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?
Friday, March 30, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)