Perry and Dewhurst score points for this one!

 

Governor Perry and Lt. Governor Dewhurst are supporting a bill that would require drug testing for all welfare and unemployment recipients. The bill would also ban them from buying alcohol, tobacco and lottery tickets with public funds.

 

Of course, the ACLU is having conniption fits. "This proposal is a costly, ineffective, inhumane and punitive effort by state government based on stereotypes about our state's neediest Texans," said ACLU spokesman Terri Burke. What's inhumane about asking someone who's asking you to support him to be drug tested? If it's inhumane, why are employers allowed to do it? Punitive? Not if the applicant isn't using drugs. If he's drug free, he'll get the benefits he qualifies for. Stereotypes? Let's face it -- stereotypes often have some basis in reality. Perhaps many of "our state's neediest Texans" (isn't that redundant?) are needy because they have a drug and/or alcohol habit.

 

On the unemployment benefit side, Governor Perry states, "It is simply not the role of employers who fund these benefits to carry workers who keep themselves in an unemployable condition." Well said!

 

"Perry, Dewhurst back drug testing for welfare recipients." The Dallas Morning News; November 14, 2012; p. 3A.

Poor Fellow!

 

The Texas Supreme Court is wasting the taxpayers' time and money. They are hearing a case brought by Michael Blair. Michael is a confessed child rapist. He is serving four life terms in the Texas Department of Corrections.

 

He spent a few years on death row for the murder of little Ashley Estell. It was later determined that, scum though he was, it's possible he was not the one who killed Ashley. Ashley's killer, if it's not Michael, still hasn't been found. Michael wants to be compensated from the exonerees' fund for the time he spent on death row -- where he should still be if you ask me.

 

It's Pearl Harbor Day -- I don't think those brave men and women who served our country during WWII served so that animals like Michael Blair could turn our government on its head to profit from their crimes.

 

"Child rapist wants pay for time spent on death row." The Dallas Morning News; November 14, 2012; p. A.

 



Rights and privileges are two different things.

 

Mike Thomas of Denton thinks an open carry law for Texas is a "poor idea." Mike bases his theory on a common but highly inaccurate interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

 

Mike says, "The Second Amendment and one's rights are certainly privileges to be enjoyed to the fullest, but only when tempered with discretion."

 

No, Mike, one's rights are just that -- rights. They are not privileges. A privilege implies one has received permission to do something. No permission is needed to exercise a right.

 

For example, Mike has the right to spout off silly arguments to support his untenable position. Mike does not have a right to have those arguments printed in the newspaper -- The Dallas Morning News granted him the privilege of printing his thoughts.

 

Perhaps this will help clear up Mike's confusion -- the founding fathers did not call those first ten amendments "The Bill of Privileges."

 

"Open carry not safe, sensible." The Dallas Morning News; December 1, 2012; p. 20A.

 



From the WIST File

 

"Amina Khan of the Los Angeles Times writes that the American Academy of Pedicatrics issued a new policy statement urging doctors to give underage teenagers prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, such as Plan B, before they start having sex. . .

 

 

Absent from the recommendations of the new policy is what I call Plan MC -- moral compass. Families and society are abandoning their role of presenting human sexuality as a beautiful gift from God uniting the permanent love of two people (marriage) and bringing forth human life. . .

 

The new policy also presumes that teenagers don't have free will and are incapable of choosing God's plan for human sexuality, love and life. Only when human sexuality is presented in this noble sense will the rate of teen pregnancy drop and the sacredness of sexuality be reaffirmed."

 

Douglas Deshotel

auxiliary bishop

Diocese of Dallas

Did they not pay you what they said they would?

 

The union walkout on Walmart last Thursday seems to have been a bit of a flop. I think stores should stay closed on Thanksgiving, and I don't approve of any of them opening on a day set aside to thank God for our blessings just to make a few extra bucks. On the other hand, I think it's stupid to walk out on a job in these economic times, but then, what do I know?

 

At any rate, Chris Riley is a Walmart employee who decided he wasn't going to work his scheduled shift last Thursday. He "rallied" outside the store in Lancaster for about 30 minutes, then sashayed over to tell the store managers that he had a right to come back to work if he wanted to. I suspect he was trying to get them to say he couldn't so he could make a scene, but the managers said, "OK."

 

Chris makes $8.10 an hour. He's a part-time stocker. He says he doesn't like the low wages and work schedules. I don't know what he thinks a stocker should make, but I would imagine making any more than minimum wage on that job is decent. Chris says, "It's a frustrating thing to come to work and work as hard as you do and it doesn't show on your paycheck." I'm not sure what he means by that. Doing one's best at a job is a sign of good character, no matter what the pay is. Is Chris saying that Walmart isn't paying him the $8.10 for each hour he works? If Walmart is paying him $8.10 for each hour he works, then Walmart is fulfilling it's end of the employment agreement, so what is the gripe? If Walmart isn't paying him for each hour he works, then he should report them to Fair Labor Standards. If Chris wants to make more money, maybe he should get more education. Since he works part-time, that certainly should be an option.

 

I guess the main point is that if Chris isn't satisfied with the working conditions at Walmart, he's free to look elsewhere. Walmart can't hold him there against his will.

 

"Area Wal-Mart employees rally." The Dallas Morning News; November 24, 2012; p. 1D.

That's not what I read.

 

Robert Lawson of Dallas takes issue with the fact that Trammell Crow is donating money to fight illegal immigration in Farmers Branch. He didn't like the headline on The Dallas News article which detailed the donation: "Crow bolsters city's legal defense fund."

 

Lawson says the headline should have read, "Rich guy donates $300,000 from trust fund to help make the lives of working poor harder." Hmmm - I didn't see "working poor" mentioned. I don't think Crow has any problem with legal residents working even if they're poor. The issue I saw was illegal aliens.

 

Do you think Robert has a reading comprehension problem?

 

"Rich guy vs. working poor." The Dallas Morning News; November 28, 2012; p. 22A.

Now, wait just a minute . . .

 

Jim Barber of Dallas responded to an op-ed piece by John Davidson in which Davidson says that Medicaid expansion will put a huge financial burden on the states -- and Davidson is right.

 

But Jim disagrees. He says that Davidson omitted the fact that health care for the poor in Texas now is paid by the counties. And, to some degree, he is right. Jim says that caring for the poor in Dallas County costs the Dallas County taxpayers approximately $300 million a year. He says expanding Medicaid will take the bulk of this burden off Parkland and Dallas taxpayers. Well, yeah -- and it will put it on those of us who don't even live in Dallas County. How about Jim and the citizens of Dallas County take care of their poor, and we'll take care of our poor?

 

"A better way to care for poor." The Dallas Morning News; November 28, 2012; p. 22A.