Comment on a Colleague's Work #2

In response to Texijuana by my fellow colleague Gabrielle, I agree with the majority of the statements that she made in her editorial. I feel as though the majority of the population believing in some form of marijuana legalization is astounding. I believe that marijuana legalization for medical purposes only is justifiable and is the right balance for the drug among the public.

There really should not be any other usage for marijuana other than for medical uses such as patients suffering from cancer and other painful diseases and paralysis. Having it legal in small amounts for any purpose is somewhat of a danger in that people will begin to abuse it, maybe not suddenly, but steadily. Having it legal in any amounts for any purpose is beyond  unwise. Putting a THC-composed-of drug on the streets, in local convenience stores, and gas stations to be taxed and regulated like alcohol and tobacco is somewhat of a major risk. What if marijuana does not transition in so smoothly as tobacco or alcohol in society? What if the rate of automobile fatalities and unemployment go up? What if a marijuana epidemic sweeps the nation causing chaos in high and junior high schools across the country and resulting in a lot of kids wasting their money on marijuana and the U.S. raising a whole new generation of lazy and money-hungry kids who will stop at nothing to feed their expensive drug habits. What if marijuana leads some of our kids into experimenting with harder drugs, in search of a "stronger" or "better" high? What if kids get into other drugs wanting a more long-lasting sensation that stays with them longer than marijuana, making true the statement that marijuana is a "gateway drug". It might be true that the fighting and killing amongst the cartels and the government on the border may lessen, but not considerably, still due to the existence and profitability of the illegal crack, cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, and ecstasy.

But all in all, I agree with the author's position that medical marijuana should be legalized, as opposed to not at all, due to the benefits it can bring the ill and the help it can provide in lessening pain, without the side effects or inability to function of other prescribed drugs.

Comment on a Colleague's Work #1

In response to Behind Closed Doors... by my fellow colleague George Aguillon, I do not have any criticism for his editorial, but rather an agreeing commentary. I feel as though the ideas he put forth and the reasons he gave for why the Texas Republican Platform is a little too pushy in their staunch beliefs about gay marriage and sodomy are absolutely dead right. From the events stemming in 1998 where the gay couple was arrested and brought to court for having participated in "deviant sexual intercourse with an individual of the same sex" under the Texas Penal Code, to now in 2010 with the GOP wanting to label the acts of sodomy as illegal with the people convicted having to pay fines and serve a due sentence. I think that both of these instances of civil right violation are wrong and unbased. What one couple, gay or straight, decides to do from in between the fore walls of their own home is no body's business but their own. What right do we have to intermingle in their personal lives on such an intimate level?

Public Access to Galveston Beaches Should be Reconsidered

Because of the damage still left over from 2008’s Hurricane Ike, Galveston was going to begin a huge project effort to repair the six miles of eroded beach in mid-November. But on the day it was to start, the state government canceled the $40 million development on account of a recent Texas Supreme Court decision that undermined the Open Beaches Act, which guarantees free public access to beaches on the Gulf of Mexico.

Galveston has now joined main state agencies in asking the court to reassess a rule that allows private property privileges over public access to Texas shores. The mayor of Galveston, Joe Jaworski said he thought the Supreme Court needed to understand the impact of its ruling and the fact that they just changed Galveston Island's ability to nourish its beaches. The court’s ruling had to do with the “dry beach” area, from the high-tide mark to the vegetation line. Even if it’s privately owned, according to the Open Beaches Act, an easement normally guarantees public access to the dry beach.

But the court said that the public easement can move or shift because of the bit-by-bit erosion that happens on the shore, possibly reshaping the coast at times and causing buildings that are in the middle of the public easement to be moved, improperly breaching the property rights of the homeowners. Some members of the Supreme Court think that the ruling will risk the public's right to have free and open beaches.

I feel as though the Texas Supreme Court should rethink their decision. They cannot simply violate the public’s right to freely roam a piece of land, let alone a piece of land which is not privately owned. The only areas on the shores which are privately owned are the properties built on the “dry beach” area, which are usually houses and condominiums. So obviously the public cannot set foot within the premises of someone’s home, but they can surely freely roam the area outside of that person’s home, which is the actual shore.

