Texas Drivers Deal With Dangerous Surcharge

I found this opinion by Scott Henson on his weblog titled Grits for Breakfast. This specific piece is called “Texas Tribune Tackles Driver Responsibility Surcharge.” In it, Henson discusses the appalling surcharge and how it affects drivers in Texas. He touches on important facts, such as people getting charged exorbitant amounts of money for “minor infractions.” He also notes that some people get ticketed and are never informed and end up owing thousands of dollars, or worse. Henson reveals to his readers the truth as to why this DPS rule was created in the first place. It was set up, originally, as a money making “mechanism,” but instead has produced more uninsured drivers who are trapped in a never-ending cycle of fines because of the surcharge.
I chose this piece because recently my partner met a woman on the city bus who was trapped in one of these cycles. She now has a warrant out for her arrest, and it all started because of a “minor infraction” that she was never notified about until it was too late. I think that people who drive in Texas should know about this surcharge and what it is doing to Texas drivers and their families that they are trying to support. I agree with Henson completely. We should not have this surcharge in place if it is doing more damage than it is good. Henson states, “Trauma centers are important, but funding them with a mechanism that makes more drivers uninsured amounts to cutting off their nose to spite their face, and the amounts being generated don’t justify the unintended consequences and costs.”
I encourage everyone to read this piece and scroll through this weblog. Henson writes with clear articulation and seems to take into consideration different points of views and possible ways of reasoning. He appears intelligent and very well informed, with a substantial amount of experience relevant to the law, in general. I recommend reading his "About Me" section to learn more about his credibility.
Henson uses expert opinion when he brings in direct information from a Texas judge named Elisabeth Earle. Earle expresses, “A driver will get a ticket for driving without insurance. After paying the initial fine and court costs (already hundreds of dollars), he'll then find out that he also has to pay the state another $250 each year for three years. He can’t afford that fine, so his license gets suspended, but he continues driving. He gets pulled over, goes to jail and winds up in front of [me] Earle.”
Texans cannot possibly sit on the way-side and remain uniformed while something like this is going on. To me, it appears to be criminal on the Texas government’s part. It should absolutely not exist. I only hope that by sharing this with the few, perhaps the many will hear the facts and be driven to create change.

The Eyelids of Texas are Closed on the Topic of Sex and Teens

I found this commentary titled "Texas Kids' Sex Ed Programs Shouldn't End at 'Don't'" in The Dallas Morning News on-line. It was written by columnist Jacquielynn Floyd on February sixteenth of this year. It seems to me that Floyd is speaking out to those who have children in school, or know children in school, who are concerned with the rising number of teen pregnancies and STD’s in Texas. Floyd’s argument is that the sex-education policies and programs that Texas has in place at schools are not working. She claims it is because they promote “abstinence only” and do not teach the teens about safe sex. Floyd makes bold statements against Texans and their inability to properly deal with teenagers and their sexual activities: “Can Texans actually believe that our sex-education policies are working? I guess, if they're still buying into the notion that an hour or so of demonstrably absurd sex-is-a-sin-and-condoms- don't-work moralizing is all the classroom instruction our kids need.” I believe she is on the right track, since Texas is officially ranked to be the state with the third highest birthrate among teens. Floyd’s spitfire talk and usage of hard facts from other sources gives her an air of credibility. By bringing in the public health expert, Janet Realini, into her argument she further solidifies her cry for a much needed change in the current sexual education programs. Realini states, “’We all want to promote abstinence, but the 'don't do it' message can be delivered in a multitude of ways.’”
I feel that the topic of sexual education for our youths is another topic that many Texans just do not want to address. Teens are going to have sex. There is no reason to apply religion, marriage, or “abstinence only” to such an “issue.” Why? Because sex is not an issue. People have sex. Teenagers have sex. Maybe not all teenagers have sex, but many of them do. It should not be about preventing teens from having sex. We should be teaching our youth to do it safely. It is absolutely ridiculous that we have programs that teach our youth not to have any sex, and leave them with no guidance as to how to have sex safely! How archaic are we? Total abstinence has never been shown to work efficiently. This, to me, is right up there with the seriousness of abortion. Abortion is not a “sin,” it is a need. If it is not met then women will find other ways to abort an unwanted pregnancy, even at the cost of their own life. And that is what we are talking about with both of these topics: the lives of people. Whether the lives are changed by an unexpected pregnancy or by an STD, these things need to be handled with maturity and progressive ideas that allow room for change, understanding and forgiveness. Abstinence, like being an anti-abortionist, does not function or contain these essential aspects of humanity in its heart. As a state, we must learn to evolve or we will be left in the "dust" of every other state, country, world, dimension and, well, you name it.

Say "no" to Religion in School!

I found this article called "Reclaiming Education: hoping for sanity at the SBOE" in the Austin Chronicle. In it, columnist Lee Nichols discusses the 15 members of the State Board of Education in Texas and the candidates running against them in the SBOE partisan races. Nichols also reveals some of their appalling techniques in quarreling like children. Seven members are either religious or political “fundamentalists.” The other eight consists of 5 Democrats and “3 moderate Republicans” who apparently do not enjoy the presence of the fundamentalists on the “SBOE.” It seems to cause a lot of friction between the members (and those running against them in the upcoming election) when topics such as curriculum standards or evolution and creationism are discussed. I chose this article because I believe that there is no place for religion or extreme fundamentalism in school. I am firm and quite unmovable in my position on religion in schools. In other words, it does not belong in school. To quote an anonymous friend from last semester in U.S. Government: “School is for learning evolution and facts. Church is for learning about creationism and other theories.” This kind of political division in the SBOE could cause a bunch of turmoil for people with children in school. One day, students may walk in to school with only a few changes to the standards required by the state. Of course, the kids may walk into school and be forced to learn about a religious ideology that they do not believe in, nor do their parents want them to be learning as a fact. Not everyone believes the world was created 6,000 years ago. Some of us believe in the existence of the Sumerians! For those more relaxed Creationists, some people do not believe in "God," or at least your god. Can you imagine the kind of friction this would cause between friends at school? Or, how about the teachers being forced to teach something they believe to be false and completely off track from the truth? I think these fundamentalists (on the SBOE and running in election) need to step away from their pulpits and face reality. Reality is that you have to at LEAST attempt to stay on the facts relevant to school, and keep the religious dogma where it belongs: in churches.