A Good Fracking Commentary

     One of my colleagues posted a commentary on their blog titled, "This is Fracking Ridiculous." The basis for the article is the use of induced hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Texas, and the role of the Texas legislature to streamline the permit acquisition process.
　The author effectively and clearly conveys their message to the reader. This message being the author's disapproval of the fracking process and the standards under which fracking is governed.
The author quickly gets to the point and lines up the material quite well. They touch upon all the important pieces of the fracking story which helps guide the reader and the author's purpose. That purpose is to make the reader aware of the effects legislation is having on the behind the scenes process of fracking. My favorite part of the commentary is where the author writes, "If you don’t know what fracking is, it’s the latest and greatest way to poison your drinking water!" To me, this statement signifies a powerful and unwavering opinion on the topic of fracking. I would rather read a strong opinionated piece, than a soft, halfhearted attempt to convince the reader of something the writer is not passionate or convinced about themselves.
　The author states, "I can’t see how pumping out tons of chemicals into the ground can be good to the environment." In this section the author's thought and statement are clearly stated. To have a more influential and persuasive effect on the reader, why not remove the word "tons" and replace it with a number. Tell the reader just how much chemical and what types are being used. As a reader in search of information I would like to know through your article how much damage is being caused by fracking. How much damage is being done to the environment while potentially being overlooked by the legislature, for the almighty dollar? I understand this is a short essay and it's impossible to explain the entire process within the confines of 250-500 words, but providing a solid statistic can further open the reader's eyes to the extent of damage being caused by fracking.
     Overall, "This is Fracking Ridiculous" is a well written and effective commentary. I really enjoyed the read, and learned something along the way. Not only did I enjoy my colleagues article, but I also agree with their opinion on the subject in almost all aspects.

A Can of Worms

     Originally, I began reading and writing about a House bill that would require students in charter schools throughout Texas to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. While researching the topic, I discovered something that was interesting, yet bothersome. What I discovered was a Texas House member who authored 59 bills that are, in my opinion, fruitless.
     State Representative Marsha Farney, R-Georgetown, sure is making big things (sarcasm) happen for the education of Texas children during the 83rd Texas Legislative Session. She is a former educator and author of the bill requiring charter school children to pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags. This is patriotic and well-intentioned, but doesn't Farney's proposal encroach upon the charter schools' autonomy and right to choose how to operate? Farney's bill is not to encourage the charter schools, it is a REQUIREMENT.
     It is worth noting the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. An argument can be made that if students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge, why should a school, school district or organization be made to do so. The Star-Spangled Banner, which is the national anthem of our country contains the words, "land of the free." I don't feel we are very free if someone is choosing for us, and requiring us to pledge our allegiance to something. The charter school system should not be required to conduct such an exercise and I feel State Representative and former educator Marsha Farney should spend her time authoring and pushing more practical bills during the Legislative Session. Which leads me to the discovery that bothers me.
     During my research I discovered numerous fruitless and frivolous bills authored by Farney. As of today, April 25th, she has authored 82 bills. 59 of those are bills recognizing, congratulating, honoring and commemorating people or places. Why is this so bothersome to me? I feel the time the Legislature is in session should be optimized and I don't call 72% of the bills before me a good effective use of time. I should also point out that though I used Representative Marsha Farney as the example, she is not the exception. We can compile a mile long list of politicians who make poor use of their time.

Some Meat to Go With Your Bread

    One of my colleagues posted a commentary on their blog titled, “Is faster Really Better?” The basis for this article is the author’s criticism of the increased speed limits in and around Austin, Texas. The author left out a variety of useful data and information that could have shaped and backed their argument. The commentary gets the author’s opinion across, but leaves much to be desired.
    My colleague poses a simple question right from the start. “What is with the increase with speeds?” I don’t have an issue with the posing of such a question in the beginning of the commentary. The problem I have is with the author not answering the question, nor giving the reader enough substance to answer it themselves. The author should have pointed out that the foreign company that operates the toll road offered the Texas Department of Transportation an exorbitant amount of money to set the speed limit at 85 mph. The author could have also mentioned the incentive that was offered to TxDOT to lower the speed limit on I-35, both of which TxDOT accepted. The manipulation of these speed limits was done to make the toll road look more attractive, so the toll roads would generate more revenue.
    The author of the article states: “People die all the time in vehicle accidents.” Rather than stating the obvious, and to produce a more constructive argument, my colleague could have pointed out that the American Trucking Association feels that the toll road speed limit is excessive and dangerous. So much so that the American Trucking Association has asked the Texas Transportation Commission to rethink its 85 mph speed limit on the toll way.
    There are plenty of facts and opinions that the article could have included to better convey the author’s opinion/argument to the reader. At the very least traffic fatality statistics, loss of fuel economy while driving over 50 mph, and maybe the cost of the toll road and how expensive it is would have been a nice touch to add to the commentary.

