RE: Guns on campus, Yes? No?

You present a pretty good argument in your article Guns on campus, Yes? No?, but as someone who owns guns, I'm still going to say that this idea, if it is going to be implemented, needs a lot of refining.

The first issue I have is basic gun safety. When I walk through a crowded hallway between classes, the last thing I want to do is bump into someone and have him or her discharge a round into me. Given, most, if not all, veterans have plenty of gun sense, but that's still a risk.

Secondly, and more importantly, if I were, hypothetically, to decide to shoot up my school, I'm probably not thinking very rationally. I also probably don't care too much about the consequences. I doubt that the knowledge of my fellow students' guns will slow me down a whole lot.

I'm sure there's a way to make this work, but let's not rush this through the works. Just passing a gun to any vet who's going to school is a recipe for disaster.

This little piggy is not a big deal

With the whole pig flu scare, I've heard a lot of people debating what should be done about it. I've heard a lot of people saying that the government should do more. I couldn't agree more. If the US government won't, then the Texas government and the Austin government should go ahead and announce to their respective populations, "This is not the end of the world. It is a flue outbreak. It happens all the time. Stop panicking, you morons."

I am in no way qualified as a pathologist, but a little bit of easy research on the Internet shows that between thirty five and fifty thousand people die yearly from various types of flu. A little more research shows that this trend has been going for a couple of decades. The hog flu is another type of flu. Everyone has missed school with its near cousins. Most everyone survived it. The swine flu might cause a mild statistical spike in flu-related deaths for 2008, but its long term effects will be minimal.

Next, to look at the last major influenza outbreak. It happened in 1918. There is a reason it hasn't come back since. It's not that dangerous. Vaccines have been developed. The epidemic of 1918 piggybacked on the chaos of the Great War's aftermath, not an environment noted for disease prevention.

Let's look at the last flu trend: China's dreaded bird flu. Fewer than three hundred cases have been reported in the past two years. Keep in mind that this was the disease sent by god as the new flood (remind anyone of AIDS?) to purge the world. It did not have any long term ramifications, other than to make pharmaceutical companies much richer as the demand for flue vaccines skyrocketed.

I'm worried that this hysteria is growing. I've seen enough surgical masks on the streets in the past week that it's time for the government to do something. Hopefully they can shake off their love of suspense and drama in time to remind people that the swine flu is not going to reshape the world.

RE: Billy T's "I just don't understand..."

See post here: http://weltschmerzzeitgeist.blogspot.com/.

While your idealized Austin of parks and ponds is maybe a little over the top--my childhood Austin had parks full of junkies and ponds full of empties--at first I was very much inclined to agree with your assessment that toll roads are just another insidious plan to rob the citizenry and enrich the government.

However, I then realized that the government really does need all the help it can get, especially in certain areas, ie education; that coupled with the fact that I never get near the toll roads made me think that they're certainly an obnoxious tax system, but a very useful one.
That's about when I slapped myself in the face and snapped out of it. I doubt that the government will send the toll money, which is in the "holy crap" amount, to education, or medicine, or anything else which deserves it. The same four or five shadowy individuals who really run this state will take that money, in the form of contracts and kickbacks, and use it to expand their own already obscene wealth, power, and influence.

Revolution, however, is not the answer. It could be in the right circumstances, but ask yourself, Billy T, "Who else would fight?" Most of the public is a zombie mass. You would strike for everything good and right and worth living for and American, let's say, bacon, and the media would turn it around and make you look like a terrorist, alienating the revolutionaries from the general population even more and cutting your potential recruiting down even further than it would have been.

My analysis of this situation, of which toll roads are emblematic, is one of sincere and heartfelt apathy. This system is already screwed. Regardless of what we do, revolution or no, it will eventually fail, spectacularly and violently. We've reached critical mass, and there is no longer anything to be done. Revolution over the toll roads, or in general, will speed up this process of self-destruction, but will not affect it.

Eff this in the head

I'm sure that a number of my colleagues will be discussing the state of education in Texas, but since I'm not very original, I'll do the same. Since I'm not very positive either, I'll be pointing out what's wrong with it (there's a whole lot of stuff, so I might miss some). Hopefully, I'll be able to come up with a solution before the staff at the Wendy's near my aparment--the place closest to me with free computer access--wonders why I've taken two hours to eat four items of the Value Menu and ask me to leave.

Since the subject of public ed in Texas is pretty friggin huge, I'll be sticking to the recent actions of the State Board of Education (SBOE). The fifteen member elected group is two thirds Republican. Four of its members come from the DFW area and three from the Houston area; San Antonio is the only other city with multiple representatives, with two. The others are scatterd over the state, although none are based in Austin. Five of the members have actual teaching experience, while the others are lawyers, real estate brokers, or small business owners.

