Why Doesn't Dave Wilson Get a Hobby?

For a man who disapproves so strongly of homosexuals, Dave Wilson sure spends a lot of time worrying about their affairs. Wilson has lead efforts to deny benefits for City of Houston homosexual employees, created a committee to ban same sex or unmarried couple's benefits, and, most recently, distributing a whopping 35,000 fliers voicing his opposition to mayoral hopeful, Annise Parker because she is a lesbian. I wonder if he still has time to go to church so he can tell God about all the "good" he is doing.

Wilson States,"Is this the image Houston wants to portray?" Well, it's about time Houston portrayed an image other than oil refineries, crime and, if Wilson had his way, bigotry.
I grew up in one of the many suburbs in Houston, and from my experience, change isn't something firmly grasped by the hands of many of it's citizens.

Wilson claims that "Just because Annise Parker is a lesbian doesn't qualify her to be mayor of Houston," but in what way would that disqualify her? Perhaps he fears Houston's skyline will be painted in rainbow colors and doused in glitter.

Of course, everyone has the right to their opinions and beliefs no matter how unjust they may appear. Wilson fears ("fears" being the operative word) the affects of homosexuality. His two gay uncles both died of AIDS, and that may have some bearing on his anxieties towards the gay and lesbian community.

Nonetheless, unwarranted spreading of hate propaganda and claims that "...homosexual behavior, to any society that has embraced it, has led to the extinction of that society," are just absurd notions. Perhaps the people of Houston recognize the absurdity and hopefully regard it when deciding if they side with or against Annise Parker. Perhaps the people of Houston will decide their opinions on values of merit. Why must candidates or elections be decided upon race, sexual preference, age, religion or gender? It's as if there is a checklist you must pass before you are even regarded by your political merits.

Parker may very well become a "poster child" for a gay and lesbian movement towards politics. I say, good for her. There is a large gay and lesbian community that is just as much a part of Houston and it's culture as Bible-beating super-conservatives.

Dave Wilson may not have the type of mind you can change or even open, but as a straight, semi-christian man myself, I say, "What is to fear, realistically?" You can't be changed or converted unless you want to, and if your convictions are so strong, then they wouldn't waiver in the presence of something new or different.

The article that hector wrote about convicts getting H1N1 shots brought up some good points, but on the whole I disagree with the article.

Firstly, pregnant women need the vaccination, period. If they happen to be incarcerated makes no difference, but to say that all convicts get preference because there are many pregnant women inmates would be wrong. The elderly, pregnant women, and children need the vaccine first without a doubt.

Another point I discovered was hinted at, but never reached it's destination. Convicts cannot just go out and receive the shot if they so choose. Yes I feel this is a valid point. But if that was to justify giving preferential allotments to inmates it would prevent citizens who have chosen to respectfully regard the laws from doing the same. If there is such a limited amount to be given you cannot prevent an un-incarcirated individual from receiving the shot by giving it to someone who is in jail. You just don't punish the innocent for the gain of the guilty.

Which brings another point to mind. I do believe it is unsafe for prison guards and prisoners who will be released to not be vaccinated, of course. Thus reducing the risk for people associated with the prison system as well as the rest of society who comes in contact with them.

Basically, I understand the view of the article but couldn't disagree more, respectfully. The statements made do ask a good question but do not find the right answer. Prisoners should not be denied the shot all together . But rather receive rationing for the average number of at risk individuals, those that work in the prison system and those being released. But if a healthy rapist gets the sot before a 6 month pregnant women who still hasn't received hers, tat would be wholy unjustified, unsafe, and unconscious of the rights and privileges that morality and law abiding earns you.

Another Brick

A press release from the office of Gov.Rick Perry ob October 31st,2009 illustrated an urgent threat to Texas. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has enlisted the town of Presidio,TX as a proverbial dumping ground for the nation's illegal aliens.
The Alien Transfer and Exit program may very well be detrimental to our state's resources and security. While I agree,vehemently that the illegal alien problem in thee state as well as the nation needs to be solved, this notion of transferring all I.A.s to Texas does not take into mind the effects on our state. Our border security can not handle the amount of illegal aliens crossing into Texas successfully as it is. While becoming the port of exit for the entire U.S. we also simultaneously become an overwhelming port of entry. This strategy forces strain on local law enforcement and will prove costly to taxpayers. The idea may ease the burden on other states but only at the cost of increasing ours.
This brings to mind the though of taking responsibility for driving an inebriated friend home. But instead of taking them home, driving them to another friend's home and leaving them to finish the job, unconcerned with the inconvenience placed on an undeserving party.
ATEP was put into affect November !st of this year, leaving us to pick up the bill and brunt of the consequences. This only reassures the fact that a cure for the I.A. epidemic must be discovered and administered correctly. To solve our problem we must first resolve the underlying issue, because passing the buck just will not cut it.

