In Mirielle Blond's "Police in Texas" from her blog Bluebonnet Politics, her comment, "many police officers have had domestic abuse charges in the past, and continue working without a problem," is a gross overstatement and exactly the kind of loaded language the media uses to stir up public sensationalism. This article is misleading because it makes generalizations drawn from isolated cases across the country (which is how stereotyping and thus bigotry begins).
In fact, the Austin Police Department's website outlines a stringent ten step hiring process that includes assessment of a candidate's integrity, situational reasoning, psychological health, a background investigation, and a polygraph test. Texas Department of Public Safety State Troopers undergo a similar elimination process. Included on their list of immediate disqualifications from the program is "having been convicted of a family violence offense."
Any remaining candidates who pass the polygraph, background check, etc, must go on to an academy. Here, they learn various skills imperative to becoming a police officer such as the Use-of-Force Continuum, which outlines appropriate responses to law enforcement situations increasing in severity as the danger of the situation increases. These officers are well-trained and thoroughly disciplined, not the trigger-happy, bigoted wackos depicted in this article.
Any Austinite who still believes that Texas' police force is a bunch of trigger-happy bigoted wackos will take solace in the APD's plan to implement a body camera program next year. Three million dollars are being dumped into cameras worn by patrolling officers that will be activated before all calls, including during arrests. These cameras will be audited monthly. Not only will the program ensure each officer's accountability to uphold the law, but it will also protect officers from being wrongly accused of police brutality.
Police officers - good police officers - most police officers - enthusiastically welcome videographic evidence that will serve to aid them favorably in justifying their arrests. Austin has proved a shining example in its implementation of other programs and other cities are certain to follow suit in this regard. Police body cameras will dispel the sensationalism the media spoon feeds to gullible millennials and weed out the small percentage of bad officers who have managed to remain undetected. (Remember, background checks and character assessments, no matter how thorough, are not able to predict future behavior.)
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Pet Overpopulation Still a Problem in Austin
I spent a portion of the Thanksgiving holiday at Austin Animal Center looking for a friend for my senior dog. Sure enough, a sweet, sad face peered meekly out at me from a row of kennels. A face so sweet that I called her Sweet Pea and began signing adoption papers. To my surprise, her adoption fee, which included spaying, a microchip, and vaccinations (a normal cost of $200), had been waived. According to Austin Animal Center's web page, they have taken in more than 700 lost dogs and cats since November 1st, 600 of which remain at the overfilled shelter.
90% of these animals, thanks to Austin's status as the largest "no kill" city in the United States, will eventually find homes. Unfortunately, the designation of "no kill" still allows for up to a 10% euthanization rate. In an act of desperation to rehome these animals and free up space in the shelter, the center has waived adoption fees to make them available to more people under the guise of Black Fur Day (a day only available on Black Friday). However, an adoption specialist admitted to me that they had been giving away thee animals for weeks to compensate for the overcrowding. I entered the shelter unaware of the overcrowding or the waived fee... simply to open my heard to another dog.
My instinctual suggestion to humanely resolve the problem of animal homelessness plaguing Austin was for the city to enact Spay/Neuter laws. The feral cat population alone is nearly unmanageable due to "cat mathematics," which is the horrifyingly real possibility of one intact female cat multiplying into 370,000 cats over the course of 7 years!
This potential exists because female cats go into heat every 3 months after the age of 6 months. The Austin Humane Society battles this potential for a feral cat explosion with its free Trap-Neuter-Return program. A mandatory spay/neuter law for pets seems like the obvious solution in order to eliminate the possibility of intact cats mixing, breeding with, and contributing to the feral cat population, but the statistics for cities with spay/neuter laws show an overwhelmingly reverse effect. Overcrowding, homelessness, and euthanization actually appear to increase in such cities. This effect is likely due to harsh fines for the failure to spay or neuter a pet causing poorer families to give up their pets.
So what is the solution? Calgary, Canada is the closest to an existing Utopian model for no kill cities. It has no mandatory spay/neuter laws, no specific breed legislation, no pet limit laws, no anti-tethering laws, emphasis on responsible pet ownership through education and public relations campaigns, and law license fees with a modestly higher licensing rate, meaning lost pets do not clog the shelter and instead are directly returned home by Animal Control.
