Ok, so it's taken me a week and a half to get them up, but here are the photos from the Tax Day Tea Party at LaGrave Field in Fort Worth, TX.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Tax Day Tea Party pics
Ok, so it's taken me a week and a half to get them up, but here are the photos from the Tax Day Tea Party at LaGrave Field in Fort Worth, TX.
Degree doesn't equal success
Go to college, get a degree and get a job.
All of these actions are required to be successful in life. Or are they?
The traditional student path is not the only way to be successful. Jane Austen, Woody Allen, Richard Avedon and Jennifer Aniston are a few examples of people without a college degree who achieved success in their career paths.
Other options besides a formal education exist.
It’s no secret that a college education is not cheap, and some people are not willing to put themselves into what can sometimes be massive debt to pay for a diploma. After all, in the end it’s really just a piece of paper that says you’ve put in the work of studying and passing required classes to get it.
One popular alternative to college is the military.
For the commitment of their time, enlistees receive job training, room and board, meals and medical treatment. They also have the opportunity to move up in rank.
A roof over your head, food on the table and medical care when in poor health sound pretty successful.
Also, enlistees receive nonmaterial perks, such as the pride of serving your country and the honor of becoming a veteran.
If for some reason the military does not work out, those who have completed their commitment can utilize the GI Bill and the government will pay for the college education that was not affordable before enlistment.
Another option is to get a job.
The American dream says that anyone can achieve his or her dreams by working hard.
A friend once told me about a conversation she had with one of her photography professors. She wanted to become a fashion photographer and was going the college route to get there. Her professor told her that she just needed to get out there and shoot.
This is a viable option. Why not move to New York and study under one of the great fashion photographers? Ansel Adams dropped out of high school and today is considered a phenomenal photographer. His passion for and commitment to his work rather than a formal education enabled his success.
Another option is an apprenticeship. Do you love to build furniture or fiddle with wires? Learn a trade by apprenticing yourself to a furniture maker or an electrician.
College is not for everybody, but it’s not the end of the world. Your options don’t dry up because you don’t complete a formal education. Create your own self-worth.Published in The Collegian April 22, 2009.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Media needs rights protection
A shield law, legislation to protect journalists from giving up their confidential sources and material, is making its way through the Texas State Legislature.
Texas is one of 14 states that do not have a shield law.
This legislation is critical to protecting journalists’ reputations for integrity and the confidentiality of their sources.
State district attorneys argue that shield laws harm their cases, but if whistle-blowers know their identities are not going to stay confidential, they will not come forward and the information they have might never see the light of day.
How would Woodward and Bernstein have broken the news on the Watergate scandal without Deep Throat?
One could argue that this argument does not apply since Mark Felt’s family eventually revealed him as the source years later. However, if Woodward and Bernstein had been forced to give him up at the time of the scandal, his reputation would have been dragged through the mud until any privileged knowledge he had was seen as the ravings of an attention-seeking lunatic.
Then where would we be? Nixon would have certainly been happier.
Without a law protecting journalists and their sources, it will be harder to uncover government and corporate abuses.The House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee approved House Bill 670, and the Senate Jurisprudence Committee approved Senate Bill 915.
The bill is scheduled to go to the Senate for floor action. If ratified, it will award qualified privilege to journalists on issues such as testifying in court, revealing confidential sources and handing over their notes to prosecution in court cases. Because the privilege is qualified, it can be overcome in certain cases. However, a judge will be required to determine whether information in the reporter’s possession and declared essential to criminal or civil trials could be obtained without the reporter.
Prosecutors also receive something out of the bill.
In instances where a journalist was an eyewitness to a crime or when someone’s life depends on confidential source information, journalists will be required to testify in court. It’s a win/win situation.
Currently, journalists and their employers can be subpoenaed for their notes and any information they didn’t use in an article or news report. Prosecutors will issue a subpoena and, unless the journalist wants to serve jail time for contempt or pay a monetary fine, he or she doesn’t have a choice but to hand the materials over to prosecutors. Not only that, the reporter is required to pick up the cost of making copies and delivering the material to the prosecution.
Under the shield law, journalists would have a basis to refuse the subpoena and hand over their notes. Journalists would be protected from them like they are protected from search warrants without probable cause.
Some might argue that journalists already have First Amendment protections, but state courts have not recognized any protection for journalists. Authors and bloggers, unless employed by print or broadcast news entities, are not covered in either of the bills.
Some might argue that the media should do whatever it can to assist in the investigation and trial process.
