The Premium Roads.

     Jimmy Pham's blog post about toll roads enlightened me. I see toll roads as a premium service for drivers to avoid the daily traffic jams. This view stands. But I never thought that the toll roads themselves might harm Texas' economy. However, this post had me wondering: if there is a major downside, then why do Texas drivers voluntarily use this service? Yes, the Government's decision to fund toll roads rather than creating new highways seems odd. Nevertheless, the toll road's positives outweigh its negatives.

     The toll roads are the answer to relieving daily traffic. There is no argument there. Furthermore, the toll roads create a steady stream of revenue from the drivers. The toll seems small, but once you add up the number of drivers that use the toll roads, the coins quickly add up to a hefty chunk of change. This idea alone makes my eyes twinkle because I love when a genius plan, the toll, pays off. No pun intended. Unfortunately,  every plan has its downside.

     The major drawback of the toll road is its foundation: its toll. Why doesn't the Government just create new highways that don't have a toll? That's easier said than done. Where does that imaginary money come from? It comes from us, the taxpayers. The enticing part of the toll is that people pay a small fee, and they are able to breeze by traffic. The wind blows through our hair or lack thereof. This enjoyment is all uninterrupted. That's the best part! Unfortunately, there is the question of people abusing the toll roads without payment. But the joke is on those fools because surveillance captures any vehicle that passes by the station. And they send a letter out to the driver's address. This is from experience, so take my word on it.

      Toll roads receive two thumbs up! We pay money at the toll booth to use its service; that sounds like a fair trade.  

Crisis Down South!

      Immigration has been a hot concern for any state located along the northern and southern border. Texas is a state with a changing demographic. The Caucasian majority is slowly being overthrown by a rising Hispanic community, and people emigrating from Mexico is the cause. I find this to be a great thing. However, this inflation of persons has caused some controversy. Can an overwhelming surge of people who are in search of economic opportunities hurt Texas? These prejudice comments annoy me. If the young and old of Mexico are willing to risk their safety for a promising dream, then I say give them a chance to either succeed in this country or fail. Texas should relieve some of the restrictions of immigration.

     Texas has the ability to deregulate immigration policy: the state could offer programs that specifically target immigrants who come as families, and the programs could provide guidelines that require the family's children to attend school. Furthermore, the experimental program could grant the parents an opportunity to work. These are basic ideas that could be the basis for something grand because the benefits of having a higher population is appealing. Many immigrants take jobs that are looked down upon many Americans: scrubbing restaurant facilities. Also, the eagerness to work stimulates many businesses that do not have a high prerequisites. The young immigrants show the most potential. If the youth are willing to pursue higher education, then the jobs, which have higher standards, expand. Moreover, they can create jobs for people. Unfortunately, denizens of Texas have prejudice against the idea of more immigrants.

     Many people have the misconceptions that immigration brings only trouble. Job availability is a high concern. With the recent economic down turn, the number of the unemployed has risen, and that creates an uneasy competition for jobs. And people accuse immigrants of taking jobs away from Americans. This claim angers me. Immigrants don't purposefully steal jobs from others, and I'm sure they empathize with the hardships of unemployment.  

     Nevertheless, the possibility of every citizen of Texas favoring deregulation at the border seems low. But the thought of people being more sympathetic to aliens from Mexico delights me.                

Babies and Voting Don't Mix.

   On the 29th of Novemember, Daily Casallo wrote a strong article about a person's option to vote; the article is entitled "Is Voting a Moral Obligation?" The content in her article raised my eyebrows, but her message was clear: she feels that people have an innate ability to choose, and I agree with that point.

   Her chosen article covers a passionate republican speaker, Kevin Fulton. The republican gives his biased opinion over three topics: abortion, racism, and envy. However, Daily chose to connect the topic of abortion to a person's obligation to vote. Kevin's view couldn't be more conservative; the writer associated abortion with murder. Futhermore, he places blame on his coined phrase, "The Brainwashing Democrats." His diction bothers me. In regards to the article, Daily and myself hold many of the same beliefs. Unfortunately, a few of Daily's opinions made me question her stance on the issue.

