Dec 6, 2007


In response to the article "Primary Derby," from the blog "Swimming in a Sea of Red."

I agree with you here. I think that Texas should move its primary up. The way things are right now almost no one in Texas votes in the primary because the candidates have already been chosen by their parties based on the primaries in other states. If Texas want to have an active part in the primaries we need to have a voting date that is in January or late February. I agree that a political race that has more than two competitors would help improve the turn-out in our state. Maybe turn-out will increase if the voters actually had a chance to chose the candidate from their party to run for president. You can view the original article here.

Dec 1, 2007

Illegal Immigration

Illegal Immigration

The problem of illegal immigration is one of major proportions for Texas because of the size of our state and the size of the border. We have both state and national border patrols. When the officers do their job and arrest people illegally crossing the border federal prosecutors have them arrested and put in federal prison. The charges are that the agents violated the civil rights of the illegal immigrant. First of all they are illegal immigrants they have no rights in the United States of America. They are not citizens of the United States and therefore they are not afforded the rights guarantied to the citizens of the United States of America. This is all just the legal side of the issue and also it is not a national issue because the first line of defense against the tidal wave of people who do not care for the laws of our country is the state on the border. In Texas we are building a wall on the border so that we have less area to patrol. The opponents of the wall argue that building a wall will destroy the environment. Those people are what I like to call, “tree hugging left wing environmentalist whackos,” they only care about what we are doing to the environment. We should be careful and take into account what the wall will do to the environment. If the current plan would cause too much unnecessary damage to the environment then we should change it to be less damaging. Also some people believe that we should deport all of the illegal immigrants that are already in the country. If we did this it would destroy our country. We should let the ones already in the country stay, but keep anyone from entering illegally. If anyone else wants to enter the country they will have to go through the process that our national government has set up. The only way that we solve the problem is by allowing the border patrol to do their job and spending the time and money to reform the process by which people from other countries can come and work in the United States of America. With out some kind of change in the process illegal immigration will always be a problem, because of the people that want to come and work because they can make a lot more money in our country.

Nov 18, 2007

Canyon Making

I agree there should be movement away from the old earth theory. And also has anyone noticed that scientists keep making the earth older when ever they want or when ever it serves to "support" evolution? It is a crazy that so many people believe in what the scientists say just because they are called scientists. This is a comment on the article Canyon Making on the O'Brian FACTor!

Nov 2, 2007

The '08 Election

The 2008 Presidential Election

The 2008 presidential election will be one of the most important elections that our country has had in the past two decades. The outcome of this election will determine what happens in the War on Terror, and if we start down the road to becoming a socialist country like China.

The War on Terror is a controversial issue that has Americans split on continued involvement to stop further attacks from happening, or bringing the troops home. I think that most people agree that they would rather have bombings and shootings happening in another country than in America. What people do not understand is that if we bring our troops home from Iraq, the terrorists will be able to focus their attacks in America. Because of our troops in Iraq, the terrorists have to focus on eluding us instead of attacking us. I would like to pose a question to you. How many terrorist attacks have happened since 9/11, and how many plots have been discovered and stopped by our government? Only a few have happened in other countries, but none in the United States of America. A countless number of attempts have been discovered and stopped before they could be executed. I can not speak for you, but I would rather have the attacks stopped and keep the people who want to attack us at bay, than let them have the time to plan and commit their crimes of hate. All of the democrats have said and continue to say that if they win the election, they will bring our troops home and surrender to the terrorists. Some Republicans have the same viewpoint, but most of them will continue the job that President Bush started.

The democrats have, is a plan for “National Health Care,” which expects the government to pay for everyone’s medical bills. They advertise it as “free health care,” but it is not free. You and me will sill be paying for our own health care, with higher taxes and longer waits for medical procedures. They tell us “Look at Canada’s health care system. It is government run and they are doing just fine.” Well, let me tell you something. In Canada if you go to the doctor because your knee hurts, the doctor looks at it and says that you need a MRI. You ask when it can be done. His answer is six months from now. If you have the some problem and go to a doctor under our present system in America his answer to you will be “How does six O’clock tonight sound?” How can you honestly tell me that the Canadian health care system is better than the one we have in the United States. Do you remember the Tsunamis that hit Indonesia? The best doctors who went there to help were from the Unites States. Can you name a Republican who has proposed that we model our health care system the way that a socialist country would model it? I cannot.

Vote for the Republican candidate, because if we elect a democrat our country founded on the principle of freedom and the ability to choose success level will become another China. I admit that the idea of socialism is good, but it will never work because of the basic nature of humans, which is that people are greedy, corrupt, and just pure evil. The reason that our country was designed as a republic was so no one man could control the country. Our government was designed to make it possible for the average person to become a member of the government and listen to what the people desire. We are the most powerful and stable nation, because of the way our government is organized.

