Final Commentary

In Mr. Riojas' blog, The Lonestar Government, he comments on pending legislation that would limit teen freedoms such as tanning in tanning salons and texting while driving. While agreeing with limiting cell phone usage while driving for any age, Riojas states that it is an infringement on parent's rights to pass legislation banning teens' use of tanning beds.



I agree that texting while driving is dangerous for anyone, no matter what age, and the lack of experience driving shared by most teens compounds the issue. However, I think that if this law passes, it's going to be extremely difficult to enforce. Teens know how to hide anything (including texting in class) and a determined texter is most likely going to fly under the radar of law enforcement. The only benefit I could see coming from this law is that cell phone records could be subpoenaed during litigation if there were an injury accident and charges could be pressed against the party that was texting at the time of the wreck.



While passing laws banning teens using tanning beds may seem like an infringement on parental rights, keep in mind that our society is rapidly evolving in the direction of socialized medicine. To put it bluntly, you and I will soon be paying for the skin cancer treatments of teens that tan today. Since children and teens have such a high rate of skin cell turnover, their chances of getting cancer from UV rays is much higher than it is for adults. Unless tanning bed usage is prescribed by a doctor for therapeutic purposes (treatments for various kinds of skin disorders), perhaps it's best for teens to get tan the old fashioned way...which is also slightly less likely to kill them.

Real Hope for the Homeless

...And for the taxpayers. I was excited to find this encouraging story in the San Antonio Express News. Homelessness has been a long-standing problem across our nation and it often seems as if there is no good solution. Plagued by substance addictions and mental illness, and outcast by their relatives, many Americans have taken to a life on the streets. With few rules and no real job to fail at, panhandling becomes a pleasant prospect in their eyes. Most appear to make enough money to feed their addictions as well as their belly. Content with numbing their minds to life's pain, they may not at first realize what a life of homelessness will include. These people become perfect targets for crime, criticisms and plenty of cold nights. Furthermore, they're at risk for losing their newly acquired sleeping bags when the city decides to clean out it's culverts.

I've long thought that treating the symptoms of an underlying problem was not a good way to take care of it. Unless the core cause is addressed, the problem will continue to manifest itself and require more and more energy to subdue it over time. It appears to me that this is how we have been treating the symptoms of homelessness. With jail cells and emergency rooms full of misguided, and (let's be honest here) sometimes stubborn and smelly homeless men and women, the burden falls heavy on the taxpayer. As a savvy blogger points out in the comments section at the bottom of the article, many of us are struggling to pay (or can’t afford at all) our own medical and dental bills. However, may I point out that part of the reason for this is because people are already paying for the ER visits and jail time of the homeless via taxes and insurance premiums. Perhaps we could make a preemptive strike and help the homeless with their physical and mental ailments before they end up in a jail cell or in need of prompt medical attention. I feel that we would end up saving money and frustration in the long run.

These sentiments seem to be reflected by Bill Greehey, chairman of "Haven for Hope"... an organization working to establish a detox center for San Antonio's homeless population. Greehey hopes to get 6 million dollars a year to run this center, and states that it will end up saving the taxpayers the same amount in taxes. While I have no way of knowing if this is accurate, I do agree with the logic behind the process. Taking the time to care for people rather than just cleaning up after their bad choices could end up saving a lot of time and grief for everyone involved.

Classmate's Blog Critique

Tex Report's author, Courtney Batts, makes some good points about current legislation to ban trans fats in her article entitled "Health Nuts".

The fact that so many Texans are obese is a compelling problem, and Ms. Batt's quoted statistics from the Texas Department of State Health Services are indeed correct. If obesity were classified as a contagious disease, the CDC would consider its occurrence epidemic in proportion, and would be working night and day in an effort to contain it.

The FDA has done a good job warning the public about trans fats, and it is now a well-known fact among educated persons that trans fat consumption can lead to excessive weight gain and is also a major contributor to fatal diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and type 2 diabetes.

