In response to Lisa Callahan's blog post, "Tragic Timing":

        While Mr. Ohman’s cartoon may have seemed somewhat insensitive, it is his job as a political commentator to occasionally stir up emptions and controversy in order to get his point across.  While it may seem a bit too soon to make macabre jokes about the West Texas explosion, it is crucial that a political commentator strike while a pressing issue is still hot.  In this case, Mr. Ohman is relying on people’s emotions to still be running strong for him to play on their pathos for his point to be made: this state’s lax oversight laws are largely responsible for the tragedy that occurred.

     It is estimated that the fertilizer plant was storing at least 1,350 times over the maximum legal limit of ammonium nitrate at the time, and had a long history of noncompliance with state and federal safety laws.  There are dozens of reports of the plant making unsafe violations such as venting ammonia without permits, failing to meet deadlines for risk management plans, mislabeling hazardous material storage tanks, and moving lethal chemicals without properly alerting state authorities.  The list goes on and on about the plant’s brazen disregard for safety laws yet they never received any punishment or castigation.

                It is rather unfortunate that at the time of the explosion, Governor Rick Perry happened to be in Illinois attempting to persuade companies to move their business to Texas, touting our state’s lack of regulation as a potential incentive  to operating here. 

                Yes, the political cartoon was insensitive, but it was provocative, and ultimately, that is what the author was trying to do.  He was not trying to offend people, but rather provoke them into action.  It is time this state stopped placing such an emphasis on unbridled capitalizing, and began protecting its' workers by regulating businesses.

 

The Need for Controversy in the West, Texas Disaster

In this modern life, the media operates on a 24-hour news cycle, meaning that all hours of the day, exciting news has to be breaking.  Of course, exciting news is not always breaking, and a lot of unimportant stuff has to be over-analyzed and blown out of proportion.  And when big news does occur, as it did last week when American citizens were faced with two unrelated explosions –one in Boston, one in West, Texas – the media likes to squeeze every last drop of entertainment it can get out of it.  Usually this is done by politicizing the matter.  No matter what the tragedy, both sides of the political spectrum will rush to their soapboxes to blame the other.

                Sometimes this is a good thing – in the wake of the recent wave of shootings, many strove to use these horrific tragedies as examples for the need to step up gun control.  Sometimes this is a bad thing – often in the wake of a horrible public tragedy, many narcissistic political propagandists will seek to capitalize.  Austin-based radio host Alex Jones has built a strong following by decrying every major disaster as an “inside job” perpetrated by the government.  Unfortunately the dust has not even settled in West, Texas - where an explosion at a fertilizer distribution plant claimed fourteen lives – before Alex Jones began broadcasting live from the small town.  Many news outlets have also turned the catastrophe at West, Texas into a debate on what could have been done to prevent the disaster.  While some, like Mr. Jones, merely seek to capitalize on the loss of others, a few other news outlets are using this tragedy to spur a debate on what could have been done to prevent it.

                So far, the major culprit of the explosion has been a lack of regulatory oversight, something Texas is renowned for.  According to The Austin Statesman, the plant had a history of noncompliance, yet due to communication issues between state and federal agencies, the plant was allowed to continue breaking rules with little to no punishment.  In Texas, fertilizer plants are regulated by a plethora of different state and federal bureaus, ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Office of the Texas State Chemist.  Often times safety issues get swept under the rug because it is assumed they are some other agency’s responsibility.  Also, most of these departments rely on self-reporting and do not have enough money or inspectors to check on the 6,000 fertilizer plants nationwide.

                Right now as Texas is in the spotlight in the debate over whether or not we need more federal government oversight, Governor Rick Perry is in Illinois campaigning for companies to move to Texas, boasting about our state’s lack of regulations.  As interest in the explosion ebbs out, the media will try to stir up more controversy and stoke the embers of this debate, and eventually very little will actually be done.  It is a shame, however, that those who perished in the explosion had to serve as fodder for such a political issue.

