The Return

I'm back. Subversive nature, pessimism, nonchalance--leather La-Z-Boy, and all.

stage six

I fully agree with the blog post "Texas Should Legalize Marijuana. Shazamm." He is correct in saying that there have been no documented cases of death from marijuana use, and when compared to the death tolls in the hundreds of thousands from tobacco and alcohol use that fact is truly astounding. I agree that it is necessary (and probably more beneficial) to put the dealers and cartel-heads behind bars, and not the user. The legalization would allow for that, and also for government benefit such as a "sin" tax to pay for education or healthcare, etc. He continues to support the legalization by listing medicinal benefits. (I'd also like to add that studies show THC reduced malignant tumors in lab rats and mice by over 50% when injected into the tissue, and opens the airways of non-smoking asthmatics more effectively than inhalers in another study) Marijuana is also incredibly nutritious, contains many antioxidants, is high in protein and fiber, and is very easy and abundant to grow. It is ideal for paper products, clothing, industrial textile, and even food products. It is highly renewable, reproduces exponentially, and can grow in literally almost any climate on the earth.

stage five

Texas is considering implementing "open-carry" laws... the majority of the states have much more lenient laws regarding various types of open carry, and surprisingly Texas falls into the most restrictive category.
"Permissive Open Carry" states such as Alaska, New Mexico, and Virginia allow open-carry for all non-prohibited citizens without a permit. This is also referred to as "full preemption" of all firearm laws. "Licensed Open Carry" means a state has passed full preemption of firearm laws, and allows open carry for all non-prohibited citizens, as long as they have a license or permit. This is the case is states like Georgia, Indiana, and Minnesota. Anomalous Open Carry states generally allow open carry, but without preemption, and with restrictions. In Texas' category, Non-Permissive, open carry is unlawful, or only lawful under certain circumstances such as hunting or target shooting.
I was shocked to see that Texas is in the same category as DC, which is notoriously harsh with gun-control. I think Texas needs to consider loosening up on Open Carry, but by no means needs to implement such lenient laws as Alaska or Wyoming. In my opinion, Licensed Open Carry would be ideal, because it would require registration, licenses, or permits to keep track of citizens who intend to carry a firearm. I also think it would benefit everyone collectively to allow the open carry of firearms. A convenient store robber would probably think twice if he walked in, only to find a man with 2 handguns on his hip buying a bag of chips at the register.

stage four

I was searching Texas Rainmaker, looking for a blog to critique, however, after reading the first few, I became irritated with the writer's overuse of the word "socialist" when referring to Obama or his policy. In my mind I kept picturing textbook descriptions of the Red Scare, McCarthyism, and propaganda... so what's next? Why not just go full circle and change "socialist" to "commie". Is this really what some conservatives have leveled to? Name-calling in the ways reminiscent of the Cold War? Seriously? That alone inhibited my ability to read the articles without holding a bias, and I was unable to take the opinion seriously. "So what's the point of this article, other than to bitch and moan about the GOP loss?" "Is anything relevent even being expressed other than dissatisfaction over the election?" The writer even goes so far as to connect the election result of a "socialist candidate" winning office to the 400 point dow drop on Nov. 5. Sure thing.. The bitter, condescending tone of the post-election blogs is a complete distraction from whatever vague messages Texas Rainmaker was trying to convey.. the only clear message I could gather was "Damnit! We lost!".

stage two

The headline of this editorial is “Social conservatives object to curriculum draft that supports sound science”, and the first paragraph ends with the phrase “inject religion into public schools”. This indicates that the author is writing for a moderate-to-liberal audience of politically active people. No specific author is named on the article’s page, and no credentials were given. The unknown columnist accuses (very generally) “conservatives” on the education board of wanting to “open up the public classroom to religious teachings about the origins of the universe”.

The author is referring to the first draft of Texas’ schools’ science curriculum (for the next ten years). The draft would “mandate[s] that classrooms include covering ‘weaknesses’ of major scientific theories”. The guidelines are very vague, and lack detail. The author thinks that the wording opens up opportunity for discussion of other scientific theories, mainly religion. The columnist believes that religious discussion has no place in science class, and sees potential “harm” to children’s education. Don McLeroy, board chairman, has doubts about Darwin’s theory of evolution. The author claims that there is an “agenda that sees the world narrowly and wants that view taught in the public schools. The editorial claims that the English and History departments are targets as well. The majority overlooked highly qualified English teachers because their “own curriculum proposal was ditched”. I agree with the author, although I think he could have been more specific on the draft’s contents. There should have been more detailed evidence provided, rather than a few single-word quotations scattered around.

stage three "Area Lawmakers Vote Against Bail Out"

The Austin American Statesman published an article by Jason Embry about local politicians' votes on the "rescue plan for the financial markets". Three of four U.S. House members (two democrats, one republican) voted in opposition to the bill. This shows that there is doubt for this plan in both parties. William Isaac, former chairman of the FDIC under Reagan, stated that there are "several steps that the administration could take to calm the markets, such as raising the limit on the amount of deposits insured by the FDIC". Lloyd Doggett believes that there are more "sensible steps" that could be taken (and wouldn't put such a massive tax burden on the population), but that "the treasury secretary is still given pretty unlimited authority".