Who is the Government Really Governing?
Bianca Jones, a classmate in my Texas Government course, has written an interesting passage regarding politicians, underprivileged citizens, and the economic recession present in our entire country. The piece mentions the unaffected government leaders versus the less fortunate citizens in need. It is absurd that these "leaders" seem to experience no life changes or negative effects from these difficult economic times, but our less fortunate individuals that simply need to stay cool in the extreme heat, for example, are often being put in situations that are unnecessarily harmful in my opinion. The elderly population, more specifically, are greatly affected by the heat because their bodies are not able to tolerate the intense temperatures as a younger person can. If they get too over-heated or become dehydrated, it can become a seriously hazardous situation. Their internal mechanics cannot compensate as quickly to overcome what seems uncomplicated to many younger people's bodies. Some elderly people are also unable to care for themselves independently, but basic daily care for them cannot be funded by the government for unknown reasons. Their health care is often not a priority either when it needs to be provided by our government. Every individual should be treated as a person with important basic needs, not treated like a case number or a "lost dollar sign" or an amount of money.
My classmate has stated our government claims to be, "by the people and for the people". I completely agree with Bianca because when people's lives are in danger, the priorities are not appropriately in order. Human lives are without a doubt, infinitely more important than politicians' yachts, mansions, or other lavish belongings. Where exactly are the funds ending up? If working citizens of all ages are struggling with paying their bills and financially scraping by day to day, the citizens in need labeled as also struggling are most likely being under-represented. My colleague has expressed the point, short and simple, our government leaders must be callous and without compassion to not recognize the significant struggles of our disadvantaged citizens. Our government claims to be for its people, then they need to stand up and provide for those that are unable to provide these fundamental elements for themselves!
Article: "Who is the Government Really Governing?"
By: Bianca Jones
Published: 8/1/2011
http://bjones12-txgov.blogspot.com/
Monday, August 8, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Plastic bags on the way out??
City officials discuss ban on plastic bags in Austin stores
In reading this article, I thought about how many hundreds of plastic bags I've seen on the side of the highway, floating through the air, maybe stuck to a fence, or up in the top of a tree hung on a branch. It has always bothered me to see these awful environmentally un-friendly plastic bags everywhere you look. The city of Austin is now wanting to implement a ban on these shopping bags because of their negative effect on our beautiful city. I completely agree, first of all, with trying to rid all places of using them. On the other hand, what are we going to use in place of them? Not everyone can afford to buy a ton of the multiple use green bags that have grown in popularity over the past several years, and paper bags are almost non-existent these days. It would be nice if someone could come up with something more environmentally friendly that didn't seem to trash our planet not just in Austin, but everywhere. Since these bags are not biodegradable, they aren't going to dissolve into the Earth like paper bags can. It seems the city officials have already tried to at least decrease the amount of these bags being used by promoting a voluntary program, but just like most "voluntary" programs they die out after a while if they're successful for any time period initially.
At one point in this article, a citizen of Austin states that if shoppers didn't have the option of using plastic bags then use of them would decrease. True, but like other people in all areas, I have a collection of these bags of my own to re-use for anything I might need a disposable bag for. To tell you the truth though, until this article I had never really thought about the fact that they'll be in the landfills or where ever they may land forever. When I have this thinking process in place, I would like to see this ban pushed through and people gladly following the rules and seeing what a difference it could make for our planet. I'm not a die-hard environmentalist generally, but a top pet peeve of mine is littering because it's just pure laziness.
Ultimately, I think this plastic bag ban may catch on for a period of time IF it is actually enforced, but unless they're "illegal" I don't believe they'll disappear for all eternity. They're just too convenient for a multitude of tasks!
City officials discuss ban on plastic bags in Austin stores
By: Syeda Hasan
Published: 7/25/11
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/
In reading this article, I thought about how many hundreds of plastic bags I've seen on the side of the highway, floating through the air, maybe stuck to a fence, or up in the top of a tree hung on a branch. It has always bothered me to see these awful environmentally un-friendly plastic bags everywhere you look. The city of Austin is now wanting to implement a ban on these shopping bags because of their negative effect on our beautiful city. I completely agree, first of all, with trying to rid all places of using them. On the other hand, what are we going to use in place of them? Not everyone can afford to buy a ton of the multiple use green bags that have grown in popularity over the past several years, and paper bags are almost non-existent these days. It would be nice if someone could come up with something more environmentally friendly that didn't seem to trash our planet not just in Austin, but everywhere. Since these bags are not biodegradable, they aren't going to dissolve into the Earth like paper bags can. It seems the city officials have already tried to at least decrease the amount of these bags being used by promoting a voluntary program, but just like most "voluntary" programs they die out after a while if they're successful for any time period initially.
