Calling all dog lovers!!

As a dog owner and pet lover myself, I was initially appalled when I learned of the outbreak of distemper at the Bastrop County Animal Shelter that led to the closing of the pound and the euthanization of over 40 dogs since mid-June. The more I mulled it over, though, I realize that the actions taken by staff there were highly thought-out and completely unavoidable.

“They were extreme circumstances, they were doing horrible, they were having neurological problems, breathing problems, respiratory and they had to be put down,” said Erica Thompson, director of animal services in Bastrop County. “Everyone needs to be aware, whatever this is, it did not start at this animal shelter. An animal came in with it.” Thompson also noted that those who were euthanized had fevers of 103 degrees.

According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (more commonly known as the ASPCA), “canine distemper is a virus that affects a dog’s respiratory, gastrointestinal and central nervous systems, as well as the conjunctival membranes of the eye…There is currently no available medication that can destroy the virus that causes canine distemper. Rather, supportive care is the mainstay of treatment. Some dogs are able to survive the infection, while for others canine distemper can be fatal.”

I am thrilled to hear that the animal shelter will be opening its doors again to the public beginning tomorrow, July 29th. I would also like to take this time to praise the clinic for being so proactive in their avoidance of a widespread outbreak. The distemper virus is spread between dogs, skunks, foxes and other animals through direct contact with fresh urine, blood or saliva. This means that a sneezing pup at the dog park or a sick dog sharing a water bowl with your fur-baby could have detrimental effects on your pets’ health. I commend their swift action—from the testing done with the Texas A&M Veterinary Clinic to confirm the diagnosis to the heart-wrenching decision to shut the doors and put any sick animals to sleep, not only was the shelter able to save the lives of 262 dogs, but they may have prevented such a catastrophic event from happening on a much wider scale. Just imagine if the staff there had not been as diligent in their observations or as knowledgeable as to dangers of distemper. Even one infected animal getting adopted out could have led to a canine epidemic.

The Bastrop County Animal Shelter may well have kept your four-legged friends protected, as I feel they did mine. By ringing the alarm and shutting the doors so early, I believe that they performed exceptionally well in a time of crisis. It is difficult to think about those 40 dogs that had to be put to sleep, but at the end of the day, I know that many will rest more soundly knowing that their pets are safe and that the Bastrop County Animal Shelter did what they had to for the greater good.

According to KXAN “the shelter is currently at maximum capacity, so they’re holding a special adoption event on Saturday, August 1 from 11 a.m.-7:30 p.m. Adult pets over one year will be $25. Cats less than one-year-old will be $45 and dogs less than one-year-old will be $75.” Spread the word, and let’s get those animals into some good homes and the Bastrop County Animal Shelter back on their feet!

Former Governor Rick Perry spends big bills on legal defense

Patrick Svitek of the Texas Tribune posted an article on Sunday, July 16, 2015 titled “Perry spends $2 million in state campaign cash onlegal defense”, in which he gives a general update as to the financial consequences of former Texas Governor Rick Perry after he threatened to veto state funding for Public Integrity Unit. Perry announced last year that unless Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg stepped down after a drunken-driving arrest, he would not approve the program’s request for funding. The Public Integrity Unit is a state-funded division of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office that investigates public corruption, insurance fraud, and motor fuels tax fraud. The Travis County DA holds the chief responsibility for enforcing the government and election code statewide.

In Svitek’s article, he points out just how badly Perry’s action has affected his bank account. “The steady stream of legal fees has left Perry with roughly $1.3 million in the account, a fraction of the $4.4 million he had stockpiled a year ago. And with Perry no longer holding statewide office, little money is flowing into the account — $685 from January through June.”

The author no doubtedly paints a dire picture for his readers, and with good reason. He points out that Perry has buzzed through half of his cash for his campaign to get this abuse-of-power indictment put behind him. Now left with far less funding, Perry will obviously have fewer resources for campaigning, and I believe that it has been proven that the old saying “no press is bad press” does not always hold true.

The article was published in both The Texas Tribune and in the Fort Worth Star Telegram, both of which are mainstream Texas news sources.

