A Commentary on Commentary-Peer Reviewed Opinions 2.0

On his blog, Bluebonnets and Pecan Trees and Stuff, Eric wrote a post addressing the fairness of the top 10% system of admissions to public Texas colleges. Eric argues that the “top ten percent rule” is fair because it prevents students with great grades from worse high schools from being discriminated against because of the quality of the school they attended. He notes that students are not able to choose which high school they attend because it is based on whatever district the student resides in. 

I agree with Eric on this matter. I believe that the top ten percent rule gives students from poorer districts the opportunity to be accepted into the college of their choice. This rule is necessary for the same reason that affirmative action is necessary: to prevent de facto segregation in our schools and our business (and our country in general). Students that work hard deserve to attend the college of their dreams regardless of where they grew up, and I would even venture to say that they deserve to have it paid for(but that will likely never happen in Texas).

Improve Texas by Regulating the Road

When I arrived to work this morning I took off my helmet, hung up my bike, changed into dry clothes, and sat at my computer to find that another one of my friends had been nearly killed in a hit and run accident on his bicycle. This is the third cyclist in a week’s time that I know of. In this instance, my friend’s near-executioner didn’t even bother to stop. However, if he had, the executioner may have still been spending his day sitting at home or at work doing exactly as he pleased. This situation and others like it are why I believe Texas should allocate more resources to patrolling the road ways, and should restrict driving privileges.

To do this, I believe Texas should divert a substantially larger chunk of the police force to patrolling the roadways, especially in congested urban areas. Traffic-related deaths in Texas in 2013 were three times as high as the murder rate, so it doesn't make sense not to have more police focused on the road. If police were rigorously patrolling these dangerous areas, then one of two or so things may occur: 

1)  Drivers would drive safely and correctly; or

2)  Drivers would continue to drive recklessly, but would now be ticketed and prosecuted (hopefully before killing someone)

The next part of this would involve prosecution and suspension of licenses due to aggressive and reckless driving. According to the American Psychological Association, high-anger drivers engage in hostile thinking, take more risks on the road, get angry faster and behave more aggressively, and have more accidents. There needs to be a more serious penalty for endangering the lives of every person around you, and I believe this involves revoking and suspending individual licenses for the long term. Giving someone a hundred dollar fine and a wag of the finger does not deter them from continuing in the same behavior. Cars are half-ton bullets, and the drivers have their fingers on the triggers at all times. 

In addition to saving lives via fewer car accidents, this suspension and revoking of licenses could add to the overall health of the Texan population. Due to having no license, the offenders would be forced to find new ways to get from point A to point B. This solution would force people to get up and move, to walk to a bus stop, or to get on a bike. We live in a state where obesity is a major health problem that may cause more deaths than murder and car fatalities combined (though I could not find an exact number), and this forced action could help to remedy this. Moving away from a sedentary lifestyle could also have another health benefit; according to The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, regular exercise decreases stress levels and improves overall mental health, which the angry drivers could seriously benefit from.

In short, we have treated driving as a right rather than a privilege for too long. People are dying for no reason, and the people that kill them are getting off scot-free. This has to stop. 

If you have questions about the legality of cyclists on roads, or laws regarding cyclists in general, please read the Texas Transportation Code or refer to this website that sums up some of the most important parts. Please remember that every cyclist and pedestrian you see is someone's son/daughter/mother/father/brother/sister/etc, and drive like every life matters, because it should.

A Commentary on Commentary--Peer Reviewed Opinions

On his blog Into the Lone Star State, Justin wrote a post about the detriment to Texas that fracking can be. His arguments differ from most of the major opposition to fracking that I’ve heard—that it will cause pollution and contamination—in one significant way; Justin thought about Texas specifically, and how, despite our recent rainfall, we are in a long term drought. The argument is that fracking is bad for Texas because of the inordinate amount of water that it requires, which may exhaust our only now filling aquifers.  

My only possible qualm with the argument is the lack of real, peer reviewed studies documenting the contamination due to fracking. However, there is still much research to be done on the polluting aspect of fracking, which will only be accomplished with time. I believe that Justin’s commentary on fracking was well reasoned, thoughtful, and thorough. To answer his questions: I don’t believe it is worth the risk, and I agree that our money should be spent promoting clean energy.

Keep Taxes Low By Getting Texas High

I may be part of the minority in this country, but I am certainly one of the majority in Texas. I believe that Texas should legalize marijuana (and tax the $%^# out of it). I believe that Texas is an ideal place for marijuana to be legalized because of Texans’ stiff opposition to higher taxes and strong agricultural background. I am not alone, either; according to a poll in the Texas Tribune, only 23% of people in Texas believe that marijuana should remain illegal in all cases.

The main benefit of legalization is tax revenue. Colorado generated $53 million in tax revenue the first year that marijuana became legal, according to CNN. The extra revenue could be used for a number of things. It could be used to fund a legislative body that met for more than 20% of the time, and was actually capable of working on controversial but important bills. This extra time would have been essential to challenging Perry’s veto fever. Alternatively, the additional revenue could be used to fund things that the state income tax in other states typically funds, such as education, healthcare, and an array of other important areas. 