At one point in this article, a citizen of Austin states that if shoppers didn't have the option of using plastic bags then use of them would decrease. True, but like other people in all areas, I have a collection of these bags of my own to re-use for anything I might need a disposable bag for. To tell you the truth though, until this article I had never really thought about the fact that they'll be in the landfills or where ever they may land forever. When I have this thinking process in place, I would like to see this ban pushed through and people gladly following the rules and seeing what a difference it could make for our planet. I'm not a die-hard environmentalist generally, but a top pet peeve of mine is littering because it's just pure laziness.
Ultimately, I think this plastic bag ban may catch on for a period of time IF it is actually enforced, but unless they're "illegal" I don't believe they'll disappear for all eternity. They're just too convenient for a multitude of tasks!
City officials discuss ban on plastic bags in Austin stores
By: Syeda Hasan
Published: 7/25/11
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Texas Public Education System is Suffering
Budget Cuts in Texas Public Education
My fellow colleague had several reasonably valid points in her blog post about how the State of Texas keeps cutting education budgets in the public school system. The importance of our children and their education and the quality of that education is top priority. As cliche as it may sound, these children that are experiencing these awful budget cuts in their education will be running our country, etc. one day in the not so far away future. While I realize the budget cuts must be made somewhere, education definitely should not be the area to cut back. As Caitlin has mentioned, teachers must be strong to accomplish the huge task they have ahead of them but when they're very much distracted by fears of being unemployed their performance is bound to be directly affected. Also when you begin to decrease the amount of available teachers, but the amount of students does not change, the teacher to student ratio will be a crazy number. With more students with one teacher, the quality of education the children are getting will be affected again by the teacher not having the time to take that extra moment with a student when it's needed.
Another disturbing statement is how the Texas public education system is cutting those programs that allow our children to become more well-rounded individuals by learning another language or music or art. Taking this extra "incentive" also could have the opposite effect on the child and not motivate them to achieve. From a child's point of view, if I never get to have fun or have some down time then what's the point of doing any of it?? I know when I was a kid, I absolutely loved going to music class, art class, and watching a movie or playing fun games in the classroom. It's those simple extra things that kids find value in especially if it's a fun activity for them. My colleague also mentioned how the school system could just use some reforming. I agree that trying to look at budget cuts differently and having the schools stop being so wasteful by recycling items such as sports uniforms, equipment, among other supplies could help boost it up a little bit to help get the state of Texas back on track! Regardless of whatever justifications the state government has come up with, our public education system is crucial for the development of our future Texas! Stop cutting what really matters and look for areas to cut in the state budgets that do not directly affect the students and teachers so we can improve our public school system!!!
"Budget Cuts in Texas Public Education"
Blog: Deep in the Heart of Texas
My fellow colleague had several reasonably valid points in her blog post about how the State of Texas keeps cutting education budgets in the public school system. The importance of our children and their education and the quality of that education is top priority. As cliche as it may sound, these children that are experiencing these awful budget cuts in their education will be running our country, etc. one day in the not so far away future. While I realize the budget cuts must be made somewhere, education definitely should not be the area to cut back. As Caitlin has mentioned, teachers must be strong to accomplish the huge task they have ahead of them but when they're very much distracted by fears of being unemployed their performance is bound to be directly affected. Also when you begin to decrease the amount of available teachers, but the amount of students does not change, the teacher to student ratio will be a crazy number. With more students with one teacher, the quality of education the children are getting will be affected again by the teacher not having the time to take that extra moment with a student when it's needed.
