Blog Stage Seven: Original Commentary #2

A couple of weeks ago, Lauren Pierce (my sister) was on ABC News and all the local channels because of a tweet that she wrote. The tweet is shown above.

With one tweet, she had her fifteen seconds of fame.

As a result of her being the President of College Republicans at the University of Texas at Austin, her tweet received a lot of hype. Now, if she was just another random person that wasn't affiliated with a certain political group... would the tweet be on the news? I think not.

Most of the articles that were written about Lauren's tweet were titled:
"Lauren Pierce, President Of College Republicans At University Of Texas At Austin: Obama Assassination 'Tempting' ". (something to that effect)
The word that they emphasized was "Tempting".
As if she had a rifle in her hand and was saying let's go do it, y'all.
Of course, that was not the case. The emphasis on the word "tempting" was just to make a good headline and cause hype or interest.

In the words of my sister: "It must be a slow news day".

Power of the media.
A single quote will prompt calls from the secret service and the UT police.

The problem was that people didn't read her whole quote.
Perhaps, they were too dyslexic to read the entire quote.
Perhaps, they don't have a sense of humor.

Lauren received death threats and vulgar comments.
Behind a computer screen, people can be so vicious and horrible.
Where are the consequences for that?

People feel empowered when they're behind the computer screen, saying anything and everything they please. The reason for that is because there is no face to face interaction involved.

Tweeting, Facebook, and texting are now as common as talking except for one thing
- it's in writing.
Sure, people have the freedom to say anything, but they may face some unwanted consequences as a result. Freedom of Speech does not free you of being held accountable for what you say.

Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consist of  making "any threat to take the life of... or inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States".
No, Lauren wasn't threatening the President's life. She even said "... don't shoot Obama".

I find it funny that the people making those comments (more like insults) saying she's dumb and whatever else, are showing their low intelligence through their choice of words.

Their comments were stupid, funny, and untrue all at the same time. It's truly amazing.
Isn't it funny that people threatened her life because they believed that she threatened Obama's life?
How ironic.

As Harvey Danger's song Flagpole Sitta says: "been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding, the cretins cloning and feeding" and apparently using the computer to make harsh anonymous comments.
Yes, I did just use that quote because it was too "tempting".

Blog Stage Six: "Comment on Colleague's work"

In Travis' original editorial called "Ultimate Justice", he basically says that Texas should stop sentencing people to death which "is an outdated unmoral punishment that we need to rise above from and join the  rest of civilized society."

"We even lead the nation in the most executions of all time!"
"Hell, in Texas I believe that's a cause for celebration!"
Well, no. People would be celebrating if there were less murderers and attempted murders.
It's sort of ironic that you say hell because that's where most criminals go.

"Capital punishment... is actually 4 times more expensive to execute a person than to give them life."
That's a problem. We need to find cheaper ways to kill them. I suggest a bullet to the head or maybe two just in case. Seriously, there are so many restrictions about how to kill them because we try to reduce their pain and discomfort. Oh the irony! Did their victims have the same luxury? I don't think so.

"... while everyone else in the world is becoming more morally aware and civilized, we are applauding the fact that we execute more prisoners than any other state."
People get to go to court. We don't shoot them or hang them from a tree anymore like people used to do in the olden days. People who commit crimes deserve a punishment and ultimately nothing we, humans, decide is enough for a horrendous criminal.
Yes, only God can sort things out.

"Capital punishment is an outdated unmoral punishment that we need to rise above from and join the rest of civilized society."
Wait a second, immoral? There are rapists and murderers. And the people that believe they should be sentenced to death are, in your book, immoral? Wow.
I think that rapists get off with too short of a sentence and murderers well, they already did something immoral and uncivilized. Didn't they?

"We as a people need to open our hearts to rehabilitation instead of condemnation."
That part made me laugh a bit. Honestly, the only person who believes that everyone can still be saved and that there is hope for them to change is Jesus. I'm not Jesus. I don't think that everyone changes. Some psychopaths will be psychopaths. Other criminals could change and feel guilty, but it's a little too late.
Texas Chain Saw Massacre ring a bell?
Shall we open our hearts to them? No, they'll just eat them!

