Monday, May 13, 2013

Commentary on "No More Excuses!"

On Friday, April 26, 2013, Let Me Speak! wrote an article titled "No More Excuses!" which I made the following commentary on:

Dear Let Me Speak!,

I enjoyed reading your article titled, "No More Excuses!" and highly respect your point of view on this controversial issue. With that being said, I have a slightly different point of view.

While I do agree that everyone should have the right to obtain proper identification in this state, I do not agree with allowing illegal aliens to obtain such licensing. My main issue with this new law you are writing about, is that we are reinforcing illegal behavior. Yes, in one hand it will help everyone because they can be identified more easily. On the other hand, they are here illegally.

Instead of passing a new law to license the undocumented illegal aliens, Texas should be reforming our immigration laws. My entire point is that IF they had come to our state/ country LEGALLY, they would not have an issue getting documented.

I am an advocate for human rights, and definitely see where this new law could benefit Texans. I agree with your comments that it will help in situations of car accidents and insurance needs. My question to that though would be, why should we allow an illegal alien to have a valid driver's license and automobile insurance? I guess I can see the point is that they will drive anyways, so why not just allow them to drive legally.

I also completely disagree that this will help our Texas economy. These undocumented people do NOT pay taxes, own homes, use financing and pay interest, and so forth. These are the things that stimulate the economy. If we pass this law, we are basically saying that coming here illegally is OKAY, and there's no need to do it the right way.

In conclusion, I have to say this is a very poor solution to our immigration problem. Yes, there are a few benefits to this new law, but overall there are more negative attributes. Before we begin to enable illegal behavior, we need to find easier solutions for undocumented aliens to become citizens.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Commentary on "Texas Social Services (or lack thereof)"

On Friday, April 26, 2013, Texas Government blog wrote an article titled "Texas Social Services (or lack thereof)" which I wrote a commentary on.

Dear Texas Government Blog,

I appreciate your blog article titled "Texas Social Services (or lack thereof)" and enjoyed reading about your experience with this issue. I have never personally felt the the negative effects of our poor welfare system, and am grateful you broadened my opinion.

I can definitely see that Texas' welfare system is flawed by reading your article, but I am curious to know how we rank in other areas of assistance. Meaning, are we educating our needy persons to help them succeed without the use of government funding? Also, what percentage of people are staying on welfare indefinitely, and how many people are using it to get back on their feet?

I firmly believe that instead of giving people money, we should reform our government spending to reflect a more "teaching" approach to poverty. As the old saying goes, "give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." I hope that instead of our government spending more money by simply giving it away, that they will provide needy families with schooling and knowledge on how to succeed in our society.

I agree with you that Texas needs to re-evaluate our welfare system, but I hope they utilize education in doing so. Another good way to help our poverty level is to have routine check-ups with people receiving benefits. This would help to take away money from people misusing it, and give it those that actually need assistance. I come from a small town and can tell you firsthand that a good percentage of people receiving food stamps misuse them.

Overall, we seem to have similar attitudes on this issue given that we dive a little deeper into the waters of welfare. I will continue to research this issue to get a better understanding of the situation.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Future Austin Compost Regulations

On Friday, April 26, 2013, the Austin American Statesman wrote an article about the future composting rules in Austin. 

The Austin City Council approved a movement to require business owners to begin composting by 2016, and 2017 for small businesses.  The compost will be picked up from each location by private haulers, and will also include pickup for other recyclable materials such as paper and plastic.  This new regulation is to help the city of Austin achieve its zero waste goal by 2040.

This article came to a surprise to me because I did not know that the city was aiming to improve Austin's overall waste.  The author of this article did a great job describing what the new rules will be, and how the city plans to conquer this issue.  The author came from a place of the facts, and used comments from local business owners to show the benefits of this program.

As an advocate for recycling and reusing wherever possible, I am impressed that the city of Austin is taking an initiative to improve our overall living conditions.  Reading this article not only informed me of this plan, but allowed me to understand how the city will make composting a normal activity in Austin.  Another key point is that the city is allowing several years for business owners to comply with the new regulations.  This extra time will relieve stress of complying within a short window of time, and will undoubtedly save owners money in the long run. 

Over time I hope to see more cities following the model that the city of Austin is providing.  This will have tremendous benefits to our planet, and will heighten awareness for conservative living.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Commentary on "Bags in a Pickle"

On Friday, March 29, 2013, blogger of Perry's State wrote an article titled "Bags in a Pickle."  Below is my comment on this artice:

Dear Perry's State,
I really enjoyed reading your article on this issue. This has been a recent hot topic in Austin, and continues to have arguments on both sides of it. While I do agree with some of the comments you have made, others I do not. Yes, there are so many other ways we can help the environment by reusing and recycling products. I am a strong advocate for environmental awareness, and I agree that we could all be doing more to help. I love you give different examples of how the plastic bags can be used, and I have done many of those things with my previously used bags. The unfortunate truth in my opinion though, is that the plastic bags do not need to be used in stores to carry our food. The fact is, the ban was put in place to encourage shoppers to bring their own bags. This helps with the two problems you wrote about: the extra waste of plastic bags AND the complaints of more trees being cut down to make paper bags. The whole point is not to simply replace plastic with paper, as this would be counter-productive, but to replace BOTH with washable/reusable bags. If everyone did this, the wastefulness of both would be at a minimum. I realize that this is easier said than done, since there are people out there that are not fortunate enough to purchase reusable bags. I would love to see the city of Austin become more of an advocate for this, and put a larger emphasis on "Free Bag" services. There are some speed bumps in this process of change, but all-in-all this is a WONDERFUL change to be happening. The beginning stages of this process are going to be rough, but hopefully over time only using reusable bags will become normal procedure. I hope that your stores troubles will be reduced as shoppers become more aware of the benefits of this change. We will ALL benefit, let us make this a global change!

