In What Country is it Unlawful to Love? (or, "One Gay at a Time...")

Hahahahahaha!  Her Jacket!

      

      I'd like to thank Mr. R James Anderson of the blog entitled "Democrat Stuck in the Middle of Redland" for his candid attempt at tackling gay marriage rights in his July 29th entry: "It's time to really stir the pot...".  You revealed the state's opposition to gay marriage for the pointless, right-wing, discriminatory bias that it is.  Even as young gays still struggle to find acceptance amongst their own peers, your personal experience, as a committed family man (honestly, a rarity in the gay world), really draws on the issue: What does Perry really care if you wanna get married?  I've gotta say, the answer is probably way simpler than even he knows; I bet it's mostly about a fear of losing votes, especially with his 2012 "run for Presidency" looming.  

      What would it look like if the President is unabashedly "Pro Gay" and still trying to claim he's a hetero, God-fearing family man?  Oh yeah: Obama.  As much as he tries to enact laws towards true equal rights (i.e., it seems he genuinely supports gay rights, and wouldn't mind in the slightest if we married), he just can't do it because it's still so taboo and largely frowned upon in the U.S. to be openly gay.  I believe that politicians today, despite the backlash they may incur for supporting such sensitive subjects, need to work first on de-stigmatizing homosexuality as an abomination or sin.  With the nation's gay population growing steadily (or perhaps just wishing to come out sooner or less dramatically than past generations) the general Anti Gay movement is waning, and the remaining, decidedly Anti Gay activists are emerging as sheltered, uneducated, or uncultured fools.  What we have to work on is making this intolerance for intolerance a nationwide movement; then within time, there won't be so many closed-minded opposers.  

      For this argument, I agree with fellow student Sean Paek's comment on Mr. Anderson's blog.  To paraphrase: "...the only way to solve this problem is to change people's perception of gays, which will take a lot of time and effort."  This, I agree with.  But who exactly is holding us back from being more accepting more than ourselves, the level-headed gay and straight citizens?  I think in order to eliminate hate and discrimination, we have to preach acceptance of all kinds.  And if our schools aren't gunna help raise our kids to be more tolerant, we'll have to start taking matters into our own hands.  What good exactly is it going to do to wait for a bill to pass, a proposition to be overturned, or a bull-headed Governor to change his mind, and deem same-sex unions "fine with" him?  

      The sad fact is, women and blacks weren't just treated fairly as soon as they were "extended" further civil rights by lawmakers.  They continue to be discriminated against in work, school, and in many relationships to this day.  By continuing to vote for politicians that we know are adamant against equal rights for gays, we are continuing to support government funded bias in America.  My suggestion of a fix is not an easy one, but rather a very literal overhaul of the way we raise our young ones to accept and be accepted for who they are.   

      It's funny to think that just two jobs ago, I wasn't completely comfortable outing myself to coworkers (not unless there was another gay in the workplace, and I knew their attitude about it).  Ten years ago, when I first realized I was gay, it took me a good year to feel comfortable in my own skin, and another two years before I could tell anybody.  While I know that's a relatively short time to be "closeted," in all honesty it had to have been the worst time of my life developmentally.  

      Sure, I was still walking and breathing just the same as before, but I became a reckless social disaster.  Desperate for new attention (or acceptance for my looks, rather than having to explain myself), my true friendships became shallow as I sought out wiser, more "street-smart gays" to show me the ropes.  My most treasured social scene were gay bars before the age of 21.  My relationships were fast and fleeting.  I never felt bad or naughty per se, but I did have an overwhelming feeling that this was all just a big dirty secret; a "gaycation" I was having before going back to women, best kept under wraps.  And since nothing real was to come of any of these relationships (nothing I would ever be allowed or care to bring home to Mom, anyway), I would get what I wanted and discard of the evidence before anybody was the wiser.  I was always honest with my partners of what I was looking for, so I don't have any regrets...except for the fact that I probably tossed aside a few keepers.  

      The saddest part of those years, was that they were spent studying for a life that wasn't mine; I was out there on the front lines, learning to be a part of a culture that would never support my worth and talents.  College, parents, and friends on the back burner, I wasted three years trying to figure out what "gay" was, and if I could handle it; if it was even for me.  What I thought I needed was people to teach me how to dress, act, look, talk, meet, flirt, run, hide (I already knew how to Kick, Stretch, And Kick!).  What I really needed was someone I cared about to say, "So you're gay.  Get the fuck over it!  Next hurdle."

      Today, having "been gay" for 10 years, "out and proud" for 5 years, and committed to the best guy on two legs for almost 6, I don't worry so much about the past (although I do wish the transition had been a lot smoother).  What we have to focus on is the future, and making sure our little homo boys and girls are taught from as early an age as it takes that there is nothing to be ashamed of.  That they can openly love and marry whomever they choose, without exception.  And if their God, Bible, President, senator, state, governor, teacher, parents, or neighbors can't accept them for everything that they are, then it's time they started searchin' for better company.      

-r.zeke.r

Thankin' Muh Lucky Stars I'm Broke as Shit! (or "Reinstatement, ho!")

Do YOU fall into that sad little box on the left, as I do?  Yay!  You Win!

      I am not the worst driver I know.  In fact, I pride myself on being very cautious and defensive on the road, a trait I learned from my folks.  My mother has had only a single, one-person, non-critical accident in which she spun out in the rain and jumped a median; my father has had none.  When I was 21, I had a single, one-person accident in which I hit a wall and flipped my car while changing a cd on an unfamiliar road.  Maybe it was the wet, winding road, or my genuine shock at how stupid I was and my subsequent crying at how much trouble I was going to be in (the X-Terra that I had made but 4 payments on was in my father's name), but the officer who helped me climb out of the passenger door of my side-laying car let me go without so much as a citation.  The car: totaled; picked up by a flat bed truck.  Me: seatbelt burn, sore neck.  My friends, who were right in front of me when it happened, came back and picked me up, and we continued on to the concert we were heading to; yes, I drank my sorrows away that night, hoping it would make me forget.  That would be the first and last time I had an auto accident.  And the last time I've had a highway patrol officer in Texas understand and have any sympathy for how broke I am.

      I am not the worst driver I know, and yet I've spent most of my adult life in Texas without a valid driver's license.  It probably started shortly after the auto accident, which raised my insurance to a cool $190 a month for liability.  I didn't even have a vehicle for a year or two, and in that time learned to love cycling everywhere (not an easy task in a city the size of San Antonio, where biking and bussing to school took about an hour and a half).  In those two years though, I sometimes borrowed my brother's car, and incurred 2 tickets for driving without insurance.  Mind you, this was well before the state's brilliant idea of Surcharges, or "Driver Responsibility" taxes charged to the delinquent driver in addition to the standard fine.  As time went on, and I accrued a few warrants from unpaid speeding, suspended license, and other minor infractions of the law, I started to think I'd just move to Mexico rather than own up (and pay up) to the mess I'd made of my driving record.  My debt to the state, if I ever wanted to drive legally again, had reached over $2,800 in three years!  Mexican beaches on a bike or dune buggy were starting to look better and better.

