Blog #7

Was He Wrongly Executed?

             The case of Cameron Todd Willingham is a disturbing case that has never been completely “settled”. It is still being brought up for reinvestigation. With the case being as old as it is, it is difficult to determine whether he was truly innocent or guilty without reopening the case for official investigation. But there are definitely a few points of interest that direct my attention toward the fact he might have been innocent.
             First, it is important to bring out the points that caused his conviction and later his sentencing. One of the main points that the prosecution used in his conviction and sentencing was finding a ““burn trailer” . . . A flammable or combustible liquid doused on a floor will cause a fire to concentrate in these kinds of pockets, which is why investigators refer to them as “pour patterns” or “puddle configurations.”” (Grann 3). Two other main points that the prosecution used were finding the metal bed springs under the children’s beds had turned white and pieces of glass from some of the broken windows had a spiderweb-like pattern that is referred to as “crazed glass.” (Grann 3) They claimed that these pieces of evidence point toward the presence of a liquid accelerant. During the sentencing, the prosecution used the skull and serpent tattoo Willingham had on his arm, and the Led Zeppelin and Iron Maiden posters he had on his wall as evidence that he was a sociopath. (Grann 9)
            Years after he was in convicted and sentenced a volunteer at an organization that opposed the death penalty began to write him, and went to see him as a goodwill project. She said that when she had first began to communicate with him she believed he was guilty, but the more she wrote him she began to become curious about the case. She began to look into the case, and almost immediately found discrepancies with the eyewitnesses. As she search further, she found that one of the psychologists that was used in the sentencing had had his psychology license revoked for testifying in some cases without actually evaluating the person on trial. One of the prosecutions key witnesses was a cellmate who testified that Willingham confessed to him he had set the fire; this same witness was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and happened to be on drugs at the time of the trial (Cameron 3).
            Gilbert eventually contacted an expert arson investigator named Dr. Gerald Hurst. Hurst looked through the evidence from the original investigation and immediately began to look into it more closely because some of the evidence was not right. He then proceeded to prove that the main points the prosecution had used were false. He proved that the “pour patterns” could not be caused by accelerants, since accelerants did not leave brown spots behind. He also proved that the “crazed glass” was caused by rapid cooling, such as water hitting hot glass, rather than by rapid heating. During other official experiments, a house was ignited with the use of no liquid accelerants and all the majors points that caused Willingham’s conviction occurred at this house as well. Hurst concluded that all the evidence pointed toward the fact that there was not sufficient proof to prove that the fire had been started deliberately (Grann 13).
            Even after all the evidence that was brought up by Hurst and other experts, Willingham was never granted even a stay of execution. I find it hard to believe that he could be executed on schedule with all the evidence that was brought to light toward the contrary. Was he innocent? I can’t say for sure; because he was never retried. But, was Willingham wrongfully executed? I definitely believe he was. He should have at least been granted a stay of execution until the matter could have been reinvestigated completely.
            “Cameron Todd Willingham: Wrongfully Convicted and Executed in Texas”. innocenceproject.org. Innocence Project, Sep. 2011. Web. 3 May 2012
            Grann, David. “Trial by Fire”. newyorker.com. The New Yorker. 7 Sep. 2009. Web. 3 May 2012

Blog #6

Should Tobacco Advertisement Be Banned?

            Throughout the years, the idea has been pushed around concerning banning the advertisement of alcohol and tobacco. In the last few years, the focus has been on tobacco advertising. The statistics on the death rates caused by tobacco is the main reason for this debate. “More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined”(McGinnis 5).  Tobacco use causes “443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)” (Centers 2). The grim results of these statistics appear to be excellent cause for banning tobacco advertisement. There are many people who believe that it is, and they are doing all they can to bring it to pass.

            I have never smoked, and I never will smoke. I think that being subjected to secondhand smoke it gross and inconsiderate. But, my dislike, or anyone else’s dislike for smoking, is not the issue. The fact that tobacco use is extremely detrimental to your health is not the issue either. The real issue is a matter of whether to uphold the 1^st Amendment or not. The tobacco companies have every right under the clause of free speech to advertise their cigarettes, and various other tobacco products. Their advertisements are not racially inclined, they do not “falsely advertise” their products, etc; so under the constitution they have the right to advertise.

