On April 9th at 8p an explosion occurred in Central Texas at a fertilizer plant. This terrible tragedy resulted in 14 deaths and 200+ injured (Austin American-Statesman). However the worst aspect, in my opinion, is that it could have easily been prevented. This horrible incident exemplifies why we need independent-regulation, especially for companies that handle toxic chemicals in some manner.
As highlighted by Cenk Uygur from The Young Turks, the West Fertilizer Company did not have sprinklers, shut-off valves, fire alarms, or legally required blast walls. It had 1,350x the legally allowed amount of highly explosive ammonium nitrate - in 2012 it held 270 tons ammonium nitrate. Moreover, it was irregularly inspected, but instead was believed to be more or less self-regulated. Yet in1985 the OSHA had inspected the plant, and the TCEQ in 2006. After an inspection by the federal Pipe in 2012, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration fined the plant $5,250 following an inspection that "found improper labeling of storage and a failure to 'develop and adhere to a security plan'" (Progress Texas)
Yet why was it not inspect by regulation?
As a self-regulated company, the West Fertilizer Company only needed to simply state it had "no risk of fire or explosion" in order to appease the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, this was completely untrue. Proper regulation with yearly inspections to assure our workplaces and workers are safe, this could clearly have been avoided or at the very least drastically reduced. Perhaps we shouldn't have cut corners to save money?
Furthermore, this explosion also makes me question how many businesses are falsely self-regulated, but in reality creating potentially dangerous environments and surely polluting our land, air and water? This is entirely unsafe, and worrisome.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Friday, March 29, 2013
Texas: A "Right-to-Work" State
Even with its wholesome name, the "Right-to-Work" laws throughout the nation have caused quite the confusion and controversy. As one of the “Right-to-Work” states, Texas has ruled that employees cannot be denied employment because of membership or non-membership in a labor union or other labor organization under the Texas Labor Code – sounds pretty reasonable and libertarian right? No one should be discriminated at work for his/her choices; we have to protect that freedom of ours! Yet for us to truly understand the scope of this law, we must analyze the purpose of labor unions.
Unions were formed in order to negotiate with company leaders on behalf of the workers. Without labor unions, working folks will undisputedly have lower wages, less safe working conditions, and fewer benefits. Why? Well, they simply lack the solidarity from unions and their power to negotiate with company leaders. Before labor unions, we had child labor, uncannily long workdays (and weeks!) without breaks (including weekends), and virtually no benefits such as pensions, pregnancy/parental and sick leaves, and employer health care insurance (Check out this Daily Kos post for a longer list of “Why [We] Should Thank a Union”).
Although the “Right-to-Work” law seemingly protects workers from "forcibly" paying membership fees for these unions to organize as well as protects the workers' "liberty" to choose, it essentially weakens labor unions and their ability to protect the workers from big businesses. Furthermore, as Cent Uygur from The Young Turks explains, while setting workers against one another and diminishing their rights, this law ironically allows for freeloaders in attempts to preventing freeloaders. Though no worker can be forced to join a union, “…if the union represents you and they get you higher wages, pensions, etc. Then you have to pay dues…But ‘Right-to-Work’ says… you don’t have to pay...” despite still receiving the same benefits achieved through members. This is not to stay unions are magical, perfect entities, which protect workers and grant more desirable working conditions. There is corruption and disorder amongst several union organizations as well. Yet they provide a much needed service for workers by representing and bargaining with the company leaders.
The consequences of “Right-to-Work” laws for our economy and society are hard to say. For in these states, “the conservative parts of America are generally poorer than the liberal parts, but also faster-growing” (Slate) . In other words, the economy may boost but the wealth inequality will widen - which will actually lead to more families in need of food stamps and other welfare programs. Additionally, compared to free-bargaining states, the average worker in a “Right-to-Work” state makes approximately $5,333 less per year; 21% more workers lack health insurance (the number one source of debt for people in the United States); many receive lower workers’ compensation benefits when injured on the job; and there is a 51% higher rate of workplace deaths and injuries (Allison Kilkenny on the Young Turks; In These Times). For these reasons, I believe Texas should re-consider and revoke its “Right-to-Work” state status.