Friday, March 29, 2013

Death Penalty Controversy

An eye for an eye makes the whole World blind, or fair justice?  These are the two common groups of thinking when it comes to the death penalty in Texas.  The practice of capital punishment has been used in Texas since our beginning days as a state, and has been a topic of controversy for many years.  Texas has one of the highest death penalty rates in the United States, only coming in second to Virginia.  Because of our high rate of executions, this controversy is a common topic of discussion throughout our local government and its politicians.  Should Texas keep our death penalty laws, change them, or simply get rid of them all together?  That's a difficult answer to give cut-and-dry.

It's hard for me to have a single-sided opinion on this topic, but I do feel strongly about what I believe.  In one hand, I feel that no human being should be punished in such a final manner.  I want to have hope that the murderers, rapists, and others have good within them, and they deserve a chance to right their wrongs.  When a person is put to death because of a crime they committed, they usually don't have the opportunity to truly make amends for the deeds they have done.  I honestly could never be the judge of who dies, how it happens, and for what reasons.  On the other hand, the fiscally conservative part of me asks why we are already keeping so many criminals in our jails for life sentences, some multiple.  It doesn't make sense to me that we support the lifestyle that inmates receive when in jail;  three meals a day, a bed to sleep in, medicine and healthcare, and many more amenities.  Why are Texas judges giving life sentences, knowing that the persons entire life will be spent in jail?  It's extremely confusing to me how they decide one person gets lethal injection, and the other spends the rest of their days in what some would consider comfort. 

Overall, I have two competing mindsets on this issue and I'm not sure how to decide which direction to go.  My belief, as I stated before, is that I cannot be the final judge of life so ultimately I would like for Texas to get rid of the death penalty, and focus the attention on helping the victims involved. 

Sunday, March 10, 2013

A review of "Shooting Blanks" by Eileen Smith

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, blogger Eileen Smith wrote an article commenting on Ted Cruz and his advocacy for gun rights.  The article, Shooting Blanks, addresses the issue of gun control and also covers the writer's feelings towards politician Ted Cruz.

Eileen Smith, author and blogger of In The Pink Texas, is a clearly stated Texas Liberal.  She seems to be very knowledgeable on topics such as gun control, and issues in direct regards of Ted Cruz.  She states at the beginning of the article that "... Ted Cruz is my new Rick Perry. His idiocy has affected me so much...".  I love her political satire throughout this article, and find her disgust towards conservative republicans amusing.  I would like to think that her intended audience for this article also have strong feelings towards the gun control issues, and want to see what others feel about it.  Her blog in general comes from a liberal standpoint, and this article shows proof of her anti-conservative view points.

On some levels I agree with the author's view points, but on others I do not.  I tend to lean towards a centrist, middle of the road viewpoint, rather than a completely left or right-sided opinion.  I agree that we need more laws in regards to guns and ammunition, but one that does not take away our right to bear arms.  Eileen also takes a stance on Ted Cruz's religious affiliation, and that he seems to be hypocritical with his words and actions.  As much as I do not compare or judge others for the religious or spiritual views, I understand the way that she is pointing out his "nature."

Overall, I enjoyed reading the article and found it entertaining, and factual.  This would be a great read for someone who is interested in seeing the viewpoints of others on major issues such as gun control.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Do we have equality in marriage rights?

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, an editorial regarding same-sex marriage was posted on The Daily Texan.  Do we have equality in marriage rights?  The answer across the United States by the strong opposition of gay marriage would say yes.  On the other hand, supporters of marriage equality for everyone would say that as a nation we do not.

As stated in the editorial, the Texas Constitution states that a legally binding union to be recognized in the state of Texas can only be between a man and a woman.  Several Texas state Democratic Representatives have introduced two bills to formally amend the Texas constitution to reverse the current law.  Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, is quoted saying “In 2005, most Texans did not support any form of legal recognition for lesbian and gay couples. But, public opinion has changed greatly in the last eight years, both across the country and right here in Texas … Two-thirds of Texas’ voters now believe the state should allow some form of legal recognition for committed same-gender couples.”

I believe the intended audience for this editorial is broad.  The author clearly states facts about current law, and arguments from both sides of this issue.  Generally, because the author is in support of gay marriage, I believe the biggest audience for this article would agree on the stance of equality in marriage for all people.  The editorial is clearly written, using facts and focusing on the common sense logic of most Texans, which gives me the assumption that the author is credible and knowledgeable on the issue of same-sex marriage.

I agree with the editorial that the current Texas constitution needs to be amended to give marriage equality in our state.  Texas needs to progress past the "ancient" mindset that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.  Who am I to tell someone that they cannot marry the one they love?  Our state should not be denying the freedom of love and union of marriage to anyone.  Unfortunately, there is a very strong opposition to same-sex marriage that feels the union of a man and a woman is sacred, and that same-sex couples will scar the beauty of matrimony.  Luckily, the supporters of same-sex marriage have equal motivation to show people that marriage is about love, and everyone deserves the right to be legally recognized as a couple.

In conclusion, my favorite part of this article is the final statement from the author.  It seems as though they took the words right from my mind and placed them in the editorial. "All said, marriage is meaningful and all should enjoy the right to get married. Gay people getting married and enjoying that right does not hurt straight people wanting to do the same."