Lastly Stage 8: A Response to "The Money Plant"

In the post "The Money Plant"by BLindsey, the topic of marijuana is discussed. It is brought to the audience's attention that marijuana, or hemp, serves many purposes other than the most know illegal act of smoking it. The debate of legalizing marijuana has been around for years. Research has shown that the plant can be helpful for pain tolerance and "treatment"of many illnesses. Some states have  authorized prescribed marijuana for these medicinal purposes already. So what should Texas do? As BLindsey has pointed out, hemp is a strong fiber that might prove to be more cost effective than growing cotton in Texas. This could help the state of the Texas deficit.
Personally I think the biggest issue for the government is going to be the reaction of the people. If they legalize marijuana even in order to save money to help pull us out of debt, the public will see the legalization as showing support for a controlled substance. As BLindsey pointed out, as long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. This remains true whether marijuana is legal or not. It has been this way for a long time. With that said, for the public who are against the legalization of marijuana should consider that it has always been available as a drug and the legalization won't really change that cycle. Sure, it will make things easier for the drug dealers but consider this: alcohol is a drug. Teenagers get ahold of alcohol even though it is illegal for them; they drink and get drunk. Same thing for marijuana. Some people choose to use it as a drug, they will continue to whether it is legal or not. There are some things, such as controlling marijuana, that are too big to be nailed down by law enforcement. So if the government thinks it can save money by legalizing marijuana, I'm all for it. They might even turn it around and sell it in small amounts, at inflated prices to the public. It's just like anything else. It's a choice for individuals and it always has been, legal or not.
For the record, I have never smoked, smells, looked at, or thought of smoking marijuana. I do not support the legalization because I think it would benefit me in anyway. I think BLindsey has a point, if Texas can save any money anywhere (other than education) the government should do it. As I have pointed out, the control of marijuana has been an issue for a long time. The dealing will always be around. It happens all the time. I haven't heard of any crimes being committed because a person was high. It's a personal choice, a stupid one in my opinion, but that's not the issue. I think the reason for this controversy is the people who only see the plant as a drug. They are naive to think that keeping it illegal will stop the use of marijuana.

Stage 7: Yet Another Controversy

Having previously hit the topics of gun control, the death penalty, budget cuts, and immigration laws, why not cover yet another controversial topic? Abortion. First of all, I’ll start off by stating my personal beliefs before discussing both sides. I believe abortion is wrong. It is something I will never consider in my lifetime. For me, there is no choice; it’s something I could never do. Also I would not feel comfortable being friends with someone who has had an abortion. Morally, I cannot justify it in my own head except in cases of rape. With that said, for everyone else in the population I believe they should be given the choice of whether to abort a pregnancy or not.

There are instances when women get pregnant because of their own stupidity or “by accident” as some would say. The end result is, they are pregnant and they do not want the baby for a plethora of reasons. I believe abortion is a good thing in cases like this. These women clearly do not want to be parents. If they keep and raise the baby they would most likely become neglecting parents and their children would be the ones to suffer in the end. Of course some would argue that adoption is the best solution. I agree that adoption is great. I know many people who were saved by their adoptive families. But there are also other cases of children being rejected by families. This causes lasting emotional scars that affect the person throughout their lives. Sometimes it may be in the best interest of the child if they never existed. As awful as that sounds, maybe there is a small granule of truth there.

Then in horrible inexcusable circumstances, women get pregnant from being raped. No woman should HAVE to keep a baby that was conceived in an act of violence. Most women would resent the baby if forced to keep it. The child would be an everyday reminder of a terrible, violent act. There is more that can be said here but is it necessary? I think most of society would agree that abortion is acceptable in the cases of legitimate rape.

On the other hand there are people who believe that abortion is wrong one hundred percent of the time. The arguments here revolve mostly around the accusation of murder. Many people see abortion as murder. They think that life begins upon fertilization. For arguments like these I say that late term abortions should be illegal. If the abortion is performed early on, the fetus cannot feel anything because it isn’t formed yet, it lacks some types of cells such as nerves in the blastula stage. Once the fetus has been allowed to grow enough to be a functioning baby outside of the womb, the fetus can feel the pain and shock that comes with abortion. This is an unnecessary evil. Cases like these would be murder in my mind. But to far right people, there is no excuse for abortion, not early on, not rape, not sickness.

