Locked and Loaded

The Pursuit of Happiness blogger Amy Chesnut cites some interesting points in her article “The Right to Bear Arms...or Not?” I am in full support of her comment that the 2^nd amendment was designed to prevent abuse of power by the government. Ditto on citizens having the right to self defense. No, police officers possessing guns does not adequately cover the safety of the American people. These guys (and gals) are screwed by the sheer volume of civilians. One police officer to roughly every hundred or even thousand people doesn't cut it. Not to knock the officers, but it is a statistical improbability that they will be able to fully serve and protect each and every unarmed citizen. Solution? Strap every soccer mom and 6-year-old with a sod-off AK-47. Kidding....In all serious though, each person has the right to carry a firearm, if they so choose. Therefore, the more debatable issue regarding firearm possession is not whether we as citizens should be allowed to carry, but the ways in which we are allowed to carry. Chesnut provides a full spectrum of refutations in the form of very humorous video clips and color-coded graphs. This way a very fresh, well-rounded approach! The next best thing to her video clips would be catching the Stephen Colbert report on Comedy Central.

As far as loonies running around opening fire on innocent civilians, this, understandably and sadly enough, happens more with police officers, soldiers and Marines than actual “civies.” People already “walk around with guns on their hips” so I don't think we would see any increase in violent crime or larceny...the only thing changing would be the legality of the people already carrying guns. The motivated criminal will get their hands on a gun-- being legal to carry is probably an after thought. We may as well provide the “good guys” with unlimited access to where they can carry their firearms.

As far as open carry, I really don't see much functionality in this. Discretion is a term synonymous with guns. While I feel they should be accepted for civilian use in society, I don't support maximum exposure. A gun is a means of self defense and not a fashion accessory. Guns ( unless you are an avid collector) are not novelty items. A person goes through a screening process, classes and makes the conscious decision to take on responsibility for handling a gun in public. Start displaying your firearm in public and you put other people at risk. The responsibility that was solely yours has now fallen to the people around you. I have a 2-year-old daughter and a 3-month-old son, and I shudder to think about all the ways they would try and nab my gun if I had it easily accessible on my hip. There is a reason gun safes are so critical, especially with kids. It is about containment. You keep your methods of self defense shielded from other people, because you cannot trust what other people- ESPECIALLY children- would try and do. In addition to keeping yourself safe by means of concealed carry, you are also keeping the people around you safe. Open carry is the equivalent to leaving a gun lying around the house. I support Texas' non permissive open carry state regulations.

Fix 1876

E.J. Davis' oppressive regime during Reconstruction sent Democrats clamoring to rewrite the Constitution of 1869 as soon as humanly possible. Spooked from the abusive powers of a more centralized government, the Constitution of 1876 sought to decentralize the government considerably. It slashed government salaries, reduced state debt and placed restrictions on expenditures and taxes, just to name a few. In an effort to prevent another E.J. Davis from getting a decent foothold, the Democrats effectively cut the Texas Government off at the knees. It doesn't go without saying that a government can only function on bloody stumps for so long before it completely cripples itself.

This restrictive constitution boasts a plural executive. Translation being the Texas Governor better hold out hope for winning the people over with his personality and sway their interests that way, because he has little power to directly affect change elsewhere. With the exception of the personally appointed Secretary of State, the remaining political figures of the independently elected executive branch don't work together as a cabinet. If each office is out for their own interests, it makes political cohesion very difficult to achieve.

Texas has a legislature that meets biannually. Congress is employed with meager salaries and exposed to a crushing amount of legislature within a very narrow time frame. Given this short time period, it is nearly impossible for the legislators to accurately review every piece of legislation on their own. This has resulted in the legislators becoming dependent on outside sources for information regarding legislature. Enter lobbyists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we hire a person to perform a specific function ( a government official to draft legislature) then shouldn't we provide them with the means to successfully do their job? This should not be rocket science....

The state's judicial members are also reduced to pawns in the race for political office. Judges are chosen by partisan election. Sadly, the only thing a judge can realistically campaign for is a tough approach to crime. This tends to create a judge more concerned with severe punishments than actually giving fair sentencing. Bells and whistles should go off when the kid that stole from the 7-11 is getting the same sentence as a man convicted for homicide. This is a bit dramatic, but you get my point. It harms a judge's accountability when, instead of holding up their own goals for structural integrity, they are more concerned about meeting a quota for crime to ensure their reelection. Hope for reelection also nukes a Texas judge's independence. When the Texas Supreme Court chooses an appeals cases ( also known as the process of discretionary review) they are more inclined to hear cases filed by large contributors than non-contributors. Big-money interests have the Supreme Court Justices in, as Ted Nugent would say, a stranglehold.

