Lower Drinking Age???

In the blog "Texas State and Local Government", Ross McEwen posted an entry titled "Drinking Age", stating that the drinking age should be lowered to 18.  I personally do not agree with this.  You stated right off the bat that the consumption of alcohol by a group of teenagers led to a severe car accident, and that right there is a prime example of why the drinking age shouldn't be lowered.  Teenagers for the most part don't know their limits,  and obviously don't make the best choices when under the influence, yet alone sober.

It was also stated that it would be good to have the age lowered because at 18 most live at home, and can drink in a controlled environment.  That's really not the case though.  At the age of 18 most are on their way out the door, on their way to college or elsewhere.  If you ask me, that is the wrong time to have someone start drinking.  Many more things need to be focused on, and alcohol will only cloud that.  It is obvious though, that a controlled environment won't always be good, because in the case of the car accident, that should have been a controlled environment.  It didn't do anyone any good, it left kids with brain damage,  broken bones, and partial blindness.  We should all just be grateful that no one died.

Unconcealed Weapons

In Texas when you have a license to carry a gun, you are required to keep it concealed, but that could soon change.  The open-carry bill has been gaining some major traction, and now has plans to go to the full house for consideration.  If this law is passed, then those that are licensed to carry a gun will be able to do so with said weapon in plain view.  Most other states do have an open-carry law of some sort intact, in fact Texas is only one of seven states that does not have one.  But just because everyone else has one, does that mean that we need to follow suit?

Rep. George Lavender, and other advocates, have stated that open-carry would help deter crime.  I happen to disagree with that statement.  If someone wants to reach for that gun, it would be that much easier to do so.  If a person, not licensed to carry a gun decides they want to commit a crime of some sort, and are in need of a gun, it would be that much easier for them to gain access to one.  They will be able to see who has taken opportunity with open-carry and make a decision on who their best target would be.  In a state like Texas, that is so big and has so many highly populated cities, (Austin, Houston, and Dallas) the risk is just so big.

If an open-carry law is passed, it could also cause people to be on edge.  Though a gun can't be carried everywhere, a gun being out in the open in the places that they are aloud could definitely cause anxiety to those that are around.  I have personally lost someone who died because they were shot with a gun that the shooter was licensed to have, and I don't need to be put on edge when I see someone with a gun.  Society associates guns with things such as crime, death, and murder.  If you are not a cop, or in that sort of job field where it is required of you to carry a gun, why is it even necessary for one to be carried, especially unconcealed?

This bill has been gaining some ground, but I don't think that it is necessary.  If someone has to carry a gun it shouldn't be a problem for them to conceal it.  I can't think of any reason that someone would need to carry a gun out in the open. 

Yes To Drug Testing!!!

In a blog posted on the Texas Republic Times titled Drug Testing, the author speaks on House Bill 126.  This is a bill that would require those filing for unemployment to pass a drug test before they can receive any of those benefits.  Though some valid points are made, and it definitely does seem that the main point of this bill is to try and save the government money, I agree with the bill.

Many jobs require passing a drug test, so why should getting the benefits of unemployment be any different?  The whole point of unemployment is to help a person survive until they find their next job.  They provide you with not only a check, but with resources to help you find a job quicker.  Now, if people can't pass a drug test to get a job, then they have been wasting their money and resources on people that are just going to continue to eat up the funds.  By drug testing they can assure that the people they are assisting will more than likely go on to find jobs, and much more quickly, while weeding out those that won't.  Yes, the government is trying to save itself money, but the way I look at it, it's just another way they are assisting in helping people find jobs more quickly.  If someone can't collect unemployment, they will be that much more focused on finding a job.

How much is a soda really worth???

Texas lawmakers have proposed a new tax on soda.  This tax would increase the price of soda by one cent per ounce of the sugary substance.  That means you are charged 12 cents per can, so if you are buying a six-pack, or a twelve-pack for example, you will be charged a tax of 12 cents on every single can.  This tax would not apply to those that are sold in restaurants, cafeterias, or other places of that nature.  All money made off of this tax will be put into the general revenue fund, which is basically the main fund that receives government revenue.  That means the state can pretty much use that money for any purpose it decides to designate it too.

Now, to the real questions....Is this tax on soda a good idea and how might it affect the public?

Honestly, I don't think that it will have that big of an impact on the public and their consumption of soda.  Those avid soda drinkers are going to more than likely consume the same amount, regardless of the price.  Those that feel they need those several sodas a day for that caffeine boost may not like the tax, but they will still buy them.  If the tax does happen to cause them to cut back to fewer sodas a day, then I see that as a good thing.  It will not only save then a little bit of money, but help to improve their health in the long run.  There is no nutritional value in soda, it is nothing but sugar and empty calories.  It would benefit the public to cut back.

