stage 8- final blog

I am responding to my fellow classmate's blog titled Crime Rate in Killeen. Robert was going to move to Killeen but then changed his mind due to the high crime rate of the town. He then explains there are many questions without answers about the crime rate. This is where I become a bit confused. "...Fort Hood Army Base near Killeen and many service personnel and their families living in Killeen, could this have an effect on the high crime rate?" At this point, I felt like my classmate was connecting the high crime rate with the fact that there are soldiers living in and near Killeen. "Soldiers are young and kill the “enemy” while at war and again they are expected to return to life as though nothing had happened to them while they were at war." And this is where I begin to disagree with him. Yes, soldiers are trained to survive, meaning doing what is necessary to keep themselves as well as their comrades alive. And, yes, post traumatic stress disorder is something that many soldiers face after coming home from war, but this does not mean it is a cause of high crime. He then implies the soldiers are still in the war mindset without a chance to have a smooth transition back into society and this is a direct correlation to the crime rate. I adamantly disagree with this. For example, I come from the small mountain town of Ruidoso, NM. There hasn't been a solved murder there in years, honestly I don't even know if there has ever, besides a confession. Yet, there is not a military base near there. Crime is not a correlation with military bases, it is a correlation with people's morals, environments, and mental status. I think it is absurd and insulting to blame Killeen's crime rate on the soldiers that come home from protecting our rights.

Blog stage 7- blood testing justification

There is a bill in some Texas counties that allows trained officers to draw blood if there is suspicion of drunk driving. Some of the counties have it on "no refusal" times, usually during holidays, some on on all weekends, and others year-round. First, if a person refuses a breathalyzer, which many lawyers recommend, the police officer has the right to perform a forced blood drawing. If this is the case, the officer must first obtain a search warrant by a waiting judge, and then transport the suspect to a heath department, a hospital, or a "clean room" in the police station. Depending where they are transported to, either a nurse or a trained officer will perform the test. I want to start by addressing the breathalyzer. Any lawyer will tell you to refuse one because 1) they are inaccurate and 2) if the person passed the tests (walk the line, touch your nose, and so on) the lack of breathalyzer makes it easier to over-turn the DWI. Now, an officer offers you a breathalyzer, and you refuse, knowing it is in your best interest. What they did not mention, however, is if you refuse, you automatically set yourself up for a blood test. A call is made to a waiting judge, the search warrant is issued, and, before you know it, you are being approached with a man/woman with a needle. Again, depending on the county this can happen only on holidays, on weekends, or year-round. Now, this is bogus. It goes against many rights. To have something forcefully entered into your veins against your consent just because you refused a breathalyzer goes against so many personal rights. To me, it is a set up. Take the breathalyzer, and you are most likely going to get a reading that will put you in a "guilty" position and left facing DWI charges. Refuse the breathalyzer (thinking the loss of the licence is better than the DWI), you set yourself up for a forced blood test. The blood tests have given a 100% DWI conviction rate. This takes rights away. Yes, drunk drivers are deadly and should be taken off the road, but not in a way that also takes our constitutional rights away- a fair trial. This is only part of my concern. Ok, they say the officers are trained, but it takes many practices before a person is able to "stick" successfully. Not to mention, that if the person is drunk, they are most likely dehydrated, making it even harder to get a successful "stick". All- in-all, this bill wories me. I understand the government wanting to keep its citizens safe, but to what extent is it willing to go to accomplish this? Apparently, they dont mind bending their OWN rules and regulations to do so.

Stage 6- critique on classmate's blog

My fellow classmate Whitney chose to do her commentary on the issue of tax dollars paying for abortions. First of all, I do like the fact that she is for woman's choice- not pro abortion or against abortion, but, instead, realizing it is for the woman (and some input of the "father") to decide if the decision of the abortion is the correct one in each individual circumstance. She goes on to say that she would not choose to have one, and I think this can create a bias when deciding on the issue of taxes funding abortions. Of course, one would not support "hard earned tax dollars" going to something that he/she does not believe in. But the fact remains, it is still a medical procedure that many cannot afford. She says she thinks that the money should go to more deserving things such as police protection, streets, and public health. I feel like abortion is a deserving issue because it is an issue of public health. In many cases of abortion, the woman chose to have it because she knew and realized there is no possible way (emotionally, financially, physically, maturity, etc.) to take care of a baby. Many say these reasons are selfish and the mother does not take into consideration the baby's feelings and personal choice. But I feel like the opposite: Choosing to have a baby because they cannot admit that they are just not ready is the real selfishness. Why bring something so innocent and pure into a world where there is not proper care available? This brings me back to the issue of tax dollars. If a woman is to rely on public health care for the baby's care this can become way more expensive than the initial abortion. In other words, if a woman chose to have a baby because there was no way to pay for an abortion, i.e. contracts not being passed for tax dollars to help pay for abortions, than the amount of money invested in her, her pregnancy, and after the child is born increases greatly. I think by passing theses contracts, it gives a woman even more personal choice. Yes, it is a woman's choice completely to have an abortion or not; the government should have no part in controlling that choice. Yet, when things aren't passed to help aid women, isn't this a form of indirect control?

blog stage 5-- Capital Punishment: Is it enough?

