"Don't Phone and Drive" entry

In response to “Don’t Phone and Drive” in There’s No Place Like Texas blog. I agree with Natasha in her claim, Texas should pass law to ban talking on the phone while driving. In her blog, Natasha states that she has slammed on her brake so many times because she was not pay attention to what happen on the road. On the phone while driving is as danger as drunk-driving. On the phone while driving is very distracting drivers’ ability to respond to an action. According to the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, “cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year.” Drivers talking on cell phones were 18% slower to react to break lights. Also, one study shows that “chatty motorists are less adept than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.” We can see how danger it is with driving and talking on the phone at the same time. Another solution that Natasha brings up is “I believe by requiring a hands free unit while driving will decrease car accidents because people will start paying more attention to the roads.” This solution is help as well as bans the use of cell phone while driving completely. Natasha has done a good job in bringing the problem and the solution to the problem. Her entry is applying well to students because students tend to talk and drive at the same time.

Capital punishment

Capital punishment is a harshly charge for the one who convicted a crime. There are several reasons why I say this. First, “eye for an eye” is not always worked. According to the current Texas Constitution, “only the crime of ‘capital murder’ or a second conviction for the rape of someone under 14 is eligible for the death penalty.” Looking in the bright side, putting capital punishment on someone does not solve the crime of that person. Of course that person needs to pay for what they have done. If we execute that person, then he/she does not have time to think about what he/she has done, and he/she may not feel guilty for what he/she has done either. Texas Government should change from execution to life time prison. Putting people in prison for life is a good way to get that person pay for what they have done, also, time for them to re-think and regret, guilty of what they have done. Life time in prison also keeps them from convicting any other crime, so we don’t have to worry about them either. Second, killing someone is a crime and against religious even if that person is a good or a bad person. As a Catholic, I believe in the second life, the life after death. People will pay for what they have done now when they die; either they will be in heaven, or they will be burn in hell. In that case, why do we need to execute them now to get our hand bloody? Why don’t we let the second life execute them? Third, the cost for execution is relatively high. The cost per execution for drugs used is $86.08. That’s true. Base on the statistic in 1991, “the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000.” That is a huge difference. Why would we waste our tax money in capital punishment? The Texas Government should eliminate capital punishment, and making life in prison is the highest charge for any crime. In that way, we can save money for other disaster, and as a human being, we don’t kill each other.

In response to “Vote No to Proposition 2”

In JBT's Blog Bleeds Burnt Orange, I’ve read the article “Vote No to Proposition 2,” and I strongly agree with the writer on this argument. We all know that the City of Austin wants to stop funding the Domain’s new-site; this is one of the disadvantages that the City of Austin has made. As the writer mentions: “Looking at the big picture, the Domain is bringing new job opportunities to Austin. This will bring money back to the community,” this is so true if we want to bring our economic up. The economy mostly bases on the jobs, and the money earn by those workers. In that case, the Domain provides people opportunity to work and earn money. When the Domain first opens, it sounds like a “high class” shopping center, but once you get to shop at the Domain, it is not that all “high-class” merchandise which people cannot afford to pay. It is very convenient to shop there. The shopping center now has some store that applicable for all classes shopper: upper-class, middle-class, and working-class shopper. There are some other stores that are going to build in the Domain, so it is even more convenient to the people. We would all vote No to Proposition 2 to provide people opportunity to work, to shop, to bring our economic up, and making Austin looks nicer with the convenient shopping center.

Law for teen shoplifters.

Teen Shoplifters ignore costly consequences for stealing at Wal-Mart. "It just a testing of the waters for teenagers. All of us do something bad until we get caught...it's something we'll all outgrow - if we don't get caught first."
Thirteen percent of students admit that they have shoplifted at a Wal-Mart, according to a survey. Of the students who have shoplifted at Wal-Mart store, about 58 percent of them say they have stolen items from the store location across the street from school. Almost half said they were most likely to shoplift at the store after school let out. A 2001 University of North Texas survey found 38 percent of all shoplifters are between the ages of 13 and 17. But the numbers rise higher, with 62 percent of students admitting to shoplifting at least once. A lot of teenagers shoplift because it's really easy to to. They get what they want without having to pay consequences. The more they don't get caught, the more they'll keep doing it."
Government should force a law to keep teenagers out of shoplifting. However, consequences for shoplifting are expensive. Fines are range anywhere from $500 to $5000, plus jail time. Police are allowed to arrest minors for shoplifting - even for stealing a candy bar. "If you get away with it once, eventually you're going to think you can get away with it all the time," Wal-Mart store manager Steve Higbee said. "That is what's really going to hurt you. Eventually you're going to get caught."

