In Response To: Red-Light Cameras Reducing Crashes in Texas

I enjoyed reading the blog post of my fellow classmate, Abbey.  In her post, she defends the use of red-light cameras in Texas intersections in order to reduce the number of accidents or collisions.  I agree with the idea that red-light cameras are helpful and do make a difference at intersections.  Whenever someone is driving and notices one of the cameras, it can be helped but to think more carefully of slowing down or paying attention to the light.  However, my problem with red-light cameras is the ability to easily gain revenue by placing these cameras around the city.  I am completely for the idea of reducing accidents, but I know that if revenue is short for the month, all the city has to do is reduce the yellow light time.  I have noticed many different times while I am driving that certain lights are always inconsistent during the yellow light time.  These are the intersections where red-light cameras are installed and the period during the yellow light is being reduced significantly.  Though I agree with the overall idea of red-light cameras, there are many flaws to the system.  For example, according to this article, "People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation. This makes it very difficult to defend oneself because it would be hard to remember the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation."  These tickets are sent out by mail, so if they are not received and the motorist fails to pay, "it is assumed that they did so on purpose, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest."  Overall, I am not sure that red-light cameras are installed for safety.  Instead, I believe they are truly used for revenue more than anything.

Evolution Debate in Education

On July 21st, the Texas State Board of Education met to debate the subject of how evolution vs. intelligent design is taught in public schools and higher education.  Barbara Cargill, a conservative member, was named chairwoman by Rick Perry.  She believes that the theory of evolution has flaws and weaknesses that should be taught in classrooms instead of presenting the information as fact.  Many members on the board believe that "creationism and intelligent design are philosophy not science.  If you must teach them, teach them as the philosophy they are, not science."

Though I have my beliefs and opinions, I acknowledge that evolution is not taught as a "theory" in the school system.  The definition of the word has changed through the years and has become basically a term of fact, as many people accept it.  Either way, I think every aspect of creationism and intelligent design should be discussed if the theory of evolution is described in detail.  I know many students, myself included, who have felt belittled when a teacher, instructor, or professor puts down one theory or another.  Instead of focusing on presenting the information as it should be, the education system has shifted its focus from an unbiased point of view.  In fact, to have a session for the board of education to have to debate the issue itself proves something is wrong with the way the information is being presented.  I believe the issue that is being focused on is really about how many conservatives or Christians have votes on the board.  Instead, it should solely be about how both sides are represented equally when the information is being presented.

Just Say No To Plastic Bags!!!

My fellow classmate, Marissa Acuna, posted a blog recently about the recent push from the Austin Mayor to ban plastic bags at all Austin stores.  I agree that plastic bags could pose a danger wildlife, or create pollution in the environment.  However, I do not believe that a  "ban" should be placed on what supplies companies can use.  I believe that citizens should be as aware of the environment as they can, but not all are.  I believe that the stores that care about the environment and their reputation should do everything they can to help and if that entails banning plastic bags, then I am all for it.  However, I don't think the city should be telling any company what it can and cannot do.  I'm not saying I am one of them, but some people do not see the benefit of spending more money for paper bags, than saving the money and using plastic bags, even if the environment is at risk.  Overall, I believe it should be the decision of the company or store on what supplies they will use, and if customers are not okay with it, they can shop elsewhere.

Cut, Cap, and Balance

On Friday, July 22nd, after the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill was passed and a deal was made in the House, the United States Senate voted to kill the Republican backed proposal.  In an article written by Maria Recio, the author talks about the failed proposal and what lawmakers in Texas think about the "tabled" legislation.  She states, "The measure is designed to cut and cap spending and require Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment before the debt ceiling can be raised."  The idea that the Senate immediately ceased discussion of the bill has angered many citizens, especially those in Texas.  Many citizens in Texas agree that the government needs a balanced budget bill, as well as an extreme cut in spending.  However, there are many citizens who push for a raise in the debt ceiling.  In the article, the author agreed with and quoted Representative (Texas) Joe Barton saying, "We need to spend less money--short term, this year.  We need to spend less money in the next five years.  And we need a constitutional amendment that locks in a balanced budget." 

