Abortion and Crime

Abortion has always been a hot button topic. From those who think that forbidding life to come into the world is in all cases wrong to those who think that abortion is right in some circumstances, one might become confused about their own personal stance on the topic, as both sides hold reasonable arguments. Austin Community College student, Caitlin Huber, very well describes some scenarios in which abortion might be considered right or wrong in her blog post "Yet Another Controversy".

The legalization of abortion has had many positive economic effects. The most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, as suggested by economist Steven Levitt, was its impact on crime. In December of 1989, crime was almost at its peak in the United States. In the fifteen years prior, violent crime had risen 80 percent. In the early 1990's, due to legalized abortion, crime rate began falling quite unexpectedly, despite the fact that many experts had predicted its certain rise in the next decade. Just as the first group of children born after Roe v. Wade were entering their late teen years, the years during which it is shown young men enter their criminal prime, the rate of crime began to fall. This direct correlation between abortion and crime rates can be seen when looking at crime data of the 5 states where abortion was made legal before the Supreme Court extended abortion rights to the rest of the country. These 5 states began to see crime fall earlier than the other 46.

The fact is, women who are caught in situations of rape or just "accidental" situations, need to have the option of abortion; ergo, I agree with Caitlin and think that it should be legal for women to choose. As she said in her post, doing so would prevent an everyday reminder of an atrocious act, and prevent children from coming into this world in unprepared households and poverty where their usually young mothers are neither emotionally nor financially capable of raising them.

The Money Plant

Marijuana has been the subject of controversy for many years. Aside from the negative ideas put forth by those politicians on the march for the war against drugs, marijuana (a.k.a. hemp) has an interesting history and thousands of uses that could greatly increase state and even federal revenue. 

According to the North American Industrial Hemp Council, "Hemp has been grown for at least the last 12,000 years for fiber and food." Hemp fibers also tend to be longer, stronger, and more absorbent and more mildew-resistant than cotton thereby making it a better, more viable option; and if cotton were displaced by hemp, the state could save money by not having to use massive amounts of harmful chemicals that are usually used in growing cotton.

Aside from its agricultural uses, marijuana also serves as a medical aid, helping people with conditions like anorexia, asthma, nausea, pain, alcoholism, glaucoma, epilepsy, depression, hypertension, and cancer. Imagine being able to replace expensive, lab-made chemicals with a cheaply grown natural plant?

So by incorporating hemp usage in many facets of our society, we could not only cut spending in many areas but increase revenues in others. Of course, this is assuming that the use of marijuana were legal. And if the long "War on Drugs" campaign is any indication, we might be waiting a long time to see any leniency toward such usages. Even Dan Webb, a recently retired anti-narcotics lieutenant with the Texas Department of Public Safety said "They are never going to stop it", referring to the campaign. But as long as there is a demand for it, there will be a supply, regardless of any campaign efforts.

The legalization of marijuana might not completely bridge the gaping hole that is our budget's deficit, but it would sure come a long way in improving it.

Political Confusion, Budget Cuts, and Illegal Immigrants

In my nightly perusal of online articles, I decided to read one article on a blog, created by an Austin Community College student named Paige. Solely upon the information I could gather from her website, I was unable to determine further credentials; and though she might not be a party journalist or is indifferent to Texas politics, her opinions and views still matter because when it comes down to it, all citizens are really just putting in their own two cents. I can understand her frustration with Texas politics. On the surface, many problems seem to have an easy solution, yet when we see numerous politicians bickering over ideologies and ulterior motives, ignoring efficient solutions, it is a bit disheartening.

I would like to address a couple of Paige's ideas about Texas's major budget cuts. Talking about the budget cuts she states, "Luckily though, it will only affect minor situations such as the education system and providing for the homeless." To be honest, I was quite taken aback. With the new budget cuts, Texas's school systems are $15 billion short of providing an adequate education - hardly a minor situation. To strip the education system of its funding means teachers and students will not have the tools they need, resulting in an inadequate education. These students will grow up, not having the education they were supposed to have gotten, and could become the new leaders of our country.

