In regards to comments on my abortion blog...

Thank you for your thoughts and opinions, but isn't it sad that we live in a world where we have to justify abortion as ok and on top of that a good thing. That has nothing to do with religion and I never tried to push my beliefs on anyone, just simply stated why I believe abortion is wrong. Believe what you want nobody is forcing you to think like me. I just think that it's sad that abortion can be justified because our system sucks and majority of humans do as well so they get to have an abortion because they are inadequate as human beings...that's awesome. Yes I do agree there should be very rare exceptions like with rape. I can maybe get on board with allowing very early abortions for those victims, but still sad we have to make this exception because we live in a world where rape is a very real thing.

Comment on a Colleague's Blog

Word. I totally agree with Shane's article that there should be mandatory testing for all Texas drivers. There should even be yearly testing for elderly people after a certain age. Maybe they were good drivers at a younger age, but the fact is after time your body and reaction time does slow down and is affected by age. This can be very dangerous for others on the road. I remember a while back I took a defensive driving class for a speeding ticket I got and they were telling us about some of the worst cities in the US for traffic accidents. Austin was ranked like 3rd or 4th and one of the main reasons was because of the upper and lower deck split on IH35. Also the exiting and entrance ramps were very short causing you to change speeds in a short amount of time. There was an effort to extend these ramps to help the problem. The fact is that not many people know what to do when the come to the split and panic. The number one city on the list was Orlando, FL. What they did to reduce their number of accidents was make the writing on traffic signs 1/8 of an inch larger, or something like that, because as many of us know there are many elderly folks that live in Orlando. And what do you know the number of accidents dropped 1/3 percent from its previous total.

I do believe that there are terrible drivers here in Austin, and everyday I'm in a situation where I'm left shaking my head at some idiotic persons terrible driving. I don't want to toot my own horn, but I've been driving almost 6 years now and I've never been in any sort of car accident, but I think this has to do with my driving skills and the fact that I've been lucky enough that one of these bad drivers hasn't hit me yet. I have gotten the occasional speeding ticket, but who hasn't and I have no shame in my driving game. For young people to get a license they are required to go through schooling and take a test, but some of us like myself are exceptionally better drivers than those with more experience. I have no problem with mandatory driving tests in Texas because I wouldn't have anything to worry about, I'd be confident in passing whatever the test is. There should also definitely be a test for immigrants making sure they understand our traffic laws and signs. All these tests would do is take those who shouldn't be on the road in the first place off of it and give more room to those of us who KNOW how to drive!

Abolish Abortions in Texas

I think it's time we do away with any type of abortions in Texas. I know that my opinion will probably cause a bunch of hubbub seeing as how many people are pro-choice. I firmly believe that an abortion of any type is murder and should be against the law. I know that one of the major debates is when does a human life begin, and I believe that it's when the baby is conceived. As soon as pregnancy comes to fruition the baby is going to be a human life and killing it before one believes it has life, whether that is true or not, is still murdering a future life.

According to this article most abortions are performed on women who either don't use contraceptives or don't use them consistently. This is unfair to the baby who didn't have the choice of being conceived or not. If a female is not responsible about taking actions against getting pregnant she is not responsible enough to have sex in the first place. Abstinence is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy, but as we all know this will never be the most utilized option. Sex education is definitely an important factor in teaching young kids the responsibility that comes along with having sex, and the fact is sex-ed is not up to par. I understand it won't be 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy even if it was up to par, but it would be a step in the right direction of bringing the number of unwanted pregnancies down.

I'm also aware that many times women who take full measures against getting pregnant still can become pregnant. I still believe that this is a consequence that comes along with having sex that all women should be aware of. I'm not saying they should not have sex to prevent this from happening, but if a woman were to become pregnant in an unlikely circumstance obviously that baby was meant to be conceived. I believe that God has a plan for everyone and things happen for a reason. That baby was meant to be born and should not be terminated. If the parents aren't ready to take care of a baby or can't handle the responsibility there are plenty of parents desperately trying to have a baby that aren't able too. I believe adoption should be the only other option for an unwanted pregnancy, even if the pregnancy was a result of rape. Rape is a terrible situation and I do not wish it upon anyone, but it does happen and if the unfortunate woman becomes pregnant because of it I still think the only choices she should have is keeping it or giving it up for adoption. It's not the baby's fault and shouldn't be punished and killing it is punishment.

Many pro-choice people will argue until they're blue in the face that it is the woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy or not. What about the baby's choice? It did not asked to be conceived and now it must be murdered most likely because of it's mother's irresponsibility? I do not agree with this. I think too many abortions are a result of a woman's irresponsibility, ignorance, or stupidity. These women should not be allowed to have sex in the first place, but seeing as how there's no possible way we can prevent this we can at least keep the baby from being punished by eliminating abortions in Texas all together.

The fact is the embryo will become a human life no matter when you believe life begins. It will be a living human being that God created through the miracle of life. Here you can get an idea of the number of induced abortions in Texas over the years. Just think about how many of those babies could have grown up to be an exemplary or world changing human being.

Comment on a colleague's blog

The following is a comment I posted to this fellow student's blog: Lonestar Review

Parent's Rights:

This is a very interesting case. I've never heard of the Grandparents Access Statute, and it does seem a little ridiculous. I think if the parents are incompetent and unable to care for a child then I can see how this amendment would be viable, but in the case described it is definitely overstepping some boundaries. Doesn't the child have a say in any of this either? If parents are split up I thought that a child over the age of 12 could decide where they want to live, and in this case it seems they were forced because of all the hassell from the grandparents. Why do the grandparents think they have a right or know what's best for their children's children anyway? If they have done a good job as parents themselves it seems they would and should trust the decisions and judgement of their own children. Maybe they have insecurities in themselves with how they raised their children. Good informative editorial, I learned something new!

