In my classmate's blog, Burn the Burnt Orange, she writes about the protest and arrest of 18 University of Texas students. These students were peacefully protesting against U.T. because they sell, in their stores, clothing that has been made in sweatshops. I agree with her that the students who were arrested had to be because of the rules passed by the University. And I also understand her disappointment with U.T. and their "ties" to sweatshops. She states at the end of her article that she will no longer wear her U.T. shirts and dresses as her way of protesting against them and sweatshops in general. Although I respect her decision to do so I wondered, as I read through her blog, if she knows all the other brands or products which are also produced in sweatshops which she and other U.T. students might not be aware of. If they were, are they willing to give these products up as well.
Earlier this year it came to the public's attention that Apple produced many, if not most, of their products in sweatshops in China. People love their iPhones and iPads. People also love that they are affordable. The reason behind Apple's low prices is due to the labor practices that would otherwise be illegal in the USA. On average, workers put in 16 hour days and make about 70 cents an hour. It should also be known that the people who make our iPhones and iPads probably don't own any because they can't afford them. Additionally, they also have underage workers, 12 to 14 years of age. A lot of the workers are exposed to harmful toxins when assembling Apple products. If Apple were to build their phone using american labor rules Apple's profits would go down while the cost of the products would go up.
The International Textile, Garment and Leather Worker's Federation (ITGLWF) is a global union federation that strives to strengthen unions and fight for work place improvements. According to ITGLWF, there are many other well known name brand stores that save a dollar by using sweatshops to produce their products. A few recognizable names are NIKE, Banana Republic, Walmart, and The Gap. Lands End, Levis, Ralph Lauren and Adidas are also guilty of human rights violations in sweatshops. They are accused of underpaying and exploiting their employees, especially women who make up 76% of their work force. Sexual intimidation and abuse has been stated as being common. Many of the factories are unsafe and those who are in charge of them often engage in unethical or illegal behavior. Although these practices are now being openly publicized, many of the conditions that workers have to endure have not changed.
No one wants to buy products made with sweatshop labor but, it is hard to know what products you have to avoid since there are so many. Yes, we may be contributing as we blindly go about making our everyday purchases but now that people are becoming more aware, have they changed what products they will or won't buy as a form of protest? Are people really serious about making changes so that they don't support products made in sweatshops? Are those 18 U.T. students and others who agree with them really ready to clean out their closets, or, more importantly, give up their iPads or iPhones? I doubt it.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
If You Do the Crime....
On Thursday at 6:25 p.m. at the age of 29, a Texas man was executed for his participation in a robbery that took place on Labor Day, 2002. Beunka Adams became the 5th person in Texas and 17th in the United States to be put to death this year.
On that Labor Day in 2002, Adams and a friend, Richard Cobb, wore masks and walked into a convenience store in Rusk, a town 115 miles southeast of Dallas. After they announced they were going to rob the store, they proceeded to abduct the store's 2 female clerks, Nikki Ansley and Candace Driver and another male employee, Kenneth Vandever who is mentally handicapped. After raping one woman they shot all three victims execution style. Although all three were seriously hurt, all three survived their horrific ordeal. Both Adams and Cobb were arrested several hours later in Jacksonville. Adams was identified by one of the female victims when his mask accidentally slipped off. At his execution, Adams asked for forgiveness and admitted to his crime by stating, "If I could take it back I would...I messed up and can't take that back." He was pronounced dead nine minutes after being lethally injected. Cobb is still on death row.
I decided to write about this recent event because I find the topic to be a heated one especially in a state that executes more people than any other. People are either for or against capital punishment and have very strong opinions on the subject. In my opinion, I believe there are certain crimes for which only capital punishment is appropriate. There are people who deserve the death penalty for murdering other people and who may, if released, continue to harm more victims. Everyone is born with the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. Everyone is born with their own personal free agency and can choose to make good decisions and live a good life or choose to do the opposite. You shouldn't blame anyone else for your actions and you should be very aware that there are consequences. Those who disagree with me will say that it costs more to keep someone on death row than it does to keep them in prison for life. They would be right.
