Blog Stage 8

In the blog http://uggnoname.blogspot.com/ I found it interesting that you said you felt like you are not alone.  You are not alone, and there are so many people trying to argue this point. I have found there to be more cons then pros ever since they have built the F1 track. I just am happy I don't live in that area. I hate traffic myself, and I would never allow myself to sit in traffic for as long as you did. Before building the track I am sure a lot of thought had to go around about the driving problems and what the neighborhood wanted and didn't want. I just do not think they put as much thought as they could have into it. I know money is such a big issue these days but if they can have the money to build the track for millions of people to come enjoy the races then I think they can manage to put the millions of dollars into what it would take to build more convenient roads for the people this effects. Good point. And you are one voice of many that also feel the same way you do.

Blog Stage 7

 In the article I read from the http://austin.ynn.com titled Prosecutors, MADD Team Up On Drunken Driving Legislation, I found it tough to believe that the non profit organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving teamed up with law enforcement officials to ask law makers to pass two bills of of legislation they think is going to help save lives. This organization has been trying for 18 years and is going to continue to try to get state legislature to pass laws allowing police officers to enforce what they call sobriety checkpoints. 

 Out of all the states in the country, Texas has seen the most deaths in result of drunken driving incident. They believe that having these checkpoints would stop drunk driving and from the evidence shown, Lewis who was arguing for this law said, "Checkpoints would reduce the number of fatalities by 20 percent." If this law is to be passed, police would be permitted to establish checkpoints on roads stopping drunken drivers. 

 Meanwhile waiting this fight, the judicial end of things proposed another bill giving deferred adjudication and treatment to the first time offenders. Another argument Lewis had was that he believed we were just housing young citizens of drunk driving for their first offense to their 3rd offense when instead of us giving them the real treatment they need. I have personally never been in a drunken driving situation thank god, but I can't possibly see this law being passed seeing the downside of things. Although I do want to help prevent drunk driving from happening, I feel there to be more cons then pros in this situation and it will just bring other unrelated issued to surface. 

In the article I read from http://earsoftexas.blogspot.com I believe that the author got to the direct point with their opinion and based facts from sources to present their opinions. This author speaks about the pulled funding from Planned Parenthood here in Texas. I agree with the author that this is a poor decision made, but after reading this post, I stand behind my decision based on the solid facts that were mentioned. I am pro choice when it comes to abortions, however the facility for Planned Parenthood isn't just that of giving abortions and actually is just 3% of that total services that they do provide. The primary functions of the organization is there for overall women's health. I learned a lot from this post with accurate numbers, but I already knew that women receive help at Planned Parenthood to get pap smears, breast examinations, testing and treatment for sexual transmitted diseases, and most of all the importance of education, that schools and parents fall short of telling these young women. Most of the girls that go to Planned Parenthood are not educated by their parents and feel this is the only place they can go to get answers for themselves. I do not feel that there should be a cut in the funding because people see against this facility ONLY for their purpose on terminating pregnancies. I think this author did justice to this argument and had very good factual information to base her theories on. BRAVO

Election 2012

 Early voting numbers are down in Travis County compared to the turn out for the election four years ago. Even though the presidential race is tight this year with numerous propositions and local races to consider, early voting turn out in Travis County remained lower this year then in 2008 coming far behind the rest of the state. In an article from the Statesman, it states other counties in Texas set records high this year with a higher turnout of early voters then in the past. In 2004, Travis County counted nearly fifty percent of eligible voters who casted their vote early compared to the thirty two percent of Travis County who voted as of Friday, November 2, of this year. All over the city people waited anxiously in line for multiple hours to cast their vote. It was brought to my knowledge that people were being turned away on early election day because of the mass turnouts and the over crowding of polling places. I question as to why there is such a drastic difference in a four year span with voter turnouts? A director of the Center for Public Policy claims the reason to blame for the lower turnout rate is due to the 11 city charter amendments and seven bond proposals. Other people argued his case and think that there are a lot of things that factor into it and also people might be waiting until election day to vote or are choosing to not participate in the voting process at all. I feel  some people might need more time to focus on the different propositions and give themselves more time to come to a final decision.

