Tuesday, November 3, 2009

On the third day of Fredmas my true love gave to me


I don’t know why, but I love this picture, hard. Jed and I discussed a possible retake, but I think we have to keep it. It’s a requirement, right? To have these pictures to look back on when we’re older? It cracks me up, because I know this isn’t his smile, I know this isn’t his hair. I don’t know, exactly, what happened when this picture was taken but I loves it.


While on the subject of Adrian and awkwardness, I had the following conversation with him last week:

ADRIAN: Daddy, I have a girlfriend

Freddy: YOU DO?!? That’s fantastic. Tell me all about her.

ADRIAN: It’s Amanda. You know Amanda.

Freddy: SOLID CHOICE ADRIAN! She’s a looker. What makes her your girlfriend?

ADRIAN: She mouth kisses me.

Freddy: WHAT?!?

ADRIAN: She mouth kisses me.

Freddy: Ummm, what does that mean exactly?


I’m so not ready for this conversation. The good news is we may have given proof to the whole nurture v. nature debate? I mean, I know there’s a few years left to be certain, but I think we’re on a good roll!




I’m enrolled in a Texas State and Local Government class this semester and am doing it on-line rather than sitting in class EVERY night of the week. As part of the on-line course, I’m required to participate in a minimum of 2 “discussion groups”. Each week the Prof posts a question relating to Texas politics on-line and the class participants are supposed to discuss it. The directions for the discussion board reads as follows:

“…You must reply in a reasoned way, either in response to the forum question itself or in response to something one of your classmates has posted. ‘Reasoned’ means you’ve thought about the question and present your ideas in a coherent fashion…”

With that in mind, yesterday I logged on to participate in the Unit II discussion on voting history of Texans. This was the question, as posed:

In the most recent Texas Legislative session a bill was considered but not passed to require a photo ID in order to vote. Republicans argued that positive identification was necessary to protect against fraud, especially voting by illegal immigrants. Democrats argued its purpose was to intimidate and discourage voting, especially among the poor, minorities, and the elderly (people least likely to have photo ID's & more likely to vote Democrat). Should it be required that people produce positive identification in order to vote?

It’s a fairly simple question, right? Here’s was my “reasoned” response (agree or disagree, I really don’t give a shit. I’m not putting it out here for a debate):

The issue of voter ID is just another smoke screen being blown up by the legislature to keep from working on real issues. It’s another method of mobilizing their base, nothing more than a scare tactic to get people out to the polls to vote for them and keep them in office so they can keep working on absolutely nothing. Much like “the gays are going to indoctrinate your children if we allow them to legitimize their relationships”, the fear of “aliens” attacking the very nature of our culture and statehood is a brilliant way to get sheep to the voting booths. Where is the evidence of voter fraud? Why is an ID necessary? The Republicans have already seized control and flexed their dominant muscle. They’re certainly not proposing an ID to keep their voting population away from the polls. I’ve not seen any evidence of long lines of “natives” lurking outside of any polling location in recent elections.

The book very clearly states that Texas has an abysmal, shameful, ridiculously low voter turn-out rate to begin with. Are those of you advocating support of a voter ID bill seriously PROUD of a 36.2 – 45.6% voter turn-out rates (p. 74) for our state and national elections? Do you enjoy being SECOND only to Louisiana in THE LOWEST NATIONAL AVERAGE VOTING POPULATION? We do NOT need to further hinder access to the voting booths. We should be ashamed of our legislatures for preying on the fear of the voters of Texas, as well as the scare tactics they’re using to keep legitimate voters away from the polls by clouding the REAL ISSUES with this nonsensical talk about IDs.

Otherwise, I really don’t have an opinion one way or the other.

Here are two of the other “reasoned” responses to the same question that I found humorous (cut n’ pasted with typos and all):

I think that if people take the time to go to the polls and vote they should be allowed to vote. I wonder how low voter turn out would be if the the elderly and immigrants did not vote.All of the registered voters in Texas don't vote so if we take away those that do hit the polls because they don't have I.D. will that make things better? Umm, isn’t this just a restatement of the original question?

And (muh favorite)

It should be required that people produce positive I.D in order to vote. I don't understand how someone would be intimidated to produce an I.D unless they were either hiding from someone, or guilty. It should be required that people produce positive I.D in order to vote. I don't understand how someone would be intimidated to produce an I.D unless they were either hiding from someone, or guilty.

I believe carrying a photo I.D. is a responsible thing to do, and elderly should be very aware of this. This is for the well being of a lot of people. If their is an accident or injury, they can readily be identified. Fantastic. If she’da mentioned the elderly and pre-cog injured should wear clean underwear in the event of an accident, this would be sound and ‘reasoned’ advice.

Perhaps I put too much thought into it?

While on the subject of Texas State & Local Government, there’s a one-sentence statement in the book: “Tolerance of Gay and Lesbian lifestyle in Texas is improving”. On the publisher’s website on their on-line practice tests there is a T/F question, “Gays and Lesbian in Texas are seeing an increase in tolerance”. Knowing the truth, I answered “False” (as I’ve watched my rights to have a legitimized relationship constitutionally stripped away from me) and wasn’t shocked to find I got the answer wrong. With the exception of this one sentence in the book, there’s no other information anywhere in the book that argues the contrary. I’d like to know what study they’re looking at.

Now I’m rambling.