In Texas, it costs tax payers about 2.3 million for each death penalty case. That is three times the cost of imprisoning a person in a single cell for at least 40 years. To me, the cost shouldn't matter when a person who cannot be trusted to not harm others must be removed from society. Another argument against capital punishment are cases of wrongful convictions. From 2000 to 2011, there has been an average of five exonerations per year. Although I hope that those who are sentenced to death are truly guilty, I know that sometimes there are some who may be innocent. An individual is usually on death row for at least 10+ years and by law, is required to have the opportunity for numerous appeals. This still does not change my opinion that capital punishment is a necessity.
I especially feel that people forget about the victims and their families. Even if the execution doesn't bring back their loved one or any sense of comfort, justice still has to be paid. Sometimes saying "I'm sorry" is not enough. And sometimes making one horrible mistake in your life can destroy the rest of your future. I'm sure people change when they finally come to terms with the reality of their actions. But even if you are a different person now it doesn't change the actions or decisions that have already been made. I believe the death penalty should be used for the most heinous of crimes and for individuals from whom the rest of society must be protected.
On that Labor Day in 2002, Adams and a friend, Richard Cobb, wore masks and walked into a convenience store in Rusk, a town 115 miles southeast of Dallas. After they announced they were going to rob the store, they proceeded to abduct the store's 2 female clerks, Nikki Ansley and Candace Driver and another male employee, Kenneth Vandever who is mentally handicapped. After raping one woman they shot all three victims execution style. Although all three were seriously hurt, all three survived their horrific ordeal. Both Adams and Cobb were arrested several hours later in Jacksonville. Adams was identified by one of the female victims when his mask accidentally slipped off. At his execution, Adams asked for forgiveness and admitted to his crime by stating, "If I could take it back I would...I messed up and can't take that back." He was pronounced dead nine minutes after being lethally injected. Cobb is still on death row.
I decided to write about this recent event because I find the topic to be a heated one especially in a state that executes more people than any other. People are either for or against capital punishment and have very strong opinions on the subject. In my opinion, I believe there are certain crimes for which only capital punishment is appropriate. There are people who deserve the death penalty for murdering other people and who may, if released, continue to harm more victims. Everyone is born with the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. Everyone is born with their own personal free agency and can choose to make good decisions and live a good life or choose to do the opposite. You shouldn't blame anyone else for your actions and you should be very aware that there are consequences. Those who disagree with me will say that it costs more to keep someone on death row than it does to keep them in prison for life. They would be right.
In Texas, it costs tax payers about 2.3 million for each death penalty case. That is three times the cost of imprisoning a person in a single cell for at least 40 years. To me, the cost shouldn't matter when a person who cannot be trusted to not harm others must be removed from society. Another argument against capital punishment are cases of wrongful convictions. From 2000 to 2011, there has been an average of five exonerations per year. Although I hope that those who are sentenced to death are truly guilty, I know that sometimes there are some who may be innocent. An individual is usually on death row for at least 10+ years and by law, is required to have the opportunity for numerous appeals. This still does not change my opinion that capital punishment is a necessity.
I especially feel that people forget about the victims and their families. Even if the execution doesn't bring back their loved one or any sense of comfort, justice still has to be paid. Sometimes saying "I'm sorry" is not enough. And sometimes making one horrible mistake in your life can destroy the rest of your future. I'm sure people change when they finally come to terms with the reality of their actions. But even if you are a different person now it doesn't change the actions or decisions that have already been made. I believe the death penalty should be used for the most heinous of crimes and for individuals from whom the rest of society must be protected.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
A Commentary on Classmate's Blog
In a classmate's assignment titled, "Curious Consumers Start to See More Hospital Data," she writes about the new proposed law linking government payments to hospitals in conjunction with patient satisfaction scores. Under this new proposal, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) will begin to withhold reimbursement payments to hospitals based on unfavorable scores patients give regarding their hospital stay. I found this article to be interesting because I work in the health field and I see the results of these new measures already taking effect. While I do agree with one of the points she made, I disagree with others.
