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.                             

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.                      

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 21^st, 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?                           

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 24^th, 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.           

              

Birth Control: Who Knew It Could Be So Complicated?

In a February 12^th, 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.