H2 Oh-no!

As my final entry in this blog I will be responding to a post written by a fellow classmate, which can be found here.

The issue at hand is water.  As most people are aware, water is a dwindling resource in the central Texas region.  I find it somewhat ironic that this issue has been put off by the public for so long, seeing how central Texas is an arid environment and, were it not for the extensive urbanization, would look like a simple desert, not the mecca of opportunity and economic wealth that it has become.  Yet, in spite of our beautiful city, we cannot outrun or outspend the fact that we are running out of water.

My classmate brings up several good points on how to address this issue, including; drip irrigation, more personal responsibility, furthering education for farmers and watering techniques, and more penalties for poor fracking methods.  I am in strong agreement with these ideas and I also was previously unaware that the average Texan uses 72.5 gallons daily.  To me, this number seems outrageously high, yet I believe it’s accuracy.  

In the end I believe that conserving our water will come down to the individual.  I will drink on average .5 to 1 gallon of water every day... so where do the other 71 gallons come from.  Dishes, bath, and hand washing make up the rest of my water usage.  I am more than sure that I and other Texans can find ways to cut back on these elements of our every day lives.

Texas Gubernatorial Race Underway!

The Gubernatorial race is currently under way in Texas, and the names popping up the most for candidates are Wendy Davis (D) and Attorney General Greg Abbott (R).  Because Texas is and has been a “red” state for some time, the chances of another Republican being elected for governor is high, however, Wendy Davis has adopted a platform that seems to appeal to a growing number of supporters.

Wendy Davis, a Texas Senator, stepped into the spotlight during her filibuster this year, which lasted roughly 11 hours.  The topic of the filibuster was abortion restrictions placed in the bill, which would’ve made abortion illegal after twenty weeks, effectively shutting down most abortion centers in Texas.  What made this filibuster so astounding was the incredible amount of support given towards the end of the filibuster.  Supporters could be heard throughout the the capital, making their own filibuster, protesting the bill along side Senator Davis.  In the end, the bill was proclaimed dead and current Governor Rick Perry had to call a third special session.

Although the hype around Davis’ filibuster has opened the door to fame and possibly the Governors seat, does it necessarily make her a viable candidate for governing one of the largest and most populated states in the country?  At the very least it proves that she has incredible discipline and patience, not to mention an amazing ability to control her bladder.

On the other hand (or should I say right hand?) Republican candidate Greg Abbott’s platform is grounded in traditional family values and protecting people’s second amendment rights.  Moreover, his campaign is targeting Obamacare as a villain which is seen as an overtaxation of the public.

In the end only one of these people will be come Governor.  Although the Republican candidate has a much larger campaign purse, I have no doubt it will be another battle worth watching.

I recently viewed a blog on Texas State Gonvernment and Politics titled Healthcare in Texas and wrote this response:

          I agree that something should be done to resolve the issue of the Law which seems to mandate life insurance.  It seems that almost all sensible methods by which an individual can obtain insurance have been removed, making the cost to acquire the necessary life insurance outrageously expensive.  What's more is that the people we have elected to lead us have inadvertently cost us more than they are willing to pay back.  I was previously unaware of the extended regulations proposed by Perry and the threats made by Senator Cruz intended to stop Obamacare from being passed.  Moreover, they turned down an alleged 100 billion dollars offered to aid in helping people find insurance.  It is easy to assume that they are intentionally digging graves for many texans who cannot afford the currently outrageous costs of life insurance.  In fact, it seems almost foolish for them to put their feet down so firmly in the face of this new bill that they end up stepping all over their constituents. 

However, there are always two sides of every debate.  It would be interesting to see why exactly Perry and Cruz fought so hard against this legislation.  Were there issues where the bill was carrying some sort of legislation which would have had a negative effect on Texas?  Or perhaps they were simply looking out for their own interests.  Whatever the case, the fact is we do not have all the facts.  This is the thing that should bother us most, when people can no longer decide for themselves because they’ve been left in the dark about the true intentions which so often seems obscure in politics.

Always Remember The Fifth of November

This week is a voting week.  Not a vote for a new president, nor State Representatives, but rather an election which aims much closer to home.  On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 an election of nine constitutional amendments will be taking place which, if voted in, will directly alter our State Constitution.  The amendments range from property tax exemptions for the surviving spouses of  members of the U.S. armed forces who have been killed in the line of duty to the creation of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas to the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) being allowed to "discipline" judges who may not be complying with the standards of Judicial Conduct.

