Stage 6 - Comment on Texas Triangle Train System

In a post to Lone Star Legislature, named Texas Triangle Train System, the author stated his desire to implement a railway system between Texas’ three largest cities: Houston, Dallas and San Antonio. Along with the convenience of public rail, the author also stated that the system would benefit smaller cities in between the three major hubs.

Two funding solutions were proposed by the author: the Texas Legislature passing a bill to fund the project with federal aid and subsidies to alleviate the costs OR private companies funding the project with the help from investors.

Opposition would lie within “the Texas landowners, small local communities, and airline systems.” Individual ridership will be low, but overall ridership should generate a high amount of revenue.

Personally, I favor public transportation and see this as a very viable project for Texas. I am a student in Austin originally from Dallas, so I do go home a handful of times over the course of several months and constantly see congestion, never-ending construction and just need for convenience.

As the author mentioned, the most populated highways in Texas are I-10, I-45, and I-35. A short trip up I-35 proves this to be true. Even outside of Austin, you hit major traffic areas in the smaller cities such as Waco and Temple. In a few short (long) years, construction on these highways will be done, with additional lanes to reduce congestion. Yes, this will relieve congestion, but for how long? As we all know, Texas’ population is growing tremendously, highways will continue to congest as more and more cars hit the road. Then what? More construction to add more lanes? Seems like a never-ending cycle. Adding a rail system would reduce traffic by taking cars off the road. The quick, convenient train ride seems like a much better option for commuters like me.

But funding!! Ah yes, where will the money come from? I agree with the author about the two possible solutions. The project will be an investment for whoever wants to tackle it, but I believe the money generated will be sufficient to overcome the preliminary costs. Texas, being the state it is, is filled with private companies that I’m sure are eyeing at a venture like this. 

As for the resistance against such a project, I’m sure the benefits will outweigh any hinderance caused by the project. The influx of business this could potentially bring is opportune to small communities. For land owners, they will surely be compensated for their land. For airlines, this may not benefit them, but for us, the more competition there is, the better, right?

There’s already talk of building a high-speed rail system between Dallas and Houston, so a project like this should be attainable. With a project this massive in Texas, the costs are undoubtedly going to be high, but the potential of a connected Texas far exceeds any costs.

Stage 5 - Is life without the death penalty in Texas possible?

One of the things Texas is known for, unfortunately, is the death penalty. Unsurprisingly, Texas leads the nation with over 500 executions since 1976. However, we are seeing a decline in the number of executions and death penalties. So, are they becoming a thing of the past? 

It may be; this year, Texas has gone the longest in a calendar year without a new death sentence. Consider this, in 1999, Texas juries sentenced 48 people to death. Today, it has be more than seven months since the Texas Department of Criminal Justice acquired a new inmate on Death Row. We are seeing that with cases today that would have guaranteed the death penalty ten years ago, are receiving, at most, life without parole. 

But what exactly is spurring this change? I believe that more and more people, including jurors, are starting to become aware of the fact that the death penalty might not be 100% justice. New studies have shown that at least 4% of those receive the death penalty are innocent. That’s 4 out of 100 people that would be executed for something they didn’t do. Convicting someone innocent to death is basically a crime itself. We are humans, and humans make mistakes. The rising number of condemned people released because new evidence proves their innocence makes this obvious.

Another reason why I think jurors are swaying away from the death penalty is because Texas adopted the possibility of life in prison without parole in 2005. They’re seeing this as a viable option to punish those without being completely barbarous.

