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?