Regardless of how this all turns out, Perry still has his sights set on the White House. He insists that the case is “politically motivated and will fade away.”

Texas for or against texting?

Tom Benning’s article in the Dallas Morning News, titled “Is Texas Right for Not Banning Texting-While-Driving Statewide”, one can expect to feel a little overwhelmed, a tad bored, and a bit of confusion. The paper is a metropolitan Texas newspaper based out of the Dallas area. With an enormous reader-base, one can expect that this platform to reach so many would incite more organization and a clear and concise argument. I wish that he had taken the time to define the differences between a “text ban” and “hands-free requirement” and made that more forward and cut and dry. Obviously, a text ban is going to aim to stop people from texting behind the wheel, but I would like to see the author really break it down more than that. I wanted him to go into the data between the different types of bans and show me evidence either supporting or dismissing the claim that banning texting while driving is making our roads safe. Instead, he slinks around, talking in circles, and claiming that the data is unmoving and unreliable because we are basically waiting for people to get into car wrecks and then tell the officer “I’m sorry, sir, but I was talking on the phone to my cousin Stacey about the difference between jelly and jam”. While I definitely understand that it is very difficult to enforce text bans and hands-free legislature, he could have gone back and looked at statistics as to how many car wrecks there were before cell-phones, like in the 1970’s. He could have compared many years leading up to now to show a definite increase or decrease, or possibly even a plateau in the number of collisions per year, while still being sure to make allowances in the data here and there for the ever-changing and infinite number of variables such as improvements of mechanics on the cars to help up stop more quickly or avoid a wreck easier, the increase in population, the technology used in the reflective paint used to paint stripes; anything! It would not have been very cut and dry, but it at least would have shown some insight and reflection. Common sense tells me that, yes, car + phone = bad idea, but I feel like you shouldn’t write an article about that including data as a persuasive argument if you don’t seem too eager to interpret the data yourself.
At one point in the article Bennings points out “the new ordinance resulted in 551 tickets in February alone. In all of last year, Austin police wrote 688 citations for the texting ban.” I feel like he could have easily taken the position of “upping citations is an action that may or may not actually have numbers proving that safety has also increased, but it definitely increases revenue for the city. We can put in more bike lanes/crosswalks/pedestrian bridges/stoplights/etc. with that money to further ensure the safety of our people”. That is an idea that is more easily expressed than a spreadsheet and shows more forethought. People are more likely to support something like the hands-free restriction if they see the good that it could potentially bring to the community than they are by seeing conflicting data pertaining to the topic.

Blog Post #1: Trump vs Perry SMACKDOWN!!!!

What we have here is an article published on KVUE regarding former Texas Governor Rick Perry and presidential hopeful Donald Trump. Trump recently found himself in hot water after he made the statement "when Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists, and some I assume are good people." Perry was quick to defend Mexican immigrants, and attempted to shoot down Trump's suggestion...or lack thereof. Perry feels that "Sanctuary Cities" are the best places to initiate a change. These so-called "Sanctuary Cities" are where, by Perry's definition, the governments "choose to openly defy U.S. immigration law". He states that they are generally larger, more liberal metropolitan areas like San Francisco. Perry proposes that we create some criteria to determine what cities may be considered "Sanctuary Cities" and cut their federal funding. "Federal taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the irresponsible behavior of these governments."
My concern in this is that neither side seems to have a good grasp on what is really happening here. Trumps comments were completely inappropriate and ignorant, but by cutting grants to Perry's "sanctuary cities", we will only be hurting the people of the cities. By having less cash flow for police to properly address concerns and hold those being charged with crime, we are letting more potentially dangerous people roam free. In this way, you run the definite risk of these cities becoming a lawless land, of sorts. From what I understand, lack of funding will likely lead to a decrease in police force and resources. From there, the kids who are committing petty crimes like vandalism probably won't be punished accordingly, and therefore lose out on an opportunity for rehabilitating that individual back into society. From unpunished petty theft, these same people are more likely to become involved in more consequential activities--and then not be met with consequences. From stealing a pack of gum to distributing marijuana, to forced entry and assaults, this just seems like we would only be perpetuating the cycle of crime.

The original article is posted here. Check it out and let me know what you think!