Red Light Camera RE: Lone Star Political Page

In my opinion Red Light Cameras are more of a hassle than they are a benefit. First, as you mentioned invasion of privacy, it's not just about a student's parents finding out he was out all hours, it's also about couples possibly getting divorced over the same type of situation. The cameras do not show the person in the car but do show the entire intersection and cars around them. In my opinion this is an invasion of privacy.

What if someone is borrowing your car? Are you now responsible? Most people for red light cameras say yes because you are the registered owner. What If someone borrows your car, gets drunk, kills someone with your car, and the cops show up and arrest him. Would the cops come over to your house and arrest you too? It's your car; You are responsible!

As far as cameras reducing accidents this Blog and News Article beg to differ. I actually have been a victim of a person slamming on their brakes for a yellow light and their wasn't a camera there. It had been raining and I had a three car distance we were moving at 40 MPH on a posted 50 MPH the light turned yellow when she was about 50 feet from the intersection and she slammed on her brakes.  I did the same but that vehicle had no ABS and the brakes locked up. I panicked instead of pumping the brakes and slid right into her. When she was on the phone talking to her husband she stated that she stopped to fast on the yellow. However, I was still at fault and my truck was ruined. Statistics can be manipulated to represent any groups best interests.

As far as insurance goes I have not seen a decrease in my premiums yet. Actually rates in Texas continue to increase. Funny thing is that putting seat belt laws in place was supposed to help insurance premiums as well and how is that working? Granted seat belts do save lives, but why do people get fined $200 for not wearing one? Especially if they have life and health insurance?

These laws are just a way for cities to increase revenue and create another tax on people. If they really cared about safety of their citizens they would allow you to take more than one defensive driving a year (at least without loops and hoops) or your penalty would be to watch a video of what happens when you don't wear seat belts.

You do offer a good argument to the support of cameras and maybe I am just sore because I got a ticket from a camera. I just don't see enough evidence of its benefit. 

Lane Sharing SB 506

This year the Texas Legislature has a bill before them that would allow Motorcycles to "Lane Share".  SB506 pretty much states that if traffic is moving at a speed of no more than 20 miles an hour, you are not in school zone and both the passenger and rider are wearing a helmet a motorcycle may cut between lanes at a speed of no more than five miles over the speed of traffic. I am a long time motorcycle rider and am very much for this bill. I tried to find some good opposition sites but was really only able to find opposition in the comments section of most the sites I was researching. Some sites worth visiting are: Motorcycle Cruiser, About.com, andAutoBlogGreen.  Here is a really good video of a California News Station KCRA discussing motorcycle safety and has two different law enforcement agencies showing different positions on the Lane Sharing.  Here is a video of Lane Sharing taking place. 

 

So now that I have given you a lot of background and information on lane sharing lets discuss. Like anything, statistics can be manipulated to show what one group wants them to show so I will leave those out and simply base the rest of this article on my personal opinions. SB 506 has many advantages and is really much safer than some may perceive it to be. One of the biggest factors of this bill is that it promotes helmet safety. Currently in the State of Texas you don't have to wear a helmet if: 

1) You are over the age of 21 and have either 

           a) More than 10,000 of life insurance (you have to show proof and pay ten dollars for a sticker to put on your bike)

          b) Taken a Motorcycle Safety Course

 

SB 506 requires riders to wear a helmet if they are lane sharing and like many other riders I choose to not wear a helmet but this new bill already has me shopping for a nice full face helmet.  I would much rather have the ability to legally share lanes than to not wear a helmet. 

 

Second, it promotes drivers to give up the cars and take their bikes. Think about how many motorcycle riders would choose to ride and get through rush hour traffic in no time flat!  This will free up space on the roads and is like adding an HOV lane without the extra costs.  If more people rode motorcycles that would also help the environment, motorcycles offer a smaller footprint than most cars and get better gas mileage than most cars.

 

Motorcycles are usually not radiator cooled like a car and gripping the clutch every few minutes in stop and go traffic can be very painful for a person’s hands. Allowing motorcycle riders to continue moving helps their motorcycles last longer and makes for a less stressful ride.

 

The list goes on and most experienced motorcycle riders are for the bill. It doesn’t affect the safety of other drivers on the road . What do you think?  Should Texas pass SB 506? 

