Save our pets

Compare the warmth of a child to the comfort of a pet. Those who own pets often testify that it is like another kid. The responsibility, the innocence, the unspoken creature and the added attention seeking lead to their being very little difference between a child and a pet. In the article (Adela Moreno, Cruel and Unnecessary, 8/11/2014) the author mentions how the inhumane treatment of leaving pets in the car should be handled with harsher punishment, for which I fully agree with. Animals in the world today have more rights and more laws for their protection, and if they are treated without care to the point where they die, then punishment should be along the same basis of harming a child.

                An animal cannot speak for its own right and therefore it is necessary that we create such laws where we need to protect them. Hyperthermia is not a joke when it comes to so many recent incidents in the news. On the news we read about many mothers leaving their babies in the car, which eventually lead to heatstroke and consequently the death of the child. These mothers are held on trial and found guilty on the basis of negligence towards their child. People may argue that a child is not the same thing as a dog, however it is a living creature, for which care has to be provided. If these mothers can be tried for and found guilty for the same crime then why not a pet owner who demonstrated the same amount of negligence in respect to their pet? I whole heartedly agree with the author that the government should take action and not ignore this. A ticket is nearly not enough to bring back a life. Yes the pet cannot speak, however they to need their rights.

Many a times when I go to get my groceries, I see at least one pet sitting in the car waiting for their owner. People justify that leaving the windows down is sufficient enough. Well what if a person sat in that heat with the windows down? Would they agree? Texas heat is not something that is tolerable in a hot metal vehicle for two straight hours while a master shops. I fail to understand that if your pet is not allowed inside then why bring them in the first place and then abandon them for so long in the car. Either way be it human or pet, negligence that leads to death is defined as murder and if a person can held accountable for humans in this regard then they should also be held accountable for their pets.

In order to stop this inhumane behavior the government should take strict precaution and pass a law in understanding for all those owners who leave their pets in the car, resulting to their death will be tried in the same court for justice as parents who forget their child in the car. In this way we will see more of a humanity extended towards these animals. 

Think outside the plastic bag

To some a thin plastic bag holds no value, and to others it holds too much of a value. What about those that just want to take the middle ground? We care but not to the extent that we make it a law to ban them. Understanding the importance of these bags is essential to understanding the impact of them. So what purpose can a thin bag provide well for one it make a great basket cover for a trash can, acts for storage purposes, grocery usage, lunch carrier and numerous amounts of other uses can be listed. In Austin may such areas ban the usage of these plastic bags, which I must admit bothers me. I feel strongly that the state of Texas should lift the ban off of these plastic bags in areas where this is implemented. My reasons are clear, as much as it may seem necessary to ban it, here’s why one shouldn't.

Firstly, in busy times like these no one remembers to carry around a reusable bag after they used it last week for their groceries. I certainly don’t remember mine. The easier option for me? Take a detour and visit the Walmart on Louis Henna that does provide plastic bags for me. Does that mean that I will grab a bunch and be careless with the usage? Of course not. Those bags that I take home will be used for garbage carrying purposes and other such uses. Now who did this situation benefit we think? No one really. The sales for the HEB in my area decreased and went straight to the pockets of the Walmart located on Louis Henna. It is important to people that they have an easy way to carry their groceries. It is important to people that they are given an easier option to revert to rather than going home after a long day at work just because you forgot your grocery bag.

Let’s now focus on the fact that it’s not just about our convenience or what we want. If plastic bags are being banned, then what about those that make it a business to manufacture and sell them? Who will compensate for them? Yes a greener city is better, however if people have already learned the usage for them and the city is already known as a pretty green city, then why make further laws which will only end up putting peoples jobs in danger. I don’t think that people have considered that quite yet, but it is true. Everything is a business, and t stop one must impact the other.

Discussing the topic of a greener city or state seems just perfect doesn’t it? Why stop at plastic bags then? Why not ban plastic bottles or milk cartons or everything else that harms the society. I find it difficult to understand that in a world where cigarettes can’t be banned even though they are a health hazard, there is banning of something as small as a plastic bag. Coke cans create just as much of a wastage and hazard that supporters of plastic bag banning have suggested. No one has heard of them being banned as yet. Therefore the point is, if you’re going to start talking about banning, there are many things that you can ban but where does it all stop?

