Comment to Carlos Mendoza

In Carlos Mendoza's post focusing on the abuse and misappropriation of money in our political figures, he blames the politicians for their errant behavior but I garner a different opinion. When Attourney General Ken Paxton uses $78,000 in expenses for trips and Governor Greg Abbott spends about $147,000 dollars of campaign money for travel expenses, I think it merely reinforces my beliefs that it is not the politician's duty to curb their spending, but rather that the responsibility lies within the people to note when corruption is happening. Because let's face it, politics and corruption go hand in hand, yet the only way conniving businessmen find their way into such arenas is only through the people.

Carlos states that "there is no policing net that can prevent such things", yet I respectfully disagree. It is our duty as citizens to note when corruption is happening and to hold those accountable when it violates the promises to which they stand on. But yet I speak more on an ideal while Mr. Mendoza speaks about reality, because truthfully, most people have resigned themselves into thinking that their opinions don't matter. Many think that no one cares about such far away things so it's okay to not care themselves, and that misappropriation of funds is not something to fuss about. Yet for people who care so much about their freedoms, often they can forget that political activism is just another extension of their rights, and that corruption does not need be so rampant. I think Carlos's article is indicative not of our state politician's greed, but of the general apathy people feel toward political injustice.

Editorial: Eagle Ford Town's Residents Disgusted by Waste Site's Approval

Posted on the Texas Tribune on May 3rd, environmentally-focused writer Jim Malewitz, shines a spotlight on the small town of Nordheim, a population of 316 which will soon have to face a 143 acre facility to store waste. Driving two hours north at a time, local residents fought the decision to approve the construction of the facility to Texas regulators in Austin, and finally lost this Tuesday. Now, as the small town will now have to prepare as oil based muds, fracking sad, and various toxic oilfield leftovers potentially pollute the air and possibly other areas of life. 

Now on the other hand, with so many potential problems of runoff, air polution and general complaints, Commissioner Ryan Sitton says "the margin of error is exceptionally small".  Developers claim it to be a highly engineered landfill so that residents of the small town will not be disturbed. Yet they already are. While this could bring in business and create better infrastructure for the small town of "cracked local roads", this was land that was forcefully taken from residents and nature that will be disturbed by major construction. Whether they construct this well or not, this was a case of a little town being taken advantage of. With more than 200 people protesting the creation of a landfill so close to their day to day life, it is sad to see that nothing will come of it, that because of a lack of representation, will find their lives disrupted by the coming and going of cement trucks and whatever else will arise from the consequences of this decision. 

Commentary on Commentary: My Response to Susie Calderon

After reading Susie Calderon's analysis of safety precautions at UT in the controversial wake of a student's death Texas Universities Dont Care About Your Children, I am inclined to agree with her on various points that Susie mentions, yet wonder how much of this case was preventable. Yes, it is tragic that a student died. But I do not think the fault lies within the UT administration. The killer supposedly selected her at random and did not even attend the university. To buff up security in the aftermath of a shocking crime would not make students feel safer, in fact quite the opposite. From my personal view, this event is not a cry to bring more regulation to our campuses, but rather an argument of freedom versus security.

The question is not why did this happen, but instead what must we take away from this horrific occurrence. Yes we can post security guards at every door, start screening students for dangerous items and start mandatory educational courses of various dangers, but how much further can we take it? To what extent do safety measures actually make students feel safe before it creates a terrifying unknown? Will bubble wrapping students and teachers from the truth that there are some acts which are too horrifying to take precaution worth it, or must we all believe that all lives can be saved through countermeasures?

Editorial: PAC Mobilizes to Defend Vaccine Exemptions in Texas

In an article entitled, PAC Mobilizes to Defend Vaccine Exemptions in Texas, Morgan Smith, a reporter for Texas Tribune covers the anti-vaxxer movement in Texas, detailing the Political Action Committee created in response to filed legislation "taking aim at a provision in state law that allows parents to opt their children out of school immunization requirements". While many parent's hold only their child's interests at heart, the risk that they potentially bring to their children and many others are simply too much of a liability to let stand. 

