Stem cell research

I was reading a blog posted by fellow classmate, Mollie Hammer, titled, “A person, or not a person: that is the question” discussing stem cell research. This is another one of her wonderfully written posts, whether you agree with her take on favoring this research or not. She clearly states both sides of the argument in the first paragraph and supports her own opinion by relating on a personal note. She provides the definition of stem cells prior to beginning her argument, “stem cells are cells with the ability to divide for indefinite periods in culture and give rise to specialized cells.” Mollie continues on to provide unbiased, scientific facts explaining what stem cells are used for and the many benefits they can provide to those with various disabilities. In her last paragraph, she states the other side of the argument (those who oppose stem cell research). She concludes her post by claiming that those who oppose this research do not have their facts straight on the issue.

I feel that after reading this post, I feel that Mollie has provided a strong argument to support her view in favor of stem cell research. The only thing I would like to have seen included in her post is some sort of reference to support the facts she has provided about stem cells. This is important so her readers will know if the information that she has provided is credible and they would have the option to read further about the subject. Overall, I think Mollie is an excellent writer and I enjoy reading her blogs.

Get ‘em the hell outta’ there!

I wish we would just remove the troops from Afghanistan and be done with it. Sure, I know it’s not that simple but it sounds good. I read an article in the NY Times that said President Obama is scheduled to announce his decision next week, regarding how many troops he will be sending to Afghanistan. Although, it wasn’t his decision to start this whole thing and send them in the first place, he is left to clean up the mess. He says that he does intend to “finish the job”. I know it’s necessary to send additional troops over to assist with the withdrawal. I also know that it’s not as cut and dry as a lot of people may think. President Obama doesn’t just make a phone call and say, “Ok, it’s over. Round ‘em up, we’re closing down shop and everyone’s coming home!” Besides searching for answers to the 9/11 attacks, I don’t see why we’re still over there. Does it really take almost 9 years? In other cases, I feel that the U.S. spends a lot of unnecessary time trying to help “fix” other countries’ problems. Some that would otherwise have a negative impact on the U.S., sometimes not. In some cases, these countries will never be “fixed”. They are not “fixable”. All I’m saying is that there has been a LOT of unnecessary bloodshed in Afghanistan over the years. I’m looking forward to hearing the details of President Obama’s “comprehensive strategy” next week to see if we may truly be nearing the end of this long and drawn out war.

On the side-

Let me also take this opportunity to say that it really irritates me that the media refers to President Obama as, “Mr. Obama”!! I found this to be the case in most (if not all) of the political articles and blogs I’ve read online regarding President Obama. It seems a bit disrespectful. You may choose to address your father-in-law by “Mr.”, but not the President of the United States. He has worked hard and has earned the title of President. So let’s show him a little respect. I don’t recall any of the previous presidents being referred to as “Mr. Bush” or “Mr. Clinton”. Why does the media think this is okay? Do they not recognize this as being incorrect? Or, do they not care? I don't get it.

Mind your OWN business, America!

I found a great post titled, “Equal rights for ALL” written by Mollie H., discussing the gay rights controversy. I think this is a wonderfully written article. She mentions that, “When you deny two people from having a legal marriage contract, you are not just denying marriage, but their basic rights as American citizens.” I couldn’t agree more. Mollie makes several excellent points to support her argument. One of these being, “Our country has a bad track record for denying people their basic rights due to fear. A fear of people who have different colored skin, people of different genders, people with disabilities, and now people who love differently.” This totally goes against the idea of “equality for all citizens”. In each of these cases, it has taken us a while to finally get it right (equal rights for minorities, women, people with disabilities). Why are Americans so scared of change and of others who don’t fit the typical American stereotype? Secondly, she points out, “One main argument against same sex marriage is that being a homosexual is a choice.” True, whether or not being gay is a choice or not, either way, no one desires or chooses to be discriminated against. So, why does it matter?

I believe that if more people were to just mind their own business regarding these controversial issues (abortion, religion, gay rights), the world could be a better place. Regarding these issues, why in the world does anyone care about how his or her neighbor chooses to live their life? Their choices and decisions are for them to take up with their own God, they have to live with them. It is NOBODY else’s business. People should respect the views and opinions of other people. You don’t have to agree with them or adopt their views and beliefs but they should be respected. This is what makes us all different, unique individuals. It is the beauty of being an American.

