Stage 5: Why Old People Should Not Drive

Its almost everyday that a car accident is reported on the local news. According to a ranking list of the top leading causes of death in Texas (2008) from the Texas Department of Public Safety website, auto accidents is #4. 


Of course, the causes for these accidents vary from many things like drunk driving, weather, and cell phone use. Recently, Texas laws have cracked down on drunk driving and cell phone use while weather reports were made to be more easily accessible for travelers. 


However, there is another possible way to improve transportation safety, but it is not as "polite" to state openly. That is, elderly people who are incapable of operating an automobile safely, should not be on public roads that the community shares. 


There are accidents in Texas every year due to the elderly making mistakes because of their lack of awareness and ability to react. USATODAY provides a great graphic on how aging affects the ability to drive, and among the reasons included are the elderly tending to have a slower reaction time, their vision is blurry without proper aid, and their joint pains and arthritis can make necessary driving motions painful. 


However, there are always exceptions to any group. I dare not say all the elderly should be prohibited from driving on public roads but instead I motion for the license cancellation of only the elderly who are incapable of safely driving. 


So how do we determine those that are capable and those that are not. Currently in Texas, there is a Katie's Law that requires drivers driver license applicants over the age of 79 to apply in person. The law also requires that those over 79 must renew their license every 6 years in person and must pass vision exams during renewal. Commercial drivers over 85 must renew every 2 years and take the necessary exams. 


Though this is a good attempt, it isn't completely effective. For people over 79, a lot can change within 6 years. A possible amendment is instead of a 6 year renewal rate, these elderly drivers should be required to renew annually along with taking the necessary exams annually. Also, age 79 is quite old and the human senses do begin to deteriorate long before that for many people. It would be more appropriate to move the required age of 79 to a younger age such as 65. The exact age should be determined by researchers with more knowledge on the human body than myself, but the idea is the same; 79 is really too old. 


Although the elderly are not the only group of drivers with a high tendency to not drive safely (in fact teen drivers have a much higher auto-accident rate), the prevention of unnecessary accidents caused by this group is completely possible with more frequent exams. By eliminating drivers that cannot physically and mentally operate safely, we are effectively decreasing the amount of accidents, and are taking positive steps to making Texas roads a little safer.

Stage 4: Blog Critique

There was an interesting post from the conservative blog, EMPOWERTEXANS, called Worthless Wentworth, by Michael Quinn Sullivan. Sullivan accuses State Senator Jeff Wentworth of lieing to keep his chair. According to the post, Wentworth has accused his opponent, Donna Campbell, of supporting higher taxes. Sullivan completely disagrees and even calls the accusations crazy. "That’s crazy on its face," writes Sullivan. The author reports that Campbell is known as a staunch, common sense conservative who has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge with her constituents. Unlike Campbell, Wentworth has not signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Sullivan also calls Wentworth one of the worst rated GOP legislators on fiscal responsibilities. Sullivan reports that Wentworth got his accusation on Campbell from lobbyist Bryan Eppstein and that the reason why Campbell is for higher taxes is because of her support. "They allege nonsensically that we’re pushing for higher taxes because we support reducing/eliminating the property tax, writes Sullivan. This is indeed confusing and has many loose ends. Sullivan's conclusion of the whole confusing manner is that Wentworth and his lobbyists are lying as a way to support their previous lies. Sullivan then reports that now-defeated State Representative Vicki Truitt made outlandish lies when he lost his reelectuion. There is also State Representative Chuck Hopson who is using the same lie to fend off his conservative opponent. The one thing that all these officials have besides the same lie is that they all have the same consultant as Wentworth, Bryan Eppstein. Sullivan also reports that Wentworth has used his office to seek high paying positions at Texas A&M and Texas State. Sullivan ends the post by calling Wentworth a "Big-Government shill" who is desperate to evade his record in the Texas Senate and is again here trying to hide his own record. The author's purpose in this post is to inform conservative readers of Wentworth's history and the trends of the lies connected to Bryan Epstein. The post does contain a lot of dirt only on Wentworth but the ultimate goal here is not to support Campbell, but to get reader's attention and throw Wentworth out of office. The evidence provided here is note worthy because of Epstein's history with losing politicians who made last ditch efforts to hold on to their chairs. Although the post will make me more aware of Wentworth and take a deeper look into these accusations, I am not completely sold and will have to get a second opinion on the matter. Overall the article was very good and the interpretations were logical with valid support provided.

Stage 3: Texas Education

One of the most important functions of a state government is to provide an education for its young people. Annual tests were created in order to make sure that schools and students are meeting Texas' standards. First there was the TABS, then TEAMS, then TAAS, then TAKS, and finally now there is the STAAR. Like its predecessor, the STAAR test is intended for students to take throughout grade school; students must pass their grade's required tests in order to pass onto the next grade. However, compared to its predecessors, the STAAR test is much more demanding and much more difficult. According to an editorial from the Austin American Statesman, Testing is good, but STAAR may not be, the current STAAR test may not be an improvement for testing in Texas. Many people claim that the test is too difficult but then there are others such as Representative Mark Strama who wonder if it was the schools that failed to prepare the student. "Is it a function of the instrument? That's one answer. Is it a function of student attainment? That's a different answer." said Strama during a hearing. The author of the article provides information that even though passing rates were high, such as 87% for biology, the results are not entirely impressive because a student only needed to correctly answer 40% of the questions asked to pass the test. However, these is also alarming results such as only 55% of students passing the writing exam. The author fears that if students are unable to pass their annual tests because of difficulty, they will continue to struggle and fall behind even more in later years. The article lists some possible solutions such as moving the tests later into the year (May) so that students will have more time to prepare. Ultimately, the author isn't completely disregarding the STAAR test but is simply showing concerns over the test's first results. Overall this editorial was well written because the author had a logical argument that there should be concern over the STAAR test and was able to provide clear statistical evidence for their argument. This article provides a reasonable position that should be looked at by parents as well as law makers and educators. Although the STAAR test was just in its first year and the low results may be because of this, we must wonder if the problem really is the test or is it our school's inability to properly educate students. To make sure that our state does not fall behind others in education, Texas' lawmakers must be careful when considering the future of annual state exams. 

Stage 2: Article introduction and colleague’s blogs

According to a news report from the Austin American Statesman, http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2012/07/17/president_obama_to_make_fundra.html?cxntfid=blogs_postcards , President Obama is scheduled is be in the Austin Music Hall for a fundraiser event. Amongst the groups that he will meet is the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender). It was very recent that Obama announced that he was pro-gay marriages and by meeting with the LGBT, it shows that he is serious on taking that platform with his campaign. Another interesting point on his visit to Austin is that Texas has traditionally been a Republican state. This means that Texas’ electoral votes will most likely go to Obama’s opponents but the fact that he will still visit Texas shows that he is really trying to appeal to people’s interest everywhere, not just in swing states like Ohio. The article is also worth noting for those of us who live in or plan on going downtown today. Many roads will be blocked and security will be at high levels. Thus, simply avoid downtown today if you do not want to be stuck in traffic. However for those who wish to see the President, today is your best chance.

Stage One Assignment DONE!!!

YAY!