Politically Blue Collar

Response to Classmate's Blog

2009-05-14T22:30:00.002-05:00

While searching for a classmate's article to comment on I came across an article in Bob Law's Law blog about a bill that increases the amount of restitution paid to wrongly convicted individuals that serve prison sentences. Under the current laws wrongly convicted individual are only compensated $50,000 per year of prison they serve, the new law would pay $80,000 per year along with some other benefits.
I completely agree with my classmate in supporting this bill, however i believe our government should pay even more. If an individual can sue McDonald's for millions of dollars when they spill hot coffee on themselves one time, imagine how much someone should get for spending countless years in prison for nothing. A coffee burn is a temporary thing, however a prison sentence might last for a decade or more.
When my classmate states "it would be much better if the DA's who are responsible for the convictions were also held accountable in some way," it brings to mind a question. How did the wrongful conviction happen? If there was foul play involved then yes I agree, the district attorney that is responsible should be punished. However if they are wrongly convicted because the evidence at the time demonstrates that they are guilty then I would have to say that nothing should happen. It is the district attorney's job to present a case proving someones guilt, if that is what the evidence points to at that time then they should not be punished for doing their job.

Pig Sickness

2009-04-30T22:27:00.002-05:00

With the grand fear of a national pandemic coursing through peoples minds and Texas’ close proximity to Mexico, it is no wonder that swine flu is receiving the majority of attention from every news source in the state of Texas. All this outrage is causing the state’s local governments to overreact and feed the ever growing monster that came from Mexico. So far there has only been one confirmed death in Texas, also the only one in the entire United States, caused by H1N1, otherwise known as swine influenza. Is this single death really causing all this madness? There have only been six confirmed cases of H1N1 in Texas, a state with 24 million plus inhabitants. To me those seem like pretty weak statistics compared to all the attention swine flu is receiving from various school districts in Texas.
Is all the fear due to the fact that swine flu is relatively uncommon in humans and people are freaking out because they are ill-informed about this strain of influenza? Possibly, however they should fear not because according to the Center for Disease Control there are a couple of different medicines that do effectively treat H1N1. More likely though, I believe that the actions taken by many different governing bodies in the state of Texas is only playing to the crowd and essentially making the situation worse. Closing multiple school districts for an “outbreak” of six cases of swine flu is a little outrageous. This is only reinforcing people’s fears because it is rare that schools close because of an illness.
All in all Texas, and the U.S., is doing more harm than good. Instead of reinforcing people’s fears they should be suppressing them with the facts. From what I have read swine flu is just a different strain of the common flu that hundreds of thousands of Americans become infected with every year, accordingly H1N1 should not be built up more than necessary.

Response to classmate's blog

2009-04-16T23:44:00.003-05:00

While sifting through my classmate's articles I came across Bob Law's article about trans-fats. In the article Mr. Law makes an argument in favor of a bill that would ban restaurants, in the state of Texas, from selling foods with trans-fats. I do agree that banning trans-fats in restaurants could help reduce the obesity level in our state. However, I believe this would be a great infringement on our freedom. Yes it would be wise for restaurants to have nutritional information available to the public so they can make an educated decision on what to eat, but for the government to make a decision for the consumer is absurd. If the government is going to ban trans-fats then they might as well ban tobacco because it caused cancer, ban alcohol because it can cause kidney disease, and ban products containing lead because it is thought to cause birth defects. It should be up to the individual what they eat, if they chose to eat unhealthy then so be it. I do not believe that our society's increasing obesity levels are the fault of the food industry. There are healthy alternatives to fried chicken. The majority of obesity is a personal choice, it is not the fault of anyone other than the individual. Banning trans-fats in restaurants isn't going to change the fact that people are not willing to put forth the effort to be healthy.

