Sexting Law: Necessary and Effective?

I was searching for a classmate's blog to comment on and, when I came across “Teen's: Think before youpush the send button on that message!!!”, it immediately caught my interest. Obviously I have known of the issues surrounding “sexting”; it seems to always be a big problem that can have negative long term effects on teens. I hear stories in the news and on The Bobby Bones Show all the time that give examples of the consequences of the act of sexting. I believe every teenager in the past decade, and maybe even longer, has had this come up at some point.
My classmate focuses on the bill that has been passed, that give a much harder consequence for teenagers that get caught sexting. They will be charged with a misdemeanor and take a mandatory class that will educate them further on how it can hurt them in the future. In this blog the writer completely agrees with the bill that was passed and thinks that it will help the problem of teens sending these kind of texts. With the law being passed, teens will know about this law, and it will make them think twice about sexting, and help them realize how stupid it really is.

I also agree that if it works then that will be great; I just don't know if it will actually make a difference. Knowing how teenagers can be, because I was one and obviously was around a lot of them, I realize they can be extremely stubborn and not make the smartest decisions for very immature reasons. I think they are smart enough to realize the repercussions of it, but just don’t care at that moment and time. It is just the same as with drinking and drugs. There are even stronger laws against it and many get caught and in trouble with the law, but the majority seem to do it anyways.

Another thought I have about this is: how will it be enforced successfully? A big part of that would probably depend on the help of parents, but I'm not sure that will be very effective. Parents might not want to go to the extent of getting their children in trouble with the law. Also, things on your phone can be very secretive. There are passwords, and texts can be deleted whenever the users want them to be. A good point in my classmate's blog is the question whether being caught sexting is serious enough to get put on a teenager's permanent record. I guess it depends on how you look at it. You can think that it is just another consequence that might stop someone from pushing that send button, or that it is a bit too severe.

As I said before, if it can make some difference for some teens, then it must be worth something. Hopefully, for most teenagers it won't get to this point because parents will address this problem head on, and teach their kids to make the right decision and not get involved in this trend.

Mopac: Toll or No Toll?

Out of all the major highways in Austin the one I use the most is Mopac; it always gets me to where I want to go, and is very convenient for me. Raised in Austin, I remember being in the car day after day, caught in heavy traffic on Mopac and getting very impatient. I always wondered if there was a way to change Mopac from being so congested during those busy times of the day. I never thought it would be a possibility because there are neighborhoods and other buildings on either side that are pretty close to the edge of the highway, and a major railroad track in the median. While looking for a topic to comment on, I found the article Mopac to expand with addition of tollroad in the Daily Texan. It immediately caught my attention because a toll road would affect my daily routine. My first reaction on seeing the title of the article was, “NO WAY is this an idea I would want to happen.” When I hear “toll”, I hear of extra money being spent to get to work and all the other places the drivers need to get to. Also I don't see how it could work with as it is.

More about the details: the proposal was submitted last week for an express lane project for Mopac Boulevard, costing $200 million. With this, there would be an added toll lane to both sides of the loop. After learning more of the details, for example that Capital Metro Transit and emergency vehicles would travel through the northbound and southbound toll roads for free, it seems to me that it could actually be beneficial. It sound like cars will still be able to travel on Mopac for free, but with the extra lanes available for those that choose to pay the toll fee to travel faster. This may cause less traffic on the no-toll part of Mopac because some would choose the toll road. The one thing that I am really curious about, but couldn't find more information on, is how it will be executed and how much the access to Mopac would change, and also how many years the whole project will take (during which traffic on Mopac will no doubt be even worse than now). There was no map provided to show details. Overall, I think this could definitely improve the traffic congestion that happens daily through central Austin.

Why Your Secondhand Smoke Shouldn't Affect Me

One of the entries, Smoke and Mirrors,in the blog A Little, Blue Dot in a Big, Red State's focuses on the argument that banning smoking in public places, specifically college campuses, is a way of controlling how people are able “to live their life their own way.”
The writer seems to be directing this entry to students at college campuses, mainly the students that smoke cigarettes. The blog entry turns to a much broader topic of freedom and being able to make your own decisions, and do whatever you want whenever you want, no matter the effect on the people around you. Even though the writer is not a smoker, the issue seems to be very important to her. This seems to bring in a contradiction; there are many other topics related to freedom that she could focus on and that would be more personal to her, which might convince the reader more to agree.

