Driving Contradiction

You picked a great topic, Vanessa! Having been a victim of a hit and run accident myself I completely agree with you that the state of Texas needs to take action to fight this huge problem. You make a good point when you say that by allowing undocumented people to receive a driver’s permit they would then be able to purchase insurance which could prevent a lot of hit and runs in the future. The idea in itself might work out in theory, but realistically speaking HB 3206 would really be against the law. 

First of all, illegal immigrants are “illegal” so they shouldn’t even be in this country in the first place.  Why is it against the law for immigrants to live here without any papers but at the same time it is ok for them to be literally rewarded with a driver’s license? This just does not make any sense whatsoever!  

Furthermore, the price is an issue, too. The driver’s permit costs $150. Undocumented people obviously do not have a visa or a work permit so most of the time they have to settle on underpaid jobs with which they can barely make ends meet. If they can’t even afford their rent or food for their entire family, how are they going to afford a $150 driver’s permit let alone insurance? In all honesty, they are still going to keep driving without a license and without insurance which will not take care of the hit and run issue.

It is apparent that something needs to be done to prevent hit and run accidents from happening which are mainly caused by undocumented drivers. However, giving them a driver’s license won’t solve the problem. I really think that the state of Texas and the federal government should focus more on tightening its borders as well as on preventing immigrants to enter the country illegally. I agree with Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo who noted that the HB 3206 proposal is “primarily an immigration situation” which needs to be taken care of on the immigration level.

Driving While Intexticated

According to recent statistics 39 out of 50 states prohibit all drivers from sending text messages while driving. In some Texas cities, like Austin, cell phones have already been banned.

The Austin American Statesman published the article “House Approves Statewide Ban on Texting WhileDriving” on April 17^th, 2013. I have to say that I am utterly shocked that this has not been a statewide law thus far and I cannot believe that Rick Perry turned this very bill down two years ago. It is more than obvious that texting while driving is just plain dangerous. It only takes one quick second to look at your text message, but in this quick second you can cause a quick accident that could even be fatal. By texting while driving you are not only putting yourself at risk but other drivers as well. It is simply irresponsible to “play” with your phone in whatever shape or form while you are operating a vehicle. Your hands should be on the steering wheel and your eyes should be on the road. Text messages can wait until you reach your destination or if it’s really that important have the decency to pull over and not put your own life and that of others at risk. I completely agree with state Rep. Tom Craddick that this bill is all about “public safety and saving lives.” Furthermore, I agree that hands free devices should be allowed so long the driver’s eyes stay on the road. Texting is by far on of the biggest distractions since you actually have to look at your phone in order to write a text message.

According to Rick Perry “the key to dissuading drivers from texting while driving is information and education, not government micromanagement.” I would have to disagree with this. On the one hand, it is important to educate people and provide information on this issue, but on the other hand I strongly believe that without a law banning texting while driving people would keep doing it thinking they could get away with it. I am confident that this bill would be the only way to prevent this. Critics say that “a ban on texting while driving would make it too easy for police officers to pull over Texans.” I say it’s a good thing – maybe people will start being more careful. And let’s face it, it is already too easy for the police to pull someone over.

All in all, I think it would be a really smart move for the Senate to approve this bill and hopefully Rick Perry will start grasping the importance of this bill as well. After all, like Craddick says it is about “public safety and saving lives” which to me that is reason enough to pass this bill.

No Plastic Is Fantastic

Great blog, Lisa! I completely agree with your opinion on banning plastic bags in Austin. Can you imagine how much trash these plastic bags produce? I really think it will help protect the environment. Growing up in Europe I know how advanced they are over there when it comes to recycling and protecting the environment. Countries such as Germany and Italy have banned plastic bags for many years. Just like in Austin today, you have to bring your own bags or pay to purchase a bag which is how it should be. I am very excited that Austin is taking a step in the right direction by taking this initiative. However, in order to make a difference and really help to protect the environment this entire country needs to make an effort to do so. One city alone is not going to have as much of an impact. The Blog “No Bag for You: The Stupidity of BanningPlastic Bags” shows that there are still several ignorant people out there who simply don’t care about saving our planet for our future generations. Hopefully this mindset will change soon and that the entire United States will follow the city of Austin. Banning plastic bags will give people a sense of awareness for the environment, help reduce trash and like you said it will prevent ducks from getting strangled in them.