Can We Find Something More Important to Discuss?

I must admit, after reading this story in the Capital Annex, TX GOV: GOP Candidates War Over Travel is Trivial by Vince Leibowitz, I got a slight headache. I agree with Leibowitz on his opinion of the Republican candidates and how childish it is to argue over something as meaningless as who is spending more on travel expenses.

When campaigning to be the Governor of this great state, I would imagine that it would be prudent to use one's campaign to make a strong and impressive statement. To waste energy on issues that have minimal importance is already bad enough, but failing to even come up with a mature rebuttal that is, let's be honest, lame.

Leibowitz also stated these attacks between the Perry and Hutchison camps demonstrates the fact that they are pretty much the same candidate with different packaging. Which may explain the fruitless attempts at attacking one another. With some of the differences that the candidates have, such as business tax, immigration, and stimulus funding, I think these are the issues that need to gain focus,not travel expenses.

I get that no one who wants everyone to agree with them likes to talk about their opinions because the fear of some people losing interest, but that's their job right now. Simply not mentioning the important issues does not make them non-issues. I think its time for both sides of this race to stop being petty, get out there, show us what each one can bring to the table from a political stand point and work on key issues that make the state a better place as a whole.

Shining Light on a Pair of Closed Eye's

In an article in Texas Monthly, " Memo to Kay", Michael Hall proposes that Governor Rick Perry's opponent, Senator Hutchinson should take notice and make use of some compelling information in her campaign. Recently things have surfaced in front of the Governor that could have proved a man's innocence. Sadly this new information was not only ignored, but brushed a side and ridiculed so that Rick Perry could save face. I believe in the statements made in this article and also concur. Rick Perry was presented with evidence that could have prevented a man's execution had it been examined correctly,and swept it under the rug by firing the men who would have revealed it. Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted in 1991 for arson and the murder of his three children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission, assembled in 2005 investigated Willingham's case evidence and ruled it inaccurate and unlikely even to the standards held in 1992,and as well as current ones. What they did find was that the fire was accidental, and that no murders were committed, in other words Willingham was innocent. Though this was a terrible tragedy, and when tragedies happen blame is always sought to be placed on someones' shoulders, a mistake was made. When the mistake was illuminated to Perry, he wanted to pretend that the lights were still off, that no mistake was made. The article states that " Perry was asked about the case, and he said there was plenty of other evidence that proved Willingham had killed his kids" When being questioned about an article that was printed in the New Yorker, he even continued to "mock" the experts who divulged the information, saying that they were not qualified. The proof is in the pudding! The article states point after point where brought to surface and the Governor still choose to ignore them. If anything should be gained from this, I hope that the masses of loyal voters open their eyes to our beloved Governor. Though he may be the states longest running Governor, he certainly has not exercised the knowledge gained with experience. all in all, I am happy that I have come across this article, it has most defiantly shed some light in my eyes and I would be wise not to ignore it.

As a future soldier for the US Army, I feel that the need for more troops in Afghanistan is valid and I am glad the focus has finally been shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan. An article in the Houston Chronicle states that the situation abroad is growing worse. I feel that the need for more troops to flush out the insurgents is just like gargling salt water to kill a bacteria in your throat, if you use too little you can make the infection worse, but if use the right amount it will actually dissipate and die. If the government truly wants to get this over with and stop endangering American troops, they need to hit the problem hard. There in lies the problem, without a firm commitment to be in Afghanistan in the first place why should we be? If President Obama can not plant his feet on the ground and firmly say yes we need to be here, or we should pull out to save our resources and men and women, then an end to this war cannot be foreseen. No matter how I or anyone for that matter feel about why we are over there in the first place, a decision must be proactively meet