Why We Should Not Have Drugtests for The Unemployed.

The assumption is that unemployed people do drugs.  It is demeaning to assume that the unemployed automatically do drugs and that they need to prove their purity. Yes, you must pass a drug test in order to work, however, there are many who are relapsing on their drug habits who may never fully kick the drug habit. I've been in situations to know about people who are crack addicts, meth addicts, heroin, cocaine and it's never a matter of if you relapse; It is a matter of when you relapse. By halting those who have serious addiction issues from getting jobs you directly impede the drug addicts' ability to work a job by simply screening them. If we were to allow those who have addiction problems to get a job even though they have addictions to speed, crack cocaine, heroin, etc. this will open up an entire new workforce that will help the economy, put drug addicts back to work and as they are busy working, they may not have so much time and pain to do drugs to escape. This will put them in a more powerful position in their life to inspire them to work harder (because now they can work without the fear of a drug test to pass. As I said, it's not a matter of IF you relapse, it's a matter of WHEN). Not only is this the logical, and best economical action to take, it is the morally just way to take action. Instead of punishing them for something that is not entirely in their control, reward them for their efforts to get a job with a job. This will give them more of a hold on their life, so that they will have a job to wake up to and work hard. They make money, they invest in products, and this stimulates the economy. People make mistakes and take wrong decisions, yes, you must live with your decisions, however you don't have a choice as to what situation you were brought up in, whether you were born into a lucrid family or a poverty stricken ghetto.

One assumption most don't know about, is that it is not a matter of if you relapse it is a matter of when. If you were born in a poverty stricken neighborhood where drugs are dealt and this was your way of escaping a world of violent gang shootings, in which a dear friend was shot to death, you might just buy a dime of marijuana to ease your nerves from the drive-by shootings outside your house. If you were to live in a neighborhood where your only solid deal for a meal was to go to the public school, and so you go to school solely for the meal as a young child why wouldn't you buy marijuana to de-stress? If you have never been educated about the effects of drugs in your life, because you are too young and ignorant, why wouldn't you partake in meth, cocaine, heroin?  These situations do occur! This happens every day in the most degenerate neighborhoods. If you have nothing, no money to your name, no job, no  food, no shelter, and the only way to rise out of it would be to get a job, and yet you can't kick a drug habit (it's very difficult, I knew people in hospitals de-toxing off  heroin and they all said it felt like dieing! Also many who are addicted to heroin would literally kill for more.) You can't kick a drug habit and the only thing stopping you from taking a job is a drug test, where does that leave you? Without a job, without a means to support yourself, back in hopeless poverty and back in dealing illegal drugs which could land you in jail for decades. If this is the situation you grow into adulthood in, how would you know to act differently to not sell drugs on the street corner, or to not take heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, meth?

Another assumption is that unemployed people aren't serious about getting back to work. This assumes that citizens are lazy, that they don't want to work to lift themselves out of poverty. People that are in tough situations fight and strive to rise above and work to their goals. This is the human condition for many people. They want a better situation for their lives and their children and grandchildren. How good could you feel about yourself if you don't even have the money to ensure a good college education for your children? If you want something better than a life in squalor? People are very serious about getting back to work to make money to help their kids and improve their own life and maybe that of a sweet significant other. Citizens wish to work, to improve their lives by making money.

There are unemployed people that do drugs recreationally however it is known that many people who are richer and have more resources are just as likely to do drugs as those who are unemployed. Especially since the affluent have more money to spend on hard drugs, such as cocaine. This puts an unfair advantage upon them, as they have had the good luck in this economy to have a job, and as such do not need a drug test.

Yaron Brook, Texas's Basic Needs

Upon watching a Yaron Brook lecture I realized upon what Ayn Randists base their values: selfishness also known as "individual rights." Yaron Brook's speech was hailed by students.
                He reasons to -from what I can see- Anglo students that self interest is what stimulates the economy. This logic falls through as people don't only buy things just for themselves to make themselves feel better solely. People may  buy products to help others. Even if it's food for a drug addict, or robitussen for an ill person. The idea that the economy is fully run by selfish self interest is illogical.
                Yaron reasons that in a trade there is a win-win situation. He gives the example of an iPhone for which you pay $300 in exchange for pleasure, fun, and use. Who wins in this trade? People who have nothing to trade in for other products. People who have no money to their name, people that are disabled and need help. This is who loses, very starkly. Ayn Rand very distinctly promotes selfishness.
                Yaron also reasons that we don't praise Steve Jobs for his accomplishments by producing an iPhone that helps those who may buy it. This is true! He makes millions off of his products and indeed he isn't considered noble until he becomes a philanthropist who either intentionally or unintentionally helps people. Yaron argues that selfishness is a virtue, the new moral virtue.
                According to Yaron the government holds rich to a moral obligation to help others through taxing and redistribution. This perspective is a very selfish and self centered observation in which the more affluent are the victims and the ones to be concerned about. He takes the view that it's about the rich's moral values being challenged instead of the poor people's necessities.