      That attitude changed when I moved to Austin and decided I was going to get back into school.  The bus system, so I had heard, was quicker, cleaner, and easier to access the entire town within an hour, and so I moved up here with just my clothes, my bike and a dream.  My father, noticing the spark of determination which had sprung from the virtual abyss, offered up a challenge: pay your shit off, get your license reinstated, and you have a car!  Now, up until then, I was plenty stubborn, and stingy with my money, but I weren't no idiot.  I worked hard, paid off almost 3 thousand dollars in 3 year old fines to 3 Texas counties, and voila!  Instant license, instant car!  Easy, right?  Well...It woulda been.  Except for the fact that in the time I had been unlicensed, Texas had enacted the Driver Responsibility Program.

      Now, anyone who's had unpaid tickets should know, there is an entity called Omnibase, which is essentially an 800 number you can call (since the DPS is just too busy to answer these questions via phone) to find out exactly what you owe, and what it'll take before you're in the clear for reinstatement.  It's supposed to be the All-Knowing Entity, finding even the oldest infractions from the furthest counties.  When I called Omnibase in 2006, they told me what was owed and where.  Little did they know, the new Driver "Responsibility" program had placed additional surcharges, or "bad driver taxes," onto my record.  So, within two weeks of getting legal again, even though I had complied to Omnibase and TxDPS's liking, I received a letter stating that unless I paid, or started a payment plan, of over $2,000 again, my license was rendered invalid immediately.  I honestly thought I was in a Nightmare!  Mexico (pre drug-war, that is), was starting to sound good again.

      Yes, kids.  The Driver Responsibility Program that went into effect since I had last driven, was imposed upon me expressly because I paid my tickets.  In all honesty, I probably wouldn't have parted with $3,000 if I knew they were going to immediately screw me out of another $2,000.  I mean, What student can afford that?!  Even managing a restaurant full-time (a position which brought in a cool $21,000 after taxes), I struggled to comply, but I did.  They offered no choice at the time.  You couldn't talk to the municipal or county judge, the DPS or county clerks office.  They all said they were "Powerless to fight a mandated tax law."  (What always sucked was the way most judges knew it was a stupid law, and was going to cost Texas driver's more headaches than it was worth.)

      I promised to pay in monthly installments of about $89 while I could, but as soon as money got tight and I defaulted once, I owed the entire amount before I could drive legally.  Meanwhile, I continued to drive to work and school.  Every time I got pulled over (which at this point, I was such an immaculate driver, they were just pulling me over after random running of my plates), I got arrested, locked up for at least 24 hours, and slapped with, (YUP!) a NEW SURCHARGE I couldn't afford.  In the end, after losing two jobs in one year, I sold my car just to pay rent, and decided to get back on the bike.

      That was last October.  This January, after much criticism over the constitutionality and failure of the surcharge program as a whole (I mean, knowing that I was amongst almost 1.8 million Texans who couldn't afford a valid license was both good to hear and disturbing at the same time), Texas DPS offered an amnesty program meant to get Texas driver's back in compliance, and help reduce the growing number of uninsured motorists.  The Surcharge Amnesty Program was to reduce the fees owed by motorists to 10% of what they owed, not to exceed $250.  Carless as I was, I was excited to apply for amnesty, in the hopes I could one day drive legally again.

      As my luck would have it, the stipulations for the program were kind of stringent, or narrow rather, and didn't include all drivers.  Guess why I wasn't eligible to take advantage of this most awesome of "leniences" allowed by the state... Both because my surcharges were too new (aka, I had already paid off my oldest ones), and because I was currently making payments on them (aka, I wasn't in default because I had the audacity to try and comply, carless as I was).  Were my efforts all for not?  Do I just not belong on Texas roads?  How far does $2,000 go in  Mexico?

      My main reason for writing this extensive blog is to alert those battling the same ridiculous system that there may be One More Option left for us.  The Driver Indigency Program!  Thanks to a Google search I did on "Texas Driver Surcharges," I found this article by Texas Tribune author Brandi Grissom that says people living below the poverty level, otherwise deemed "indigent", are eligible to receive a discount on delinquent surcharge accounts similar to that of the amnesty program.  Indigence in Texas runs rampant, with an estimated 4,262,000 Texans now being lucky enough to claim the title.

      Now, I know for a fact as a server in today's economy, even with 3 part time jobs, I make less than $13,600 on paper (last year, my taxable income was about $8,200).  So, for now I am excited that my license-less woes may have finally come to an end.  This, of course, dependent on my application to prove my broke-ass is really broke being approved without further complications by unreachable hurdles.

      What really chaps my ass though, is that I have to find out this extremely crucial, relevant, invaluable information on my own.  The MSB, or Municipal Services Bureau has got my number...believe me.  About twice a month, I get a phone call by an automated teller, giving me a number to call to make an automated payment to my delinquent account.  Also, about twice a month, I get letters in the mail from the MSB.  In fact, when I moved last October and changed my address online, they were the first ones to send me a welcome to the neighborhood greeting, except it went something like "You owe us $500 USD for a red light you ran in 2007."  They know the Hell I've gone through to try and comply, and they know I applied and got rejected from the amnesty program, and yet they just send me a bill!  Nowhere in their fancy, typed-up letter was there even an utterance of a way for me to avoid paying $2,596.66 in surcharges before being eligible for license reinstatement.      


      When are these money-hungry public institutions going to get their act together, communicate better, work for rather than against safe driving practices, and stop being the bane of poor Texas driver's existence?  Why is Texas so reliant on these petty funds to keep trauma centers alive, when these same drivers already pay hundreds in gas, vehicle registration fees, parking and traffic tickets, not to mention among the highest of sales tax in the nation?  Is charging an exorbitant surcharge, 3 years in a row, for a misdemeanor traffic violation that we've already been fined and tried for even legal?  And isn't it going to have a negative ripple affect as more drivers go uninsured because they can't afford to get reinstated, never mind missing a day's work.  I'm sorry, but I fail to see the logic in expecting more money out of the poorest people in the nation; creating debt out of thin air (we now owe more) to pay for someone else's debt (so they can owe less).  


      As an educated adult, I'm all about owning up to my faults, and making right the wrongs I did as a stupid young man.  But sometimes, just sometimes, when people (the Texas DPS) don't want to let things go, it hardly seems worth all the effort.  I have a motorcycle I bought late last year for $800 dollars on Craigslist; it's currently in the shop, and should be ready any day.  Although I appreciate the calves I've grown and other health benefits from riding my bike 5-10 miles a day in the lovely 107 degree sun, I can't wait to be back on the road legally.  If my application to the Indigence Program gets denied this month for some crazy, unforeseen, asinine stipulation, you can bet your boots I'll be taking my wheels to the Texas roads...for just as long as it takes me to cross the border.      

Tax breaks are great, but "Who Gives?"

     Dear Krista, of "Kids in Cattle Country":  First of all I appreciate you bringing such matters to my attention.  You bring up a very relevant issue in your July 25th entry titled "Healthy Business is the Cure."  Thanks to these blogs, this class has probably been the learningest class I've taken at ACC.  If you haven't read my blog, you might not know that I've been planning to follow the food trailer trend that's taken over Austin in recent years, and open up my own smoothie/sandwich shop in a renovated AirStream soon (location to be determined by lease price, obviously).  Anyway, it's of great interest to me to know that Perry is planning on giving a tax break to help small businesses thrive in central Texas.  While this action will no doubt be beneficial to us little guys who need the assistance most, I'm not sure that, alone, it'll be enough to fix our growing state deficit.

