Comment on The Death Penalty or Not?

As much as I respect your point of view and ideas, I have some different opinions on some things. First things first about the death penalty. I support this right one hundred percent, however, I do not support our method of lethal injection. Which is made to put you in a state of unconsciousness so you can’t register pain, afterwards you receive more injections to stop breathing and heartbeat. Using this humane method on criminals doesn’t seem fair when they probably weren’t so humane whenever they committed their crimes/murders. No I think they should suffer, and I don’t mean rotting in jail for their entire life. Nowadays prisons are like another home for most inmates, just with more walls. You still have prison gangs and smuggling going on inside. I don’t think life in there is as painful as it should be. Perhaps our prison guards should start expressing some serious brutality towards the prisoners who misbehave. In my eyes, serving justice means that the criminal should suffer just as much as the victim did if not more. If the criminal beats someone to a pulp, we should beat them. If they raped someone, rape them. If they killed someone, put them to death. Why do I think like this? Because I believe the potential criminals in Texas today aren’t afraid of the police, prison, and a painless death sentence. Therefore, they see little consequences if they have little or nothing to lose, or just don’t care.

As for repairing the problems… We can try to improve their mental health. But I question how far this would take us. If we applied help to criminals currently in prison, it would help some possibly, but most I think would be a lost cause. Those who are mentally sick who aren’t in prison yet can’t really get help unless they seek it, and who likes to admit they have mental problems or that they want to (seriously) kill someone?

Executing an inmate might not be addressing the problem, but that doesn’t mean every inmate deserves the right to live. And as long as Right and Wrong exists in this world, wrong is never going to go away. Also everyone’s idea of justice isn’t going to be the same. It’s just something we’re going to have to live with whether we like it or not.

Last but not least, your article was well written and thought out, which made for a good read. Nice job.

Restrictions for Sex Offenders

On Monday, May 4, 2009, the Texas Senate approved a bill that would put in place new restrictions on registered sex offenders. The bill would restrict registered sex offenders from using the Internet or other social networking sites, if their conviction involved an Internet crime. In addition, they would have to disclose their online identities to authorities. Some offenders convicted of sex crimes involving violence or soliciting minors on the Internet would be prohibited from having Internet access, some sponsors said.

I for one hope this bill gets passed into law. If criminals are kept off the streets, then these sick Internet pervs and pedophiles should be kept off the Internet. Especially when it comes to adults preying on minors/kids, this type of stuff really pisses me off. I won't even attempt to put myself in their shoes, to try and understand what must be going on in their mind, because it's already sickly obvious. In all honestly, if I was in charge of the punishments, I would place these fellas along with many others on the receiving end of a brass knuckle. There wouldn't be a need for long prison sentences, just disfigure their face for the rest of their life. So every time they look in a mirror they'll remember the punishment. Getting back to reality, Texas already has it set so that second convictions of first degree sexually violent offenses involving victims 14 years of age or younger measures as a capital crime punishable by death. I guess that is good enough to satisfy my blood thirst.

If the bill is passed it will take in effect Sept 1. Again I am hoping this bill gets passed, I feel like this should have been done a long time ago. More and more people gain access to the Internet every day. And luckily things are being done to counter the newcomer online sex offenders( To Catch a Predator), while still keeping a close watch on the ones already convicted.

I'll take a Jumbo Jack with cheese, and cut the Trans fat please.

I am all for having a healthy lifestyle and eating right. But I have to admit I really like heading to Jack in the Box sometimes after work and loading up on 12 tacos for a little more than six bucks. I would be greatly disappointed if this privilegde was taken away, because when you can eat whatever you want and can't break past 140 lbs, I could really care less about what I toss in my stomach.
So if this bill is passed it will be banning trans fat at Texas restaurants. Tex Report supports this bill as do I. Sure we all know Americans are known for their obesity, but after Ms. Batts busted out the percentages we get a clearer picture on just how serious it is. When I go out in public and I see these HUGE little kids who probably way more than me, I can't help but point and stare. And you know the kids aren't nutrition experts, so they don't fully understand that the eight happy meals they just consumed caused their toes to bust out of their sneakers. So it's the parents who should be watching what their kids eat. Well the percentage of obese adults is already over 50%, so that means most of the little(or huge) kids are shit out of luck, especially if their parents fall in that category. But then you know sometimes it's just in the genes, so some people can't help it or have to try extremely hard to avoid obesity.
So if this bill's goal is to help reduce Obesity in Texas, it will probably help a little. Although it is definitley not the ultimate solution to fighting obesity. I believe we will probably never see the end of obesity, maybe in 200 years when genetic engineering is like the new plastic surgery. Until then this bill will just have to do. Hats off to Ms. Batts for a well written and interesting commentary.

For the love of God, don't point that at my eye.

If you ever go to get a laser hair removal treatment done, you might want to do perform the following first: get a background check on the person who is about to shoot real lasers on your skin. If you fail to do the following, you can only blame yourself for being uninformed. Uninformed of what? Well, uninformed that currently in Texas one does not need to possess a license to perform laser hair removal treatments. Yes it's true, what I am saying is that anyone can head to Toy's R Us, buy a toy laser gun, modify it with some gadgets and gizmos from RadioShack, and set up shop ready for business. Unfortunately as harmful as that may sound, the potential risks for injury are real. Serious injuries such as 2nd and 3rd degree burns, and eye damage have been obtained during these procedures. Not likely due to malfunctioning equipment, but instead from the inexperienced people operating them.

So what is our legislature doing about it? Well currently, the lasers have to be registered with the Department of State Health Services to make sure their safe, but the operators don't have to be certified with the state. To me, not requiring the operators to be certified kind of defeats the purpose of registering the lasers for safety right? Since they can still cause harm and burn living flesh if someone doesn't know how to use them.