Guns on Campus

2009-04-07T23:58:00.001-05:00

On April 16, 2007, a student at the University of Virginia Tech went on a shooting spree, killing 32 before finally taking his own life. This tragic day proved to be the very worst shooting that has occurred to date at an American college. However the Virginia Tech massacre is not the only instance of a gunman killing innocent students and teachers at an institution of higher education. This incident was only one of more than a half dozen that have occurred since the early 1990’s.
With the tragic Virginia Tech shooting still remaining in people’s minds, it is no wonder that pieces of pro-gun legislation have surfaced in Texas’ 81st legislature session regarding firearms on college campuses. Currently HB 1893 and SB 1164, if passed, would allow licensed individuals to legally carry concealed handguns on campuses of institutions of higher education in the state of Texas.
The only state that currently allows guns on college campuses is Utah. Last year 17 different states presented similar legislation and it failed in every case. It is no surprise that allowing guns on college campuses is a very debatable topic. However, I cannot see a logical reason against licensed carry on campuses of higher education. One common argument against guns on campus is that teachers and administrators alike would be fearful of every student who is upset by a bad grade or questionable policy. To me this idea is ridiculous. First off, the majority of college students are under the age of 21, which is the legal minimum age required for a concealed handgun permit in the state of Texas. Therefore, HB 1893 and SB 1164 are more likely to affect the professors than the student body. Secondly, if a student is willing to shoot a teacher over a bad grade then I seriously doubt that the student is going to be deterred because guns are not allowed on campus. People are going to do what they want regardless of the law. Another argument is that shootings and gun related accidents would increase on college campuses if guns are permitted on them. I don’t quite believe this would be the result. Currently Texas citizens can legally carry firearms in all public places not licensed to sell alcohol, with a few other exceptions. This amounts to a large number of public places. In these carry-friendly places you do not see scenes that resemble the wild west where handguns are being discharged on every corner. Rather these places, such as malls and bookstores, are relatively quiet and safe. I believe college campuses would be no different. There are approximately 24 million citizens in the state of Texas, of that only about 315,000 have concealed handgun licenses. I do not believe that there would be a huge influx of guns on to college campuses, it would be a very small percentage.
To me this issue is a no-brainer. Why on earth would the state of Texas want to prevent law abiding citizens from protecting their own life and the lives of loved ones? I cannot possible conceive a reason why. If properly licensed college students and teachers had been allowed to carry handguns at Virginia Tech then the gunman might not have inflicted as much damage as he did. Lives could have been saved.

Sobriety Checkpoints: A future possibility

2009-03-26T23:59:00.002-05:00

The opinion article I chose “The Best Sobriety Checkpoint Bill I Ever Opposed” posted by Scott Henson identifies and outlines a current bill, SB 298, in the Texas legislature. If SB 298, proposed by Senator John Carona, is passed it would allow sobriety checkpoints in the state of Texas. This bill also attempts to negate the current disadvantages seen in other state’s sobriety checkpoints.
Henson clearly expresses his opposition to all sobriety checkpoint laws regardless of their nature. He goes as far as relating sobriety checkpoints to communism. I can understand Henson’s disproval. Sobriety Checkpoints do seem a bit “Big Brother-esque,” as Henson stated. However, Henson declares that he does respect the attempts the bill makes on overcoming sobriety checkpoint downfalls, despite an overall disliking on principal alone. I agree that the elements of SB 298 would do a very good job of alleviating the negatives of sobriety checkpoints. In fact I agree with it so much that I would vote for this bill if given the chance.
In his post Henson makes one statement that I completely disagree with, “But if you think drunk driving is so bad that it warrants use of more totalitarian tactics…” It is the ‘so bad’ portion that bothers me. It is as if Henson is implying that drunk driving is not that big of a problem. According to statistics I found online Texas had 1544 alcohol related driving fatalities in 2006 which is the highest number of any state in the U.S., while Texas only had 1384 murders. This means that drunk driving is a bigger problem than murder. So therefore, I would have to say that drunk driving is a very big problem, not only to those who drink and drive but to all of the innocent people that are killed every year because of it.
All in all I support bill SB 298, despite some thinking that sobriety checkpoints are a little communist in nature. For me the benefits of sobriety checkpoints far outweigh the drawbacks.

