Critigue-Austin Smoking Ban - so ridiculous, it kinda makes sense

My colleague TJ Porter wrote an interesting article “"Austin Smoking Ban-so ridiculous, it kinda make sence".  The article is about the local government making decisions for you.  This is regarding the smoking ban that Austin established a few years ago.  He talks about in his article that the people in Austin got to choose whether or not they smoke in bars, and whether or not they ate in a restaurant that had a smoking section.  He claims that we do not get to make decisions regarding if we want to be around smokers.  Austenite’s voted for this ban and it was passed.  My colleague is in favor for this band on smoking.

I agree with my colleague.  At the time this ban was put into place I was a smoker.  I think the smoking ban in Austin is a joke, but it is what the people wanted.  Yes people have a right to choose to go into a restaurant or a bar and not be around second hand smoke.  People that smoke have a right to go into a restaurant or bar and smoke a cigarette.  I think instead of baning smoking they should have a designated smoking section, a separate place that is closed up and away from people that do not smoke.  That would make everybody happy.  That was not an option.  The option is let’s get rid of it all together. 

I do not think it affected business at all.  People still smoke in bars just do not get caught by law officials.  People still go out to eat.  The smoking ban did make the people of Austin feel better.

I am glad we, Austenite’s, had the right to vote on the issue.  The majority won.  Now we can all breathe easier. 

Annual Session or Biennial Session. What should Texas do?

The Texas Legislature has been a question on many Texan’s minds.  Should Texas Legislature meet yearly or continue to meet every other year.  Out of our 50 states Texas is one of four who still has a biennial Session.  Texas Legislature meets every January of odd number of years.  Is that enough?  Most Texans would say no.  That is not enough.

Why should Texas change?   I believe the main reason for Texas Legislature to change is they can get more done if they meet annually rather than biennially.  I feel 140 days is not enough time to address some of the important issues that Texas has.  Education, water conservation, unemployment, and the Texas boarders are just to name some of the issues that Texas faces.  A longer session could be useful. 

Another reason for meeting annually could allow the Legislature to attend to their business in a timely matter and not be rushed.  I do not feel that the legislature can operate effectively when they have to stop and start things up again.  With the Legislature meeting annually it could help make the policy making process timely and orderly.

By meeting annually, Texas could eliminate the special sessions.   There would be no need for the government to have a special session because they would already be there.  We would not have to call on them.

Even though there are many great reasons to have the Legislature meet annually, the Texas government thinks otherwise.  They believe there is no need to have an annual session; it is fine the way it is.

Many feel that by having a biennial session they will have more time to study commissions.  If they were to meet annually they would not have the time to study proposed legislation.  They would be able to make better decisions if they were to meet biennially. 

There is also the concern that it would cost the Texas Government more money to have the Legislature meet annually rather if they meet biennially.  As of today, the legislature makes $7,200 a year.  Compared to New York Legislature makes $79,000 a year.  There is a big difference in pay between annually and biennially. This will cost the Texas Government a lot more money.

The main reason for having the Legislature meet biennially is they have been meeting biennially since the 1800’s.  If it works why change it? 

I do feel there are some great reasons for meeting biennially but, that is not enough for it to continue this way.  This is not the 1800’s.  Texas is much bigger than when this came into effect.  Texas is expected to continue to grow.  It would be nice to have a Legislature be able to make decisions in a timely manner and not have to wait until a new session a year later.  The cost that it will take is a small price to pay to have a Legislature that is available.

I do feel that the Texas Legislature should be available more.  Times have changed and so should our government.   

Critigue-Is the Abortion Sonogram Law Unconstitutional?

My classmate Jessica Ready posted an article "Is the Abortion Sonogram Law Unconstitutional?"  This article is about a new abortion sonogram law. The law requires all women considering abortion to have a sonogram and listen to the fetus before aborting it.  The law was granted unconstitutional and was appealed.  The question Jessica asked was the abortion sonogram law considered to be unconstitutional?  She believes that it is not unconstitutional.  She agrees that the law was created for medical purposes and it is something women should be informed of.  By giving the mother information about the fetus the doctor is just doing his job.
I have to disagree with what Jessica.  My opinion is that a women should have the right to choose.  When an abortion is done some places already do a sonogram.  The women should have a choice if they want to hear about it.  I do not know if all abortion places are like that, but some are.  A doctor can suggest proceedures, operations, medications and you have the right to say no.  A sonogram or knowing the results from a sonogram should not be any different.  If a women is going in for an abortion she is not going to want hear or see anything that has to do with the baby.  I believe that the law was created not for medical reasons but in the hopes that by having a sonogram and showing the mother the fetus is the goverrnments way of trying to change the mothers mind into keeping the baby.  The doctor may be doing his job by dong the sonogram, but should be the women's job to decide if she wants the procedure done or to hear the results. 
I feel Jessica's article was well written and she does make a good point.  I do understand where she coming from.  I just do not agree with her.

Sex Education in Schools

Why is sex education not being taught in Texas schools?  That is a question I have been wondering about.  Many states are teaching children about sex, but not Texas.  Many government officials feel that sex education should not be taught in schools.  There is a feeling that by teaching children about sex, we are giving them permission to have sex.  Government officials believe that sex is something that should be talked about in the household, not in school.     The state complains about teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease but does nothing to prevent it.  I do understand that Texas is very conservative state, but this is something the government needs to deal with and soon.   