No Toll Roads in Texas

According to the United States Census Bureau, Texas has the fastest growing population in the nation, so there is no surprise that Texas has the need to expand existing roads and even the need to build new ones. This growth presents the challenge of developing a cost-effective way to plan a highway infrastructure with consideration to the funding the state has available.

Texas roads are supposed to be funded by several different fees, which come in the form of road taxes. These road taxes are applied to: auto parts sales tax, tire sales tax, vehicle sales tax, vehicle registration fees and a motor fuel tax. Based on information obtained from the American Petroleum Institute, Texans are taxed 38.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 44.4 cents per gallon for diesel. Considering these amounts and the fact that there are 15 million drivers in Texas, if each driver used one gallon of gasoline in a day, the motor fuel tax would generate $5,760,000 per day! As one can see, the motor fuel tax alone generates a considerably large sum of revenue to be put towards expanding and building new highways, so there is no need to impose tolls on existing or newly build roads.

It goes without saying that any funding that comes from these road taxes should be applied to new roads, but this is not what has happened in Texas. The funding has been diverted, with the citizens of Texas literally paying the price. Politicians have chosen to build toll roads in Texas, rather than fund new highways with the road tax funds that were have been diverted and spent elsewhere. The state executives who include Governor Rick Perry said the toll roads were the best option so as not to raise or impose new taxes. One of the problems with this is toll roads are essentially taxation that is camouflaged and called by a different name. What makes matters worse is the fact that this Texas infrastructure has been handed over to a private and foreign company, Cintra. While it would be extremely lengthy for us to delve into why a private and foreign entity operating the toll roads in any U.S. state is alarming, there is something that can be left to thought. With the population rapidly growing and existing roads deteriorating, Cintra could raise the price of tolls as they see fit, whereas a state operated toll increase would possibly be left up to a vote.

The people of Texas and future generations are now stuck paying over and over for roads that are only built once. This can be equated to purchasing a house. Once the home is paid in full, you will then be charged again and again every time you enter it. It sounds ridiculous and it is. Texans are being excessively charged and taken advantage of. They have allowed the government to pull the wool over their eyes and will probably have to foot the bill for the sheep, which the wool came from.

SHEEPLE CONTROL

     

On Friday, February 15, 2013 Robbie Cooper posted an extremely short commentary on the UrbanGrounds blog titled: It is not about gun control; it’s about people control. Cooper’s commentary illustrates an anti gun control speech by Dan Bongino, who is a former US Secret Service Officer and former US Senate Candidate. The commentary is extremely short, so short in fact that Robbie Cooper’s entire commentary adds up to less than one hundred words. Cooper chose to communicate his message with a few quotes, and through the embedded video of Dan Bongino’s speech, at the Guns Across America Rally in Annapolis, Maryland.

I will start out by saying that I am for the preservation of the entire Bill of Rights to include the Second Amendment, which is the basis for Robbie Cooper’s commentary. I feel that these rights are not up for debate or negotiation, which is right on par with Cooper’s second quote of Bongino’s speech; “That is not up for debate.” I’m also aligned with both men in Cooper’s third quote; “The right to petition, the right to assemble so beautifully on this day. The right to speech is not given to you by the governor or the President of the United States. That is not his to give. And if it is not his to give, it is not his or her or anyone else’s to take away.” With these sections, Cooper chose very deliberate and poignant components of Mr. Bongino’s speech to get his own point across. This was one of the areas of the commentary I really enjoyed. The other part of Robbie’s Cooper’s commentary that I appreciate is his firm position on the subject. He is unwavering and seems to be very absolute in his stance.

The area of the commentary where I disagree is Cooper’s first quote of Bongino’s speech. It reads, “My God given right to protect myself and my family. That was my right not given to me by a piece of paper, only assured by that piece of paper.” For me, there are two issues with this quote. First, I would prefer if the author, or Bongino for that matter, didn’t bring God into the equation. Second, the right to own a gun in this country is not given by God, it’s given by man. I don’t recall ever seeing the word “gun” in The Bible, so in my opinion both of these men could stand to lose that portion of their statements because it holds no weight with me.

