How our beliefs blind us

Governor Perry has made his position on gay marriage perfectly clear from the beginning, he does not and will never support it. So when he said he was okay with the passing of New York's same sex marriage law he had some supporters riled up. Not one to be mistakenly open to the idea of marriage equality he assured his supporters he is still "not fine with it" and was able to down the government and support states rights in the same comment. He believes that Obama's announcement that he would no longer defend DOMA could lead to activist judges and special interest groups forcing their beliefs on him. That statement that marriage equality activists are forcing their beliefs on us is undeniably hypocritical. In reality that's exactly what DOMA was, it shoved the belief that marriage had a clear definition from the bible in our faces.

We are raised to believe that when you are older you will fall in love with a member of the opposite sex and procreate. This belief is shown to us in television, books and obviously movies. So what about people who can't make themselves want what society says the should? Obviously there must be something wrong with them and they are therefore not fit to have the same freedoms as us. They must pay the same taxes, follow the same laws, and fit in with society as best they can, but literally god forbid we allow them the same rights. There is no way one can consider that not pushing certain beliefs on someone else. As a Buddhist I do not tell others that they are wrong to believe in the bible or the Koran and I would never try to stop someone from being who they were meant to be because they were different.We cannot use the bible as law of the land and that is exactly what is used to back the laws against same sex marriage. I'm sure conservatives would like to disagree but whenever our forefathers came here they came to flee religious prosecution. That is why the constitution backs the separation of church and state. You cannot want Texas to be a place of freedom and liberty but your are only free if you believe in Christianity and you are only moral if you do exactly as society says. That is where my disgust for our hypocrisy  comes from. We cannot have a state that values liberty but also persecutes others for having different lifestyles than we agree with.

It is one thing for a state to just not recognize same sex marriage but it is just plain ridiculous that we have laws making it illegal. How is that right to tell someone their love for someone is illegal. There is no real ethical backing to these laws, in fact it should be illegal to deny someone the right to marriage. So please Texas stop pushing your anti equality beliefs on me, its not right and its just plain annoying. 

How dentists and real estate agents know more than you

Last summer Texas conservatives found a new way to force their beliefs down our throats, education. Every ten years the standards of textbooks are reviewed and these new standards will serve as a template for the material taught all across Texas classrooms. The members of the board chosen to do this are elected by Texans but have always had a greater influence across the states because of how large a textbook consumer Texas is. When the time came to vote on changes it didn't take long for the conservative majority to overrun the textbooks with their views on history and economics. The vote came down to party lines and the conservatives easily won with a 10-5 vote.The new textbooks that were agreed upon aim to stress the superiority of American capitalism, presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light, and questioning the founding fathers commitment to a purely secular government.

Heres the problem with all these changes, most people on this board have no real historical, sociology, or economic background. They do believe themselves to be experts on certain topics though, that should really make people more confident in their choices. How are we trusting our children's future in the hands of these unqualified people. Anyone who believes that Jefferson should be replaced by less secular leaders obviously knows nothing about History. Another member fighting for the downplay of separation of church and state was David Bradley, a real estate agent. Their replacement of the word capitalism with "free enterprise system" is a shameless way to make children see a broken system as the best thing since sliced bread. The conservative members like Dr. McLeroy, a dentist, believe that they are correcting a "liberal" bias found amongst the curriculum. These members also want to make clear the violent philosophy of the black panthers during the civil rights movement, not just concentrate on the peaceful protestors. This is a truthful addition but my gut feeling is that it was added for the purpose of downplaying the victimization of African Americans during this time. I could be wrong but that seems to be their main goal, paint themselves in a good light and all others as negative influences.They do want their credit for the civil rights legislation though, making sure that  their votes for equal rights in congress were mentioned.

I find myself extremely outraged as a future social studies teacher to know that I will have no choice but to teach my students this one sided version of history. Showing that McCarthy had a small amount of proof in his witch hunt for communists doesn't make what he did any less wrong. Trying to counter the idea that the Japanese concentration camps weren't fueled by racism and showing negative consequences of affirmative action are just the beginning in a long line of conservative brainwashing. That is a strong term to use for what they are doing but I fully believe that what children learn when they are developing can affect their beliefs in the future. These textbooks are like a giant machine churning out future conservative Republicans to continue their dominance in Texas politics and society. The worst part is that they are missing out on the words of men like Jefferson and others who believed in a society with freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to not be force fed somebody elses beliefs. In the end, last summers vote was a sad day for teachers and students alike across this state, a dramatic statement backed by the future consequences of the dentists and real estate agents of today.

Obamas war on Texas...Really?