Yes, I do believe sex should be talked about in the household, but realistically it’s not.  I believe sex education should be taught to children between 6^th and 8^th grades.  Teaching sex education should be mandatory and be taught in a health class setting by someone in the medical field.   We are not giving them permission to have sex, but we are giving them the knowledge and the tools to make better decisions if they do.   Giving children the knowledge about sex will allow them to know the consequences of having sex.  Telling them not to have sex will not work.  They will have sex regardless of our feelings or what we say.   
Teaching sex education in school could have a state wide affect.  It could save the state money.  Having a prevention method can lower the amount of people needing treatment for STD’s or lowering the amount of teenage pregnancies in the state of Texas.  If we taught sex education in school it would allow children to make responsible decisions.  Education is the key and it starts with our government.

Our Expensive Governor

Rick Perry for president? I don’t know. According to the blog by Charles Kuffner, our governor may be spending a little more money than he should for his security details. So far he has spent $364,000 for out-of-state trips since his re-election. Figures were released by the Texas Department of Public Safety in response to a public information request by the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News; the security costs for eight recent out-of-state destinations, most of them occurred in August, the month that he announced his bid, totaled $70,869.54.
Rick Perry has been to key voting states: South Carolina 2 times, Iowa 3 times, and New Hampshire. This includes travels to Colorado in July and to Alabama in August. That’s on top of $294,093.34 in security detail costs for 30 out-of-state trips Perry or his wife took between the November reelection and July 21. This also includes: destinations to the Bahamas for a family vacation, economic development trips by his wife, and trips by Perry to promote his book. He also met with business leaders or supporters and performed duties related to his then-chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association.
Perry’s traveling cost is picked up by his campaign, but the cost for his security detail is picked up by the state. This is more than George W. Bush spent on his entire campaign.
I agree with the author on this one. The state of Texas is in a budget crunch. I think Rick Perry is using money that is not necessary. I can understand campaigning, but I do not see the Bahamas being a pertinent stop for U.S elections. I think that may be too much. He should be setting an example and I do not think he is. I believe anything personal should be out of his pocket, not the states. How can we trust him as a president if he is already spending money that he should not be spending?

http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=40284

Water Plant Finall Gets Long-overdue Go-Ahead

The Austin City Council will finally continue the construction on a third water treatment plant. Water Treatment Plant 4, located at 620 and RM 2222, would be Austin’s third operational water treatment plant. It is scheduled for completion in 2014, but if the plants opponents had their way, the date would have been pushed back or scrapped altogether.
One argument states that aggressive water conservation would lessen the need for a new plant. Even though Austin has embraced water conservation that does not obviate the need for more treatment capacity.
Marty Toohey, from the American Statesman, reported that the seven member council is now in full agreement that shutting down or delaying the plant’s construction would cost too much money. The city has already more than $300 million tied up in the plant. Delaying or stopping the construction will cost the city more than $100 million.
It has been 25 years since the proposal to build Water Treatment Plant 4 was first aired. Two years ago, the council finally took a vote, and the plant was narrowly approved, 4-3.
The defeat of Randi Shade in the spring election revived opponent’s hopes of killing the plant. Council Member Bill Spelman offered a resolution that moved in that direction, but Mayor Sheryl Cole engineered a compromise that included the study of the costs of delaying the plant that produced a convincing fiscal argument to move ahead.
Spelman stated, “I still don’t believe we should have started construction, but here we are half way through building it, and I think we should finish.”
Everyone in Austin should read this article. There are two operational treatment plants that went on line in 1954 and 1969 and the life span for a treatment plant is only 50 years. Should Austin have invested in another treatment plant? I think there should not be a question about it. Yes. Austin has been in a serious drought for quite a while. One of the arguments is that we have embraced water conservation. Have we? I still drive around and see businesses with green lawns. I do not think everyone has. We have been debating about this plant for 25 years, about opening this plant. We are half way done with it. I think it can only help our situation. It will cost us more to delay or stop the construction than to finish.

Hunger has worsened in Texas but remained steady nationwide, federal report says

A new study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows household hunger remains steady from 2009 to 2010, but worsened in Texas during the years the state has been hailed as a model for weathering the economic downturn.  The survey was based on 45,000 households during the 2010 census, and found 14.5 percent of the households had difficulty meeting teir food needs.
The U.S. Agriculture Undersecretary Kevin Concannon credited food stamps for keeping hunger levels steady. Rick Perry called the program a "testament to widespread misery." According to Rick Perry, "food stamps is not the solution.  They're a symptom of the problem that 2 milion people are without work."
15.6 percent of the population is on food stamps.  Between 2009 and 2010, that portion grew 2.8, the fifth-highest increase in the country.  "Hunger is a political issue," says Texas Food Bank Network director JC Dwyer in the film. There is enough food for everyone.  Distribution is the problem.
I think this is an article that everyone should read.  This is an issue that affects everyone.  It does not only hurt the families and individuals, it cost all of us.  When students go to school hungry they have a hard time lerning and staying focused.  Not only does it affects academic achievements it also affects the health of our future workforce and economic competitiveness.

http://www.americanindependent.com/192848/hunger-has-worsened-in-texas-but-remained-steady-nationwide-federal-report-says