Christina Resas' blog post can be found here.
I agree with much of what Chistina Resas posted about sex ed in Texas. I certainly agree that teaching "safe sex" promotes teen sex. I also believe teaching abstinence is the right way to teach sex ed.
I do have a hard time agreeing that Texas should require sex education. It's sad that kids don't learn the basics of life from their parents and churches any more. But apperently many parents just aren't teaching their kids properly, and once again we must rely on the public school system to raise our children. In the end I must agree that Texas should require sex ed, in the form of teaching abstinence; I just think it's sad that this is necesary.
Resas' blog post was well written with interesting and surprising statistics. She communicated her veiws clearly and supported her arguments with facts and personal experiences, such as the Planned Parenthood employees pushing condoms. I also liked her conclusion, where she congradulates Texas for moving in the right direction by trying to reduce the death toll that abortion brings to Texas.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Austin Smoking Ban - so ridiculous, it kinda makes sense.
You know the government has gotten too big when little (local) government is making your day to day decisions for you. Just a few years ago, Austinites got to chose whether or not they smoked in bars, and weather or not they ate at restaurants that had smoking sections. We used to decide things on our own, now I suppose we can't be trusted by Big Brother to make daily choices. No one was ever forced to smoke, heck no one was ever forced to be near smokers or second hand smoke. Businesses were never required to cater to cancer cravers by providing smoking sections and ash trays. Some businesses chose to allow smoking and others chose not to; customers chose to go to smoking establishments or avoid them. Pretty simple, and it makes sense. But now days we don't get to choose, the choice has been made, made by Austinites - the voters, the non-smokers. Sure some nut-case City Council members are somewhat responsible for the ban, sure there was a million dollar anti-smoking campaign push, but the bottom line is the people of Austin voted - and the people got what they wanted. And that is why I am fully in favor of this unbelievably foolish ban.
Horrible for the economy and small business owners? Certainly. Does it improve the health of the citizens? Absolutely not. Does it mean voters voted away their own freedom? You got it.
But smokers still smoke, and non-smokers feel like they accomplished something. As for me, I don't smoke and I live in Wells Branch, where we don't vote away our freedom. I'm just pleased that the city of Austin let the voters decide instead of imposing this ban on the citizens. Thats the way it should be. Less people smoke than don't smoke. Let the majority decide.
Horrible for the economy and small business owners? Certainly. Does it improve the health of the citizens? Absolutely not. Does it mean voters voted away their own freedom? You got it.
But smokers still smoke, and non-smokers feel like they accomplished something. As for me, I don't smoke and I live in Wells Branch, where we don't vote away our freedom. I'm just pleased that the city of Austin let the voters decide instead of imposing this ban on the citizens. Thats the way it should be. Less people smoke than don't smoke. Let the majority decide.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Critique of Gunny's post "Are we really Exceptional?"
A comment I made on this post:
I can certainly appreciate "Gunny's" respect for the law. I also agree that Rick Perry is an excellent choice for president. I do not however, agree with his position on water conservation.
Again I do respect the law and so long as it is not unconstitutional or oppressive I think it should be both obeyed and enforced. Clearly that is not happening in Round Rock and probably many other places. It seems to me that if Round Rock is unable to or (in this case) unwilling to enforce a rule, it should be a suggestion instead of a law. Should they choose to make water conservation laws (as they have), they so certainly enforce them like the do other laws.
I frequently witness petty crimes and violations. Reckless driving erks me the way unlawful watering bothers Gunny. Many laws are ignored each day, I can only presume that these offenses go unnoticed or unpunished because our Law Enforcement Officers have more important things to tend to. I suspect that this is at least part of the issue. If this is in fact the case, I can understand water violation being at the low end of the priorities list.
I disagree with Gunny commending the city for its "proactive" laws. It is my opinion that we will know when the water is running out when our water bills increase. I would stop watering my lawn if it were a burden to my monthly water bill. Capitalism takes care of most any problem if it is allowed to run its course.
I do not approve of Round Rock's and Gunny's position that people should not be able to choose how best to use the water that they pay for. The city is the one selling it for crying out loud! How would you like it if other vendors sold you goods and then told you how you could or couldn't use them. If my utility district has a problem with me using my water as I see fit, they should chose not to sell it to me. As for the comment "it's grass people, who cares!", certain homeowners care. They have the right to care about their investment, they also have the right to let the grass die if they want to. But no one with a dead lawn (or otherwise) can tell me not to water with in my legal limits.