Paige goes on to say that these cuts might provide better funding in areas where we need it most "such as preventing the terrible and oh-so-bad illegal immigrants from making a living here." At first glance, her remark sounded a bit sarcastic (if not racist), but I will assume she intended it to be serious. First of all, not all illegal immigrants are necessarily "bad". Many continuously strive to find ways to contribute to society and to their families, wishing to make a better life for themselves. Although I don't believe we should be paying extra taxes for people who aren't citizens, I do realize that our own ancestors were "illegal" immigrants to this country and therefore have a bit of sympathy for other illegal immigrants. Many people, never having left their own state, are blissfully ignorant of the poverty and extreme social conditions many foreigners have to deal with on a daily basis; ergo, I don't blame them for trying to escape to a better world.

But though many of their conditions pull at my heart strings, I do believe allocating more resources to deporting illegal immigrants back to their home country, especially those who are breaking the law, would benefit our state in many ways (such as lower levels of crime rate and less taxes).

Paige's post is a good read for those interested in budget cut affects, illegal immigration, Rick Perry, and political indifference to Texas politics.

Intelligent Design Threatening Science Classrooms

For many years, the debate between creationism and evolution has raged on. The results of these ongoing debates can easily be seen by simply opening up a high school science textbook. Two years ago, conservatives on the Board of Education wanted to require that high school students learn about the flaws of natural selection, common ancestry, and other principles set forth by Charles Darwin. Now the debate has set forth again.

Of all the biology e-books that are being reviewed, some include sections supporting “intelligent design”, arguing that the development of living organisms is best explained by an intelligent creator rather than being explained as a process guided by natural selection. It is reported that the Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of intelligent design, submitted ten biology and evolution e-books for evaluation, but nine out of ten did not meet the Texas standards on teaching evolution.

Taking a step back, it sounds a bit like social conservatives, like the Discovery Institute and board Chairwoman, Barbara Cargill, are trying to push religious-flavored creationism into science textbooks even though it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Believe it or not, there are good reasons for such a separation. But what about those who cry out “Evolution has a bunch of holes! We shouldn’t be teaching an incomplete theory to our kids! Teach intelligent design instead!” Okay, I’ll play along and believe that evolution has too many holes to teach in science classes.

So what evidence does creationism and intelligent design have? Where is the documentation for these theories? Where are the hypotheses and tests? That’s right, there are none. Why? Because there’s a part of the complexity of life that science has yet to fully explain and like our ancestors did before us, we rush to attach the unknown to supernatural origins; such a conclusion does not have a basis in science but in fear of the unknown or perhaps it’s a mixture of impatience and incompetence.

Whatever the case may be, there is no reason to diminish the beauty of nature with the invention of cheap man-made myths and monsters; and there is certainly no reason to teach these things in a science textbook. Yes, the theory of evolution may have holes, but this doesn’t mean we should discard the whole thing if some truth still resides. Rather, perhaps we should adjust the theory, based on the collection of more data, to obtain a more accurate result. This adjustment, however, does not allow one to say, “Zeus did it” or “God did it”. After all, that would not be very scientific.

Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed; faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. And this is why there is a separation. With every fiber of my being, I hope creationism does not replaced mainstream science in our textbooks. However, we will soon see the results of the final vote in a day or two.

UPDATE: It turns out the final result of the vote is a big victory for science education. Apparently materials adopted by the State Board do not have any “political or religiously-inspired changes that damage science education by weakening evolution content.” You can read more about the meeting at the Texas Observer.

Victim Campaigns for Change in Shooter's Death Penalty Sentence

Racism, paranoia, and violence rage throughout our society; but in a blog post by Scott Henson, a former journalist and public policy researcher, I have found a ray of hope in our ever darkening world.

Henson reports of a hate-crime victim who was shot in the face by a white supremacist who was shooting middle easterners in response to the 9/11 attack. The victim, Rais Bhuiyan, was the only survivor from three other shootings by the same white supremacist. And as scarred as Bhuiyan might be, he now wishes to confront his attacker, Mark Stroman, by means of the victim-offender mediation program provided by the state. The only problem is that Stroman is scheduled to be executed this week; and though Bhuiyan could get some closure by watching that wacko's execution, he insists Stroman's sentence be changed to life without parole and has launched a campaign in the efforts to do so.

