Death Penalty

My classmate Lauren wrote a very good commentary on The End of Death Row. One very important point she hit on was, “While I understand the financial strain of keeping criminals alive in our prison system, I think there are other ways we can cut back on the mass amounts of spending that occur toward our prisons. However, the financial issue is hard for me to grasp, as the death penalty itself brings extra costs upon our prisons.” This I believe is so very, very true. The death penalty is much more expensive then it’s alternative, life in prison. Texas is spending an estimated total of $2.3 million on each case. This is about three times more than imprisoning someone at the maximum security level for forty years. The trial themselves cost more than just a regular murder trial. Yes, people believe it is needed to help lower the population in overcrowded prisons. However, I believe there are other things to resort to. Texas is known for being especially tough on inmates and tends to punish inmates harshly and has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the country. An alternative to reduce the population is possibly reducing the minimum sentencing and mandatory time served guidelines. The no-tolerance for drug related crimes could also be fixed. I honestly do not agree with people receiving huge sentences for drug related charges. Of course I agree with punishment but sometimes I think the punishments are too extreme. This huge incarceration rate is doing nothing but costing tax payers more money. These are some very important things that politicians leave out about the death penalty.

Another excellent point that Lauren made was the fact that, “there is no hope in death, no turning back, no room for mistakes. And as a people who are defined by continually making mistake after mistake, I cannot believe I would ever be certain enough in my own decision, much less someone else’s to take such a permanent action.” This procedure is mainly used for retribution and to make the victim’s families and friends feel better but at the same time there is a fine line between those who receive the death penalty and those who receive life in prison. That line is blurred. However, there have been people who were convicted with the death penalty, executed, and then later found to be innocent. Texas has such a huge rate of people receiving the death penalty, how many of those people were and are innocent? I can understand there are horrible crimes and everyone wants a person to pay for it but there needs to be absolute proof, no questions, and a solid, solid case in order to support the death penalty and actually execute someone.

The death penalty is harming the tax payers and the innocents. Even after the person is executed, depression and devastation still live on in the families who lost the loved ones. So who really is paying for the death penalty? To me, it seems like politicians, prosecutors, presidents, people etc. are choosing the death penalty for symbolic reasons and positions on toughness rather than substance and effectiveness.  Our criminal justice system definitely needs work.

Rick Perry

 If it the age old saying is true, that “everything is bigger in Texas”, then so too is Texas’ governor Rick Perry and his controversial political decisions that have thrust him into the national spotlight, for better or worse.

           

In particular, Rick Perry’s attempts to distance himself from what he (and many other small government proponents) considers an overgrown central government in Washington have produced for him two moments of controversy. For perspective, let’s start with the second controversial incident, a gaffe occurring in April of 2009 when Governor Perry, at an anti-tax tea party rally at Austin City Hall declared "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.” (Huffington Post Politics, April 15^th, 2009) with the insulation being that Texas could, in fact, secede from the Union. Strangely enough, the aforementioned gaffe came immediately after Perry declared plans to reject nearly 600 billion dollars in stimulus funding from the federal government (Dallas Business Journal, March, 2009), claiming “accepting the funds would lead to additional taxing of Texas employers at a time when job creation is a top priority”.

           

 Fast forward to 2011: Texas is currently facing a 27 billion dollar budget shortfall, a problem Perry intends on “fixing” at the expense of higher education, (The Economist, March 23, 2011) never mind that this problem could have been remedied by the same federal funding Perry rejected. In addition, Texas’ unemployment rate, once faring much better than the national rate, has nearly caught up to the nation’s 9.1 percent. (The Economist, March 23^rd, 2011) Ironically, the same stimulus funding rejected by Governor Perry was specifically designated to assist the state’s unemployment benefits.

The two controversial moves by Governor Perry seem to be calculated if not related in motif as well. These political gestures will come under more intense scrutiny as Perry moves closer to a presidential bid in 2012. But as long as he’s governor of Texas, if Perry continues to make bold moves at the expense of the state’s economic vitality, whatever his motifs may be, he may as well do the rest of the nation a favor and make good on his threats of secession.