Ms. Batts makes an excellent point in her observation that it is very sad to see so many children grossly over-weight at ages when they should be care free... not burdened by a medical and social problem like obesity. When I was working as a pediatric nurse in San Antonio, the number of obese children I saw in the hospital was alarming. Many of the kids out-weighed me by the age of 9, 10 and 11 years old...some even younger. I saw the physical problems it was causing... premature joint degeneration, trouble walking, severe breathing problems (such as sleep apnea and asthma) and an overall lack of energy. However, as devastating as those problems are, they seemed like a drop in the bucket when compared with the mental and emotional problems that were emerging. Many of the kids suffered from a lack of self-confidence, depression and ruthless cut-downs and criticisms from their peers. Some of them were likely struggling with food addiction at those young ages, as the types of food that contribute to obesity (such as saturated and trans fats) tend to entice one to return for more. Obesity is a severe and disabling physical and emotional problem which is oppressing America's children and robbing them of their childhood.

I remember as I was working with those kids thinking that their parents should be charged with child abuse or neglect for allowing them to develop this seemingly preventable problem. However, after further contemplation, I realized that the issue is very complex and would likely require a complex solution. I think that part of the problem stems from a lack of education, particularly in poorer areas. Then there is the problem of being able to afford necessary resources...such as truly nutritious food and counseling for addictions (both are very expensive)... and also the difficulty of changing one's ingrained habits and cultural associations with food. I do believe that a key part of the problem is the availability and seeming in-expense (compared with nutritious food) of "junk" food and "fast" food and I think that legislation which reduces that availability will bring about a welcome result.

I agree with Ms. Batt's observation that it would be ideal if people would make good choices for themselves and their children by partaking of a healthier diet and life-style. It is sad that our country has come to the point where legislation on this issue is now a necessity. However, this is not a new trend for America. It would be nice if we didn't have to follow any laws and everyone would always choose to make good decisions for themselves and those around them. However, since many people choose not to, we must have legislation which keeps in check those who decide to do harm. It is a burden on everyone and takes away much of the freedom that we crave, but from my observation...the more a society fails to control itself inwardly, the more external force (laws, etc) has to be applied to keep it from self-destructing. We are regressing to a point of more limited freedom as our society spirals inwardly out of control. The government is indeed going to be forced to "hold our hands".

Finally, I understand Ms. Batt's comment about expecting more Republicans to "reject the bill" (that would limit trans fat in restaurants) than Democrats, because of the interview that the AAS source article included with (R) Rep. Laubenburg. Typically, the Republican party is for a "hands-off" government because the general consensus is that things run more smoothly when each person takes responsibility for his or her own actions. I believe that this is ideal and provides more space for personal freedom and creative expression; however, with a situation that is this out of control, I do think that we need the government to step in like a parent and control what we can and cannot have...for our own safety. Sometimes individual freedom has to take a back seat for the sake of the group...and after experiencing the devastation of those around me, I feel that this is the right thing to do. While some issues are certainly divided down partisan lines, I believe that Republicans and Democrats alike will evaluate this bill's content and realize that this is not a partisan issue, but an issue that we all need to deal with. The AAS tends to have a liberal lean and I think they may have sought out Rep. Laubenburg as an extreme right-wing example, but I do not believe that her sentiments reflect the general consensus of the Republican party. We are all human and can recognize when others are in distress. I believe there are many people on both sides who want to do the right thing and long to see a solution to this terrible problem.

How Much Do We Really Care?

Legislation intended to prevent abuse and neglect of Texas' state school residents met with unanimous approval yesterday in the House Human Services Committee, which was headed up by Rep. Patrick Rose. The bill, which has already been picked apart by legislators, was considered "emergency" legislation to put a stop to a long-standing problem. It will soon seek full approval in the Texas' House. Preventative measures would include an abuse hotline, surveillance cameras and an on-campus ombudsman at 13 Texas campuses. Group homes would also have yearly on-sight surveys, and care workers would get additional training. Employees found to be abusive would be black-listed and banned for re-hire at these facilities. While Rep. Rose authored this particular safety bill, a similar bill was marked as a priority by Governor Perry and passed in the Senate last month. These bills followed a recent federal investigation into the conditions at these facilities. There is some speculation as to what Rose intends for the rest of the bill which would include overhauling "the system" and closing several state institutions over the next ten years.