Though the plan may have serious issues with it, it was a bipartisan collaboration that actually resulted on some legislation being passed for once.  I do not believe that people are angry because the bill was killed by the Senate.  I think citizens, like conservatives in Texas, are more frustrated with the different sides in Washington who are unable or even unwilling to cooperate.  After negotiations, debates, and the bill being passed through compromise in the House, it is almost shameful that the Senate could not even debate the legislation.  I am NOT a proponent of raising the debt ceiling.  I believe taking that path is taking the easy way out.  Each time the ceiling is raised, more debt is allowed and essentially expected to add to the deficit.  I agree that the U.S government and the state of Texas need to highly focus on budget cuts and stop putting off the issues that need to be dealt with by raising debt ceiling.

Is Gov. Perry's prayer meeting religion, politics or both?

In a blog post on July 7, 2011 written by Robert Pratt on the Empower Texans blog, the topic of Governor Rick Perry's religion and politics were discussed. The author is a host of a Texas radio station program.  Supposedly, it was reported in the Dallas Morning News that Rick Perry has invited all 49 governors to join him late in the summer to have a day of Christian prayer and fasting.  In this blog, the author presents the question, "Is Rick Perry's day of Christian prayer about religion or politics?"  He presents the argument that leaders should be encouraged to rise above politics to create unity through faith.  He also discusses the views of the liberal standpoint and how they believe that Perry is just demonstrating an act from a "political theater."  This topic has truly "sparked a lively debate" for many citizens.  Many people think his request is just a show or production to further his political goals.  Citizens are greatly confused and wonder what the governors true intentions are.  The author does make an argument that Rick Perry could in fact, simply be mixing religion and politics together.  He also argues that this mixture is what the nation was founded on.  Knowing this he professed, "For those of us who are Christians by grace and faith, our political and secular decisions should be informed by that faith."  Furthermore, he states that if religious citizens have a problem politically, they should join in on movements of faith.  Otherwise, doubts could be cast on beliefs and religion, shedding light on the hypocritical blasphemy.

Apodaca: Death penalty should die

In the commentary written by Rudy Apodaca, the issue of the death penalty was addressed.  In this issue, he argues that the death penalty system is a flawed and random system.  The author, “a practicing criminal attorney for 22 years and a former judge on the New Mexico Court of Appeals for almost 14 years” believes that under our current system, many innocent individuals have been convicted through trials and were either put to death or on death row for years.  The author also presented the fact that in many cases, doubts have arisen long after the innocent were convicted.  He states that “since 1973, at least 138 people from 26 states have been released from death row based on evidence of their wrongful convictions.  DNA testing can’t solve these problems alone, for DNA evidence exists in only 10 percent of criminal cases.”  The author argues that because the system is flawed with its inability to absolutely guarantee that the innocent are protected, the death penalty should not be banned.  He states that “for those who fear that doing so would permit criminals to be set free to commit another capital offense, it is important to note that alternative sentencing options already exist, including life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.”  Of course, his argument does not take into account the capital it would take to jail convicted prisoners for life.  On average, it has been said that the cost to imprison a person each year in Texas is around $50,000, but each death penalty case costs about $2.5 million.  This makes even 40 years in prison cheaper than the cost it would be for a death penalty case.  Therefore, even in the argument that it would cost too much not to have the death penalty, the author's argument is valid.  So, do we ban the death penalty to guarantee the safety of the innocent under our flawed system? 

Lawmakers Call it Quits, Leave Unfinished Business

According to an article in the Texas Tribune on 6/29/2011, written by Thanh Tan, Lawmakers Call it Quits, Leave Unfinished Business, the Texas Senate ended a special session without completing the work at hand.  Governor Perry had two priorities for this session: Sanctuary Cities and TSA Pat Downs.  The Sanctuary Cities Bill would have allowed peace officers to ask questions pertaining to immigration and nationality throughout all Texas cities.  The main focus of this article, TSA Pat Downs, would have banned intrusive searches by federal airport security officers.  Neither task was passed to completion.  This article gives a good analysis of the issues surrounding the internal conflict between Republicans and Democrats and their inability to come to an agreement for important issues.  The governor doesn't seem interested in calling for another session.  One member of the public commented angrily, "If you cowards don't protect us, we'll protect ourselves."