As someone who rolls around town in
her Grandmother’s hand-me-down, 1989 Cadillac Deville (which most likely
guzzles gas at the rate of a Hummer, and costs at least $50 to fill up) I found
common ground with Johnson Nguyen’s May 1, 2012 blog post in favor of the
installation of an Urban Rail system in Central Austin. Similarly to Mr. Nguyen’s fuel costs, my
Caddy sucks up around $200 per month, and I would welcome the opportunity to
shed that bill through utilization of the Urban Rail’s free pass for students. I also agree with Mr. Nguyen’s argument that,
since the Urban Rail would link to stops on the University of Texas Campus, it
could reduce the heavy burden of Austin traffic at peak travel times, and potentially
make the commutes of those who do opt to drive more convenient and safe. Mr. Nguyen’s proposal advocating access to
the Urban Rail around bar closing time on the weekends was another excellent
point. Had one too many on East 6th
Street, but, not willing to spring for the cost of a cab? Why, just hop on the train, save yourself
some cash, and relieve the community of the possibly deadly travesty of alcohol
infused driving. With the benefits of
lower fuel expenditures, less traffic, and fewer intoxicated drivers, the Urban
Rail appears to be an excellent solution to several key dilemmas plaguing
Austin’s residents.
Views from a Broad: Redux
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Deathly Matter of Bullying
In my elementary school days, I was an awkward, chubby child
with a fondness for reading and a distinct lack of style. My family (God love them) were also a bit on
the weird side; my Mom was a graduate student studying India, my Father owned a
small stereo repair business, they were chronically late, and it was painfully
clear that we were not rich. And, since,
at the age of nine, I was (obviously) dependent on my parents for transportation,
I become the only third grader who arrived tardy to class every single
day. Needless to say, my unusual family,
absence of physical charm, embarrassing punctuality issues, and conspicuous
cash deficiency all conspired to make me a prime target for the catty girls and
aggressive boys at the Catholic school I attended. I was relentlessly ostracized and taunted,
and can therefore personally attest to the long-standing emotional scars that peer
bullying inflicts on youth.
As unpleasant as my experiences were, I can only imagine the
mental torment that lead to 13-year old Jon Carmichael’s March, 2010 suicide at
his home in Dallas, Texas following a long period of repetitive abuse at the
hands of fellow students. On one
particularly horrifying occasion, Carmichael was shoved, naked, into a trashcan
in a Loflin Middle School locker room.
What made him so offensive to his antagonists? He was small.
After the death of her son, Tami Carmichael began lobbying
Texas law makers to implement legislation that would levy heavy consequences,
such as legal prosecution, not only bullies, but the adults that are in charge
of them. And, her efforts were met with at
least partial success when the Anti-bullying Bill was signed into law by
Governor Perry in June of last year. The
Anti-bullying Bill, which will take effect in the fall, supports the prevention
of bullying by methods such as requiring that educators receive training
for its proper recognition and management, and by providing for the removal of
the offender (or victim) from the classroom or school. While I am pleased that Texas has finally
begun to define and regulate bullying through this bill, I feel, after reading
its online fact sheet, that it could address this heinous issue with a bit more
force. Why not make bullying, and its facilitation,
a prosecutable offense? After all, lives
are at stake.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Yep. We Should Probably Stop With The Talking and Driving.
Okay. I admit
it. I am absolutely shameless when it
comes to talking—and even texting—while driving. I suppose that after more than a decade
behind the wheel, motoring, for me, has become a commonplace activity with which I
maintain a fallaciously casual relationship. Unfortunately, many other individuals
(whether they own up to it or not) have fallen prey to the same concept, and,
regularly engage in a vast array of distractions, ranging from eating, to
makeup application, to wireless phone usage, while zipping down the roadways. The result? A big bunch of dangerous missiles in the
shapes of automobiles, powered by inattentive operators, bouncing off of each
other in relatively innocuous fender benders, or (in darker moments) exacting
tragedy through fatal accidents.
Despite my own egregious failings in the area of wireless
phone usage while driving, I am aware of its implications and have to agree
with Cara Contreras when she asserts in her April 3, 2012 blog submission that
Texas lawmakers should completely prohibit wireless phone usage while operating
a vehicle. Ms. Contreras deftly backs up
her argument by proposing that since Texas has already outlawed phone usage in settings
such as school zones, the State should also ban it in the event of highway
driving when people are traveling at much higher rates of speed, making more
horrific accidents a distinct possibility.