It sounds like this legislation was overdue on many counts; however, it is difficult to ascertain the effect it will actually have on protecting the disabled. Certainly, abusive behavior needs to be quelled and employees who habitually abuse their cohorts or the residents they care for should be terminated. However, I feel that we're missing the mark when it comes to addressing the real problem in these facilities.

My little window into life at a state school came when I was doing my rotations in nursing school. I saw little winding roads on which you could only drive at 10 mph and walked from dorm… to cafeteria… to hair salon… to workshop as I followed residents throughout a typical "day" at the school. I thought it was neat how things were set up and how they had creative activities and crafts for the residents to work on...each to the best of his or her ability. For the most part, the caretakers were warm and friendly and appeared to really care about the well-being of the residents. While I'm not naive about the existence and extent of abuse at some of these facilities, I honestly can't think of a reason for someone to work there unless they cared about what they were doing.

I also saw an ugly side to life at the state school. I noticed that many of the residents were difficult to handle...having made it through childhood with unchecked social and behavioral problems. Some of the residents would grab or scratch you if you got too close or made them angry and they often started fighting each other. Some would also do things that were harmful to themselves. I realized that when you take a group of people with physical and mental disabilities and throw them together in close quarters, it tends to create a volatile environment. I personally would be afraid for my physical safety if I were to work in a place like that.

Furthermore, I noticed that some of the staff appeared to be over-worked, not well-supported and were probably under-paid. In situations like this, most humans have a hard time keeping their cool at all times. Sometimes the residents needed to be restrained for their own and others' safety and that is not usually a gentle process. Much like police officers, when they fear for their safety, state school caretakers sometimes get frightened and use more force than necessary to contain an escalating situation. Also, while neglect is unacceptable, it is not always preventable in a situation in which staff members are being grossly over-worked.

While oversight is appropriate in order to protect the disabled, I believe it would be more effective to put money towards hiring more quality care personnel, providing for their safety at work and paying a more competitive wage. In my opinion, supporting staff members and caring for their needs is the best way to increase the quality of care in state schools and group homes. Perhaps providing funds to expand the campus facilities would also bring some relief to difficult, congested conditions. So, as far as this particular piece of legislation is concerned, I think the most effective part of it is going to be the effort to strengthen the skills of caretakers with the additional training provided.

You're Not Welcome in My Castle

Urban Ground's author, Robbie Cooper, insinuates that crime doesn't pay in Texas. While many state legislators debate whether or not private citizens should own guns, Cooper points out in his article that the Texas Castle Law is keeping criminals at bay. According to this law, a citizen defending his/her property can use deadly force (a gun) against anyone that threatens a home or business in order to protect it's legitimate inhabitants. If the intruder is killed, this action is considered "justifiable homicide" by Texas law.

Writing to a conservative audience, Cooper sarcastically comments that this particular criminal had "bad karma" on the day he died (while attempting to rob a cell-phone store). Though many states disagree, some Texans believe that legitimate gun ownership by private citizens is an obvious deterrent to criminal activity.

While strikingly unsympathetic to the criminal's plight, Cooper focuses on the beauties of the "castle law" by explaining that instead of cowering and retreating from the robber, the store owner was able to chase the robber off with his gun and even run out of the store after him. Tauntingly, Cooper encourages criminals to move to crime-loving (anti-gun) cities such as Chicago or San Francisco, arguing that Texas is too "heavily armed" for their pilfering pleasures.

When contemplated logically, this argument does make sense. After all, most burglars are smart enough to cover up their face (as the men in this article did) to avoid being caught and thus suffering the penalties of the law for their crime. With this evidence of their intelligence, it seems reasonable to assume that if they know they could get shot in one state and were guaranteed safety in another... that they might make a decision that is in their own best interest.

