Punishment Without Hypocrisy

In a blog post titled, “Capital Punishment: Retribution for the Righteous,” Tammy Huang writes about the topic of Capital Punishment. She talks about how this penalty exists primarily to deter people from committing drastic crimes such as murder, with which I do agree, but unfortunately I have to say that this method is quite antiquated and ineffective.

First off, I strongly believe that two wrongs don’t make a right. I certainly agree that people who commit such offenses must be punished, but when we turn around and murder someone for murdering another, aren’t we actually encouraging these acts through sheer hypocrisy? The whole point of the law is that we as humans do not hold the right to take life from another, regardless of how we feel about them.

The other point that I’d like to make kind of ties in with the last one. Huang talks about striking a middle ground for these criminals and giving them the choice of death by lethal injection, or life in prison. If it were up to me, I would honestly do things a bit differently. I would not offer the option of death at all—especially by lethal injection. It’s too easy and painless. The real punishment would be to let these people spend countless hours confined to a place where they are stripped of their freedom, and have no choice but to come face to face with their own conscience.

Texans Will Now Hit-And-Render-Aid

Earlier today an article titled, “In an Accident, Drivers Have New Reasons Not to Run,” was published by the Texas Tribune. The article covers a new legislation that will be going into effect on September 1 involving hit-and-run accidents. From that day forward, drivers involved in hit-and-run incidents will have a much greater incentive to stick around and help the injured parties. The incentive is fueled behind an increase in penalty for injuring another person and fleeing the scene.

Justin Dehn states that, “currently, it is a third-degree felony, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The new law raises the offense to a second-degree felony, with a maximum penalty of 20 years. Another new law makes failure to stop and render aid after an accident that may have caused injury punishable by up to 10 years.”

Surprisingly, this new piece of legislation was a no-brainer for both democrats and republicans, which is likely due to the trial of a former legislative staff member. Gabrielle Nestande was responsible for the death of a 30-year-old Austinite by the name of Courtney Griffin. She was found guilty of the crime, and then was later acquitted for various reasons.

Quite frankly, I find it saddening that it takes a situation like this for new legislation to be passed for something that practically came down to common sense for all of the involved parties. I am definitely on board with this new legislation, and can only hope that we don’t continue to make new laws to prevent wrongs which have already taken place. We need to become much more proactive and set a new standard for Texans.

Perry's Middle Leans Right

While I do agree for the most part with the student who authored the blog post titled, “Lets Meet in the Middle,” I think there are a few points that can be argued here. On one hand, I can certainly see how pro-choice supporters’ actions can be viewed as a bit extreme. However, given the circumstances these supporters face, I do sympathize with their situation. Anyone who faces a Texas-sized opposition to their cause would very likely kick and scream and wear all of the bells and whistles to try and impress upon them that it is a very sensitive and important issue that they are passionately fighting for.

The other point I’d like to argue is that in my opinion, this piece of legislation actually does have a drastic effect on abortions in the state of Texas. There will only be a handful of clinics who will pass the new standards and the rest will have to either pull a major overhaul or be put to rest. This in turn will leave the masses of women in Texas who seek abortion procedures only a few clinics to choose from, and with their high volume of patients, these clinics will have to turn the majority of them away.  

Transportation Road Bump

Earlier today the Austin American Statesman published an article titled, “Lawmakers Reach Deal on Transportation Funds,” written by Chris Tomlinson of The Associated Press. The article speaks about how negotiators from the House and Senate have proposed to divert income from Texas’ Rainy Day Fund in order to increase the budget for our roads and bridges.  This may sound like a cut-and-dry decision, however it will in fact require an amendment to the constitution because it strictly dictates where oil and gas revenues are directed, and transportation is an entirely new direction.

On one hand, it makes sense to make these infrastructural improvements because Texas is currently growing at one of the fastest rates in the country and we could definitely use the funding. On that same token, the reason they need a two-thirds vote to enact it is due to a transportation budget shortfall, which indicates bigger problems could lie ahead. The Rainy Day Fund is definitely there for situations like this, but if it becomes a recurring theme then it turns into something entirely different.