Abortion In response to Lone Star Blog

This is an incredibly touchy subject where emotions flair and both sides feel very passionate about their beliefs. I'm not really for or against abortion and don't plan on trying to be the expert but here is what I think. 

It's difficult to say that a woman should have every right to do whatever she wants with her body because if there is a baby in her body it is no longer just her body but the baby's as well. If the child was already born and the mother killed him that would be murder. However when does the baby reach the point of "Human Life" ? There are a lot of studies and facts that argue different stages of the pregnancy. 

The argument that you could be "putting that miracle in someone elses hands that would love to raise him/her", in my opinion, is not very well researched. There are so many kids living in foster homes and waiting for a "forever family" for someone to love them and care for them. Why bring more unwanted (I know that sounds horrible but it is a unfortunate reality) kids to this world? What if the woman was a victim of rape? Do you think that she should have to look at the ultrasound of her unborn child to remind her of that horrible experience? Do you think she should be reminded again that she is going to kill the fetus because she doesn't want anything to do with that horrible experience? Who are we to judge her or to force her to go through that?

 We should be spending more time and resources on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Recently, President Obama was blasted for having put funding in his stimulus plan for contraceptives, but yet if more people had these available and we spent more time educating our young maybe we would have less unwanted pregnancies.

Legalize Gambling in Texas

It seems one of the hottest topics in the legislature this year is whether or not to legalize gambling. There are very good statistics and arguments that support both sides. The opposition uses other cities that are considered to have failed after gambling legalization. Those in favor of gambling also provide great statistical information on the positive effects of its legalization. So who is correct? In my opinion every state and situation is unique and we won't really know if it is a good or bad decision until we try it.

The legalization of gambling would generate jobs and tax revenue. Currently many Texans serve their gambling needs by going to Louisiana and Oklahoma. Why let those states keep all that tax revenue? We currently support certain forms of gambling such as race tracks and Texas Lotto. The Texas Lottery has the worst odds of any type of gambling and based on research, attracts the poor because of its small price to purchase and its very large payout. People speculate that the legalization of gambling and casinos would create more poverty. Whether casinos open in Texas or not --people who want to gamble will continue to do so no matter how poor or rich they are. Having a casino farther away from "poor people" will not prevent them from spending their last 10 dollars on a Lotto ticket that has 1 in 12 million odds. Some of the issues with research is that they use cities that already had failing economies as examples. In the paper Economic Impacts of Gambling, the author cites a quote from the Los Angeles Times, "But look at Atlantic City. It used to be a slum by the sea, and now, it's a slum by the sea with casinos". We are not trying to bring the Texas economy up from the bottom but improve on it and create more opportunity. Texas is very large and allows for the opportunity to build large casinos and to duplicate the Las Vegas model. With the right measures in place this could bring opportunity.

Another argument is that Casinos attract sex and crime. As stated in the following blog, we already have more than our fair share of a sex problem and we don't have casinos to attract it. How is it that states with Casinos have a smaller share? I do not understand the crime argument. Casinos are known to have some of the highest levels of security and are some of the hardest place to rob. People do not suddenly become violent because casinos open up in their areas, and if casinos attract violent people where would they come from? If you open any major attraction you are bound to have more crime. If you open a large mall, stadium, or a theme park, you increase the number of people located in a small area. Which makes these places targets for thefts, assaults and other crimes. Should we ban all these places to reduce crime?

We will never know if Texas could be the next Las Vegas or if it will bust with the legalization of gambling unless we try it first. Why haven't the cities where gambling has failed to improve the tax revenue or the economy ban gambling? If it is so bad for those states why haven't they stopped? Must not be all that bad!

Students with Weapons?

In the editorial, Guns on campus is a dangerous idea, the author writes about how the Texas Legislature may possibly pass a law allowing guns in bars and schools. The author shares his opinions of how carrying concealed weapons on college campuses would endanger professors and students alike.

I am a bit bias because I support the carrying of concealed weapons, I don't necessarily agree that carrying in bars is a good idea, but overall agree with the right every American has to bear arms. However, putting my bias aside, I feel this article wasn't very well thought out or researched. Also, the main point of the article is Guns on campus and somehow the author deviates to alcohol, "innocent student or professor has been shot by an angry/drunk/stressed student allowed to carry a gun on campus", which assumes the student was drunk and carrying a gun on campus. The author doesn't reference any statistics and writes of groups opposed to the bill but doesn't identify them, "Lawmakers should also consider that public and private colleges in Texas, and their own police departments".