I have worked in the health care industry for about 9 years both in a publicly funded and privately run hospital with constant patient interaction. If you have never worked in a hospital setting where you are directly responsible for taking care of people, it's hard to explain or imagine what a care provider has to go through each day. It's one thing to hear about it coming from a family member who is a nurse or a doctor than it is to actually experience it day by day.
Under the new proposal, 1 percent of the reimbursed payments made by the CMS, about 850 million in the first year, will go into a pool to be doled out as bonuses to hospitals that receive an above average score that is based on several measures. Who do you think that money is going to go to? Most likely, hospitals that can afford luxury amenities and whose level of care is different compared to a public hospital like University Medical Center at Brackenridge (UMCB) here in Austin. The author states that UMCB has more obstacles than a private hospital which would probably lower their score. And she would be right. Private hospitals which generate money can afford to look like a hotel and treat their patients like guests to make their stay more comfortable. A public hospital like UMCB doesn't generate the same funds as a private hospital does because they are mostly responsible for taking care of the uninsured which include the homeless and undocumented. Any number of reasons could be used to score a hospital low. For example, telling a patient "no" can anger them even though it might be for their own good. Nurse to patient ratio is not established in Texas which means a nurse could get up to 6 or 8 patients, all of them needing him/her at once. It's a no win situation when one patient is left behind for another. Do they have to show preference for a more vocal patient so that the hospital can receive a higher score instead of those who are in need of greater care? It's a Catch 22.
A point that my classmate makes is a point that I can agree with, but with some reservations. She states that the government should make critical information regarding a hospital's history of complications more available to the public. Reports on deaths, infections and complications would be informative and would enable the public to make a more informed choice as to which hospital they chose to go to. I agree, but I think it should be done more accurately. For example, if a major trauma or complicated infection was transferred from one hospital to another and the end resulted in a death, the original hospital should be the one held responsible. As of now, it falls on the shoulders of the receiving hospital, which in turn would lower their score. In another example, a patient is discharged with specific instructions but has to be readmitted because they failed to comply with the orders given (which happens a lot). That needs to be taken into consideration as well and not be held against the hospital. At other times, a patient's health improves and they are transferred to another facility to continue their care. Unfortunately, sometimes the proper care is not administered and they end up having to be sent back. Situations like that would be held against the hospital. I do not believe that grading the hospital in that manner is fair.
The author also states that hospital staff need to follow guidelines to avoid further infections and complications. Believe me, we do! Now, try telling that to the patient. Infection does spread easily in a hospital but when a patient who is in isolation insists on leaving their room to go outside, what are we supposed to do? Especially if we are afraid of receiving a low score.
Although my classmate makes a good argument regarding more information being available to the public, I believe it has to be done correctly and fairly. I don't agree with her take on patient satisfaction and hospital reimbursements. I think it would tie the hands of health care providers by making patient care all about the dollar sign instead of doing what is best for them. Hospitals should be held accountable for what they can control not by what they cannot. A person's perception of a situation should not hold a whole hospital responsible for trying to do their best.
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/02/patient-satisfaction-kill.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/opinion/hospitals-must-first-hurt-to-heal.html?_r=1
I have worked in the health care industry for about 9 years both in a publicly funded and privately run hospital with constant patient interaction. If you have never worked in a hospital setting where you are directly responsible for taking care of people, it's hard to explain or imagine what a care provider has to go through each day. It's one thing to hear about it coming from a family member who is a nurse or a doctor than it is to actually experience it day by day.