Another disturbing statement is how the Texas public education system is cutting those programs that allow our children to become more well-rounded individuals by learning another language or music or art. Taking this extra "incentive" also could have the opposite effect on the child and not motivate them to achieve. From a child's point of view, if I never get to have fun or have some down time then what's the point of doing any of it?? I know when I was a kid, I absolutely loved going to music class, art class, and watching a movie or playing fun games in the classroom. It's those simple extra things that kids find value in especially if it's a fun activity for them. My colleague also mentioned how the school system could just use some reforming. I agree that trying to look at budget cuts differently and having the schools stop being so wasteful by recycling items such as sports uniforms, equipment, among other supplies could help boost it up a little bit to help get the state of Texas back on track! Regardless of whatever justifications the state government has come up with, our public education system is crucial for the development of our future Texas! Stop cutting what really matters and look for areas to cut in the state budgets that do not directly affect the students and teachers so we can improve our public school system!!!
"Budget Cuts in Texas Public Education"
Blog: Deep in the Heart of Texas
Monday, July 25, 2011
Harsher consequences for first-time DWI receivers . . . yes, please let's do
"Representative seeks harsher punishment for first-time DWIs"
There are people being charged with driving while intoxicated constantly and it is not uncommon, which is extremely alarming. I found a particular story about a couple fatally struck by a drunken driver that is heart-wrenching and sickening both at the same time. Representative Bill Callegari had some personal interest in this couple's untimely deaths since it was one of his constituents, Todd Levin and his girlfriend. With Todd's parents Carol and Stu Levin, he has authored the Todd Levin Memorial Act, they all three discussed in a public hearing before the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence. “Todd was a constituent and a family friend,” Callegari said. “I was shocked and saddened to learn of his death caused by a drunk driver. Since that time, I have been inspired by the dedication of Carol and Stu Levin, Todd’s parents, to work toward the goal of eliminating the problem of drunk driving that plagues our state.” Representative Callegari is proposing stiffer laws for first time offenders and pushing for a special type of ignition lock to be mandatory after their first conviction. It is called an ignition interlock device, and includes a Breathalyzer attached to measure the driver's alcohol concentration through their breath before allowing the driver to start the car. This would deter drunken driving, however, it has been mentioned that there are ways to bypass this. An intoxicated person could have their sober passenger or a child fool the Breathalyzer into thinking the actual driver is not drunk and they're able to start the car anyway.
Texas' current law definitely does not have strict enough disciplinary actions when it comes to persons committing this crime and especially for the first offense. While eight other states' lawmakers in our country have already ordered that all drivers convicted of driving drunk have ignition interlock devices installed in their vehicles after their first conviction; Texas lawmakers have not followed suit, but hopefully they will at least enforce stricter laws than their exisiting ones. Unfortunately, our state is not known for being consistent across the board with the offenders whether it is their first time or their tenth time. Additionally, this specific article states that under our current law in Texas that second and third time DWI offenders are required to have an ignition interlock device put into their cars, as well as the offenders with a blood alcohol concentration level equal to or greater than 0.15 when arrested. However, I have known repeat offenders that have never had these devices in their vehicles at any time. Rep. Callegari and statistics have proven that close to one-third of the above mentioned drunk driving citizens are repeat offenders in the state of Texas. This measurement is substantial when considering that these people have prior convictions. The inconsistency in how these individuals are penalized is the primary explanation for their repetition. If the consequences were much harsher initially, the persons convicted of drunken driving the FIRST time would be more likely to remember what will happen to them if they commit the crime again. Most intoxicated drivers that are discovered and pulled over by police will probably get arrested, but will likely receive a "slap on the hand", maybe an AA course (while somewhat helpful -- will not eliminate their desire to drink and then end up driving), and possibly a side order of community service or probation. This is a completely foolish procedure because IF there is a next time, an innocent person or family may lose their lives because of their self-centeredness. By the time the DWI punishment has been dealt with or completed, they've forgotten or never have realized what the major issue is with drinking and driving. Many innocent lives are lost each year from accidental deaths by drunken driving.
According to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization, our state ranks 45th in DUI-related traffic deaths. While this doesn't seem too awful to be 45th out of 50 states, any death caused by a person's disregard of others and endangering their lives by driving under the influence of alcohol or other substance is far too many. I am an avid supporter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and concur with all they stand up and fight for whole-heartedly. Life is delicate and for something so deliberately irresponsible to have such minimal punishment by the law is inexcusable. In order to stop the unnecessary deaths of these innocent people, the laws must be enforced consistently for every single offender the first time and every time thereafter regardless of the circumstances.
