Comment On "Texas Finally Made a Move"

While I agree that the crimes committed by Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were despicable, I do not agree with all the conclusions made in this article. In the article it is suggested that Texas gives a free pass that to child molesters that live in religious compounds. Texas does not give them a free pass to commit any crime, the very fact that they were arrested proves this in and of itself. The reason that the crime went unpunished for as long as it did is because there was no point in investigating the compound before any crimes were reported. When there was a phone call suggesting that crimes were being committed at the compound, the police reacted quickly and decisively.
This article's suggestion that children not be allowed to live on religious compounds definitely infringes on religious freedoms. The problem with it is what exactly should define a religious compound? This would have the potential to make religious schools, the ones where the children live on site, illegal. Religious camps, where children stay for a week or two, would also be in danger of falling under the label "religious compound". Even Christian orphanages would be in danger of being made illegal under the label of "religious compound". While I can understand how infuriating these hideous crimes can be, I think that a law making it illegal for children to live on religious compounds would likely be misused.
It is also said in the article that men should not be left alone with children. Maybe it was just poorly stated, but this seems to suggest that all, or at least most, men are pedophiles. This certainly is not the case, and I do not think laws should be made with that assumption in mind. I do agree, however, that Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a dangerous religion that should be at the very least watched closely by the government. On the other hand, the suggestions in this article just go too far.

Here is a link to the article.

Judges Votes: Hidden From the Public Eye

American citizens would be outraged if U.S. Senators or Congressman refused to reveal their votes on a bill to the public. But Texas judges do it right before our eyes. Whenever a person appeals a case to the Texas Supreme Court the justices vote on whether to hear the case or not. Many times these votes are about the importance of the case and whether the lower court ruled appropriately on the case, but other times their votes are influenced by personal reasons having nothing to do with justice.
This problem largely stems from the fact that Texas Supreme Court justices are elected in partisan elections. Other methods of electing judges have their pros and cons, but the particular problem with partisan elections is that the judges have to campaign for their seats as justices. In these campaigns as with all other campaigns in politics, money is a crucial part of the equation. When campaigning the justice candidates need campaign contributions, and they need to remain conscious of these contributors as they carry out their jobs. Studies show that campaign contributors are more likely to have their case heard than non-contributors. This means that they are letting the politics affect their decisions on justice. Here lies the problem. Because the votes that justices make are not required to be made public, they rarely are made public. This hides any corruption that may be within the judicial branch of Texas, and citizens are incapable of making an informed decision in their votes for justices.
It is important that Texas make all votes in the Texas Supreme Court and the accessible to the public. This way, Texas citizens can make their votes with access to information on the potential corruption or unfairness of the candidates for Texas Supreme Court justices.

Comment on "Needle in a Haystack"

When I first read this article I strongly disagreed with Shane's opinion. I simply thought that giving drug addicts clean needles was just enabling them to continue their pernicious habit. A few minutes after I finished reading the article I though about a few friends I have had that have dealt with the heavy burden of drug addiction. With them in mind, I completely changed my opinion on this issue. Many narcotic users know how bad their addiction is and genuinely want to stop using drugs. It is incredibly hard for those who are addicted, especially those who are addicted to strong narcotics like heroin, to fight for their sobriety and usually they cannot do it alone. This program gives them clean needles to stop the spread of HIV and AIDS, which in itself is almost a good enough reason for this program, but it also puts the drug addicts in contact with people who have both accepted the fact that the person is an addict and who have the desire to help the addict. People with drug addictions often need this combination in order for them to seek help for overcoming their addiction. This program can do that, so I believe that this program can help those with who come for the clean needles stop using those needles.

Here is a link to the article.

Capital Punishment: The Necessary Evil

Death is always something that has been regarded with a sense of unease. And because of our natural discomfort with death, many issues dealing with it are controversial. One such issue is that of capital punishment, the ending of a person's life as punishment for a crime. In the states of the United States of America where capital punishment is still implemented, such as Texas, it is only used in response to the most heinous of crimes, such as multiple murders or the murder of a young child. There is much controversy regarding this practice, but ultimately it is something that is necessary, and Texas should never abolish the death penalty.
Capital Punishment is the ultimate penalty for a crime, and Texas recognizes that. The death penalty can only apply to these crimes:

• murder of a public safety officer or firefighter;
• murder during the commission of kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, or obstruction or retaliation;
• murder for remuneration;
• murder during prison escape;
• murder of a correctional employee;
• murder by a state prison inmate who is serving a life sentence for any of five offenses (murder, capital murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, or aggravated robbery);
• multiple murders;
• murder of an individual under six years of age.