In the end, I believe that jurors are going in the right direction. With the death penalty, justice isn’t guaranteed, there are faults in human nature, and this has readily been proven. There is no acceptable margin of error with the death penalty, and people are realizing this. The death penalty has been abolished in 19 states, and I think Texas should join.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethlopatto/2014/04/29/how-many-innocent-people-are-sentenced-to-death/

Stage 4 - Yet Another Confederate Debate

Recently, in the wake of the events in South Carolina, there has been much debate about symbols and representations of the Confederacy in this country. One of these representations, a monument named Confederate Dead, was erected at the Texas state capitol in Austin in 1903. As discussed in a blog post by R.G. Ratcliffe in Burkablog, the monument was said to honor the lives of the Confederate soldier fighting for the the south’s “constitutional rights”, or so that’s what was said at the time. Was this really an “homage to the Confederacy?” Ratcliffe thinks so. Inscribed in the monument are the words, “Died for State Rights Guaranteed Under the Constitution The People of the South animated by the spirit of 1776 to preserve their rights withdrew from the Federal compact in 1861.” He thinks that the Confederacy, while fighting for state rights guaranteed in the constitution, were mainly fighting for slavery. Ratcliffe offers a solution to the controversial monument — inscribe new words along the lines of “This monument was erected in 1903 as part of an effort to perpetuate the myth that Texas secession was about state’s rights and not slavery.” Ratcliffe is speaking to anyone who takes offense to or even defends the statue.

I agree completely with Ratcliffe; he seems credible, contributing many posts to the website. I believe that the actual message behind this monument is to recognize the Confederate States. In fact, fixed atop the monument is the President of the Confederate States himself, Jefferson Davis, and in his hand, supposedly the Confederate constitution. The South was fighting for their “State rights”, which I think is way of disguising the world, slavery. Opponents of this argument claim that slavery wasn’t the main driving force towards succession and that the South was fighting for their rights. Yes true, there were a handful of factors leading up to secession but slavery was the bulk of it. I also agree with his solution of replacing the plaque and not dismantling the statue. Statues like this have a place in our history, they shouldn’t be destroyed and “sweeping our dirty past under the rug,” as Ratcliffe says, isn’t valuable to our true learning experiences. We can honor the statue by letting it honor the lives of the soldiers who died and all the lives slaves who gained their freedom because of the war.

Stage 3 - Jump on Board with Public Transportation

Public transportation in Texas is necessary, or so William S. Lind and Glen D. Bottoms, director and executive director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation, respectively, think so in this article from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. As conservatives, they “find it odd that many people expect [them] to oppose public transportation, especially rail.” They believe that public transportation, specifically referring to rail, spurs development and business which conservatives generally favor. They point to examples such as Dallas, which has the country’s largest light rail system with more than 100,000 riders each day, and Fort Worth, which is “moving forward with a second commuter rail line,” and El Paso, which will “begin construction on a downtown streetcar system.” They criticize so-called conservatives (whom Lind and Bottoms think are really libertarians) for thinking that these systems would fail because of the lack of riders. They censure Libertarians for disagreeing with rail because of the fact that it’s subsidized. They defend rail by stating that “user fees cover only 47.5 percent of the cost of highways” and “rail transit covers 50 percent of its operating costs from fares.” Another benefit of rail is that it reduces traffic congestion. Last year, Austin voters rejected a light rail proposal that would help alleviate traffic.

Both Lind and Bottoms target this article towards conservative Texans or even anyone who doesn’t support public transportation. The two authors are extremely credible, both being directors of a center for public transportation. The fact that they’re both conservative allows conservative readers to identify with them. This is what Lind and Bottom are hoping would resonate with the readers. They’re basically saying, “you and I have the same beliefs in government, believe me, this is a good idea,” and they provide extensive evidence, as noted above. 

The idea of extensive public transportation and rail in Texas is good one! With the potential expansion of public rail here Austin, congestion would greatly be alleviated. This is something that most Texans should get on board with.

Stage 2 - 2nd Amendment Strengthens

In the beginning of June, Gov. Greg Abbott signed open carry and campus carry into law. Open carry would allow for gun owners, with a license, to carry guns in a visible holster or anywhere openly. This reversed a ban dating back the the post-Civil War era that only allowed concealed handguns to be carried. Campus carry would allow for students, with a concealed-carry license, to carry handguns on public college campuses. However, one measure of the law is that colleges are allowed to designate “gun-free zones” but cannot ban them completely on campus.

Campus carry would mainly affect us as students because it obviously would allow handguns on campus, with some restrictions. This could lead to more disputation on campus as this is a heavily debated issue regarding the safety of students.