My Response: Evolution Debate in Education

I agree with my colleague, Chelsea, in her article, "Evolution Debate in Education" that science textbooks should present both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design in order to provide academic equality. Promoting the idea that unbiased viewpoints should be taught in school in all areas except science creates a double standard. Science should be included too. Chelsea is right that this is not a matter of spiritual beliefs -- after-all, renown British atheist Antony Flew studied both theories and became a proponent of intelligent design (after-which, he became a theist). Instead, it's a matter of equality.

Therefore, scientific proof is normally made through the scientific method which includes hypothesis, observation, and repeated experimentation. But scientists can't prove the world came about through evolution because we obviously can't experiment and create the world again. Evolution should be treated as a theory as it cannot be proven and is still contested in scientific circles.

Knowledge gives people the power to make educated choices about truth. People shouldn't believe something is true simply because they were blindly ignorant of any alternatives. Truth should be able to stand up on its own merit. Educating students about both theories allows them to understand the pros and cons of both sides rather than just the pros of one side. This provides a much more balanced, unbiased education.

Texas and the Presidency

Will Rick Perry, the current governor of Texas, run for President of the United States of America? It's a question that is on everybody's lips, and it is my belief that Perry will indeed run for president. Within the past couple of months, there have been stories about Perry's potential presidential run in many of the major news sources such as Bloomberg Report, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CBS News, The LA Times, The New York Times, and more!

If Perry does run, I think he has an excellent chance of winning both the Republican nomination and the presidency. Kevin McCullough of Fox News agrees with my opinion in his article, "Five Reasons Why I Believe Texas Governor Rick Perry Will Be Our President In 2013."

There are several reasons in favor of Perry. First of all, he is filled with charisma and credibility. Additionally, under Perry, Texas has been termed the "Job Engine", and DFW and Houston are the #1 and #2 metro areas with the highest job growth rate in the country. Perry did not instantly jump at the opportunity to mooch off of federal government money which I think many Americans appreciated. He's pro-family and pro-faith which I believe will benefit him greatly in the eyes of the general public.

Yes, Perry has sparked some controversial, hot-issue buttons which have offended both Republicans and Democrats such as his executive mandate in 2006 that all girls entering the 6th grade receive the HPV virus shot. No, Texas has not been run perfectly. In general though, he's done a nice job of staying in the good graces of conservatives and helping Texas weather the recession better than any other large state. Although there are some liberals whom Perry will never win over, I think most conservatives can be united in supporting a candidate like him in the general election. Independents also have good reason to be impressed with his record as a supporter of liberty, equality, capitalism, business, and individual rights. Overall, I think he's an amiable, principled Texan who would do a fine job running the country. So who knows... maybe someday we'll be reading about President Perry.

Informing Patients

I appreciate the good intentions of my colleague Evin Whittington, author of the blog My Only News Source is Jon Stewart, as he wants doctors to provide--and patients to receive--the best treatment possible. However, I would disagree with him as to what that entails. In his article, "Pushing Doctors", he holds the position that Texas' new sonogram bill will be forcing abortion doctors to do something against their will and potentially do something not in the best interest of the patient. 

The bill only says that an abortion doctor needs to provide the option to allow the woman see a sonogram of her baby and hear the heartbeat if she desires. This is simply allowing a woman to see critical information that might be very helpful as she considers exactly what she wants to do. The bill is about a woman's right to know. Once she has an abortion, it cannot ever be reversed so this is a very significant decision. 

This should actually help with the doctor-patient relationship because the patient could trust the doctor to provide her with important information. For example, if I needed to make a decision about a potential back surgery, I would want to be as informed as possible about the surgery. If my doctor purposefully held back information about the surgery, I would consider my physician to be a neglectful and untrustworthy doctor.

I believe that if a good doctor is only looking out for the best interests of their patient, they should like this bill because it would add to a patient's trust and it would enable the patient to make an informed decision. However, bad doctors who are only looking for money very likely wouldn't like this bill because some women might choose not to have an abortion after seeing a sonogram and hearing a baby's heartbeat. But if that is what's in their patient's best interest, shouldn't that be fine with them? That is, unless the doctor just wants the money that comes from performing an abortion.

Texas Takes on the TSA

During the past legislative session, the Texas legislature tried to pass House Bill 1937 which would protect Texans from having their private parts touched by agents working for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) during pat-downs at airports. Many people hold that the TSA pat-downs involve groping innocent citizens and is definitely an intrusion on the rights of Texans. The 4th amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights gives us "the right of the people to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable searches." I believe that touching a person's private parts should be categorized as an unreasonable search unless there is a strong reason to suspect that the person is a terrorist.


So allow me to ask a few questions. Is there a strong reason to suspect that a wheelchair bound, 95-year-old woman with cancer is a terrorist who needs to have her diaper taken off and searched? If a 71-year-old man sets off an airport metal detector because of his metal knee, does that justify pulling his pants off so that he's standing in his underwear in view of the public? Is a six-year-old girl a likely terrorist who a TSA worker can touch in ways that would be considered harassment in almost any other situation. Is it alright to touch areas of the body of former Miss America, Susie Castillo, in a way that makes her feel as if she was molested multiple times?


Apparently, the TSA would answer yes to each of those questions because every one of those incidents really happened. Are those examples of reasonable searches, or is the TSA abusing its power? 