It is not overused, having only been used 405 times since 1976 according to deathpenaltyinfo.org. There is no conclusive evidence that any of these people were innocent.
Many debate whether capital punishment deters future murders or not, but John McAdams clearly states my opinion on the matter when he said,

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

The most important reason to keep the death penalty is to prevent those that commit the crimes from repeating them. If an inmate is sentenced to life in prison without parole in a state without the death penalty, then that inmate has nothing to lose. The felon would have the rest of his life to attempt an escape, and it would be impossible to have a substantial penalty for his actions.
For these reasons Texas should keep the death penalty. It is something that all people who want peace in our society wish did not have to exist, but it is absolutely necessary.

Article on Hillary Appealing Abuses

Lisa Sandberg wrote an article concerning declarations made by Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign about complaints that Barack Obama's supporters were carrying out a number of inappropriate actions during the caucus on Tuesday night, March 4. This article is posted on a political blog that is hosted by the both the Houston Chronicle and by the San Antonio Express News. A majority of Houston's Democratic population supports Obama and a majority of San Antonio's Democratic population supports Clinton, so the blog should be relatively unbiased overall between the two candidates. Lisa Sandberg, however, writes for San Antonio Express so a slightly favorable bias towards Clinton should be expected. The article gives most of its sources, directly quoting Garry Mauro and Josh Earnest, members of the Clinton campaign and the Obama campaign, respectively. Sandberg does not state her sources for the complaints about the caucus, but due to the fact that she is a writer for the San Antonio Express News it is unlikely that her sources are not credible. While Sandberg does not implicitly say whether the complaints about the caucus are credited or whether the Clinton campaign's stance on the issue is the correct one, the way she writes her article suggest that she supports Clinton. Most of the article describes Clinton's response to the complaints and only the very end of the article gives the Obama's point of view, that Clinton is trying to "discount the voice of those who participated" in the caucus. Throughout the article she does she gives reasons and support for Clinton's argument but only mentions Obama's argument, never giving any evidence or support for his argument. In Lisa Sandberg's argument Clinton and her supporters are the winners and Obama and his supporters are the losers.

Article on Actions to Audit TxDOT

A large amount of meaning can be put into a small amount of words. In this article by Michael A. Lindenberger, he writes briefly on Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst's and House Speaker Tom Craddick's effort to audit TxDOT. The article is on The Dallas Morning News' website, and being such a popular paper, the article should not have an extremely ideological agenda. However, do to the fact that its target audience is more liberal (citizens of Dallas), I would expect the paper to have at least a slight liberal overtone, which it does. In the article, Mr. Lindenberger states the fact that both the Lt. Gov. and the House Speaker are Republicans, and that they are asking for the audit. After that, he gives a few defenses for TxDOT, but says nothing supporting Dewhurst and Craddick. Clearly he favors TxDOT. As many know, TxDOT and the toll roads associated with it were extremely controversial. While members of both parties were for and against the toll roads, almost all conservatives were strictly against TxDOT due to the fact that double taxation goes against most conservative's principles. All of these things together strongly suggest that Michael A. Lindenberger is at least slightly liberal in ideology.

This becomes clearer when one views what Mr. Lindenberger does not say. Dewhurst and Craddick say clearly in their letter to John Keel, the Senate Auditor, that they have found reason to believe that there are "questionable accounting procedures" in TxDOT's financial reporting and forecasting. The letter then goes on to give a few their reasons on why they believe this. By not giving these reasons that support Dewhhusrt's and Craddick's actions while writing his article he shows that he is not simply writing about an event but is also showing his opinion on the event and therefore he is making an argument. He is arguing that TxDOT is innocent of misused funds and that both the Lt. Gov. and the House Speaker are wrong. In his argument the winners are TxDOT and those who can afford toll roads, and the losers are conservatives and the poor.

Illegal Immigrants Travel to Texas Because of Other State's Laws

It is well known that the incredible growth rate of the Hispanic population in Texas is largely due to the flow of illegal immigrants into Texas. Most people do not realize, however, that these illegal immigrants are flowing across more than one border. Thanks to harsher laws in surrounding states, many illegals are traveling from those states into Texas. Compared to nearby states, Texas is very friendly to illegals and more and more of them are taking advantage of our flawed cordiality. The flow of illegal immigrants does bring labor to some of our industries, but they also put strain on our state, especially on our hospitals and schools. Perhaps the illegal immigrants’ most detrimental effect comes from the fact that many of them use wire transfers to give money to family members in their native country, draining money from our economy.

This event is important to note because it shows how effective anti-illegal immigrant laws can be. If our state were to implement similar laws we would experience similar effects. While it would definitely deplete some of our industries' work forces, it would be beneficial to our state overall.

A more detailed article can be viewed here.