More money for Texas lawmakers?

For Texas legislators their low salary of $7,200 a year has been the same since 1975. Some argue that because of this low salary it has a lot to do with the fact that Texas ranks #1 for having the highest percentage of lawmakers with financial ties to lobbyists. I don't believe our state lawmakers have the public's interests in mind, rather they have that of special interest groups in mind. The legislators in Texas are heavily influenced by the money contributions they get and where the money came from, which in turn heavily influences the outcome of policies in place in Texas.
In other large states, such as California, lawmakers typically make more money, have larger staffs, and meet more often. The salary for lawmakers in California is $99,000 plus expenses. There isn't concrete evidence on this, but Californina seems to have less conflicts within the state government because of the high pay. It would seem that legislators that make more and work longer hours would have less ethical issues. There would be less time to focus on outside income, which in Texas there is a lot of outside income with minimal to no provisions. It's obvious that the money influences our government in Texas. In this article by Emily Ramshaw of the Dallas Morning News you can see what cushy lifestyles Texas lawmakers lead because of all the campaign finances. I believe a higher salary in the first place might help the out of control spending we see from our lawmakers. As of now it seems a lot of lawmakers are in it for themselves and not to help the general population of Texas.
The salary for lawmakers in Texas is significantly less than a comfortable salary to live on, so of course most have outside jobs they rely on for most of their income. In order to be a lawmaker in Texas too, you'd have to make a lot of money at your job to make up for the low salary and be able to take time off from it as well in order to fullfill legislative duties, so this influences who can become a legislator. I think Texas should raise the salary for it's legislators to the point where it would be possible to just have that as your sole job. Lawmakers could spend more time in office and it seems the potential to be swayed by special interests would be significantly lower as well. I think this would also open up the chances of making lawmakers more diverse instead of them mosltly being people who can afford to be. I think our state would greatly benefit from this change as it would help the public have lawmakers that represent them rather than where ever the money is coming from.

Here is a website that shows the salary for legislators in each state and as you can see Texas is among the lowest, which I believe is the reason about half of Texas legislators have finanial ties to lobbyists.

Partial Nekkidness and the New 'Nudity' Tax

It seems that the new rule that charges a fee to sexually oriented businesses that allows drinking and has nudity, has a "gray area" that could leave other venues liable for the surcharge as well. In Richard Whittaker's article, Partial Nekkidness and the New 'Nudity' Tax, from January 11, 2008 he suggests that the new guidlines are too broad to reduce concerns on how they could be applied. As written the guidlines say that "any venue that allows drinking and has performers with clothing not sufficiently opaque around the breasts, buttocks, or genitals" could potentially be liable for the fee, which is a $5.00-per-customer surcharge. This could be burlesques or theatres that have plays with any kind of nudity. The fee was only supposed to target the 168 strip clubs in Texas, but if that's the case the state comptroller, who published the enforcement, needs to be more specific. The rule does apply, however, only if there is nudity and alcohol present, which is a pretty big loophole if you ask me.

The fee seems rather ridiculous to begin with, but the vagueness of it makes how it could be used even more ridiculous. In a previous article by Whittaker on the same subject, Does Harry Potter Cause Sexual Violence? Only in Texas., he shows that defenders of the surcharge are now claiming that there is a connection between sexually oriented buisnesses and sexual violence against women, which is why it was aimed at the strip clubs in Texas. The funds would benefit the state's sexual-abuse programs, which I think everyone can agree that's a good idea and makes the fee a bit more viable. However, I still think they need to be a lot more specific with who this will affect. Like Whittaker points out according to this logic the nudity in the play Equus, starring Daniel Radcliffe, would fall under the guidelines for the fee and would therefore technically be contributing to sexual violence. Maybe a revision of the way the guidlines are worded would be helpful in making this surcharge more reasonable.

Checking educators for the students' sake

Is the new law that requires teachers and school employees to be fingerprinted neccessary? Right now they are fingerprinting more than 11,000 educators in San Antonio in the city's two largest school systems, Northside and North East independent school districts. The Austin Independent School District was actually the first to start this process. In Jenny LaCoste-Caputo's article, Checking educators for the students' sake, from Feb 19th she gives us an insight to who the law affects, the cost, and how the process works. In the article John Folks, the Superintendent for Northside ISD, says he agrees with this new requirement that adds to their already extensive background checks because it is more thourough. There are some concerns, though, from such groups as the Texas Classroom Teachers Association because they think that some indescretions from their pasts might hurt teachers as well. I don't think this will be a huge issue, however, because with minor offenses that might be found the discretion will be left up to the district and the Texas Education Agency. Overall there haven't been complaints in San Antonio. I definitely think that this is a great law, especially these days it seems more and more teachers are getting busted for such things as sexual harrassment or sleeping with students. This law may weed out some of those people, because this more extensive background check will catch anything the old system may have missed. For someone who is an education major, I definitely wouldn't be opposed to getting fingerprinted and it would be more comforting to know that my collegues were thouroughly checked as well. It would also be more comforting for the parents as well. Anything that would ensure teachers are not murderers or sexual preditors is definitely a good thing. The most important thing is the safety of the students and this is definitely a good law that provides more protection and more assurance for them.