The Life of DNA

     In his essay "DNA Testing Controversy" my colleague discusses the both the flaws and strong suits of the state of Texas's DNA testing when it comes to criminal cases where DNA evidence can become crucial to the truth being fulfilled. I completely agree with my colleague in his statements regarding this practice. i also agree that this man "Hank Skinner" has had life drawn out by this process being denied him. I am under the opinion that he committed this crime and should be convicted as such. it is also entirely possible that this man need the conformation that he truly committed these crimes. It is entirely possible that he was under the influence of alcohol during the time of the murders and has no memory of any of it. If that is the case he should be given that resounding proof that he truly did commit those crimes. On the other hand, if a man is searching that desperately for proof of his own actions it is also possible no amount of evidence will truly convince him, such is the state of a man who has lost everything. One way or another he should be given the DNA proof. If he is innocent then he should be released... if not, then he should be shown that he deserves his punishment.

The Power of Time

     The longer a source of authority is in control, the longer it is able to accrue power around itself. Once enough power is gathered that source of authority can become potentially dangerous or even corrupt. A good example of the prevention of this occurrence is the Presidency of the United States. After two terms, of 4 years each, the President leaves office and cannot run again. This prevents that unbalance of power. However in our own state of Texas the Governor has the ability to run as many times as they would like and if the people are happy with him he can be re-elected as many times as possible. Currently The Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, has been in office the entirety of my life.

     This can either be a very good thing or be very bad. If the power of the governor exceeds the ability of the people around him and he begins the inebriation process of too much power. What happens if the Governor decides that the process by which the government is normally run is against his wishes? What happens if no one is able to stop him? What happens if his power is too great? Well for one thing he hopefully will make mistakes and lose the election for the presidency of the United States. (Fingers crossed)

     I suggest that just like the presidency of the U.S. we should set a term limit on the Governor of Texas. I am not saying that the power that can be achieved is totally bad. In fact if the Governor is exceedingly smart and has the Wisdom of Solomon himself he can make the entire state better. The likelihood of this occurring is unfortunately quite low. So setting a term limit can prevent any corruption or drunkenness of power that could possibly occur.

Abortion's Law

     In his article Abortion Law Appropriate my colleague presents his views on the "Abortion Sonogram Law". I Share views with my colleague and agree that his methods of development for the argument are valid. There is one thing i would have added if i had written this particular composition. This in no way takes away from the validity of his argument for the laws enactment. I agree that abortion is taking a life and that if at all possible that life should be preserved, however, their are cases where abortion is the correct choice to make.
     If i had presented this article i would have also included information concerning another case in which abortion should be indisputable. Due to complications with the birth, the woman should have a choice the abort the child if either her life or the babies life is in extremely high risk of fatality. If having the birth,an event that should bring life, only brings death then it is entirely acceptable for the women to prevent either her own death or prevent anymore complications that may arise. i believe this is just another situation where abortion should be an acceptable alternative

The Big State Complex

“Everything is bigger in Texas” or so the saying goes. My argument is simple. Bigger is not always better. A prime example of this case is the Texas State Constitution. If you have any interest in reading it is available in all its poorly grammaticized and holey glory on a public website here and yes I spelled holey like that for a reason. The Texas constitution has had 643 amendments proposed, of which 467 were approved by voters and 176 were rejected. This makes our constitution one of the longest in the entirety of the U.S. The only exception… is Alabama. The length of this document is forgivable if only the contents could be deciphered or even remotely understood by the common man, but alas, this is not the case. Texas decided to rewrite the constitution on February 15, 1876 shortly after the civil war ended and the southerners who were not given the ability to control anything politically were finally given power back. The entirety of Texas southern officials decided they needed to stick it to those “Dang Yankees” by writing a constitution that set them apart from the so called “oppression” that doubtless they felt they were under. As a result this hastily written document has remained our constitution and all we have done as a state is add amendments. Gaping holes have been left in the constitution from when it was written. Inexcusable grammatical errors have remained to this day and if you search through the pages you will find more errors than a middle school student trying to write a college level physics paper. What baffles me to no end, however, is why we do not sit down as a state, staple our pants to the seat, and rewrite this mumbo jumbo of words? I will not deny it would take effort and time but is it not worth being able to proudly say “I am from Texas! I love my state AND my constitution!”? There are some who believe the document should be kept the way it is. More often than not this is because people have found loopholes galore in the tangled mess of words and are reaping the benefits. I say that we stop these actions. The people and officials of Texas should take the initiative and be able to be proud of every aspect of Texas Including its founding documents that makes us a great state.

A Pipeline to Wealth?

     We have already discussed in class the ramifications of such a pipeline, but while searching for an article on which to write this blog i came across a man making a case for Texas by proposing a pipeline to increase the money making ability of this state. It was interesting to read his issues and how he explained that in order for Texas to retain its wealth and maintain our money making abilities we MUST build this saving grace of for our beloved Texas. It was also interesting to note that at the very end of the article it is noted that he is a member of the Texas Railroad Commission, which is a main contributing commission to this project. Would this not mean that the writer of this argument clearly stands to gain from this building project? I appreciate a good emotional appeal to readers just as much as the next guy, but this just seems a little too loose around the edges for my taste. While trying to convince the rest of the populace to support this pipeline and making valid points that this would increase revenue he fails to mention that more likely than not only certain big name companies will stand to gain any REAL monetary value from this business venture. Neither does he mention what possible environmental impact this construction project could have. I might have believed him if not for his failing to reference these issues.

Vietnam Memorial on Capital Grounds

      Soldiers for this country of ours are some of the greatest heroes anyone can look up to. They fight, bleed, suffer, and die for our country. Why should we not see them as heroes?
      One man by The name of Alan Erwin has started a movement to have a monument erected on Texas capital grounds. He is trying to convince those that were against that war to reconsider there views and not confuse the war with a warrior. Whether the cause of that war a number of years ago was just, the men and women who died during that war should be honored and commemorated for their service and the blood they shed for our country. He States that several state officials already give it support, including Governor Rick Perry and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. Other supporters include state Senator Juan Hinojosa and state Representative Wayne Smith who both happen to be Vietnam war veterans. This dream of his is becoming a reality through the support of the people and the Texas Historical Commission. It is also spreading through newspapers websites and by word of mouth, because of sponsors and editorials such as this the movement for this memorial will hopefully become a reality soon. I can in no way see a single person denying that those Texans that died during the Vietnam war deserve recognition for the loss of their lives in that event in history. However we are given the right of free speech in this country and to each his own, despite moral standings that may be obvious to some.

A Politician's Voice

     We all know that politics takes a certain amount of pandering to public viewing. In order to make the politicians seem more appealing and therefore worthy of the everyday man's support the politicians must talk directly to the sources that will give them the most votes. Governor Perry give a prime example of this when he spoke publicly at an evangelical college. Yes it is necessary in a campaign of this magnitude to cover all bases but to change a demeanor of public speaking is an ethically questionable move.
     The article states that Perry spoke more as a preacher than as a politician. I may be wrong, but it is in my opinion that politics and religion should remain separate. Not to say that the Governor shouldn't have spoken in this particular venue, but only that Perry should have retained his political demeanor and remained on the political side of things instead of differing to his audience and speaking in a fashion that they would both sympathize with and support.
     I'm not a huge fan of politics as it is but when a politician is able to switch from speaking style to speaking style, as a snake switching from skin to skin, and not remain true to one voice this has a disturbing effect on me. Call me strange if you will.