Austin certainly is on its way to becoming a Calgary, but it needs a more organized and aggressive effort among the city's shelters to make the animal overpopulation problem understood by the public. Emphasis should be placed on currently available low-cost services (i.e. microchipping and neutering). The last great frontier for Austin in regard to addressing animal homelessness is completely ending breed discrimination. Pit bull breeds -- the bulk of the shelter population -- are alienated from the adoption process because of so many rental homes following archaic breed restrictions. When I discovered Sweet Pea, labelled as a lab mix, I was forced to overlook every potential pet labelled as a pit bull mix. As a progressive city and one of the most dog friendly in the nation, it is vital to focus on lowering the 10% euthanization rate of shelter pets to 0%. This can be achieved through more aggressive public education and, perhaps counter intuitively, leniency with spaying/neutering and breed restrictions.
My Resources:
Does the Future of Austin's 'No Kill' Animal Policy Lie in Creating a 'No Birth Policy?
Austin Animal Center waives adoption fees as continued pet influx increases overcrowding
Free Cat Spay/Neuter Program to End For Those Outside Travis County
The Best Animal Control Program in North America
My Mutts:
90% of these animals, thanks to Austin's status as the largest "no kill" city in the United States, will eventually find homes. Unfortunately, the designation of "no kill" still allows for up to a 10% euthanization rate. In an act of desperation to rehome these animals and free up space in the shelter, the center has waived adoption fees to make them available to more people under the guise of Black Fur Day (a day only available on Black Friday). However, an adoption specialist admitted to me that they had been giving away thee animals for weeks to compensate for the overcrowding. I entered the shelter unaware of the overcrowding or the waived fee... simply to open my heard to another dog.
My instinctual suggestion to humanely resolve the problem of animal homelessness plaguing Austin was for the city to enact Spay/Neuter laws. The feral cat population alone is nearly unmanageable due to "cat mathematics," which is the horrifyingly real possibility of one intact female cat multiplying into 370,000 cats over the course of 7 years!
This potential exists because female cats go into heat every 3 months after the age of 6 months. The Austin Humane Society battles this potential for a feral cat explosion with its free Trap-Neuter-Return program. A mandatory spay/neuter law for pets seems like the obvious solution in order to eliminate the possibility of intact cats mixing, breeding with, and contributing to the feral cat population, but the statistics for cities with spay/neuter laws show an overwhelmingly reverse effect. Overcrowding, homelessness, and euthanization actually appear to increase in such cities. This effect is likely due to harsh fines for the failure to spay or neuter a pet causing poorer families to give up their pets.
So what is the solution? Calgary, Canada is the closest to an existing Utopian model for no kill cities. It has no mandatory spay/neuter laws, no specific breed legislation, no pet limit laws, no anti-tethering laws, emphasis on responsible pet ownership through education and public relations campaigns, and law license fees with a modestly higher licensing rate, meaning lost pets do not clog the shelter and instead are directly returned home by Animal Control.
Austin certainly is on its way to becoming a Calgary, but it needs a more organized and aggressive effort among the city's shelters to make the animal overpopulation problem understood by the public. Emphasis should be placed on currently available low-cost services (i.e. microchipping and neutering). The last great frontier for Austin in regard to addressing animal homelessness is completely ending breed discrimination. Pit bull breeds -- the bulk of the shelter population -- are alienated from the adoption process because of so many rental homes following archaic breed restrictions. When I discovered Sweet Pea, labelled as a lab mix, I was forced to overlook every potential pet labelled as a pit bull mix. As a progressive city and one of the most dog friendly in the nation, it is vital to focus on lowering the 10% euthanization rate of shelter pets to 0%. This can be achieved through more aggressive public education and, perhaps counter intuitively, leniency with spaying/neutering and breed restrictions.
My Resources:
Does the Future of Austin's 'No Kill' Animal Policy Lie in Creating a 'No Birth Policy?