'As Nobel Peace Prize winner, Desmond Tutu quoted, "To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice." '
Murderers take lives, and we should just let them sit in jail and continue to live while their victims don't.
Come on! If someone murdered you, would you say Kum By Yah and wish them a long life where they are fed, clothed, housed, and breathing.

Everyone is going to die. The only question is when.
People who do heinous crimes deserve to get their lives shortened.
In the past, people were lucky if they lived until what we now call middle age. 

Ultimate justice is something that only God can deliver.
We only shorten the time span that people have on this earth.

Blog Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

I believe that the Texas government should adopt a new constitution (or significantly revise the 1876 one) for a number of different reasons:
-Too long and disorganized (467 amendments ratified)
-Amendments poorly written
-Limited executive power
-Part-time legislature
-Partisan election of judges
-Restrictions on local government

An example of how the Texas constitution is poorly written and confusing is a clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment that was designed to ban gay marriages, but it also endangers the legal status of all marriages in Texas.
"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
The wording of it effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas", including common-law marriages. It's a massive mistake and another amendment may be needed to reverse the problem.

A major step towards fixing the Texas constitution is an amendment authorizing the legislature to meet any time necessary to carry out its duties. The amendment should allow a just compensation for the members of the legislature so that more Texans can afford to serve. A legislator's salary of $7,200 per year, has not changed since 1975, affects who can afford to serve financially. Basically, provide longer legislative terms and better pay. The legislature is the foundation of state government and sets the policies that affect our live and the future of Texas.

Past attempts to revise the Texas constitution failed as a result of:
-the legislature was the constitutional convention
-the two-thirds rule
-right-to-work provision
-lack of political leadership

Why hasn't Texas rewritten/revised the constitution?
-Texan Mentality: If it ain't broke don't fix it.
-Texans have had low participation in special constitutional elections.
-Texans give little thought to changing the constitution because they are not prepared to deal with its complexity.
This mentality needs to change because Texas needs to revise the 1876 constitution into a clearer document.

Blog Stage Four: "State funding doesn't cover prisoner health care costs, officials say"

On the blog, Grits for Breakfast, a commentary was written about Texas' budget for prisoners' healthcare and how to cut costs. The audience: Texas taxpayers. The author believes that the best solution to this budget crisis is to parole older inmates, who have the higher healthcare costs.

UTMB is spending $2 million per month over the prison healthcare budget. Officials are making a new contract which will "provide medical care for Texas' imprisoned criminals." The Legislature's plan of $900 million isn't enough, so "top officials with the University of Texas... threatened to stop providing care unless adequate funding can be guaranteed."

The author gave names such as Dr. Kenneth Shine, Dr. David Callender, and Brad Livingston. By providing this evidence, I feel like the author is more creditable because he has sources. I agree that "the policy will actually increase demand for prisoner healthcare." The author did include a link to the policy which is supportive evidence.

"...'offenders 55 and older averaged $4,853 in yearly medical costs, while the average for those below that age was $795.' So to really get the most bang for the buck, paroling older offenders would generate the most savings in healthcare costs."

Is this editorial successful: No. Not in my eyes.
Even though the older inmates cost more, in healthcare, that doesn't mean we should parole them. That's not a good enough reason. No matter who you are, you should get the consequence that your crime deserves. I would rather have more prisoners be euthanized than be let out on the streets as free men. I don't want to pay for these horrible people's healthcare. Murderers and rapists shouldn't get parole. The prisoners, who are spending the remainder of their lives in prison, should be put to death.

The author did include a link to the recidivism report that supports the idea that "Older offenders also have much lower recidivism rates than ...younger inmates".

Author's Conclusion: "So for my money, the best budgetary and public-safety bang for the buck comes from releasing older offenders who... cost the state the most in healthcare services. Do I think the parole board will do that? Not really. But that's what would make the most sense."