In closing, I’d like to share these cogent words from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:
Although the “Right-to-Work” law seemingly protects workers from "forcibly" paying membership fees for these unions to organize as well as protects the workers' "liberty" to choose, it essentially weakens labor unions and their ability to protect the workers from big businesses. Furthermore, as Cent Uygur from The Young Turks explains, while setting workers against one another and diminishing their rights, this law ironically allows for freeloaders in attempts to preventing freeloaders. Though no worker can be forced to join a union, “…if the union represents you and they get you higher wages, pensions, etc. Then you have to pay dues…But ‘Right-to-Work’ says… you don’t have to pay...” despite still receiving the same benefits achieved through members. This is not to stay unions are magical, perfect entities, which protect workers and grant more desirable working conditions. There is corruption and disorder amongst several union organizations as well. Yet they provide a much needed service for workers by representing and bargaining with the company leaders.
The consequences of “Right-to-Work” laws for our economy and society are hard to say. For in these states, “the conservative parts of America are generally poorer than the liberal parts, but also faster-growing” (Slate) . In other words, the economy may boost but the wealth inequality will widen - which will actually lead to more families in need of food stamps and other welfare programs. Additionally, compared to free-bargaining states, the average worker in a “Right-to-Work” state makes approximately $5,333 less per year; 21% more workers lack health insurance (the number one source of debt for people in the United States); many receive lower workers’ compensation benefits when injured on the job; and there is a 51% higher rate of workplace deaths and injuries (Allison Kilkenny on the Young Turks; In These Times). For these reasons, I believe Texas should re-consider and revoke its “Right-to-Work” state status.
In closing, I’d like to share these cogent words from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:
“In our glorious fight for civil rights,
we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’
It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining
by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…
Wherever these laws have been passed,
wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights.
We do not intend to let them do this to us.
We demand this fraud be stopped.
Our weapon is our vote.”
we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’
It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights.
Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining
by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone…
Wherever these laws have been passed,
wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights.
We do not intend to let them do this to us.
We demand this fraud be stopped.
Our weapon is our vote.”
Friday, March 8, 2013
Empower Texans: Save Texas Students
In a recent editorial post in the conservative blog Empower Texans, Nathan Ofe discussed his solution to saving Texas students: choice of schools. Before working for Empower Texans, Ofe was an ex-public school teacher in the Houston ISD where he experienced our broken educational system first-hand. From his experience, and as he so eloquently said, he saw how "…our students are not failing us, we are failing them!"
Ofe begins his case for a school system based on choice rather than zoning stating that though "…the single most important factor in determining student success in education is parental involvement," our current classroom pushes parents out of the picture "…by not having a real opportunity to choose what school is best for their child." Yet, Ofe believes, with a choice-driven school system and an increase on charter school caps, children will no longer be trapped in failing schools.
Though I completely agree the traditional methods of "improving" our schools by throwing more money and added new standardized tests is incomplete and failing, Ofe's overly simple plan will not amend the broken system either. Without truly addressing the fundamental problem stated by Ofe - the lack of parental involvement -, you will not truly fix the system. So why are majority of parents unable to be involved in their children's school life? Perhaps it is the school districts based on zip codes rather than choice. Or maybe if there was less stress on low + middle class parents who are struggling to financially support their children, they would be able to spend more quality time with them. This could be achieved by raising the minimum-wage, strengthening communities, + improving social programs.**** However, I do admit this will also only begin to address this first issue discuss in Ofe's post - it would be a journey of progress to improve our school + education systems. (But progress over perfection right?)