Critique of Sex Ed Blog

I recently read my fellow classmate Abby’s blog about an attempt to limit Sex Education in our public schools.  It mentioned how the few Texas public schools that did not preach abstinence-only are about to have an even more difficult time providing proper sex ed to students.  According to Just Say Know, a campaign to enforce more comprehensive sex ed in Texas schools, Texas leads the nation in both teen abstinence-only programs and has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates.  Abby does not mention the Just Say Know effort, but she does provide dozens of scary statistics about teen pregnancies and the obstacles public schools are having to face in order to provide comprehensive sex education.  The blog focuses on Senate Bill 251, which would force parents to “opt in” to allow their children to participate in sex ed, and bars Planned Parenthood from providing any material for the class.  Both of these obstacles make it not only harder for students to attend the class, but for teachers to properly educate the kids.

                Abby does a great job of not coming off overly bias in this blog.  She makes a thorough attempt to work across the aisle, pleading for both sides of the political spectrum to agree on the issue.  Though she does come off as having a somewhat liberal base, it does not really show in this blog; her concern over our state’s education system is not politically motivated.  She provides numerous examples and credible evidence for her case.  It is chilling to think about the effects Senate Bill 251 will have on our the lives of this state’s children if it passes.

Would Secession be Successful?

 Back in November when Obama won his re-election, several nutjobs, upset over the outcome of the election, announced they no longer wanted to be a part of this country.  But rather than go through all the effort of moving to another country, and assuming many more people felt the same way they did, they decided to petition for their state to secede from the nation.  Sure enough, every state in the country had citizens filing petitions for their state to secede from the U.S.  Because there is a lull in news after an election, the news media picked up the stories and ran with it, making a bigger deal of this secession movement than was necessary.  Eventually most people realized this was silly and more importantly infeasible (not to mention illegal) and the whole notion of seceding from the country nestled back to be the hare-brained idea of a few lone eccentrics.

                However, while reading the news today, it is apparent that secession-phobia is still going strong.  Governor Rick Perry has been working towards creating a “Fort Knox of Texas” to bring gold bullion owned by Texas back into the state, rather than being held by the Federal Reserve.  Many are speculating that this could be one of the first of many steps towards establishing Texas as an independent nation.  Granted, the Governor most likely does not have an ulterior motive in bringing Texas’ gold back into the state, but this is a move that could easily be perceived as suspicious by many who are already paranoid of a Texas secession.

                Nowhere else in the nation is the issue of secession as heated as in Texas.  Despite already having been an independent nation during the 1830s, Texas has been a prime candidate for secession due to its location, its financial stability, and abundance of resources.  However, the independent mentality of most of its citizens is what really causes many to consider the possibility of secession a possibility.

                So if Texas is capable of successfully seceding (it has its own power grid, sustainable resources, and strong economy) why hasn’t this been more of an issue?  The main obstacle against Texas’ secession is that most people in Texas don’t want to break away from the union.  And despite all the flak they give us, most of the other citizens in the US don’t want us to leave either.  While Texas secession seems to be something the people don’t want, the strongest case against it is the fact that it’s illegal.  The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that states do not have a right to secede from the nation, making the entire issue moot.  While the idea of Texas as an independent country seems like a fun fantasy to some, it is something that will most likely never happen.

Rick Perry Slows Down Progress. Again.

            While Democrat and Republican legislators cannot seem to agree on any of the pressing issues facing them recently, one law seems to have gained almost complete bipartisan accord in the Texas House lately: a ban on texting while driving.  Texting while driving has been shown to affect a driver’s ability to safely control a vehicle, and has been responsible for numerous accidents, even deaths.  It is a risky, unnecessary act that many feel should be penalized in order to deter drivers from doing it.  As such, a law has been proposed to enforce a fine of up to $100 for any driver caught texting while driving.  A similar measure has been put into action in 39 other states, as well as 25 Texas cities (Austin being the first).  The statewide ban has received support from both political parties, and has been popular among a majority of legislators.  Nonetheless, the bill is expected to be vetoed by Governor Rick Perry.

                According to this editorial, Rick Perry is expected to veto this bill, much like he vetoed a similar bill two years ago.  While Perry does agree that texting while driving is dangerous and irresponsible, he does not feel it is the government’s duty to regulate what people do.  True to his small-government platform, Perry does not want the government to have the right to tell people what is and is not safe, calling the bill “a government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults”. 