While many could argue this is an issue of parental rights, it is much more reasonable to consider this notion a case against the general welfare of society. Since its discovery, vaccines have been found to be the sole reason for the eradication of many preventable diseases, perhaps the most well known of those being the smallpox vaccine in 1798. Yet this new movement that questions the legitimacy and effectiveness of vaccines has brought back what many once thought a thing of the past into our current society. It is due to this that outbreaks of measles and whooping cough are once again reappearing in areas where parents choose to not vaccinate their children. 

Having to file a "conscientious exemption" form to simply not vaccinate should be unacceptable. To be part of a society, there must be conformity to the laws and rules by which it stands. That is to say, if a parent submits that their child be exempt from particular social standards, then they should be willing to take their child out of public institutions if their interests should clash. Certain peanut products are often banned from schools due to allergies, why shouldn't certain children be banned for diseases? Not only should Texas ban vaccine exemptions, there should be federally enforced legislation on the regulation of vaccinating children. This is not a right so much as it is a standard to be met as a member of society. 

Protect Texas' Drinking Water: An Editorial

As the article prefaces the topic with the controversial incident of Flint, Michigan and the idea of clean water for all, Sara Smith writes her TribTalk article on the essential topic on our potable resource and the need to maintain and upkeep the ways native Texas receive it. With World Water Day occurring on March 22nd and a quirky topic of discussion, Sara reaches out to those worried about the conditions of drinking water systems with a horrifying quote, "EPA now estimates that communities face a $384 billion backlog to repair drinking water infrastructure across the country". She follows up with local examples of the impending trouble, a City named Keller applying for a loan of $12 million to replace four decade old pipes in aging asbestos-cement that supplies water for 42,000 people. Furthermore, Smith refers to a report by the Environmental Integrity Project that states drinking water systems that service 51,000 people have "exceeded Safe Drinking Water standards for arsenic." 

Sara Smith, staff attorney for Environment Texas makes a potent case for the indispensable resource that Texans have access, and furthers her own agenda by listing ways to protect it with "green infrastructure and ... low impact development." While certainly biased, established by a quick glance to her former articles and her current occupation, Smith does give sound evidence on why drinking water systems might be a quintessential issue that Texas will need to focus on as the structure slowly grows weak from negligence. Flint might be the spark that brings to light the harsh truth that drinkable water is far too often taken for granted.

Editorial: Why I'm for Ted Cruz

After a 3 hour personal interview with Ted Cruz in 2008, state representative Matt Krause offers his positive insight on Cruz's candidacy and strong convictions in his Texas Tribune editorial, "Why I'm for Ted Cruz". Giving context to the meeting, Krause states at the time Cruz had no reason to think Krause would rise to a position of power, therefore he had no reason to pander or sway his opinion, making the encounter one of genuine passion. Krause then lists reasons and examples where Cruz has stayed true to his convictions, both as a Senator and Solicitor General in issues regarding Second Amendment, 10th Amendment, and numerous conservative issues. As state representative, Matt Krause is quite obviously trying to reach out to his district and to Republicans as a whole. His role within local government establishes his credibility as winning an election and gathering supporters is quite a feat in and of itself. Essentially, his argument largely gravitates toward Cruz’s principles and devotion to what Cruz thinks is best. The image Krause creates of Cruz is of the ideal American, a family man, devoted to his country and to his God, and not forgetting to emphasize how important faith is to the Republican candidate. He mentions Cruz’s roots, the deep admiration Cruz holds for his father, having escaped from communist Cuba and the freedom that the United States of America gave the refugee. All in all, Matt Krause creates a convincing argument to the support of Ted Cruz, “a tenacious fighter for conservative principles.”

Link: http://tribtalk.org/2016/02/25/why-im-for-ted-cruz/

The CBC's Support of Clinton

In the Texas Tribune's article, Congressional Black Democrats Unload on Bernie Sanders, all four black Texas Democrats in Congress vouched for Hillary Clinton as her antagonistic campaign against Bernie Sanders grows stronger. These four Democrats are a part of the Congressional Black Caucus, a powerful bloc and political action committee. Marc Veasey, Congressional Black Caucus member of Fort Worth, listed his official reason for sponsoring Clinton and stating Sanders being “wrong on the issue of health care.” This is all happening while John Lewis, a Democrat from Georgia, claiming that Bernie Sanders as a "false revolutionary who lacks strong ties to the black community." Clinton has enlisted the help of many black Democratic congressmen and therefore has a better access to black constituencies.

Article:  http://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/11/african-american-democrats-unload-sanders/