Response to A Prayerapalooza/Perry is a Hypocrite!

In response to A Prayerapalooza, written by Brandyss Drost.

I agree with the first two paragraphs of Brandyss article, but the last paragraph I partially disagree with. How can Rick Perry stand up in front of America and preach? He is a giant hypocrite. If he was really all that much of a Christian he would know that the bible says not to pray in public. So what does he do? He gets 30,000 people to join him for “fasting, weeping, and mourning.” Even though there were 20,000 more people that showed up than expected, there still weren’t enough people to fill Reliant Stadium. I guess Perry should have prayed for attendance.

Governor Rick Perry was obviously using his prayer rally to gain supporters to further himself as a presidential candidate in the 2012 race. This video of excerpts from the prayer rally doesn’t show the “power of prayer,” it shows that Rick Perry wants to get noticed, “To be remembered for years to come.” The sane Christian people recognize that he is just trying to gain political attention. They know his motivation wasn’t purely for God’s help. If that was the case praying, to himself, would have done the job.

            I find it funny that Perry tried connecting the Book of Joel to the rally he assembled. This so called “sacred assembly” was supposed to cleanse America of its moral decline. The moral decline, he was referring to, was mostly caused by politicians just like him. He is such a joke. The prayer rally was obviously self-motivated, even though he claims it was all about God.  

            Besides the crazy religious people, I can’t imagine who would actually take Perry seriously after this. This is exactly why people should do their research before making a decision to vote for someone. This was just a campaign to gain support from the Tea Party.

            I really hope Perry doesn’t have a smidge of a chance to become President. I think Obama has been a fine President and there should be no reason he wouldn’t win a second term. Rick Perry will surely run our nation into the ground. However, I do agree that Perry should be working to fix our economy, with something concrete instead of a nationwide prayer circle. 

Water De-Abundance

        Texas is in a major drought right now. Austin lakes are suffering from the severe heat we are having this summer. It is ridiculous when you can't even go outside in the late evening or morning without starting to sweat. According to a Huffington Post article, Texas has endured the driest 7-month span on record. So, what are we doing to address this imposing drought?

        Almost every year Texas has to issue burn bans in a majority of it's cites. The drought has been so bad this year that fire departments weren't even allowed to do fire works except in a few cities along the coast. Texas needs to do more to ensure the burn bans are keeping people from starting fires. I think public safety officials should even go as far as ticketing people that are smoking near grass or playing with lighters. I don't think people realize how easy it is to start a fire with just a little heat in a drought like this.

        In addition to burn bans, Austin has issued a water conservation period. This is important because without conservation of water we might not be able to put out wildfires and for many other reasons. In most residential areas there are only 1-2 days a week when you are allowed to water lawns and in some areas there are restrictions for the times you are allowed to water. According to YNN, “The extreme temperatures plaguing Central Texas have prompted the City of Austin to activate Phase One of its heat emergency plan.” This plan monitors “at-risk” people for heat related illnesses. Even ERCOT has gone into their Level One Energy Emergency Alert. They are urging residents and businesses to limit their water usage between 3p.m and 7p.m every day. These plans are good, but are we doing enough?

        I think Austin is doing a decent job of monitoring “at-risk” people, but what are they doing to attend to the ever-decreasing water levels? Currently Austin Water is offering incentives for Austin residents and apartment complexes. I think this is a great step towards conserving our water. I am planning to take Austin up on its offer to replace up to three toilets in my house (that was built before 1995) with new water conserving toilets. It's a win-win. If at least 20% of Austinites take advantage of these water conserving incentives Austin might be able to slow-down the effects of the drought.

I would also like to see the local government enforcing their threats to fine people that aren't helping to conserve water. For instance, restaurants are supposed to only give customers water if they request it, but I know for a fact that not all restaurants are following that rule. I understand that it is usually protocol to serve patrons water when they sit down and to constantly keep the cup filled, but it's ridiculous to waste that much water when a customer probably won't finish it.

        The extreme drought that we are having is a very important issue that city governments should be addressing. Praying for rain obviously isn't helping, so let's go cities; step up your efforts to conserve water!  

Texas Takes on TSA?

        Although Christina Hastings, author of the Texas Outlook blog, made some valid points about the TSA's “pat-down” policy, I am going to have to disagree with her. To begin with, the TSA is technically not violating the 4^th amendment due to the “9th Circuit Court of the United States ruling on the search of passengers in airports back in 1973, which effectively suspends limited aspects of the Fourth Amendment while undergoing airport security screening.” Even though a person may feel violated by the TSA, they are not violating the 4^th amendment (as long as they follow all protocol).

