In response to "Red Light Cameras: Safety First"

In Mary Klingman’s blog post, “Red Light Cameras: Safety First,” Klingman discusses the improved traffic situation that has occured at a result of the implementation of red-light cameras.  The blog post discusses the benefits involved in having these cameras at intersections.

In the cities that are using the cameras, there have been 20% fewer fatal accidents caused by running through a red-light than in the cities that do not use them.  This one statistic speaks for itself.  These cameras have significantly decreased the number of avoidable deaths.  Clearly, anyone opposed to these life saving apparatuses has received a ticket after one of those, “Yeah, I can definitely make this yellow!” moments.

The thought that some people think of the cameras as a “Big Brother” type scheme is just ridiculous.  These are obviously the people that would rather decrease the safety of drivers that frequent intersections to save themselves a quick buck when they run a red.  If you are that worried about those pesky intersection cameras catching your every move, here’s a thought: don’t run a red!  A picture is only snapped when a violator runs over a “sensor-loop” in the asphalt around where the “stop here on red” line is.  A great demonstration of how this occurs can be found on How Stuff Works.

I know that for me, as a driver, instead of running that yellow light, I won’t risk getting the $75 ticket or, more importantly, putting everyone at that intersection lives in danger. Seventy-five dollars is a small price to pay after being caught by a red-light camera.  In Austin, if you are caught going through a red light by a police officer, the ticket would cost $275.  So, if one is really so opposed to these cameras, and the only reason I can think of for this is because he or she is a frequent red-light runner, wouldn’t he or she want the lesser fine a camera would issue as opposed to an increase of $200 when caught by a cop?

These red-light camera fines are put towards increasing the safety of citizens as well as helping to fund regional trauma care centers.  For those thinking these cameras are just a way for the government to make some money, once the cameras are put into place, fines issued usually drops.  This means that the cameras are doing their jobs; they are decreasing the amount of red light runners and potentially fatal car crashes, not just increasing governmental revenue.

Red-light cameras are a great invention that should be put at every busy intersection.  It is worrisome that some drivers are opposed to such a life saving device.  The statistics alone prove that these contraptions are not just a way for our evil government to make some money; they are saving lives across the state and across the country. 

How Stuff Works

How Red-light Cameras Work

Tom Harris

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/red-light-camera2.htm

My biased view on affirmative action

Affirmative action in Texas has always been a controversial issue.  As a white female university student, I am against it.  But as someone who embraces diversity, I am for it. 

Although affirmative action is not allowed through the Texas university admissions process, it is definitely allowed through private scholarships.  I spent most of my senior year of high school applying and interviewing for various scholarships.  I knew that I would need extra money for college if I didn’t want to take out huge loans or make my single mom with a low income go into debt for me.  So, in my financially needy state, I am against picking people for scholarships based on their ethnicity.  But in my member of society state, I’m for supporting minorities in a chance to receive a higher education.

It’s a frustrating feeling being pulled in both directions.  But, as a university student, it’s hard for me not to question its fairness.  A minority student could be better off than me financially, but a lot of scholarships don’t ask for financial information.  A couple essays, an application, a transcript, and letters of recommendation are what are usually needed to apply for a scholarship.  These applications will sometimes ask about the applicant’s ethnicity.  There should be no difference whether I’m white or Hispanic or African American.  Scholarships are about needing the money for education and showing your credentials for why you should receive it. 

All minorities are not financially in need, but affirmative action in scholarship selections tends to make that assumption.  Minorities can be just as financially sound and wealthy as majorities, so affirmative action appears outdated to me.  Now that affirmative action has been eliminated from the college admissions process, I think it should be eliminated from the scholarship selection process, as well.

I recognize my extreme bias on the subject, and know affirmative action is a highly controversial subject.  I am sure if you were to ask me once I’m finished with my college education what I thought about affirmative action, I would give you a different answer, but at this time in my life, I find it to be an unfair process.