As far as the original poster getting told to mind his own business for reporting violation, that is absurd. If they decide to make a law they should respond to such reports accordingly. Or better yet they should take their own advice by minding their own business and eliminating the law.
Gunny's post was both informative and well written. He made his views clearly and concisely. He made it interesting by inserting a story about how he personally witnessed the violations and reacted. Lastly, he summarized his point in a well laid out conclusion.
I can certainly appreciate "Gunny's" respect for the law. I also agree that Rick Perry is an excellent choice for president. I do not however, agree with his position on water conservation.
Again I do respect the law and so long as it is not unconstitutional or oppressive I think it should be both obeyed and enforced. Clearly that is not happening in Round Rock and probably many other places. It seems to me that if Round Rock is unable to or (in this case) unwilling to enforce a rule, it should be a suggestion instead of a law. Should they choose to make water conservation laws (as they have), they so certainly enforce them like the do other laws.
I frequently witness petty crimes and violations. Reckless driving erks me the way unlawful watering bothers Gunny. Many laws are ignored each day, I can only presume that these offenses go unnoticed or unpunished because our Law Enforcement Officers have more important things to tend to. I suspect that this is at least part of the issue. If this is in fact the case, I can understand water violation being at the low end of the priorities list.
I disagree with Gunny commending the city for its "proactive" laws. It is my opinion that we will know when the water is running out when our water bills increase. I would stop watering my lawn if it were a burden to my monthly water bill. Capitalism takes care of most any problem if it is allowed to run its course.
I do not approve of Round Rock's and Gunny's position that people should not be able to choose how best to use the water that they pay for. The city is the one selling it for crying out loud! How would you like it if other vendors sold you goods and then told you how you could or couldn't use them. If my utility district has a problem with me using my water as I see fit, they should chose not to sell it to me. As for the comment "it's grass people, who cares!", certain homeowners care. They have the right to care about their investment, they also have the right to let the grass die if they want to. But no one with a dead lawn (or otherwise) can tell me not to water with in my legal limits.
As far as the original poster getting told to mind his own business for reporting violation, that is absurd. If they decide to make a law they should respond to such reports accordingly. Or better yet they should take their own advice by minding their own business and eliminating the law.
Gunny's post was both informative and well written. He made his views clearly and concisely. He made it interesting by inserting a story about how he personally witnessed the violations and reacted. Lastly, he summarized his point in a well laid out conclusion.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Constitutional Carry
It is well past time for Texas to become a “Constitutional Carry” state.
Constitutional Carry is a simple concept meaning if a resident can legally buy a handgun, then he/she can carry it. Period. No license, no tax stamps or fees, no hoops to jump through are necessary.
Texas should be leading not following along behind Arizona, Vermont and now Wyoming. Wyoming joined Arizona and Vermont by becoming a Constitutional Carry state just this past summer. Meanwhile here in Texas, law-makers are dragging their heals while our constitutional rights are being infringed upon.
In DC the Supreme Court has become a joke, stretching the meaning of the First Amendment over and over to make sure their liberal agenda is passed, all the while purposefully misinterpreting our founding father's Second Amendment. There isn't much we can do about that, or is there? The Supreme Court will not uphold our country's constitution, but Texas can and should ensure that our 2nd amendment rights are not ignored in Texas.
Im not going to quote all the definitive statistics that show how gun-control INCREASES crime rates. It's not about lowering crime or deterring criminals. It's much larger than that; it's about freedom! It's about history and remembering what the Bill of Rights was all about, following the letter and the spirt of the law and not coming up with some hokey interpretation to promote an agenda. We can't count on Washington to stand up for the constitution anymore, but we should be able to count on Texas to do whats right. If the Supreme Court wants to wash its hands and pretend that gun ownership and associated rights are a state issue, then we need to stand up and make it an issue in our state. The time to make Texas a Constitutional Carry state is now.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Rick Perry: NOT the feminist's choice
Reading a recent post by a "meanrachel" evoked several emotions and responses from me. This post made me: disgusted, confused, laugh, angry, offended, but most of all -proud to be a Texan under Rick Perry.