Article: "Representative seeks harsher punishment for first-time DWIs"
By: William James
Published: 4/13/11
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/
There are people being charged with driving while intoxicated constantly and it is not uncommon, which is extremely alarming. I found a particular story about a couple fatally struck by a drunken driver that is heart-wrenching and sickening both at the same time. Representative Bill Callegari had some personal interest in this couple's untimely deaths since it was one of his constituents, Todd Levin and his girlfriend. With Todd's parents Carol and Stu Levin, he has authored the Todd Levin Memorial Act, they all three discussed in a public hearing before the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence. “Todd was a constituent and a family friend,” Callegari said. “I was shocked and saddened to learn of his death caused by a drunk driver. Since that time, I have been inspired by the dedication of Carol and Stu Levin, Todd’s parents, to work toward the goal of eliminating the problem of drunk driving that plagues our state.” Representative Callegari is proposing stiffer laws for first time offenders and pushing for a special type of ignition lock to be mandatory after their first conviction. It is called an ignition interlock device, and includes a Breathalyzer attached to measure the driver's alcohol concentration through their breath before allowing the driver to start the car. This would deter drunken driving, however, it has been mentioned that there are ways to bypass this. An intoxicated person could have their sober passenger or a child fool the Breathalyzer into thinking the actual driver is not drunk and they're able to start the car anyway.
Texas' current law definitely does not have strict enough disciplinary actions when it comes to persons committing this crime and especially for the first offense. While eight other states' lawmakers in our country have already ordered that all drivers convicted of driving drunk have ignition interlock devices installed in their vehicles after their first conviction; Texas lawmakers have not followed suit, but hopefully they will at least enforce stricter laws than their exisiting ones. Unfortunately, our state is not known for being consistent across the board with the offenders whether it is their first time or their tenth time. Additionally, this specific article states that under our current law in Texas that second and third time DWI offenders are required to have an ignition interlock device put into their cars, as well as the offenders with a blood alcohol concentration level equal to or greater than 0.15 when arrested. However, I have known repeat offenders that have never had these devices in their vehicles at any time. Rep. Callegari and statistics have proven that close to one-third of the above mentioned drunk driving citizens are repeat offenders in the state of Texas. This measurement is substantial when considering that these people have prior convictions. The inconsistency in how these individuals are penalized is the primary explanation for their repetition. If the consequences were much harsher initially, the persons convicted of drunken driving the FIRST time would be more likely to remember what will happen to them if they commit the crime again. Most intoxicated drivers that are discovered and pulled over by police will probably get arrested, but will likely receive a "slap on the hand", maybe an AA course (while somewhat helpful -- will not eliminate their desire to drink and then end up driving), and possibly a side order of community service or probation. This is a completely foolish procedure because IF there is a next time, an innocent person or family may lose their lives because of their self-centeredness. By the time the DWI punishment has been dealt with or completed, they've forgotten or never have realized what the major issue is with drinking and driving. Many innocent lives are lost each year from accidental deaths by drunken driving.
According to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization, our state ranks 45th in DUI-related traffic deaths. While this doesn't seem too awful to be 45th out of 50 states, any death caused by a person's disregard of others and endangering their lives by driving under the influence of alcohol or other substance is far too many. I am an avid supporter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and concur with all they stand up and fight for whole-heartedly. Life is delicate and for something so deliberately irresponsible to have such minimal punishment by the law is inexcusable. In order to stop the unnecessary deaths of these innocent people, the laws must be enforced consistently for every single offender the first time and every time thereafter regardless of the circumstances.
Article: "Representative seeks harsher punishment for first-time DWIs"
By: William James
Published: 4/13/11
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/
Monday, July 18, 2011
Facebook assisting with jury selection??
