Certified Teenager

I searched through my classmates blogs until I found a well written article on the blog Love and Tolerance in Texas by Kelly Jura-Myrick on the detention and rehabilitation (or lack thereof) of teenager in the state of Texas, you can check out the full article here. I both agree and disagree on several key points that Kelly makes in her article. The juvenile detention facilities not just state wide but more importantly nationwide are found in studies to be quite atrocious when compared to other countries juvenile facilities. However, I am under the impression that we are doing a lot of things wrong here, I am a firm believer in fair treatment, but also in a firm hand especially with our youth today. These are the kids that are going to be making the big decisions and leading the country when I get older so shouldn't I have a say in the way we interact with them on a state or federal level.

There aren't many kids that grow up in "the system" (I am not talking about strictly foster care here but ANY state run facilities) and come out of it with the experiences of a normal citizen. I agree that the detention of young juveniles with adult offenders is a serious mistake and for the health and safety of our juveniles should be avoided at all costs, but at what point do we stop calling these teenagers "kids" and start calling them adult offenders. I mean, we classify an underage teenager as someone who is under 18 years old, but aren't we making grown up decisions (maybe not the smartest) way before the age of 18? There are some kids, and I say kids as in before the teenage years, that are willing and able to be "rehabilitated" with the help of a firm hand and responsible adult guidance.

This is another point in which I agree with Kelly, the juveniles should be separated by magnitude of crimes and or juvenile history. I can tell you personally that it is possible to get into trouble as a teenager that isn't major but can land you somewhere without your parents and in the hands of the law scared and confused. I brook no arguments for teenagers who commit heinous crimes knowing full well that as teens we are able to make fully conscious decisions knowing the consequences early into our teenage years. I do believe that we need to clean up our juvenile facilities and work on rehabilitation of the less offensive cases. Maybe the older juvenile offenders can be given no other choice but to serve in the military or put to some other good use to society, state, and country. We all know that idle hands are breeding grounds for evil...so why not create a program that would give the juveniles something to do? Just a suggestion, but I digress, back to the main point I believe that the article written by Kelly was very informative and educational, plus it provided for good reading. Main point, do not give up on our juveniles, try to rehabilitate them and educate them while keeping them busy, and if that doesn't work....send them to the Marine Corps :).

Ban Driving Instead!

Currently awaiting approval from the Texas Senate after passing the House last week is a bill that seeks to ban text messaging while driving. A similiar bill was approved by the House and the Senate in 2011 but was vetoed by Governer Rick Perry who suggested that he would veto again if it passes this year according to mysanantonio.com. My problem with this is that if an educated group of men and women – my mistake, two educated groups of men and women are approving this measure shouldn't that be the majority? I understand that our state government works in a certain way and in this case the decision of the governer to veto said bill, but maybe we could try getting the bill to the governer prior to ten days before the session ends so that the governer is forced to veto the bill while the legislature is still in session that it can be overturned by a 2/3 vote. The machinations of what I will call Legislature V. Governer are quite atrocious as we can see in the past from the low number of overridden vetoes. I seemed to have ran off on a tangent however inconsequential, my main point was that why shoudn't texting be banned while driving. I see way to many people on the roads just talking on the phones driving with one hand not to mention the people that I see looking down at their phones hungrily awaiting their next text message. This is not to say that I myself have never texted while driving just that I would gladly lose the text messaging if it would save some lives and cause more people to be aware of their surrounding while driving. 

Is there anything that we can do as an alternative to texting while driving? Well, I have looked into this and the technology just doesn't seem to be there. We currently have dictation programs but those usually cost more than they are worth and that isn't saying much. The fact that our governer will not allow this measure to pass disturbs me and I am hoping that the legislature will at least have the chance to override if indeed it is vetoed. I just do not see an underlying reason to NOT ban texting while driving, political or financial. People are still going to do it no matter what the laws say but at least our state can start benefiting financially from lawbreaking texters. The safety of our highways will always be paramount to finding out juicy gossip in a text message that could have waited.

Pissing Our Money Away?

I ran across an article from one of my classmates Doug Warzon that talks a little about screening welfare applicants for drug use, you can check out the full article here. Contrary to the title of my post I found myself agreeing with Doug - mostly - on the issue presented. I believe in helping people but only as far as they help themselves. Why would I want my hard earned tax dollars to go towards taking care of someone under the influence of drugs or someone that could care less about helping themselves? As far as that goes I believe that it is an excellent idea to screen welfare applicants with drug tests. Now, here is what I don't agree with; the numbers. I have been following the welfare drug screening legislation around the country for quite some time now and I can tell you that even though the idea is a really good one, the execution is below poor. One of the main reasons that it doesn't really matter if we test them or not is the cost; it doesn't save us (taxpayers) a single dime to see these people drug tested.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating to just keep the system the way it is and let people keep getting their welfare without any sort of repercussions if they are drug users, but maybe we should find a way to create a better system. There is a thing called "lobbying" and I am sure you have all heard of it, so it should come as no surprise that there are drug testing companies that lobby our government and more specifically our legislatures. What better way to satisfy the general publics appetite for welfare reform (with drug screening) and to receive a great big campaign contribution than to pass a law that requires drug screening for welfare applicants; oh and by the way, Company X who provided my campaign contribution will also be the company we use for the drug test. This is exactly the problem that I am talking about and a solution needs to be found if we are to see any positive results.