The specter of a hefty fine (a la the Texas seat belt law) would most likely
do wonders with regards to controlling the number of individuals talking/texting
while driving. I know that the idea of needlessly
kissing goodbye $400 motivates me to buckle up every time I hit the road.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
The Care and Feeding of Puppies
Despite the fact that my ardent childhood wishes for a pony
were never realized, I was consoled by the fact that my parents always provided
my brother and me with furry companionship in the forms of dogs, cats, and the
occasional duck. My petite, black Labrador,
Dorothy, (whom my Mother found abandoned and barley clinging to life in front
of a grocery store) was a fixture of my life into my early twenties. Currently, I am the proud “Mom” of a
beautiful and gentle Dalmatian (named Lucy) who is nothing less than a significant
member of the family.
These formative (and present) relationships with pets have
been enriching for me, and serve to profoundly impact my views on laws that
regulate the quality of animal care required of Texas breeders. I was horrified to learn from a March 30,
2012 Texas Tribune article that the Texas Department of Licensing and
Regulation Commissioners recently implemented the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s guidelines for care of animals raised by licensed breeders. Animal advocacy groups are disappointed with
this new legislation, citing it as entirely too lax because of its failure to
address basics, like proper cage size and flooring. Though not a current member of an animal
rights organization, I am amazed that those Texas law makers, as well as the
general citizenry, are not utterly supportive of enforcing stringent rules to
keep breeders’ handling of their animals in check. Any individual who has spent even a small
amount of time in the company of dogs should be able to see that they are not simply commodities, but, sensitive creatures who are endowed
with emotions, form attachments, and feel pain.
Otherwise why would they exhibit jubilation at the return of an owner,
or terror during a thunderstorm? But, if
Texas breeders cannot find it in their hearts to raise their animal care
standards for the sake of ethicality, perhaps they could do it to support their
own interests. Animals reared in proper
conditions will be healthier, happier, and therefore, more appealing to
potential owners. So, it’s ultimately
win-win (as well as possible evidence that one is possessing of a soul) to not
abuse puppies.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Meet Your Meat
In my one year as a vegetarian, I viewed many a documentary graphically detailing
the horrors of American slaughterhouses.
I will readily admit to shedding a tear or two at the poignancy of
wide-eyed calves being cruelly separated from their bound-for-slaughter
mothers, or dozens of chickens crammed into cages so tiny, that they were rendered
incapable of any kind of motion. My
altruism was handily thrown to the curb, however, when I experienced (and gave
into) the onslaught of random cravings for steak. My verve for animal rights has, so far, not
recovered enough to influence my dietary choices, but, I still feel the old
twinges of outrage when I read news regarding some predictably disgusting, cost-cutting
tactic on the part of the meat industry and its consumers.
The most recent rekindling of my righteous, vegetarian indignation occurred when I read Charles Kuffner’s May 21st, 2011 blog addition to Off the Kuff, titled “Pink Slime.” In his post, Kuffner condemns the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s purchase of meat consisting mainly of connective tissue, fatty scraps, and bone (although packaged as “ground beef”) for lunches served in school cafeterias across the nation. He supports his argument that this scrap meat, or “pink slime,” is not fit for children by reporting that meat of such a low caliber is traditionally utilized in dog food, and banned, for human consumption, in Great Britain. Kuffner also mentions that, while meat lobbyists contend that “pink slime” is just plain-old “nutritious” beef, even fast food chains that are notorious for use of questionable meat products are phasing it out. Kuffner appears to be aiming for a fairly general audience, as many individuals (regardless of politics) can be easily repelled by the notion of feeding anyone (much less children) pulverized meat scraps. But, what’s the ultimate health and well-being of the nation’s youngsters to a savings of three cents/per pound of random, mystery meat?
The most recent rekindling of my righteous, vegetarian indignation occurred when I read Charles Kuffner’s May 21st, 2011 blog addition to Off the Kuff, titled “Pink Slime.” In his post, Kuffner condemns the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s purchase of meat consisting mainly of connective tissue, fatty scraps, and bone (although packaged as “ground beef”) for lunches served in school cafeterias across the nation. He supports his argument that this scrap meat, or “pink slime,” is not fit for children by reporting that meat of such a low caliber is traditionally utilized in dog food, and banned, for human consumption, in Great Britain. Kuffner also mentions that, while meat lobbyists contend that “pink slime” is just plain-old “nutritious” beef, even fast food chains that are notorious for use of questionable meat products are phasing it out. Kuffner appears to be aiming for a fairly general audience, as many individuals (regardless of politics) can be easily repelled by the notion of feeding anyone (much less children) pulverized meat scraps. But, what’s the ultimate health and well-being of the nation’s youngsters to a savings of three cents/per pound of random, mystery meat?
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
One Adult Versus Eleven Toddlers? How Could THAT Be a Bad Idea?