      People, not just the state, are broke.  That's the issue.  They don't go out as much.  They can't afford to drive as far.  They can't lavish on themselves like they used to.  And the relatively low number of teachers that you say were laid off are not just moving out of the city or state to go find new teaching jobs.  They're going back to old jobs; getting back into the hospitality and service industries, and further raising competition for the positions that we undergrads have held onto so dearly for years.  What this has created, in my opinion from the inside of the beast, is a perpetual black hole of debt.  Unless it's just me, the money being spent in all industries (except for petrol and technology) is waning.  And if we aren't even spending like we used to, then how can the state justify 40,000 tax breaks?  I'm not denouncing the tax leniency for small businesses, just making the argument that such a grand problem needs more than one solution.    

      In order to make money where there is none, the citizens of Texas, not just the governing bodies, need to get more creative.  From what I've read in a March article in Community Impact's online News Magazine, Austin already has about 40,000 small businesses (with annual incomes under 1 million dollars) that may be eligible to bypass the franchise tax.  Also, though I know that Austinites have a general "Anti-Wal-Mart" mentality and prefer to shop local, my question then is "Why are our small businesses struggling, and why are our schools being shut down?"  I know these questions might sound irrelevant, but my simple point is, Austin has the small business thing down.  But that doesn't keep people out of Wal-Mart and HEB, where everything's cheaper because they buy in bulk and from far far away.  If people could afford the prices at their local "specialty shops," then they would probably shop local more often.  The thing that Austinites look for if they are willing to shop at these niche shops is uniqueness in selection, stand-out food (in an eatery), or just to get more bang for their buck.

      I propose a new type of internet advertising agency that kills these two birds with one stone.  While I'm not gunna go completely into detail (as it's still in its infancy, and I don't want it stolen) I will explain the most important aspects of my affordable ad agency, "Who Gives?".  First, it will be cheap.  I'm talking cheap enough for the small mom and pop shops that never thought they could afford a commercial to have a face in quality production, HD video.  Next, and most importantly I believe for the economy and smart shoppers alike, it will feature only companies that give to a cause of some sort.  Any cause what-so-ever.  As long as they are giving back to the community, or to a non-profit organization, we will feature them, and do all the boasting of their benevolence for them.  Most companies that give, although it may be a tax write-off, don't often go much further than hanging up a 'Thank You' from their neighborhood church/school.  In my opinion, if I'm gunna shop locally, and pay a higher price for my specialty goods, I would just like to know what exactly that company stands for other than profits.  If they have an ad agency that highlights the good they are doing for the community while offering cheap commercials, you can bet their business, along with their neighborhoods, will begin to come alive again with an audible heartbeat.

      If you had to pay a dollar more for every burger, sandwich, cup of soup, taco, donut, or cup of coffee, but it was local, delicious, and it helped keep (insert school name) Elementary open another year, clothed the homeless during winter, or helped save puppies from slaughter... Wouldn't you pay more attention to where your money was going, and in turn be willing to pay more for goods offered by local businesses?  I think Perry's small business tax break is a good idea.  But with "Who Gives?" and a New Level of genuine concern for where our dollars go running concurrent, local start-ups in Austin, Texas and eventually the entire country can really start to make their mark.

New Austin Rule Proposed: BYOBag?

    
     Austin has always felt just a little more green to me than most cities in Texas.  With the exception of Lake Tahoe, California, Austin seems to take better care of our parks and wildlife than other urban developments I've encountered (the beautifully refreshing Barton Springs and the small but sweet Blunn Creek Reserve are just two testaments to this notion).  Let's not forget the Single Stream Recycling system Austin put into place in 2008, an enviro-friendly luxury afforded to few US cities.  Now, city officials are trying to plant a foot into the Green Frontier by ordering a city-wide ban of the much denounced (yet widely-used) plastic shopping bag.  

      Mayor Lee Leffingwell along with Bob Gedert, director of Solid Waste Services,  on July 25th proposed a ban on plastic bags throughout the city of Austin.  The motion is to be considered in this November's City Council legislation.  Though it sounds rather drastic, we wouldn't be the first city to do so in Texas.  Brownsville, the 3rd largest of Texas' border towns, enacted the ban earlier this year.  If Brownsville (a city of 175,000) officials think plastic bag use is wasteful and excessive enough to ban them altogether, imagine how many millions of plastic bags Austin (a city of 1.7 million) consumers are pumping into our landfills.  Apparently, too many!  Leffingwell says that our estimated 263 million discarded plastic bags cost the city over $800,000 per year in pollution and disposal costs!  Recent efforts by many plastic bag contributors (like HEB and Wal-Mart) to sway consumers over to paper and recycle their old plastic bags at storefront receptacles have proved almost fruitless.  The number of plastic bags used annually just keeps growing along with our city, and now that it's costing damn near 1 million dollars to city tax payers, Leffingwell is ready to do something about it.  The Plastic Bag Ban Report says he has until September 23rd this year to figure out how much it'll cost Austin tax payers to include plastic trash bags in the Single Stream Program, and report it to City Council .  

     I will be the first to admit, I use plastic bags.  As I usually ride a bike to HEB, I'm even known to double bag (a practice that I do not feel too bad about, considering I reuse all of the plastic bags that I don't recycle as small trash can liners.)  For this reason, I cannot agree with the term environmentalists have come up with: "single-use" bags.  Out of occasional guilt, I have purchased maybe 10 of those reusable cloth bags that most chains sell for 99 cents at the register, but have probably only thought ahead enough times to pack them with me a handful of times.  Oh I use 'em, but more often to carry food and frisbees to the park, not to bring home groceries.  This is likely the problem across the state of Texas.  It's not that we don't care about the costs and damages involved in using plastic bags; it's just that they are more versatile and more convenient.  I mean, who lines a kitchen or bathroom trash can with a paper bag?

     Being a natural born cynic, I think it's funny that the Mayor gets behind the cause when he has been alerted that it costs his taxpayers about 17 cents a bag.  I mean, do you really think he sits up at night thinking about how he can save the environment?  Is it just in an effort to get in the Green Party's good graces?  Does he have plans to take Perry's office when he makes the move to President in 2012?  What plans specifically does he have for the newly freed-up funds?  I dunno.  But honestly, though it would inconvenience me if Austin decides to go all paper at the stores, I stand behind the Mayor's proposal no matter what his initial motives.  I'll just have to learn to adjust.  I don't see the harm in reducing non-biodegradable filler in our landfills and freeing up taxpayer money for more tactful expenditures, that's for sure.  Maybe he's just smart enough to take a hint from San Fransisco's plastic-free success.  *The city of San Fran proper went from an estimated 180 million plastic bags used in 2005 to...well, fewer in 2007 when they became the first municipality in America to enact the plastic bag-free law.

     With the state already in troubles with the EPA to get it's pollutin' in order, I think it's a measure we Texans can afford to explore.  But can small local businesses afford the cost of goin' paper?  Some people think it's too expensive, and even more harmful to produce recycled paper bags strong enough to hold mixed goods.  Read here for a much different opinion on the issue than Leffingwell and I share.  The Save the Bag Coalition website claims that "...(they've) discovered that paper bags were worse for the environment, especially regarding energy consumption and CO2 and methane emissions."  If this information is true, and "Paper Bags are even worse for humanity than Plastic Bags!"...in all honestly, by then, I'm bored with the subject.  I've just got too much going on to research bags all day.  Let's call it a draw, and take the grassroots approach to cleaning up Texas' streams and coastlines.  Take your reusable bags (you know, the ones you already own) to the store with you next time; save yourself a few wasteful tax dollars in the end.  