Re: How dentists and real estate agents know more than you

Laura’s editorial, “How dentists and real estate agents know more than you,” was informative and enlightening.  The textbook issue in Texas is yet another flaw in our education system.  It is a crisis that is frightening to contemplate as it affects everyone’s futures here in Texas. 

It is worrisome, to say the least, how the mostly conservative Board of Education is able to dictate what kids learn in school.  With that conservative bias on our text books, what else will students learn besides the conservative way?  As difficult as it may be, I think text books should have no biases.  As Laura said, I also believe children soak up everything they learn as a basis for their future beliefs.  When all that is being fed to them is conservative ideals and a history painted with a positive conservative view, what else will kids turn out to be?

The downplay of the importance of separation of church and state is another huge issue of concern.   There should be absolutely no link to religion and government.  No connection whatsoever.  Government decisions should not be fueled by the justifications of one’s religion.  With children growing up with the mentality that secularism isn’t that important of an issue, out future leaders could bring religion into government. 

I completely agree with Laura that these books the Board has passed are basically breeding another generation of conservative Republicans.   This will ensure no liberal or Democratic influences will enter Texas government anytime soon. 

I am glad I took my upper level high school social studies courses through Austin Community College.  Maybe if I didn’t, my political views would be far less liberal than they are today.

 

"How dentists and real estate agents know more than you"

Lone Star Liberal

http://liberaleyesoftexas.blogspot.com/2011/07/of-course-you-know-what-jefferson.html

Our government needs to learn some things so school kids can, too.

Education is more than lacking in Texas.  With the recent approved budget cuts, I saw changes in this past year during my final year in high school.  I witnessed the changes being implemented for the next year; the letting go of teachers, a new block scheduling system, and the cutting of art classes.  This would mean an increase in class size as well as much longer classes.  Just hearing teachers talk of the upcoming year, I got the feeling of resentment.  Resentment for the loss of the planning period they once had and resentment for the drastic changes that are being thrown at them so close to the new year. 

The conservative influence in Texas is the reason why there have only been cuts, no increase in taxes.  In order to provide more funding for schools, we can’t just cut spending; we need to make more money for the education system, also.  I don’t understand how we are supposed to save money when we just keep cutting costs.  What happens when there is nothing left to cut?  Are we going to be running schools with no electricity?  Maybe we will sell the computers and DVD players used for teaching kids.  I understand that we do need to cut frivolous spending; that is an obvious semi-solution, but that cannot make the budget crisis disappear. 

As I watch the Presidential Address to the Nation, I hear President Obama talking about cutting spending AND raising taxes (for the wealthier citizens of America).  Texas Legislature must realize that budget cuts are a short-term fix.  I know that raising taxes is going against what Conservatives are for, but in order to better our Texas economy, we need to get more money somehow!  Can’t the Legislature put aside their die-hard beliefs and think for a second?  Is this for the bettering of the government, or is it just a statement saying that we are never going to change our thinking?

The way to help our economy, get out of debts, close the budget gap, is going to be to change.  Clearly, what we have been doing is not working.  We need to try something new.  And that may mean to drift from the conservative ways we are currently using.  If the Legislature would stop being so stubborn and try less conservative ways, maybe we could provide a more stable, successful education system for the future voters and leaders of Texas. 

The rise of the South is happening through license plates

The South will rise again.  Well, at least that’s what the people who want a license plate with a Confederate flag must think.  In "The Confederate license plate" on Burka’s Blog, Paul Burka, Senior Executive Editor of Texas Monthly, states he would allow for the passing of the plate.  This blog post is aimed toward a wide variety of people, from license plate owners to political followers.

Burka states that the reason he is not opposed to the plate is because it is a part of Texas history.  He also says that the secession and Civil War were the worst things that happened during Texas history.  Burka even claims that, to him, the Confederate flag is linked with segregation.  So, with these two negative statements coming from Burka, he still would allow for the plate to be used.  But, it comes down to individual interpretation of history.  What the individual thinks about history is the deciding factor in whether they would choose the license plate, and that option should be there.