"Cameron County Will Use Facebook To Help Select Jurors"
When I saw this title on the Capitol Annex blog, I was astonished. Really? Selecting the best jurors from looking over profiles on Facebook? Please tell me this isn't really going to happen! I thought by now that most people knew that not everything on the internet is true and correct, right? The first thing I thought of is how everyone is either way too honest and open or they're so secretive you are unable to establish any facts about them. Not to mention privacy settings that some individuals like myself prefer to keep set up on a Facebook profile. The way-too-honest group could also be the type that desires sparking that "shock factor" chord or displaying the non-stop partying bad girl persona. We also have that annoying group that tries to display a "Ward and June Cleaver family" picture to make everyone believe their lives are perfect, when they're a disaster in the real world. Either way, Facebook is definitely not a suitable place to find appropriate and accurate information on individuals to determine whether or not they're juror material. Hopefully, when a group of jury summons are mailed out and folks show up, there are ones that attend and show up behaving professionally or at least trying to look professional with proper behavior. The second thing that crossed my mind is -- when in the world did we get so lazy that we can't continue as we have for many years? When did we decide going through a social networking website flooded with endless Farmville update posts was the exceptional route to go for the ultimate decision-making on juror selection? When did it become outdated to ask questions and receive answers verbally between two or more people face to face? It's a conversation that takes place without smiley faces or any typing! To me this is so absurd and nonsensical that I am only capable of coming up with two general feelings, which are simply genuine silliness and then illogical thinking on the part of Cameron County or whomever created this idea. By reading the article, I wonder if they were just trying to put to use all of the Wi-Fi availability from excitement about technology. I do know that in some professions or lines of work it is becoming more of an acceptable practice for companies or potential supervisors to check out a person's Facebook profile possibly before hiring, in which case, it can be very informative as to their lifestyle or overall personality to a vague extent of course. There have been employees terminated immediately over status posting content or comments on Facebook on several occasions that I'm personally aware of. In the end, Facebook is not the resource to be utilized to gather truthful character information to come to an educated decision of whether a person is fit to serve on a jury in a court of law. To even believe this will end on a fruitful, thorough note for Cameron County, is just plain preposterous!
Blog: http://capitolannex.com/
"Cameron County Will Use Facebook to Help Select Jurors"
By: Vince Leibowitz
Published: 1/23/2011
When I saw this title on the Capitol Annex blog, I was astonished. Really? Selecting the best jurors from looking over profiles on Facebook? Please tell me this isn't really going to happen! I thought by now that most people knew that not everything on the internet is true and correct, right? The first thing I thought of is how everyone is either way too honest and open or they're so secretive you are unable to establish any facts about them. Not to mention privacy settings that some individuals like myself prefer to keep set up on a Facebook profile. The way-too-honest group could also be the type that desires sparking that "shock factor" chord or displaying the non-stop partying bad girl persona. We also have that annoying group that tries to display a "Ward and June Cleaver family" picture to make everyone believe their lives are perfect, when they're a disaster in the real world. Either way, Facebook is definitely not a suitable place to find appropriate and accurate information on individuals to determine whether or not they're juror material. Hopefully, when a group of jury summons are mailed out and folks show up, there are ones that attend and show up behaving professionally or at least trying to look professional with proper behavior. The second thing that crossed my mind is -- when in the world did we get so lazy that we can't continue as we have for many years? When did we decide going through a social networking website flooded with endless Farmville update posts was the exceptional route to go for the ultimate decision-making on juror selection? When did it become outdated to ask questions and receive answers verbally between two or more people face to face? It's a conversation that takes place without smiley faces or any typing! To me this is so absurd and nonsensical that I am only capable of coming up with two general feelings, which are simply genuine silliness and then illogical thinking on the part of Cameron County or whomever created this idea. By reading the article, I wonder if they were just trying to put to use all of the Wi-Fi availability from excitement about technology. I do know that in some professions or lines of work it is becoming more of an acceptable practice for companies or potential supervisors to check out a person's Facebook profile possibly before hiring, in which case, it can be very informative as to their lifestyle or overall personality to a vague extent of course. There have been employees terminated immediately over status posting content or comments on Facebook on several occasions that I'm personally aware of. In the end, Facebook is not the resource to be utilized to gather truthful character information to come to an educated decision of whether a person is fit to serve on a jury in a court of law. To even believe this will end on a fruitful, thorough note for Cameron County, is just plain preposterous!