Under the new proposal, 1 percent of the reimbursed payments made by the CMS, about 850 million in the first year, will go into a pool to be doled out as bonuses to hospitals that receive an above average score that is based on several measures. Who do you think that money is going to go to? Most likely, hospitals that can afford luxury amenities and whose level of care is different compared to a public hospital like University Medical Center at Brackenridge (UMCB) here in Austin. The author states that UMCB has more obstacles than a private hospital which would probably lower their score. And she would be right. Private hospitals which generate money can afford to look like a hotel and treat their patients like guests to make their stay more comfortable. A public hospital like UMCB doesn't generate the same funds as a private hospital does because they are mostly responsible for taking care of the uninsured which include the homeless and undocumented. Any number of reasons could be used to score a hospital low. For example, telling a patient "no" can anger them even though it might be for their own good. Nurse to patient ratio is not established in Texas which means a nurse could get up to 6 or 8 patients, all of them needing him/her at once. It's a no win situation when one patient is left behind for another. Do they have to show preference for a more vocal patient so that the hospital can receive a higher score instead of those who are in need of greater care? It's a Catch 22.
A point that my classmate makes is a point that I can agree with, but with some reservations. She states that the government should make critical information regarding a hospital's history of complications more available to the public. Reports on deaths, infections and complications would be informative and would enable the public to make a more informed choice as to which hospital they chose to go to. I agree, but I think it should be done more accurately. For example, if a major trauma or complicated infection was transferred from one hospital to another and the end resulted in a death, the original hospital should be the one held responsible. As of now, it falls on the shoulders of the receiving hospital, which in turn would lower their score. In another example, a patient is discharged with specific instructions but has to be readmitted because they failed to comply with the orders given (which happens a lot). That needs to be taken into consideration as well and not be held against the hospital. At other times, a patient's health improves and they are transferred to another facility to continue their care. Unfortunately, sometimes the proper care is not administered and they end up having to be sent back. Situations like that would be held against the hospital. I do not believe that grading the hospital in that manner is fair.
The author also states that hospital staff need to follow guidelines to avoid further infections and complications. Believe me, we do! Now, try telling that to the patient. Infection does spread easily in a hospital but when a patient who is in isolation insists on leaving their room to go outside, what are we supposed to do? Especially if we are afraid of receiving a low score.
Although my classmate makes a good argument regarding more information being available to the public, I believe it has to be done correctly and fairly. I don't agree with her take on patient satisfaction and hospital reimbursements. I think it would tie the hands of health care providers by making patient care all about the dollar sign instead of doing what is best for them. Hospitals should be held accountable for what they can control not by what they cannot. A person's perception of a situation should not hold a whole hospital responsible for trying to do their best.
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/02/patient-satisfaction-kill.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/opinion/hospitals-must-first-hurt-to-heal.html?_r=1
Friday, March 30, 2012
Let the Pandering Begin...
A couple of weeks ago the Department of Justice (DOJ) blocked a new Texas law that would require a government issued photo ID in order to be eligible to vote. According to Attorney General Eric Holder and the rest of the DOJ, the law would unfairly target Hispanic voters. I have to say that I disagree (surprise, surprise) with their reasons behind blocking what I think is an important measure to prevent fraud. What I want to know is what is so wrong with having a proper form of identification to vote? I really don't see a problem with that. Every time I go to the store and buy something with my credit card I have to show my driver's license. When I opened a bank account, when I cash a check or when I board a plane I also have to show an ID. In fact, when I come to ACC to take a test in the testing center I have to show proof of who I am so that they know that I am not cheating. I don't complain about this because I understand why they have to do it.
In the headlines recently, there was a cheating scandal involving Long Island High School students who took the SAT and ACT tests. Several students were paid by other students to take their tests for them. After that discovery, new rules are being established in order to prevent such cheating. Students are now required to upload, mail in and have photos printed on their admission tickets and on the roster at the testing centers. They believe that photo identification is the best way to insure that the person who takes the test is who they say they are. The Texas Voter ID Law is attempting to put this concept to use.