So, is this even important? Here's a thought; If it affects your neighbor, it can affect you as well.  If you don't buy in to that idea then here's another one; If it affects your friends, it affects you.  After all, the relationships we carry through life are what creates the memories that make us who we are.  So, in my opinion, OF COURSE IT'S IMPORTANT!

Most of the people I know and associate with spend more time and energy voting and discussing much more publicized national elections, however, one might argue that the bigger elections impact individuals much less than local and State elections.  To find out more information about the proposed amendments visit The League of Women Voters of Texas to find out more information and details about the nine proposed amendments.

Secession vs. Expulsion

In the political blog Big Jolly Politics I came across an article titled "Jerry Patterson Attacked by Kid in Puberty" in which the article sites another blogger, Ben Sherman, for attacking Jerry Patterson, a Lt. Governor candidate and a veteran of the Marines, for saying that instead of Texas seceding from the Union, we should expel other liberal states.  He goes on to say states like California and New York should be expelled due to his opinion that "their legislatures aren't representing them".  Big Jolly Politics argues that this attack on Patterson is unfounded and credits Sherman's attack on Patterson on his hormones.  Clearly a right leaning blog, this article intends to speak to Republican voters in order to rally support for Patterson in spite of his statement regarding expulsion of liberal states.  The author of Big Jolly Politics is calling Patterson's statement a "joke".  The evidence behind the authors argument that Patterson's statement was simply a joke is somewhat unclear and not presented in the article.  The blatant extremity of the statement suggests that, yes, it was a joke, however the last time our nation was politically divided and states began to secede the Civil War happened resulting in the deaths of three quarters of a million Americans.  Given that the repercussions of the Civil War and the lessons learned from it are still as important in American history today as they were 100 years ago, I believe that Lt. Governor candidate Jerry Patterson made a mistake by mentioning expulsion, even in a joking manner. There are simply too many ways people could be offended by the statement.  It is for this reason that I must disagree with the author of this article.

No Tea For Me

I recently read a post at Letters From Texas in which the author criticizes the Tea Party for questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship.  While the Tea Party argues that Obama was born in Kenya to a mother from Kansas, the author of the article points out that Republican Senator Ted Cruz was in fact born in Canada in attempt to enlighten the Tea Party’s hypocritical point of view.  The intended audience for Harold Cook’s article was undoubtedly the liberal minded and Democrats, however the article is also well read by anyone who enjoys light political humor.  The author, Harold Cook, is a political strategist who is well respected by both sides of the political community even though his views lean towards the left.  His opinion and ideas should be viewed as credible.   His argument is that it is neither fair nor logical to question the citizenship of one political figure while support is given to another political figure who’s citizenship might be equally questionable.

My opinion is that it is simply too late to argue about what should be and could be when there are so many more immediate concerns.  I agree with Harold Cook’s criticism of the Tea Party’s bickering over the issue of Obama’s citizenship.  It’s simply arguing for the sake of arguing which is contrary to the purpose political activists serve.  In my opinion the worst thing a political party can do is undermine their opponents by some off hand issue and thereby elevating themselves.  The whole point of a bipartisan system is that idealists from both sides of every story can come together and compromise in a manner that represents the greater population, not to tear your opponents down with technicalities for the sake of gaining power.  

Criminal Reform: Mentally Ill Inmates

I recently read an article at The Texas Tribune, which identified prisons with the most mentally ill patients as also being the most violent prisons, reaching proportions as high as 43 incident reports for every 100 patients.  Amongst these incidents, which involved sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and the "lobbing" of bodily fluids, the State has placed the care and control of these mentally ill inmates over to the wardens and security officers posted at each prison.  Although some people believe that the criminal reform designated towards the demographic of prisoners who are mentally ill is ineffective, the wardens urge that the methods by which they control their populations is effective and is helping to serve the purpose of reforming such prisoners.  The task of maintaining order amongst a population of inmates (nearly half of whom suffer from mental illnesses) may seem an insurmountable one, and the efforts from the wardens and security officers valiant, however the numbers don't lie.  For example, at the William P. Clements Unit, officers over a six year period reported having to use force on mentally ill inmates roughly 3,400 times.  The population of 3,500 inmates at Clements houses 1,800 inmates who have been diagnosed as mentally ill.  So the question remains.  Are the Criminal reform policies truly working, or is it time for a change in Government Policy which will approach theses mentally ill inmates in a different way?