Friday, December 11, 2009
Response to "Blood Testing Justification"
I strongly disagree with you on this issue, for a number of reasons. The first that struck me is the statement, "breathalysers are inaccurate." I've heard this statement time and time again, but I've never seen facts to back it up. In fact, a search on Google revealed pocket breathalysers that are sold to the public as a precaution against drunk driving, "Guaranteed accurate!" Just because the breathalyser shows that a person is drunk, doesn't mean they're wrong.
My second concern has to do with your statement, "The blood tests have given a 100% DWI conviction rate." This could just be a misprint, but really? 100%? All that tells me is that everyone who has had to take that test was drunk off their ass. A blood test is a blood test, the alcohol is either in your blood or not. Whether it was intentional or just a mistake, fixing this would give your argument more credibility.
As for the Texas government getting involved in all this? I believe they should, whole-heartedly. There is absolutely no reason you should be driving drunk, under any circumstance. If an officer has even pulled you over in the first place (for probable cause; swerving, speeding, etc.) you're probably too drunk to be on the road. Anything less would be a failure of their role to protect the people. I'll need a lot more solid evidence before I'm convinced that innocent people are being pulled off the roads for absolutely nothing.
Texas and Taxes
According to the report Texas on the Brink, released every several years, Texas has some of the lowest rankings among the fifty states in just about every category. This fact should not come as a surprise, given that our taxes are also some of the lowest in the nation. However, having the government provide a certain level of involvement in society seems like it would be a good thing; something that could bring the state of Texas to a rank deserving of its population and culture. The question is however, where should the government get involved, and to what extent?
In terms of things that are most in need of fixing, K-12 education comes immediately to mind. Education is the very foundation of society, which brings extravagant results eighteen years down the road when the new adults of society begin to contribute to it. When our education is almost at the bottom of the barrel however...society begins to fall apart, pushing all of the government's money into welfare rather than education. There would be many factors to consider in regards to solving Texas' education problem, but I believe it is a problem most defiantly worth solving, for the sake of our state and its unpredictable future.
However, just because certain issues like education make for good uses of government money, others wind up having the effect of dumping money down a bottomless hole. Texas has some of the highest rankings of obesity (particularly in children,) with all the heart disease and diabetes that come from this epidemic. This does not mean that the government should be stepping in however, to attempt to curb the vices of the average Texan. I almost find it creepy, with the government at every turn deciding what can and cannot be put into foods or vending machines. Moreover, the whole problem could likely be solved by ramping up education spending!
Wastes of money like the example above are the reason Texans resist higher taxes so heavily, and must be removed if progress is to be made. Changes like that will only be able to come around when our government changes as well, both in structure and character. As easy as it may sound, efficient spending will always be a pipe dream without an efficient government.
In terms of things that are most in need of fixing, K-12 education comes immediately to mind. Education is the very foundation of society, which brings extravagant results eighteen years down the road when the new adults of society begin to contribute to it. When our education is almost at the bottom of the barrel however...society begins to fall apart, pushing all of the government's money into welfare rather than education. There would be many factors to consider in regards to solving Texas' education problem, but I believe it is a problem most defiantly worth solving, for the sake of our state and its unpredictable future.
However, just because certain issues like education make for good uses of government money, others wind up having the effect of dumping money down a bottomless hole. Texas has some of the highest rankings of obesity (particularly in children,) with all the heart disease and diabetes that come from this epidemic. This does not mean that the government should be stepping in however, to attempt to curb the vices of the average Texan. I almost find it creepy, with the government at every turn deciding what can and cannot be put into foods or vending machines. Moreover, the whole problem could likely be solved by ramping up education spending!
Wastes of money like the example above are the reason Texans resist higher taxes so heavily, and must be removed if progress is to be made. Changes like that will only be able to come around when our government changes as well, both in structure and character. As easy as it may sound, efficient spending will always be a pipe dream without an efficient government.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Response to "Annual Legislative Sessions"
Though I certainly agree with your statements about legislative change you brought up in your post "Annual Legislative Sessions", I feel that you've put the emphasis on the wrong issue in this post. Whether or not the Texas legislature meets once a year, twice a year, or whatever interval you wish, it doesn't matter one bit if they're all still a bunch of corrupt and useless politicians. For that matter, having more sessions without first changing nature of the legislature would only make the problem worse. The thought of twice as many unnecessary laws shoehorned into the Texas constitution is not a reassuring thought for the average citizen.
