All Those in Favor of Plastic Bags, Raise your Hand!!!!!!

In response to Lily Ray’s blog posting on July 25, 2014 titled Rant of the Day: Plastic Bag Ban  found on her blog titled Texas Toast, I must respectfully disagree with her opinion that the plastic bag ban in Austin is a good thing.  As a resident of Hutto/Round Rock where there is not a plastic bag ban, I have found myself carrying my groceries out of an Austin HEB in a donated cardboard box due to me not having any reusable bags in my possession and forgetting about the Austin bag ban until it is too late.  Is it inconvenient?  Absolutely, but that is not what I am going to base my argument on.  Life is full of inconveniences, and I can live with that. 

Lily’s blog mentions how plastic bags clog up creeks and cause millions of wildlife deaths.  In my opinion, the blame does not lie in the bag.  The blame lies with the person that threw it on the ground…..littering.  I don’t throw my bags on the ground. I reuse them over and over again as lunch bags.  When I have an overabundance of bags, I take them to the store and recycle them.  They do not go in the landfill, and they do not go around an innocent duck’s neck.

We, meaning society, cannot do away with everything that causes harm or is not handled responsibly.  Let’s take offshore oil drilling as an example.  Wildlife, tourism, and the fishing industry all suffered tremendously when the BP oil spill of 2010 dumped 4.9 million of barrels into the ocean.  Have we stopped offshore drilling?  No.  I realize this comparison is on a much larger scale, but my point is that when people act irresponsibility, you do not have to do away with the item in question. 

In summary, I disagree with the ban bag and believe that education in the form of littering campaigns, organized cleanups, and the addition of more recycling centers would be a better solution.  Elimination is not the only means of keeping the environment healthy. 

I Think Texas Should Begin Selling Drugs

I think Texas should manufacture its own supply of execution drugs.  As the nation’s most active death penalty state, the State of Texas has encountered a shortage of the lethal drug, pentobarbital, required to carry out the death penalty. 

The shortage is primarily due to European drug companies who no longer want to be a supplier to the US death penalty.  Manufacturing these drugs is a conflict of interest for them, as members of the medical profession are taught to save lives, not end them.  Those that do produce the drugs are somewhat underground and secret, desiring to be kept anonymous so they do not suffer any repercussions of interest groups who might disagree with capital punishment.  

The State of Tennessee has already declared the electric chair as a backup alternative to executions in the event enough lethal drugs are not available for scheduled executions.  Missouri is considering doing away with lethal injections and bringing back the use of the gas chamber, although there are mixed feelings of how this would be received by the general public. Missouri’s proposed solution is for their state to begin producing lethal injection drugs, and I feel Texas should do the same. 

The accomplishment would be taking the secrecy out of it.  We live in a capital punishment state, so why should the drugs used for execution be a secret? We all know it’s going on; we see it in mass media all the time.   Perhaps the exact location of production need not be revealed in order to protect workers against protest, but I think we all know the government is capable of covering up the location and whereabouts of just about anything if they really want to.  Texas could produce enough drugs to supply other states and use the revenue generated to improve our prison system.

From a political standpoint, I think this would be a highly publicized and criticized issue.  I am sure public and private interest groups would crawl out of the woodwork to express their opinions, but I feel certain the idea would be approved…..thank you Republicans!  

So I have a driver license.....does that make me a criminal?

I found this blog written on June 19, 2014 by Yvonne Larson in Big Jolly Politics  called Threat of terrorism mandates law-abiding Texans provide full fingerprints for driver licenses. The article is directed at any Texas citizen, criminal or non-criminal, specifically those with driver licenses.  The author points out that “silently” a law was passed that states when required to renew our driver’s license in person, we are required to provide a full set of fingerprints.  The author points out that the government says this is for terroristic purposes and to keep us safe, but could the act of forcing us to provide fingerprints be against the our constitutional rights if there is  no probable cause or reasonable suspicion?  Larson also points out the use of facial recognition software being use to match the faces of those renewing to a criminal database.  So now we are being recorded?  I don’t recall seeing a sign at the Texas DMV telling me that I am being recorded, at least not the last time I was there. 

I agree with the author in the sense this seems to be a bit of a violation of my constitutional rights, hence, causing huge political implications.  I haven’t done anything criminal, so why do you need my fingerprints and why run my facial scan against a criminal database?  I could see the facial software generating errors that could lead to a lot of lawsuits. How many times have we seen someone in a crowded room that looks almost IDENTICAL to someone else we know? It happens.  But what happens when that “twin” is a criminal, and it just so happens the good “twin” goes to get her driver’s license renewed.  Next thing you know, she is being detained unlawfully, which the government blows off later as a “mix up.”  We see that happen in government all the time.   However, on the flip side, if I have done nothing wrong, what am I afraid of?  The fingerprinting could be a helpful tool in the event of an unfortunate event such as body identification or kidnapping of a child.  No one likes to think that way, but I see how it could be beneficial.

Lastly, the author points out that terrorists simply won’t get their driver’s license renewed if they know they are going to be fingerprinted and facial scanned.  I agree, but what about those that don’t know.  Even if the system catches just a few criminals, isn't it worth it to have them off the street?  Take a read and see what you think.  

Do we have the right to know?

The linked article, Greg Abbott: Anti-terrorism efforts sometimes trump the public's right to know, was written by Greg Abbott and published on July 13, 2014 in the El Paso Times.  The target audience is the citizens of Texas. The article’s argument lies in the Texas Homeland Security Act of 2003 where it was determined that the location of stockpiled dangerous chemicals/fertilizer should be disclosed to the Texas Department of State Health services and the local fire department but should not be available to the general public.  The reasoning is so the information does not fall into the wrong hands, i.e., terrorists, who could acquire the chemicals, make bombs, and retaliate such as the Oklahoma City Bombing of 1995. The article is clearly trying to justify why it is not the general public’s business to know where these items might be stored. Only those living in communities near chemical storage facilities can access this information directly from the storage facility storing the chemicals or with an online search after entering a zip code. Mr. Abbott is also proposing this information be available at local fire departments for immediately access.   I agree with Mr. Abbot and the rules behind the Texas Homeland Security. If the chemicals pose no immediate danger to me, why should I or any random person need to know about what is being stored and how much?  I think Mr. Abbot’s article of “clearing the air” about a sometimes misunderstood topic.  It comes at an interesting time as he runs for Texas Governor.    In my opinion, it is written on the “proactive” side, possibly to head off any issues as we approach the 2014 election. Take a read and see if you view the article the way I did. 

Marshals in Public Schools: Agree or Disagree

I would like to call your attention to the article I found in the Fort Worth Star Telegram on the training of school marshals.  This is a new class of law enforcement officer similar to that of an air marshal on a plane; only this will be a marshal in a public school.  The intent is to protect school children in the event of a mass shooting.  Tarrant County College in Fort Worth is the first school in Texas to offer this training.  The qualifications to become a marshal are listed in the article.  I think this article hits home in a lot of ways, considering school shootings are occurring more frequently as guns fall into the wrong hands, and yet we live in a state that supports individual gun rights.  It will be interesting to see how other states react to Texas putting this program in place and proactively allowing guns in a school environment.