Health care legislation

I don’t know if I feel strongly that the U.S. Government should be responsible for providing healthcare for Americans. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea. There are so many variables to consider with regard to this controversial topic. Where should the money come from to support it? What would this healthcare bill do to private insurance companies? How would providers be affected? Would Americans “abuse” the system? These are just a few of many that come to mind. There has been a final plan proposed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California that could be up for a vote on the House floor next week. The final proposal would require employers to offer insurance to employees or face penalties, provide subsidies to lower income families to help them purchase insurance and would fine Americans who do not elect coverage. Funding for this particular bill would come from taxing high-income people and cutting $500 billion in payments to Medicare providers (whom are already reimbursed at lower rates than they are by private insurances). Taxing the “rich” people? Sounds like a good idea to me (probably because I am not one of them). I think employers should be required to at least offer health insurance to employees. However, I think it’s terrible and ridiculous to fine Americans who don’t purchase coverage. That seems a little excessive. I feel there are times when a line has to be drawn and the government should mind their own business, this would be one of them. How are they going to require people to purchase some sort of insurance? That’s not practical. I hate to sound cliché but you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. Despite all of the different variables that remain to be considered and ironed out, I think it’s a good idea for the government to offer Americans some sort of alternative to private healthcare.

Apparently, our First Amendment Rights don't apply in this case

I cannot believe that a court can make a child custody ruling based on a parent’s religious practice. Are you freakin’ kidding me?!? I (obviously) had never heard of this until I came across Eugene Volokh’s informative blog. In my opinion, this is a very well written article. He displays an excerpt from the case ruling he is referring to in this article. The author gently takes a stand without offending those who may crazily agree that a parent’s religion should play a role in the determination of child custody. It doesn’t appear that he is targeting a specific audience but simply informing the public of these absurd court rulings. I like that he supplied his readers with examples of similar documented court cases as well as the links to other informative posts. He has provided plenty of credible resources in order for one to take a well-informed stand on the issue.

If it’s not already obvious, I totally agree with Eugene Volokh’s take on this subject. Is it really anybody’s business (especially that of the court’s) if you participate in church activities or are even consider yourself to be a Christian? You know, there are many people who attend church and have their children enrolled in the church daycare, but yet are unfit and even abusive parents. There are also those who may not have any religious beliefs but prove to be wonderful parents to their children. So, the courts that make these rulings are also making the indirect judgment that those who belong to a church are better citizens than those who do not? Does it really matter? It is a total violation of the First Amendment for the government to infringe upon the rights of its citizens. How has this been allowed? After all, isn’t this America?

Does capital punishment cost too much?

I stumbled upon an interesting commentary in the New York Times arguing that states should abolish the death penalty. The unknown author makes a claim that the death penalty is, “immoral, does not deter murder and affects minorities disproportionately.” However, to encourage states to abolish the death penalty based solely on the fact that it costs too much is not a good enough reason. Anyone who agrees in the death penalty likely has other reasons for believing that it is an acceptable form of punishment, despite how much it costs. Did you notice that all of the “facts” provided in the article were gathered from the Death Penalty Information Center, which is “a research organization that opposes capital punishment”? I didn’t even know there was such an organization. For those who already oppose the death penalty, this commentary just adds more fuel to their fire. Apparently, the author is conservative and likely targeting fellow conservatives and those who oppose capital punishment. In my opinion, the author is not very credible, as he/she does not provide us with any information about him/herself. Obviously, this editorial is written from a biased perspective. It is concluded that, “If lawmakers cannot find the moral courage to abolish the death penalty, perhaps the economic case will persuade them.” Although I disagree with the author’s stand against capital punishment, he/she does do a good job of bringing this financial issue to everyone’s attention. Assuming that the “facts” presented are accurate, it does give something more to think about.

A Note To Politicians: Grow Up Already!

You’re probably tired of hearing all the talk about Rep. Joe Wilson’s recent outburst during President Obama’s speech to Congress. However, I found it very interesting to know that Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst wasn’t the first, second or even third in the history of political debates, and it will likely not be the last. I was shocked to learn of the previous violent outbursts (and even physical attacks!) that have taken place in the history of our nation’s politics. One would like to believe that these politicians are respectful, mature, well-mannered adults but their irresponsible and childish behaviors show otherwise. After all, these are grown men and women that we’re talking about, right?!

Sobriety checkpoints in Texas, a bad idea?