The last problem with this system is the money; sure, the applicants are required to pay for their tests which saves the state a lot of money and gets rid of the drug addicts right? Wrong, as the laws now stand, an applicant that is found to have no intoxicants is refunded the cost of the drug test by the state which it was administered, coming directly out of our pockets. So with such a broken system it is no wonder that the ACLU is getting involved and suing under infringement of our Fourth Amendment rights but I digress. I want to stop here and say that on the whole I do agree with Doug on his post, it was a great piece and we should find a way to fix the system, screen for drug users, and spend less money. Will this ever happen? I don't know but I can tell you for now until we fix the broken system, these forays into experimental legislation is the same as flushing our tax dollars down the toilet.

Pro-Choice

Image courtesy Israel Jones

Recently it seems that our country has started to reconsider abortion, but not in the way you would think. Our states have started passing legislation that is making things harder for women to receive abortion such as waiting periods or sonograms.  Two years ago Texas government implemented a mandatory sonogram in addition to a waiting period to women who are trying to receive abortions. These laws are said to be in place to help women but all they seem to be doing is providing a barrier that is influencing studies showing a decrease in abortions. Texas should be doing more to help women in need (especially those who need abortions), instead of forcing them towards an action that could change their lives forever in a bad direction. I am quite sure that God would not want a child to be born to a teenage mother who cannot take care of them forcing them to live a horrible life. Where does it say that in the bible? The Texas government should be implementing laws that help with abortions, teen pregnancy, and rape victims who are now seeking abortions.

The fact that we worry about what someone else does with their body and focus so much on this type of issue when there are dozens of infinitely more pressing issues at hand is one of the big problems with society today. I am a big advocate for pro-choice and for the simple fact that it should be noones choice but the persons involved. Whether for religious reasons or personal moral choices I don't know why other people would try and control the actions of another human being on such a personal level. In this day and age having made so many advances in civil rights and liberties in our country this seems like a step back to me. I recognize the fact that there are serial abortionists out there that probably shouldn't be allowed to reproduce in the first place, but that doesn't mean that we should punish other people who either aren't ready to be parents or for other reasons need an abortion. 

We tiptoe around this taboo subject hoping that noone will bring it up when as a nation we need to not only consider the rising population rate in the world (selective abortions will control a percentage of that) but we also need to consider the fact that a persons body belongs to them alone. I don't see anyone attacking the rights of people in America to receive other elective surgeries like facelifts and tummytucks. There are a few daytime T.V. Personalities that should probably have their elective surgery priviledges completely revoked but instead we declare their beauty and objectify them. I will bring myself back on point by saying that instead of making it harder for women to receive abortions by passing legislation why not limit that amount of abortions you can have instead? Or maybe we can identify certain requirements for abortion. There are a lot of people who advocate for Pro-life but I don't see any of those people stepping up and adopting the babies were born and not wanted. As I see it now there is no reason for us to dictate what another person does with their own bodies. The next thing you know we will be told how we should dress look, and the words that we can or cannot speak.

American Terrorism

Illustration by Belle Mellor

In keeping up with the current drone discussions going on right now I ran across an article on The Texas Fred Blog written by Texas Fred himself which you can read here. The article outlines the fact that "Obama has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, without trial." Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a letter released Tuesday.

Texas Fred seems to more or less focus on President Obama in his article rather than the pressing issue at hand, that our Constitutional rights of due process against the deprivation of our lives is being stamped all over by the government. I have said this before and I will say it again if we as American citizens do not become involved in some way with our governments proceedings they will continue to "interpret" and "assume" that what they are doing is best for each and every one of us. If the war on terrorism is being fought overseas then why are we commissioning drones that can be used on U.S. soil? The answer lies in the question itself, the war on terrorism isn't just some war that is thousands of miles away, it is a war for each and every American citizens mind and personal liberties that was opened up 12 years ago when everyone jumped for joy when the Patriot Act was passed. Now most citizens are filled with buyers remorse as they realize that without due process, the government could use a drone against an American citizen, point blank.