Austin Animal Center waives adoption fees as continued pet influx increases overcrowding
Free Cat Spay/Neuter Program to End For Those Outside Travis County
The Best Animal Control Program in North America
My Mutts:
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Trumped up & wimped out
Considering the average student loan debt college graduates must heave along with them at the start of their careers is $26,250 in Texas, I would say that a full-ride scholarship for student athletes is adequate compensation. According to the New York Times, "the cost of attendance, typically several thousand dollars more than a traditional scholarship, accounts for the financial demands of additional activities like traveling home and back and paying cell phone bills." So college athletes receive a free education, are compensated for their basic needs, and gain the recognition that may later allow them to join professional sports teams to make nauseating salaries.
Lifting the Bar's "Pumped up & pimped out" likens this compensation, which multitudes of college-bound hopefuls salivate over, to "... enslaving some one to work on your farm but saying it's fine because you're teaching them to read and write." He suggests that athletes receive paychecks from their colleges, like professional athletes, for participating.
Corruption already abounds in, for example, college football. An endless list of coaches will continue to face scandal for bribing players, yet players should be paid? What about the love for the sport? Should all players be compensated equally? What happens when the cross country team unionizes and demands the same pay as the football team, even though the football team generates the most revenue for the school?
Let's step back to the basic definition of extracurricular: (of an activity at a school or college) pursued in addition to the normal course of study. Chess club. Student government. Football- all unpaid positions that should remain so. Let us not forget in our crazed football and basketball season fervor that college sports exist because college exists- as a place for higher education and a jumping off point for all students to start their careers. Just as any engineering student must do his time before making a cozy salary, so should any college athlete.
Sources:
The Institute for College Access and Success
Court Strikes Down Payments to College Athletes
Lifting the Bar's "Pumped up & pimped out" likens this compensation, which multitudes of college-bound hopefuls salivate over, to "... enslaving some one to work on your farm but saying it's fine because you're teaching them to read and write." He suggests that athletes receive paychecks from their colleges, like professional athletes, for participating.
Corruption already abounds in, for example, college football. An endless list of coaches will continue to face scandal for bribing players, yet players should be paid? What about the love for the sport? Should all players be compensated equally? What happens when the cross country team unionizes and demands the same pay as the football team, even though the football team generates the most revenue for the school?
Let's step back to the basic definition of extracurricular: (of an activity at a school or college) pursued in addition to the normal course of study. Chess club. Student government. Football- all unpaid positions that should remain so. Let us not forget in our crazed football and basketball season fervor that college sports exist because college exists- as a place for higher education and a jumping off point for all students to start their careers. Just as any engineering student must do his time before making a cozy salary, so should any college athlete.
Sources:
The Institute for College Access and Success
Court Strikes Down Payments to College Athletes
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Capital Punishment: A Burden to All Texans
Societies change over time and government must change its policies also, in order to reflect the will of the people. Texas, obstinately rooted in archaic tradition, ranks number one in the United States in terms of death sentence convictions.
David R. Dow, a Texas law professor at the University of Houston Law Center and a representative of death row inmates, states, "Texas executes so many people because it executes so many people... Killing people is like most anything else; the more you do it, the better you get. If killing people were like playing the violin, Texas would have been selling out Carnegie Hall years ago."
Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, after a period of suspension due to a lack of national standards (1972-1976), Texas has executed 503 inmates out of the national total of 1,234. Despite a 65% national majority in favor of capital punishment, 19 states plus the District of Columbia have abolished it. Capital punishment seems to be losing favor with Texas juries too, with new death sentence convictions down by nearly 80% since 1999.
While the morality of capital punishment remains arguable, the egregious amount of money spent on executions versus life imprisonment is undeniable. According to a 1992 study by the Dallas Morning News, the cost of the average death penalty case in Texas is three times the cost of imprisonment in a single cell at the highest security level for forty years. Even more egregious, the burden of payment for these costs falls on Texas taxpayers. With the alternative of life without parole, arguably a worse and cheaper punishment, the continuation of capital punishment seems to have no benefit to society.
All of this money spent on executing inmates could potentially be placed into beneficial programs, such as the public school system or funding for mental health care (which would likely help prevent crime before it occurs). This would also eliminate the potential for wrongfully convicted inmates being put to death before exoneration- an error too grave to make when dealing with the preciousness of life.