I disagree with the author of this blog that implementing sobriety checkpoints in Texas is a bad idea. I also don’t believe that announcing stronger penalties through statewide DWI campaigns or running ads on TV and radio to discourage drinking and driving, will really do much to discourage the act. So what if statistics show that most alcohol- related fatalities have declined in Texas by 1% and that less than 1% of drivers are arrested for alcohol-related reasons? One person being killed by a drunk driver is enough. You can preach to someone why they shouldn’t drink and drive, but once they start drinking, the information usually doesn’t stick with them. The author also mentions that the "purpose" of using checkpoints is to catch people who are driving under the influence but these checkpoints are being "abused" in other cities and counties as well as being used to catch drug traffickers and other criminals. No matter what the crime is, it’s great they can be caught. I say the more drug dealers, drunk drivers, thieves and killers we can find, the better. Sure, the checkpoints do seem a little invasive of one’s privacy, but with crime on the rise over the years, I say "whatever works!"

The author did a great job of providing statistics and seems very knowledgeable of the subject. However, there is no link provided to the article she is referencing. Nor are there any references cited to show credibility.

Allowing college students to carry guns on campus, seriously?!

Allowing students to carry guns on college campuses is just a bad idea. Who in the world would support this? Apparently there are a fair number of people in Texas who do. Unfortunately, we live in a world where we have to be somewhat paranoid about our surroundings. But, carrying guns will not solve this problem. I believe it can only make matters worse. Those in favor of this bill say it will, “help students protect themselves and prevent a mass shooting from happening on a Texas campus”. Will it really? Or, will we turn our TVs on at night only to find an increased number of shootings on college campuses? College students drinking, partying and in possession of firearms. Brilliant. Are you kidding me?!? The odds of a disturbed individual randomly opening fire on campus are much lower than they would be if we allowed thousands of gun-toting, drinking, partying college students to carry firearms.

Also, think about this from a professor’s point of view. Would you want to pass papers back marked with low grades? As a student or as a professor, I wouldn’t want to be sitting in a classroom with a bunch of kids who may be carrying firearms.

Lastly, would you feel safe with your son/daughter attending a college where firearm wielding, drunken college students roam the campus taking matters into their own hands? Would they test police officers or feel that they had more authority than campus police because they, too, have a gun? This would be a total set up for disaster. We might as well be living in the Middle East. What would be next?

There are so many factors that play into this issue. It’s so unrealistic that I can’t even see this bill being passed. I don’t know about you, but I’ll take my chances with the one crazy individual who may get his/her hands on a gun rather than ticking off any number of college kids who may already have guns.

Austin ISD to send "at-risk" kids to a separate school?

After reading this blog about AISD possibly outsourcing at-risk students to a “private company”, I agree with the author, Yu Ching Chiu, that this could create further problems for these students. I believe the author made several good arguments in defending the need for these kids to remain in the AISD schools as opposed to being sent to an independent, private school. However, I don’t feel that there was enough information given in the original news article that this was taken from, to give a good argument. In other words, it seems like we’re missing information here. Such as, what is a “private company”? Where would the money come from to fund this institution? What kind of students are being considered “at-risk”? Those with learning disabilities? Or, those who are constantly getting into trouble? It seems hard to make a good argument without this information. Assuming we are referring to “troubled” students, I agree that sending these troubled students to a separate facility would be good for those not considered to be at-risk, but I feel that we would be doing a disservice to those at-risk who would attend this separate school. Truthfully, I don’t really know what the solution should be for this situation. Sure, the kids that put forth the effort to do well in school and prepare for college don’t want to be disrupted by those who choose to cause trouble. So yes, this does interfere, somewhat, with their education. On the other hand, shipping all of the “bad kids” to a facility that is known for schooling “bad kids” probably wouldn’t encourage them to do well in school and try to turn themselves around. In my opinion, it would encourage them to give up and just settle for the lifestyle they have chosen rather than give them a reason to want to change. Most of them have chosen their paths because they don’t have any motivation to want to do better for themselves and grouping them together in one facility labeled the “bad kid school” certainly wouldn’t change their attitudes.

Texas to require photo ID prior to voting?