However, journalists need to stay independent of law enforcement and prosecution. It is their responsibility to report news in an unbiased fashion, and if the prosecution of alleged criminals is added to their responsibilities, they cannot remain unbiased.
The only way to stop the judiciary abuse of journalists’ rights is to enact a shield law.
Published in The Collegian April 8, 2009.
Texas is one of 14 states that do not have a shield law.
This legislation is critical to protecting journalists’ reputations for integrity and the confidentiality of their sources.
State district attorneys argue that shield laws harm their cases, but if whistle-blowers know their identities are not going to stay confidential, they will not come forward and the information they have might never see the light of day.
How would Woodward and Bernstein have broken the news on the Watergate scandal without Deep Throat?
One could argue that this argument does not apply since Mark Felt’s family eventually revealed him as the source years later. However, if Woodward and Bernstein had been forced to give him up at the time of the scandal, his reputation would have been dragged through the mud until any privileged knowledge he had was seen as the ravings of an attention-seeking lunatic.
Then where would we be? Nixon would have certainly been happier.
Without a law protecting journalists and their sources, it will be harder to uncover government and corporate abuses.The House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee approved House Bill 670, and the Senate Jurisprudence Committee approved Senate Bill 915.
The bill is scheduled to go to the Senate for floor action. If ratified, it will award qualified privilege to journalists on issues such as testifying in court, revealing confidential sources and handing over their notes to prosecution in court cases. Because the privilege is qualified, it can be overcome in certain cases. However, a judge will be required to determine whether information in the reporter’s possession and declared essential to criminal or civil trials could be obtained without the reporter.
Prosecutors also receive something out of the bill.
In instances where a journalist was an eyewitness to a crime or when someone’s life depends on confidential source information, journalists will be required to testify in court. It’s a win/win situation.
Currently, journalists and their employers can be subpoenaed for their notes and any information they didn’t use in an article or news report. Prosecutors will issue a subpoena and, unless the journalist wants to serve jail time for contempt or pay a monetary fine, he or she doesn’t have a choice but to hand the materials over to prosecutors. Not only that, the reporter is required to pick up the cost of making copies and delivering the material to the prosecution.
Under the shield law, journalists would have a basis to refuse the subpoena and hand over their notes. Journalists would be protected from them like they are protected from search warrants without probable cause.
Some might argue that journalists already have First Amendment protections, but state courts have not recognized any protection for journalists. Authors and bloggers, unless employed by print or broadcast news entities, are not covered in either of the bills.
Some might argue that the media should do whatever it can to assist in the investigation and trial process.
However, journalists need to stay independent of law enforcement and prosecution. It is their responsibility to report news in an unbiased fashion, and if the prosecution of alleged criminals is added to their responsibilities, they cannot remain unbiased.
The only way to stop the judiciary abuse of journalists’ rights is to enact a shield law.
Published in The Collegian April 8, 2009.
Evolution in schools debated
The great debate between the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools was back before the State Board of Education last month.
On March 27, the board voted on proposed standards that would affect the science curriculum for the next decade.
The curriculum included two sections proposed by Chairman Don McLeroy, a self-proclaimed creationist, which recommended that students in high school biology classes study the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution. After heated debate, both sections were narrowly shot down in an 8-7 vote.Thank goodness for that.
Should all arguments for and against a theory be examined?
Definitely, but the language in this proposal was written in such a way as to discredit the theory of evolution and validate creationism.
McLeroy and other social conservatives claim that the teaching of evolution is biased to support the validity of the theory.
But changing the vernacular of the curriculum to discredit the theory is just as biased.
The board did approve wording that requires the critical analysis of evolution by high school science classes.
Thus, when schools start looking at textbooks in a few years, many quality options will not be chosen because they won’t qualify under the phraseology used.
Social conservatives argue that evolution is not a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and that intelligent design is a more logical theory.
Intelligent design is best defined by Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century philosopher.
He said that wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer. Nature is complex; therefore, nature must have had an intelligent designer.
The evolution theory contends that animals and plants originated from other preexisting types and that distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
A valid argument can be made for and against both of these theories.
However, the personal agendas of both creationists and supporters of evolution should not be a part of the decision process in deciding what children should and should not be learning in school.
Sly wording does not need to be injected into the curriculum to give students the opportunity to scrutinize these arguments.
Published in The Collegian April 8, 2009.
On March 27, the board voted on proposed standards that would affect the science curriculum for the next decade.
The curriculum included two sections proposed by Chairman Don McLeroy, a self-proclaimed creationist, which recommended that students in high school biology classes study the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution. After heated debate, both sections were narrowly shot down in an 8-7 vote.Thank goodness for that.