Let's take a look at an individual who is pregnant and cannot get the aid she needs, and see what selfishness provides, or rather, fails to provide.
An expectant mother who receives no maternity benefits.
 An individual woman can't find the aid that she needs for her maternity through the private enterprise. She may find no health insurance to cover the birth of her child. The Affordable Care Act passed 2010 by congress stops insurance providers from limiting benefits. By 2014 Texans will have their basic needs covered in 10 ways:
                1. Ambulatory Patient Services.
                2. Emergency Services
                3. Hospitalization
                4. Maternity and Newborn Care
                5. Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders Services
                6. Prescription Drugs
                7. Rehabilitative and Habilitative Services and Devices
                8. Laboratory Services
                9. Preventive and Wellness Services and Chronic Disease Management
                10.  Pediatric Services
               
                To learn more visit www.texaswellandhealthy.org
The lack of medical coverage for citizens is exactly what the Ayn Randists preach. Yaron Brook was given a copy of an Ayn Rand book at the age of 16, and hasn't grown up since.

Why We Shouldn't Have a Texas Voter ID Law

My colleague Josh Cox posted "Texas Voter ID Law" about whether voter IDs be required to vote.

     The burden the Obama Administration is referring to by requiring a photo id to vote is placed on the citizens who have no photo id which would be the poor. I personally have a friend whose family does not own documents for identification. They are not illegal aliens from Mexico. They simply are poor and had a devastating flood to their house and have lost their birth certificates, social security cards, and every identification card they had.  Currently they are trying to obtain state identification cards from the government however it has been very difficult for them to obtain photo IDs when you have no documents to your name.
This is a link explaining the requirements for obtaining a identification card from the DMV in Texas.
http://www.dmv.com/tx/texas/apply-id-card
As you can see it costs 15$ to acquire a Texas photo ID card.  My friend's family does not have 15$ to spare. They live in a mobile home that is absolutely filthy and in the past all their money went to buying convenience store junk food since they couldn't go to a regular store to purchase better foods.
                Many citizens in the poorest sections of urban metroplexes-often African Americans-cannot afford to pay for a photo ID. This requirement of a photo ID separates the desperately poor from the rest of us whom can pay for a photo ID.  This disenfranchises those below poverty level and keeps them from being able to vote. For instance in New Orleans when a hurricane Katrina hit many citizens lost all their documentation from the flood, and many of these citizens are African Americans. They were all relocated to different states including Texas. Because of this natural disaster they do not have photo Identification and don't have the money to acquire one. Their money was lost in the flood along with their photo ID and with those the right to vote in their own nation. These people do have integrity however they are simply victims of disasters they cannot control. The voter ID laws keeps them from having a voice in government.
                As for voter fraud in general, most people do not even care to vote in the first place. It takes tremendous problems for them to consider voting as a means for changing their situation. People are apathetic and feel powerless and as such don't care too much to vote or even get involved in politics. It would take too much work for a citizen to commit voter fraud  when  the effect is only one vote they have out of millions. It isn't worth the time and citizens know this.
                "Burden" as defined in this link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/burden?s=t from dictionary.com states it is a encumbrance or impediment. By having to show a photo ID to vote it is in fact a "burden" as it would be much easier for citizens to not be required to show a photo ID. That is the definition of "burden," which is an impediment, this is common sense.
                 I agree that illegal aliens should not have the right to vote, however, it will create racial tension for Latin Americans by not allowing their undocumented families and friends the right to vote. There should be a way for undocumented workers to obtain citizenship in America.

Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood in 2008 helped 5 million people worldwide, helping people to make responsible decisions about reproductive and sexual health. Seventy-two percent of Planned Parenthood's clients are below poverty level.  Keep in mind that minimum wage is 7.25 an hour. Working full time is roughly 40 hours a week-although the company in mind is the dictator of how many hours a week is "full time." 40 hours a week X 7.25 an hour  is 290$. $290 a week X 4 weeks in a month is 1160$. $1160 a month  X 12 months in a year is 13,920 a year. For citizens who make 13,920 a year Planned Parenthood provides services they may otherwise be unable to afford. Defunding Planned Parenthood will take away vital services for the reproductive health for women and by eliminating services to women,  women will be forced to seek out other avenues for sexual and reproductive healthcare.