They need to take a serious look at our transportation budget and find other, more permanent, means of acquiring funding. It is for that reason that I am ok with allocating these funds as a one time, hole-plugging solution, but if the constitutional amendment is voted into passing, that means that they are free to funnel these funds any time they desire. And since the Republicans refuse to even consider raising taxes, it is definitely a sticky situation. I can only hope that our budget allocations will be handled more responsibly going forward.

They're Not Lying, You're Just Assuming

David Jennings of Big Jolly Politics authored a blog post a couple of weeks ago titled, “Planned Parenthood Lies about Sen. John Carona, Tells Truth about Mixing Funds.” In his post, Jennings bashes on Democrats and accuses Planned Parenthood of lying; all telltale signs of Republicans being his target audience.

Jennings is quick to point the finger at Planned Parenthood for supposedly lying on a few ads they have been publishing on the web, but singles out one in particular. “The ad features Republican Sen. John Carona’s, R-Dallas, face alongside a woman’s and reads, “A Texas health center’s cancer screening could save her life. Closing the health center could further Sen. Carona’s political ambition. Act now before Friday’s vote.”

Then he proceeds to toss a few facts around including that “[the] abortion clinics, by law, are separate entities and must be separately funded from health centers where cancer screenings take place.” He includes a quote from Justine Sessions of Planned Parenthood in which she states that some health care clinics are in the same building as abortion clinics, and as a result could also be forced to shut down.

Jennings immediately chooses to use her quote as an admittance of guilt that they were in fact lying in their ads, and even goes on to accuse Planned Parenthood of “[mixing] their funds and [that] taxpayer money was used to support abortion.” However, I personally see no justification in accusing them of lying just because of that. There could be a laundry list of reasons for both clinics to be physically housed within the same building, and thus the collapse of one ultimately meaning the same for the other. It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that funds were being mixed, especially when he is the one to point out the fact that both clinics are separate entities by law and thus must be funded accordingly.

Perry's Hate Hurts Texans

Earlier this month, the Houston Chronicle’s editorial staff released an opinion article titled, “A Texas Trail to Nowhere.” Though the author’s name is not mentioned in the reading, he or she clearly wrote the article with a predominantly democratic audience in mind. The author talks about how Governor Rick Perry hates Obamacare so much that he had no problem turning down a federal subsidy that would have provided Medicaid to almost 2 million Texans who need it the most.

They also go on to point out that “Republicans argue that Medicaid is a broken system. But if Texas Medicaid is broken, it's because Texas broke it. Our state, not the feds, controls matters such as the amount doctors are paid, the complexity of the paperwork involved and efforts to crack down on fraud. If Texas wanted to fix Medicaid, it could.”

I too have to agree with the author’s argument. This is an issue which could be properly addressed if Texas really wanted to. But with Perry turning down free money and denying assistance to his own people in need, it becomes quite clear that there is no desire to improve the situation at that level. And just as the author suggests, Perry’s arrogance leaves our “federal tax dollars to subsidize Medicaid expansion in other states but not [even] our own,” which just leaves us behind on a dead end road.

The author chooses to end the article on a hopeful note – that maybe, just maybe, the reasoning behind all this is that Perry might have some better ideas stashed away for providing Americans’ healthcare at the presidential level. I seriously doubt it, but let’s hope he does have something good up his sleeve to redeem himself.

Texas Kills

On June 26^th, the Houston Chronicle published an article by Allan Turner titled, “500^th Killer Put to Death by Texas.” The article speaks about a woman named Kimberly McCarthy who had been a convicted killer, and after almost 16 years of incarceration, was given a lethal injection which made her the five-hundredth murderer to be put to death by the state of Texas. The article is interesting because it highlights the grotesquely massive number of executions which have been carried out by the state. And as it turns out, Texas is and has been leading in the murder-for-murder numbers since 1930. Some interesting perspectives were also provided by supporters of the death penalty, which allow an insight into the reasoning for backing a punishment which has already been deemed unconstitutional by many states. As one supporter states, “if you take a life, justice needs to be done. It's an eye for an eye,” which in my opinion just screams hypocrisy. I for one agree with Rev. Peter Johnson, [who says] that “the death penalty is not only economically stupid. It says something about our moral fiber. ... The solution to murder cannot be murder.”