After reading Henson's post, I was certainly surprised. A middle easterner trying to change the sentence of his death-row shooter so that he can live out his life and so that the victim could have an opportunity to obtain closure, information, and possibly even forgiveness is definitely something one doesn't hear everyday. However rare this situation must be, it shows that people are still able to look over their ethnic differences and religious preferences in order to have peace or restorative justice.

As for the issue of the death penalty, I believe this should be kept in tact but not used often. The fact is that there are some people in Texas and in the world who have committed such awful and terrible crimes against humanity that even a death sentence would still be too good for them. Sadly, these kinds of evil persons are better off dead. The end of WWII is a good example of this kind of penalty, where the Allies sought out those who committed such crimes in order to try and then hang them.

This post is a good read for those readers interested in victim rights, restorative justice and the death penalty. The post also provides additional links for readers who wish to go further into the story.

Freedom for Religion from the Religious

Religion has always played an important role in American society. One article in the opinion section of the Austin American Statesman attempts to define the nature of our own liberty and how freedom of religion is an important part of that liberty. The author of this article, Jennifer Marshall, the director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, is clearly on the side of religion, religious influence in society, and it's spread across the nation and the world, appealing to readers who are members of religious institutions.


Marshall argues for religious freedom, and states that the Founders “based the American model of religious liberty on a favorable view of religious practice.” She goes on to say that authentic religion promotes a positive and public role for moral insights and habits and that true religious liberty would create a milieu in which religion would have a more profound influence on public life. Marshall then concludes that believers of any faith can live together peacefully if only they can find common ground in their religious and social views.


Sadly, this is just another article pushing for more religious influence in society and in government, masquerading as an article about simple religious tolerance. Saying that the Founders based the American model of religious liberty on favorable views of religious practices is not so clear. Are we to ignore the unfavorable views of religious practices? And what are the favorables views of religious practices anyway? I'm sure that after asking ten different individuals, one would get ten different answers.


There is no direct correlation between religion and positive morals, and to insinuate a correlation between the two is naïve. As Thomas Jefferson said in his letter to Thomas Law, “If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.” Many religious texts and institutions teach their readers and followers to despise and loathe certain parts of society. A prominent example of this discrimination is the gay community. Even those who have pre-marital sex are put in a similar category. Those who are Muslim will find that the Qur'an tells them that friendship with Jews and Christians is forbidden (Qur'an 5:51).


It's obvious that many religious communities can't live peacefully together because they are taught that others are sinful, hell-bound, unclean, etc... If only they would just stop and think. If only they could show some compassion, stripped of any spiritual motives. Instead, they result to segregation and violence. This is very evident in the Middle East, where Muslims and Jews are still at war; and though they share much common ground in their faiths, they are unwilling to sacrifice other views in order to come to some peaceful compromise. Ergo, Marshall's conclusion can't be more wrong. If she wants to talk about discrimination and intolerance for religious freedom, there's no better example than the religious community.

Drowning in a Sea of Debt

As you might have noticed, our college tuition has increased quite a bit in the last few years. Of course many students can easily pay such increases just as they can easily pay the tuition itself. Eh, okay, I recant that statement. But if you're like me, you've got a bit of debt, if not a lot. So why the increase in tuition when we can barely pay the original asking price? Hasn't the Governor heard our outcries?


According to an article in the PolitiFact Texas, Rick Perry told lawmakers, “As families continue to struggle with the cost of higher education, I am renewing my call for a four-year tuition freeze, locking in tuition rates at or below the freshman level for four years.” But no freeze has been passed into law. In fact, if universities aren't increasing general tuition, they're most likely making up for it by requiring additional charges in other areas. The embedded article is worth reading because it shows that even though our representatives hear our cries and console us with promises, it doesn't mean we'll see any results.