Governor Perry Stepping Down

After learning about the Texas government from our class textbook, it is very plain to see that the people who wrote the current Texas constitution did not want one person or group within the government having too much power, especially the governor. This is quite understandable after their experience with Governor E.J. Davis, and I personally enjoy the fact that Rick Perry does not have a substantial amount of power given to him through the constitution because he is too conservative and does not adequately represent the views and diversity of the current state of Texas. I think Perry made the correct decision in deciding not to run for yet another term as governor. This opens the door for someone to lead Texas into a more liberal age and better represent its people while building toward a brighter future. Sadly, now that Greg Abbott has put his name in the running for the position, it seems as though it may be difficult for Texas to make substantial changes because Abbott is so similar to Perry in his beliefs about government and what actions should be taken for Texas.

            The state of Texas needs new blood to rejuvenate it and shake up the status quo of Republican dominance that is bound to continue unless a major change is made. It would be great if a Democrat could step up and fill the spot, but it currently seems that there isn’t anyone strong enough to really challenge Abbott for the position. It seems as though Republican control will continue, but hopefully Democrats may be able to make some inroads in House and Senate seats and possibly begin paving the way for a Democratic governor and decrease in Republican power.

A Woman's Critique of a Man's Point of View

In his blog post, “Bro-Choice: How #HB2 Hurts Texas Men Who Like Women,” Burnt Orange Report writer Ben Sherman details how the anti-abortion bill, that was at the time still being debated in the Texas legislature, would effect the men of Texas. Targeting “guys who like girls” as he puts it, he says that men should not support the bill and should instead stand with the pro-choice side of the debate. I do agree with Sherman that the government should not be involved in a women’s personal choice, however, I do not necessarily agree with every aspect of his reasoning.

            Initially, I agreed with Sherman because he began by stating, “Most of us have female friends, mothers, sisters, roommates that we care about, and who we think know better what to do with their reproductive health than a bunch of legislators. Obviously we should stand up for them.” Men should be backing the women in their lives, whether the woman is for or against the bill, because for the most part, a woman knows what is best for them. Overall, I do agree with most of Sherman’s reasoning, including that it could put the woman’s life in danger because the bill would force a majority of abortion clinics across the state to close, causing black markets for unsafe abortions to crop up. He also says it would take away a man’s freedom to choose as well, which is true if the woman wants to make the decision with the man that was involved as well. This could also affect a couple’s decision on when and if they want to have children. The issue I have with Sherman is in his last point, that the bill puts a man’s sex life at stake. Granted, this is something that research has said men think about constantly, but it should not affect whether a man supports a woman’s right to choose. He goes on to make it sound as though women count on abortions to fix mistakes that they make, which may be the sad truth in some cases, but for the majority of women, this is not something that they want to go through and women take multiple precautions in order to avoid an unplanned pregnancy. I understand that it is an appealing argument for men, but I do not agree with the way that Sherman spins this aspect of it. All in all, I do agree with Sherman that men should support a women’s right to choose and I understand that his reasoning is appealing for men, even if it is partially flawed from a woman’s point of view.

Race in Texas Justice System

In an editorial article for the Star-Telegram, writer Bob Ray Sanders asserts his reasons as to why a man currently on death row should receive a new sentencing trial in his article titled “'Race' in case stains Texas justice system.”  Mr. Sanders is targeting the citizens of Texas to prove how unfair the Texas criminal justice system is, something he blatantly dislikes. Sanders sets the tone for his editorial by opening with the statement, “Texas has so many stains on its criminal justice system that there is no societal detergent that could ever remove them all.”

Sanders focuses on the case of Duane Buck, a black man, who murdered two people and was sentenced to death based upon racially biased testimony during his trial by psychologist Walter Quijano. Quijano was also found to have made racially biased testimonies at five other trials, all defendants of which were also sentenced to death, but all five of which have all received new sentencing trials because of the testimony in their case. Sanders feels that Buck deserves a new sentencing trial because he was not given a fair one initially, and based on the information that Sanders gives the reader, I agree with him. Race should not have been a factor when Buck was being sentenced, but it was, and that alone should be grounds for a new trial.  Sanders then goes on to list issues pertaining to Buck that were not allowed in his initial sentencing trial, including the fact that his father was an abusive alcoholic and that Mr. Buck had an undiagnosed developmental disorder, among other things. Why was this information not allowed into the trial? Sanders does not clarify this for the reader. There is also a written statement that is currently being signed by political leaders and other professionals calling for a new sentencing trial, and hopefully the Court of Criminal Appeals gives him this chance after the injustice he was put through before.

            Mr. Sanders clearly lays out his evidence and logic for the reader, making it very easy to understand his point of view, making it hard not to agree with him. Mr. Buck is not fighting the charges against him, he has owned up to those, he just wants to be given the fair sentencing trial that he deserves, and Sanders proves why this is so. This piece is also thought provoking because Texas’ past (and present, whether the Supreme Court wants to admit it or not) is covered in racial and discriminatory undertones. It made me question what other “horrible stains on justice,” as Sanders calls them, are being committed by the Texas justice system and what, if anything, is being done to stop them.

The Abortion Debate - Interesting Article

The Texas Observer published an article on Friday, July 12, 2013, entitled Senate Approves Omnibus Abortion Bill HB 2. This article takes the reader through the timeline of events that occurred Friday in and around the capitol building in Austin, as well as in the Senate as they debated and eventually approved the bill. This article explains what the bill would do and how it will effect Texas women. The main aspect of this article that I liked was how it showed the way Texans came together to voice their opinions. This article is worth reading to get a different viewpoint on the Abortion Bill debate, but also because it is not written in the typical article format. It includes pictures, videos and even tweets from local journalists and legislators with updates on the proceedings. This article gives the reader all of the pertinent information to the debate, but delivers it in a different and exciting way, allowing the reader to get a better feel of what happened at the capitol on Friday.