Isolation, mental illness and a call for legislation

I recently read an article by Scott Henson http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com, where he discusses solitary confinement and its negative effects for the prisoner as well as communities.  To be honest, I never really thought about possible consequences of this for society.  Like many people, I thought it’s a necessary punishment that must be used.  I thought this article was well written and informative. 

  It gave me insight on some ideas that I rarely ever hear about.  It claims segregation policies and practices are costing Americans a lot of money and are undermining public safety.  When inmates are put into solitary confinement, the conditions are so harsh that they can no longer function adequately in society.  The author states that many of these inmates are in fact innocent, and eventually are released from prison and begin their lives in society again.  I think it is crazy to think that such a harsh punishment is given to people who don’t fall into the more serious crimes, who are not in prison for life.  I agree completely with the author when he says, “because the conditions are so harsh, it should be used sparingly as the costs are high for offenders, taxpayers and public safety.”

  These people will return to our communities and live amongst us.  We don’t need to contribute to the number of mentally ill.   The author is not against solitary confinement, but rather using it carefully, as there are consequences for using such measures. Legislation currently has two bills that will look at administration segregation policies, that may hopefully find better solutions to solitary confinement.

 Overall, I thought the article was informative and well organized, I also liked the links he provided to give more background information on the subject.

Commentary on plastic bag ban

In the post Plastic Bag Ban plastic bag ban, the author does a good job of clearly making her argument on why she disagrees with the new ban on plastic ban. However, I disagree with her position because I think environmental protection is important, and this law is a simple, and effective in moving us in that direction.

 The post stated several reasons why the ban is a problem, such as it is a problem for peoples health and there is an increase in theft, but I think those issues have solutions that can be easily resolved and don’t necessarily call for a halt in the halt of plastic bags. 

Tamara was very informative in her facts about contamination from dirty reusable bags, but I believe people have the common sense to see a spill and clean it up.  Like everything else, people need to be conscious about germs and contamination.  We all know that washing our hands reduces our chances of illness, and that using good hygiene when cooking reduces our chances of food borne illnesses.  It shouldn’t be difficult to keep our reusable bags clean.  Also, it is not just food we are carrying.  All shopping is done with these bags, so that issue would not even arise unless it is food.  In that, I felt the post was not thorough. 

Secondly, the problem for businesses the author claims is more theft.  Businesses must rise to this occasion.  For the sake of striving for a better future, businesses could easily implement better loss prevention policies to alleviate this problem.  They should not rely on plastic bags to eliminate their theft. 

Overall, I thought this post was good, well organized and to the point. 

Ban on Plastic Bags

Austin recently banned plastic shopping bags, and therefore people must start getting used to bring their own reusable bag or be charged.  I know this is a bit of a hassle, especially when you aren’t used to doing that, but I really think it is the best thing to do.  I agree with this because I believe we need to take steps to protect and conserve our environment.  This will only be possible by implementing laws that will getting us all moving in that direction.  Sure, we are going to have to take an extra step and bring our bags with us, but in the end it will be better for our planet, and at essentially no cost to us.  I think we need to focus on what is important and not what is easiest for us.  Our children we see us striving to make a difference for our environment and in turn future generation may appreciate it and continue that.  I think the law must enforce this because otherwise nothing will get done, we will do nothing to help our environment, in fact I think more needs to be done.  Maybe enforcing the no litter laws that don’t seem to be enforced ever.  I know we can’t agree on everything, but if the sole reason people disagree with the plastic bag ban is because they will have to bring their own bags, then that is simply not good enough and we must understand that this is important this is for our future generations and what can be expected of them if we can’t even bring our bags happily in an effort to make Texas just a little bit cleaner.

Support ban on texting while driving

I read an editorial in statesman.com about banning texting while driving. While I had my own opinion  on the issue prior to reading this, but I learned some facts I didn't know.  The intended audience was Texans. I believe the authors were credible in that they consist of several individuals who are part of an informed editorial board that have varying opinions.

The argument in the article was supporting a ban on texting while driving.  They claim that texting while driving is reckless, kills hundreds of people each year, and enforcement by law should be done in an effort to decrease these incidents over time.  The board states that Rick Perry, has in previous years vetoed this bill and is probably going to do it again, claiming it is "micromanagement of government".  The board disagrees because it claims that it that were true, he would not have signed the bill for young drivers under 18. The board states that in an effort to save lives this law would be beneficial stating that, overtime, laws effect will grow and it will become second nature to most drivers.  Rick Perry says, "Texting while driving is irresponsible and reckless, " but yet doesn't want a law to enforce this because its micromanagement of government?  Why do we have law against drinking and driving? This is a great point they make?  It makes no sense to me.  I completely agree with the authors.  I think texting while driving is extremely distracting and probably causes hundreds of accidents and death a year so why not create a law to help discourage people from doing so, just like we do for drinking. I don't think anything terrible could come from doing this.  Although I agree with the authors point, I also like the way they provided some facts that didn't necessarily help them.  For example, they say in a study they "found a slight increase in collision claims after texting bans where passed."  This is believed to be because people began to hide their phone and be more decrete in an effort to text, so the distance between their eyes and the phone increased, causing them to spend less time looking at the road.  The authors claim this is only temporary, as people get more and more used to to this law, this will happen little.  Overall, I think the board did a great job informing readers of this legislation, and giving us all the  facts.

Cleaning up flaws in the System

On Febuary 27, 2013, Austin American Statesman published an opinion on wrongful convictions in Texas and gave insight to what they believe should be action taken by lawmakers.  It was very informative about a case where a man, Michael Morton was sent to prison for 25 years for a crime he didn’t commit.  He was found guilty of murdering his wife before DNA tests confirmed his innocence.  According to the editorial board, Williamson County District Attorney Den Anderson is being accused of “hiding favorable evidence for defense lawyers in his 1987 trial.”  This article is very good about getting the facts to readers and is to the point. It informs readers about goals Sen. John Whitmire has set to help prevent things like this happening again.   The bill at hand would “reset the statute of limitations for exonerated Texans who allege that prosecutors improperly hid key evidence or information favorable to helping defendants prove their innocence.  Exonerees would have for years from date of release from prison to file a grievance, which oversees attorney discipline.  Right now, the limitations start at the time the violation occurs, that’s why not much can be done with Morton’s case.  I think this article makes a great point in explaining the legalities of this type of case very well, even for someone who isn’t knowledgeable with Texas law.  I also felt that this article was a great one to publish because the public needs to be made aware of flaws in the system so we can improve the law, and less situations like this will arise.  

Perry denies health care to Texans

In an article published last summer in dogcanyon, Glenn Smith informs readers of Rick Perry's decision to deny health care to millions of uninsured Texans.  After the federal government took steps to expand medicaid, and offered Texas money to do so, Perry refused it.  As a result, the article claims,millions of uninsured Texas will go without health care, and the sick will either die or continue to suffer.69  Now the money that was available for us to use will go to other states. Progress Texas PAC stated in response that 1 in 4 Texans in uninsured.
I thought this article was worth reading even though its been a few months since published because I think health care is an important issue to Texans, and to the nation.  I believe it's a problem that needs improvement, and this is a reality.