Blog Commentary Critique

In "Poor Little Rich Girl" by Eileen from the Dec. 9th 2010 post on the blog In The Pink, the author gives an opinion stating that the Democrats in the House of Representatives  are trying to stop President Barack Obama’s tax-cut bill from coming to the floor because they are angry with the fact that Obama had a deal with the Republicans. I think that this article's author's intended audience is simply the general population, and not any specific group of people.  I think that this article's author's credibility is in check, simply because her take on it matches the Washington Post article about it that she supplied. The argument made is supported by the claim that the House Democrats are mad that Obama struck a deal with the Republicans. The evidence given is that the House Democrats lost the mid-term elections to the Republicans by a considerable margin. Her logic has to do with the tax breaks and how many of the citizens will have it, as opposed to only the rich and powerful. I agree with this opinion because it is telling the truth and offers a valid solution to unemployment in that the tax-cut bill could create over 2 million jobs next year. But I do not believe that the Democrats in the House are “pissed”, maybe just a little unsettled, that Obama struck a deal with the Republicans.

The D.R.E.A.M. Act

The D.R.E.A.M. Act (The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act) is a bill that people are urging Texas senators and officials to vote on and are eagerly awaiting the passing of the legislation. The piece of legislation would allow immigrants that were brought to the United States illegally when they were minors to have a chance to earn legal status. They must either serve in the military for two years as an active duty soldier or go to college and successfully complete, with good grades, two years of a four-year bachelor's degree or a higher degree.

The act has caught the attention of many high-profile politicians, such as Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and President Barack Obama. Kay Bailey Hutchison has been encouraged and pressured by protestors to support the bill and has, as of yet, still not caved in to their requests. President Obama, on the other hand, along with other Democrats, was suggesting that it be introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives by November 29th.

I personally believe in the cause of this noble act because it sets out to do good for the youth. Whether the young generation be of another race, ethnicity, or legal status, it is still seeking out and giving chances to the under-privileged youth of tomorrow here in America. These young illegal aliens are below the age of sixteen and are many times not the culprits for their being in the U.S. illegally. They have no fault in the matter of simply being brought to the U.S. by their parents. They deserve a chance like every other child in this country to have an education, a shelter, and a life of their own.

Newspaper Commentary Critique

In "What Racial Profiling Means" by Leonard Pitts Jr. from the Sept. 29th 2010 issue of the Miami Herald, the author gives an insightful opinion on the process of how police officers determine who they pull over on highways and for what reason. I think that this article's author's intended audience is simply the general population, and not any specific group of people. It is to inform the likes of everybody. This article's author's credibility seems to be just, and appears to come from a real space. The way in which it is told doesn't strike one as, amidst reading it, a made up account. The argument made is supported by the claim that police officers, in order to make 'drug busts' and not simply arrest drunk drivers or speeders, look for dark-skinned people that may seem suspicious in their vehicles or who look like they could be drug smuggling. The evidence given is that 90 percent of the arrests the previous year by the state police on the Turnpike were black or Hispanic. Another piece of information was that the way which the police force made those busts, the veteran cops taught the young ones, was to "think dark," in other words, find reasons to stop drivers with brown skin. The logic used to explain this phenomena was in a very matter-of-fact way in which the author described real life instances that he was told about to support his "claim", if one can really call it that. Really, it is just a fact. 

Rick Perry Vs. Bill White

In reference to the Austin Chronicle article (www.austinchronicle.com), I think that it is wrong for Governor Perry to demand Bill White to release his tax records for debating him. The fact that White released all records for his time as mayor as required by law should be more than sufficient. But Gov. Perry's campaign continues to demand older ones from his service under the Clinton administration. It seems very infantile.