Blog: http://capitolannex.com/
"Cameron County Will Use Facebook to Help Select Jurors"
By: Vince Leibowitz
Published: 1/23/2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Single moms . . . not all created equal
Casey Anthony: Single Mom of the Year!
While I admire the outspoken manner with which Ann Coulter has written this editorial about Casey Anthony and single mothers, I can tell that it is clearly not written by an individual that has been faced with financial struggles and raising children. I have read up a little bit on biographical information about Ann Coulter and can see that she is intelligent and highly respected by many. However, I feel that even though you may be well-educated and knowledgable about many things, you may not be as informed when you haven't been part of something on a personal level. The intended audience of this article is most likely those following her already, or her fans. This editorial is arguing that single moms cost the U. S. taxpayers $112 billion each year, that 80% of homeless families are single mothers, among other things. I would like to point out that not every single mom is only searching for a way to go clubbing and act irresponsibly, and not all single moms are of the 'underclass' group. To categorize the good single moms with the other 85% of (single) mothers who kill their children through neglect is ignorant. Not all single mothers received their title from being promiscuous and careless, some were forced into this role by other circumstances beyond their control. There probably are large amounts of single mothers in the poverty class. Although not in all cases or industries, women do not have as high of salaries as men. If they are not receiving any type of child support from the child's father, then inevitably they will end up being at poverty level. However, lower income is not an absolute characteristic of an incompetent single mother.
When I speak of single moms in this post, I will specify whether I'm referring to those that are the 'menace to society' producing single mothers or the single mothers that do not harm, neglect, or murder their own children or raise criminals. There are several meanings of the word mother, but a couple stand out to me on Merriam-Webster's website. One says "maternal tenderness or affection" and another says, "to care for or protect like a mother". Other infamous murderous moms and the alleged-but-acquitted, in my opinion, should not be permitted to call themselves mother when it comes to these definitions.
Now to clarify why I feel so strongly about this editorial about single moms (in general) being a huge responsibility for everyone, I am an individual that was nurtured by a single mother. My father wasn't around from a fairly young age. My parents divorced when I was four years old. When they were married, my father worked nights while my mom worked days and I went to daycare during the day. Needless to say, I don't recall my father being in my life until I was significantly older. I wasn't aware when I was a child, but we struggled horribly for my entire childhood. I've thanked my mother so many times for allowing me to be a child and not feel the stress she did with lack of funds, no medical insurance, not paying taxes in order to eat and list goes on. I never went hungry, always had medical care when I needed it, and always had clothes and warm bed to sleep in even if she went without. I can never thank her enough for what she has done for me in my 35 years of life. This is why I don't agree with most of the statements in this editorial about single moms in general. We only hear about the outrageous and sickening single moms in the media. We end up hearing a shocking story about a delinquent who was brought up by a single mother, so that must be what led them to commit crimes.
On the other hand, I do agree with several of her statements. Let's start with the one about how any victims of crime in Orlando, FL between July and December of 2008 should be upset that police couldn't prevent or investigate their crimes since they were too busy looking for a missing child whose mother already knew she was dead. The statistics are so jaw-dropping that not giving up an illegitimate child for adoption ought to be considered child abuse is another one I can partially agree with since the normal, non-abused, not neglected, law-abiding, functioning successfully as an adult kind of people are not really part of any statistical studies it looks like. It's mindboggling to me, the claims made in this remarkably opinionated writing about how single mothers are directly connected to such negativity and inconvenience, especially not knowing what hardships the good and decent ones are dealt daily.
Editorial: "Casey Anthony: Single mom of the year!"
By: Ann Coulter
Published: 7/7/11
http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=49332
While I admire the outspoken manner with which Ann Coulter has written this editorial about Casey Anthony and single mothers, I can tell that it is clearly not written by an individual that has been faced with financial struggles and raising children. I have read up a little bit on biographical information about Ann Coulter and can see that she is intelligent and highly respected by many. However, I feel that even though you may be well-educated and knowledgable about many things, you may not be as informed when you haven't been part of something on a personal level. The intended audience of this article is most likely those following her already, or her fans. This editorial is arguing that single moms cost the U. S. taxpayers $112 billion each year, that 80% of homeless families are single mothers, among other things. I would like to point out that not every single mom is only searching for a way to go clubbing and act irresponsibly, and not all single moms are of the 'underclass' group. To categorize the good single moms with the other 85% of (single) mothers who kill their children through neglect is ignorant. Not all single mothers received their title from being promiscuous and careless, some were forced into this role by other circumstances beyond their control. There probably are large amounts of single mothers in the poverty class. Although not in all cases or industries, women do not have as high of salaries as men. If they are not receiving any type of child support from the child's father, then inevitably they will end up being at poverty level. However, lower income is not an absolute characteristic of an incompetent single mother.