In regards to giving parents the open choice between schools + increasing the cap of students in charter schools, there are quite a few consequences I foresee. First, the best schools would be overflowed with students, meaning less one-on-one attention from the teacher (as can be said for the charter schools). Secondly, many families are unable to afford to travel outside of their district to a non-failing school. Then these undesired schools will perhaps be "tossed aside" since the most privilege, and often the most powerful + involved, families will demand their children's schools to be top priority - thus leading to children "left behind."
In short, although Ofe's intentions are good. His plan is ill-conceived and far too simple to address the complex structural failures of our education system in Texas and the nation as a whole. There are many poor policies that need to be amended regarding teachers' unions + pay, school infrastructure, subjective textbook content, etc. But it is a necessary investment we need to take, for investing in education is the only true way to invest in our future and fight economical, political, social, health, + environmental issues.
If you have not already seen the documentary Waiting for Superman, I highly suggest you do so! It is a great look into our public school system and the fight Michelle Rhee took in Washington DC.
On a side note, here is a video of Neil Degrasse Tyson's proposal of how we can foster science enthusiasm in our country + how it will improve our economy + society:
***UPDATE 3/18: In a recent Citizen Radio episode, Jaime + Allison discuss the essential of addressing food scarcity when discussing education reform - a point I never really gave much thought to. Food is the fuel for our bodies + brains. Without the access to whole, fresh foods, many middle-class + low-income families are feeding their children poor, processed foods - foods that ultimately lead to health issues, let alone focus in class. Additionally by concentrating on the food inequality challenges, we would also subsequently address world hunger, virtually all modern illnesses, + even climate change.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Austin American-Statesman: Biopharmaceutical companies merit support
No one can disagree the biopharmaceutical industry has
assisted in saving countless lives. However often disregarded from the
conversation of medicine is the lack of prevention studies. Instead, we tend to
focus on covering the prevalent symptoms. And in a system where you never find
the cause but only postpone the casualty, of course you will find economic
growth.
In a recent opinion article in the Austin American-Statesman, Travis Baugh, a representative of Healthpoint
Biotherapeutics, crafts an interesting argument as to why state and federal lawmakers
should focus on supporting the biopharmaceutical industry. Emphasizing only on the
economical and health benefits, Baugh neglects to focus on the underlying issue in our health care industry: lack of prescribed whole, fresh foods.
Though I do agree we must invest in the education of science,
including biopharmaceuticals, in hopes to truly improve the economy and strengthen our communities, neglecting to address the fundamental problem of
virtually all modern diseases and illnesses (type II diabetes, obesity, cancer,
heart diseases, blood diseases…) will not lead to a substantial
solution to health nor economical issues.
The United States spends more than twice on health care –
per capita and as a percentage of GDP – than any other nation. Of the $2.6 trillion spent in 2010 on health care,
it is estimated 75% of which was on preventable diseases and illnesses with proper nutrition (Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, American Public Health Association). Moreover there is quite a
socioeconomic disparity of the out-of-pocket financial burden of health care on
low and middle income families as shown in the 2005 study by Health Services Research.
While Baugh makes great points on the positive impact of the
biopharmaceutical industry (which remember is the one he works in) on health
and the Texas’ economy, he is missing these pivotal facts. Moreover I find his concluding statements intriguing - mainly his support of the Council for Medical
Innovation’s proposal to create a federal office to promote medical innovation,
public-private partnerships to encourage such innovation, and increase investments
funding for medical research and development and manufacturing. In order to
make significant, lasting improvements in our health and economy, these proposals to further the development of the biopharmaceuticals will be only effective if it is supplementing nutritional studies and educational programs, as well
as the construction of a system to decrease the out-of-pocket financial burdens, rather than the reverse.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Texas Independent: Texas lawmaker seeks to reverse Planned Parenthood ban
For those who are unaware, at the beginning of
2013 Texas cut funding for Planned Parenthood, a non-profit organization that
provides reproductive health care to 40,000+ women in TX. This controversial
ruling was no doubt driven by conservative state leaders’ continuous fight to
prohibit abortions - and in a sense, a woman's right to chose what is best for
her body and her life. In a recent Texas Independent article, Mary Tuma further discusses the potential consequences of such a bill
as well as the recently introduced legislation to nullify the ruling.