Opposition to the Stimulus Package

2009-02-27T00:39:00.003-06:00

The editorial article I chose published by the Corpus Christi Caller Times discusses the new stimulus package that was recently passed and Governor Rick Perry’s reaction to it. In the article the author states that “Governor Rick Perry’s reluctance to take the $17 billion allotted to the state doesn’t inspire great confidence that the money will be used effectively to help Texans or to help stimulate the economy.” The author blames the continued negativity by the Governor on next year’s election. I’m not sure such is the case or if it is that Perry just likes to whine. I am personally tired of hearing it, even before the stimulus package was passed Governor Perry clearly voiced his opposition to it. I understand that Perry along with many other oppose the package, the fact is that it was passed and there is nothing that can change that. I believe that Perry’s continued resistance is doing nothing to help Texas. Instead Perry should be focused on the job at hand which is to figure out how to best utilize the $ 17 billion allotted to Texas. However, I agree with Perry that we should be careful of entering into government programs that would burden our state with expenses long after our funding has dried up. Instead Texas should try to spend the money on one time expenses such as improving our roadways.
The author also state that “the stimulus bill isn't perfect and it is a huge risk, but it's a risk that Obama, Congress and the nation had to take.” This is exactly right; something had to be done to stop the landslide. The stimulus package might not be perfect but it is what we have now. As pointed out in the article Texas is faced with a $ 9 billion deficit, this deficit didn’t occur because of fluctuations in the market. It happened because of the economic crisis the U.S. is experiencing. The $17 billion stimulus for Texas could help us pull ourselves out of this hole and improve our faltering economy. But this will only happen if Perry and others can disregard their thoughts on the stimulus package and figure out the best way to use the money.

Perry Warns Texans

2009-02-17T23:26:00.002-06:00

The big news story of today was President Obama’s signing of the $787 billion stimulus package, however not everyone is thrilled to see this passed. Texas Governor Rick Perry has previously voiced opposition to the stimulus package, and today when news broke of the signing about to take place Perry offered a warning to all Texans: be cautious with federal stimulus.

Governor Perry worries about the commitments that might come with taking money for certain programs. Perry states “we need the freedom to pick and choose. And we need the freedom to say 'No thanks.' ” While state officials still figure out what the stimulus bill means for Texas it is apparent that there is potentially some very beneficial aspects of the package. Texas could possibly receive $2.5 billion for transportation projects, however it is unclear at this time whether that will happen or not.

As the nuts and bolts of the stimulus package are unveiled it will be important for Texans to keep up with how it will affect our state. Although the economic down turn has not affected Texas as severely as other states the possibility still remains. However the money that Texas may receive from the stimulus package could stave off any further economic duress.

2009-01-29T23:18:00.001-06:00

This is a test post

Classmate Response, Stage 8

2008-12-10T16:14:00.000-06:00

While sifting through my classmate’s blogs I came across one in particular that piqued my interest. On Donkey vs. elephant’s blog was an article about gay marriage, and my classmate’s view on the subject. There are several points brought up regarding gay marriage and more specifically gay couples raising children that I don’t really agree with.

The first point that I disagree with is that children raised by gay parents will face hardships that children with heterosexual parents won’t. Yes I agree that children with homosexual parents could potentially face ridicule by other children, however I do not think there is a single child who hasn’t been made fun of at least once in their life. Another element to your argument that I disagree with is that “children need both a maternal and paternal influence to be healthy.” Many children, for whatever reason, are raise every year that have only one parent and therefore lack either a fatherly or motherly figure in their lives. I think I would be safe to say that many of these children live fairly “healthy” lives. President elect Barack Obama was raise by his single mother and grandmother, two individuals of the same sex, and he seems to have turned out rather “healthy.”

All in all I do not see any legitimate reason why a gay couple should not be allowed to be married. I believe the issue you brought up of gay couples raising children holds no ground. It is my view that any child raised in a loving, caring, and structured environment will be of sound mind and behavior regardless of whether a single parent, heterosexual couple, or homosexual couple, cares for them.

A Necessary Evil

2008-11-26T23:54:00.000-06:00

From the start of the war in Iraq there has been a detailed media coverage that is unparalleled compared to past conflicts. With this increased exposure many different aspects of war have been brought to the public’s ever judging eye that might not have ever existed before, mainly the use of contractors and most controversially armed contractors. You might ask, what is a contractor? Well in regards to the Iraq War it is any individual or company that is hired to do a specific job for the military. Many people question why we use these companies to fulfill jobs that some might consider a responsibility of the military. The reason is two fold, cost and man power.

The end of the Cold War brought about a dramatic downsize of America’s military. This reduction of both manpower and funds is not particularly hurtful especially during peace times, however it is very noticeable in the way the military operates during a conflict. Because of the scale of the Iraq War and the decrease in manpower the military has to rely more on the private sector more than ever before. The military has hired companies, most notable Halliburton and KBR, to fulfill roles for the troops that do not require a service member such as preparing meals, washing clothes, and other basic duties. With these types of roles taken care of the military can utilize its troops more productively.