Should all arguments for and against a theory be examined?
Definitely, but the language in this proposal was written in such a way as to discredit the theory of evolution and validate creationism.
McLeroy and other social conservatives claim that the teaching of evolution is biased to support the validity of the theory.
But changing the vernacular of the curriculum to discredit the theory is just as biased.
The board did approve wording that requires the critical analysis of evolution by high school science classes.
Thus, when schools start looking at textbooks in a few years, many quality options will not be chosen because they won’t qualify under the phraseology used.
Social conservatives argue that evolution is not a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and that intelligent design is a more logical theory.
Intelligent design is best defined by Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century philosopher.
He said that wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer. Nature is complex; therefore, nature must have had an intelligent designer.
The evolution theory contends that animals and plants originated from other preexisting types and that distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
A valid argument can be made for and against both of these theories.
However, the personal agendas of both creationists and supporters of evolution should not be a part of the decision process in deciding what children should and should not be learning in school.
Sly wording does not need to be injected into the curriculum to give students the opportunity to scrutinize these arguments.
Published in The Collegian April 8, 2009.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Advocacy doesn't mean unity
The White House Council on Women and Girls, brought to life in March by an executive order, is unnecessary.
Linda D. Hallman is the executive director of the American Association of University Women, a group whose mission is to advance equity for women and girls through advocacy, education and research. The council was a high-priority recommendation from the AAUW to Obama.
Hallman commended the administration for the creation of the council and described it as a victory for her organization and the millions of women and girls who will now have a “pipeline directly into the White House.”
The praise for this initiative is foolish. Women and girls already have the opportunity to make their voices heard on issues that are important to them. Every American does. They can write to their representative and make their opinions known. Not only that, women hold a record number of seats in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives with 17 and 74, respectively. These female delegates do not lose their femininity once they are sworn into office, and male delegates would be unwise to ignore the voices of their female constituents as they outnumber males in the U.S. by several million.
Supporters for the council will argue that it provides an outlet for women to promote their views on political concerns such as abortion or equal pay. However, with so many advocacy groups already doing this, one more, even one in the White House, is superfluous.
How can the council advocate for all girls and women on political concerns when they have different opinions derived from a wide variety of experiences? It cannot claim the ability to represent the views of all women. Even women who have had similar life experiences can form different opinions. There is no way to speak for everyone.
This executive order is not a victory as Hallman believes. It is a throwback committee in a government full of committees. As a nation, we should be beyond the need for councils like this. All this does is imply that women and girls are segregated. It says they are a shoebox in a closet with floor-to-ceiling shoe racks.
It seems that everyone is classified these days, and it shouldn’t be that way. It is not about men or women, black or white, gay or straight. It’s about Americans.
Instead of installing councils that imply divisiveness in the country, perhaps President Obama should think about promoting unity.
*Published in The Collegian April 1, 2009
Linda D. Hallman is the executive director of the American Association of University Women, a group whose mission is to advance equity for women and girls through advocacy, education and research. The council was a high-priority recommendation from the AAUW to Obama.
Hallman commended the administration for the creation of the council and described it as a victory for her organization and the millions of women and girls who will now have a “pipeline directly into the White House.”
The praise for this initiative is foolish. Women and girls already have the opportunity to make their voices heard on issues that are important to them. Every American does. They can write to their representative and make their opinions known. Not only that, women hold a record number of seats in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives with 17 and 74, respectively. These female delegates do not lose their femininity once they are sworn into office, and male delegates would be unwise to ignore the voices of their female constituents as they outnumber males in the U.S. by several million.
Supporters for the council will argue that it provides an outlet for women to promote their views on political concerns such as abortion or equal pay. However, with so many advocacy groups already doing this, one more, even one in the White House, is superfluous.
How can the council advocate for all girls and women on political concerns when they have different opinions derived from a wide variety of experiences? It cannot claim the ability to represent the views of all women. Even women who have had similar life experiences can form different opinions. There is no way to speak for everyone.
This executive order is not a victory as Hallman believes. It is a throwback committee in a government full of committees. As a nation, we should be beyond the need for councils like this. All this does is imply that women and girls are segregated. It says they are a shoebox in a closet with floor-to-ceiling shoe racks.
It seems that everyone is classified these days, and it shouldn’t be that way. It is not about men or women, black or white, gay or straight. It’s about Americans.
Instead of installing councils that imply divisiveness in the country, perhaps President Obama should think about promoting unity.
*Published in The Collegian April 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