Oct 19, 2007

A problem of execution

A problem of execution

Consider the source and the audience

This article was in the Austin American Statesman on October 12, 2007. The author was Ellen Goodman, a writer for The Boston Globe. This argument is addressed toward the general public. In this argument, Goodman used the fact that the issue is high profile, with many mixed feelings. This does not affect the content of the article. This article appears in the newspaper because the author wants as many people as possible to read and learn about the issue.

Lay out the argument and the underlying values and assumptions

In this article, the issue is not about if the death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment,” but only whether lethal injection is cruel and unusual. In making the argument, Goodman assumes that the reader has basic knowledge of the Constitution of the United States of America. This article pertains to the how the execution process, not the constitutionality of the death penalty. Terms like “cruel and unusual punishment” are defined by the rest of the world as the death penalty, but in America it is defined as things such as drawing and quartering, flaying, and other such things that Europe was doing at the time the Constitution was written.

Uncover the evidence

In this article, the method of lethal injection is being discussed because it is relevant to the public. A clear reason is because two death row inmates in Kentucky currently have a case in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), where they are testing to see if lethal injection is cruel and unusual. There is a cocktail of three drugs used to perform an execution. The first causes the prisoner to sleep. The second drug paralyzes the person. The third drug stops the person’s heart from beating. The author states that this description does not explain the situation if the first drug fails to work. Goodman states that we would not let the executioners cook a hamburger, but the real issue here is how merciful do we want capital punishment? How merciless? In our society we want criminals to be punished, but we do not want to inflict pain, cruelty, or death.

Evaluate the conclusion

The conclusion is that the country is tinkering with the dosage and the training. It is tinkering with the competence and mistakes to avoid the possibility of losing the death penalty to keep our humanity. If SCOTUS decides that lethal injection is cruel and unusual, then eleven states will be required to find a different way of administering the death penalty. Firing squad is a possibility, but lethal injection seems to be the cleanest and easiest way to administer the death penalty.

The information can be found in A problem of execution

Oct 5, 2007

Power to the ...

Craddick Claiming Power over Texas House

Consider the source and the audience

This article has no author mentioned. It is on the events in the Texas House concerning the current speaker Tom Craddick. This is and opinion article from The Fort Worth Star Telegram. This argument is directed toward the general public to try and make them see that Craddick’s claim is absurd. The way that the writer of this article gets the reader’s attention is to start the article with words showing Craddick as a power hungry man. This shows that the author already has made up his mind that Craddick is wrong in his interpretation of the Texas Constitution. This shows itself in the article because it says that anything that Craddick says is wrong or absurd.

Lay out the argument and the underlying values one assumptions

In this article the author first states Tom Craddick’s argument. Craddick believes that his job as Speaker is “‘a state office on par with the office of lieutenant governor,’ which the people of Texas fill through statewide elections.” The author states that Craddick needs this status to succeed in his argument that he can not be removed from the speakership. The author goes on to say that the Texas Constitution does not recognize him as a state official but as an officer of the House and can be removed at any time by a majority vote. I tend to agree here that it is not only a correct interpretation of the constitution but that it is also good government. The author concludes that the Attorney General Greg Abbott has a responsibility to interpret the Texas Constitution and protect it from abuse therefore he must deliver and opinion on this issue.

Evaluate the conclusion

I think the conclusion that the author makes is a good one. Even though there is a bias the author shows that Craddick has only a weak argument that he can use to support his case. The argument is centered on the word “first,” from Article 3, Section 9(b), in the Texas Constitution.

“The House of Representatives shall, when it first assembles, organize temporarily, and thereupon proceed to the election of a Speaker from its own members” (emphasis added).

Craddick is saying that because it says “when it first assembles,” it can only do so one time. If the writers of the Constitution wanted to say that the speaker could only be elected once they would have written words to that effect. The author makes this conclusion and I agree with him that the Attorney General should deliver and opinion in this issue.

Sort out the political implications

The political implications of this issue are huge. If the Attorney General sides with Craddick then all future Legislators will have to elect the Speaker carefully other wise they will have to wait till after the next elections to change the speaker. If he decides against Craddick then the Legislator can replace the Speaker at any time if the majority does not agree with what his policy.

All of this is in the article: In Pursuit of Power

Sep 21, 2007

Perry seeks disaster help

Governor Perry seeks disaster help from the president this is an article telling of the letter that the governor sent to president Bush asking him to declare the counties affected by hurricane Humberto disaster areas. This is just another way Perry is trying to help his state and the people he is leading.

It is also more evidence that we are have the wettest year on record in Texas. We are no longer in a drought.