Hang up and drive!

My response is towards Texas is my home's blog regarding cell phone usage while driving.

There is definitely a problem with drivers “multitasking” with their phones while driving, and I agree that something needs to be done about it. Texting, even while not operating a 2-ton piece of machinery, is hugely distracting, whether people realise it or not (and usually they don’t). There have been many instances where I was hanging out and talking to a friend when they whip out their phone and start responding to a newly-received text message and completely miss anything I say after that point. Add in the operation of a car, and that is a dangerous combination. Not to mention that cell phones have just completely taken away any respectful manners people had.

It’s unfortunate that there seems to be a need to create laws to try and force people to take driving seriously. It is not a right to drive--it is a privilege.
The sad thing is that most people are so oblivious and think that they are the special exceptions; that they can talk on their phones while driving, yet don’t seem to realise that they’re drifting over the lines, driving 20mph under the limit, and riding their brakes.

People don’t seem to think that a conversation takes more concentration than they realise and that it does affect their driving. Hands-free phones would not change this though--it’s not the act of holding the phone that causes issues. Being on the phone distracts from driving. That is all there is to it. It has been proven to be worse than driving intoxicated--yes, hands-free included.

I agree that the punishment for those causing accidents due to messing with their cell phones needs to be harsher. The idea of having a punishment as severe as if it were an intoxicated driver is a good proposal. Maybe it would make people consider that driving really is an important responsibility and that it deserves more focus.

More taxes?

Spend money. Is that really everyone’s answer for everything? That seems to be the mentality for this state (and this country) and I personally don’t think it’s the solution for much in the long run.

In Blog Stage Five, the majority of peoples’ solutions were to throw money at the problem. Where do they think this money comes from? Do they really think we need more taxes? It’s not that I don’t agree that teachers should be paid more, or that our roads should be fixed, prison guards paid more, and everything else. But rather than decide to throw more money at the problem, why don’t we figure out where the money we spend already is going? We paid for those toll roads already--why are we still paying? Where is that money going? Driving on North Lamar is like driving off-road. The money is there, but I don’t think it’s being put towards the things that need it.

OPEC recently decreased oil production by 1.5 million barrels to halt the falling oil prices; basically, they wanted to increase the demand again and force the oil prices back up. Good news for drivers is that the cost of crude oil dropped, so gas prices continue to stay low, for now. That kind of shows how bad the economy is right now. But does lower gas prices mean people will continue to watch what they spend? Of course not; it means they’ll drive again.

I’m tired of the mentality of “spend, spend, spend.” Some people can barely make a living on their income as it is. Or they just live their life on credit and always in debt. Again, I’m not saying AISD teachers don’t deserve it, but the rest of the country doesn’t get a pay raise; they can’t hang on for a while longer? Yes, I know that Proposition passed. But instead of voting everyone a pay raise, how about we ALL cut back a little until the economy improves?

DUI

My response is towards The Texas Blogbonnet's blog about the Austin Police Department's plan to force suspected intoxicated individuals who refuse to take a breathalyser test, to draw blood instead.

Originally, the idea of police officers drawing blood from individuals suspected of driving while intoxicated was an unnerving idea, but after doing a little bit of reading on the subject, it doesn’t sound so unsettling. First of all, they cannot (and won’t) physically force anyone to give a blood sample if they refuse the breathalyser test, but if they do refuse both, additional charges will be added on. Also, officers are trained on the medical procedure.

I read of a case where a woman was arrested on suspicion of DUI after her car struck and killed a motorcyclist and agreed to a breath test, which found minimal alcohol. The woman refused to give blood, so the police obtained a warrant and discovered her blood tested positive for marijuana and cocaine. It’s cases like that that make me favor the blood test idea. Breathalysers do not catch everything.

I will say though, those that are going to drink are not going to be considering the fact that if they are caught behind the wheel they’re going to be poked with a needle. Usually those that drive intoxicated either do not think they are “that drunk” or they choose to do it anyway. When someone is in that inebriated frame of mind, they don’t think clearly (obviously), so I personally don’t think that this new plan of on-the-spot blood testing is going to deter those that would drive intoxicated anyway.

I really think that harsher punishments for drunk driving need to be considered. Rather than having multiple offenses, and suspending licenses, throw them in jail for some years after just one offense. Make them really see how severe it is to drive while intoxicated, even if they (luckily) did not hurt anyone. Serving up to 90 days in jail plus a suspension of driver’s license for 18 months does not seem like a severe enough punishment to me. Hit them hard enough after the first offense that there won’t BE a second offense. Don’t allow them a way out just by hiring a fancy high-priced lawyer, because otherwise they just continue to buy their way out of punishment.

People argue that this plan takes away our rights, but driving is not a right and people do not take seem to take it seriously. If someone is stupid enough to get behind the wheel while intoxicated, they deserve to be hit with a callous punishment along with having their driving privileges revoked; they have proven they do not have enough responsibility to have a license to drive.

"Seven Out!"

In Texas law, a bet is defined as “an agreement to win or lose something of value solely or partially by chance” with few exceptions. The law is pretty straightforward in stating that betting on the results of elections, outcome of games or contests (sporting events), and “betting on any game played with cards, dice, balls, or any other gambling device” is considered gambling and is covered by the law.

A main argument people usually give for the legalization of gambling in our state is that Texas is losing out on money from the people who travel to Louisiana or Oklahoma. Have these people driven on Louisiana’s roads recently? Not impressive by any standards... Are they envious of Louisiana’s low public school system rankings? Where is the money from their casino gambling going? Because it sure is not showing that it benefits their state in any way. So what is to say Texas would be any different in that sense? The Texas lottery already does not benefit education as much as they would like you to think it does. It’s very deceiving and it may sound good, but how much are the schools really getting?