I have to disagree with Burka.  Although history is how an individual perceives it, the Confederate flag is not something people should be driving around with on the back (and front) of their cars.  In my opinion, the flag symbolizes slavery, as it does to many other people.  One of the main reasons the Confederacy was established was so the South could keep its slaves and not contend with the rulings of the North.  Some people claim the flag is just in support of the South, but they have to consider how other people will interpret it also.  When you see someone with a Confederate flag bumper sticker, you don’t think, “There goes a supporter of the southern United States!”  You think, “I guess that guy supports segregation and slavery.”  There are so many other ways to express your love for the Confederacy on your car; through Confederate flags flapping in the wind, bumper stickers, or you could even paint your car to look like a Confederate flag.

 So, if you really want “the South to rise again,” go ahead and deck your car out with all the Confederate flags you want, just not on a government issued license plate.

"The Confederate license plate"
Paul Burka

Burka Blog

June 27, 2011

http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=10777

Voting made easier

In the editorial from the Austin American Statesman, “Centers would make voting more convenient,” the Editorial Board discusses the advantages of having vote centers.   The intended audience consists of people eligible to vote or soon to be eligible to vote. 

Voter turnout in the United States is lacking.  Elected officials are always trying to conduct better, more successful elections and increase the number of people that head to the voting booths.  Voting has been made easier to do and there is even an early voting period.  But an idea to bring more people out to the polls consists of the location and amount of the polling centers.

Dana DeBeauvoir, the Travis County Clerk, has proposed the idea of having vote centers throughout the county.   These centers would allow registered voters to vote at any location within the county they wish.  It is much like how one is able to cast an early vote at any early voting location.   Implementing these vote centers would eliminate the confusion of where to vote come Election Day and reduce the number of elementary schools used for voting locations.

In counties that have experimented with the vote centers, some negative reactions have been noted.  Some people live farther from the vote center than from where their original polling location was.  Also, state law does not allow the use of vote centers during primary but does allow them during general elections.  This would cause some confusion when trying to figure out where to vote.

Overall, I think the idea of vote centers is extremely plausible.  It would allow any voter within the county to vote at any vote center.  I think the pros vastly outweigh the cons.  Voters would need to be informed when vote centers will be used and when regular polling locations would be used, but besides that, there is no downfall that would affect the entire population.  When primaries are not being held, general elections at vote centers could provide for a much better voter turnout.  The more people that vote, the better of a chance there will be for an elected official who will give the majority of people what they want when it comes to their state and local community.  And with more voter turnout, the better represented the people are, which is, of course, the purpose of having an election. 

Editorial Board of Austin American Statesman

“Centers would make voting more convenient”

July 13, 2011

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/centers-would-make-voting-more-convenient-1606404.html

Required increase in fuel mileage will be good for us...right?

Most people at the college level drive or will drive in the near future.  It is how we get to different classes and how we get home to our families.

This article from the Austin American Statesman discusses the future of the government standard for gas efficiency and, in effect, the federal and state gas tax situation.  President Obama and his administration, through working with car manufacturers, are set to up the required average fuel mileage to 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016.  His administration would like to have a 56.2 miles per gallon requirement by 2025.  So, if people are filling up at the pump less, they are not paying as much federal and state gas tax.  About 75% of both taxes go to the Texas Department of Transportation, so without that income, TxDOT will lose billions of dollars a year.  Already, due to inflation and a lack of a federal and state tax increase since the early 1990s, TxDOT has lost almost half of its purchasing power since that time.  The governor and legislatures show no interest in changing the gas tax to a combination of fuel efficiency and inflation, meaning an exponential increase in toll roads in the future. 

Although we will soon get a well needed break from spending so much money on gas, the cuts in TxDOT’s spending may hurt us just as badly.