I personally feel that the city of Austin should consider its choices on the banning of plastic bags. Not only will it be beneficial for businesses but also bring other important things to light that require more attention. A bag is simply not something that requires a law at this time. 

Passive Resistance

Although I completely agree with the author in the article (Cassandra Najera, The Texas Talk, 7/25/14) and with the notion that the Confederate flag is undoubtedly a painful memory for many of those who suffered in the name of slavery can have many meanings for the people of Southern Heritage. I have to contest the point that the government must do something about it or ban it on the basis of it being hurtful to the feelings of many. The government has stated in the first amendment that they should provide full liberty and freedom of speech to all. Therefore to contest on the basis of the usage of the symbol or the flag, is merely useless if it holds varying individual perceptions.

                An example can be used from recent history, the attack of 9/11 have hurtful memories for many. In turn this has created an upheaval where a certain group of Muslims have claimed responsibility for these actions. Although the citizens of the United States have been outraged by this particular event, Muslims in the United States still have the freedom to preach and practice their customs. Now one may argue that because one sect of their religion has committed a heinous crime, that they all be punished by not giving them their freedom of speech or by letting them practice the customs of their forefathers. Such is the case for the Southern pride, although it may signify for many the events of slavery, it could also be that Southerners are showing their pride.

                Furthermore I agree when the author points out that if a Swastika was posted on the bumper of a car that wouldn't be received well. However those are two different scenarios, which possibly can’t be compared in terms of cruelty. In the article when the author mentions that the state doesn't care, it does, it just wants to keep an open mind to people’s opinions and respect their culture. Not everyone that has a Confederate flag can be considered racist. Therefore we should stop stereotyping on the account of others behaviors.

As much as I understand the sentiments of the author, I feel that in order to evaluate whether the government should revise the first amendment is out the question simply because the author states that action should be taken against hate speech. However this is not considered hate speech when it is well within the law of the state and it just merely consists of people taking pride in their culture. Furthermore surely the government has evaluated that minorities will always feel oppressed, therefore a certain flag won’t make much of a difference. Thus I feel that the decision of the state and government aligns to that of providing the freedom of speech and turning our backs to those that don’t fit our mindset. In this passive resistance manner no racism or hatred towards any such group will exist.  

The Tax Haven

Texas is a state in itself that boasts many such reasons to live here, everyday Texas accepts loads of people pouring in from different states looking for a home. Texas provides that home, being truly the land of opportunity for many. Taxation is a way for the government to regulate the flow of money, and make sure that this money is spent well for the society. We have Federal income tax, sales tax, value added tax, business tax and in some states local and state income tax. Luckily Texas is one of those states that doesn't charge state income tax. Is that something that should implemented in Texas? People would be crazy to suggest such a thing I believe. There are already so many taxes that one incurs, then why would states want its civilians to endure the pain of state income tax. Well it can be argues that other states are implementing it so why can’t Texas? That leads to analysis of why exactly Texas should stay at their decision of not choosing to collect state income tax.

Further research upon this subject can prove that Texas has definitely grown in population size over the years. The reason we can see is definitely to the fact that there are more jobs that are available. Jobs are perhaps accepted in Texas as compared to other states such as Illinois because of its high income state taxes. People prefer to be in a state where they have more of their income to spend and save. We can certainly attribute the size of the state to other factors but we also need to recognize that money and savings are big factor for the society as a large. When federal income taxes are deducted, there should be no need to deduct further taxation. Therefore I believe that in order to keep the job market increasing Texas has made the right decision in not implementing state taxes.