When I speak of single moms in this post, I will specify whether I'm referring to those that are the 'menace to society' producing single mothers or the single mothers that do not harm, neglect, or murder their own children or raise criminals. There are several meanings of the word mother, but a couple stand out to me on Merriam-Webster's website. One says "maternal tenderness or affection" and another says, "to care for or protect like a mother". Other infamous murderous moms and the alleged-but-acquitted, in my opinion, should not be permitted to call themselves mother when it comes to these definitions.
Now to clarify why I feel so strongly about this editorial about single moms (in general) being a huge responsibility for everyone, I am an individual that was nurtured by a single mother. My father wasn't around from a fairly young age. My parents divorced when I was four years old. When they were married, my father worked nights while my mom worked days and I went to daycare during the day. Needless to say, I don't recall my father being in my life until I was significantly older. I wasn't aware when I was a child, but we struggled horribly for my entire childhood. I've thanked my mother so many times for allowing me to be a child and not feel the stress she did with lack of funds, no medical insurance, not paying taxes in order to eat and list goes on. I never went hungry, always had medical care when I needed it, and always had clothes and warm bed to sleep in even if she went without. I can never thank her enough for what she has done for me in my 35 years of life. This is why I don't agree with most of the statements in this editorial about single moms in general. We only hear about the outrageous and sickening single moms in the media. We end up hearing a shocking story about a delinquent who was brought up by a single mother, so that must be what led them to commit crimes.
On the other hand, I do agree with several of her statements. Let's start with the one about how any victims of crime in Orlando, FL between July and December of 2008 should be upset that police couldn't prevent or investigate their crimes since they were too busy looking for a missing child whose mother already knew she was dead. The statistics are so jaw-dropping that not giving up an illegitimate child for adoption ought to be considered child abuse is another one I can partially agree with since the normal, non-abused, not neglected, law-abiding, functioning successfully as an adult kind of people are not really part of any statistical studies it looks like. It's mindboggling to me, the claims made in this remarkably opinionated writing about how single mothers are directly connected to such negativity and inconvenience, especially not knowing what hardships the good and decent ones are dealt daily.
Editorial: "Casey Anthony: Single mom of the year!"
By: Ann Coulter
Published: 7/7/11
http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=49332
Saturday, July 9, 2011
A mandatory ultrasound required or not required??
Reproductive rights group challenge bill
This particular article caught my eye because I work in the healthcare field. A reproductive rights group has filed a class-action lawsuit against a new law passed by Texas legislature that increases regulations on Texas women trying to get abortions and the doctors that perform these procedures. This new law was signed by Gov. Perry in May and prevents a woman from getting an abortion until her doctor does a sonogram and tells her about the details and allows her to hear the fetal heartbeat sounds also. The law will require this for all abortions beginning October 1st, regardless of the woman's preferences to hear or see this stuff or not. If you read the article by clicking on the link below, you will see that there is much more information in it than just what I've described. However, that's the quick summary of it. I am a pro-choice kind of gal, BUT this isn't always such a bad idea in some cases. I think that sometimes the woman seeking the abortion is not completely aware that this is a potential life inside of her not just some "thing" that is an inconvenience. When you have these senses stimulated by visually seeing there is a heart beating and hearing an actual heartbeat, you may no longer think it is just a "thing" in there to just get rid of. While I do believe it is the choice of the woman, I do think that to some extent these reality checks should be presented to the woman seeking the abortion. I think if the woman has completely and truly made up her mind that this is what she is going to do regardless of what anyone says or does, then these attempts to change her mind will be unsuccessful anyhow. If there is any small amount of doubt in her mind, she will perhaps be swayed into thinking it is not a good idea. I have definitely always thought that if it was made more difficult to go through with having an abortion that the quantity of abortions completed annually would decrease.