The thing to understand is that both sides have reasonable arguments. There is a lot of gray area in controversial topics like this. I think if the government allows woman the right to choose it will be serving everyone. Here is how I reason that. If the government in Texas outlawed abortions, people would be outraged. But they could go to another state to have the procedure done. If the government says that abortions are legal this will upset the far right. Being the government of a very conservative state, no politicians would make such a law. There best decision is to say it is legal for women to choose. Each individual woman should have the right to decide for herself. After all, in Roe v Wade, the court declared this a matter of privacy. So under the “Pro-Choice” laws, some woman will still think abortion wrong, they will not engage in it. Others will be ok with the issue and they will engage in it if it is needed.  But in the end, it is up to the individuals to choose. This is why the government should pass laws in favor of choice. Yes, right now it is legal to get abortions in Texas. I predict many more arguments will commence about this topic. But the government should stay in the “choice” line of thinking. In this sense, they are not really picking a side; they are trying to please everyone. That is essentially the job of the government, to pass laws that do not evoke a strong reaction from certain groups. 

Stage 6: "The End of Death Row" Response

Lauren made some excellent points in her discussion of the death penalty in Texas. She argued that the death penalty is simply sinking to the level of the criminals who have been convicted of these serious crimes. I agree with that but as she pointed out allowing all of the criminals who have life sentences to live in prisons puts a huge financial burden on the state. The public would be outraged if taxes were increased to pay for the prisoners who were sentenced to die in prison, this is where the death penalty comes into play. If the prisoners are going to die in prison anyway, this speeds up the process. That sounds terrible to say but keep in mind these people were not put on death row for their service to society; they are criminals, murderers, rapists, thieves. This is the image Texans have in mind when discussing the death penalty; it's all people who deserve it. Or is it?

In Lauren's "The End of Death Row" she also discussed the possibility of a false conviction. This would result in innocent people being put to death in Texas prisons. The hard truth is that this does happen. But how can the government be certain of the person who committed the crime without witnesses? And even then, what if it was dark and the person was misidentified? There are a lot of things that can happen to falsely convict a person and there is no way the government can "make it up" to someone who is dead. This happens a lot with people who were wrongly held prisoner. When their innocence, is proven, they are offered money or some other "compensation" or what have you. This false imprisonment is hard enough, what if the innocent party was murdered by the government with a later discovery of their innocence? How does the government deal with that? What are the families supposed to do?

These are all questions I do not have the answers to. I cannot think of a plan that could right the wrongs of the government in this sense. Policies need to change as far as punishment goes in Texas. I am not against the death penalty if there is undoubted proof. I believe people who do horrible things deserve horrible things themselves. The issue of innocence is what gets me. I do not know how the government can possibly make a plan that allots time to prove innocence. Really, it's an issue of revenue. Allowing these people to live longer is just another price tag to the government. This vision needs to change.

Budget Cuts in Texas Public Education

Public Education is close to my heart and seeing as the decision to go ahead with the budget cuts has been approved, I would like to discuss this issue of Texas government. After a long, drawn out debate, the Texas legislature has passed the public education budget cuts. This ridiculous cut of millions of dollars from the public education budget will be the final straw that breaks the back of the Texas school system. Texas was already in the mid thirties (very low) on the education ranking of the states in the US, how could the legislature agree to pass this budget cut when we are already suffering as a state?

Many school districts have cut fine arts and physical education programs claiming that these subjects are not of great importance to the children attending public schools. Closer to home, at my old high school, the German program has been removed completely from the curriculum. (How French or Latin is more important, I am not sure.) Because entire subjects are being removed from schools, thousands of teachers have been cut too to account for the lack of money in the school systems. Our youth needs strong teachers to educate them. If teachers are being fired left and right, other teachers will fear they will be the next lose their jobs and that huge distraction will surely interfere with their teaching.

The school budget did not need to see such a huge cut, it needed to be reformed, using money wisely. Teachers that were not getting the results needed and teachers who need to retire could have been cut to save money. This would leave the most effective teachers in schools to teach children. This would increase classroom sizes but that's how classes are in college anyway. This would get students used to the classroom setting they will one day have. Money could also be saved in the fine arts and athletic departments by keeping current uniforms and equipment. This would allow the programs to continue while the economy is hurting. Then in a few years when things pick back up, new equipment and books and other necessities could be purchased.

Really, I believe there was a better way to save money in the public school system rather than withholding millions of dollars and firing thousands of teachers. I have stated a few suggestions on how money could be saved for the time being in the school system. Alternatives like the ones I suggested are important for the legislature to consider. These drastic cuts have put thousands on unemployment and have outraged parents of school aged children. The budget has personally effected my life in a negative way as well. I was going to get a biology teaching degree to teach high school biology. The condition of schools due to budget cuts as extinguished my hope of finding a teaching job in Texas. Because of this I have pursued other careers. I am sure I am not the only student that feels this way. The budget cut has most likely discouraged more students to seek careers other than teaching. This could result in fewer teachers in the future and ultimately the unravelling of the already dysfunctional public school system in Texas.

Will Texas Stand Up for U.S. Sovereignty?