Texas is stubbornly proud of its traditions, and while capital punishment may seem just, ranking as the number one state in a country with the highest execution rates among China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq leaves one in doubt of our current methods. When a function of government becomes a burden to society, it must be changed or done away with. It is time to send capital punishment to the gallows.
Check out my sources and decide for yourself:
Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Death Penalty Information Center
Why Texas Is So Good at the Death Penalty
David R. Dow, a Texas law professor at the University of Houston Law Center and a representative of death row inmates, states, "Texas executes so many people because it executes so many people... Killing people is like most anything else; the more you do it, the better you get. If killing people were like playing the violin, Texas would have been selling out Carnegie Hall years ago."
Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, after a period of suspension due to a lack of national standards (1972-1976), Texas has executed 503 inmates out of the national total of 1,234. Despite a 65% national majority in favor of capital punishment, 19 states plus the District of Columbia have abolished it. Capital punishment seems to be losing favor with Texas juries too, with new death sentence convictions down by nearly 80% since 1999.
While the morality of capital punishment remains arguable, the egregious amount of money spent on executions versus life imprisonment is undeniable. According to a 1992 study by the Dallas Morning News, the cost of the average death penalty case in Texas is three times the cost of imprisonment in a single cell at the highest security level for forty years. Even more egregious, the burden of payment for these costs falls on Texas taxpayers. With the alternative of life without parole, arguably a worse and cheaper punishment, the continuation of capital punishment seems to have no benefit to society.
All of this money spent on executing inmates could potentially be placed into beneficial programs, such as the public school system or funding for mental health care (which would likely help prevent crime before it occurs). This would also eliminate the potential for wrongfully convicted inmates being put to death before exoneration- an error too grave to make when dealing with the preciousness of life.
Texas is stubbornly proud of its traditions, and while capital punishment may seem just, ranking as the number one state in a country with the highest execution rates among China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq leaves one in doubt of our current methods. When a function of government becomes a burden to society, it must be changed or done away with. It is time to send capital punishment to the gallows.
Check out my sources and decide for yourself:
Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Death Penalty Information Center
Why Texas Is So Good at the Death Penalty
Monday, October 19, 2015
Important Issues, Weak Arguments
The plea to Houston voters by Andrea Greer in her article "A Yes Vote on Proposition 1 in Houston is Your Patriotic Duty" from the Burnt Orange Report is an attempted use of nationalistic propaganda to promote her agenda. She states innocently in her opening, "... [This issue] is neither right nor left, conservative nor liberal, Republican nor Democrat... The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is about doing what's right and what's fair."
She then goes on to tell the story of prior enlisted Air Force Senior Airman Noel Freeman, who was allegedly discriminated against by a hiring manager in Houston soon after separating from the military because the hiring manager was "against all military force." This story is set against a backdrop of star spangled banners and bolded phrases such as "how patriotic are you?" A vote against Proposition 1 is a vote against American values! Right?
Well, the author (who claims to hold a law degree), as well as Freeman, the victim, fail to acknowledge that veterans are already protected from such discrimination under Section 4212 of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. Additionally, the portrayal of the desperation to find employment that Freeman faced as a direct result of such discrimination is skewed. Frankly, if I were Freeman, I would not want to work for some one dull enough to openly say they could not hire me because they are "against all military force." I would make a big stink with the company's Human Resources department and then merrily continue my search. Merrily, you say? Yes, because as a recently separated service member, I know that upon Honorable discharge all service members are eligible to collect unemployment for up to a year after separation.
Another glaring issue within the article is the way that the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is phrased. It says that it "prohibits discrimination in city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment, and housing based on an individual's sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy."
From the information given, we don't even know what sort of discharge Freeman received. Does this Equal Rights Ordinance ensure that Freeman is protected even if he received a Dishonorable discharge? A dishonorable discharge is a failure to perform the duties for one's country which one swore an oath to. (Not exactly the kind of job material employers seek out.)