     Maybe the Single Stream Recycling Program, until the measure is passed, could just include "single-use" plastic bags on the list in the meantime.  Perhaps, even if the law is passed in November, it'll be an effortless way to recollect the 200 Million (my personal estimate based on the 300 bags that I keep thoughout the house waiting to be used or recycled) plastic bags that Austinites hoard away in their kitchen cupboards and drawers.  At least this way, while we prepare for Plastigeddon, the effort is minimal on our part, and booming Austin can remain the utopia of the south it prides itself on being.  

Creationism Shmershmashionism (or "Texas to Preach, err, TEACH Religious Theory in Public Schools")

     Have you heard the news?!  We know exactly where we came from, and have enough proof, we're going to put it in the textbooks!  As long as the liberals keep their 'Evolution Theory' to themselves, one day Texas public schools will TEACH KIDS TO BELIEVE IN GOD!  Yay!  No more lost, wayward or undeclared teens!  No more refugees persecuted for their silly beliefs!  No more terrorists killing in the name of their make-believe Gods!  No more War!  (Did you catch the sarcasm yet?)  Maybe I surmise or digress a bit, but what are we really doing by continuing to let self-proclaimed religious Zealots lead as Chairperson to the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE for short)?

     A little article by "Off the Kuff" author Charles Kuffner released on July 20th 2011 brought to my attention that the SBOE is meeting tomorrow (10 am, Thursday the 21st) to decide whether schools should include "supplementary reading" material that, as Kuff puts it, aims "to force mainstream publishers to rewrite their supplements to de-emphasize or undermine evolution education."  Other than that, the article is cut and dry (unopinionated), but it left me wanting more; so I continued a search through my links' links to find out what Texas bloggers have to say on the subject of teaching Creationism in our schools.  It turns out, they are more opinionated than I, but not as well spoken.  


     Richard Connelly of the Houston Press's Editorial Blog "HairBalls" writes on the issue in his July 19th 2011 article titled "Texas Science Textbook Wars: Ed Board Slashes Time for Public Comment."  Supposedly reporting on the cut backs in time allotted for public arguments during the hearing, he stays clear away from arguing for or against Creationism being taught in our schools.  Rather, Connelly starts off by mocking Barbara Cargill's ideals, and goes on to say that Christian fundamentalists are "entertaining at best" in their arguments against Evolution.  While I  can see the entertainment value in his article, I think he misuses an excellent opportunity in a public forum to get across a very simple joke instead of bringing more credibility to himself or trying to inform the reader of things we don't already know (what I thought was the very point of reading political blogs).  In my honest opinion (is there any other kind?), you lose the reader immediately if you focus on cheap attacks on one side, and fail to explain why you, the author, know any better.  


     Maybe a better way to approach this issue would have been imagining the future of our youth if the SBOE decides to pass the addition of Creationism supplements in our textbooks, as I so graciously did for you "in the beginning." Get it?  While I claim no religious affiliation whatsoever (Hell, I even just recently learned I'm not an atheist, but technically an agnostic), I do understand the need for texts to be revised from time to time, and don't exactly think we should be "force-feeding" Evolutionary ideals down 8th graders throats when it clearly undermines some students religious beliefs.  


     Perhaps it's better that students begin to choose their classes (as in college) earlier in life if they have a specific "agenda of theory" in which they choose to follow.  Or, if it's the parents who have the issue with what their kids learn in Biology, then maybe they should put them in a private academy that teaches according to their belief in God.  All these "maybes" sound silly, I'm sure, when the ultimate goal of the SBOE should just be to teach fact over unproven theory.  Simple as that.  If it can't be proven, why are we teaching it as fact?  If a theory is just that, and especially if it's faith based, it belongs in a Theology class, or in the dusty Book in the nightstand drawer.  


     I'm not saying that Evolution takes the cake, but I also don't remember my science teacher ever saying "You KNOW we came from monkeys, right?" I made that assumption all on my own soon after I started dating.  Let's keep religion and education as separate as oil and water, and not be completely terrified when our kids decide to explore their own origins and form their own beliefs.  


** The YouTube video above is from the National Center for Science Education's page which can be viewed by clicking This Link.  It's quite addicting (and mildly informative) so make some popcorn, and be ready to be enthralled.  

Texas! You dirty, dirty boy.

  You learn something new everyday.  In all honesty, I had no idea that we were So Filthy of a state when it comes to air and water pollution.  The Dallas Morning News Editorial team brought this to light for me in their July 13th, 2011 article entitled "With new pollution rules, EPA tries to save Texas from itself".  In a clear argument, DMN identifies the way that Texas Republicans are trying to dodge responsibility for spending the funds necessary to bring Texas' aging, sulfur/mercury emitting power plants to the EPA's new standards of compliance.  They even offer some estimates on the annual cost of pollution control/compliance vs. the anticipated annual health benefits.  

While the benefits seem to outweigh the costs, not to mention we're talking about saving lives and keeping our kids' air breathable, it seems Gov. Perry just can't come to terms with the EPA's rules if it's gunna cost money.  The article claims he says "Unfair!".  As if maybe he was Just handed a 24 hour notice, and hadn't a chance in Hell to comply by the deadline.  But a quick Google search of "Texas Pollution Ranking" brings up a September of 2009 article

from the El Paso Paper online that proves the EPA's been on Texas' butt about it's insufficient pollution standards.  In the article, they even say that were Texas an independent nation (as I'm sure some if not most residents consider it to be) it would rank 7th in the world for deadly toxic emissions!  Now, 2 Years later, Perry hasn't made a move to comply, or attempted to pay up?

I agree with the DMN, that if Texas has long been the leader in polluting our air, that we should also set a better example by putting our money into a cause that will benefit our lungs for years to come.  I understand that observing these rules will undoubtedly cause some shutdowns, heartache, and lost wages for plant workers in the Texas Panhandle and coasts.  But everything comes with a cost.  What happens when we can no longer hike in the Rolling Hills of the Greenbelt, fish in our Beautiful Lakes, or dip in the Guadalupe River on a 105* summer day?  I tell you what:  Texas will be just another hot state.

(A commentor on the DMA article stated the following: "More U.S. waters are closed to fishing because of mercury contamination than because of any other toxic contamination problem. In Texas, 361,433 acres of lakes and the entire Texas Gulf Coast are under fish consumption advisories.")  It was the motivation for me to look into how I can help comply, and make my state a little cleaner.  

Austin #1 on Forbes' List of American Boomtowns

      It's no secret that Austin is Booming.  Anyone driving through downtown, up SoCo, or taking IH35 in recent years has seen the many new additions.  The energy of resurgence is palpable in the light of the near 5 year recession that spared no county or state.  But did you know we're projected to have the greatest rate of industry and population growth in the next 10 years?  Can this mean the end to our financial woes is in sight?

      Brandon Luedtke of "The Daily Texan" reports in his July 11th article entitled
"Job creation, growth seat Austin atop Forbes’ boomtown list" that Austin's history of job creation and healthy population growth were the main factors in deciding the title. He goes on to interview an economic developer for the city, and found that the continued diversification of jobs since the late 80's (going from an education/government career base to a progressive information technologies hub) has helped propel Austin into a future-friendly job market.  

      One UT corporate communication and business major says people choose to stay in Austin after completing their formal education (possibly more-so than in other cities) because there are unique opportunities opening for people of all career interests.  Essentially, Austin is the New Frontier of the South.  