It is a fact that more and more undocumented people are coming across the border from Mexico and Latin America to Texas. If I were to visit Mexico I would be required to show ID, like a passport, and when I cross over into their country I have to comply with their laws. I believe that requiring photo identification can help to control and keep corruption in check. We want to prevent it from becoming a huge problem in the future. So let's work on it now and not make it a complicated issue.
According to Tom Perez, the Justice Department's head of civil rights division, the new Texas law would create undue hardship on the Hispanic population. These hardships include: not having the means to get a vehicle, living too far from a driver's license office or not being able to go during the office's limited operating hours. Is that all they could come up with? I think these are weak reasons and and just another way for Democrats to pander to Hispanics. I know that undocumented workers can get cars, but apparently don't bother to get a driver's license or insurance so I just don't buy that excuse. Here are my solutions. The Government has the power to make it more affordable, and build more driver's licenses offices while creating jobs at the same time. They can also stay open later on certain days of the week and maybe once a month they could actually open on the weekend. If the Government is serious about treating everyone fairly and equally at the voting booth, it needs to begin with them. I believe that voting is a right and a privilege and that everyone should have the opportunity to vote, but it should be done properly.
Democrats like to complain that voter fraud is a myth. I disagree. I believe their reason for blocking the Texas Voter ID Law is another political ploy aimed at stirring up disorder instead of creating a solution to a growing problem. So I have a question: For an upcoming trip can I be exempted from having to go to the trouble of paying for a passport ($165), buying gas so that I can drive to the post office to apply for it, and waiting weeks for my passport even though everyone else has to do it and it's the law? Because I think it creates unnecessary hardship for me. So can I?
In the headlines recently, there was a cheating scandal involving Long Island High School students who took the SAT and ACT tests. Several students were paid by other students to take their tests for them. After that discovery, new rules are being established in order to prevent such cheating. Students are now required to upload, mail in and have photos printed on their admission tickets and on the roster at the testing centers. They believe that photo identification is the best way to insure that the person who takes the test is who they say they are. The Texas Voter ID Law is attempting to put this concept to use.
It is a fact that more and more undocumented people are coming across the border from Mexico and Latin America to Texas. If I were to visit Mexico I would be required to show ID, like a passport, and when I cross over into their country I have to comply with their laws. I believe that requiring photo identification can help to control and keep corruption in check. We want to prevent it from becoming a huge problem in the future. So let's work on it now and not make it a complicated issue.
According to Tom Perez, the Justice Department's head of civil rights division, the new Texas law would create undue hardship on the Hispanic population. These hardships include: not having the means to get a vehicle, living too far from a driver's license office or not being able to go during the office's limited operating hours. Is that all they could come up with? I think these are weak reasons and and just another way for Democrats to pander to Hispanics. I know that undocumented workers can get cars, but apparently don't bother to get a driver's license or insurance so I just don't buy that excuse. Here are my solutions. The Government has the power to make it more affordable, and build more driver's licenses offices while creating jobs at the same time. They can also stay open later on certain days of the week and maybe once a month they could actually open on the weekend. If the Government is serious about treating everyone fairly and equally at the voting booth, it needs to begin with them. I believe that voting is a right and a privilege and that everyone should have the opportunity to vote, but it should be done properly.
Democrats like to complain that voter fraud is a myth. I disagree. I believe their reason for blocking the Texas Voter ID Law is another political ploy aimed at stirring up disorder instead of creating a solution to a growing problem. So I have a question: For an upcoming trip can I be exempted from having to go to the trouble of paying for a passport ($165), buying gas so that I can drive to the post office to apply for it, and waiting weeks for my passport even though everyone else has to do it and it's the law? Because I think it creates unnecessary hardship for me. So can I?