With all of the logical fallacies in this blog article, I almost believed it to be satire, except for the link to a paid advertisement featuring this Freeman fellow that we're all supposed to feel bad for. Upon further investigation, a discerning reader will sift through the rubbish, use their inference-making abilities based on current events, and realize that this entire article is a weak, propagandized attempt at concealing the actual subgroup the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance was messily thrown together for: gay and transgender people.
Even so, I can understand the attempt to appeal to the extreme right wing with a cover story in order to perpetuate the liberal agenda. I even applaud it. But for a city as diverse as Houston, it would likely be more beneficial to just call it what it is. Nice try, Andrea Greer.
She then goes on to tell the story of prior enlisted Air Force Senior Airman Noel Freeman, who was allegedly discriminated against by a hiring manager in Houston soon after separating from the military because the hiring manager was "against all military force." This story is set against a backdrop of star spangled banners and bolded phrases such as "how patriotic are you?" A vote against Proposition 1 is a vote against American values! Right?
Well, the author (who claims to hold a law degree), as well as Freeman, the victim, fail to acknowledge that veterans are already protected from such discrimination under Section 4212 of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. Additionally, the portrayal of the desperation to find employment that Freeman faced as a direct result of such discrimination is skewed. Frankly, if I were Freeman, I would not want to work for some one dull enough to openly say they could not hire me because they are "against all military force." I would make a big stink with the company's Human Resources department and then merrily continue my search. Merrily, you say? Yes, because as a recently separated service member, I know that upon Honorable discharge all service members are eligible to collect unemployment for up to a year after separation.
Another glaring issue within the article is the way that the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance is phrased. It says that it "prohibits discrimination in city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment, and housing based on an individual's sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy."
From the information given, we don't even know what sort of discharge Freeman received. Does this Equal Rights Ordinance ensure that Freeman is protected even if he received a Dishonorable discharge? A dishonorable discharge is a failure to perform the duties for one's country which one swore an oath to. (Not exactly the kind of job material employers seek out.)
With all of the logical fallacies in this blog article, I almost believed it to be satire, except for the link to a paid advertisement featuring this Freeman fellow that we're all supposed to feel bad for. Upon further investigation, a discerning reader will sift through the rubbish, use their inference-making abilities based on current events, and realize that this entire article is a weak, propagandized attempt at concealing the actual subgroup the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance was messily thrown together for: gay and transgender people.
Even so, I can understand the attempt to appeal to the extreme right wing with a cover story in order to perpetuate the liberal agenda. I even applaud it. But for a city as diverse as Houston, it would likely be more beneficial to just call it what it is. Nice try, Andrea Greer.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Campus Gun Rights
When I stumbled upon an Austin-American Statesman article titled "More guns on campus will not make us safer," I couldn't help but to sigh pityingly for the liberal end of the political spectrum (which I typically agree with). Something inside of my brain cannot compute with the Left's stance on this matter: Gay/transgender/transsexual rights- good. Abortion rights- good. Gun rights- terrible!
Wait... What? So all fundamental human rights are equal, but some are more equal than others? (Yes, that was a nod to George Orwell's Animal Farm.)
Not surprisingly, the anti-gun author of this article uses mass shooting and school shooting data as an argument against allowing the concealed carry of weapons on college campuses, then proceeds to use this irrelevant quote from President Barack Obama:
"[there is]... a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you with a straight face make the argument that more guns will make us safer?"
The amount of guns is not the issue. Second Amendment rights is the issue.
Appealing further, the author points out that more college students now are clinically depressed than ever before (a phenomenon Rush Limbaugh calls "the Wussification of America") making them potentially dangerous and unpredictable in the possession of a weapon. Sure, but to legally apply for a Texas Concealed Handgun License, the applicant must be at least 21, or active duty military. This alone rules out the majority of the traditional college student population.
Guns will not suddenly be flowing like free condoms on campus. Government class will not transform into a saloon in the Old West, where students with opposing viewpoints topple tables and send bullets ricocheting across the room. Texas is already rife with concealed handgun carriers- normal citizens who go unnoticed carrying on with their daily lives while carrying a weapon. These people are responsible. These people know how to use their weapons properly. These people are legitimate enough to pass through all of the bureaucratic red tape involved in obtaining a CHL. (Have we forgotten how much pain, anguish, and documentation it takes just to get a driver's license?)
