What's the Difference between 18 and 21?

An age is yet a number right? Not quite when you’re teetering between 20 and 21.  For Americans, one of the most monumental birthdays someone will have is their 21^st birthday.  They are legally able to drink.  If you were to go to any other country, you would find that a 21^st birthday isn’t anything special.  Other countries allow a citizen to drink once they turn 18.  That makes sense though right? We allow 18 year-olds to lay their life on the line for the US, but don’t allow them to drink.  While reading through my classmates blogs, one blog noted this same argument.  Ross McEwen in his blog, Drinking Age, mentioned how he personally believes that the drinking age should be changed.  While I definitely agree with him, there were a few points that he made that made me question my own belief on the subject. 

First of all, when you are trying to convince someone that the drinking age is lowered, don’t bring up a court case where underage teenagers were drinking and driving causing a near fatal accident.  How will this sway me to agree with you? He made the point that drinking at 18 actually made teenagers more responsible.  From his example, it sure doesn’t look like it.  Now, putting that mishap in his article aside, he does make some good points.  He grew up in New Zealand where the drinking age is 18.  So therefore he does know firsthand how it affects teenagers growing up.  There is a plus side to knowing that most 18 year olds are living with their parents and therefore are being watched closely as to what is too much when it comes to drinking.  So, when these kids leave the nest, they know their limitations.  Their parents aren’t as worried as to what will happen when their child takes their first sip of alcohol.  They are prepared for what lies ahead.  So on those accounts that McEwen mentioned, I agree with his idea to lower the drinking age.  When our grandparents were growing up the drinking age was 18, why fix something that wasn’t broken? 

-Kelsey Scott

New Task Force Out and About

21.  What is it but a number right? No, it is the age that most Americans cherish because they are finally allowed to drink legally.  The key word here is LEGALLY.  If you are between 15 and 20 you have most likely drank illegally before.  Since this is a reoccurring situation, the Travis County Police Department has taken it upon themselves to create a special task force to take down underage drinking.  Yes, I guess it sounds like a good idea in theory.  Why wouldn’t we want to stop an illegal act from taking part? The Police Department looks at this as a way to decrease the amount of deaths caused by drunken driving accidents.  Here’s the kicker though, it isn’t just underage people that are drinking and driving.  Many people that are “of age” drink and drive.  So why is the task force only focusing on high school students? When researching this “task force”, they only mention high school students drinking and that they are the main problem. 

If that was the case then why is 6^th street swarming with this new task force?  Last time I checked, high school students weren’t partying downtown.  I will be the first to say, yes if you are not younger than 21 drinking anywhere, it is illegal, and so I understand when people receive tickets.  My main issue is, why is this our Police Department’s main issue to fight? We have so many other things going on in our city that need to be reevaluated and are of a higher importance.  What about the homeless problem? Could we get a task force to try to help figure out ways to help these people get back on their feet, away from drugs, and finding new jobs? Instead, we are filling up the court houses with petty drinking cases.  I am sorry, like I said, I understand that drinking underage is illegal, but to create a task force to take on this issue is a little over the top.  If you want to give people tickets for drinking and driving that is a more legitimate reason, but for someone who is taking a bus/cab and not harming anyone, why is it worth it to put that type of case in a court room.  Sounds like a waste of time to me.  

-Kelsey Scott 

Concealed Handguns on Campus. Go For It.

I have been reading through my classmate’s blogs and one stood out that I felt the urge to comment on.  The blog, A Student’s Perspective had a post called, Not Anti-Gun, Just Practical.  Throughout this post the author continually brought up that she was in support of people having guns, but not in support of having a concealed hand gun on campus.  For those of you who don’t know, there has been a bill that was passed by Senate and heading to the floor allowing concealed hand guns on college campuses.  This bill has caused quite the uproar because have been so many people against it and so many people for it.  Lura C. has been one of the people against it.  Her reasons, I get them, but they aren’t completely well thought out. 

First of all, let’s be honest and realize that if someone wants to carry a handgun on campus, they are going to whether there is a law allowing them or not.  In one of my criminal justice classes a few weeks ago this issue was actually brought up.  From students in my class, at least 10 of the 100 people there had said that they either had taken their gun with them on campus before or knew someone who carried one daily.  That right there shows that people are going to do what they want to do, so why not just allow this.  I mean is someone arming themselves for safety purposes really a crime? No.  We don’t need any more worthless cases crowding up our court systems.  