         The examples she used were very compelling, but they weren't exactly viable. For starters, just because the woman was old, terminally ill, and wearing a diaper doesn't mean she couldn't be carrying a weapon or planning an attack. This goes for each example she made. Anyone that is planning to fly on a commercial airline should be aware of all airport policies, including TSA's passenger security 3-step process. If these people and/or the responsible guardians of these people had taken the time to read and understand all airport policies, they would have known what they were subject to if the metal detector went off or if there was a refusal to be searched. For instance, the “71-year-old man that set off an airport metal detector because of his metal knee.” He could have asked for a private search by a same sex officer, but apparently he did not. As for the “former Miss America,” she was probably just trying to get press by “playing the victim.”

         I really don't think TSA or the federal government are abusing their power (at least not concerning this topic). I've already stated, in the 1^st paragraph, why TSA is not abusing their power. Now I will explain why I think the Federal government is not abusing it's power. First of all, even though “the House passed the bill with a large majority,” doesn't mean it's a sure win in the Senate. That's the way politics work. Secondly, the so called “threat” wasn't a threat at all. If she had done her research she would have known that TSA can not allow anyone who refuses to go through ALL security checks to board the plane, therefore if House bill 1937 became a law it would “protect” citizens' privates from being touched, which would prevent TSA from being able to fully protect everyone that boards the plane. Ironic, don't you think?

         She claims she “doesn't want terrorists to have free reign on airplanes to bring explosives and weapons aboard a plane,” but then she says that TSA's “pat-downs” are invasions of a “normal citizen's privacy.” What is she calling a normal citizen? Is she claiming that all six year old girls are “normal citizens?” If so, she might want to think about all the country's that train children to use weapons and to be decoy children who set off bombs. Who's to say this isn't happening in America or that a child won't be sent from another country as a bomber? TSA is just trying to protect every single person that boards the plane. For example, last week a friend was stopped in the Denver airport because he had a few coffee mugs in his bag (they were souvenirs from his brother's new law firm). Apparently, the inside liner can be taken out and explosive materials can be put inside and resealed with only traces of residue. I never would have thought that was possible, but crazy people have actually tried to do this. We should all be thankful TSA does so much to ensure our safety, instead of trying to get rid of precautionary security.

         To everyone, that wants to get rid of TSA's 3-step security process, you might want to get reconsider the alternative. If House bill 1937 gets passed there might be more and more incidents like the tragedy that happened on September 11^th, 2001. These “pat-downs” are for the safety of America and every single person that gets on the plane. Do yourself a favor, America, read and understand all airline protocols and procedures before you chose to step foot in an airport. Following all procedures would help ensure a speedy check-in and a safe flight as well as your dignity and privacy.

Texas, why so many unplanned pregnancies?

Why is Texas ranked so high in the Nation for unplanned pregnancies? According to politifact, Texas is ranked third in the amount of unplanned pregnancies. Below you will find some possible reasons for this problem and a couple solutions.

            A possible and very likely explanation for so many unplanned pregnancies could be the almost exclusively abstinence only sex education courses that schools are teaching. This very controversial topic appears in the news several times each year. The Texas Board of Education needs to require a very extensive sex education program at every school. Not every one will agree with me on this (especially a lot of parents), but abstinence only programs are obviously not working anymore. In the past decade or so, the age children start engaging in sexual acts is getting younger and younger. Back in the 1800s and early 1900s it was common and expected for women to start having children around age 15 or 16. And now in 2011 this trend is happening again except back then women were married at 15 and then started having children. Now children decide they are ready for sex because it feels right or they feel pressured to take the next step in a relationship. If schools would teach children the ins and outs of sex, so they are educated about the proper precautions  that should be taken (birth control methods), the problems of having sex (emotional/physical), and everything else someone should know before engaging in sexual activity.

            Another reason that can be attributed to so many unplanned pregnancies in Texas is the “Planned Parenthood” budget cuts. There are so many women that can't afford birth control on a regular basis. Planned parenthood used to be a good place to go to for affordable  birth control methods. Now those women are probably having unprotected/unsafe sex and more likely to get pregnant. The Texas government needs to find a way to finance these programs for lower income people. After all, it's usually low-income and uneducated people that are having unprotected sex and getting pregnant then not having any way to take care of the child or being able to afford an abortion.

            A relatively simple solution would be to hand out free condoms on campuses and other public buildings. In Africa condoms are being put on the bottom of coke bottles, so when they buy a coke they also get a condom. This might increase condom use so the spread of aides might decrease. The same concept could be used in Texas to decrease unplanned pregnancy. 

Bike-Share Boondoggle? More like Bike-Share Genius!

        In a recent post in the EmpowerTexans blog , the writer claims that Austin's new bike sharing program is a waste of time and money. I couldn't agree less. Just because Austin City Council is prepared to spend $1.8 million on this project doesn't mean it's a waste of money.

        First of all, WasteWatch mentions that $200-$400 dollars is all Austinites would pay for a bicycle, but he is totally wrong. Austin has a huge community of bicyclist that pay well over 10 grand for a bicycle. Also, there are a great deal of Austin citizens that would really appreciate decent bicycles to use on a daily basis. A lot of citizens can't afford or have no place to store a road-bike. With this new bike-share program, more people will be able to bike around Austin instead of driving their vehicles.