From The Right Side of Austin, this post, by Ted Cruz, reaches out to every Texan to take notice and support our governor’s (Rick Perry) work in defending the voice of the American courts. President Obama wants the US Supreme Court to answer to a ”higher authority”, the World Courts. Cruz’s claims point out that America was built on sovereignty and the principles of being independent from other nations (not reliant on). He goes on to list the court cases Perry has defended in the past concerning the same topic. In his eyes, Cruz sees Perry as fit for the white house and hints that Perry has what it takes to support American values on a national level. This is a big deal now seeing as it is rumored that Perry will run in 2012 (not too sure of the outcome myself). This could mean two presidencies very close together from the great state of Texas. This clearly suggests (from this source) that our Texan politicians are doing a good job.
As for the author, Ted Cruz, he has an extensive political background. He is even running for the US Senate in 2012. This man has the knowledge required to write such an article. Being from Texas he is familiar with Perry's work and clearly favors him as a presidential candidate. 

 Back to the issue of answering to the World Court and the UN, I completely disagree with the idea. Governor Perry is correct to stand up against Obama. This is America; we broke away from Britain and gained our independence. Let’s not revert back to exactly what we ran away from. It seems to me like a reconstruction of the judiciary branch as extensive as Obama suggests would require many other changes in our laws. The whole situation seems ridiculous to me. We have the US Supreme Court for a reason, it is our highest court, and it is ruled by the will of the Constitution. We do not need outsiders telling us what our Constitution conveys. (The very Constitution that gave us our own laws not under British rule.)

Volkening: Why Texas Legislators Should Reject a Special Tax Exemption for Amazon

In this article from the Austin American Statesman commentary section, Ronnie Volkening argues that Amazon should have to pay taxes like every other Texas business. Volkening aims the article at the business owners in Texas. He wishes to evoke a mutual feeling, among Texas businesses, of rage and favoritism toward Amazon. Being a business owner himself, Volkening has a right to get upset with Amazon's special treatment. He pays his taxes and obviously feels cheated that another company is getting out of the large sums they "owe".  Seeing as Volkening is head of the Texas Retailers Association he surely knows his way around the back end of business dealings. He claims that with the Amazon headquarters in Irving, Texas, Amazon should have to pay the state for the sales tax it refuses to charge its customers. Volkening goes on to say that Amazon had already received property tax breaks when coming in Texas so the least they should be held accountable for is the sales tax. He further emphasizes that every Internet based company out of Texas has to charge sales tax on all their items. Because Amazon refuses to collect these taxes Volkening discusses how the Texas government has a right to locate and charge each individual a sales tax for each purchase they have made from Amazon. Of course, this is an empty threat because it would be very impractical and time consuming for the government to do so. The easier solution here would just be to charge Amazon like every other business in the state and require them to charge a sales tax as every other retailer in the state.

Of course, being in favor of capitalism, I see the reasons as to why Amazon does not charge the sales tax. If they can offer the same products as other retailers at a lower price and in a lot of cases free shipping, why would their customers go anywhere else? It’s a sound business decision. Offer the best prices and get the most gain. Then again I also understand the frustration of Volkening and other business owners. It is not fair for them to have to pay while another corporation is untouched by the state laws. So only to support fairness and offer a solution to the outrage of the situation I would advise the Texas Legislators to make Amazon pay up like everyone else. Yes, their idea was original. Yes, their company offers the best prices. And yes, they have headquarters all over the country. So they can certainly afford to pay the full property taxes and if they still refuse to charge sales tax to customers, they should be required to put up the money themselves. Again, being in favor of capitalism, admitting siding against them for the unfairness of a brilliant idea hurts my soul slightly. But I also side with fairness in equality of requirements. 

Packing Pistols: Is Texas Safer with More Licensed to Carry?

This article from the KVUE website talks about the right to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Texas.  The Texas legislature has already passed bills allowing handguns to be kept locked in cars. Now comes the issue of safety concerning concealed handguns. Lawmakers are in the process of debating whether or not to allow concealed weapons on college campuses. This article's purpose was to depict Texas as a safer place with the increase of concealed carry licenses. Data was provided to show that the homicide and rape rates have decreased in areas with more carry licenses. The article goes on to explain that even just the fact that anyone can be carrying now deters some criminals. It makes them think twice about whom to attack.

Personally, I think that on campus carrying is a decent idea. With the recent shootings and gun threats on UT and Texas A&M campuses this passed year, I think allowing students to protect themselves is fair. This article offers a good argument for the improved safety of the state as a whole with increased carry rates. For those unsure of their position here, there are a lot of regulations I do not believe the masses know about when it comes to receiving a carry license. This article as well as the regulations would be excellent literature to read for those who wish to understand more about the issue as well as for those who oppose carry licenses.