Blog Stage 4

In the blog that is posted as "The Right Side of Austin", I found an interesting post that was written about the right to firearms. In this post the author copies a letter written by James Johnson comparing Obama care and a potential mandate to obtain firearms. The controversial argument states two things. If Obama can pass a law requiring citizens to purchase health insurance against their will then there should be no hesitation for them to mandate citizens owning firearms. To further support this argument they point out that the Second Amendment states we have the right to bare arms where there is no amendment in regards to having health care. I don't agree with the author of this letter. Johnson states that if you can pass a background check, legislation should mandate that you purchase a firearm. I don't feel the need for everyone to be subjected to a weapon. A background check can't tell you what an individual will due in future circumstances. It doesn't show you what someone is capable of. What is does prove is that everyone has a clear background until they make a wrong choice. Two "sane" people can easily make "insane" decision with a firearm depending on the unpredictable circumstances. We should not give this right to all "innocent" people because you NEVER know what people are capable of doing.

 I think the person who wrote this letter to the editor of Syracuse.com is addressing those who feel the need to be protected at all cost. I do not think that the author makes valid points and shouldn't compromise that of mandating the need for healthcare. I feel the author should have included a point of view based on evidence supporting the differences. I do know one thing, that if there ever were to be a mandate of firearms, we better pray that there is a mandate for healthcare!

 In the article I read in the American Statesman, titled Platform vote on same-sex marriage at Democratic convention called historic, Chuck Lindell argues the topic on same sex marriage being "politically risky" for President Obama to embrace the concept. Since Obama stated in May to embrace same-sex marriage, it has become way more accepted in the United States. He stated that opinion polls showed half of Americans supporting the case, although the other half of the voters are almost equal in opponents to same-sex marriage, and because of that, it remains an issue and is to be considered in this upcoming election by both sides. 

 At the state convention in June, the Texas Democratic Party became the first in a Southern state to approve a platform backing same-sex marriage. At the  Republican National Convention in Florida, delegates approved a platform reaffirming support for a U.S. constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and supporting similar efforts at the state level. 

"Doing the right thing when the right thing is obvious is never risky. My father was born in a segregated country, and Lyndon Johnson did something about it. I was born in a country where gay Americans did not have equality, and this president will do something about it." This quote from a straight gentleman in Austin really took me by surprise but he makes a very good statement. A fact that polls showed in May, Obama took a political hit after announcing his position on same-sex marriage, he still had 13% of America who were more likely to vote for him. 

A lot of this article had more quotes with people's opinions, then clear factual evidence of the authors argument. However I believe that everything that Presidential candidates speak upon could potentially be "politically risky". With the same-sex marriage topic, it is more risky then other cases due to the emotional side of people and it pointing out what is "right" and what is "wrong". I personally think everyone should have their own say in their personal relationships and I am glad this situation is finally being reconsidered in this upcoming election. I hope the states make the "right" decision. We need more equality in this sick country of ours!

Not Accepting Organ Donations from Death row Inmates

 Something that really caught my attention in the www.texastribune.org was a story titled "Death Row Unlikely to be Source for Organ Donations".    Last year in Oregon a death row inmate, Christian Longo, started a campaign to allow all condemned inmates to be allowed to donate their organs. This inmates argument was that if he were to potentially help save someone's life with his own organs, one pre planned execution could potentially save 6 to 10 lives. Longo made his plea, but was shortly denied by Oregon officials. Not one state allows death row inmates to donate their organs, while there are 11,000 people in Texas alone that are on a waiting list to accept an organ transplant. I believe this argument should be revisited. Criminal justice and medical experts say, "that the idea of recovering organs from willing convicted murders is fraught with moral, ethical and medical challenges that make it unlikely to ever be an option". That statement may be relevant, but i agree with Longo, that he should have the right to help saving someone else's life, if his own, is just going to be wasted.