No Statue of Liberty in Texas

You know how the Statue of Liberty asks in the poem The New Colossus:"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Well not so much in Texas. A new bill is in the Texas Legislature denying benefits for children born in this country to parents who are illegal aliens. State Rep. Leo Berman, has proposed this bill so that it can be challenged and taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. He and others want the Supreme Court to reinterpret the 14th amendment, so that citizenship isn't given to children born in this country to illegal immigrants. He thinks a conservative Supreme Court will agree with him that the 14th amendment only applies to children of freed slaves.

Rep. Berman is originally from New York City. He's a conservative Republican (are there any other kind in this state) from Tyler. He served 22 years in the army. He is involved in other issues like voter fraud. He doesn't want to add a paper trail to voting machines, deeming that to expensive, but he does want voters to produce a photo id when they go to vote. Rep. Berman is afraid illegal aliens could be voting in Texas.

Texas use to be more liberal about immigration than California was. When Bush was governor, he made a great effort to make inroads in the hispanic community and was rewarded with 40 % of the hispanic vote in his reelection in 1998. Now the Texas Republican party is taking a hardline with immigration. They aren't alone since some state Democrats agree with them. These past 6 years under Bush has made everyone just a little more fearful of others, and a lot meaner. Who knows, soon we might be sending the Statue of Liberty back to France. Don't want to encourage those huddled masses coming over here.

The English are going, the English are going…

Yesterday British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced plans to withdraw 1600 troops from Iraq. The Bush administration tried to put a good face on it, with Vice President Chaney and national security advisor Stephen Hadley saying it shows some areas of Iraq is improving. Others in Washington don’t see it that way, including many Republicans who feel that the timing of this announcement is awkward for them when they are trying to defend the US sending in more troops while the British are reducing their number of troops. Blair was also trying to put a good face on his announcement, saying that the area they occupy in southern Iraq is reading to be turned over to Iraqi forces. But the Pentagon, in its most recent quarterly report to congress, listed Basra as one of five cities outside Baghdad where violence remained “significant,” and said the region was one of only two “not ready for transition” to Iraqi authorities.

If Blair actually believes his forces have done such a great job in Basra and that the Iraq mission is so important, why doesn’t he reemploy his troops to Baghdad? Why don’t the British show our troops how they succeed? In reality the Basra area isn’t as violent as Baghdad and isn’t plagued as much by Sunni/Shiite battles, but it does suffer from battles between Shiite militias that control the area. The British weren’t any more successful in Basra as we are in Baghdad and they know it. The British are leaving because they know it is necessary, something most Americans know but the Bush administration and their allies won’t admit.

Here We Go Again

The Guardian reports that the US is planning air attacks on Iran and that the US could be ready to attack by the spring. This is contrary to what Secretary of Defense Gates said earlier this month when he said the United States is “not planning for a war with Iran.” The air attacks are being promoted by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the same group that brought us the current surge in Iraq. Nearly everyone in the US opposes military action against Iran, but with our current military buildup in the region, it would appear the AEI is again having their way. Gary Younge thinks once Bush gets a bad idea he hangs on to it. Those appear to be the only ideas our President gets.

More on HPV

In a follow up to my earlier blog, Texas Governor Orders HPV Vaccinations for Texas School Girls, the LA Times did an article on the subject. It seems that Californians are expressing the same concerns that are being discussed in Texas; except for the issue of usurping legislative power. So instead of Schwarzenegger mandating it; it’s coming from the state legislature.

With the Libby trial going on, it seems Mr. Libby isn’t the only one on trial. The main stream media is also. An article on Tim Russert calls into question the cozy arrangements journalist like Russert have with the administration. This problem with the media isn't only with politics. There is an article on Maria Bartiromo, CNBC anchor about with her close ties with many of her subjects. It makes you wonder how much information is kept from us because some journalist are more concerned with maintaining good relations with the people they cover than they are about reporting the news to us.

Texas Governor Orders HPV Vaccinations for Texas School Girls

Last Friday Texas Governor Rick Perry bypassed the state legislature and issued an executive order mandating that beginning in September 2008, girls entering the sixth grade will have to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted stain of human papillovavirus (HPV) that causes cervical cancer. The New York Times reported that last year in Texas there were 1,169 new cases of cervical cancer and 391 deaths. There was an immediate backlash from Democrats and Perry’s usual supporters, Christian conservative groups. The stated reasons were him usurping the authority of the state legislature and the rights of parents. A retired state judge says Perry’s decree is unconstitutional. Of course a lot of that anger from the Christian right stems from the disease being sexually transmitted and the thought being if you vaccinate these girls, it’s like giving them permission to go out and have sex, basically the same argument you’d get against distributing condoms to prevent HIV or sex education that doesn’t only preach absence. Very progressive of Governor Perry you’d think, until you realize that progressive and “Good Hair” Perry doesn’t go together. Why would he risk alienating his base to do this?

The drug company Merck & Co. contributed $6,000 to Perry’s re-election campaign. Not a lot of money, but the company has been lobbying around the country to have their vaccine Gardasil to be mandated for use by young girls around the age of 11 and 12. One of their lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief-of-staff. So they are spending a lot of money hoping for a big payday. There are three doses required that together cost $360. Merck could make a killing in this state alone; think if it were mandated by all the states.

There are so many reasons to be against this, yet knowing the reasons some people are against it makes you think maybe Perry is doing the right thing. Yet when you go with his record and his constant assaults against the health and well being of Texas citizens, you have to feel like it’s for financial and political reasons. From his state of the state address it looks like he’s trying to appear to be a more moderate figure. I wonder if he thinks being another “compassionate conservative” from Texas just might help him get on the GOP’s national ticket. Even though I’m sure Perry did it for all the wrong reasons, I can’t say that he’s wrong. For a matter this profound, it’s senseless to not to debate this in the legislature. Not that I trust the legislature anymore than I do Perry, but at least it would give us time to study it more and get more facts on this vaccine. Even though Gardasil is FDA approved, it’s a new vaccine and I wouldn’t want the girls of Texas to be their primary guinea pigs.

The War Machine Must Be Fed

The Washington Post has reported that President Bush has submitted his budget to Congress. He is asking for $2.9 trillion, including an extra $245 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He proposes to eliminate the deficit by 2012 by cutting domestic programs spending and making the tax cuts he made for the rich in 2001 and 2003 permanent.

The Guardian Unlimited points out how the war has cost more than the administration estimated it would to the public. The administration said back in December 2002 that the war would cost $61 billion. The article states: "The Independent Iraq Study Group estimated in December that the final tally could reach $2 trillion once all the bills for caring for disabled veterans and replacing military equipment were taken into account." So you can imagine that Congress isn’t going to take the President’s figures at face value. This budget is just another slap in the face to the American public from this President and his minions.