Planned Parenthood has provided programs on over 28 topics: AIDS/HIV family planning including education on abstinence, puberty,  STIs, teen pregnancy, and general women's health. The effects of having a society in which education on sexual and reproductive issues are unknown  is stark. In the Middle Ages we revert to religion and superstition to explain phenomenon without scientific evidence. Without information on even one of these topics many people will fall into ignorance of HIV/AIDS, STIs, teen pregnancy, and other conditions. Ignorance on these topics is literally fatal. If citizens in America do not know the basic facts on how to contract lethal diseases like HIV or AIDs they will not be able to prevent or even be aware of incidents that will lead them to contract fatal diseases such as HIV or AIDS. If children are taught abstinence only in schools and then grow into adults who have no access to the education of Planned Parenthood they may have to rely on their parents (who may or may not be there for them), friends (who may be just as ignorant as them), general practitioners (which they may be unable to afford as they are below poverty level and Medicaid is run by private interest groups such as Amerigroup for profit-which I personally am on), or religious affiliations (which will teach abstinence only and if religiously fundamental preach against every contraceptive).  Planned Parenthood even just on these terms is an enormous safety guard for women and even men everywhere.  Without the information that Planned Parenthood provides many could and would die due to  ignorance on pregnancy, abortion, STDs, cervical cancer, other cancers and more.

Women's rights for abortion have been mowed down drastically, especially with this personhood act. It doesn't matter if the woman would die from childbirth or have many other deadly consequences such as paralyzation. It doesn't matter if she is on medications that would deform the child irreparably. It doesn't matter if the father is a rapist and the "method of conception" is rape. It doesn't matter if she has AIDs which will transfer to the child. It doesn't matter if she is against birthing the child. The life of a single cell organism is more important than the woman who is carrying it's life. No more contraceptives since that would be preventing life and a generation from happening. Apparently Americans only have children as an accident. Planned Parenthood educated women and men on sexual reproduction and other incredibly important topics that otherwise would be obscure to them and their partners. It provides information on abortions which equals safety and security for the pregnant woman, she has a haven where she can learn more about her condition (pregnancy, or otherwise sexual issues) and make responsible decisions that fit with her choice. Not God's plan, not the government's plan, HER plan. Planned Parenthood is about women's rights to do what they want with their own body and be autonomous, as it should be.


-Samantha Jacks

Ted Cruz's Arguments with Greta Van Sesteren

I found Ted Cruz on FOX a couple of days ago in Rick Perry's World blog. Coming from FOX this reaches those people who can afford Cable TV-instead of being able to afford a premium for more liberal stations. You can find more information here.
I have found 2 claims that are false. I will pick them apart.

The first argument Ted Cruz suggests I quote:  "The Hispanic community is profoundly conservative."
    His evidence is that the Hispanic community has "faith, family, and patriotism." and "conservative values" such as "hard work, responsibility, and providing for your family." Obviously those other than conservatives have not valued responsibility, hard work and providing for their families.
                                In 2002 social conservatives called for stricter voting registration requirements deportation of immigrants who carried no identification, and the termination of bilingual education in Texas.  As an hispanic I wouldn't go for this conservative policy that advocates no bilingual education (an ignorance and aversion of the Latin heritage which is an insult), nor would I advocate the deportation of other hispanics who don't carry identification. The deportation of hispanics who don't carry an identification creates hostility towards the Latin race and creates distrust of the police by hispanics. I doubt this creates a warm fuzzy feeling for Mexicans/Latin Americans  who conservatives wish to deport. The feeling of being deported based on your race is degrading. The fact that no one talks about deporting Irishmen or those of Canadian descent, or English, Welsch, Scottish, Chinese, Russian, etc. and that Latin Americans are solely talked about when mentioning "illegal aliens," is an insult and insinuates inferiority in race by denying admittance to them when we let so many others from all over the world into our borders. These beliefs held by conservatives are starkly against Latin Americans.
                Terminating bilingual education is also an insult to the Spanish heritage. To ensure no spanish speaking education is provided is demeaning for undocumented workers, after all, we have languages of other sorts that we learn such as French, German, Dutch, Russian, and even Latin, a dead language, however we discriminate against hispanics. To terminate bilingual education is simply spiteful to those of Latin descent's heritage.
                Liberals, populists, women, Hispanics, and  African Americans comprise the Democratic Party. This is a common fact that many people who are even slightly aware of politics understand.
               