            “The advertising-to-sales ratios for tobacco and alcohol companies are about 6 to 9 percent while the average American firm has an advertising-to-sales ratio closer to 3 percent” (Saffer 20). As can be seen by this economic statistic, tobacco advertising is extremely effective. Although it is against the Constitution to ban the advertisement of tobacco products, the FDA has made some good progress on counter-advertising in the last few years. They are now requiring certain graphic advertising to be placed on all cigarette packs and various other advertising mediums:

Cigarette packages will now carry one vivid color image and one of these warnings about the consequences of smoking: . . . "Tobacco smoke can harm your children"; "Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease" . . . "Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease"; "Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby" . . . "Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in nonsmokers"; and "Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health."

The warnings, which must be in place by September 2012 . . . At least 50% of the package will have to be covered. In addition, the warnings will have to cover at least 20% of a cigarette ad. Each warning will also have a phone number -- 1-800-QUIT-NOW -- that smokers can call to get help if they want to quit. (Young 1)

The FDA claimed that the new warnings are an effort to simply help make certain that smokers “know exactly what risk they're taking” (Young 1) when they pick up a cigarette. Just as the advertising of the cigarette companies is protected under the Constitution, counter-advertising is as well.

            Our Constitution was written for a reason, and all of the Amendments that have been made to it are also extremely important. If Congress were to ban the advertisement of tobacco products, even though it is dreadfully harmful, where would it stop? As much as I detest tobacco use, I love my freedoms even more. We would eventually end up in the same situation as all the nations that are ruled by dictators; a nation devoid of freedom. I believe I will gladly settle for the lesser of the two evils; to be honest, there is not much of a contest in my mind.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States, 2000–2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008;”. Cdc.gov. 2011. Web. 26 April 26, 2012.

McGinnis J, Foege WH. “Actual Causes of Death in the United States”. Journal of American Medical Association. 1993. Web. 26 April 26, 2012.

Saffer, Henry. "The Control of Tobacco Advertising and Promotion". New York: Oxford University Press. 2000. Print

Young, Saundra.  "FDA reveals bigger, graphic warning labels for cigarette packages". Cnn.com. CNN News, 2 June 2011. Web. 26 April 26, 2012.

Blog #5

Are Our Texas Universities Quality?

            My Texas Representative is Paul D. Workman, and my Texas Senator is Kirk Watson. There are always an innumerable amount of issues that need to be addressed, but there are always a few that stand out for me. The issue that stands out most for me at this time is the quality of higher education in Texas. Due to the way that some of the funding and incentives are set up, some Texas universities focus on research over education and the students lose out. Fortunately this is not a problem with community colleges, only the 4-year universities.

            It is not an issue that is on the news a lot, but it is one of the causes for the deficit in the average test scores for Texas students in civic classes. There was a survey completed at some universities around the nation that tested students on a standardized American History test. The Texas average test scores for freshmen was 47.9%, and the national average was 51.7%, for a deficit of 3.8% (Keener 1). “Worse still, just 2.9 percent of their civic knowledge (according to the survey) comes to them in the college classroom” (Keener 1). On other subjects they are competitive, but the civic core curriculum classes are lacking, as can be seen by the aforementioned statistic on American History. Texas has always been a bit lower on the scale of other schools, and the graduation rate from 4-year universities is rather low at 48.5% (Graduation 1). The Texas graduation rate in is the bottom third of the nation, with the national average being at 55.5%, and the top state, Massachusetts, at 69.2% (Graduation 1).

            The universities don’t want to lose their grant money they are receiving for the research they are undertaking, so the “professors are judged mostly according to their research accomplishments rather than their teaching ability” (Keener 1). They not only fail to spend the extra time helping the students learn the curriculum, they spend a very small percentage of their “at school time” in the classroom. The average amount of time many of the professors in the classroom is “about 21 percent of their time” (Keener 2).

            I understand that research needs to be done, but there are better places or businesses at which it can be done. There is still a need for research to be done at colleges and universities for learning purposes, but not as much as is being performed at this time. There are also other methods in which federal funding can be awarded to colleges, some of which are programs that are already in existence but are seriously under-funded. The best way to try and fix the problem is by “switching from a university-centered approach to student-centered, graduation-focused funding” (Keener 2). This, unfortunately, is not an issue that can be solved quickly, but it is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed.

Keener, Justin. “Higher Education Quality.” TexasPolicy.com. Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2011. Web. 12 April 2012

“Graduation Rates”. Higheredinfo.org. The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. 2009. Web. 12 April 2012

Blog #4

Lobbying, Good or Bad?