The federal government is also abusing its power. Just look at why the the bill did not pass out of the Texas legislature. The House passed the bill with a large majority. But when the bill reached the Senate, a US attorney threatened in a letter to the Texas Lieutenant Governor that if this bill passed into law, "TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew". In others words, all Texas airports would be shut down. I believe a threat like that is an abuse of power by the government.


Granted, I don't want terrorists to have free reign on airplanes to bring explosives and weapons aboard a plane, but invading a normal citizen's privacy of their body is not the answer. Also, the TSA's "enhanced pat-downs" are not even that effective.


The author of the bill, Representative David Simpson, is a prime example of someone who stands up for what he believes in, and I think that his courage should serve as an example for other legislators to follow. During the next session, I hope that this bill passes because it protects Texans from an infringement upon our Constitutional rights. As the late C.S.Lewis put it, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

Perry and the Bailout

In a blog post by Paul Burka, "What would president Perry have done?", he states that the bailout is an important issue to look at because many people believe that Governor Rick Perry beat Kay Bailey Hutchison in the last gubernatorial race because of the bailout issue. However, Burka himself believes that Perry would have won anyway, and I would agree with him on that account.


My problem with the article though is that Burka makes assumptions. First, he assumes that Perry is definitely going to run for President in 2012. While there are many rumors that Perry may indeed join the presidential race, you shouldn't count your chickens before they're hatched. Instead of saying that Perry might run for president, Burka boldly declared, "Perry’s stance on the bailout takes on added importance because Perry is going to run for president."


The next assumption that Burka makes is that if Perry was the president of the United States, he would have opposed the bailout and that would have held negative consequences. Yet it must be remembered that when Perry opposed the Texas bailout, he was representing his constituents: Texans. The majority of Texans supported his stance on the bailout issue. As an elected official, the governor's job is to represent his constituency, and Perry did indeed do his job. 


Burka tries to make the case that the bailout ended up helping America, but he was simply looking at short-term results which is once again making an assumption that what happens in the short-term is automatically a reflection of what will happen long-term. The much bigger question has to do with long-term effects. Is the bailout simply delaying an inevitable collapse of the American dollar and economy? It's too soon to know with certainty either way. 


Opposition to the bailout made common sense because spending over $700 billion dollars to fix the economy when our country is already trillions of dollars in debt is most certainly not a wise financial practice. That is why it is now an unfortunate necessity for Congress to debate over the debt ceiling. The problem is not that the debt ceiling is too low, but that the debt is too high. Perry was right to oppose the state bailout.

The Job Engine

Rick Wartzman wrote an excellent editorial, which originally appeared in the Los Angelos Times but was reprinted by the Austin American Stateman, entitled "Texas, the jobs engine." In the article, Wartzman tells of his immense intrigue when he learned the fact that Texas has created four out of every ten jobs in the United States since June 2009. He points out that due to Texas being a red state, in general, people on the right will acclaim the statistic, and people on the left will try to discredit the statistic. Wartzman himself admits to having leftist leanings and yet acknowledges that the statistic is undeniable. He states, "But there's no escaping it. The number is real."

For this editorial, Wartzman is a very credible writer for three reasons. Firstly, he is not a Republican who might be naturally biased towards relishing the statistic. Secondly, he is not trying to impress any Republicans or Texans since he originally wrote this article for the Los Angelos Times. And finally, he understands how business works having written books such as "The Drucker Lectures: Essential Lessons on Management, Society and Economy" and "What Would Drucker Do Now?: Solutions to Today’s Toughest Challenges from the Father of Modern Management." In other words, he knows his stuff. 

Wartzman concedes that in order to have such remarkable job creation, Texas and its government must be doing something correctly. He presents strong evidence as to the reason for so many jobs by studying Texas' pro-business policies. Bank lending guidelines which are more scrupulous than in other states, tort reform which poses obstacles for frivolous lawsuits, low taxes, and minimal regulations are all factors contributing to an increasing desire in businesses to move to or at least branch out into Texas. This is what is creating more jobs--leading to a better state economy. Ultimately, Wartzman justifiably concluded that although Texas procedure might have its downfalls, overall its policies seem to be doing a good job compared to the rest of the country. 

Texas' Sleight of Hand

Magicians aren't the only ones playing tricks. Legislators are as well according to the Dallas Morning News editorial, "Lawmakers cover up financial woes with slick budget trick". The article asserts that legislators are implementing a "slight of hand" of sorts by appropriating taxes and fees for certain causes, but then using the funds for other matters when money gets tight. For example, one tax was created to equip emergency rooms and paramedic units, and yet only 53% of the funds collected was actually spent on the designated purpose. 

According to the article, many lawmakers use the tax money that was supposed to be spent for certain endeavors, such as roads and animal shelters, to later bring out a "surplus of money" and appear as if they had balanced the suffering budget. In a sense, Texas lawmakers are using smoke and mirrors by moving money around instead of actually confronting the hard issue of shortfalls in the budget and tax structure. 

This editorial represents the cry of Texans across the state. We don't want legislators to deceive us any longer and manipulate our perception of our state government's spending. We just want them to be honest. Of course, we don't expect the legislature to make everything perfect because, after all, we understand the poor economic times that have fallen on the entire country. Yet we do except them to not use any "slight of hand".