In reference to the Houston Chronicle article (www.chron.com), I think it seems as if Perry is trying is best to not have to show up to the debate. He may not want to "hide from his failure on border security and his record of nearly doubling state spending [and] doubling state debt", but he certainly has a reason for not wanting to take part. He keeps insisting that he showed all his income records since 1987 and that White should do the same in order to be transparent. But White insists that people know more about his financial earnings than Perry's because Perry puts his investments in "a blind trust". It seems to me that Perry is avoiding the whole debate.

In reference to the El Paso Times article (www.elpasotimes.com), I believe that what Bill White is calling for is totally reasonable. There should be a limit on how many terms a governor can serve, just like the President of the U.S. Gov. Rick Perry was the incumbent for George W. Bush when he left the seat of the governor of Texas to take up the office of presidency. Perry served 2 years during that time and 8 years during his 2 four-year terms subsequently. Now he is running for governor yet again against Bill White. I think this is obviously too much time allotted for one person. There should be a limit just like there is with the U.S. presidency.

In reference to the Austin-American Statesman article (www.statesman.com), I believe that Gov. Perry is wrong for demanding White's tax filing and that he needs to be more reasonable. I think the border security plan that White laid out is an improvement to what Perry had laid down before, which was obviously not efficient enough. Although Perry says that he has "long called for bringing more National Guard troops [to] the Texas-Mexico border. I think Perry is just buying time.

In reference to the Wikipedia article (www.wikipedia.org), it sheds a lot of well-needed light on the history and background of Perry's previous terms and how a gubernatorial election works. My thoughts on this are that White has the advantage and will most likely win because he has the support of independent voters, young voters, and minorities.

In reference to the Capitol Annex blog (http://capitolannex.com), I think Gov. Perry's statements are contradictory. He earlier said that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was "an act of God" but he then states that he has full confidence in BP (British Petroleum), the company responsible for the rig. But then again, the company's BP Political Action Committee gave Perry "$5,000 in his 2006 race against Democrat Chris Bell", so he may be merely helping them out in return.

In reference to the Texas Capitol Report blog (http://elpasotimes.typepad.com), I think that Gov. Perry is not well-informed of common knowledge news facts. Perry said that the projected budget deficit of up to $18 billion is "a number that somebody just reached up in the air and grabbed" when several newspapers and other news sources have confirmed and agreed upon the number being accurate.

In reference to the Burnt Orange Report blog (www.burntorangereport.com), I think that what Bill White is calling for is totally reasonable. There should be a limit on how many terms a governor can serve, just like the President of the U.S. Gov. Rick Perry was the incumbent for George W. Bush when he left the seat of the governor of Texas to take up the office of presidency. Perry served two years during that time and 8 years during his 2 four-year terms subsequently. Now he is running for his third term as governor against Bill White. I think this is obviously too much time allotted for one elected official. There should be a limit just like there is with the U.S. presidency.

In reference to the Off The Kuff blog (www.offthekuff.com), I think that cutting spending on The Texas Grants college financial aid program, the beds being cut at five state hospitals, cutting community mental health service, and reducing state-paid child-immunizations that the Perry budget plan calls for is not necessary and seems to be a pretty insensitive and bad decision. Bill White is not in support of cutting spending and wants to find funds to prevent the cuts. I agree with this much more than I do with cutting spending.

In reference to the Texas Monthly blog (www.texasmonthly.com), I think that Perry having 50% in the polls and White having 38% and the rest being either undecided or for someone else is indicative that Perry does have a considerable lead, but not one that is definite. White still has a chance and early polls actually showed White being even more behind Perry, who had a more comfortable lead earlier. Towards the election, the numbers are getting closer and one can speculate that it could quite possibly be somewhat close.

The above articles are worth reading because it is important for everyone to know about who the candidates are and who would lead our state the best. The articles talk about what kind of finger-pointing, going back and forth, and conversations between the two candidates are taking place. If you want to be a conscious voter, you need to closely follow who stands for what so that you don’t blindly vote. When the time comes you know exactly who stands for what issue and who you would want to lead the state. In whose hand would the future of the state be the best?