About 81,000 abortions are performed in Texas every year, according to the state Department of Health Services.
As of right now, there are already laws in place that require a doctor to give detailed information about all possible options to the woman seeking an abortion 24 hours before the procedure is to take place. This new law will be heavily enforced to the point of doctors not complying with all of the regulations could lose their license to practice medicine. While I am about giving the woman a right to choose and also have a soft spot in my heart for babies, I can also see the point of this reproductive rights group as well. The two statements below are from Bonnie Scott Jones, the deputy director of the U. S. Legal Program and the Center for Reproductive Rights group.
“This is basically forcing your doctor to act as a government agent force-feeding you these messages from politicians,” Jones said. “It makes the informed consent process a biased one in which the woman is getting information she doesn’t want forced upon her by her doctor. This law really is about promoting an anti-choice agenda in the doctor’s office.”
“The law treats women as if they are too immature or incompetent to make their own important medical decisions,” she said. “It’s very demeaning and patronizing to women. It really does single them out because men are never treated this way in their decisions about health care.”
Bonnie Scott Jones has made some valid points here. I'm just curious as to whether her points are enough to block the new legislation from being enforced. What are your thoughts? Should the extra enforcements be required or not before a woman is permitted to go through with an abortion?
Article: "Reproductive rights group challenges sonogram bill"
By: Syeda Hasan
Published: 6/14/2011
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/
This particular article caught my eye because I work in the healthcare field. A reproductive rights group has filed a class-action lawsuit against a new law passed by Texas legislature that increases regulations on Texas women trying to get abortions and the doctors that perform these procedures. This new law was signed by Gov. Perry in May and prevents a woman from getting an abortion until her doctor does a sonogram and tells her about the details and allows her to hear the fetal heartbeat sounds also. The law will require this for all abortions beginning October 1st, regardless of the woman's preferences to hear or see this stuff or not. If you read the article by clicking on the link below, you will see that there is much more information in it than just what I've described. However, that's the quick summary of it. I am a pro-choice kind of gal, BUT this isn't always such a bad idea in some cases. I think that sometimes the woman seeking the abortion is not completely aware that this is a potential life inside of her not just some "thing" that is an inconvenience. When you have these senses stimulated by visually seeing there is a heart beating and hearing an actual heartbeat, you may no longer think it is just a "thing" in there to just get rid of. While I do believe it is the choice of the woman, I do think that to some extent these reality checks should be presented to the woman seeking the abortion. I think if the woman has completely and truly made up her mind that this is what she is going to do regardless of what anyone says or does, then these attempts to change her mind will be unsuccessful anyhow. If there is any small amount of doubt in her mind, she will perhaps be swayed into thinking it is not a good idea. I have definitely always thought that if it was made more difficult to go through with having an abortion that the quantity of abortions completed annually would decrease.
About 81,000 abortions are performed in Texas every year, according to the state Department of Health Services.
As of right now, there are already laws in place that require a doctor to give detailed information about all possible options to the woman seeking an abortion 24 hours before the procedure is to take place. This new law will be heavily enforced to the point of doctors not complying with all of the regulations could lose their license to practice medicine. While I am about giving the woman a right to choose and also have a soft spot in my heart for babies, I can also see the point of this reproductive rights group as well. The two statements below are from Bonnie Scott Jones, the deputy director of the U. S. Legal Program and the Center for Reproductive Rights group.
“This is basically forcing your doctor to act as a government agent force-feeding you these messages from politicians,” Jones said. “It makes the informed consent process a biased one in which the woman is getting information she doesn’t want forced upon her by her doctor. This law really is about promoting an anti-choice agenda in the doctor’s office.”
“The law treats women as if they are too immature or incompetent to make their own important medical decisions,” she said. “It’s very demeaning and patronizing to women. It really does single them out because men are never treated this way in their decisions about health care.”
Bonnie Scott Jones has made some valid points here. I'm just curious as to whether her points are enough to block the new legislation from being enforced. What are your thoughts? Should the extra enforcements be required or not before a woman is permitted to go through with an abortion?
Article: "Reproductive rights group challenges sonogram bill"
By: Syeda Hasan
Published: 6/14/2011
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)