      This is nothing I haven't been sayin' since I arrived here from San Antonio 7 years ago.  Austin truly does have a niche for everybody.  And if you can't make it here...You're an ass!  And maybe you should move on.  Now a reporter from The Daily Texan is backing me up on this.  If you're planning on settling down here after college, buying property, or even starting a small business in Travis County (as I am), it's important to know where we stand as a city.  

    While it is kinda scary to think that cozy, "small-town feel" Austin will "BOOM" in our faces by 2020, and competition will rise (along with rent, taxes, parking prices) I think it's exciting to know that we have a secure footing as America's most promising region.  It would behoove any hopeful Austin "Lifer"to read this article.    

Back in the Swang of Thangs.

      Funny, just a year after taking US GOVT 2305, my Typology has changed from Libertarian to Post-Modern.  Does this mean I changed my political views drastically since last July?  Hmmmm.  Kinda.  I now follow some political arguments, and even care to vote!  Even locally.  As I struggle to juggle life, school, and work in this great state, my ignorance is waning, and I'm realizing (yes, at 30 years old) that I can make my own future, not only financially, but politically.

      I have a few projects in the works this year:  raising my GPA, paying off some loans, getting more fit, starting a small business and charity-based advertising firm, and the ultimate, near impossible goal: Getting My TX Driver's License back!  This will require paying off thousands in surcharges, appealing a DWI conviction, much time, money, influence and research.

      I'll be starting a local movement aimed at Taking Down the Driver "Responsibility" Surcharge Program; a horrible, financially debilitating, recurring tax implemented on certain Texas drivers for (sometimes) minor offenses.  Maybe, with a little shared knowledge and a lot of backing, You, my followers, can help...

Here's to a great semester!

-rzeker

Puttin' Some Green Back into the Economy

**The Video Above Best Explains the Arguments for and Against Legalizing Marijuana.

I agree a little with Andrea and with Doug in his Friday, August the 13th post entitled "Money Does Grow if it's Marijuana." Legalizing marijuana is obviously gunna save a lot of otherwise law-abiding Americans from a few Class A and B Misdemeanors. And Hell, probably leave a lot more smiles on our faces too. But, while I don't have any personal issues with its recreational use, I do fear that any liberal rights given to Americans are bound to be taken advantage of sooner or later.

Ever since we came out of the dark ages (what my ancestors would have referred to as "Prohibition," attempts to curb drinking and driving practices have proved futile. Yes, more cops on the watch means more people being arrested and supposedly learning their lessons, but the intoxication-related death rates remain steady and overwhelmingly in your face. Now, everybody knows alcohol and weed are different animals. But is it any better for one mind-altering substance to be allowed in a fast moving vehicle over the other? Not really. You can legalize it and say that it is for "residential or registered venue use only," but people are gunna get high and drive. Obviously, they do already. And their driving skills are sometimes inhibited enough to be pulled over and ticketed for. Is it as dangerous as drunk driving? Studies say no. But, well...let's put it this way: "The good weed" can do a number on your reaction time. A friend of mine says the reason American's are irresponsible when it comes to drinking is because we are exposed to it too late in life (whereas most of the world's legal drinking age is 16-18, or even a customary glass of wine with dinner at any age). I say, American's take certain freedoms for granted until they are yanked from them. If a 21 year old in the free country can't handle himself under the influence, how is an American 16 year old just learning to driving going to fare?

Also, I would have assumed (before researching of course) that state law enforcement agencies are wasting precious funds on arresting, processing, and jailing so many harmless stoners every year. Rather, in Travis county anyway (which some might call the weed-smoking capitol of Texas), the penalty for a POM charge has been downgraded from arrest with jail time to a mere ticket (a fine from $200-400 for paraphernalia and/or any amount of marijuana under an ounce). This is actually saving the county time and money, and freeing up cells and police to handle the other more dangerous crimes occurring in our city. Did you know that car burglary and theft has risen along with Texas' unemployment rates? I fear homes and small businesses are next, we need our peace officers on the hunt, doing just that: "keeping the peace."

It is also important to note that some counties, like Shasta County in California, are having troubles keeping a relatively strapped police force in business. While the rest of the state of Cali wants to legalize pot, Shasta county might be thriving on it illegality. They can receive up to half a million dollars in federal anti-drug funding annually if they step up their pursuit of illegal growers. When results produce enough money to save several at risk jobs and keep their benefits rolling, you can bet the department will jump at the opportunity, and rightly so. Who's gunna let a prosperous Govt job slip through their fingers on a technicality? Personal beliefs of the dangerousness or moral use of recreational weed have always divided people not really "affected" by the occasional pot smoker. Even Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko admits it's not their most pressing concern, but "it's where the money is." In this unstable economy, where I'm living on Financial Aid, and ready to take the first job that calls back, who can argue with him?

I know, I'm confusing you. Am I against or for the legalization of marijuana? If you've been following my blog, you already know my stance on job loss and the necessity to change the way America spends (or should I say wastes) its tax dollars. But the law is the law, and until weed is legalized, our law enforcement departments have the right to collect. We may not all agree, or want to pay, but do we all agree or want to pay for a parking or a speeding ticket? No. But these are the funds that keep our protection forces in business. I'm against legalization if jobs are immediately cut, and taxes on weed (although I do support sin taxes) become exorbitant. People living the high life should have to pay out a bit more, if only for the future affordable health care in the U.S. Smoking anything after all is clearly not as healthy as not smoking. However, I'm for it people can learn that it's not all fun and games. Well, "fun," yes. And "games"? A-plenty! Smoke with your friends. Play hide and seek. Laugh at the news, or a dumb movie. Play a video game, or get out and play some disc golf. Go swimming at the Springs on a 103 degree day. But please, Walk, Don't drive if you really care to preserve the liberal-republican citizenry that makes up Austin, Texas.

U.S. to its military: "Can I borrow some cash?"

So, Obama is reeling in the troops this month, and now the Pentagon has decided to cut several (around 6,000!) homeland military jobs and close U.S. Joint Forces Command bases in an effort to show Congress that they are mindful of wasteful spending in hard economic times. While it is always a sad thing to hear that more Americans, military and civilian alike, are being tossed into the unemployment pile, I think it is probably a smart move. Reductions in flagrant spending have got to start somewhere if America ever wants to pull itself up out of the trenches of debt. I have got to say, U.S. troops have overstayed their welcome in almost every country they have gone to fight in (especially those they've gone to fight for, in the case of those countries who don't even want us there).

Why is it so important that our military keeps bases in Germany, South Korea, and Japan?? Are there even conflicts in those countries right now? More importantly, how do they involve us? Are we really concerned with keeping our allies feeling like we've got their backs? Or are we more concerned that they remain our friends, so we can continue to consider them an extension of our own defense team (everything's gotta be done bigger and better in America, right?)? Do we really need to have a naval fleet comparable to China's? They're almost 4 times as large as us in terms of citizenry! And who's fighting in the middle of the sea or attacking our shores? Do we really just keep pissing countries off so that we can turn around and beat them in an arm wrestling match?

A lot of questions, I know. But of the last one, I think the answer is "yes". I think we like to show off and intimidate, flex and release our guns, so we continue to spend monies we don't have in an effort to prove to other countries, that already know, that we are a world power. It is a very sophomore move if you ask me. While all the reading in the world may never explain this twisted phenomenon to me, and I may never have the answer to remedy all forms of wasteful spending, i do have quite an opinion on it...Imagine that.