            Lobbying is defined as: “1.) To try to influence (an official) to take a desired action. and 2.) To try to influence public officials on behalf of or against (proposed legislation.”(The American 350). The concept of lobbying has been around since ancient times; but as far as it’s known, the first time it appeared in print was in 1820. “Other letters from Washington affirm, that members of the Senate . . . "lobbying about the Representatives' Chamber" but also . . . by insulting threats to dissolve the Union. – April 1, 1820”(Gelak 5). Political Lobbyists have become more and more prevalent over the years, and have really taken off since the 1970’s. Lobbying is a very controversial topic, and is often seen in a negative light by the American public and journalists. It is an excellent method for persuading lawmakers, but like every good thing in government it has its flaws and most of the focus is generally placed on the flaws. It is commonly misunderstood.

At this time, “Texas has more than 2,200 registered lobbyists.”(Stiles 1). I had a friend comment to me a couple weeks ago “When did voting with your back pocket because the norm?” While this comment is not totally true, there is a good bit of truth to it; there is a very large amount of money spent by lobbyists every year in Texas. The two biggest contributors among Texas Lobbyists are Leslie Luther who spent $148,000 last year and Timothy Graves who spent $147,000 (Chang 1). The lobbyists in Texas last year spent a total of $4,790,869 (Change 1). Most lobbyists work for a company to lobby for that company in particular, or they work for a company/firm that “rents” them out to others.  The two companies with the largest amount of Lobbyists on their payroll are AT&T at 101, and Energy Future Holdings Corporation at 49 (Chang 1).

It can definitely be agreed that there is a very large amount of money changing hands between the lobbyists and the Congress men/women. And, yes, with that significant outflow of cash there is a good chance that there is corruption and buying of legislature votes involved.

The top five organizations in amounts spent for lobbying from 1998 to 2008 are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($427 million), the American Medical Association ($195 million), General Electric ($178 million), the American Hospital Association ($158 million) and AARP ($148 million) . . . The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America hire lobbyists. . . In the past three years, guess which "special interest" spent more than $20 million on "special interest" lobbying? The American Cancer Society (Davis 1).

Do these companies simply have their greed in mind? No, most of these companies also strive to help people. Lobbyists spend a large portion of their time with members of Congress and their staffs providing factual and expert information about legislation that affects their clients. As much as they would like to, it is impossible for Congressmen/women to know everything they need to know about every issue. The Lobbyists provide crucial information the members of Congress need to make a more educated decision.

            As sensational as stories on government corruption may be, we must never allow ourselves to be influenced by these stories past the point of using them to keep ourselves sharp and informed. Almost the only stories you will read, see, or hear from the media on Lobbying are going to be negative. There is a good amount of under-the-table money exchange going on, but we need to refrain from throwing out a good thing because of the bad. The government is already taking steps to regulate Lobbying, and one of the only steps that is lacking is more clarity in Lobbyist spending. Having out members of Congress informed on the current issues is definitely incentive enough to keep the concept of Lobbying around.

Davis, Lanny. “Lobbyists Are Good People, Too.” Huffingtonpost.com. The Huffington Post, 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 29 March 2012

Chang, Chris, and Stiles, Matt. “Texas Lobbying Spending.” Texastribune.org. The Texas Tribune, 13 Sep. 2011. Web. 29 March 2012

Stiles, Matt. “Texas Lobbyist’s Directory.” Texastribune.org. The Texas Tribune, 23 Feb. 2012. Web. 29 March 2012

Gelak, Deanna. Lobbying and Advocacy: Winning Strategies, Resources, Recommendations, Ethics and Ongoing Compliance for Lobbyists and Washington Advocates. Thecapitol.net. The Capitol.Net, 2008. Web. 29 March 2012

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2009. Print

Blog #3

The Libertarian Party

            Texas has generated a few significant third parties that have been successful enough to even affect politics on the national level. The first was the Populist Party, which was started out of the National Farmer’s Alliance. The Populist Party existed from 1892 (Divine 582) until the early 1900’s and played a significant role both in state politics and national politics. The most recent major third party out of Texas is the Libertarian Party. Although it is far from carrying a majority like the Republican or Democratic Parties do, it still plays a significant role in present-day politics. It has enough of a following to be allowed to continue to place candidates on the Presidential ballot.

            The Libertarian Party is conservative in their views. Although it is much like the Republican Party, there is one major difference between them and that is The Libertarian stance on freedom. They accept as true that it is “each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power” (Libertarian 1). In essence, the Libertarian Party is merely returning to the view on government that our nation’s founding fathers had.