What’s the big deal with wanting Texas voters to show a valid photo ID prior to voting? It seems to me that we would want to ensure that those voting are who they say they are in order to ensure one vote per person. You are required to show a photo ID when using a credit card, writing a check, getting utilities turned on and sometimes even for an appointment with your doctor. Get over it! Those that oppose this proposal claim that requiring a photo ID would “attack a nonexistent problem of voter impersonation and is really an attempt to reduce the turnout of minority and elderly voters”. This issue is similar to the previous poll taxes, which were shot down by the Supreme Court because they restricted minority voters and the lower class. Sure, it may seem that this is a conservative move to exclude people who don’t have IDs, including the poor, minorities or the elderly. But, the actual practice of this requirement probably wouldn’t make much of a difference because ID cards are practically necessary nowadays, although, not required by the government. As long as you are a legal citizen, one should not have a problem obtaining an official Texas ID. I do believe that special consideration should be given to the elderly and the disabled. Another disputable concern is that voter impersonation has not been a problem here in Texas. Whether it is determined to be an issue or not, I believe Texas should require a photo ID prior to voting. It’s one small, extra step to ensure that each vote is legitimate.

Liquor stores open Sundays?

I’ve always wondered why most businesses have reduced hours on Sunday and why liquor stores aren’t even open. I had never heard of Blue Laws until I read this commentary/editorial. Blue laws were created with the idea that Sunday should be a day of religion and/or rest. Therefore, stores close early and liquor stores aren’t even open, just to name a few of the restrictions. Apparently, the state of Texas feels that by allowing the sale of liquor seven days a week (to include Sundays of course), they could generate as much as $8 million dollars for the state. This is being proposed as an alternative to increasing taxes or nixing state programs. Personally, I don’t believe that opening liquor stores one additional day during the week will increase sales much. It would just mean that people don’t have to make a mad dash to the liquor store by 9 p.m. Saturday to buy their stash. But, I guess it can’t hurt, so why not? I do agree with the author in supporting the extinction of blue laws because they are old and outdated. However, I don’t feel that this article was well written. The author, Charles Kuffner, didn’t even have the hard facts or a solid piece of information to base this on. He states, “there’s no information given about said bill…I’m not sure what its number is, or whether there may be more than one such bill”. He does note they were able to locate a similar bill (HB863) that would allow liquor to be sold on Sundays but also notes, “that doesn’t quite fit the description in this story, but it’s all I could find”. So, why is he even writing this article? Where is he getting this information? What is this bill to rid of blue laws you speak of?

Should Judge Answer For Her Actions In Public Trial?

I found an interesting editorial in the Austin American Statesman by an unknown author. Basically, on September 25, 2007 a man (Michael Richard) was executed due to a judge’s refusal to accept his appeal because it was received after 5 pm. Not saying that he wasn’t guilty of committing the crime he was accused of but… Interestingly enough, that morning the U.S. Supreme Court had said that it would hear arguments that death by lethal injection is unconstitutional. Since he was scheduled to be executed that evening, Judge Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and other judges were even expecting the man’s attorneys to file an appeal. Due to a computer glitch, Richard’s attorneys asked if they could file the appeal a little after the court clerk’s office was to close. This request was denied by Judge Keller alone, without informing or consulting with the other judges. I do agree with the author that Judge Sharon Keller should have to stand trial for her decision to deny Richard’s appeal because it would arrive after the court clerk’s office closed. This is a man’s life we’re talking about here, no matter what crime he may have committed. She shouldn’t be allowed to take the easy way out by retiring or resigning. She is a member of society just like the rest of us and should face the consequences of her actions. However, it seems as though the author’s feelings are a bit extreme. Saying that, “At trial, the sordid events of Sept. 25 would be aired before Texas and the world. Keller's cold-blooded and process-centered approach to justice would be on vivid display.” Seems a bit harsh to me. Is there a personal reason why the author wants to rake the judge over the coals in front of the public? Yikes! I'm not sure who the author's intended audience is. Maybe anyone else who will listen to his/her exaggerated opinions??

"FIxing" the Nursing Shortage in Texas?

I stumbled upon an interesting article about Texas bills designed to improve the nursing shortage. It seems that there has been a lot of talk in the news over the past few years about nursing shortages. According to this article, the main reason for the shortage is that too many nurses are forced to work overtime and the nurse-patient ratio is too high. Does this mean that there are plenty of licensed nurses in Texas who are not working in their field for fear of being overworked? Or, are there not enough licensed nurses in Texas, period? There is a waiting list to get in to most of the Registered Nursing programs here in central Texas. In my opinion, there either needs to be more nursing programs created in order to accommodate all incoming nursing students or increase the number of faculty to allow more students in to the existing programs.