Friday, March 9, 2012
Equal for Some...Not for All
I like Rush Limbaugh. On the days that I am off from work I look forward to tuning in to 590 KLBJ at 11am just to hear his voice. I think he makes some good points and I usually have a good laugh. But there are a lot people who dislike him - including my fiance. In fact, when we are in the car together and Rush's show is on I don't get to listen to it because I know how much he can't stand him. And that's okay because he won't watch The Daily Show while I'm around.
I came across this article on The Daily Texan about Rush Limbaugh and the uproar he caused this week. I found the author's summary of the situation to be interesting because I both agreed and disagreed with her. Earlier this week Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, was referred to as a slut by Limbaugh after she testified to Congress about making birth control available for all women. I have a friend with reproductive problems who has to be on birth control otherwise it would really affect her health if she wasn't. So, I can see where she was coming from. If Viagra is covered by insurance why isn't birth control? It seems like that would be the fair thing to do. I like fairness. I wish everything could be.
Over the years, and more than once, Limbaugh has said something that has been considered inappropriate or scandalous. I don't always agree with him when he has done so. I don't think she is a slut and I think he was wrong to call her one. It was rude and uncalled for and doesn't make a strong argument for getting anyone to agree with him. It just backfired. On this I agree with the author. Then, the author also brings up Bill Maher and the "infamous" comments he made about Sarah Palin. The derogatory name he called her has four letters and refers to a part of a woman's genitalia. Do you remember when he called her that? Because I don't remember it at all! Or how about when David Letterman also called her a slut? You didn't hear any kind of uproar or people demanding apologies the way they did for Sandra Fluke. And I think that's unfair.
The author says the difference in how the two women were treated is significant. She tells her audience that because Palin is a public figure and Fluke is not that more harm was done. I have to completely disagree with her.
There should be no difference between the two women and how differently both situations were treated. Just because Sarah Palin is an elected official and in the public eye it doesn't make it okay to attack her with nasty comments. You can also make the point that the treatment of Palin can also discourage a person from speaking their minds or entering public debate. If the author wants to celebrate gender equality she should want it equally for all women. She should have been just as upset about what Sarah Palin was called as she was about Sandra Fluke.
I agree that these types of words don't move us forward, they just hold us back. Make a credible argument if you disagree with someone and leave the name calling out of it. Unfortunately in this day and age it won't be the last time this happens.
I will tell Rush Limbaugh all this when I send him an invitation to my wedding. I bet he will bring a really nice gift.
I came across this article on The Daily Texan about Rush Limbaugh and the uproar he caused this week. I found the author's summary of the situation to be interesting because I both agreed and disagreed with her. Earlier this week Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, was referred to as a slut by Limbaugh after she testified to Congress about making birth control available for all women. I have a friend with reproductive problems who has to be on birth control otherwise it would really affect her health if she wasn't. So, I can see where she was coming from. If Viagra is covered by insurance why isn't birth control? It seems like that would be the fair thing to do. I like fairness. I wish everything could be.
Over the years, and more than once, Limbaugh has said something that has been considered inappropriate or scandalous. I don't always agree with him when he has done so. I don't think she is a slut and I think he was wrong to call her one. It was rude and uncalled for and doesn't make a strong argument for getting anyone to agree with him. It just backfired. On this I agree with the author. Then, the author also brings up Bill Maher and the "infamous" comments he made about Sarah Palin. The derogatory name he called her has four letters and refers to a part of a woman's genitalia. Do you remember when he called her that? Because I don't remember it at all! Or how about when David Letterman also called her a slut? You didn't hear any kind of uproar or people demanding apologies the way they did for Sandra Fluke. And I think that's unfair.
The author says the difference in how the two women were treated is significant. She tells her audience that because Palin is a public figure and Fluke is not that more harm was done. I have to completely disagree with her.
There should be no difference between the two women and how differently both situations were treated. Just because Sarah Palin is an elected official and in the public eye it doesn't make it okay to attack her with nasty comments. You can also make the point that the treatment of Palin can also discourage a person from speaking their minds or entering public debate. If the author wants to celebrate gender equality she should want it equally for all women. She should have been just as upset about what Sarah Palin was called as she was about Sandra Fluke.