The most controversial aspect of all this contract work is the armed contractors and Private Military Companies (PMC). Many people believe these contractors to be mercenaries doing America’s dirty work; this could not be further from the truth. In reality these individuals are just armed security guards. With the rebuilding of Iraq comes lots of things that need protection. Iraq is still an extremely dangerous place where anything can happen, everything from supplies to businessmen needs security. This is where the cost aspect comes in. It is very expensive for the U.S. military to send an armed convoy along with every truck full of gravel to rebuild something. With every soldier comes a whole network of logistics and support. The average cost of one soldier in Iraq for one year is $390,000. It is way cheaper to hire a company such as Blackwater, Triple Canopy, Aegis, or any of the other PMC’s to perform these security roles. Soldiers are trained to do many different things and it would be a waste of a precious resource to send them on security convoys everyday, especially while you have these PMC’s that specially trains their employees for convoy and VIP security.

I do realize that there is a lot of ongoing controversy as to whether these contract companies are making too much money off the Iraq War. I am not debating that, how ever I do believe that they serve a very necessary role and free up a lot of soldiers to do more important work.

Classmates Commentary

2008-11-14T15:50:00.000-06:00

While reading through my classmate’s blogs I came upon A Smorgasbord of Politics original commentary about the Presidential election. I was very intrigued by the various points she made and how similar her views are to my own.

I strongly agree that a good many people in America vote or support an individual candidate based largely on that candidate’s race, gender, or physical appearance, particularly in our most recent presidential race. I am very pleased to have witnesses our nation’s first African American President be elected, however just because of his skin color it does not mean he is automatically going to bring about change. What will bring about change is his policies and how successful they are, these have no connection to race.

I found the idea of an anonymous election very insightful. It would be nice to have a process that eliminated any exterior biases in the voter’s minds to ensure that the absolute best candidate with the best policies would win and not the best looking candidate. I know a lot of people that look and talk very convincingly, but they are actually just full of malarkey. However as my classmate pointed out this would be extremely difficult to achieve. Even if some form of hybrid election process was created I don’t really have any confidence that it would be instated any time soon based on how willing our government is to update certain facets to changing times.

Is It Over Yet?

2008-10-31T10:01:00.000-05:00

As many of you know Barack Obama aired a thirty minute multimillion dollar infomercial on over seven different television stations on October 29. Why would he do such a thing when it seems as though he has already locked up the 2008 presidential election? Perhaps it is because democrats have a reputation for losing on election day when it previously seemed clear they had shored up the victory. Or maybe it is because the Democratic party still has a bad taste from Florida in the 2000 election. But I believe that the real reason Barack Obama decided to run this thirty minute infomercial is because of doubt. The doubt that his campaign intelligently recognizes still exists in many voters minds. Barack Obama is an untested man when it comes to executive experience, rightfully so some people are hesitant to vote for him because they don’t know enough about him. That is why he chose to air this infomercial. His performance clearly erased the doubt that might remain in potential voter’s minds. He achieved this by identifying one by one the different issues at the table and telling people what he would solve them.

Do I think that this infomercial is going to help Obama edge out a win? Probably not. I think Obama would still win regardless because he has run a very good campaign while McCain has not. Obama has been criticized for not having enough foreign policy experience so he put Joe Biden, who has lots of foreign policy experience, on the ticket as VP to compensate for this. John McCain is thought to lack on economic policy, but instead of selecting a VP candidate that would counter this weakness he chose to nominate someone with hardly any experience at all. Someone he thought would help pull in votes but might actually be hurting his campaign more than helping it. Obama has made all the right moves and has surrounded himself with the proper people to be successful in the Presidential race. McCain hasn't quite done this.

This is why the infomercial isn’t going to help that much. If Barack Obama wins this election, I believe, the only purpose his infomercial would have done is increase the margin of victory. Barack Obama doesn’t want to just win. I think he wants a landslide victory, to make a statement that the Democrats ARE the right party for change.

Regardless of who wins I hope that the next president is actually the right person for change.