            The stance that the Libertarian Party has on almost all the main political issues today run almost hand in hand with my own personal stance on the issues. I have not completely read through all their issues, but the ones I did read through are right on the mark with my political views. You might ask, “Well, then why don’t you join the Libertarian Party?” That is a good question, and can be answered very simply. It doesn’t pull enough votes to be a major contender, and most likely never will. It may align almost perfectly with my political views, but it is too conservative to gain a majority vote on major political positions. In major political races I vote for the candidate that holds more closely with my views and actually has a chance to win. My voting may seem hypocritical, but there are some candidates that I absolutely do not want elected. Even though I believe the most in the Libertarian candidates, I place my votes with the most conservative mainstream candidates.

Bibliography

"Libertarian Party 2010 Platfom". www.lp.org. Libertarian Party, May 2010. Web. 6 March 2012

Divine, Robert A., et al. American Past and Present. New York: Pearson, 2007. Print.

Blog #2

Guns Save Lives

            There is an ongoing debate about whether guns should be allowed on school campuses. One of the main arguments of those who are opposed to allowing guns on school campuses is “When more people have access to weapons on campus, there is a larger possibility of tragedies.” (Guns) I would like to push it one step further and ask “Should we allow legally certified Concealed Handgun Licensed individuals to carry on school campuses?”

            First, I would like to present just a very, very small section of the restrictions that may prevent someone from getting a Concealed Handgun License.

(4) is not charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or of a felony under an information or indictment; (5) diagnosis at any time by a licensed physician that the person suffers or has suffered from a psychiatric disorder or condition consisting of or relating to: . . .  (F) antisocial personality disorder. . . (10) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making a child support payment; . . . (12) has not been finally determined to be in default on a loan made under Chapter 57, Education Code; (Department of Public Safety)

The list of restrictions that can prevent an individual from obtaining a CHL is enormously long, including being default on a school loan, and the list of ways in which a current CHL holder can lose his license is even longer. In order for someone to obtain a Concealed Handgun License he/she must: 1) Attend a 12 hour class run by a state certified instructor, 2) Pass a shooting proficiency test with the aforementioned instructor, and 3) Submit his/her fingerprints for a complete FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security background check. As you can see, it is far from easy to obtain a CHL.

            Second, I would like to bring out another argument that is given by those who are opposed to guns in school, even licensed carriers, “However, it’s doubtful the police would be able to tell who was the “crazed” gunman if everyone had their concealed handguns out. It would be chaos as shots fired everywhere. Accidental injuries would be abundant.” (Guns) This seems like a very valid argument, but it is not backed by any real evidence. Statistically, people who have a CHL will not fire more than is absolutely necessary. “In this case, the permit holder saved the lives of the eight people in the store. News reports also stated that the other citizens in the store urged the permit holder to shoot the man again and kill him. The permit holder refused and calmly awaited the arrival of police.” (Buyalos 1) As with everything, people make mistakes and there have been innocent people shot by people with a CHL, but the statistics show that you are five times more likely to get shot accidentally by a policeman than by a person with a CHL. “Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year” (Kleck 111), “. . . only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.” (Will 93)

            The last item I would like to bring to light is the statistics that show the drop in crime for the states that have CHL laws. “A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. . .  States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;” (Lott 15) The percentages seem rather small, but when you look at the actual numbers that are involved it changes the importance of these laws. “If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.” (Mustard 3) These numbers are rather amazing.

            I hope this short essay has given you some food for thought. The purpose of this paper is not to prove conclusively one way or the other what should be done, but merely to bring to notice several points and statistics that many people don’t know about, or are not interested enough to look up. There is a very good possibility that allowing licensed Concealed Handgun Carriers to take their guns on campus would prevent a lot of “gun” the problems that we face today.

Buyalos, Andrew. “Statistics show concealed carry saves many lives, takes few.” CollegiateTimes.com. Collegiate Times, 12 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 February 2012

Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas. Laws Relating To The Carrying of A Concealed Handgun In Texas. 2011. Web. 23 Feb. 2012

“Guns should not be allowed on campus.” Editorial. NTDaily.com. North Texas Daily, 29 Sep. 2010. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.

Kleck, Dr. Gary. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine Transaction, 1991. Print

Mustard, David B., and Lott, John R., Jr.  "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." University of Chicago. University of Chicago, 15 August 1996. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.

Lott, John R., Jr. "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, 28 Aug. 1996. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.

Will, George F. "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?." Newsweek. Newsweek. 15 Nov. 1993. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.