The argument is first focused on the “violation of my rights as a Texas citizen,” and on secondhand smoke being the reason behind the banning of smoking in public places; the writer claims this isn't a credible reason because apparently most cases of lung cancer do not come from cigarette smoke. The author says that people can be at more risk to get cancer from their genetics or from being exposed to other dangers in the world that also lead to cancer. The article's main focus is to say that there should be no ban on smoking cigarettes anywhere because she believes it is her right to chose to smoke, and because tobacco companies still produce cigarettes, so she should be able to do what she wants with them.

The first mention of evidence is an article called, “Anyone can get lungcancer.” She uses this article to point out how horrible lung cancer is, and how it is caused by other factors than just cigarettes and secondhand smoke; also to prove the point that the majority of lung cancer cases are not related to cigarettes. This is a true statement, but in the referenced article it states that 65% of diagnosed lung cancers are from other factors than smoking, which still leaves 35% being cigarette related. To me that is still a significant number, and doesn't help the argument. I think the writer's use of this article as evidence doesn't actually support her argument. The article completely doesn't support her message when it says that, “Avoiding tobacco use remains at the top of the prevention list. If you don't smoke, don't start. If you do smoke, quit. Get help if you need it. If you are a smoker or former smoker, early detection is key to reducing lung cancer's death rate. Stay away from secondhand smoke. Work to make your home and community smoke free.”

Then the blog goes more into the relation of secondhand smoke to lung cancer, and uses evidence from a study, posted in 1998, stating there was “weak evidence supporting a link between lung cancer and secondhand smoke.” Supporting your argument with an article from 1998 isn't using the most factual and up to date evidence; it does not take into account what has changed in studies since then. I found plenty of evidence saying the opposite in articles that were last medically reviewed and revised in 2011. In an article from TheAmerican Cancer Society, it says “Secondhand smoke is classified as a 'known human carcinogen' (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization. Tobacco smoke contains more than 7,000 chemical compounds. More than 250 of these chemicals are known to be harmful, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been linked to lung cancer. There is also some evidence suggesting it may be linked with childhood leukemia and cancers of the larynx (voice box), pharynx (throat), brain, bladder, rectum, stomach, and breast.” Also the article states that secondhand smoke each year has caused about 3,400 nonsmoking adults to die of lung cancer as a result of breathing secondhand smoke, worse asthma and asthma related problems in up to 1 million children, and between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children under 18 months of age, and lung infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year in the United States alone. One fact that really stood out to me in the above was that there have been found at least 69 chemicals in secondhand smoke that are known to cause cancer.

There are many points of the blog that make me wonder what they have to do with the argument that the writer is trying to make. When she says, “I am of age to smoke legally. So why can't I?,” my response to that is, “You can!” Just because there are bans to stop you from smoking around others does not mean by any means you can't actually smoke yourself. She also says that it is easier to force people to quit smoking (than take other measures to protect health), which again is beside the point and not true at all. I haven't seen or heard where Americans are being forced to quit smoking. It is also said in the blog that, “Everyone is so afraid of the big C, and it comforts them to believe that they can prevent it.” Lung cancer can be prevented; yes, it can also be caused by other factors, but for the people that won't get cancer from these other factors, it is still a known fact that one way to lessen the risk of lung cancer is by avoiding cigarette smoke.

There are another couple of arguments that are made in the blog that don't make sense. First, there is the statement that, just because tobacco companies produce cigarettes, people should be allowed to smoke them; this is irrelevant, because nobody is saying it is illegal to smoke if you are of age. The actual statement is also not a valid argument, because the fact that something is being produced doesn't mean it is right. For example, just because guns are being produced doesn't mean you can shoot them anywhere and put others in danger just because you have one. The last statement of the blog is my last to criticize. When she says, “I might wake up to find that I can't eat fast food because of the fat content and its relation to heart disease,” this again has nothing to do with the point, because an individual eating fast food and putting it into his own body will never affect the well-being and livelihood of another individual's life and body.

In no way do the arguments in this blog convince me that there is something wrong with banning cigarette smoking in public places, where people would be put in a situation of inhaling smoke they wish not to. I believe that if there is a chance, even a small chance, of harming one or more people because of my actions, then there is something wrong. Situations like this will never be something I will agree with. Sometimes you have to think of others and the logic behind a restriction.

Texas Women's Health Program

A hot Texas topic currently is the conflict between Governor Perry and the Obama administration over the Women's Health Program and the funding for women's health care in Texas. The Obama Administration made a decision to end the Women's Health Program, which provides preventative health care to over 100,000 low-income Texas women. Governor Perry says that decision was made by the Administration because Texas law prevents this federal funding from going to providers that include abortion services, such as Planned Parenthood. Perry has written a letter of protest to the Administration and has also made clear that Texas will continue to fund these services, with or without the federal government. This implies that Texas will have to come up with other budget cuts to cover the the loss of federal funds.

Much of the reaction has been a heated attack on Perry, accusing him of conducting a “war on women”. Even republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is criticizing Governor Perry's position. Media coverage tends to be one sided, as for example, the Houston Chronicle in the article Perry: How to fundWomens's Health Program? No taxes. No Rainy Day Fund. The one sided coverage leads to the destortion of facts and a biased presentation. It becomes all the more important for citizens to research behind the facts themselves. Looking into it myself, I have found that I disagree more with what Obama is doing than what is being said of Perry's actions. Obama is scratching the funds of the Women's Health Program for the sake of the less than 2% of providers that cover abortions, thereby withdrawing funds from the other 98% of providers that are serving low-income women for a variety of medical needs. Also, under federal law states have the right to set the criteria for “qualified providers”, and yet Obama is punishing Texas for not including pro-abortion providers. Senator Hutchison seems to be endorsing his attack. It seems that Texas women's health care overall is being threatened because of Obama's militantly pro-abortion agenda.

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/bills/
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/17020/

Blogger going overboard

While looking for a blog article to critique and I found this article on TexasFred.net by another blogger, J.D. Longstreet, that TexasFred wanted to share with his readers. The article is entitled Americans Are NEVER Alone; it goes into the issue that we are no longer free in our country. I quickly came to realize how the article is a bit of a dramatization on the issue of Americans being watched by their government. The article is more of a rant that can't be taken seriously. Granted this subject does have some controversy and can be taken seriously but, when I hear the extent he goes into it, I can't back this article. I know there is the issue of the “patriot act”, even though I am not fully aware of the details, where people are concerned about the amount of power the government can have in their daily lives and privacy. His first remark is that “Americans are no longer free”, but to imply we are not free at all is an obvious exaggeration when we are still able to make many decisions and act on our own and say what we think and feel. To me that means that we are slaves, which he does use in his argument, and I do not think that is at all the case. He starts making more ridiculous comments like: we are watched and listened to every moment of everyday; every phone call or email is being monitored; even that facial recognition cameras watch our movements on highways and city streets and that the government has the ability to look at us through walls to monitor us. This is such an unbalanced exaggeration with absolutely no proof to it. If you're going to make statements of this sort, you need to have someway to back it up with evidence. It's like he is taken any possible thing he could think of or saw on a movie and accused the government of actually making this happen to everybody...really everybody! He also says that the government uses Back Scatter x-rays as a way to look into cars, but this is what is used in the airports and has been shown to be ineffective. Longstreet brings up the point that our internet search engines pick up and keep lot of our own personal information, which is becoming a problem, but he is attacking the government when the fault lies with the actual Internet and the individual companies that use this method to track spending habits and so could end up knowing too much about their users. With this point he veers off his course of attacking the government. Then he goes back to how the government is putting RFID transmitters in garments we buy so as to track the wearers. Again he gives no proof , nor any reason why they would do so. He then starts comparing how it used to be for his generation, when America was free, and says, “we're just old fuddy-duddies muttering gibberish about an America that was once the greatest on the face of the earth – precisely because we are free!”. This isn’t realistic; the older generation votes in record numbers and is often the reason politicians get elected. It's called the blue vote. This whole article to me is just a joke and a source of some entertainment. There is definitely a logical way to talk about this issue that would make a convincing argument and be taken seriously. One of the only statements I could agree with is that the way we live our life effects how much we let the government and other sources know about us. For example, we can limit use of our GPS on our phones and the amount of information we put on the internet for others to see. At best, the only thing this article achieves is that I might look for a more reliable source that gives actual facts, uses a moderate tone, and does not ONLY single out the government, and therefore could be taken seriously.

Ban of Plastic Bag Use

A recent opinion piece in TheUniversity Star under the title, City council should push plastic bag ban, urges the action of students and people of San Marcos in support of a city ban on the use of plastic bags. The article appears in a Texas State news outlet which could reach many in the San Marcos community. The author appeals to people that live in San Marcos to act now. She does this by writing about the risk of plastic bags being hazardous to the beautiful local wildlife and environment. She gives examples of how the damage done by plastic bags could effect people's hobbies while living in San Marcos, like spending time on the river. Plastic bags can end up floating in the river and can be eaten by the water wildlife, causing blockages, infection and death to these animals. The evidence stated throughout the article I found to be supported, but with more detailed investigation you find that it's not so black and white. I did find in a National Geographic news article, called Are Plastic Grocery Bags Sacking the Environment? , the evidence for the fact that 500 billion to a trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide each year. The author also says that countries like Italy, Rwanda, Bangladesh, China, and Australia had proceeded to ban plastic bags from their territory. With further investigation of these bans, I found that the effect of these bans have varied from Rwanda where it is highly affective to Bangladesh where it has not been enforced at all and so plastic bag use is higher than ever. In China only certain types and thickness of plastic bags are banned but not all. A solution she gives to the problem of plastic bags is to use reusable bags that are convenient and not dangerous to our environment but, with further research, that can be discredited. One article that discusses the negative side, on Mercurynews.com called Action Line: Study: reusable grocery bags canbe dangerous to your family's health, describes a study which found that reusable bags have the potential for cross-contamination of food products, causing the growth of bacteria including e-coli. Overall the message is very clear and understandable. I do agree with the message and what should be done to change the harmful effects of plastic bag use. Before I read this article, I always knew this was an issue but didn’t take it seriously. This article makes me think harder about it, and make some changes with how much I use plastic bags.

Changes For Exotic Pets in Texas?

             There is an article in The TexasTribune titled Humane Society Wants Tougher Exotic Pet Rules in Texas, that addresses the issues with the lack of laws regulating the keeping of exotic animals as pets in a place of residence. The Humane Society of the United States believes that the rules on exotic pets statewide need to be more strict; they are planning to ask lawmakers to strengthen the laws that regulate the ownership of such animals. Texas law states that people who own exotic animals need to register their animals with their municipal or county animal control offices. By law in Texas, it is the local government's decision whether to regulate exotic pet ownership or ban it outright. The article says that more and more states are coming to the decision to ban private ownership of exotic animals — “21 states already have comprehensive bans, and another 8 states ban most exotic animals as pets”. The reason why this has become such an issue, and important to The Humane Society, is because there have been incidents in the last year that have put people in danger and The Humane Society is trying to prevent that from happening again. Jordan Crump, a spokeswoman for the Humane Society of the United States, says that, “Statistics show that there are more tigers held privately in Texas than are alive in the wild right now.” There are some counties that have banned exotic pets already, but others have not and, because of the lack of laws for exotic pets, “people are county-shopping” for the best areas to live in with their exotic pets and not have to worry about the rules. This is an interesting article to read because it brings light to an issue that many Texans (including me) have not thought about. If there are people that, when they have the freedom, are irresponsible about the care of an exotic animal, it can be very detrimental to the community and and issue that should be addressed by lawmakers to prevent mistreatment and putting the community at risk.