By focusing on biennial sessions, the reading is left thinking that this is the important change to make, while in actuality it is only important if the other goal is achieved first. Other than that, your writing and reasoning are spot on and make solid points backed by convincing logic. With a bit of tweaking, this post could pack a little more 'oomph' and make a solid one-two punch against the ridiculousness of the Texas legislature.
By focusing on biennial sessions, the reading is left thinking that this is the important change to make, while in actuality it is only important if the other goal is achieved first. Other than that, your writing and reasoning are spot on and make solid points backed by convincing logic. With a bit of tweaking, this post could pack a little more 'oomph' and make a solid one-two punch against the ridiculousness of the Texas legislature.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Out With the Old, in With the New
The Texas constitution is, more than almost any other constitution in the United States, a document of convoluted messages and pathetic abuses of power. As abrasive an intro as this is, there is no other way around it. Our constitution is the the second largest in the United States, overflowing with amendments that say nothing at all.
A solution needs arise to fix this problem, and luckily I've got the perfect answer: scrap the damn thing and start from scratch. Many would disagree with this suggestion, claiming it would destabilize our political system as we know it. The Texas political system is on such shaky grounds as it is that even the slightest breeze of rational and reason would topple it completely, so why defend it? Sweeping changes might be frightening, but if they are done right, we could be left with a clean, easy to interpret system of laws and lawmaking that everyone could be satisfied with.
This solution can not be made on a whim, however. Thorough planning will have to be made to implement such a sweeping change. I dream of a constitution that resembles the national model, written in ideals rather than uninterpretable lawyer-babble. To bring about a change would require a large majority, and much footwork on the parts of state politicians. No longer would something as banal as a land dispute be cause for sweeping change to the foundation of all state law. Local problems would stay local, handled through ordinances and other measures, without mucking up a document of (now) great importance.
Suggestions can be made, drafts can be written, but ultimately the status quo will remain the same while our current set of politicians remain in office. Change will have to be brought by the people, in the form of votes and activism, before change will even be a consideration. A true constitution must be made, by the people, for the people.
A solution needs arise to fix this problem, and luckily I've got the perfect answer: scrap the damn thing and start from scratch. Many would disagree with this suggestion, claiming it would destabilize our political system as we know it. The Texas political system is on such shaky grounds as it is that even the slightest breeze of rational and reason would topple it completely, so why defend it? Sweeping changes might be frightening, but if they are done right, we could be left with a clean, easy to interpret system of laws and lawmaking that everyone could be satisfied with.
This solution can not be made on a whim, however. Thorough planning will have to be made to implement such a sweeping change. I dream of a constitution that resembles the national model, written in ideals rather than uninterpretable lawyer-babble. To bring about a change would require a large majority, and much footwork on the parts of state politicians. No longer would something as banal as a land dispute be cause for sweeping change to the foundation of all state law. Local problems would stay local, handled through ordinances and other measures, without mucking up a document of (now) great importance.
Suggestions can be made, drafts can be written, but ultimately the status quo will remain the same while our current set of politicians remain in office. Change will have to be brought by the people, in the form of votes and activism, before change will even be a consideration. A true constitution must be made, by the people, for the people.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Manipulative Media
Some would consider the president the most powerful figure in the United States; others would think of the head of the Fed. To me, though, no group is more powerful or more terrifying than the modern media. In a recent blog post by the Lone Star Times, criticism is brought against the overwhelmingly liberal news media; most notably for their recent vilification of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
The reason this post catches my attention more than any other is the dire ramifications a biased media could hold for the future of America. Whether it be liberal or conservative or what have you, a media that distorts the truth to further their party's political standings is something that must be crushed with upmost speed. To actually present a lie as truth (such as the case with Limbough) and then airing it to millions of people around the country is a crime I would hold right up with murder in its vile nature.