"What a Rick Perry Presidency Would Look Like for Women" was the title of the post. After reading it, I thought a more appropriate title would read: "What a Rick Perry Presidency Would Look Like for a Baby-killing, Atheist, Sex-crazed, Slut with no money". All of the policies she mentions would have little to no effect on a normal self-respecting Texan woman; and they would certainly not be effected negatively. Now for a female who can't keep her legs shut and would rather commit murder than change a diaper.... I can see why Perry wouldn't be your first choice - but really, are we going to assume all women are that way?? That seems pretty sexist to me. I think it is safe to say that there are enough ladies in Texas who respect their bodies and their children; making the word "Women" seem out like a poor word choice for the title to the blog post.
Lets look at some of the future president's policies that so-called "women" may have a problem with.
Abstinence. "meanretard" thinks moral values are old fashioned. So be it. The truth is that abstinence is the only fool proof form of birth control. To argue otherwise would be like suggesting that birth control pills don't work because you might choose not to take them. I have no problems with the pills personally, but I don't want to pay for yours. If one is too poor to buy the pills, and the Government stops providing them through tax payer's dollars.... Well one thing about abstinence, the price is right. As a taxpayer it is not my job to fund other peoples sex lives.
Abortion. Perry's required sonograms are a weak piece of legislation. It is time to re-criminalize murder.
Education. "meanrachel" seems to think that High School Diplomas are hard to come by in Texas. That may have been her personal experience. I came by mine fairly easily. The key to getting a diploma in Texas is simple: you have to want it! Lets stop assuming that everyone wants a HS diploma. It's ok to not finish school if you want; it's a beautiful thing called freedom. I am NOT convinced that Texans are struggling and failing to graduate high school.
In conclusion "meanrachel" states, "I just hope there's a Plan B pill for what happens when all these children grow up -- because President Perry, just like Governor Perry, certainly doesn't plan to care for them. "
This is where I couldn't help but laugh. Doesn't plan to care for them?! In what country's constitution does it say that the President should take care of your children?? I got an idea, raise your own damn children and teach them to take care of themselves when they grow up. If "meanrachel" would get out of Planned Parenthood long enough to read the Constitution of the United States of America, she would know that the president's job is to provide for the defense of our country and its boarders. Period.
"What a Rick Perry Presidency Would Look Like for Women" was the title of the post. After reading it, I thought a more appropriate title would read: "What a Rick Perry Presidency Would Look Like for a Baby-killing, Atheist, Sex-crazed, Slut with no money". All of the policies she mentions would have little to no effect on a normal self-respecting Texan woman; and they would certainly not be effected negatively. Now for a female who can't keep her legs shut and would rather commit murder than change a diaper.... I can see why Perry wouldn't be your first choice - but really, are we going to assume all women are that way?? That seems pretty sexist to me. I think it is safe to say that there are enough ladies in Texas who respect their bodies and their children; making the word "Women" seem out like a poor word choice for the title to the blog post.
Lets look at some of the future president's policies that so-called "women" may have a problem with.
Abstinence. "meanretard" thinks moral values are old fashioned. So be it. The truth is that abstinence is the only fool proof form of birth control. To argue otherwise would be like suggesting that birth control pills don't work because you might choose not to take them. I have no problems with the pills personally, but I don't want to pay for yours. If one is too poor to buy the pills, and the Government stops providing them through tax payer's dollars.... Well one thing about abstinence, the price is right. As a taxpayer it is not my job to fund other peoples sex lives.
Abortion. Perry's required sonograms are a weak piece of legislation. It is time to re-criminalize murder.
Education. "meanrachel" seems to think that High School Diplomas are hard to come by in Texas. That may have been her personal experience. I came by mine fairly easily. The key to getting a diploma in Texas is simple: you have to want it! Lets stop assuming that everyone wants a HS diploma. It's ok to not finish school if you want; it's a beautiful thing called freedom. I am NOT convinced that Texans are struggling and failing to graduate high school.
In conclusion "meanrachel" states, "I just hope there's a Plan B pill for what happens when all these children grow up -- because President Perry, just like Governor Perry, certainly doesn't plan to care for them. "
This is where I couldn't help but laugh. Doesn't plan to care for them?! In what country's constitution does it say that the President should take care of your children?? I got an idea, raise your own damn children and teach them to take care of themselves when they grow up. If "meanrachel" would get out of Planned Parenthood long enough to read the Constitution of the United States of America, she would know that the president's job is to provide for the defense of our country and its boarders. Period.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Perry defends tuition program
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/perry-rightly-defends-tuition-program-1864287.html
This article published by the Statesman's Editorial Board addresses Rick Perry's position on tuition assistance for qualified illegal immigrants, which has come up on the last two GOP candidate debates. Strangely enough, I agree -- mostly with the article which opposes the Tea Party's position on the issue.