I understand Lura’s concern when it comes to people being intoxicated and having a gun on them, but the thing is how many of us go downtown on a weekend? Concealed hand guns are allowed there and we aren’t freaking out about it.  There aren’t people being shot each week.  I mean, yes, it makes sense to be worried if there was some drunk idiot roaming around with a handgun, but that already happens, so why wouldn’t you want to arm yourself for safety reasons and be prepared.  Wouldn’t you want a handgun to even the playing field if someone was coming at you?

Also, something to note about the handgun license in general is that you have to be 21 to have one.  Therefore, there will only be juniors and seniors carrying around these handguns.  You’re worried about maturity levels, I know, not everyone can handle that responsibility. The only thing is though, is we have to hope that as people do grow older, they also mature.  Something to possibly suggest would be that if this bill does pass, they should have certain qualifications be added to the concealed handgun license.  They should maybe make people take classes a few times a year to make sure that they can actually use their gun accurately.  Also, they should make them take a test twice a year on their accuracy, and if it doesn’t score a certain percentile then they get their license revoked.  There are many different things that the government could do to make sure that the people receiving their concealed handgun license are capable of having it, therefore if they brought it onto a campus, it wouldn’t be a catastrophe. 

Overall, I do see where you are coming from; I just know that unfortunately, people are going to do what they want.  It is as plain and simple as that.  You probably know people that carry a gun to school in case something were to happen.  I mean, I go to UT and when the shooting happened here where the boy brought a gun into the library there was mass chaos.  Now I know the kid ended up shooting himself and not anyone else, but if he was about to shoot someone, then maybe it could’ve been prevented.  So, as I am sure you’ve come to the realization that I support the bill, so how does everyone else feel about the issue? 

-Kelsey Scott 

Gay Marriage in Texas

Marriage.  Is the sanctity of marriage at stake? Over the past years there has been an increase in homosexuals wanting to solidify their relationships with marriage.  Is this a bad thing? I mean, shouldn’t they have a right to get married like the rest of us? If anything, they should be able to get married for their own protection.  By this I mean that if someone in the partnership were to die, the other person should be able to receive benefits.  What if this couple had children, the child wouldn’t be guaranteed to stay with the other partner.  Can you imagine the damage that would cause that child?! First they lose a parent, and then they get taken away from the only parent they have left until custody was figured out.  That just doesn’t seem fair to the child or the live parent.  What if none of these were to happen though, no deaths, and no children, should homosexuals be able to marry?

What does Texas think? When there was a vote to pass an Anti-Gay Marriage amendment, it passed by 70% in Texas.  This is expected of course though because of the major Republican representation in Texas.  We are known for being ultra conservative and not the most open state when it comes to cases like gay marriage.  Why does Texas feel so strongly though about this? Does allowing two people to get married that are of the same sex affect anyone outside of the couple? The answer is no.  It only affects that gay couple, so why not let them get married?  Why wouldn’t Texas want to protect their citizens with benefits only received by a married couple? Some say it’s because most of the conservative Republicans are Christian who believe only man and woman should get married.  This would mean that the Republicans would be indirectly pushing Christianity on the state and later the nation.  I do understand this and how it could look like that, but at the same time, many Christians are accepting of gay marriage, they just might not live in the state of Texas.  Texas did go out of their way to pass their amendment against gay marriage when it was already illegal to have a same sex marriage.  This seems a little over the top just because it wasn’t an issue and they decided to make it one.    

In the Texan Republicans fight against gay marriage they did bring up the fact that being gay can spread dangerous diseases.  An example of this happening was when there was a huge outbreak of AIDS in the 80’s that was mainly affecting the homosexual men.  The only thing with Texas bringing the spread of diseases up when discussing the gay marriage issue is that by outlawing gay marriage it isn’t going to stop them from being gay or having partners.  The homosexual population will still exist, they just won’t be making their partnership official.  So, I don’t believe this should be a reason for outlawing gay marriage in Texas.  I can definitely see people coming back from my opinion saying that if you were to let gay marriage be legal in Texas then more people could become curious about being gay because it would be a more official option of personal preference.  By legalizing gay marriage it would become more of a normal thing that people would see which would make children as they grow up feel as if they should experiment since people go either way.  So I can see where someone who had those views could come from, but I feel that it isn’t a definite outcome and in all honesty, what right do we have to decide how someone lives their life? 