Your Nobody Called Today

The person making this argument is a Texan who is a Democrat, hence the name In The Pink Texas (By Eileen Smith). I believe this blog is directed towards other Texas citizens. This article definitely showed a lot of opinions. Opinions that are definitely more liberal than conservative. This definitely affects the audience because I doubt that a lot of republicans would be interested in reading this blog. 

The basic argument of this blog boils down to the fact that this person believes that Governor Rick Perry should not run for president. The author believes that mainstream Republicans would not vote for Perry and also that America is not ready for another Texan because basically Perry is the same as Bush.  

This article is not supported by any evidence at all; it is just opinion based and the author’s own biased thoughts and beliefs. This short statement shows it all “I have faith that mainstream Republicans are not going to vote for a fringe candidate who advocates for prayer and fasting over actual policy solutions, calls himself a prophet, hints at secession, hangs out with evangelical haters, and executes innocent people for fun. (Fine, maybe they’d be OK with that last one.)” 

This article is successful in the fact that it clearly states the author’s opinions and this author is successful at staying true to their opinion. However, as far as evidence goes, it is not successful since it does not show any evidence for that matter that supports their opinions. It also makes huge (offensive in some people’s eyes) statements towards Perry. 

I personally do not have a huge view on this topic so I would not agree nor disagree at this point. This article did not sway my opinion in any way or persuade me to side with them or not side with them. I can appreciate the strong minded opinions however. 

As far as political significance goes, I do really believe it has any. This article also does not make a difference in my understanding of how the political world works. This also has no effect on who wins and who loses in the political process. All it is, is a Texan citizen who is using their constitutional right to speak about their own opinions and beliefs when it comes to politics, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Confederate Plates: An Utter Disgrace

The Daily Texan 
Author: Samian Quazi
Published: July 4, 2011

The person making the argument in this editorial is clearly a Texan. This article was found in a college newspaper so I do think it is directed towards college students, however, I also believe it is directed towards a broad audience of Texas citizens. This is for people who agree and who do not agree with the argument presented. The author definitely showed a lot of emotion and opinion in this article, which can make the reader either, want to read more or not.

The basic argument involves the DMV allowing Texas Motorists to sport a license plate with a Confederate Flag on it. This is only one vote away from being passed; it will not be officially decided until the fall. This author is definitely against this idea. The reason the author is against this is because they believe it is a disgrace to Texas because to them, the confederate flag is an icon of treason, divisiveness, and racism. The Confederate Sons of Veterans applied for this plate.

This argument is supported by the fact that this flag has been seen as a racist symbol, particularly to African-Americans. The author also points out, that today there is still a lot of controversy associated with the flag and what it should mean. This is important when looking at this argument.

I believe this argument is successful. I agree with the author and this article only supported my beliefs more. I believe the author did a good job of presenting what the flag has symbolized and how it still involves a lot of controversy today.

I believe there is a lot of political significance associated with this article because this group is asking the government to sport this flag. This is not just about people supporting this flag on their own personal belongings such as homes, cars, clothes, etc. There are tax payers who would not be very happy about this idea.

I definitely do not believe this should be passed because it holds too much controversy, bad feelings, and offensiveness. Not only has this flag represented racism but one of the main causes of this war was the Confederates wanted to keep their economic institution, slavery. Recognizing this notorious icon will only bring more controversy, in my opinion.

Ban on 'God' and 'Jesus' a problem for Houston Veterans Praying at Funerals

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=49224

“We were no longer allowed to say ‘God bless you’ and ‘God bless your family.’”
This article is about three Houston veterans’ organizations, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and the National Memorial Ladies, and how they are enraged that the Department of Veterans Affairs are censoring prayers and banning certain words such as “God” and “Jesus” during the funeral services, this includes forcing the chaplains not to use the words as well.

I definitely think this article is worth reading because in my opinion, I think this is a violation of the First Amendment and needs to be fixed. I agree with these organizations about being outraged and feeling discriminated against. I do believe these are discriminatory practices because this is not allowing these veterans to show their religious rights by praying and using the words “God” and “Jesus” during those prayers.