The author’s credibility is not a factor in his commentary. He is stating his opinion on a topic, not stating facts nor claiming to be an expert on the subject. With regard to Robbie Cooper’s credibility as a writer, he claims to be formally educated, holding a BS in Professional Writing. The author’s intended audience may be the card carrying members of the NRA, in order to garner support for Mr. Bongino. Maybe Cooper is aiming (no pun intended) at those who are on the fence about whether or not stricter gun control laws are the answer to prevent future mass shootings. It’s quite possible that Cooper intends to reach both of these groups in addition to the herds of sheeple who naively believe that this is about gun control, when it’s really about people control.

I enjoyed Cooper’s commentary, but wish it was a little longer. I feel as though he has more to contribute to this topic, and would compliment what I consider to be a very good, passionate, yet informal speech.

The Need for Tighter Restrictions on Payday Lenders

      The Austin American-Statesman published an editorial titled: Tighter restrictions on payday lenders needed. The piece was written by the Editorial Board and is a good argument for the need to better regulate the local lending industry. The lenders at the heart of the issue are not credit unions or banks, they are payday lenders and auto-title loan lenders.
      The author of the editorial makes some good points throughout the article, but there are a few shortcomings as well. The article claims, "state lawmakers passed a couple of timid rules regulating businesses that make short-term, high-interest loans." Closely following this portion the editorial goes on to name a couple of Texas cities (including Austin) which have passed stricter rules restricting payday lenders, who because of there fees and charges have a predatory reputation. These are important statements for the reader. It tells the reader that state lawmakers have taken a soft approach while the cities are more concerned with tightening the reins on these companies. Other areas of the argument that stand out are the author's recommendations for lawmakers, as to what regulations should be placed on payday lenders. The Editorial Board goes on to describe the service provided by the payday lenders while explaining the vicious cycle that the borrower becomes entangled in.
      One area where this editorial falls short is the lack of a bold, absolute statement. The author would have produced a better argument had they got rid of the "predatory reputation" and instead called it what it is, predatory lending. Exchanging the words from the first sentence, "businesses that make short-term, high-interest loans" with the words, "predatory lenders" would have been ideal. It acts as a thesis statement which gives the article a clear objective right from the start. Another shortcoming of the article is the author's placement of facts, descriptions and opinions. One example of this is the author's recommendations for lawmakers. This should have been used towards the end of the article, not prior to explaining how these predacious businesses operate. Explaining how these payday loan companies take advantage of people should have been a priority of the argument and not placed in the sixth paragraph. Lastly, presenting a specific person or case would have solidified the claim that these businesses need to be more closely watched and regulated. Presenting the reader with examples of the stipulations placed on borrowers for their late payments or the actual interest rates offered by the payday loan lenders would have been beneficial to the argument. 
      The editorial's intended audience is not necessarily the would-be borrower, but rather the general public. The Editorial Board did a good job of presenting the story, but not a great job of presenting their argument. As to the author's credibility, this is not known and is probably not the most important factor with regard to this subject matter.

Public Safety Commission's Take On Gun Control

     On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 Austin YNN published a news story titled: Public Safety Commission Tackles Gun Control. The article talks about Austin's City Hall getting in on the gun control debate. On Monday, February 4th, the Public Safety Commission came up with various gun control recommendations which they presented to the Austin City Council. The article mentioned a few of these recommendations, but did not go into detail as to the extent of the measures.
     A major issue with the proposals, which the story does point out is the fact that "cities and counties are severely limited by state law as to what they can do." Public Safety Commission Chairman Michael Lauderdale realizes they are dealing with a subject that is much larger than county, city or state. He mentions, in fact, that they are about to challenge and possibly infringe upon a right, "that is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution."
     The article also mentions that the Public Safety Commission brought in some medical experts for the mental health aspect of the debate. The article states that the Safety Commission wanted the medical experts to assess the mental health climate of the community. The story closes by pointing out that, "no recommendation was made to council concerning the city's mental health programs."
     Why is this article worth reading? That is for each individual reader to decide. I would like to just point out two issues/questions I have.
     First, why did the Public Safety Commission not give any recommendations to the City Council on how to address the mental health aspect, with regard to public safety? I think this would be the most important part of the equation being that the last three and most deadly mass shooting were commited by mentally unstable people.
     Two, why did the Public Safety Commission bring in Dr. Chris Ziebell who is an emergency medicine physician? With all due respect to Dr. Ziebell, if I wanted to know what the mental health pulse of the community felt like, I would speak to a psychologist or psychiatrist, not an ER doctor.