        Secondly, he tries to argue that city council is trying “to get people to stop driving their cars.” I find it hard to believe that anyone on city council would believe that this program, or any program for that matter, would successfully get people to stop driving their cars. I'm sure what city council actually intends is that this program will reduce everyday usage of cars per person, especially in the downtown area. I can definitely see this being a possibility, if nice bikes are at one's liberty for such a minuscule price ($5-$7/day and $50-$60/year). This is a very cheap price to pay considering it would cost well over that price to buy a parking space or to pay for parking every day.

        Thirdly, this blogger tries to claim that Austin City Council is foreign to fiscal sanity all because they also support formula 1 and light-rail systems in Austin. In reality these city council members are looking at the big picture. Formula 1 will rack up so much revenue it will be unbelievable. And if this guy or anyone else is worried about the rise in emissions (cost to fix rise in emissions) from the formula 1 races or people travelling to see the races they should stop worrying. Texas is making sure Austin stays in protocol. Plus, the new bike-share program will help keep emissions down.

        Fourth of all, WasteWatch tried to compare Austin's bike-share program to Montreal's, saying that theirs failed and so will ours. What he failed to mention was that Montreal spent 13 million to get their program started and their bikes were made out of pure aluminum. Essentially, Montreal provided beach cruisers to their residents for a small price. Austin will be providing road-bikes to their citizens, which makes a huge difference. I'm not sure exactly how Montreal's program ran a 6.3 million deficit, but I'm sure it had to do with spending 13 million on crappy bikes. Since Austin is only spending 1.8 million for nice road-bikes, I don't think we will run into the same problem.

        Finally, I do agree with one thing that was mentioned in this article. Austin City-Council should demand that the riders have to wear helmets and those should be provided for an additional small add-on (so those people that have helmets don't have to pay extra). It's technically not illegal to ride a bike without a helmet so I doubt they can force people to wear one, but an option to be provided one would be nice.

In conclusion, I think Austin City Council made a great choice in this program. I personally can't see how Austin would lose money. These bikes would get used on a daily basis by people who work downtown, tourists, and those who are just looking for recreation. Besides that, the bikes will have a built in gps system so they can be traced if someone tries to steal one.  

Is this really our healthcare dream?

          According to Tom Banning of the Austin American Statesman, “The lights are on, but nobody is in the medical home.” If you haven't read his article, http://www.statesman.com/opinion/banning-our-health-care-dream-turning-into-nightmare-1573394.html, this quote might not make much sense. He was referring to the fact that Texas legislature keeps enacting reform bills to help Texas medical students afford to become doctors by taking care of their debt (if they practice at 'undeserved communities'). I agree with everything Banning wrote. I think his intended audience, Texans, would also agree with his article although I'm not sure Texas legislatures or senate would agree.
          They enact reform bills that are viable and much needed then they take them away. It's like giving a baby a piece of candy, then taking it away. It's easy for them because it really doesn't effect them. 'Senate Bill 7 — the omnibus health care reform package from the special session — promised to drive down expensive variations in the care patients receive across the state, reduce medical errors resulting from miscommunication and improve outcomes, thus increasing the value of our scarce health care resources.' This bill was supposed to help reconstruct our broken healthcare system, but it just wound up forcing more people to use hospitals as their primary care instead of doctor offices. Like Banning said , this was caused by 'legislatures with the same legislative pen, slashing funding to Texas medical schools and residency programs.' These medical students are been forced to do their residency in other states because our funding was cut. In the beginning of Banning's article he sides with the few remaining healthcare visionaries that developed Senate bill 7, but then he goes into more depth about how the idea was great, but what was the point in enacting the bill if they were just going to cut funding to several healthcare budgets, which basically reversed the steps in the right direction. All in all, Texas' healthcare dream went down the drain. Texan healthcare is worse off then ever and I guess we will just have to keep dreaming.

Between Perry and Bush: Where has education gone?

Bush thought education should be controlled by the Federal government and Perry thinks it should be controlled by the state government. During a news conference Perry actually said, of the Obama administration policies are “a federal takeover of public schools.” Basically, Perry declined the federal grant, “Race to the Top,” because “The academic standards of Texas are not for sale. We will retain our sovereign authority to decide how to educate our children.” Perry’s idea might have been right, but every time Texas makes budget cuts they cut education as well healthcare. So, where does that leave Texas public education programs? If we don’t accept federal grants for education we can’t afford to educate children in Texas. Therefore, the adults of the future will no longer be educated, at least not at or above standard education. The NCLB program unintentionally caused teachers to teach based on standardized tests alone in order to receive grants, which inadvertently left the smarter students to flat line in absorbing new knowledge to prepare for their futures. If Perry would just find a happy medium to help all students succeed the future of education and Texas would be a better and smarter place.