It is truly essential everyone becomes more aware and broadens their understanding of this issue, for the restrictions of contraceptives and abortions affect more than the woman and child's life but our society, economy, and planet as well. Moreover, we must strive to put aside our subjective moral perception in all political issues, especially ones which inhibit an individual’s liberty.
Furthermore, if this was simply an issue of conservative and religious affiliates objecting to fund a practice they do not morally agree with, I could empathize. There are several governmental practices our tax dollars fund that I extremely oppose (i.e. drone strikes, funding of both sides of the Afghanistan war, big oil + big agriculture subsidizes, billion dollar plus bailout…). However, as Tuma highlights, there is a previous law in place that "…restricts federal and state funds going toward abortion services.” Thus WHP funds Planned Parenthood centers receive are already financially and legally separate from those providing abortion services.
Also it's important to stress that the only true way to reduce the number of abortions is to universally promote safe sex education and accessibility of contraceptives.
Here are a few side points I'd like to share:
Here are some other great resources to check out:
It is truly essential everyone becomes more aware and broadens their understanding of this issue, for the restrictions of contraceptives and abortions affect more than the woman and child's life but our society, economy, and planet as well. Moreover, we must strive to put aside our subjective moral perception in all political issues, especially ones which inhibit an individual’s liberty.
Furthermore, if this was simply an issue of conservative and religious affiliates objecting to fund a practice they do not morally agree with, I could empathize. There are several governmental practices our tax dollars fund that I extremely oppose (i.e. drone strikes, funding of both sides of the Afghanistan war, big oil + big agriculture subsidizes, billion dollar plus bailout…). However, as Tuma highlights, there is a previous law in place that "…restricts federal and state funds going toward abortion services.” Thus WHP funds Planned Parenthood centers receive are already financially and legally separate from those providing abortion services.
Also it's important to stress that the only true way to reduce the number of abortions is to universally promote safe sex education and accessibility of contraceptives.
"Abortion, like war, is a failure of society to come to the grips with a much more fundamental problem...In this care the fundamental problem is the prevention of unintended pregnancy."
- Werner Fornos, Population Institue
Here are a few side points I'd like to share:
- By hindering the funds to centers which "affiliate" with abortion providers - centers such as Planned Parenthood - this ruling also severely limits thousands of low-income women to accessible breast- and cervical-cancer screenings, diabetes and STD testing, birth control, and other women health care services.
- Non-coincidentally, the states with the highest number of teen pregnancies, abortions and cases of sexually transmitted diseases are also the ones who strictly teach abstinence as well as restrict women’s access to reproductive health care. (Center for Disease Control + Prevention: STD 2010 Review, see Huffington Post article below)
- An unproportionate amount women who use the services of Planned Parenthood are in the low socioeconomic bracket. They are financially unable to take care of another being without the aid of welfare. Furthermore, their child will likely follow suit without proper social and educational programs our society lacks (See Think Progress article below)
- There is a distinct difference between pro-life and anti-choice. Pro-Life would also want to protect the mother’s life, yet anti-choice subsequently forces women to seek unsafe alternatives or carry out unsafe pregnancies, some of which from rape incidents. Pro-Life would also be against guns, death penalties, drone strikes and war. Additionally, Pro-Life would assure the child - regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status - would receive only the best social services and educational opportunities.
- Every year the US slaughters over 9 BILLION factory farmed animals, who live in unsanitary, inhumane, and disheartening conditions. Yet since Roe vs. Wade’s ruling forty years ago, there have been approximately 53 million abortions – again is this a stance of Pro-Life or Anti-Choice?
- Currently the number one threat to our environment, and the survival of the human species, is overpopulation – there are simply not enough resources for us to live in our consumeristic society and with our Westernized diets and lifestyles.
- The Daily Show: RNC 2012, Abortion + the Republic Platform (Romney's Right to Choose)
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)