Do you have 1.41 trillion that the U.S. can borrow? That was the budget gap at the end of fiscal year 2009, and it is steadily climbing. Even if I had 100 times that amount in my own account, and the U.S. asked to borrow it, I'm not too sure (okay, absolutely negatively doubtful) that I would lend it to them. I just can't imagine they would ever be able to get it back to me within my lifetime. And if it weren't about the repayment of the money (hey, I'm all about doing someone a solid now and then) I wouldn't do it because I can't trust that they would learn to spend their newfound funds wisely, and would be back in the same boat within 20 years.

What's most jarring to the viewing public, I'm sure, is the fact that even government jobs (positions highly sought after probably due to their great pay, staying power, and benefits) are being scrapped...stealing jobs and slimming national security to make America more fiscally sound...a conundrum in itself. I'm not really sure how we are going to put money back into the economy and smash steadily standing unemployment rates, but won't the recivilization of more than 200,000 individuals back into the daily American grind boost things noticeably? I mean, these people get to come back home, continue to grow their families, get paid to go to school, support their causes on a local level, pay their taxes, put the jobs and the need for growth right back where they belong. Won't it make some amount of difference for politically active and aware troops to come home and realize that what they've been fighting for was all worth it, and now they get to stand down and pursue the American dream themselves?

If unnecessarily overstaffed military positions and exorbitant costs of war are keeping 100's of billions of dollars from reaching depleted American pockets, shouldn't we all support the Pentagon's decision to reduce misappropriated funds and bring back our troops safely to fight their own battles? It won't solve everything, but it will be a very noble message to other departments that 2010 is just not the time to throw money to the wind. I now understand the famous question: "Why do senators make as much as some doctors and 4-5 times as much as our nation's teachers?"

Somebody said joshingly in a comment: "What are we gunna do with all these layed off officers? Have them staff the Obamacare doc-in-a-box clinics?" I see your challenging comment, sir. And I raise you an "It's a living. Why not?" War, turmoil, crisis, or the constant uncertainty that "you could be next" are not healthy ways to live.

The reason we separate church and state.

Hey Kaya. I'm Zeke, fellow classmate and blogger. I'm supposed to critique your blog for a grade, so please don't take offense.

For starters, I appreciate your admission of being generally unexposed to the wacky world of politics. Your blog title alone tells me we have something in common; we are trying to better our understanding of the complexities of the government (you've got 2 on me by voting twice). Similar to you, I didn't know many specifics about DADT. However, it seems that this is where our similarities end. I wouldn't claim to be the expert on anything, but I did learn a lot just clicking around on the internet.

It appears your main concerns about gays serving openly is the comfort level of the heterosexual soldier and the fact that homosexuality goes against God. While I also recognize you're trying to be open-minded to the fact that everybody "needs love," your concerns about gays don't appear to be without discrimination, or religious fervor. While I don't even think it is the best idea that gays are allowed or encouraged to serve openly, it is for an entirely different reason; one that most staunch supporters of DADT don't like to admit. Now, I'm typically a very wordy guy, so I am gunna try and remedy that by writing a concise list of short arguments.

The Real Reason it is more of a popular decision among Americans and our lawmakers to keep DADT in place is the fear of further, possibly violent, acts of discrimination. No, not everybody opposed to serving with open gays is going to kill them, but allowing open discrimination is said to breed hate. Rest in peace Barry Winchell and Allen Schindler, Jr.

On Religion and the Military, people of all religions are allowed to join the military. It wouldn't seem fair otherwise, would it, persecuting an entire people merely based on a nominal set of their personal beliefs? A lot of gay men and women have some sort of religion, God, or path they follow, just as heterosexuals do. They just have a harder time finding one to accept them.

On sinning and choosing, most would argue that it is not a choice to be gay (or even all that harmful really). Killing is a sin, and a conscious decision. Yet we are overseas killing for what most think is an unnecessary war. While killing isn't always the goal in combat, it sure is used when someone wants to get their message across. Plus, the Bible was written a long time ago. With all the changes we've seen since then, even God is likely to have changed some of his views as he learned more about the human condition. And I'd say he's probably not a huge supporter of the war.

Allowing continued, public, and institutionalized discrimination of any sub-group (especially one so non-threatening, benevolent and open minded itself) needs to be frowned upon already.

Making a generalization or conclusion that gays in the military are distractions to people who are trying to concentrate on the fight makes it seem like they (gays) went to war to annoy or tease or try to recruit heterosexuals. It is my humble opinion that gays go to war for the same reasons as heteros, and not to try and hook-up with uninterested guys in the desert. Some even suggested (*scroll down on this link to 'hope not") they're only in it for the money and will want out as soon as the economy picks back up.

Gays are looking for love, but not just from members of the same sex. They long to be a part of a group or a whole, just like anyone else does. They should be allowed to speak freely, but with discretion, such as straight soldiers should; especially in a setting where everyone has volunteered to risk theirs lives.

It's mostly the hiding from the stigma assigned to homosexuality that creates so much backlash upon "coming out."

As with any minority group, open gays on duty would cluster together with other open gays (or openly female officers), just like they do back home as civilians. The only catastrophe that could result from sexual orientation as public information is hate and intolerance, and that's not something that most gays stand for.

The possibility of secrets among heterosexuals, or dudes on the "down low" is just as scary, maybe less?, than soldiers hiring prostitutes. Without getting too detailed, people stuck together in close quarters (jail, often work) sometimes end up having sex outside of their preferred palate to fulfill carnal desires. What seems more morally wrong, paying to sleep with the enemy's girl, or laying with a trusted friend that's on your side?

I'm not telling you your views don't have any merit, or that mine are %100 right. I'm not expecting you to swing over to the left. I'm not telling you anything I've learned from experience. I've never personally dealt with too much discrimination for being gay, but I took a lot of my notes from the sad, avoidable events that helped spark the DADT debate. I guess I am mainly just hoping that, as you are continuing to learn and adapt your views and ideals about other previously unknown subjects, you also learn to accept all types of people; most of which probably have the best of intentions (I mean, they went to the Army, right? A pretty selfless act where I'm from).

Even were I not gay, I would like to think I was just raised to do good and to follow my heart. My heart of hearts tell me that war is bad, and we don't need to be losing precious American lives over there. However, in such a world, I've come to terms with the fact that war is near inevitable. But the battle at home against gay's rights to marry, adopt, and fight for their country is sadder because it's felt by millions of Americans on a daily basis.

I remain optimistic, however, that one day we won't have to specify in a "Don't Harass" policy to otherwise grown, responsible men that they don't have to harass comrades for differences beyond their control, and that don't inhibit their job performance. Wouldn't it be nice to know that our gun-wielding, 17-25 year old, still developing, hormonal and confused troops are getting along and trust each other enough to push aside petty differences and truly play for the same team?

Thanks for your time. And sorry if it became preachy. Your response is welcome.

"Labor" Laws in Travis County

Some Texas women think it's okay to induce labor before full term, and some of their doctors disagree. Seton Hospitals of Austin declared it risky and unsafe to perform early inductions (delivery before 39 weeks) and stopped the practice some 4 years ago. Since then, Seton has lost many pregnant women (and millions of dollars, concurrently) to other hospitals that perform early deliveries. Now, Seton is hoping that state legislatures pass a measure to award incentives to hospitals that adhere more closely to Mother Nature's law. While most women would argue that the state doesn't belong in the delivery room, and I, for the most part, agree, the argument here is why would women want to risk the safety of their babies? And why should the state have to get involved when medical experts can prove the benefits of carrying to term in uncomplicated pregnancies?