This may sound somewhat manic, though it is being written in a manic fashion for good reason! Consider this: when Tina Fey made the joke on SNL about Sarah Palin seeing Russia from her house, it was a harmless joke; all in good fun. However, when the media took hold of this quote and ascribed it to the Vice Presidential candidate, the news that this stupid, ignorant, hillbilly woman who had the audacity to run for higher office had said such a thing caused an uproar amongst her detractors. The vast majority of people in the U.S. who watched those newscasts still believe this is true. A lie to defame a woman running for office, forever enshrined as truth. This is terrifying.
Individual instances could be cited ad nausium, but those will ultimately not accomplish anything. Our society must progress into a new age: an age of doubt. With tools such as youtube at our fingertips, why should we trust a bunch of heads telling exactly what is and ins't in this world of ours? Check your information, confirm the facts, and most importantly of all, annihilate those that have the audacity to lie to your face while believing themselves invincible.
The reason this post catches my attention more than any other is the dire ramifications a biased media could hold for the future of America. Whether it be liberal or conservative or what have you, a media that distorts the truth to further their party's political standings is something that must be crushed with upmost speed. To actually present a lie as truth (such as the case with Limbough) and then airing it to millions of people around the country is a crime I would hold right up with murder in its vile nature.
This may sound somewhat manic, though it is being written in a manic fashion for good reason! Consider this: when Tina Fey made the joke on SNL about Sarah Palin seeing Russia from her house, it was a harmless joke; all in good fun. However, when the media took hold of this quote and ascribed it to the Vice Presidential candidate, the news that this stupid, ignorant, hillbilly woman who had the audacity to run for higher office had said such a thing caused an uproar amongst her detractors. The vast majority of people in the U.S. who watched those newscasts still believe this is true. A lie to defame a woman running for office, forever enshrined as truth. This is terrifying.
Individual instances could be cited ad nausium, but those will ultimately not accomplish anything. Our society must progress into a new age: an age of doubt. With tools such as youtube at our fingertips, why should we trust a bunch of heads telling exactly what is and ins't in this world of ours? Check your information, confirm the facts, and most importantly of all, annihilate those that have the audacity to lie to your face while believing themselves invincible.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Austin Plan to Ban Beggers
The issue of panhandling for money on street corners has arisen recently within the Texas legislature. Many issues can be found within this problem from the city's personal beauty to finding legitimate help for the destitute doing the panhandling; but what about the freedom of speech?
The editorial board at the Austin American Statesman believes that passing an ordinance to remove panhandlers from the streets would be impinging upon their rights granted under the First Amendment. Now, I'm honestly rather conflicted on this issue, as there seem to me to be positives and negatives to be found on both sides. One of the central issues that concerns me is that the people who panhandle on the streets could probably find better help elsewhere (at one of Austin's homeless shelters.) To tell people what they can and cannot do though (while still being lawful,) is a dangerous line to tamper with, with the slippery slope theory always just a step away. Perhaps instead of a city ordinance, the organizations providing care for the homeless could become more active in their efforts to get people off the street with incentives and advertising.
Another issue brought up in the article was the effectiveness of such an ordinance. How would it be enforced, and would it really be worth it with more serious crimes happening that need attending to? As long as the person doing the panhandling does not impinge upon the rights of the people they ask from, the actual criminality of their actions is next to none. Police could be of much better use elsewhere in the city dealing the bank robbers or drug dealer etc.
Though I could really go either way on the issue, I agree with the Austin American Statesman in saying that I lean towards not passing the ordinance. It would just be another stuffy government rule set that would ultimately be more trouble than it's worth, wasting both the time and money of city officials. When someone on the street begs for money, there's always the option to just ignore them.
The editorial board at the Austin American Statesman believes that passing an ordinance to remove panhandlers from the streets would be impinging upon their rights granted under the First Amendment. Now, I'm honestly rather conflicted on this issue, as there seem to me to be positives and negatives to be found on both sides. One of the central issues that concerns me is that the people who panhandle on the streets could probably find better help elsewhere (at one of Austin's homeless shelters.) To tell people what they can and cannot do though (while still being lawful,) is a dangerous line to tamper with, with the slippery slope theory always just a step away. Perhaps instead of a city ordinance, the organizations providing care for the homeless could become more active in their efforts to get people off the street with incentives and advertising.