Say-No-Grams

According to the State Health Services “about 75,000 abortions were performed in Texas in 2010, the latest year for which statistics are available.” There are various reasons for why a woman chooses to have an abortion such as no money to raise a child, having been a rape victim or not wanting to be a single parent.

NBCNews published an article on February 2^nd, 2012 that Texas has begun to enforce a strict anti-abortion sonogram law. This means that the doctor performing the abortion has to conduct a sonogram beforehand showing the woman images of the fetus and making her listen to the heartbeat. By employing this law the state hopes that more women will change their mind about aborting the baby and keeping it instead. 

Is this law really going to affect a woman’s decision overall? Let’s think about it for a second. There is no doubt that the woman walking into an abortion clinic already made up her mind as to whether she should keep the baby or get rid of it. She should be the only one to decide what is best for her and her life. If she feels that an abortion is the right thing for her, then she should do it and not even the sonogram law should try to change her mind.

Rochelle Tafolla, spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast said “emotions range from confusion to anger to being quite emotionally upset by it. Having to hear the position described of fetal development is not something they are wanting to endure.”  Now the question is, why do you have to put pregnant women through more than they already have to go through? Whatever the reason for abortion is, it is a good enough reason for the woman to do it. Let’s get real! What’s worse: a woman getting an abortion because she is not apt to raise that child for whatever reason OR the woman being “talked” into having the child through a sonogram, then neglecting and resenting it all her life. Who knows that child could turn into a mass murderer one day as a consequence of growing up in a broken home. Do we really want that?
The legislature needs to just realize that sonograms  are redundant here, takes up a lot of doctors’ time that they could be using to help people instead and costs the government a lot of money.  Why don’t we take those funds somewhere else and invest in the public health care system for example? What do you say, Texas?

Texas Legislators Encourage Smoking

According to the American Cancer Society tobacco use is responsible for nearly 1 in 5 deaths in the United States. Because cigarette smoking and tobacco use are acquired behaviors − activities that people choose to do – smoking is the most preventable cause of death in our society. 

State Senator Carlos Uresti proposed a bill to raise the minimum age to buy cigarettes from 18 to 21. In his article “BREAKING: legislators stunned to find that anti-smoking bill causes reduction in smoking” posted Feb. 19, on the Texas political blog Letters from Texas the author Harold Cook voices his opinion about the legislators turning down Uresti’s bill. According to the fiscal note it would cost the state over $20 million a year in lost revenue, if less people were to buy cigarettes and pay less cigarette taxes, thus the bill is not acceptable. 

Cook uses sarcasm in his article to show his rage about the legislators’ decision. He believes that they should take a look at the big picture when making this decision.  He states that in the long run more money could be saved. The government constantly complains about all the expenses towards treating people who get sick from smoking and who depend on the public health care system. Cook makes a valid point that just by reducing the use of tobacco products the state is not actually losing money, but investing in people’s health which would overall reduce the health care costs.

All in all, I agree with the author. His arguments are strong, straightforward and convincing. He does an excellent job of ridiculing the legislators and making the reader see that turning down Uresti’s bill was a big mistake. However, there is one thing that I would have liked Cook to do differently in his article. He could have added some numbers showing to the audience how much of a negative effect tobacco really has on people. 

In conclusion, I thought this was a solid article that does a great job of presenting the issue at hand. The legislators should have done the “right thing” and thought about the future instead of just thinking about the “right now.”