   At first glance, Daily's response disagrees with the biased republican's view on abortion. Kevin's style of writing flustered her; she agrees with the pro-choice stance, yet she doesn't quite understand his method of presenting. The democrat's demographic is consisted of the middle-class, and it has liberal ideals that resonate with the minorities, African-Americans and Hispanics. Many of the minorities have babies at a young age. Futhermore, her perception that most democrats appeal to the wealthy bothers me. I agree with Daily's criticism over Kevin's article: democrats aren't brainwashing minorities. However, Daily's definition of pro-choice seems lackluster.

  Premature infants are voiceless beings who need to be protected, but unexpected factors may cause future parents to relinquish the infant of an opportunity to run on this earth. I don't agree with abortion, yet I have this feeling of sympathy for the parents. During the pregnancy, complications with the fetus may result in a life threatening delivery. If that's the case, then will the mother be shunned for terminating the pregnancy? This topic has a wide gray area. I don't agree with the Daily's simple interpretation of pro-choice and abortion. However, I do believe that anxious mothers-to-be should consult with experienced people about pregnancy. Abortion should be the last resort, and if parents naive young couples use the unpleasant procedure as a way to get out of parenthood, then they themselves should be labeled as murderers.

I Side With the Blue.

     My views on Texas' issues are simple: I believe that the Government should assist its people financially, but it should try to avoid putting restrictions on a person's perception of values. The polls in the Texas Tribune indicate the opinions of the students attending the University of Texas. However, my problem stems from the results regarding higher education spending and same-sex marriage. I believe that Texas isn't spending enough money on higher education, and the support for allowing same-sex couples to marry is too low, which makes me livid.

     Higher education is important. It promotes individualism, and it creates an open environment that welcomes partisan identification; I myself have developed my political ideology from attending courses that inform me of current events. Unfortunately, the Government isn't investing enough money into higher education. In fact, a lackluster 11 percent surveyed saying that the education has improved. Furthermore, of the 800 people who participated in the online poll, 37 percent agreed that Texas isn't spending enough on higher education. I would support the idea of investing more money into higher education, but I would have to halt my passionate idea. The legislature would have to meet to discuss its budget. If the opportunity arises, then I'm all set to promote an increase on higher education. Unfortunately, candidates fear a large increase in spending because it affects their constituencies. Money doesn't magically come from a money stork, who hands out money from his money tree. It comes out of the residents' pocket, and that obstacle has proven to be a huge burden in recent years.

     The issue of same-sex marriage confuses me. In this modern culture, why are we hesitant in letting people express themselves how they see fit. If we look back to specific time periods, then we would discover similarities to our current form of discrimination against same-sex couples: in the puritan time period, villagers would shun any woman who exposed their ankles or too much thigh. Victorian ideals are a thing of the past, and we embrace individualism. In the past, citizens of these states segregated people based on color; African Americans were assigned designated water fountains. What's the difference between segregating based on color and segregating based on sexual orientation? One involved segregation at public facilities, and its modern incarnation is attempting to segregate in the church. In this article, only 36 percent of the poll's participants agreed on allowing same-sex couples to marry. A civil union does not constitute as a marriage. My liberal side is going into overdrive! I support same-sex marriage because I don't feel it's the Government's business to involve itself in our daily lives.

     I have a liberal view on issues, and the Texas Tribune's polls indicate that some people in this red state share the same views as myself. Unfortunately, we are not the majority. My voice is drowned out by the noise of the crashing red waves.

Pink Pinot!

     Blogger, Eileen Smith, of In The Pink Texas wrote a humorous article concerning the presidential debate and its main theme: foreign policy. She felt that foreign policy is the main niche of Mitt Romney because he is constantly seen showing his concern by biking through the French country. However, Eileen quickly changes the subject. She mentions that Mitt Romney has pulled ahead in the battleground tracking poll; Romney's 49 percent trumps Obama's 47 percent, and these numbers are subject to a three percent margin error. Eileen calms the fears of her readers, and she mentions the unreliability of these polls. She references the polls from the 2004 election with Democratic nominee, John Kerry, and the past Republican president, George W. Bush. The 2004 polls indicated that Bush was pulling slightly ahead of Kerry, yet the voters knew that Kerry stood no chance against bush. Eileen concludes her blog post by asking a series of humors questions that she would like the debaters to answer. "General Zod remains a real problem, not only to our nation but the entire universe. So my question to you is, where is Superman?"