US Senator Debate, who will be the winner?

The Cornyn-Noriega Debate is an article from Burkablog: Texas Monthly. The writer brings up the redistricting in 2003 with “Killer D’s”, the problem that has been asked during the debate between Cornyn and Noriega. It seems like Cornyn has more power to answer the question about this issue since Cornyn was the one who called to redistricting. For Noriega, it is a bit hard for him to run for a United States Senator in a state where majorities favored Republicans side over the last ten years. The problem between Democrat and Republican is not the problem that the writer focuses on during the debate. Although, the writer focuses on the dramatically change in personal expressive of Noriega in the debate; comparing to the debate Noriega has done at the UT Young Democrats. “It’s hard to criticize him; military service in the Middle East has affected him deeply,” the writer makes a well-view to the reader about Noriega’s background. Since the audience to this kind of article mostly young voters, and some military workers, the point that the writer brings up is well worth. Then, the writer’s credibility is well developed. The writer raises the viewing point to time and money consuming, “if he [Noriega] had $5 million and five weeks, he might make a race of it.” The money problem seems hard to solve by his own in this economy downturn time, but, in the other hand, Noriega can have the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to help him out in this situation, money consuming. John Cornyn, in the other side, “is both competent and confident under pressure.” I agree with the writer on this, since Cornyn is a current US Senator, there should be no question about why he is so confident about this election. Both Cornyn and Noriega are good to be US Senator, but only one of them will win in the election. It’s hard to decide who we should vote for.

Recommendation for voters, good in a bad way.

“Recommendations, Texas Supreme Court” is an editorial from Fort Worth Star Telegram. The writer first gives his/her purpose of writing the post, “Voters can choose from qualified Republicans or Democrats for three seats on the Texas Supreme Court in November.” But the writer also mentions a large amount of money “has been poured into the races, primarily by lawyers, business PACs and aggressive interest groups.” This makes the voters choice less effected because voters do not know or at least familiar with those candidates. With tons of banners, ad-boards pitched along the roads, those things cost more than it worth of having a good judge for the high-court. Voters seen like to have more opportunity to make their choice, but most of people’s names appeared on the ad-board seem so strange to the voters. The writer then states his/her thinking: “The danger this year, with its electrifying presidential race, is that party coattails will whip judges around largely on affiliation, rather than qualifications.” The word “affiliation” seems a bit ironic in his/her tone of writing. Because with the economy downturn this year, we need good judges in connect between the government and those who live in the country. The writer then lists several judges who have been work for the court for at least couple of years. The writer lists state judge Jim Jordan in opposition with Republican Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson. Jordan argues with Jefferson in some ways of running the court. These two judges are running for Texas Supreme Court chief justice. The writer then brings up Republican Justice Dale Wainwright with Democrat Sam Houston; they are running for Texas Supreme Court Place 7. The writer then ends with Justice Phil Johnson and Democrat Linda Yanez; they are running for Texas Supreme Court Place 8. By the listing these judges along with their weakness and strongest ability to work for the Texas Supreme Court, the write is well succeed from doing this because the reader will have more knowledge of who they are going to vote for. But in the end of very two judges’ profile, there is a recommendation sentence which says vote for this judge; the voters might be disappointed because the free to vote would be effected by the recommendation.

Gas price after Hurricane Ike

“Texas Retail Gasoline Prices Jump Since Ike”, an article from KEYE news, talks about the raising in price of gas. The article tells us the gas price was 16cents higher after Hurricane Ike hit Texas. AAA Texas reported that the average price in the statewide jumped to $3.70 per gallon; the average gas price in nationwide was $3.86 per gallon, 16cents higher than the past week, before Hurricane Ike occurred. The residents in Austin seem to pay four cents higher than other cities as recovery efforts continue. Corpus Christi had a lowest gas price in the state, $3.62 per gallon. And Texarkana had the highest gas price, $3.78 per gallon. The state does not know how long the Texas residents will face the high gas price as oil fields has not recover from the hurricane yet. The article is worth reading since gas price is the biggest problem that the entire nation faced. The gas price was just lower in the past couple of weeks. It seems we will reface the problem as the Hurricane Ike occurred in Houston, because Houston is one of the nation’s biggest oil fields in the nation.