Blog Stage 8: Comment on a Colleague's Work # 2

In response to Cinthia's "Texas and Shared Transportation" post.

Interesting article about something I don't see a lot about: public transportation in Texas. I would have to agree completely with Cinthia's arguments here. I've heard many times of how terrible the traffic is in Austin, so considering the enhancement of public transportation may definitely improve things.

Cinthia points out that Austin's growing population will only worsen the traffic situation here. This in my opinion is a crucial point in her post. There is no denying that Austin and Texas as a state has been growing rapidly, so there will need to be changes implemented in order to adapt. More people would mean more cars on the street.

There are some issues with the public transportation system however. I myself ride the bus often to get from place to place. Sometimes, riding the bus takes me an hour to get to a destination because I would have to transfer buses and wait at the stop. The time difference is drastic compared to a car ride, which would otherwise get me to the same place in 10 minutes. The reason this is so is because there aren't a lot of buses for each route, which means the frequency of a bus arriving at a stop is pretty low. This is most likely because of the lack of riders, so there isn't a need for a lot of buses. The examples that are stated in the post, about Europe and Asia is a great way to explain this. A lot of people in these areas of the world use the public transportation a lot more than in Texas, which is why countries there invested more into improving their trains and other public forms of transportation. What I'm saying is, if we want local and state authorities to improve public transportation, there needs to be more demand for it. If more and more people are coming into Austin, will they bring this demand necessary for change? Or will they bring their own cars and nothing really changes other than congesting the highway even more?

One thing mentioned briefly in the post was that this could reduce carbon emissions. I think this is a pretty important point to touch on. I personally believe in issues like global warming, so I support anything that could potentially help make the environment cleaner and safer. If people choose to ride these forms of transportation, we would see fewer cars in the street, which would reduce the emission of green house gases, and that's a great thing.

I am still a little skeptical because the question from earlier still remains. Will more people use these public transportation systems should they be implemented? The answer really depends on how efficient these things turn out to be. If they could match the efficiency of owning a personal car, or even better, then there will be the right demand for it, which would mean things like trains and buses would see a lot more success.

Ultimately, I think Cinthia did a great job in conveying her argument of the need for greater public transportation in Texas. If this turns out to be a success, then like she said, we would "improve commuting, reduce carbon emissions, and alleviate traffic". This would be a wonderful thing, so I agree with her, and would really like to see some more emphasis from policy makers in Texas towards this field.

Blog Stage 7: Original editorial or commentary #2

During this year's legislative session, the Texas Legislature has recently passed House Bill 2908 (HB 2908). What this does is it essentially increases the severity of the punishment for crimes towards law enforcement and other peace officers. Peace officer is just a another way of referring to law enforcement. While I agree that committing violence against the police is a huge no-no, I don't believe this is the right way to solve the issue.

The first thing is that because the consequences are more severe, it could dissuade others from fighting a case against them. For example, the blog post from which THIS post is based on: "Bad Enhancement Bill Boosts Pressure for False Convictions" by Grits for Breakfast talked about a man named Carlos Flores who was accused of assaulting a police officer, but in fact HE was the one who was assaulted by the officer himself. Despite doing no wrong and only acting in self defense, Flores pleaded no contest because he didn't want to risk losing in a trial, as he did not want to risk the incredibly harsh punishment. This happened in 2009, a while before House Bill 2908 was passed. The fact that innocent people are already getting wrongfully punished is an absolutely terrible thing, and should this bill be passed, the likelihood of this could potentially increase.

Another point that I want to touch on is that the punishment for assaulting a police officer is already pretty severe, so making it even more so in some instances seem like it has gone overboard. This is why in the Carlos Flores' example above, Flores decided to plead guilty even before this bill was passed. The Grits for Breakfast blog post I mentioned says that under this new bill, something like assault while intoxicated could mean "first degree felony (up to life in prison) if the victim is a police officer". This is absolutely crazy considering the fact that first degree felonies generally go towards murder, robbery, kidnap, etc. Also, what if the person who was being charged couldn't afford their own lawyer? This could potentially increase the chance of them losing the case, and suffering the absurd consequences.

Ultimately, I believe that House Bill 2908 is unnecessary. I understand the need to protect public servants and I completely support that idea, but as discussed above, this bill could definitely be taken advantaged of. Police officers could use this as a way to cover their own mistakes and actions, which could potentially lead to innocent people being accused and even punished. Also, those who did commit a crime could be punished to a degree that was completely over the severity of their crimes, which simply does not make sense and would not be fair. I think a reasonable solution would be to simply abandon this bill. There should be some other way to deal with this, possibly a way where peace officers can operate safely and also not at the expense of the people.

Blog Stage 6: Comment on a Colleague's Work #1

Commentary on Emily Ward's The Lack of Logic Behind HB 375- Commentary 

I think there are some great points being stated here. The argument in this blog is against supporters of The Texas House Bill 375, also known as the "Constitutional Carry Act".

In her first paragraph, Emily points out the irony of gun-rights activists unwilling to pay a fee because this fee pales in comparison to the cost of hundreds or even thousands of dollars for the gun itself. She goes on to point out that those who carry guns claim that they are for self protection and simply because it is their right. Her counterargument to this is that this bill will create a rise in gun owners, which could potentially increase the level of danger. I completely agree with all of this. 140$ and 70$ for getting and keeping a license really isn't that much if we compare them with the actual prices of guns. I also think having a license for a gun is pretty important. It is sort of like having a driver's license, so it shows others that you know how to properly handle these things. House Bill 375 loses the need to have a license when carrying a handgun, so I definitely think it will create some unease.

Emily states that "if this amendment was formed in the modern day I would assume tragedies like school shootings, accidental gun deaths and mass shootings would be taken into consideration". This is in my opinion the best argument here. The right to bear arms (2nd amendment of The Constitution) was created in the late 1700s . The 1700s! A time when things like muskets existed and were considered to be extremely inaccurate and inefficient. Compare those sort of weaponry to what we have today, and we are sure to see a massive difference. Back then, it took a long time to shoot and reload 1 shot. Now, we shoot multiple bullets in mere seconds. The fact that these weapons have become deadlier means that like the blog says, things like mass shootings have become more common, so we really need to take a look at how these laws were formed. I think what Emily believes is that we simply cannot follow something that is in a sense outdated.

The last paragraph talks about what would happen when certain aspects of a gun license are lost. She believes that there could be "handgun carriers as young as 18" because without the license from House Bill 375, the 21 year old age requirement  wouldn't apply anymore. This is an interesting point that I never considered, but after reading got me thinking. Even though people who go to college (ages 18+) are legally adults, I would still consider them adolescent and naive, so I also wouldn't exactly feel safe if they were allowed to carry weapons on campus.

Ultimately, I agree with everything that is stated in this blog post. It seems that the argument here is against House Bill 375 (Constitutional Carry), talking about the potential dangers of allowing open carry without a license. Emily believes that there should at least be some compromise with this bill, and I think this post does a great job in expressing her concerns for safety.