     Eileen's speaks directly to her liberal readers. She addresses their concern over the battleground polls, and she makes an attempt to douse the fires. Her article contains a link that references the current standing of the polls that her blog centers around. This makes her blog more creditable. Eileen correctly notifies her readers that the percentages have a three percent margin of error, which further increases her writing credentials. She has one case here: Eileen makes it a mission to morph the debate into a satire. She pokes fun at Romney by mentioning his phony facade, and she feels that his shaky platform centers around his vague concept of foreign policy: his idea of foreign policy is a biking trip to France.

     I align myself with Eileen. I too share liberal beliefs, and I feel that Romney has no substance as a president. The debates themselves seem to linear in their topic choices; you can only ask a question concerning foreign policy so many times before it gets played out. I love her sense of humor. Moreover, I would love the debaters to discuss a question that I feel the nation should have answered. Why did relinquish Pluto's title as a planet in our solar system? Was it really necessary, guys?

The Burdens of Being an Inmate.

On October 4th, 2012, the Statesman posted an interesting article regarding inmate's healthcare in prison. The post revolved around a disabled robber, Donald Carl Rash, who's medical condition leaves him vulnerable and completely dependent on Texas taxpayers for medical care. He has requested to be sent into a nursing facility, but his request has been denied by the Parole Board. Nevertheless, there have been instances where the Board has granted an inmate's demand for additional medical assistance, but the conditions have to show that the inmate is near death. An outstanding financial report reflects the decision of keeping sick inmates; the ward dumped $1.9 million in healthcare costs in 2011. As inmates get older, the more medical attention they will need. Donald says, "I've done bad things, but I want to stop being a burden to the people of the State of Texas and have some dignity before I die." That sympathetic statement had the publisher go off on a passionate quest for a solution to this problem. 

The author preaches to the taxpayers of Texas that this issue needed to be fixed. The publisher wants the inmates to receive treatment outside of their respective prisons. This relieves some of the financial burden from Texas's taxpayers, and makes taxpayers nationwide responsible for the well being of the inmate. The author provides a candid testimony from the Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman, John Whitmire. In a nutshell, he states that by re-located the sick inmate to a proper medical units, the taxpayers could save millions of dollars, and the once dangerous criminals would cause no harm to the public.

This post contains a significant amount of financial reports, a poignant testimony from a Committee Chair, and a valid response to the issue of the sick inmates. Unfortunately, I would have appreciated a more specific outcome to the approval of letting inmates receive additional medical care. The author gave a direct estimate of past costs for the medical burden that inmates cause, but the only resolution states a vague amount of money saved; I would have preferred a more specific number. But that's splitting hairs. The audience is clearly targeted, and the solution is clear. I align with the author of this article.

Don't Run with Scissors!

On September 20, 2012, the Texas Tribune published an article concerning Texas's uninsured health care residents. In 2011, around twenty-three percent of Texas's population had no health care. However, demographers stated if Texas starts a health care reform, then more than half of the uninsured would have a form or insurance by 2014. This reform would affect the current provisions in the health insurance policy: information of different health insurance programs will be made more available for households up to four hundred percent above the poverty line, and tax credits would be given to businesses towards health insurance coverage for their employees. This reform is constitutional, but the states have the right to refuse funds to expand Medicaid. Unfortunately, people argue that health care reform is too costly, and Governor Rick Perry avoids this issue. He states that he would implement other health care policies, but he did not go into detail about a solution.

Texas's uninsured issue startles me. I'm afraid that Texas does not prioritize health care as a concern. Last year, around twenty-three percent of Texans were without care! Furthermore, our Governor doesn't come up with a valid solution to this problem. This article is intriguing. It gives insight to the possible solution of insuring people in Texas, but the article also let's us see the lackluster response of the people in power. How will Texas respond to the startling number of uninsured residents? One thing is certain: Rick Perry has an idea, but he can't seem to get the words on paper.