Frankly, I feel safer with a CHL license holder sitting in my classroom. The presence of campus law enforcement alone is insufficient in preventing mass shootings. If we are truly concerned about the epidemic of violent crime in America, then we need to review the seriousness with which we handle the warning signs of mental illness. Disarming our law abiding citizens only harms our law abiding citizens.
Footnote: Knowledge is cool! Check out a brief history about the Second Amendment and some FAQ's about the Texas Concealed Handgun License.
Wait... What? So all fundamental human rights are equal, but some are more equal than others? (Yes, that was a nod to George Orwell's Animal Farm.)
Not surprisingly, the anti-gun author of this article uses mass shooting and school shooting data as an argument against allowing the concealed carry of weapons on college campuses, then proceeds to use this irrelevant quote from President Barack Obama:
"[there is]... a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you with a straight face make the argument that more guns will make us safer?"
The amount of guns is not the issue. Second Amendment rights is the issue.
Appealing further, the author points out that more college students now are clinically depressed than ever before (a phenomenon Rush Limbaugh calls "the Wussification of America") making them potentially dangerous and unpredictable in the possession of a weapon. Sure, but to legally apply for a Texas Concealed Handgun License, the applicant must be at least 21, or active duty military. This alone rules out the majority of the traditional college student population.
Guns will not suddenly be flowing like free condoms on campus. Government class will not transform into a saloon in the Old West, where students with opposing viewpoints topple tables and send bullets ricocheting across the room. Texas is already rife with concealed handgun carriers- normal citizens who go unnoticed carrying on with their daily lives while carrying a weapon. These people are responsible. These people know how to use their weapons properly. These people are legitimate enough to pass through all of the bureaucratic red tape involved in obtaining a CHL. (Have we forgotten how much pain, anguish, and documentation it takes just to get a driver's license?)
Frankly, I feel safer with a CHL license holder sitting in my classroom. The presence of campus law enforcement alone is insufficient in preventing mass shootings. If we are truly concerned about the epidemic of violent crime in America, then we need to review the seriousness with which we handle the warning signs of mental illness. Disarming our law abiding citizens only harms our law abiding citizens.
Footnote: Knowledge is cool! Check out a brief history about the Second Amendment and some FAQ's about the Texas Concealed Handgun License.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Frack No!
According to the democratic process in Texas, the majority vote does not win. Following a 59 percent vote for a ban on fracking in Denton, the Texas General Land Office took it upon themselves to file a lawsuit against the city.Naturally, with oil interests and politics so intertwined in Texas, the state was displeased by the will of its people.
The Texas Legislature was quick to find a way to nullify Denton's majority vote in the form of House Bill 40, which relinquishes individual cities' regulations of "below ground oil and gas activities." Under this safety net, and only for appearances, the Texas General Land Office dropped their lawsuit against Denton. If this sounds like corruption of cinematic proportions... that's because it is!
While the oil and gas industry controls the legislative ink, public outrage over the harmful environmental effects of fracking is mounting. This event should be the alarm bell which incites Texans to take action. Let us not forget the sentiments of our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence:
"... whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [deriving their powers from the consent of the governed], it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Note the two words I took the liberty of making bold. Certainly cheap gas is nice, but not at the cost of endangering local flora and fauna as well as communities with harmful waste products and man-made earthquakes.
Read more about it here.
The Texas Legislature was quick to find a way to nullify Denton's majority vote in the form of House Bill 40, which relinquishes individual cities' regulations of "below ground oil and gas activities." Under this safety net, and only for appearances, the Texas General Land Office dropped their lawsuit against Denton. If this sounds like corruption of cinematic proportions... that's because it is!
While the oil and gas industry controls the legislative ink, public outrage over the harmful environmental effects of fracking is mounting. This event should be the alarm bell which incites Texans to take action. Let us not forget the sentiments of our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence:
"... whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [deriving their powers from the consent of the governed], it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Note the two words I took the liberty of making bold. Certainly cheap gas is nice, but not at the cost of endangering local flora and fauna as well as communities with harmful waste products and man-made earthquakes.
Read more about it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)