In the article - which is geared more towards Anti-Obama citizens - Texas Fred goes on to outline Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Attorney General Eric Holders differing opinion on the matter of the President having the authority to authorize a drone strike on American citizens, on American soil. Texas Fred begins to lose sight on the issue over personal distaste of the current President. He goes on to say:

"Any person, man or woman, Democrat or Republican, that says Obama has the legal authority to unleash deadly force — such as drone strikes — against Americans on U.S. soil without first putting them on trial has just written Barack Obama a blank check to become a vigilante and commit MURDER at will, with no thought of repercussions."

 I personally think that this is a bit drastic considering that if it were any other President they would have exactly the same power as President Obama in this situation. It really pains me to see everyone so focused on the people involved in the issue rather than the issue itself. American citizens should be made aware (and should have a say in the matter) that drones - with the potentiality for deadly strikes - patrol our own soil. The last that I knew we were not currently being invaded by another country. The war on terror is being fought right in our front yards, and with strong federal interpretations. Find a voice and let yourself be heard, don't just accept that your opinion doesn't matter on issues like this, because it does.

Society of Sheep?

Image: Matt Collins

The San Angelo Standard-Times author W.D. Perkins recently published an article about the debate on gun control being less about controlling the weapons and more about controlling the American people, which you can read here. I think that he does a very good job in shedding light on the fact that the fight doesn't lie with the actual ownership of weapons, no. These are only martyrs to be held in public spectacle and paraded around in a pervasive dog and pony show. The real fight, which is very disturbing in itself, lies with the ability of the people to exercise their rights. As the people of a nation founded on the idea that tyrannical oppression stifles the very lives that we live in, you would think that we would not let history repeat itself. One point I will concede to is that government and some order of it is needed and I lend to it the fact that the United States would not have survived immediately after the American Revolution if it wasn't for some form of control. However, as history marches on, the freedoms and liberties that we have all taken for granted have slowly been subjected to more and more governmental scrutiny and then control. Even the states have slowly given up many of the freedoms that they have fought so hard for but I digress. Mr. Perkins makes a very short but persuasive argument that in only a few lines compels you to rethink the governments motivations. Undoubtedly intended for pro-Second Amendment Americans his audience is quite clear from the outset. Let me also point out however that Mr. Perkins uses the line from Thomas Jefferson stating that "no man shall ever be debarred the use of firearms" quite wrongly in my opinion. The government seems to want to limit the use of high speed and high capacity magazines and weapons, not actually debar them completely. In a recent Guns Across America rally Dan Bongino says, "We live in a society of wolves. We do not fight back by creating more sheep." So which are you, a wolf or a sheep?

Diverging Gunvernments

Courtesy eMendment.org, all rights reserved.

A very interesting article over at the Battalion caught my attention, most notably the very different actions being taken by Federal and State Governments concerning guns. The article outlines the differing opinions of the Obama Administration and the Texas Legislature and the actions currently being taken or proposed by the two parties. The Obama Administration has taken several courses of action including presidential memoranda and 23 executive actions. The three presidential memoranda called for by Obama "require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system, require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations and direct the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." On the other hand, over 20 bills had been proposed almost two weeks into the 83rd Texas Legislative session that covered issues on gun control. Among the bills being discussed are concealed handgun permits, concealed carry at public schools, and a bill that would allow Texas A&M students and faculty who hold concealed weapon permits to carry on campus and even inside the buildings. Many of the students at Texas A&M seem to approve of concealed carry on the campus including the Student Senate citing "[Senate] feels that it would make the University safer and give people the security so that they can protect themselves on campus.”

Another issue being tackled is background checks; gun stores are currently required by federal law to enforce background checks when selling a weapon. Most use gun shows or private selling as a way to circumvent the law surrounding background checks. The Obama Administration is proposing universal background checks no matter where the transaction takes place, why wasn't this already being done? "U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said the need is not for tighter background checks, but for the Justice Department to hold gun buyers who do not follow the law more accountable for their actions, according to the The Huffington Post."

The last issue in the gun control package deal is mental health. Obama is calling for the Attorney General to research the issue of mental health in gun violence through the use of Executive actions. Also to make sure that dangerous people are not being allowed to purchase weapons. Another look at mental illness reveals that although some mentally ill people have a slightly higher proclivity towards violence than the average person, “looking at mass murders, only 20 percent are committed by persons with serious mental illness in their history, on the other hand, 60 percent of mass murder episodes are committed by middle aged working class men who are down on their luck — laid off, divorced, etcetera.”

In retrospect what could we have done to prevent violent crimes involving guns? Should we make stricter laws for people with mental health and require universal background checks? Should we require a database that tracks every weapon in the United States? Are the Federal and state governments creating problems for each other? If you are interested in 2nd Amendment rights or gun control or you just want to know where the state and federal governments stand on these issues then I highly recommend reading this article. Leave your comments below.

Check out the original article here.