McCain is Out

2008-10-17T23:59:00.000-05:00

The article I chose, Is John McCain Losing It?, by Robert Parry touches on Senator McCain’s performance at the third debate and examines why he is already out of the presidential race. I believe Parry hit the nail on the head with this article. McCain showed the signs of defeat in the third debate.

I very much agree with Parry’s statement that McCain “appears to lacks a sense of balance or even reality.” It amazed me that John McCain would claim that he is the “victim” of negative attacks when his running mate is making ridiculous statements and even McCain’s supporters are making absurd remarks about killing Obama at his campaign rallies. As for Sarah Palin it appears she does know how to speak, she just doesn’t know how to think before doing so. To associate Obama with terrorists is very inappropriate especially these days with the bitter taste from 9-11 still remaining in the public’s mouth. John McCain lost a great deal of face value with me by not refuting these remarks. The remarks against John McCain have been minor compared to what has been said about Obama, McCain’s claim as the “victim” looks like a last desperate attempt at some sympathy votes.

I found the section of the article entitled Defensiveness very interesting. Prior to reading this article I had heard of John McCain’s temper however I had not yet seen an example of this. During the third debate it appeared that McCain was visibly angered. I would not consider hotheadedness a good trait for president. The leader of the Free World should not be flying off the handle and making rash decisions.

Going into this presidential race I would have given the upper hand to McCain based on his experience. However I believe McCain has made an enormous amount of tactical errors and in doing so essentially locked up the win for Obama.

Sarah Palin for VP?

2008-10-03T23:32:00.000-05:00

The article I chose was written by New York Times opinion columnist David Brooks. In the article Brooks discusses Governor Sarah Palin’s performance at the Vice Presidential debate and what she needed to accomplish there to keep the Republicans in the Presidential race. According to Brooks, Governor Palin had to achieve two things. First, survival, she had to prove that she was “capable of completing an extemporaneous paragraph — a collection of sentences with subjects, verbs, objects and, if possible, an actual meaning,” because apparently she has struggled with this in the past. Second, she needed to bring about a shift in momentum towards the republicans. Brooks argues that she easily accomplished the first, but that it depends on who you talk to whether or not she attained the second goal. I would have to say that I do agree with Brooks in that Sarah Palin proved she has the ability to complete a sentence and she did so with flying colors. However I find it very disheartening that completing a sentence is a needed goal for one of our country’s Vice Presidential candidates. For the second goal I disagree with Brooks. I don’t think she gained any additional support for the Republican ticket what so ever, she might have even lost some. Brooks gives points to Governor Palin for making it clear that “she was not of Washington, did not admire Washington and knew little about Washington.” Maybe it would be smart for Sarah Palin to distance herself from Washington during these hard times but she still needs to have adequate knowledge about Washington and how it works. Without this knowledge Palin just looks ignorant. Although I am not a fan of Joe Biden I would have to easily give the debate victory to him. Through out the night he schooled Palin on every subject that was covered.
I am a big fan of John McCain, but I think that Sarah Palin is not be the strongest choice for VP. It appears to me that she might have only been selected as VP in order to pull in more votes for the Republicans, not because she is the best person for the job. I think that this was made clear during the VP debates. It saddens me that David Brooks is praising Governor Palin for surviving the debate. In my opinion a good Vice Presidential candidate should never be praised for surviving a debate, they should be praise for being dominate throughout the debate and putting their opponent on defense.

2008-09-19T22:44:00.000-05:00

With the election date fast approaching and the current state of our economy it is no surprise that the majority of the political media coverage this week would be focused on the presidential candidates’ economic policies and their respective plans for fixing the Wall Street crisis. According to an article by ABC News both presidential candidates have adopted opposite strategies to combat the problems on Wall Street. Senator McCain offered a detailed six-point plan for reforming Wall Street which included a consolidation of regulatory agencies, promoting greater transparency, and creating a new oversight body called the Mortgage and Financial Institution Trust (MFI). However, Senator Obama chose not to present any plan for fixing Wall Street. Instead he decided to hold off and let Congress propose its plan first.

It will be interesting to hear what Senator Obama’s strategy for Wall Street is. Once he reveals it I believe the American public will have a better idea of the economic strategies of both presidential candidates. Its important for the American people to be aware of the economic views of the candidates considering that the economy is at a low point.

Link to article: