Ignorant Civil Rights Activists Can Eat My Shorts

There have been plans floating about lately for a so called “Fusion Center.” This proposed Center would allow Austin law officials to share its criminal information with other government agencies. The only thing standing in the way, are ignorant civil rights organizations.
Of course these civil rights organizations are essential in our society to keep the government from hoarding too much power. But the days of a happy go lucky society are well in the past. The United States population is becoming more and more ominous, and I would have to consider a little bit more government a necessity.
The proposed Fusion Center, which was recently forwarded to council by the commission, will be housed in the Department of Public Safety building. Also called the “Austin Regional Intelligence Center,” the center would have a database system that shares law enforcement information with other jurisdictions as well as state and federal law enforcement agencies.
To me the question is not civil rights but making sure the right people are held in charge of the information which is merely a judgment call dependent upon credibility. Also making sure the information is kept private to the government and law enforcement agencies only.
In my opinion, if you are seriously concerned about the government gathering data about you and other regular people then you must be doing something wrong or consider yourself way too important.

Critiquing a reported Lone Star/ Oh the Health Care Bill

For this assignment I am required to critique a fellow classmate's post. Is the Health Care Bill Right for the People of Texas?
The posting is a smooth flowing read about the health care bill rights of Texans, and very properly punctuated if I might add. It is posted by one of my fellow classmates Rebecca on her blog the Lone Star Report. Rebecca considers herself a conservative and argues the new health care bill is flawed in theory for Texas.
The argument is pretty sound and has great appeal to many, as she states in her post there are twelve states challenging the constitutionality of the bill as we speak. I feel in her argument she misses out on any appeals of the bill, as far as significant beneficial assistance with the vast and increasing medical debt from patients who are uninsured. Her argument sort of assumes complete negativity of the bill. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
She definitely has strong conservative values as far as questioning the constitutionality of the bill, as well as the Federal Governments rights. As she continues on you can find highlighted key points through repetitive and firm arguments, such as costs per capita in Texas and federal rights. These help create a successful argument.
She supports her argument with several facts, although some approximated and concludes the health care bill should be governed by the state. By the end I find myself agreeing with her.

Going Green without the People

There has been a lot of talk and speculation lately about the proposed energy plan that the Austin city council is considering. This is a great plan for the city of Austin to add more renewable sources of energy including wind and solar. But with the speculation that it could potentially raise utilities by as much as fifty percent in the next ten years, should be decision made by the people.
The city council is set to vote on the ACPP’s energy plan on April 22 and in general I would have to agree with and support what the plan is working towards. Implementing biomass, wind, and solar energies into Austin can greatly improve future pollution and provide more reliable resources in the long run.
However, this is a plan that would have an impact on anyone who pays for electricity in the city of Austin. A plan with such impact should definitely involve more than just a city council vote.

Adios Hank Skinner

I have chosen to critique a post from the UrbanGrounds Blog mostly because of its relevance to my first post “Dying Innocence?” about Hank Skinner. Hank Skinner for those of you who don’t know is set to be executed tomorrow March 24 for conviction of a triple homicide including his wife and two kids back in 1993.
The Author of UrbanGrounds Robbie Cooper considers himself a conservative completely against Liberal and main stream media for “siding with and apologizing for our terrorist enemies.” He posted the article “Hank Skinner: Guilty as hell and a Date with the Gurney” to his blog arguing Hank Skinner Guilty and anyone who considers him innocent is stupid and deranged including the author of my first article Brandi Grissom.
His posting seems to be directed toward anyone considering Hank Skinner innocent and gives little thought to any other reasoning rather than guilty as charged. He makes the assumptions in the article that anyone considering Hank’s innocence must have some sort of sick “star-struck groupie” attachment to him. He also continues on to say that if the jury who considered his case came to the conclusion of guilty then that was more than enough. One can tell from his article that he believes that the government has done everything right by sentencing Hank to murder and denying any appeals to investigate another suspect and conduct another blood spatter analysis.
Robbie seems to have posted this blog in anger but supports his argument with the factual evidence reported from the Attorney General’s office. He also provides links to show the mass obsession people seem to have with murderers including followers of Hank himself protesting his execution.
Overall I would consider his argument a success, although it was written in a way as to not even consider the alternative. The Factual Evidence I feel is more than enough to assume Hank guilty. I feel it would have been more successful had he considered Brandi Grissom’s argument about lack of information provided rather than claiming her a “star-struck groupie.”
Robbie Cooper "Hank Skinner: Guilty as Hell and a Date with the Gurney" March 23, 2010 UrbanGrounds

Vote for Gomez/Change... Wait What?

My news item for this week is an Article posted by the editorial board on the Austin American Statesman website. This article represents a good argument for the reelection of Margaret Gomez as incumbent for precinct 4. But then continues on to sort of contradict itself in the conclusion. Why?
The argument is being made by the editorial board and posted in one of the biggest newspapers in Texas. It is made for Margaret Gomez as Incumbent for precinct 4, but also for Margaret Gomez to make changes from what she has done in the past and one would have to assume it was directed toward the voters in precinct 4, as well as, toward Gomez herself and her campaign. From the way the article opens up, to keep the reader interested the authors would have to explain how the changes they want in East Travis County were to happen by the audiences vote.
The basic argument is that for changes to be made in East Travis County, we would have a better chance of electing someone who knew how to make these changes but shows no previous action, rather than someone who only has promises of change and no experience. This argument assumes that Alvarez, the other candidate, cannot follow through with his promises because of his limited knowledge of county government. The authors of the article believe that the government should make efforts in developing Travis County, rather elitist values that they argue will create plenty of job opportunities.
I would consider the argument a success for the reelection of Gomez, but as for convincing her to make some changes, a failure. The article states plenty about Gomez and her accomplishments, sort of stating that she has done some things in her time.

Dying Innocence?

I read an article today at the Texas Tribune website, about the current policies of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. In particular the ruling of former Attorney General John Cornyn that considered 6 categories of information confidential if an inmate is on death row. This is information that would otherwise be available under any other circumstances for a case that remains open. The author of the article continues on to attempt to reach Cornyn and the Attorney General’s office with question as to how the information could be confidential to only the Board of Pardons and Paroles in an open case that could lead to the death penalty. This article is an interesting read in considering the case of Hank Skinner, a man set to be executed February 24 who has always claimed innocence.