I agree that these types of words don't move us forward, they just hold us back. Make a credible argument if you disagree with someone and leave the name calling out of it. Unfortunately in this day and age it won't be the last time this happens.
I will tell Rush Limbaugh all this when I send him an invitation to my wedding. I bet he will bring a really nice gift.
Friday, February 24, 2012
You Know You're A Latino When....
According to our textbook more than 70% of approximately 4 million foreign born residents are from Latin American countries. It has been estimated that eventually Hispanics will become the majority population in the state of Texas. Politicians fall over themselves trying to relate to Hispanics in order to sway votes and support their way. We are a large majority and our vote is important. We should come together as a group and feel empowered about the influence we can have in today's political sphere. Instead of that happening it turns out we would rather turn on each other. Ruben Navarrette from the Texas Insider wrote a great article on how Latinos will turn on one another if they do not think someone is authentically Latino. I found this article to be interesting and couldn't agree more with him. Because of some previous articles he wrote criticizing President Obama regarding his stance on deportation, he was rudely labeled as not being an authentic Latino. He took offense to it; I would have too. He wrote, "That line of attack is racist, rude and condescending. I can't imagine being so forward as to tell a black person that he isn't 'black enough,' or a gay person that he isn't 'gay enough.' But apparently, it's fine to do that with Latinos."
He then quoted Christine Aguilera and Jessica Alba who both are of Latino descent but because they don't fluently speak Spanish aren't considered "Latina enough." Latino bloggers went on to publicly challenge their ethnicity. Being a Mexican American myself I believe, because of previous experiences I have had, that I can relate to them and the author of this article. First of all, I may be Mexican but I still can't speak Spanish. After all these years I still have relatives that speak to me in Spanish while I sit there with a blank look on my face. But one situation especially sticks in my mind that I have never forgotten. I used to work at a hospital here in Austin where the majority of patients are Spanish speaking, and sometimes, directly from Mexico. It was well known that, coming to this hospital, you would receive medical services even if you could not pay. I was taking care of an elderly Hispanic woman. She couldn't speak English and I couldn't speak Spanish. Because she reminded me of my grandmother, I made sure to take especially good care of her. Later on her family showed up. When I went to check on her, her daughter asked me a question in Spanish and I tried to let her know I didn't speak Spanish. She proceeded to yell at me, in English now, that I didn't take care of her mother's needs and that I should be ashamed of myself for not speaking Spanish. I won't repeat what I said back to her but, although it was said in English, I know she understood me. I have had other incidents like that before and since then.
Latinos have to understand that even though some of us don't speak Spanish fluently it doesn't make us less Latino. When it comes to politics it should be understood that our voting preferences are as diverse as everyone else. Politicians stereotype us and don't take into account that we are different in how we speak our language, our likes and dislikes, our religion and our political points of view.
Entiendes?
He then quoted Christine Aguilera and Jessica Alba who both are of Latino descent but because they don't fluently speak Spanish aren't considered "Latina enough." Latino bloggers went on to publicly challenge their ethnicity. Being a Mexican American myself I believe, because of previous experiences I have had, that I can relate to them and the author of this article. First of all, I may be Mexican but I still can't speak Spanish. After all these years I still have relatives that speak to me in Spanish while I sit there with a blank look on my face. But one situation especially sticks in my mind that I have never forgotten. I used to work at a hospital here in Austin where the majority of patients are Spanish speaking, and sometimes, directly from Mexico. It was well known that, coming to this hospital, you would receive medical services even if you could not pay. I was taking care of an elderly Hispanic woman. She couldn't speak English and I couldn't speak Spanish. Because she reminded me of my grandmother, I made sure to take especially good care of her. Later on her family showed up. When I went to check on her, her daughter asked me a question in Spanish and I tried to let her know I didn't speak Spanish. She proceeded to yell at me, in English now, that I didn't take care of her mother's needs and that I should be ashamed of myself for not speaking Spanish. I won't repeat what I said back to her but, although it was said in English, I know she understood me. I have had other incidents like that before and since then.