This commentary didn't convince me that we should parole older prisoners to cut healthcare costs. Just because the statistics say that older offenders are more likely to not return to jail, doesn't mean that they aren't committing crimes. They've just gotten better at hiding them.

I hope the parole board has enough sense to not release offenders because of their age. This author has a money saving point of view and not a realistic point of view. Would this author want a bunch of old men/women, who committed heinous crimes, be released from prison earlier than they should? I hope not.

I definitely don't want to live in a state that would permit older offenders parole just for the sake of spending less money. Money isn't everything to me.

Blog Stage Three: "Editorial: Instead of fixing air issues, Texas sues EPA - again"

   In the Houston Chronicle's Editorial Section, a staff writer wrote this editorial in concern for the air pollution and environment. Their audience: Texas taxpayers and people concerned about the environment. The author supports EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and wants Texans to fix the air issues instead of suing EPA.

The author's main argument is that EPA is good. Texas is trying to avoid following EPA rules and that Texas sues instead of cleaning the air. Their argument relies on the assumption that the EPA is good and beneficial. The government has the responsibility to provide for the common good. Therefore, it's important that the government monitors air quality.

This editorial did provide some evidence to support their claims, but I found that some were blatantly misleading and unsubstantial.
"So Texans, home to 19 coal-fired power plants, the most in the nation, filed another lawsuit."
This "fact" is a fallacy. Pennsylvania has the most in the nation at 40 coal-fired power plants and many other states have more than Texas does.

"...EPA projections that cleaner air would save lives, create jobs and save about $100 billion a year..."
I didn't know that people died from breathing. How does cleaner air save lives?
No proof/evidence is provided. I would understand the assumption that less air pollution would decrease asthma, but not deaths. How would EPA create jobs when stated earlier in this article that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office and Luminant Generation Co. claimed that EPA rules "would result in loss of jobs". How would EPA save $100 billion a year? Doesn't the 'cleaner' machinery/techniques cost money?

I understand now that the author of this article is anonymous because they're no facts, just their opinions.
Is this editorial successful? No.
I do want clean air -who doesn't? But will the air ever truly be clean?
Not until the entire world joins together with clean air solutions, and even then the air is not going to be "clean". EPA can't fix the air. The air quality today is better than it was in the 1800s. In early times, people were polluting the Earth and that's the way it is. People are here on Earth to use its resources.

This editorial didn't convince me that Texans should comply with EPA and obey their rules. EPA puts the Americans' businesses at a disadvantage when they are forced to follow strict rules when their competitors, like China, don't have to follow all these regulations. Then there's no surprise when American businesses can't compete with the cheap prices thus they go out of business. All the trucks that travel to and from Mexico, through Texas, create pollution. Why aren't they talking about that?

Article's Conclusion: Texas is being unreasonable and should fix the air issues by following EPA rules.
EPA is the unreasonable one here and sorry we, yes even Texas, cannot clean the world's air. We cannot control the wind and the pollution, from other countries, that come with it.

Blog Stage Two: "Texas Slashes Financial Aid Funding for College Students"

  The state budget cuts include reducing the Texas school's loan and work-study programs by almost 14 million dollars. Program that were receiving about $1 billion last year (2010-11) will now have $879 million in the coming year (2012-13). A reduction of 15 percent. Under new rules, The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will be only be able to give grants to 30 percent of eligible students.

How Some Programs Are Effected:

• Work study, consists of 4,400 students, received $15 million.
• The Top 10 Percent Scholarship, given to 16,200 students who graduate high school in the top ten percent of their class , received $39.6 million. A 23 percent reduction from the previous funding, $51 million.
• The Texas Armed Services Scholarship, consists of 162 students, received $1.75 million.
• B-On-Time, given to 9,200 students who graduate within four years with a B average received $111.9 million. A reduction of 29 percent from the previous funding, $157.1 million.

   I would advise this article to anyone in college or planning to attend to see how the budget cuts might effect you. What does this mean for the college student? Less money, if you happen to qualify; and more of those pesky student loans.