Who's the Killer?

Michael Richard, a man who was convicted of capital murder by our own court system, twice, and who spent 20 years of our tax dollars sitting in our prisons, has only recently received the due penalty for his crimes. Furthermore, the honorable judge Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is being called a "killer" because she finally threw the book at Richard, refusing to succumb to one more senseless scandal by the money-hungry defense.

Shaken, as most would be, by the thought of his life coming to an end, Richard told his prosecutor, Lee Coffee, that death by the highly-debated lethal injection "would be his last ultimate high". In Coffee's words, Richard "coldly" refused a plea bargain offered by the victim's family that would have granted him life in prison. My interpretation of Richard's thought process: Another government handout would be nice...especially if it involves controlled substances...on the other hand, the death side-effect is kind of a downer...but I'll take it anyway...better than spending life in prison.

Defense attorneys unabashedly grabbed at all the candy they could hold by dragging this case out for more than two decades. If I didn't know better, I might think I was watching little kids at a pinata party. Richard's defense attorneys were given more than ample time to appeal his case in the 20 years between the murder of Ms. Dixon and Richard's execution. The one seemingly legitimate appeal they made was ludicrous. Defense attempts to prove that Richard was mentally retarded were shot down by the fact that he was writing letters from prison and could play chess. I would also like to point out the cunning craftiness with which he planned Ms. Dixon's demise. Not too long after Richard was released from prison for a former burglary charge, he got right back to work. Having the sense to figure out when Ms. Dixon would be alone in the house, he broke in, turned out the lights, raped her, shot her with a 0.25 caliber pistol, hot-wired the Dixon family van, pawned the two items he stole and ditched the get-away van at a friend's house. I think that kind of planning takes an IQ of at least 75.

The most outrageous thing about this case is that judge Sharon Keller is being accused of murdering Richard and skewing justice by not allowing defense attorneys to file one more last-minute appeal. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that lethal injection was unconstitutional found the defense scrambling for one last excuse to delay Richard's execution. When denied the opportunity to get their last bit of candy, the National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers turned around and slapped Judge Keller in the face by having her reviewed by Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct and filing a motion to have her impeached.

My guess is that Judge Keller has too much common sense to waste her time filing litigation against Representative Lon Burman for slander or against the New York Times or the Austin American Statesman for libel. Perhaps she has more important things to do...like keeping real killers off the streets so people don't have to go home only to find their mother's blood spattered all over the bedroom floor.

Twenty-Million Dollar Question

Is Austin's city manager, Marc Ott, out of his mind, or does he have unusual foresight into the city's fiscal future? Decide for yourself by listening to this news clip on KUT 90.5.



Instead of fully relying on the national government's bail-out plan, Ott believes it's time for Austin to start tightening the belt when it comes to spending. With decreased revenue from sales tax, the city must either cut it's current budget or depend on dollars from Uncle Sam.



While Ott intends to aggressively pursue federal dollars, he warns against the city's dependency on such funds by pointing out that the economic situation will likely continue to decline. Even projects that will generate jobs and revenue have operating costs, he warns. He prods residents to look past the year at hand and ask what will keep the city budget healthy in the years to come.



The long and short of this story is that Ott is proposing twenty-million dollars in city budget cuts. The president of Austin's Urban League, Jeff Richards, candidly pointed out that "when a city's economy falters, the need for social services increases". He believes that it will be up to non-profit organizations to "do their best" and "step up where they can" to help offset the rising cost of social needs. Perhaps this season of financial hardship will be an opportunity for Austinites to show their hearts and humanity to those who are less fortunate.

Ott's proposal brings to mind the memory of choices I made as a young child. Do I spend my money now on candy or toys or should I save it for an education that could return the favor in the future? Cutting down on creature comforts is certainly not the way to win a popularity contest. However, could the city manager have our best interests in mind by planning now for the future rather than just accepting a quick and easy "fix" for an extended crisis?