged commentary provided within. His arguments are clear only to those who don't seek to be convinced.

Critiques and Critics

It took a few days to find an editorial that was interesting enough to finish reading (and that was not an endorsement!) Once the editorial board of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram was onscreen, a particular essay claimed attention. The headline screamed for attention, using exceptionally polarizing language. The critical essay had been found - Absurd Springtown episode shows how swatting students is archaic, wrong and counterproductive.

The author's headline choice makes the argument that corporal punishment in schools is a bad idea. He starts off by saying allowing a grown man to hit a young woman is a crime, as is watching and not stopping the activity. This is a valid point, and using such an example should bring a reader to nod along in agreement.

He cites a credible source to support his argument against corporal punishment, The National Association of Secondary School Principals. He includes a link to the organization's stance on the issue, which breaks down the views and problems with the activity versus non-violent alternatives.

Next, he presents an example of a young woman in Springtown, Texas who was recently paddled for punishment. This is where his argument starts to fall apart. He claims the female was given in-school suspension when a "classmate copied her work without her knowledge." If the infraction was without her knowledge, why was she punished? There is more to that story, and this essay is sparse on details.

The student was given the option to miss two days of school and activities, or she could instead be paddled by the vice-principal, a male. The essay doesn't make it clear where the decision was made, but the student chose to receive the paddling, and a phone call later had the mother's approval. Again, what parent would not want to know the whole story, and if their child was not actually guilty of anything, would allow ANY punishment without proof? There is still information missing.

So imagine the shock of the mother when her daughter gets home that day with bruises and marks on her backside, leading the mother to complain about the girl's treatment. A school board review of the incident was completed, and the findings were shocking. The district violated policy by allowing a male to paddle a female. The district did what they felt was best - changed the rules to enable paddling by the opposite sex, requiring only that someone of the same sex of the offender be in the room.

The author claims this treatment is "Absurd, archaic, wrong, and counter-productive." While he makes gives examples and provides a link agreeing with his stance, he fails to win any arguments. The reader is left feeling confused by the provided schoolgirl example and more annoyed at the inattentive parent than the punishment provided. After all, the mother approved of the paddling, so what right does she have to complain?

The original story can be found here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/25/4288392/absurd-springtown-episode-shows.html

Political Ideologies and Social Media

The Houston Chronicle published a story that is very relatable to myself and most likely, the majority of the class! Political postings and memes have become "all the rage" on Facebook during this election cycle. This article from the Houston Chronicle looks at the people that are trying to avoid the divisiveness of the online political sphere, and the steps they are taking. Of course, no article would be complete without an opposing viewpoint, given by a college member.

The politics of friendship: Have you unfriended someone over their views?