-Kelsey Scott 

Give Us the Facts Juanita...

“Kill em’ All!” Not exactly the words we want to hear when referring to anyone. These words were spoken about the Mexican Immigrants crossing the Texas borders.   I do have to agree with Ms. Jean in this specific case that stating to kill anyone who crosses the border isn’t rational or humane in any sense, but there is a reason why this has been said.  Ms. Jean, in her blog, “Oh For Pete’s Sake”, discusses how the Commissioner of Agriculture has decided it’s time to put a stop the immigration flow into Texas from Mexico.  Throughout the blog, she tries to target the unknowing citizen of Texas that doesn’t know what is going on around them.  What she says to her audience, will be the only source of News that they are receiving.  In some ways, she does speak some truths, but she leaves out major facts that need to be stated! 

When writing her blog, she can easily sway someone to believe what she feels if she leaves out important information.  The way she wrote the blog, it made it look like there was no sane reason to put a stop to immigration.  This is not the case, by reading her embedded link it does verify the fact that some of the border cities are safer than our own city of Austin, but it also shared a vital piece of information.  The farmers are ACTUALLY at risk and the threats are REAL!  There are drug cartels coming through their towns and putting their own safety at risk.  There have been older farmers that have actually given up their careers because of how many dangerous immigrants have been passing through.  Now, this doesn’t give us the right to “Kill em’ All”, but it does give us the right to enforce the National Immigration Laws. Texas just needs to find a more humane way to enforce these laws.  With all of that said, Ms. Jean should have included the vital piece of information about the farmers being in harms way in her blog to make it less one-sided of an argument.  Her audience needs all of the facts before making an opinion for themselves.  

Now, before anyone takes Ms. Jean too seriously, it is important to note her line of work.  She is a hair stylist.  Not that this isn’t a good profession, but how qualified is a hair stylist to give her opinion on politics and what should be going on in this state.  She considers her blogs as her political organization.. Last time I checked, a blog site is not equivalent to a political organization.  It’s fine to read her blogs, but take them with a grain of salt, because from the looks of it, she leaves out important facts, and isn’t completely qualified to be giving the state of Texas her political opinion.  

-Kelsey Scott 

Who is to Say What Makes a Good Leader?

Leadership.  Who is to determine what characteristics makes up a good leader versus a bad one? Well the nameless writer to the editorial, Perry Falls Short on Texas Shortfall Leadership, believes that he has the right to determine how Governor Rick Perry should lead our state.  Why should we, as an audience, take anything he says as correct when we don’t know who he is and what his credentials are? I understand the fact of keeping a column private, but when you are expressing your feelings on such a pertinent subject, the audience should be able to know the background of the author.  

In this editorial, there is a main theme of bashing Governor Perry, but what is the reasoning behind it? The author kept proposing that Governor Perry tell us his exact plans for fixing our deficit, which yes that would be nice, but there isn’t a reason to tell the world what he proposes to fix the deficit if his proposal hasn’t been approved yet.  As a leader, you don’t want to tell the people what you hope to do if there is any possibility that your plan could not be approved.  Also, the author isn’t throwing out any suggestions to help our deficit.  All he can do is critique the one leading our state.  

Who was our mysterious writer trying to reach?  The author was trying to reach an audience member that doesn’t really pay attention to what is going on around them and how bad the deficit is.  Another type of person the author could be attempting to reach would be the person that is upset by the deficit which would intern rally more people against the Governor and his choices.  Does it do any good though to rally anyone against the leader of our state? No it doesn’t.  That doesn’t mean we need to just sit back and watch the Governor destroy the world around us, but we could at least be somewhat supportive and see what he has in store for us.  In general, the author’s opening statements are not backed by anything.  He is telling his audience what a good speaker should be doing, but where did he get this information? Who made him the judge of what a sound speaker should do? With that said, throughout this editorial, the author makes claims but can’t back them up.  Are you going to fall for this unknown person’s opinion?   

-Kelsey Scott