The main argument is that allowing students to carry a concealed gun on campus would endanger lives more than it would protect because the students may act in rage. It seems to me that if the student was that enraged it wouldn't matter if he had taken all the trouble to get a concealed hand gun license in the first place. A "angry/drunk/stressed" student that wanted to shoot his classmates or professor would do so whether he had a license or not. A drunk person is probably more likely to kill an innocent person by driving drunk then by shooting them with their concealed hand gun (which was licensed). Of the 328 murders convictions in Texas in 2006, 1 was by concealed hand gun license holders and of 61,539 total convictions in Texas, 140 belonged to Texas CHL holders. However in the same year there were 1,544 alcohol related traffic fatalities.

In the article, FIREARMS: Concealed carry opposition is irrational, by Scott Lewis, you can see a compelling difference in the argument. Mr. Lewis provides facts, statistics, actual states and schools as evidence to his argument. The article focuses on the issue and doesn't mix topics by moving in the direction of alcoholism.

I always try to look at both sides of any story without using my personal emotions, however I feel that if a person is going to post an editorial and defend very controversial points of view, they should really do some research and provide a better argument.

Legalize Drugs or Send more troops?

It appears that the crisis on the US-Mexico border is worsening. In Nuevo Laredo, the Mexican town across the border from Laredo, Texas, drug cartels are having their way and are killing at will. The Mexican government is trying to fight back, but the problem is apparently beyond their resources. Mark Stevenson wrote the article "Mexicans praise US border security measures", in which he discusses the United States' plan to deploy more federal agents and other troops to the US-Mexico border. However, is that really the answer? Jeffrey A. Miron from Harvard University writes, "Legalize drugs to stop violence", which sounds like a very logical approach. Initially, I was apprehensive about the idea of legalizing all drugs. However, after reading the article in its entirety and giving it some thought, I believe this may actually be a great solution to the problem.

Miron discusses how the United States faced similar problems when it established prohibitions on alcohol and how violence decreased once those bans were removed. Yes, legalizing drugs will bring with it many other issues, but as the saying goes—which is the better of two evils? The nicotine in cigarettes is one of the most addictive substances available, and cigarettes have been proven to cause cancer. Yet, we sell them without remorse or regret in order to generate substantial tax revenue. Alcohol can lead to disease—from cirrhosis of the liver to kidney failure—yet we permit the sale of alcohol and enjoy the tax revenue. Why not do the same for all drugs? We spend millions of tax dollars on the war against drugs and continue to lose the fight. Why not eliminate the fight and generate millions of tax dollars instead?

In my opinion, Miron has hit the nail on the head with this article. The article is very detailed with good reference to our history, and there is an understanding that this isn't a perfect solution, but one which will require "using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence". What I enjoyed most is that this article wasn't written by another "pothead" trying to justify the legalization of marijuana; rather, it's a well thought out and simple way to solving the increasing violence on our borders.

Stimulus for Texas -- Gov. Perry

Maybe I'm just naive or maybe politics are really just that blunt, but what I fail to understand is how in the last 8 years we could allow Trillions of dollars to be spent on assisting a foreign economy become a democracy but when the idea of spending under 1 Trillion dollars on the American economy is presented, our Republican Governor says he may refuse it. Why didn't he refuse to send Texas soldiers to Iraq? I understand big spending is just making the deficit worse, but I haven't seen the Republican party offer better ideas in the last 8 years, we allowed Bush to spend trillions, but now we want to be conservative and not spend money? Does the Republican party really care more about being right and Obama failing than the American people? Please enlighten me if I am just politically ignorant.

The article, Perry relents on stimulus money, is about Governor Perry deciding to accept the stimulus after all, and I feel it is worth reading because it directly affects the Texas economic situation. The stimulus package is supposed to pump money into the system to improve transportation, which has been a big issue in Austin (Toll Roads). Is this possibly a reason Governor Perry didn't want to accept the funds? Austin is currently on the brink of announcing multiple major layoffs, and this stimulus package may have a direct impact on our future.