However some lawmakers have been looking into the issue. A bill by Jim Jackson, would, "Require training, testing and registration in order to perform laser hair removal, but would not completely put the procedure in a doctor's domain." The bill was left pending in the committee. But that sounds like a step in the right direction to me. Now we just need to watch and see if it gets passed. Until then however, beware of the potential dangers of laser hair removal operators.

Restricitons for underage tanning

So tonight I was browsing through the Austin American Statesman Editorials when I came across something that striked me as absolutley pointless. In the editorial which can be found here, it talks about how state rep. Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton wants to add restrictions on using tanning salons for teenagers under 18. In the bill he is introducing teens under 18 would need to bring a doctor's note and have a parent present in order for them to get a tan. The current law that stands today is anyone under 16 needs to have a parent present and anyone under 13 needs a doctors note.

Solomon compared tanning salons with tabacco companies with quotes like "This is like big tobacco," and "These guys are basically luring teens in." which the author thought was a little harsh. Solomon also stated that he just wants to ensure that underage teens sit down with a doctor and learn about the risks of exposure to UV rays.

With approximatley 1300 tanning salons in Texas, and about only 58 in Austin. The number of tanning beds in Austin still outnumbers the 34 McDonald's and 32 Starbucks, which I found very surprising. Even though I would never step in one myself it seems they are pretty popular. But how many teenagers actually go to tanning salons? Diane Lucas, president of Palm Beach Tan estimates that teenagers make up about 5% of their business, which is really nothing. Therefore I don't see this as some urgent problem that must be fixed ASAP. The editorial sides itself with the legislature stating that their main concern should be for the welfare of the states teenagers. So it might be a small public health issue, but I'm sure there are bigger issues in Texas we could be focusing on. No matter how much I try I can't take this issue seriously, maybe it was the way Solomon was comparing tanning salons to tobacco companies... Come on, you can't be serious!

Would you like a to-go box?

So while I was scouting through the Austin American Statesman I came across an editorial discussing the bill by Sen. Patrick which can be found here. It would require doctors to describe the ultrasound images in detail and play an audible heartbeat of the soon to be, or not soon to be abortioned baby. That all depends on how much of an effect the mandatory guilt trip has on the pregnant mother. The author of the editorial expresses their disagreement with the bill and its purpose pretty much by just flat out criticizing it.

In Texas it is already required by abortion providers to MISINFORM women that having an abortion can lead to increased risk in breast cancer. Even though this has been proven to be FALSE. So first they want to feed you with lies, and if this bill passes, they will be able to pull out the big guns for this next part. Lets take a closer look and what exactly we can expect if this bill were to be passed. In the editorial it is stated that, " The physician must describe to the woman what the ultrasound shows, including dimensions, heart activity and limbs, and make the heartbeat audible." Added to that the doctor must also display the ultra sound images and present the printed material. Now if the woman chooses, she has the right to avert her eyes, but I guess she still has to listen to the doctor talk about it.

Now honestly, when I order a steak at a restaurant I have no interest at all as to how my steak ended up on my plate. Now in the back of my mind I'm sure it came from a cow bred in captivity that was brutally slaughtered and chopped to pieces, all done to soothe my own and many others' hungering appetites. But I don't want to think about that right before I eat it do I? And I have a feeling that when women go to get an abortion they sort of feel the same way. I have no doubt that they have a conscious and know exactly what they're doing. Is it really necessary to force feed them information which sole purpose is to make them feel like shit? Is this honestly the best thing we can think of in order to lower the number of abortions done in America? It would seem so in some Republicans mindsets. But hey, this world is already cruel, disgusting, and merciless enough so what the hell does it matter. It seems free will hardly means anything nowadays.

Towards the end the editorial it mentions that a couple democrats are working on a bill which would require schools to notify parents what their students are learning about sexual education. This would be another step forward to preventing teen pregnancies, which would only help prevent more abortions. This seems like a much more reasonable way to help prevent abortions, AND teen pregnancies too. Although I highly doubt that letting parents know what their kids are learning about sex is going to have a big impact on the problem, if you even see it as a problem, I still think it's better than the bill Sen. Patrick is trying to pass. Which seems about a step behind bagging the poor unlucky bastards afterwards in a take home baggie just in case the would-be mothers ever wanted to recall their abortion experience(s) later on.

Texas Governor to turn down billions?

So by now we should all know that last Tuesday president Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus plan. Since that has finally been done, some of us might begin wondering how this will be affecting Texas. Yesterday the Houston Chronicle published an article that can be found here, which talked about how Governor Rick Perry has taken into consideration the idea of turning down the estimated $16.9 billion dollars that would be coming in our direction. I know I know, when I first read this myself I too asked what the hell is he thinking. Then after reading further his reasoning for the consideration began to make a little more sense.

Gov. Rick Perry basically wants to ensure that if Texas takes this money we use it wisely. One of the things he wants to stay away from for example is spending a mass amount of money on a project, and lets say that two years later, when we've already used all of the federal dollars given to us, if more money is need then it will have to be forked out of Texas's pocket. Therefore putting the tab on Texas. Instead he favors using it on things that would represent " one-time infrastructure improvements " instead. Which makes perfect sense to me. Overall I think it will be interesting on how this plays out. If the state is to receive the economic stimulus fund Gov. Perry will have to certify that it will be used to promote more jobs and economic growth. If he declines it however the Legislature could then accept the money on the state's behalf by passing a concurrent resolution.

And if no one can come up with a definite way to spend this money to its full potential. I would gladly take .0003% of it, which would pay for the rest of my college tuition, and perhaps a trip to Vegas.