Robbie Cooper of the Urban Grounds blog has written a scathing post accusing Obama of combining his hatred of guns and Texas into a new federal gun rule. Cooper states that this is just a new attack in Obama's ongoing personal war against Texas. The new rule that has Cooper "up in arms" requires firearms licensees in border states to report purchases of two or more specific rifles by the same person in a five day span. For a person to be reported they must purchase semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines and a caliber greater than 22. The rule was put in place to help combat the flow of guns to Mexico. This is where Cooper really starts in with the accusations. He writes that if  "Eric Holder and the ATF really wanted to combat the flow of guns going to Mexico, they could stop selling and giving guns directly to the drug cartels and Mexican gangs." That is a pretty serious idea to be selling to people about their government, but this is Texas and getting people riled up is exactly what Cooper wants. He believes that US guns didn't arrive in Mexico until the Government began supplying them for use as examples to achieve tougher gun laws. He ends his article with quotes from legislators across the nation voicing their outrage of the new law, especially in wake of the recent "fast and furious scandal". If you read the comments you'll see that he achieves his goal and riles his readers up to spew more hatred towards Obama.

It is difficult to even decide where to start with Mr. Cooper's post. The fact that he makes statements like "Obama's hatred of Texas" and "his personal war against Texas" make an educated reader already write off his blog as ill informed and malicious. This leads one to realize that his articles are most likely intended for an anti liberal, pro gun, and anti anything Obama audience. There is of course nothing wrong with being biased, especially considering my blog has a quite an obvious one, but when an author makes up statements and changes facts they are turning their blog into more of a gossip site than a news commentary. He has a link to the original story on ABC.com but fails to get the facts straight on the full details of the rule. Last but most certainly not least, I cannot understand why he is so upset about the rule anyway. I'm not necessarily anti guns but do we really need people owning semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines? I realize that there are target shooters and gun collectors but it still seems ridiculous to me. I believe the rule makes sense and people who are buying guns for the right reasons have nothing to worry about, and hopefully it will stop the ones with harmful intent.

texas vs the big bad epa

A new opinion piece in the San Antonio Express News discusses how the EPA's new pollution rule will achieve their goal of harming Texas' economy in every way possible. The article becomes increasingly melodramatic the further into it you read. The author Bryan Shaw discusses how the rule is specifically "aimed at cutting Texas jobs, cutting Texas economic growth, increasing Texas energy costs and harming Texas energy security." He believes that the rule cuts Texas' due process rights by not providing proper notice amongst other things. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality was the underdog and submitted comments because the big bad EPA told every other state but menacingly left Texas out of the loop. Shaw states that Texas was included in the new rule even though they did not cross the "contribution threshold". Apparently the rule will impose too high of costs on coal fueled power plants. If these plants have to shut down it will cause blackouts and therefore extreme health risks to everybody dependent on the only "reliable energy" in Texas, because all the other sources of energy (if you can even call them that) stand no chance to provide power. All of this will eventually lead to increased energy costs, loss of jobs, and raised prices on just about everything. Shaw is extremely concerned about how all these increases will affect the elderly and the poor of Texas. You almost start to feel bad for poor little Texas and than you get to the bottom and see who exactly Bryan Shaw is, the chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. As soon as one sees this it is clear where the authors real intentions lie, with the money. He makes it sound as if the EPA singled out Texas with the goal of destroying our economy. The author's audience has to be the republicans who pouted and cried foul the entire time the EPA was trying to prepare states for the new rule. God forbid the government tries to save us from ourselves. I understand why Shaw would find the regulations to impose on our freedom, they will make Texas less inviting for companies to build their giant plants that spew chemicals in the air. That means less money deposited into Mr.Shaw's pocket out of appreciation for scaring off the Evil Sith Overlord, known to us as the EPA. To see the other side of the spectrum one should read a editorial from the Dallas Morning News about Texas' whining due to the new policy. The article also discusses the positives of the new rule that Shaw forgot to mention in his article. Maybe if Rick Perry would have scheduled his day of prayer a little sooner he could have prayed the EPA out of existence, his prayers for rain came true didn't they...Alas in the end Texas is going to have to learn the consequences of procrastination. The same to Mr.Shaw who can write as many whiny articles as he wants, The EPA won he lost and now in exchange for a little cost, future children of Texan's may avoid the effects of our careless pollution.

Is Texas' Sonogram Law Unconstitutional?

An article in the Austin American Statesman discusses an abortion rights group attempt to halt the new pre-abortion sonogram law implemented during the last legislative session. Their claim is that the law is unconstitutionally vague and intrudes on the free speech rights of doctors. The law requires a doctor to perform a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion. The woman can decline to view the image or listen to the fetal heartbeat, but she must listen to the physician describe the developing fetus. Women can avoid the verbal explanations in cases of fetal abnormality, incest, or rape. Governor Perry and the laws sponsors have expressed their hope that the added information will prompt more women to change their mind about the abortion. The reproductive rights center claims that the sonogram goes to far because the information is "not part of standard medical care".   U.S District Judge Sam Sparks was concerned with the centers failure to argue the undue burden that the requirement places on women - a standard used to measure the constitutionality of informed consent laws. Sparks took issue with the provision allowing state regulators to randomly inspect abortion facilities. He also finds fault with the punishment for violating the sonogram law due to its murky definition of standards. The ruling is at least a month away.


This article is extremely important because it addresses one of the most controversial issues in today's society. The law imposes greatly on a woman's right to make decisions for herself. Doctors should not be responsible to enforce the social agenda. It will be interesting to see how Judge Sparks interprets the constitutionality of the law.