                This editorial, written by the Editorial Board of the Austin Statesman, does a great job of not letting such a foolish comment and flimsy argument by Mr. Perry go unridiculed.  They point out that by encouraging or discouraging certain actions, managing behavior is exactly what laws are designed to do.  They also question his logic by questioning how laws prohibiting drunk driving or requiring seatbelts are legitimate but a law barring texting while driving is somehow “micromanagement”.

                While this editorial is aimed at Governor Rick Perry, imploring him to sign the texting ban bill when it makes it to his desk, the broader audience is readers who may still feel on the fence towards texting while driving.  Some readers may feel texting while driving is their right, and the government has no place in dictating their behavior; others may simply not be aware of how risky this behavior is.  The article presents hard facts and information from studies to provide indisputable proof that texting while driving causes accidents, and has been responsible for numerous deaths.  With such high credibility and impassioned plea in favor of a law that seemingly should pass through unquestioned, it is hard not to agree with the authors that the ban on texting while driving should be signed by Mr. Perry.

Less Prisoners, More Problems?

                The U.S. currently has the highest incarceration rate in the world.  Our use of mandatory minimum sentencing and harsh enforcement of minor drug infractions have earned us this spot.  However, according to this editorial from theStatesman, the incarceration rates in Texas are declining, partially due to a decrease in crime rates and a refocus on rehabilitation and treatment rather than incarceration.  I personally believe this is a very good thing.  With nearly 1out of every 150 U.S. citizens currently in prison, this nation needs to seriously rethink our incarceration system and the manner in which we deal with crime.  I was glad when I read in this editorial that our state’s prison population is down over 7,000 inmates from just three years ago.  However, this means that there are thousands of empty prison beds now, and we are still paying for these rooms. 

                The Statesman Editorial Board, who authored this article argues that taxpayer money could be better utilized towards fighting crime, or other public safety needs.  They feel the state can consolidate its prisons to free up more money and run our prison system more efficiently.  Personally, this seems like an obvious solution.  It makes little to no sense to run several dozen prisons around the state operating at half capacity, when we could simply have fewer prisons holding more inmates.  This would save taxpayers costs on energy, space, and wages.

                The editorial goes on to argue against the state’s use of privatized prisons, which, although originally thought to boost regional economies, can actually hurt them.  A boom in prison building and privatization in the late 80s and early 90s was brought on by the notion that prisons would bring jobs to small cities.  However, low pay and lack of benefits led to higher turnover (90% turnover in privatized Texas prisons) which eventually hurt these prison towns. 

                This editorial utilizes numerous credible resources, the main one being sociology professor Gregory Hooks, the leading researcher on prisons and privatization.  He agrees with the editorial board that privatization of prisons has a negative impact on employment and local economies.  Both he and the editorial board argue that the state should consolidate our prisons to help employment and save taxpayer dollars.  I feel our current prison system has numerous flaws and following this editorial’s advice is a step in the right direction.

Texas Supreme Court to Determine if Feelings Have Value

                We’ve all had an emotional attachment to a pet.  But how much was that attachment worth?  That is what the Texas Supreme Court is convening this week to decide.  After evaluating a case involving the accidental euthanasia of a Labrador named Avery, the Court will determine whether the pet’s owners’ emotional attachment to their dog warrants financial compensation. 

                The Texas Supreme Court is ultimately deciding whether or not to turn over a ruling made by the 2^nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, which sided with the dog’s owners, the Medlens.  After the Medlen’s dog Avery ran away and landed in an animal shelter, they found they were unable to pay the $80 to release the animal.  They claimed ownership of the dog and said they would return shortly with the money.  However, after they eventually returned with the $80, they found their dog had been wrongfully put down, despite a tag on Avery’s cage claiming the dog had been claimed.  The Medlens sued the shelter, but the county civil court dismissed the case.  The 2^nd Court of Appeals eventually sided with the Medlens, but now the case has made it to the Texas Supreme Court for consideration.

                While it may seem obvious that the Medlens should be compensated – a dog is a member of the family- the Medlen’s case doesn’t seem hopeful.  One of the judges made the slippery slope argument that if the law allowing compensation for emotional attachment passed, it could subsequently be applied to birds and fish in a bowl. 

                I truly do hope the Texas Supreme Court decide to rule in favor of the Medlens, but regardless, it will be interesting to see whether they determine if a financial value can be applied to an emotional attachment.