In a nutshell, the current Texas constitution places too many restrictions on its government. We have a governor that is put through his paces-- parading around like a dog hoping to win best in show. Our legislative body is under-paid and over-worked. Meanwhile, our judicial members are too busy aligning their interests with corrupt privateers rather than actually advocating for cases whose outcomes might benefit the whole population. Sadly, can you blame them? They are just trying to play the game our constitution has set up for them. It is a game where no one wins. In designing a constitution to thwart centralized government corruption, we have corrupted the entire system of government. Bring on a more liberal constitution.

Do You Want Slime With That?

 


You know it's cause for concern when McDonald's deems a food item too heinous for public consumption.

In her blog, A Texas Thing, Amanda Ashley Vallejo recently published a commentary regarding the controversial pink slime meat product, entitled “ Pink Slime or NoPink Slime?” While Vallejo writes a well informed article pertaining to the benefits of this pink sludge, I still find myself concerned with the negative health implications that could result primarily from the preservative known as ammonium hydroxide. This base form of ammonia is commonly found in fertilizers, household cleaners, and when mixed with certain acids, it can form ammonium nitrate, a common component of homemade bombs. The fact that the USDA finds this chemical “generally safe” is disconcerting. Generalizing safety is basically like rolling the dice and taking your chances. Is your health something you are willing to gamble?

 

I do share Vallejo's sentiment that pink slime should be disclosed on labels of subjected foods. American citizens have a right to know what is in their food, even if it is toxic.

If you are a proper blue collar Texan (like I hope you are) then you should be familiar with the comedic relief of a Mr. Jeff Foxworthy. In one of his routines he discusses medicine and how the side effects of some medication are worse than the original ailment.

Jeff Foxworthy on drug side effects:

"'For itchy, watery eyes, it's Floraflor. Side effects may include: nausea, vomiting, water weight gain, lower back pain, receding hairline, eczema, seborrhea, psoriasis, itchy chafing clothing, liver spots, blood clots, ringworm, excessive body odor, uneven tire wear, pyorrhea, gonorrhea, diarrhea, halitosis, scoliosis, loss of bladder control, hammertoe, the shanks, low sperm count, warped floors, cluttered drawers, hunchback, heart attack, low resale value on your home, feline leukemia, athlete's foot, head lice, club foot, MS, MD, VD, fleas, anxiety, sleeplessness, drowsiness, poor gas mileage, tooth decay, split ends, parvo, warts, unibrow, lazy eye, fruit flies, chest pains, clogged drains, hemorrhoids, dry heaving, anal seepage and sexual dysfunction.' I'm thinking I'll just stick with itchy, watery eyes."

Same concept applies for using ammonium hydroxide to sanitize otherwise unedible scrap meat. We apply one chemical into a meat substance to nix germs, and in turn we create a laundry list of other health problems. Ailments not limited to bronchitis, asthma, skin irritation and in large concentrations ammonia can scarred lung tissue, causing lower lung inflammation and pulmonary edema. The USDA claiming that “...no reported cases of illness or disease traced to the trimming” is largely irrelevant. Government agencies are notorious for duping the public however necessary to further their own financial gain. As in my earlier post regarding fracking, the EPA seriously underplays the health hazards of fracking due to pressure from the oil companies and certain government officials.

Also, there is so much emphasis on everything in our diet being free of fat. Just because something claims to be 96% fat-free doesn't mean it is wholesome or nutritionally balanced. Quite the contrary, fat plays a vital role in insulating our body's organs, maintaining skin, nails, etc. Rather than eradicating fat, more emphasis should be placed on selecting the right type of fats and balancing this ratio with protein and carbohydrate consumption. Continuing to use pink slime in hopes of making a dint in America's obesity epidemic isn't going to happen. Obesity is a lifestyle choice. People that still eat the majority of their meat in processed form, from the likes of fast food joints, aren't serious about getting healthy—regardless of what you put on the menu.