In 2009, the SBOE passed a measure involving science aptitude tests wherein the student is expected "to analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing..." Basically, students are supposed to use the scientific method on science tests (shocking, no?). However, I find this extraordinary, given the other matter of the makeup of the SBOE: seven are self-declared creationists, which makes this revision seem unlikely at best. How, on a board which is almost fifty percent creationist, can a revision pass in which the scientific method is okayed?

What I forgot to do, when reading this, was to define all of the terms above. A scientific explanation can start with "In the beginning." Empirical evidence includes the Bible. Logical reasoning can be aided and abetted by one's priest as easily as by one's science teacher. Experimental and observational testing involves saying, "If you didn't create the world in seven days, give me a sign, oh lord." Science, clearly, is an elastic word, especially to those in charge of regulating the education of Texas' children. Their (SBOE's) goal in the short run is to have creationism taught as a viable alternative to evolution and for the former to supercede the latter entirely in the long run. This, of course, strikes me as ironic as it shows a clear instance of (un)natural selection.

However much I may disagree with the "science" of the SBOE--enough to do it and most of its members lasting damage--there is another aspect of this which is even bleaker. By allowing Texas kids to learn that the earth is a couple million years old and that we aren't related to apes, we are disadvantaging the youth of today as much as if we were giving them meth on Halloween. None of these kids are going to be able to work in medicine or engineering if they're taught that people get AIDS as a repayment for sin or that the plane with Mommy and Daddy on it crashed because it was god's will rather than a mechanical failure. If this measure isn't cut down now, it it manages to expand until it squeezes out evolution because a small group of nutjobs thinks that it should, then the students are completely screwed.

Solution: regulate the damned SBOE. Vote. Not all Republicans think that god=logic. Any person who doesn't want his or her children cheated out of an education, write to your congressional representative. Write to the SBOE. Stage protests in front of its office. Hell, make death threats to keep them from going into session if its necessary. Ask the president to make a national oversight board that won't allow stupid stuff like this to happen.

I thought that we'd cleared up this bullcrap during the Scopes Monkey trial.

Of course, if all this comes to pass as I fear it might, it won't affect me too much. I'll have fled the country years before, and I won't be coming back.

Woah

While I'm all for a variety of viewpoints in a political discourse, Texas Fred's post Ex-officer alleges prez used ‘contrivance, concealment, dissembling and deceit’ is a little much. On a technical level, he doesn't really make an argument, other than to criticize "libber-pukes" and "asshats." His commentary, which follows a newspaper article about an ex naval officer who is trying to accuse Obama of treason for destroying the US government and constitution, has nothing to with the story which precedes it. His vocabulary is limited, to say the least: asshat, libber-puke, domestic terrorist are all overused (twice, four times, and thrice, respectively, in a total of four hundred fifty nine words). His general structure is based on repetition, which as a style wears very thin very quickly. He misuses "feint," confusing it for "faint," which is just embarassing. Basically, his presentation is that of someone who stands up in the VFW hall and shouts at everyone for five minutes rather than a written critique. I would also point out that when, in reference to Obama, when he discusses his beliefs in "calling a spade a spade," that he should maybe be a bit more judicious in juxtaposing spades and the president. On a more personal note, this is the kind of redneck troglodyte scum that makes democracy look like a really really really really bad idea.

How much, now?

An anonymous editorial from the Dallas Morning News states, clearly and concisely, that national budget must shrink. Three and a half trillion dollars is too much for the US to handle right now. The analogy of a family going on a trip and estimating how much money it will spend is a good one, and asks the question, "How do you know how much you'll spend until you've spent it?" However, what really makes it kick in, I think, is that it points out that no matter how much the budget is, Obama won't be paying for it. Kids in high school and college are going to foot that bill in twenty years, and nobody likes paying for someone else's mistakes, particularly to the tune of (deep breath) an extra four trillion dollars for this year alone. This is a simple, effective argument, and a good one, too.

A Decent Senator? Surely Not.

When I read about the Texas Senate's decision not to cut the funding to a state program designed to help autistic children, I was shocked. I'm so used to reading about the screwups this state's goverment routinely makes that I could barely believe that it was about to do the right thing. While the country is in the midst of a financial catastrophe, and while the state needs to cut spending to recieve more federal aid, axing a program like this wouldn't help. It's not that expensive, relatively speaking (I'm not saying that I wouldn't care about two million bucks more or less personally), and it clearly helps kids and their families. I've gotten so used to politicians caring more about policy than ethics that this refreshing little breeze of morality makes me think there might be hope. Of course, then I realize that there's probably some political reason for keeping the program, some big money backer who wants it in place or some senator who provides a lot of jobs for his/her constituents out this deal. Still, it's kind of nice in a utilitarian, if not a Kantian, way.