Another monetary benefit would be the decrease in court cases involving possession of marijuana and the decrease in prison population for this specific non-violent crime. However, I believe the real benefit in the decrease of marijuana-related arrests would be in keeping regular participating and contributing citizens out of the prison system, which will brand them for life as an offender and contribute to a possible future life of hardship and crime. Imagine a hypothetical 17 year old kid who goes to jail for a little bit of weed (Texas is hard on crime, you know) and comes out knowing how to make a lot of meth. He is now prevented from getting a real job with his record, and he turns to the only other thing he knows. While this is an extreme hypothetical, it is not improbable, and recidivism is a very real problem.

The remaining benefits would include an increase in the availability of marijuana for medical related testing. Marijuana has proven itself to be relevant in the field of science and health, and legalizing it would immediately remove the legal barriers that scientists now face. As well as giving these scientists something to research, it would open up an entire new industry here. Creating more jobs would have a positive impact, and would continue to diversify Texas’ market. It is this diversity that shields us from economic recession elsewhere in the country and world.

I believe that legalizing marijuana would benefit this state and its people. There are downsides to all things, but I believe a culture that accepts drinking will, in time, welcome the recreational use of marijuana.

As Polite As I Can Be: A Liberal Critique of Texas Fred

On July 13th, 2015 Texas Fred posted an article on his blog titled “Lindsey Graham: Donald Trump is ‘Going to Kill My Party’.” This article is a brash, broad condemnation of virtually every Republican (and Democrat, implicitly and explicitly) in office. Fred’s intended audience is, very obviously, a narrow sect of fundamentalist conservatives, and he shows this in his calling even the Republican senators “co-conspirators,” “traitors,” “RINOs” (Republican In Name Only), and by implying that Democratic, or liberal majorities, left to their own devices would succumb the US to “Marxist rule.” Before I get ahead of myself, Fred’s argument is that the Republicans in office are ruining this country by being liberally minded, or “Dem Lite.” 

It was difficult to pick out exactly what this man was trying to get at because he shamelessly throws around accusations without any specific references to bills passed or votes cast. He claims that the “career politicians have caused the Democrats and Republicans to stand as ONE,” and that “[i]t’s time we went back to being AMERICA and not some sniveling, politically correct dung heap that BOTH Parties have turned us into.” This blogger states that he “believe[s] that Liberalism is a mental disorder” and repeatedly uses the word “Libtard” in his auto-biography on his blog page, to give you an idea of the type of person he is. It was almost physically painful for me to read this article in its entirety. This man does not come from a place of logic, he comes from a place of ignorance and perceived superiority. This article is awash with grammatical errors, useless caps lock, and hate. It is clear to me that this article is simply pandering to like-(closed)minded people, and has no real substance what-so-ever.

A Commentary on Commentary--Evaluating Paxton Further

On July 17th, 2015 Craig McDonald and Andrew Wheat published a commentary in the Austin American Statesman. This article, titled “Ken Paxton Should Step Down,” argues for just that. McDonald and Wheat do a wonderful job of writing to a broad audience, but do seem to cater to a slightly left demographic when they say “those who still believe that he is the best Republican for the job are under the influence of a tea party strange brew.” McDonald and Wheat are the executive director and research director respectively of a non-profit organization called Texans for Public Justice. TPJ aims to “take on political corruption and corporate abuses in Texas,” according to their website. Their argument for Paxton stepping down is completely logical, and this article presents a laundry list of ethical and legal issues in Paxton’s career thus far that leads them to this conclusion. Included in these issues are his pending felony charge(s), his invitation for country clerks to ignore the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriages, and his caught-on-camera theft of a $1000 pen (a class A misdemeanor in itself). These alone would be enough to convince most, but McDonald and Wheat continue. They site his “amassed stakes in dozens of businesses” and his leveraging of legislation surrounding these businesses in his own monetary favor. Any of these issues alone would be enough for an individual to question Paxton’s character. McDonald and Wheat stitch them together all in one place to make it obvious that he is unfit to serve as Attorney General. The article has an angry tone, but I believe this is reasonable given the circumstances. McDonald and Wheat wrap up the article with a bit of vitriol, stating that “Ken Paxton has become a lampooned pox on Texas.” However, it is clear to me that this anger comes from a place of genuine concern for the Texas people, and I agree with them whole-heartedly.

On Saturday, July 4th, 2015, Texas Public Radio published an article titled "Texas AG Fills Several Top Jobs Without Public Postings." This article highlights and reinforces my fears about the Texas government. Attorney General Ken Paxton hired fourteen people for high paying jobs within the attorney general’s office. This is first against the law, and second highly unethical. However, as the article mentions, it is common practice. Rick Perry participated in this cronyism as well. This is important to know and learn about because it shows the glaring inadequacies of the person that the people elected to office. The people essentially appointed to these positions may not be qualified to perform the task at hand. There are now at least fourteen people in this office that received a job based on something other than merit and ability (likely, campaign money). If a man is willing to break laws and be unethical, why do the people trust him to establish and enforce the law in an ethical manner? This supports my belief that people who want power should not be afforded power.