Another issue brought up in the article was the effectiveness of such an ordinance. How would it be enforced, and would it really be worth it with more serious crimes happening that need attending to? As long as the person doing the panhandling does not impinge upon the rights of the people they ask from, the actual criminality of their actions is next to none. Police could be of much better use elsewhere in the city dealing the bank robbers or drug dealer etc.
Though I could really go either way on the issue, I agree with the Austin American Statesman in saying that I lean towards not passing the ordinance. It would just be another stuffy government rule set that would ultimately be more trouble than it's worth, wasting both the time and money of city officials. When someone on the street begs for money, there's always the option to just ignore them.
Talk is Cheap
To those who are not gifted with the academic genius of Ken Herman of the Austin American Statesman, you may want to peruse his latest editorial, which claims Obama deserves his recently won Nobel Peace Prize for effort alone.
I don't know what kind of backwards world this man is living in, but in my lifetime effort amounted to nothing if no results came of it. Studying for a test all night and then flunking it the next day never got me an "A for effort" when I was in school. The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be a glorious award given only to those who have made the world better place to live, not some cheap token thrown at anyone who makes a promise. Hitler promised peace in Europe after seizing the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia; under the line of logic applied by Mr. Herman, he deserves the Peace Prize for his great efforts towards peace. I imagine this was the same logic that led the prize into the hands of Yassar Arafat, leader of the PLO, in 1994.
What a disgrace this is to the names of men like Martin Luther King Jr. and the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, men who not only claimed to want peace, but started movements to secure it. The movements started by these two men were far more than just effort (something, quite frankly, anyone can put forth,) but revolutions of peace that produced visible results for the good of mankind.
Now to return to the article at hand... On my first read-through I was having trouble figuring out which side Mr. Herman was for. After painting a picture of failed peace talks and outbreaks of conflict, the question is asked, "Do [these] realities make Obama's Nobel hollow or unearned?" Well geez, after detailing the failures of an all-talk-no-action approach, this almost sounded like sarcasm. Another one of these contrasts appears again when the purpose of the Prize is stated: "...the Peace Prize is for someone who 'shall have done the most or best work for fraternity between nations.'" Mr. Herman follows this quote by saying, "It doesn't say anything about results." Work is always about results, for without results the work is wasted; pointless. Efforts towards peace mean nothing if everybody is still killing one another.
To wrap up this post (which I've only now realized has nothing to do with Texas politics,) never end an editorial with the phrase, "[you] will be better off with..." King among men as you fashion yourself to be Mr. Herman, smart people disagree.
I don't know what kind of backwards world this man is living in, but in my lifetime effort amounted to nothing if no results came of it. Studying for a test all night and then flunking it the next day never got me an "A for effort" when I was in school. The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be a glorious award given only to those who have made the world better place to live, not some cheap token thrown at anyone who makes a promise. Hitler promised peace in Europe after seizing the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia; under the line of logic applied by Mr. Herman, he deserves the Peace Prize for his great efforts towards peace. I imagine this was the same logic that led the prize into the hands of Yassar Arafat, leader of the PLO, in 1994.
What a disgrace this is to the names of men like Martin Luther King Jr. and the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, men who not only claimed to want peace, but started movements to secure it. The movements started by these two men were far more than just effort (something, quite frankly, anyone can put forth,) but revolutions of peace that produced visible results for the good of mankind.
Now to return to the article at hand... On my first read-through I was having trouble figuring out which side Mr. Herman was for. After painting a picture of failed peace talks and outbreaks of conflict, the question is asked, "Do [these] realities make Obama's Nobel hollow or unearned?" Well geez, after detailing the failures of an all-talk-no-action approach, this almost sounded like sarcasm. Another one of these contrasts appears again when the purpose of the Prize is stated: "...the Peace Prize is for someone who 'shall have done the most or best work for fraternity between nations.'" Mr. Herman follows this quote by saying, "It doesn't say anything about results." Work is always about results, for without results the work is wasted; pointless. Efforts towards peace mean nothing if everybody is still killing one another.
To wrap up this post (which I've only now realized has nothing to do with Texas politics,) never end an editorial with the phrase, "[you] will be better off with..." King among men as you fashion yourself to be Mr. Herman, smart people disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)