Oddly enough, one issue that is never brought up, when discussing this topic in debates or newspaper editorials or on cable news networks, is that this is COMPLETELY irrelevant for presidential or party nominee debates! It is a STATE issue which has nothing to do with Perry's plans for a federal position. The STATE of Texas elected Perry, the STATE of Texas -and it's legislature made it clear that they support this tuition policy and the Governor allowed it. Isn't that what a governor is supposed to do? Put into action policies that the people who elected him support?? For the other GOP candidates, none of which represent boarder states, to keep criticizing Perry on his immigration policies is understandable; after all it is something that they don't have to deal with. I also respect the Tea Party's position (although I disagree in this one instance) that illegals should not receive financial benefits from tax payers. But this is and always will be a state issue, that should have nothing to do with the upcoming nomination. People act like Perry wants to goto the White House and give all illegal aliens a free ride to college. That is not the case. People act like Mexicans are sneaking across the boarders to get a reduced rate at their favorite Big 12 university. That is not the case.
Perry is stuck dealing with a very difficult issue, what to do with illegals living in Texas. He is stuck in this position because of the current president refuses to protect his boarders. By offering in-state tuition rates to illegals who are on their way to legal citizenship and who have been enrolled in TX high schools, the governor is trying to make the best of the situation that he is stuck in. I think the author(s) of this article understand this and they make Perry's position sound much more reasonable that Perry was able to do on the past debates. I wish some one would bring up the fact that we the voters want to hear about the Republican nominee's plans for our country -- not bickering about states issues.
This article published by the Statesman's Editorial Board addresses Rick Perry's position on tuition assistance for qualified illegal immigrants, which has come up on the last two GOP candidate debates. Strangely enough, I agree -- mostly with the article which opposes the Tea Party's position on the issue.
Oddly enough, one issue that is never brought up, when discussing this topic in debates or newspaper editorials or on cable news networks, is that this is COMPLETELY irrelevant for presidential or party nominee debates! It is a STATE issue which has nothing to do with Perry's plans for a federal position. The STATE of Texas elected Perry, the STATE of Texas -and it's legislature made it clear that they support this tuition policy and the Governor allowed it. Isn't that what a governor is supposed to do? Put into action policies that the people who elected him support?? For the other GOP candidates, none of which represent boarder states, to keep criticizing Perry on his immigration policies is understandable; after all it is something that they don't have to deal with. I also respect the Tea Party's position (although I disagree in this one instance) that illegals should not receive financial benefits from tax payers. But this is and always will be a state issue, that should have nothing to do with the upcoming nomination. People act like Perry wants to goto the White House and give all illegal aliens a free ride to college. That is not the case. People act like Mexicans are sneaking across the boarders to get a reduced rate at their favorite Big 12 university. That is not the case.
Perry is stuck dealing with a very difficult issue, what to do with illegals living in Texas. He is stuck in this position because of the current president refuses to protect his boarders. By offering in-state tuition rates to illegals who are on their way to legal citizenship and who have been enrolled in TX high schools, the governor is trying to make the best of the situation that he is stuck in. I think the author(s) of this article understand this and they make Perry's position sound much more reasonable that Perry was able to do on the past debates. I wish some one would bring up the fact that we the voters want to hear about the Republican nominee's plans for our country -- not bickering about states issues.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
FEMA Comes to Texas
http://www.kvue.com/news/FEMA-says-may-be-too-soon-to-talk-long-term-housing-for-Bastrop-victims-129772553.html
Local KVUE news station discusses FEMA's attempt to help victims of the Bastrop fire. At this time, FEMA is not ready to provide housing for fire victims, making it clear that support needs to come from a more local agency.
Federal agencies are ill-equipped and do a poor job of adequately and efficiently providing aid to natural disaster victims without excessive waste and potential for fraud. Texans are known for looking out for one another and are generally more effective in meeting the needs of disaster victims in their own state than the federal government is.
Local KVUE news station discusses FEMA's attempt to help victims of the Bastrop fire. At this time, FEMA is not ready to provide housing for fire victims, making it clear that support needs to come from a more local agency.
Federal agencies are ill-equipped and do a poor job of adequately and efficiently providing aid to natural disaster victims without excessive waste and potential for fraud. Texans are known for looking out for one another and are generally more effective in meeting the needs of disaster victims in their own state than the federal government is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)