Counting Same Sex Couples...

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=26791

For this assignment, I found a short, but interesting read from the "Off The Kuff" blog link above...The article's audience would be anyone interested in information on gay marriage, or the like. The topic is the recent inclusion of same-sex couples/marriages in the 2010 U.S. Census. A touchy subject, indeed. The author Charles Kuffner gave a pretty open stance on the topic in the close by stating that it's "just data" and doesn't really show any significance. I'd have to disagree with him here... It's got a lot more under-lying meaning, obviously, or it wouldn't have come about to begin with. The homosexual community are proud of the way they are, and want to be recognized as such. Putting it on the U.S. Census is one method to let everyone know how serious they are about what they do, and how they want to be acknowledged. Due to my stance religiously, I'm obviously against homosexuality as a whole... But, it's also not my job to judge this population or condemn them. If they want to be recognized in this way, they should have the right to. However, they are also the ones that must deal with whatever consequences it may bring to do so.

He also went on to say that he's glad there were no "professionally homophobic" entries from the Census Bureau to down-play it or remain ignorant on the topic. He felt that the Census Bureau shouldn't be in the business of telling people whether or not they are what they claim to be. This statement I agree with to some degree... The homosexual community is what it is and has become more widely accepted over the recent years. (Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your personal view.) People who are well informed on politics (and the government in general) follow ALL avenues and current topics... gay marriage being one of them, of course. Then again, some people simply choose to ignore or avoid the topic, which I completely understand as well. If you feel uncomfortable with a topic for whatever reason, be it religious or what have you, you are not required to participate in a discussion on it, or stand up against it. It's up to you as an individual how you want to follow (or not follow) politics.

~Austin police take steps toward curbing use of force~

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/austin-police-take-steps-toward-curbing-use-of-146517.html

I found this interesting article today in the editorial section of the Austin American Statesman, and decided to write on it. The writer's name is unlisted, (and therefore I have no idea the credibility of his or her work) but I'd have to agree with the statements made in the article for the most part. This article is targeted to the entire Austin area, with a special emphasis on those who care about the Austin Police Department and its current affairs.

The writer talks about the recent adherence to 161 new suggestions by the A.P.D. as far as the use of "excessive force" or police brutality is concerned. In recent years, the department has gotten a definite reputation for being too harsh or excessively forceful in containing convicts... even to the point of being noticed by the Bush administration on a national level. In 2004 figures were made public showing that excessive force was twice as likely to happen to African-American citizens and 25% to Hispanics, which finally brought the issue to the forefront.

Although some officers (and citizens alike, for that matter) have attempted to down-play the truths of what was occurring, these 161 new suggestions that will be implicated into the current police code are a step in the right direction, most say. I feel that the statement made near the end of the article says it best: "No one is suggesting that officers not use force if there is no alternative." This I completely agree with. In some cases, if the suspect absolutely WILL NOT cooperate and is beginning to be a danger to those in the surrounding area, you have to do what is necessary to contain them. "Excessive force" included. A few scrapes or bruises on the suspect from a forceful take-down are immeasurably better than the possible loss of a loved one. I found this article quite interesting, check it out.

2/11/2010 State officials consider closing prisons...

I came across this article on the Austin American Statesman website today and thought it was a pretty insightful read on what could be in store for Texas:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/state-officials-consider-closing-some-prisons-227430.html

The article opens by bringing to attention the fact that Texas has the largest prison system in the United States, as well as the reputation for being the most "law-and-order" in terms of sentencing and such. It then breaks the news that Texas may face what is possibly one of the greatest budget cuts in it's time... with an estimated 300 million in cuts this year is the prison system alone. Some great arguments/opposing views were presented in the article, one of which states: "We certainly can't compromise public safety, and I'm opposed to closing prisons just to save a buck." Definitely something to think about...