As a (presently) childless individual, there are many anxieties of which I
am blissfully unaware. Car seats, adolescent
nutrition, and college funds have yet to enter into the landscape of my
personal woes. And, most likely because of
my ignorance of the angst that appears to be inherent in parenthood, I am intrigued
by a February 24th, 2012 editorial published in the Houston
Chronicle tackling the issue of toddler safety (or lack thereof) in Texas
day cares. The author begins by asserting
that the majority of parents--not surprisingly--are lulled into the belief that
if a day care is “state certified” it will automatically serve as a secure place
to park their offspring during the day. Sadly,
this is not the case in Texas the author contends. Why? The
trouble turns out to be that pesky matter of teacher to student ratio. The author reports that even Texas’
Department of Family and Protective Services deems the current legally acceptable
limit (eleven two-year-olds per one adult) to be too lax to provide for the
safety of little ones. The author goes
on to declare his or her solidarity with Carol Shattuck (CEO of Collaborative
for Children) who feels that the preschool numbers problem in Texas is
desperate enough to require immediate attention. Predictably, this potential adjustment of
more teachers/fewer students—though positive in and of itself—creates a new dilemma
by increasing costs to child care facilities, forcing them to raise tuition
rates, and rendering day care unaffordable for many low income families. This, according to the author, is where the
Texas government should man-up and boost its anemic subsidies for child care for
the working poor.
Judging from the subject material of this piece, the author is targeting readers who are personally invested in, and would advocate for, the safety and education of Texas youth. Namely: parents and educators. The author also seems to be drawing from a relatively liberal perspective with his or her conclusion that the government should step in and assist those families that are struggling to pay for proper child care. The author’s credibility is solid as he or she backs up opinions with data, such as current versus ideal ratio numbers in Texas day cares. Also contributing to the solidity of the author’s argument, is the reasonable recognition that government money is limited, meaning that we may have to, in the near future anyway, compromise in our quest for improved child care safety.
As someone who has experienced first-hand the solitary charge of a roomful of eleven screaming toddlers, I would have to agree with the author’s call for the state to reduce the legal limit of allowable number of children left to the care of a single adult. Not addressing this issue at the governmental level, is not only endangering our precious progeny, but, in the end, abusive to day care workers, who, last time I checked, tend to be outrageously under compensated. As for the author’s comment in favor of state relief of the burden of child care costs for low-income families, that’s kind of a no-brainer as well. Not creating governmental provisions for families who require, but may not be able to afford, outside child care only serves to perpetuate a vicious cycle of poverty by either limiting parents in their efforts to work or forcing them to jeopardize the healthy development of their kiddos by placing them in less than optimal circumstances.
Judging from the subject material of this piece, the author is targeting readers who are personally invested in, and would advocate for, the safety and education of Texas youth. Namely: parents and educators. The author also seems to be drawing from a relatively liberal perspective with his or her conclusion that the government should step in and assist those families that are struggling to pay for proper child care. The author’s credibility is solid as he or she backs up opinions with data, such as current versus ideal ratio numbers in Texas day cares. Also contributing to the solidity of the author’s argument, is the reasonable recognition that government money is limited, meaning that we may have to, in the near future anyway, compromise in our quest for improved child care safety.
As someone who has experienced first-hand the solitary charge of a roomful of eleven screaming toddlers, I would have to agree with the author’s call for the state to reduce the legal limit of allowable number of children left to the care of a single adult. Not addressing this issue at the governmental level, is not only endangering our precious progeny, but, in the end, abusive to day care workers, who, last time I checked, tend to be outrageously under compensated. As for the author’s comment in favor of state relief of the burden of child care costs for low-income families, that’s kind of a no-brainer as well. Not creating governmental provisions for families who require, but may not be able to afford, outside child care only serves to perpetuate a vicious cycle of poverty by either limiting parents in their efforts to work or forcing them to jeopardize the healthy development of their kiddos by placing them in less than optimal circumstances.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Birth Control: Who Knew It Could Be So Complicated?
In a February 12th, 2012 article published in the Texas Tribune, Holly Heinrich addresses the awkward conflict between some sizable Texas employers, and a recently passed federal mandate requiring a provision for birth control in corporate health care packages. The source of friction lies partially with faith-based organizations, such as the Seton Network of Hospitals, which harbor ethical opposition to artificial contraception, thereby making them squeamish about paying to make it available to staff. Heinrich goes on to report that President Obama (in an effort of appeasement) implemented an option for religiously affiliated employers to forgo the contraceptive requirement, with the caveat that third-party insurers would furnish access to birth control for employees who seek healthcare privately. Obama’s concession has only led to further disputes, however, for while it serves as a placation for religious groups like the Catholic Health Association, it angers the members of The Texas Association of Business, who contend that (moral qualms aside) legal conditioning of healthcare leads to unnecessary cost elevation. I found this article to be intriguing as it highlights potentially the most charged point of contention—family planning—between the orthodox and the temporal, as well as the complex ways that it can bleed into the lawmaking process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)