I know, I am a man. And honestly, I don't even think I have much right saying what is and what isn't considered fair relating to women's privacy rights. But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. To be a bit more informed in my opinion, I Googled "How early is too early to induce labor?" and "Why do women induce labor/plan cesarean delivery?" The answers ranged anywhere from "Doctor scheduled it around his vacation or other planned deliveries" to "I'm scared it's gunna get too big and hurt, or rip me in two!" Aside from the few who said they were not fit to deliver naturally, answers to my question seemed kind of selfish or ignorant.

I myself was born at Seton, 29 years ago, through a planned cesarean delivery at 38 weeks. My mother had complications with my oldest brother, and had lost my baby brother Davy to suffocation due to an entangled umbilical cord, so she did not wish to risk another natural birth. In uncomplicated cases however, it proves beneficial to the development of the unborn child to carry it full term.

So to the women who wish to induce to ease personal discomfort or simply to fit their schedule...I just don't understand why.

I assume that women don't want the state telling them what's best for their body's. I would also assume women consider what they do with their babies a private and closed-to-discussion matter. The issue of abortion comes to mind. It is a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. That is understandable, and I would (were I a woman) rally the troops against any politician who tried to tell me otherwise. Without being graphic, that baby is no more. Sadly, for whatever reasons, it never happened. That baby doesn't need protection from the law, it needs protection from a life of being a mistake. While the laws are in place to help regulate the latest an abortion can take place, they are there mostly for the protection of the woman. That said, it makes total sense that if a baby is to be born, some wiser, more knowledgeable entity needs to be there to tell a woman what is the safest route to a healthy pregnancy.

I think if people don't want government to be involved in such decisions, then people need to start making better choices. The facts presented by the hospital's findings (millions of dollars in reduced post-natal and trauma care and reduced percentages of newborn sickness by the week) should be enough to deter women from supporting hospitals that allow doctors to schedule births like they were oil changes. But sadly, it isn't. People always have the right to govern what happens to their person, even if it may be a costly mistake.

I applaud Seton, and St. David for making a risky business move themselves. Companies doing the right thing, to the tune of trying to save individual's precious money and quite possibly lives, should probably be rewarded. But where should these rewards come from? If a law is passed to offer these incentives, are my tax dollars yet again going to support a cause I may believe in but don't wish to pay for? I'm sorry. I just never thought of hospitals as a struggling industry. If government awarded subsidies to hospitals for doing the public a service, are they then allowed to overstep their boundaries and micromanage labors from above?

These issues are kinda scary to me. A money machine tries to do something ethical, that could very well lose itself dollars, and they lose more business because the people want what the people want. It'll be the day that something awful (and likely preventable) happens to a baby during a voluntary early induction that the same mother who supports convenience over safety wishes to sue the hospital for damages. In that case, she will come crying to the justice system to take her defense and make right (financially, anyway) her and the doctor's wrong. Then you have unhappy baby, unhappy mommy, unhappy doctors, unhappy hospital. Were I a lawmaker right now, I'd figure out a way to keep all hospitals doing the right thing, and all women trying to follow suit.

If widely available education and the admonishing of professional medical associations against unnecessary induced labor doesn't help these women chose wisely, what will? An Early Birth Tax? I'm not opposed.

Supporting the Whistle Blower

In Mary Shaw's "Smirking Chimp" submission Tuesday, July 27th titled "With Wikileaks, they want to shoot the messenger", she states that the recently leaked military information was not so secret anyway, and that Obama needs to use this opportunity to keep his promise of a more transparent government. She backs these claims with a link to an NBC News investigative report, that finds no real smoking gun or threat to our national security or the safety of our troops within the leaked documents. She also adds a summarized excerpt from the UK's The Guardian of the details revealed within the infamous leak. In contrast, she does add that U.S. National Security Advisor General James Jones released a public statement claiming the dangers of the now public information on the 6 year war in Afghanistan.

Her audience is easily the American citizenry as a whole, yet she rallies more towards those Democrats who believe in Obama (and possibly even voted for him) but have yet to be satisfied with his performance. As this is her personal stance, she finishes that hiding the truth about war's costs and casualties will not undo the damage we've caused overseas.

I do believe her opinions to be valid, quite simple, and to the point. She states her knowledge easily, and backs up her facts with several bona fide links. She even goes as far as posting the link to the White House's web page which contains a very official and convincing-looking argument against the rest of her own post. This only further shows the reader that she is convinced that the information "leak" was hardly blowing the cover off of unknown troubles overseas. She helps to convince us that, although war is ugly and the numbers and individual failed attacks are hard to hear, this is just the facts; "everyday war stuff" that, if we are expected to support and fund, we have the right to hear about. Kind of like a "Okay, Mr. President: We know more than we wanted to know...Now how the heck are you gunna fix it?"

She brings up another good point about how governing bodies need to think before they speak as well, especially when making official statements that could scare the general public. We hear "security breach" or "classified info leak" and we already start to think the worst. It doesn't help that the U.S. Advisor of National Security's response to it is "Oh, Boy. This could be bad!" This appears, as in the Shirley Sherrod case she refers to, to be a government "finger pointing" type of tactic to remove negative attention from itself in the light of a public failure. A knee-jerk reaction to a highly publicized issue indeed. Their hope, I think me and Mary Shaw both feel, is to pretend like they're taking action against the wrong-doer (Sherrod or the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange) in an attempt to placate the American people's feelings about who is causing the real injustice.

Meanwhile, we can only hope, they are rushing to take the proper steps toward cleaning their now-public dirty laundry, and not just pushing it under the bed.

Immigration Law "Reform"?

The Editorial Board for the Austin American Statesman laid out a good point in its July 15th article, "We Should Make a Federal Case Over Immigration." I have to say, I learned a lot from the opinions expressed herein, and couldn't agree more. Essentially, they are speaking to all Americans in the piece, but border states that feel the effects of illegal immigrants are especially targeted. The AAS Board states that our (America's) general feeling of Obama's opposition to Arizona's self-mandated law is a negative one. Obama wants to see to it that there is a universal, fair, and just way to collect from and penalize immigrants to the US; a heavy issue already, recently complicated by Arizona's new law to check suspicious character's "papers". Meanwhile, Americans favor by a 17 point margin leaving the matter to the individual state.

If Arizona gets to make it's own laws about how to deal with illegal-looking characters, things can and will easily get out of hand. Brownish, yellowish, reddish, or funny-sounding people the states over would almost assuredly be unfairly profiled, and that is exactly what the Obama administration is trying to avoid. Imagine every border town and state in a state of siege. It can not likely be easy to identify each of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living free in the US already, and it will not get any easier if they are sent into further hiding their identity, forging papers, or worse, creating strongly knit gangs (or modern day factions).

We have to face it, people who face discrimination have tendencies to revolt. I'm not saying Mexicans and Haitians and Canadians all form gangs, but they do usually keep close packs once they arrive, and we need to recognize them as a threat if they are to be rounded up and mistreated by some zealous state troopers on the border (and you know there's no shortage of those).

I was most pleased to hear that Obama has indeed identified the problem that currently faces Americans due to declining federal interest and funds at the nation's borders. In all honesty, I believe that this should be the land of the free, but Nothing here comes free to Americans, so why should it come free to foreigners? I have to admit, in my 10 plus years as a server/bartender/valet, you name it in the hospitality industry, I have befriended, met or known of 100s of illegals, usually hard-working, and just lucky to be out of dreary Mexico border towns. They typically reside in cramped apartments for years, and send much needed money back home as they can. Its actually heart-warming, a single, displaced man risking All just to provide for a family he cannot see, and may honestly never see again unless they make the cross too.