                Another reasoning that can be derived from the previous point is that more jobs lead to growth of the state and the economy. Growth of an economy and state means that the society that people live in will prosper because of this initiative. Not imposing state income tax will make it possible for more money to go around. This can also be seen as a way to reduce cost on things that the government does not need to spend on. Therefore the circulation of that money will promote growth in the state. Many people can argue that the money can be used to fix roads, or build hospitals or to utilize for government paid jobs. However this can be contested with the fact that other taxes already compensate for that spending. Texas generously covers its costs in property taxes as well, thus eliminating the need for state and local taxes.

Lastly it can be said that the act of eliminating state taxes is beneficial for the society in which it lowers debt levels. When people have more money in their hands, they can naturally put it into savings and spend more. This ties into the factor that there will be economic growth, and therefore leading to a state that will prosper. States with higher income taxes often face higher debt levels because of the fact that a person full income is so unfairly reduced that it leaves them with nothing by the end of the year. Thus in this context, Texas is doing a great job in not imposing state income tax and keeping its debt level at a minimum.

                I strongly believe that Texas should continue not imposing these state income taxes for the benefit of its people. This in turn will increase jobs, promote economic growth and lower debt burdens. In this way Texas is helping its people live a happy, safe and secure life.  The question therein lies in the hands of the people? What do the people of Texas want?

A Little Support Can Go a Long Way

Houston is a difficult place to live in, not to mention if you turn into the wrong street and by chance if that street is dark, you are bound to get robbed. Such is the experience that many Houstonians seem to elaborate about. One must wonder than is that all true or is it just an image that has formed? According to the article (David Jennings, Big Jolly Politics, 6/3/14), the title “Psst, hey, criminal dude, c’mon down to Houston!” suggests much the same as the article body itself highlights what a dangerous place Houston is for its civilians. Where is the law then we ask? Surely they have taken care of this and are investigating such crimes. However the article tells us differently.

                The intended audience for this article is perhaps targeting the public or more indirectly the government. The author is trying to convey the pleas of the Houstonian population through his words. He too is concerned about his family and what the police department is doing to protect it. He chooses to provide evidence in order to support his claim that the police department is actually not doing anything. In the article a reference to another newspaper article by journalists tells us in few words that 20,000 criminal cases were not investigated and ignored in 2013.  The journalists further ranked Houston as out of 1000 residents 9.9 violent crimes were committed. Thus making it the highest ranked city for violent crime in major Texas cities.

That being said one would think that surely now the government would put all their focus on getting these investigations done, but to the dismay of the reader the author goes on to explain that Mayor of the town Annise Parker demands that more tax revenue would be needed in order to pay for these investigations. The author also states that tax revenue should already be coming from high property taxes. To this point I agree fully with the author that the Mayor of the town should definitely be more concerned with the society’s wellbeing, however investigations such as these do require money. Further investigation would thus make this point stronger as to whether tax dollars are being used correctly or not. Therefore at this point the author is just assuming that even the previous tax revenue for amending roads in Houston led to unfilled potholes. Houston is fairly large, perhaps the author hasn’t investigated where this work had occurred. Therefore to jump to any conclusion on this point would be raising questions without proper knowledge of the situation.

                Another claim that the author makes is that the Mayor is actually acting as a legal defense to these criminals by not investigating their crime. He thinks that if little crimes are let go and are ignored, they will turn into bigger crimes and there won’t be much that the population can do. I agree with this point of his although I do think he takes it to an extreme level where he feels that if a pervert criminal shows up in the bathroom of a little girl, they will have a legal defense for themselves, that defense being the Mayor. Yes crimes need to be investigated no matter how small they are, yet the public needs to understand that many crimes occur, and it takes time and money to investigate all of these things. The last quote the author provides is “Ah, progress, isn’t it grand?”, which certainly mocks the system. Forgive me if I don’t completely believe that this attitude will not help the city move forward. What will help it move forward and help it rise from above crime is the public and its support to help the Mayor of the city.

Together many problems can be solved. Yes by delaying the investigation into crime the Mayor is putting the city of Houston at risk, but it cannot be disregarded that there may be certain reasons as to why this delay is occurring. Therefore to make such assumptions is really uncalled for. To each their own, perhaps you may hold a different view to mine? 

Corporations vs. Government, which posses the longer fangs?