I have no problem with gambling, but prove to me that legalizing casinos is truly going to benefit the state and the taxpayers. There needs to be accountability for the gaming money. If it were to be legalized, grant only a set amount of permits for casinos to build and stick to it (I’d rather not have a casino on every corner, or slot machines in every Wal-Mart-type thing), but that won’t happen because money talks (which is also why the State Capitol is hardly visible anymore among the high condos going up everywhere downtown). Once they allocate unlimited gambling there’s no stopping it. So show me that the public school system would get a substantial amount and not just let the money go back into the casinos and their owners. Awful school rankings and hundreds of huge, luxurious casinos; something isn’t right with those priorities.

I rather like the fact that Shreveport is in Louisiana and not in my hometown. Many towns in Texas would lose their character if unlimited gambling were permitted, especially Austin. Goodbye to the live music scene...

Distinction?

This story, entitled “Student Faces Porn Charges…” comes from Craig Civale, a reporter for WFAA-TV in Dallas/Fort Worth, and concerns a 13-year-old boy in Denton County who was arrested and charged after another [female] student sent him (and other male students) a naked picture of herself.

First of all, it’s great how they call her an eighth grader and him a 13-year-old boy like there is a big age difference between them and that it should be a huge deal.

Second, I find it hard to believe that a 13-year-old “doesn't understand what pornography is,” as the mother tried to say. That is just delusional.

And third, if they’re going to charge the boy, they should charge the girl for creating and distributing porn. And even then, unless they can prove the boy had intent to receive the picture, they can’t charge him as a recipient of child porn. Otherwise it’s a fairly serious breach of the intent of the law. Exactly how did he have any control over what was texted to him? SHE initiated the contact, so why is he the one to be punished and potentially charged?

There needs to be a clause in all the child pornography laws that allow for concerned individuals within the same age group. They are both minors. Two 13-year-olds sending nude pictures is not child porn; it’s just the modern way these kids are experimenting with their sexuality, like it or not, though that is beside the point. This girl took a picture of herself willingly and of her own volition. She was not exploited.

So this eighth grade boy faces being labeled a sex offender at such a young age for some unsolicited cell phone pictures sent from a fellow classmate--something seemingly blown out of proportion. This is just one of those misguided youth mistakes that you’re supposed to learn from and move on before you get out in the real world where it actually matters. Sit them down, confiscate their phones, delete the offensive image(s), give them (or just the girl who distributed the images) detention/in-school suspension, and consider it a life lesson. Maybe even disable [photo] text messaging services for the offenders, or how about all children under 18? Because is it really a vital necessity? Not at all. Why do 13-year-olds need cell phones, let alone camera phones, at school?

Somehow, there needs to be distinctions made over what defines a sex offender. Two 13-year-olds sending each other pictures is really not much different than two 25-year-olds doing the same. If one of the persons involved was an adult, then it would be a different story. This boy doesn’t deserve to be categorized on the same level as other offenders, and really, the law should not have been involved in this at all.

Paid to learn

The following article comes from the Austin American-Statesman and is about Eastside Memorial High School (formerly Johnston HS) paying students to go to tutoring. The program, called the Tutoring Incentive Program, is funded with money raised privately, and the money students earn will be taxed. While this is an attempt at an incentive to get students to stay in school and finish their degree, I don't think it will work as they are anticipating.

First of all, if these kids were truly motivated to pass, they would not need a cash incentive to go to tutoring. Those who want to do well will make an attempt, money or no money. Those who just don’t care won’t make that attempt, and I don’t think money will persuade them--simple as that. So why? Maybe we should focus on why these kids aren’t passing or going to class. Focus on making the classes and teachers engaging. Make the kids want to go; to value the importance. Focus on getting parents involved, because they are a huge influence on their children. If the parent doesn’t care, why should their child?

By the time a kid reaches high school, their values and routine is basically already set. They have it in their mind whether or not they will attend class and try to do well. Maybe we should put more concentration on students before they get to the high school level; make them see the value of getting their high school diploma and not focus on standardized tests (a different issue best saved for another day).

Okay, so the incentive is supposed to be for those students that maybe don’t go to school for other reasons--taking a full-time job to help out the family, teen pregnancy, or just loss of interest. In addition to still attending school, going to tutoring is supposed to be like their “job” to earn some income and still continue with school. Will students really be earning enough at six dollars an hour for a few hours a week to help support themselves or their family, as opposed to working at a fast food restaurant full-time? Because there is no way they can be doing 40-hours per week tutoring as an “occupation” in addition to classes. And if they are, well, I’ve got 4 years’ experience…

The wages don’t even guarantee a difference in the student’s attitude--what if the tutors don’t help or are not engaging? What if the student really just does not care and is only going for the money? If they’re going to pay students, why not pay those doing well and perhaps the better one does, the more they earn? But really, what happened to the days of the diploma being the reward for good grades?

Judge to woman: No more children!

This story comes from the Austin American-Statesman's website and is about a Travis County judge who sentenced a woman to not have any more children as part of her probation.

The woman, Felicia Salazar, failed to provide protection or medical care for her 19-month-old daughter when the girl suffered injuries from a beating from her father, Robert Alvarado. Both parents relinquished their parental rights, and Alvarado was sentenced to 15 years in prison, while Salazar was sentenced to 10 years probation, during which, the judge ordered her to not have any more children. Neither Salazar nor her lawyer objected to the sentence.

Texas law states that judges have the ability to set any terms of probation deemed reasonable, but since conditions of probation are enforced by putting the defendant in prison when they are violated, what will happen if she does conceive and bear more children? Is it constitutional to enforce these kinds of conditions? I'm sure everyone has come across some parent they think should not be allowed to have children, but is it really enforceable if it came down to it?

Yes, or...yes?