That said, before 2008, I never thought about how many resources they abuse, and jobs they take from honest Americans. If there was an abundance in jobs needing workers here, I would say "Welcome, Todos!" But it's just not the case anymore, and so I can see why states are feeling the need to create there own means of protecting their jobs, funds, educational institutions, and yes, even our national language.

I am a Mexican American. As of 3 generations ago, I couldn't call myself American. I love my heritage, and enjoy studying my language (I was not raised to speak Spanish). However, I believe my predecessors had to do it the hard, or "honest" way. Marrying in, becoming citizens, paying taxes, then working hard and contributing to our great nation's diversity. I wish, especially considering how troubled Mexico has become in recent drug-war-ridden years, that each and every immigrant to the states could have an opportunity to make it here, and prosper as the Rodriguez' and Gonzalez' have. But, I think they need to wait it line, pay the toll, and then do it right, especially if they don't wish to be profiled everywhere they go.

It doesn't seem fair for refugees to be constantly on the run and afraid of their new governmental system; but it is only fair that they adhere to all of America's rules when they arrive. We will be a stronger integrated nation of immigrants if the federal courts rule on stricter border control and standardized means for citizenship.

The 100K waiter? In what world?

So, BP saved the Gulf, and Obama swept up Wall Street this week. And all I'm concerned with is server wages? Not really. I love the Gulf of Mexico; I grew up vacationing on Galveston Island. But I am still trying to grasp why I should care about Big Finance when the last thing I invested in was an $80 pair of shoes (that I saved up for over a year to buy). Lemme tell ya, the only thing poorer than a service industry worker is an out of work one. So it struck me as important to lend proof that old, rich, white America is out of touch with its struggling youth.

When Minnesota GOP* hopeful Tom Emmer said in a press meeting last week that "some (servers are) earning over $100,000 a year," you can bet your crappy tips that the servers came out in droves, and they weren't smiling. I served and bar tended in San Antonio and Austin for about 6 years, 3 of those years as a middle manager, and probably just cracked that figure.

Now, I tried to study up and become a "wages and taxation" buff by midnite tonight, but nothing doing. Instead, I will learn through continued reading of the subject at hand. And, as are so popularly played upon in forums, posting questions to you, the readers, and welcoming back any and all responses via comments. I am directly affected (or at least I will be once I regain employment) by our state's rate of pay for tip-based positions; Are you?

*Learn Politics: What Does "GOP" Stand For?

Some Questions For Discussion:

ARE YOU FOR RAISING ALLOWANCES FOR PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IS HIGHLY SENSITIVE TO ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, AND NOT STEADILY GUARANTEED?

HOW DO WE KEEP SERVERS HEALTHY, HAPPY, AND MEDICATED IF THEY DON'T RECEIVE BENEFITS AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT?

WILL THE NEW HEALTH CARE BILL AND MANDATORY REGULATIONS BURDEN OR SAVE PART TIME SERVERS?

IS IT UNFAIR TO RESTAURANT OWNERS/MANAGERS THAT THEY ARE MAKING MORE HOURLY, AND THEREFOR PAYING OUT MORE TAXES THAN SERVERS?

FINALLY, TOM EMMER SEEMS OUT OF TOUCH, SURE, BUT DIDN'T HE JUST KIND OF MISSPEAK? I MEAN, YES, HIS HEAD IS A BIT UP HIS REPUBLICAN ASS, BUT AREN'T WE ALL A LITTLE OUT OF TOUCH ON POLICIES THAT DON'T EFFECT US?

I actually thought it was respectable that he retracted his faulty statement, flipped his opinion, and went to work at a restaurant for a day when he was confronted by angry servers. Sure, you could look at it as a mere attempt to save his ass, but it's nice to know that he listened to the people. And that a couple of hard-working, forgotten servers made a difference. I know I would never readily part with 2010 pennies if it wasn't going to feed me or my dogs.

"Change is good" or "Not as Stubborn as I Sound"

I realized 3 things after I first blogged:

1. That I meant to call my Blog Links "Blogs of Interest" and not "Favorite Blogs," because in all honesty, I don't know enough of their content to side with them wholeheartedly (I know, just a pseudonym for my political views all together). I only picked them because I've run across them or heard of them before. My News Sources on the other hand are my genuine sources of current events. I think Reuters tops them for speed, clarity, and unbiased reporting. Just my opinion.

2. That I probably sound a lot dumber and more bull-headed than I am, as if "I just don't care what happens to us." Believe me, I was offended by how "ignorant" the supplementary reading says we are, I just don't yet have the answers as to who I should support and why. I am always up for enlightenment.

3. That I didn't include insight as to why I'm taking the class, aside from it being a necessity. I do love to learn about things around me, and be better prepared for whatever obstacle may come my way. But some things are far more interesting when observed from afar. To me, politics has always fascinated me, but to such a soap-operaesque point, that I always feel it is unnecessarily dramatic, and I am out of the loop because I haven't been following it from the beginning. Kinda like I came into a losing baseball game too late, and now I feel I could never contribute enough to make a difference and bring my team out from behind in the last inning.

I know that sounds dismal, but I also know I can't be alone in this perspective. I bet several "younger" folks just don't like to get involved because they fear they can't change things, not because they don't want to. So, during this shortest of semesters, I would hope to learn a new way of thinking that my opinion does matter, and that I can make a difference. And maybe have a little more faith that somebody up there, in their lofty position of power is doing something right.

A bit about me, and my UNpolitical ideaologies

So, I bombed the pretests gracefully, not much more than most of you guys, I'm sure.

58% correct on the Civics quiz. 60% or so on the Current Events. And I'm ashamed of what I made on the Political Typology poll. Just Kidding. But I was very surprised at some of my answers when questioned on some tougher topics. It's not like I never think about these things, but I have been able to live my life thus far, for 29 happy (if happily ignorant) years, without displaying or practicing any political views of my own, one way or the other.

So, yes, the Typology poll says I lean heavily on the Liberal side. But, I have never voted, and am only registered because I had to to renew my license a while back. While I'm not necessarily proud of this, I also have no reason to be ashamed. I always said that I would vote when both sides decided to drop their holier-than-thou charades, leave behind the finger pointing, and start to discuss what our faults as a whole have been; possibly even (gasp!) work together to see what Really does work best and in our best interests. Does this mean I think that we can achieve "universal ideals" or world peace? It'd be nice, but I'm not counting on seeing it in my lifetime.

I just hope to see the day when the arguments and issues up for debate, or bills or propositions trying to be passed have Anything to do with me, and I hear a valid argument in the favor of my opinion. If I politician were to speak directly to me, I would be there to listen, and would show my support by raising my voice and voting.

Now that I've written it down, maybe I do regret not voting in 2000 and 2004. I know that we are given a great opportunity to be an important asset to our own government, something that not all countries can say. But, at the same time, I feel like the powers that be will always have a larger voice than we do. And after reading the Declaration of Independence, top to bottom for the first time (I can't even tell you if they made us do that in middle school or not), I feel like some of our liberties are increasingly at risk, and that even today, especially today, we would not have the power to overthrow our government if we felt them to be unjust or uncivil.