Corporations have often been compared to blood sucking insects, vampires and much more over the years. Corporations which are seen as a dominating market in the society, hungry for money are ridiculed and belittled over their selfishness. Can they be compared to the government that acts in the same manner though? Does the government act in that same manner in your opinion? Or is it worse than corporations itself? One such article seems to think so, combating a previous article written about Corporations being vampires who get powerful over the years by feeding on the society. The argument article states that the real vampire is the government, and not the corporations, which to the reader seems debatable. The article appeared as an opinion to the previous article intending to target the audience that read the initial article and agreed with it, and also in answer to the original author’s claims.
            The argument established targets several points in the original article. Firstly the original article author French, describes corporations as individuals that get older but never die, in counter argument Greg who has provided his opinion on the topic in the article we are critiquing states that corporations die every day but it is the government that never dies.
            The second fact stated illustrates how French’s argument that corporations get richer every day is combated with the government feeding on tax dollars from the society. The power of the corporations is then further compared to the governments dictating of personal lives.
            Furthermore the last point stated in the article targets French’s original comment that Corporations buy the protection of officials through corruption, for which Greg has argued that what elected official in the government hasn't used this tactic?
            Through all these points, Greg argues that through this the Government sucks the life, opportunities and freedom of the society whereas corporations at least provide jobs and that no one is forced to work for them. He further states that the government does not provides jobs, and further exercises their control on the society which limits the society from making decisions on healthcare and such topics.
            Throughout the article written by Greg, there are many assumptions that are presented. Such as his statement that government does not provide jobs, there are many government jobs that are available that do indeed benefit the society. Another assumption made is that corporations don’t force people to work for them unlike the government, but how can one determine that? There is just as much politics in corporations as there is in the government. Therefore that is a baseless accusation to differentiate the two. Furthermore, yes the government exercises control, but then again it is necessary in order to help the society, opinion on issues such as healthcare is asked to be provided when improvement regulations are to be enforced which I feel is sufficient enough.
          I fail to agree with Greg based on the points that he has presented in counter argument to the original article. Yes the government has its flaws but they cannot be compared to vampires who suck the society dry. In fact the government has been put into place in order to help the society flourish. One cannot disregard that corporations do contribute to the wealth of the society but that too in a selfish manner through monopoly in markets which can be used as a counter argument to Greg’s claims. When making these assumptions the author’s credibility lacks and in order to make it stronger he will perhaps have to support it through historical facts which would further convince the audience based on his comments. It is really a matter of choice for the audience reading through this blog to decide what side they choose. Given Corporate or Government, I chose Government what about you? 

To read the original article being combated, read here: http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnews.com/2014/07/like-vampires-corporations-keep-getting-more-powerful-every-year.html/

Health Care Spending for a Prisoner

There is a very grey area when it comes to the discussion of the health welfare of the prison population and skepticism on how to handle it. The Pew Charitable Trusts writes a report and displays a chart in an article detailing prison spending on healthcare for the inmates. Texas, along with Illinois, has become one of the only states in the ENTIRE country that has REDUCED healthcare spending on its prison population. 

It’s interesting to see the morality behind such a move when other states are increasing their prison healthcare spending. While it is good, and even a right, for the prisoners to have adequate medical needs fulfilled, where does one draw the line? The reason for the increased rise in prison healthcare spending is because of a higher prison population and some people commit crimes with the sole reason being that they get better healthcare INSIDE prison than they do outside. It is a very semi-ironic idea to think about and interesting to discuss as to whether Texas, as well as Illinois, are saving money from prison healthcare, or putting human prisoners (including non-violent offenders) at an unnecessary risk.  

How much are we willing, as a state, to spend on healthcare? This article addresses some thinking points that are worth reading in order to understand how this will directly affect the state in a monetary and governmental aspect. With the Affordable Care Act in place, new healthcare rules and regulations being implemented, it’s all but guaranteed that healthcare will be a major topic for local governments to factor into their budget. Fair enough, right? We must all take care and protect the health of our children, our elders, our siblings, our parents, and our…prisoners?