There are so many different things to discuss when it comes to politics, so I chose to stick with the theme of my last blog, and that is capital punishment. In Texas, the only way someone can be sentenced to death is if they commit a capital murder by committing a capital offense. In other words, the person has to knowingly commit murder or knowingly cause a death under special circumstances. In most cases, I do believe an "eye for an eye" approach to such things because I put myself in the victim's family's position. Imagine knowing the person who raped and murdered your child. I would not hesitate to say I would want the SOB dead. What issue of capital punishment, in my eyes, is more about the contradiction of it. How can such a gruesome of a crime be repaid by simply taking a shot, falling asleep, and never waking up? It doesn't seem like a fair trade to the family; knowing their family member suffered so much right before his/her death, and then watching the killer fall asleep peacefully. It sounds harsh, but I think the punishment should at least compare to the harshness of the crime. Also, the length of the appeals process gives ample time for the person to "come to peace with what he/she did". As a Christian, this means you can still go to Heaven, and many times this is what these pathetic people are doing while waiting for their death. This is a selfish act, and I think 9 times out of 10 it has more to do with looking repentful for the appeals court. Now don't get me wrong, I think anything that can help people who have committed crimes get out of that "crime is a way of life" mindset and better their surrounding when they are released should be supported, and this includes religion. What I do not agree with, however, is that someone on death row clings to this because they are on death row.
So all-in-all, I think there could be a better way to approach capital punishment cases. I am not saying the killer should be tortured to death, but at least have a more comparable death to that of which he/she caused.

stage four

The blog I chose was in Grits for Breakfast titled Rick Perry's Execution Review Method: What Sharon Keller Says Goes. The case of Todd Willingham and his accused arson charges is one of great debate these days because of Perry's all out ignorance of a seemingly innocent man. I liked this blog because it does address Texas' almost need for capital murder trials and the death penalty. This state has always had an "eye for an eye" type of view point and at times it isn't about the innocence or guilt but, instead, about the revenge. This blogger states it perfectly, "The public supports the death penalty and innocence cases won't/don't sway that view". This is so true, but at what point does Texas' revenge policy become over-kill (pardon the pun)? Actually, right now-in this case. Perry was presented with evidence that could have not only saved a man's life but also let a free man walk out of prison. Instead he ignored it. It wasn't because he had overwhelming evidence of his guilt. He said it was because all the courts reviewed the case and there wasn't enough evidence to sway the decision. As the blogger points out it wasn't all the courts; it was one. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He then goes on to point out some other cases where this court clearly misjudged to prove the point of ignorance. I especially liked how it was ended because it leaves one to think about the seriousness of this case. If we are led by a man whose decisions about something so important are based on the opinion of one, in this case Sharon Keller, how are we to be confident in his leadership? That's just it, we absolutely can't.

Stage 3

I read an article in the editorial section of the Statesman called Another Tragic Reminder. The article is about a man, Jing Hu, who left his 18 month old child, Daniel, in his car, and forgot about him. Yes, forgot he was in there. He was driving to the daycare to drop little Daniel off when he received a phone call claiming he did not pay a utility bill. He became so distracted by the argument that was taking place between himself and the person claiming his forgetfulness about the bill that he bypassed daycare and drove straight to work. Instead of realizing his mistake before walking in and taking him to daycare then, he neglected to even notice his only child in the back seat. It was not until hours later when he realized his errors. By that time the scorching Austin heat had taken the baby's life.
I get a sense from how the author of this editorial is writing that he is on Mr. Hu's side because the supporting evidence he brings up is about how distracted our lives are and what will finally bring us to slow down and notice life passing by. Yes, this person is deeply moved by the story of little Daniel, but it has more to do with how the vividly the reporter gave the story. His/her editorial begins by saying how well written the article was about Daniel, but still "a hard read" considering what it was about. In my opinion, this person has his wires a little crossed. Hearing that a man forgot about his only child in the back seat of his car pretty much pisses me off. How on earth does that happen? Busy or not, distracted or not, everyone has things and activities and errands and bills and problems that they have to face. Personally, simply remembering my child (if I had one) would NOT be included in this list of responsibilities. The editorial argument is on the side of the father in a way that he is literally justifying the forgetfulness by offering little tid-bits on how to remember your child. For instance, "put a diaper bag on the front seat to remind yourself" or "put your purse on the back seat so you remember." Really? I assume his target audience is the other parents that frequently forget their children in the car because of his awesome advice on how to avoid that. OK, enough sarcasm, clearly I don't agree with him/her. As far as the credibility goes, I don't really think it exists because I get the feeling he/she does not have children. For someone to give advice on how to avoid forgetting your child, I feel like they need to be a parent. All in all, I was upset to hear that people in this world are so caught up in their minuscule problems that they are doing something as ridiculous as forgetting a child in a scorching car. The author of the editorial needs to rethink his/her approach and realize that its not about this "fast pace" lifestyle that everyone seems to hold but more about people's lack of common sense.

Stage two

This article was in El Paso Times and discusses the so called "war on drugs" in Mexico from the Mayor of Juarez, Jose Reyes Ferriz, point of view. It basically states that Mexico has tried time and time again to stop the flow of drugs into the United States but we have done little to nothing to reduce it. For the past 20 months, Juarez has had to endure mass killings of civilians, police officers, government officials, as well as people involved in the drug cartel, all because it has become priority to stop the flow of marijuana, cocaine, and heroine into the United States. The mayor, however, feels like their actions are not being compensated by the US. In a sense, our "need" for the drugs is what's fueling the flow of the drugs, and therefor, the killings in Mexico. We send inconsistent signals about illegal drug use by stating we want it to stop but then not prosecuting people who are doing them. i.e. Michael Phelps smoking the bong. Anyways, Ferriz feels like it is time for the United States to become more active in this war.
What does this have to do with Texas? Well, I feel like because we are a main border state, quite a bit of this pressure is going to fall on us. The fact that Juarez is stone-throwing distance form El Paso says a lot. Yes, it should be considered a national matter, but because this will definitely be affecting Texas, it becomes quite personal.