So for those people that continue to consume soda on a daily basis, you will be helping the state out.  That tax will add up and somewhat increase the state budget, so in the long run that will benefit the state of Texas and the people living in it.

For those that do end up cutting back because of the tax, or stop drinking them all together, it could do good things for your health.  It could not only help people shed some pounds, but also help decrease the rates at which people become diabetic.

I see nothing negative coming from this tax.  In the long run it helps out everyone, and only pisses off those that can't break the habit.

Texas Schools

On the Burnt Orange Report, in the blog titled Education: Tell It Like It Is, Michael Hurta writes about how Republicans in Texas have basically made a huge mess out of public schools, even stating that "Texas Republicans have put our schools on the Titanic."  He states that though the "GOP" is making attempts at managing the budget, this management is in no way going to benefit education.

He uses excellent  examples to make his point.  One of his sources is the "Nothing, Daddy..." video, which is a video ad against Republican cuts to public schools.  They want to basically eliminate  pre-kindergarten, close several schools, cut back on teachers, and make class room sizes 35 and bigger.  Another statement Hurta posted said that "Texas is in the deepest budget hole seen in recent memory", with billions less to take care of things like public schools.  Hurta also states that Democrat, Scott Hochberg, is the only one who has even attempted to come up with a solution to the problem.  This solution wouldn't exactly solve the problem, but it would at least put all school districts on a more equal level.

The main point, is that the public knows about this.  Not that something necessarily be done now, just that the public knows so that plans can be made.  I am glad that someone is at least making an attempt to fix things, even if it can't happen right away.  The problem is something that is just to big to fix itself over night.  Education is so important, the future depends on the kids in school now.  Huge cuts will still be made, and there still will be problems.  The public is becoming aware now, and the Democrats are going to make it more known, taking us in the right direction to put things back together for the future of our state.

If Budget Cuts Ax AP Courses, Will It Be That Bad???

In an editorial on statesman.com titled "Spare Advance Placement courses" the author wants to make the point that AP or Advance Placement classes are a very important, and much needed part of high school that is very benefiting to many students.  The author points out that many budget cuts are going to be made, and doesn't want Advance Placement courses to fall into that group of cuts.  They also made the point to state that in the American-Statesman it was reported that "42,000 Texas high school students earned college credits utilizing the Advanced Placement program last year.", and then moved on to state that those students that took AP courses are three times more likely to graduate college in four years, and earn their degrees quicker than those that don't.

Now, these are all very good points, but cuts do have to be made.  Dual credit courses, which are very very similar to AP courses are another option.  If AP courses do need to be cut, students can get the same benefits from dual credit, which have even taken the place of some of the AP courses at some of the high schools already.  They benefit just as much as the AP courses, and in by opinion they are better.  In high school I took both AP and dual credit courses, and the dual credit much better prepared me for college, while giving me that high school and college credit.  In the AP classes, you do all that hard work, and at the end of the year you take one test that decides if you get that college credit, regardless of whether you did college worthy work all year or not. 

Yes, AP classes are good, and yes they have helped many students advance their education, but if cuts are made to them, it could be a lot, or could be very few.  Either way, it is not the end of the world.  Adjustments can be made, and there are other options to be had.

Government: Too Involved in Abortion

In an article on statesman.com, "Senate committee moves sonogram bill on, with amendments", it is reported that a new bill was amended by the Senate in reference to abortions.  Sen. Dan Patrick proposed this anti-abortion bill that originally required women seeking an abortion (except in special cases such as rape) to receive a sonogram.  Physicians were required to show the sonogram to the woman seeking the abortion, along with the fetal heartbeat, and a description of the fetus.

As I stated before, the bill was amended, but with some adjustments.  The physicians must offer the sonogram image, fetal heartbeat, and a description, but the patient can refuse this.  The only part that will be absolutely required is the fetal description.

The goal of this bill, I'm sure, is to reduce the abortion rates, but it just cruel.  If a woman is seeking an abortion, she has no doubt gone back and forth with the issue, and subjecting them to a sonogram would be inflicting unnecessary pain on someone who is already in turmoil about the issue.  Something to think about: If you have a pregnant fourteen year old daughter and abortion is the route you take, you don't want to show a child an image of her unborn to add to the guilt she probably already feels.

This is an issue that should be left to those involved, and the government shouldn't tangle itself within it.  Every situation is different, and they shouldn't make a hard decision even harder.

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/senate-committee-moves-sonogram-bill-on-with-amendments-1244357.html