2.  "Most hispanics aren't for open borders":
                http://www.gallup.com/poll/27307/Most-Americans-Favor-Giving-Illegal-Immigrants-Chance.aspx
                According to the Gallup poll "illegal immigrants," Mexicans and others from Latin countries would be required to pay a $10,000 dollar fine for trying to enter the United States again. Mexicans that come here are generally poor and looking for a better place to live than the violence of Latin America. Ten thousand dollars in cash out of pocket is incredibly steep and ensures that the wealthy get admittance while the poor are denied.  I'm sure that as a hispanic with Mexican relatives they would rather not have some of their family to pay such a hefty fine just to reenter the United States. How would you like it if your uncle couldn't live in the same country as you simply because he doesn't have a whopping 10,000 dollars to drop into the U.S. coffer for citizenship?
Ted Cruz's argument implies that hispanics wouldn't want other hispanics into the country. By having open borders Latin citizens may incorporate their relatives and friends from Latin countries into their community in the United States. His logic simply doesn't make sense, why would hispanics not want other hispanics to enter  the country?  Surely they would welcome friends and family.

10/19/2012
http://www.perryvsworld.com/

Star-Telegram

The Editorial Board from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram Newspaper clearly has an issue with simple logic in making an argument for UT to not consider race in the selection of students to attend their prestigious school.
      Although its very difficult to find what their stance is in their article, the Editorial Board presents the idea that UT no longer needs to accept people through affirmative action, but instead through the top 10% rule in which those with the top 10 highest GPA scores will be automatically accepted at UT. This top 10% rule is an example of a "race-neutral program that has helped enroll more African-American and Hispanic students." Abigail Fischer was not in the automatic top 10% nor was she selected from the bottom 90% and so sued the University of Texas on grounds of reverse discrimination.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/10/03/4309430/base-affirmative-action-on-class.html#storylink=cpy

    Readers of the Star-Telegram may think that this article needs more intensity to attract or keep the audience. The Editorial Board must spark some human interest by covering the effect of the Abigail Fischer v UT ruling, whether the decision is to uphold the ruling in 2003 allowing race to be a factor in selecting a diversified student body or to overturn the 5-4 ruling. Readers of the Star-Telegram must be wondering what would it be like for the upcoming college-aspiring students if the Court ruled in favor of reverse discrimination? Star-Telegram might put in more statistics of percentage of college drop outs per ethnicity and back up their argument for how prospective students would be selected and what would the drop-out rate and graduating rate would be.
    Though very difficult to discern, their basic argument: UT no longer needs to use race as a factor in selecting students into their system as we have a "race-neutral" method of selection that will help more African American and Hispanic students.
    The assumptions this argument relies on proves that their logic is faulty. By implementing a race-neutral method for student selection such as the top 10% rule, minorities might very well be ruled out. The top 10% rule does not guarantee diversity in regards to race and does not guarantee Hispanics or African Americans will be considered as who is to say whether they have the resources and background to make the top 10%. Further, if the method is a race-neutral implementation then it will disregard race, as this is the definition of "race-neutral." As it disregards race it can't discern-such as in the top 10% rule-who is making the grades or not. How can a race-neutral implementation distinctly help the minority ethnicities if it disregards race? Race must be a factor in implementation in order to help Hispanics and African Americans.
    This article assumes a student body may be diversified without regarding race or ethnicity. For a student body to be diversified race and ethnicity must be observed. How diversified could the college colleagues be if they are of the same race?
  The values this article contends is difficult to find. The values would be to have government help mobilize students of lower classes and discriminated ethnicities rise in class and have equal opportunity to be admitted to college to obtain a degree.
The author's stance is not easily discerned. He cites 7 states denouncing affirmative action and lists other ways to help equal opportunity then states "are they enough?" He randomly gives information about the case and ends with the projection that the court will rule in favor of reverse discrimination. This article is poorly written and is very difficult to see what stance the author is trying to stake.
  The argument is completely unsuccessful. The argument that we can promote a diverrse college student body by have race-neutral methods makes no sense. If they are neutral and unrelated to race how can it have a determinate effect on keeping the student body diverse through ethnicities?
  One point to make is how would discerning by socioeconomic status might help blacks who are disproportionately poor however the Editorial Review never makes this connection and how would the casual reader leap to that conclusion?
 I believed it would be a well-written article but my beliefs on that have changed drastically. As far as content, I still hold all my beliefs as the same.
  The Editorial Board of Star-Telegram should rethink their logic. The content has done nothing to convince me as it is impossible to find what they are arguing for or against.

Editorial Review

Base affirmative action on class rather than race?

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/10/03/4309430/base-affirmative-action-on-class.html#storylink=cpy

10/5/12