Latinos have to understand that even though some of us don't speak Spanish fluently it doesn't make us less Latino. When it comes to politics it should be understood that our voting preferences are as diverse as everyone else. Politicians stereotype us and don't take into account that we are different in how we speak our language, our likes and dislikes, our religion and our political points of view.
Entiendes?
Friday, February 10, 2012
Gasoline Prices: Who Decides on How Much We Pay?
When I'm driving around I am always checking out gas prices at each station I pass by. I want cheap gas. It's that simple. I don't want to pay a lot. I have never understood how one day gas can be $2.92 then six hours later as I'm driving home it has increased to $3.24. That just pisses me off. How can it change so quickly in a matter of a few hours? I came across this article in the Texas Insider that breaks down the price of a gallon of gas. Okay, now I understand. I still don't like it but I get it now.
It all comes down to supply and demand. Add in how the oil is manufactured, sold, and the government taxes and that determines the price you have to pay. First, crude oil is a raw material that is made into gasoline. Crude oil is a commodity that is traded everyday in the global market. The global market sets the price of crude oil whereby speculators, buyers and sellers respond according to the world's everyday supply and demand. The price of crude oil accounts for 80 percent of the retail price we pay. After the oil is bought it then has to be manufactured into gasoline. Manufacturers then try to recover their costs plus make a profit when they sell the gasoline. On average 11 percent of the price of gas is due to the cost it takes to refine it. After it is manufactered, the gas leaves the refinery where it is then distributed to retail and service stations. The final price is set by the retailers who try to recover the costs of getting the gasoline and marketing it to the public. They also have to make enough of a profit to pay the government tax while keeping their business running. The tax that is payed to the government is different from state to state. Texas pays 38.4 cents per gallon.
The article also has an interesting piece on what actions can be taken to lower the price of gas. The price of crude is the biggest factor in determining gas price. One of the largest and most advanced refineries is right here in the U.S. We also have the the potential to obtain crude oil all the way down from the Gulf of Mexico to North Dakota and Montana. You can also include the oil resources from Canada, who has one of the largest in the world. But of course politics play a factor and keep these supplies in the ground and out of the tanks of consumers which doesn't help this weak economy.
When I bought my Honda ten years ago it cost me $12 to fill it up. I miss those days.
It all comes down to supply and demand. Add in how the oil is manufactured, sold, and the government taxes and that determines the price you have to pay. First, crude oil is a raw material that is made into gasoline. Crude oil is a commodity that is traded everyday in the global market. The global market sets the price of crude oil whereby speculators, buyers and sellers respond according to the world's everyday supply and demand. The price of crude oil accounts for 80 percent of the retail price we pay. After the oil is bought it then has to be manufactured into gasoline. Manufacturers then try to recover their costs plus make a profit when they sell the gasoline. On average 11 percent of the price of gas is due to the cost it takes to refine it. After it is manufactered, the gas leaves the refinery where it is then distributed to retail and service stations. The final price is set by the retailers who try to recover the costs of getting the gasoline and marketing it to the public. They also have to make enough of a profit to pay the government tax while keeping their business running. The tax that is payed to the government is different from state to state. Texas pays 38.4 cents per gallon.
The article also has an interesting piece on what actions can be taken to lower the price of gas. The price of crude is the biggest factor in determining gas price. One of the largest and most advanced refineries is right here in the U.S. We also have the the potential to obtain crude oil all the way down from the Gulf of Mexico to North Dakota and Montana. You can also include the oil resources from Canada, who has one of the largest in the world. But of course politics play a factor and keep these supplies in the ground and out of the tanks of consumers which doesn't help this weak economy.
When I bought my Honda ten years ago it cost me $12 to fill it up. I miss those days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)