Proposition 7

Shawn N. Griffith, author of "Vote Yes on Proposition 7" which is a blog from The North Texas Conservative is obviously trying to persuade people to vote "yes" on Proposition 7, which will be voted on in the November election in Texas. I believe Griffith's target audience are voters, particularly those who are undecided. According to Griffith, Proposition 7 is basically there to "clean up" Article 16, Section 40 of the Texas Constitution. Article 16 states that "no civil servant can hold two offices or positions in the government." The author includes teachers, firemen, police officers, and other civil service jobs in his argument that supports Proposition 7. These people according to Article 16, couldn't hold a position as a state elected official. One group Griffith mentions throughout this article is the Texas State Guard. He is obviously a huge supporter of this volunteer group, whom he describes as first responders for natural disasters. Many civil service people volunteer for this group. He names off four state representatives who are officers in the Texas State Guard, who are all for revising Article 16.
The author claims that the officers named who are State Representatives of Texas know that the Texas State Guard is a vital organization when it comes to natural disasters such as helping the communities by cleaning up, evacuation assistance, and medical support.
He ends his editorial by persuading people to vote for Proposition 7 because it will clean up Article 16 by allowing any citizen to volunteer their service to the state. He also ends by adding a small patriotic reminder about how every member of the state's military are heroes, as a reason to vote next month.

I believe this is a good article written by Shawn N. Griffith. He makes a good point when persuading people to vote, using natural disasters as a prime example. This is a good article for people that either don't know about Proposition 7, or who are undecided on it. I myself have never heard of it, but his persuading article gives you a lot to think about when voting next month!

TWD

The author of Cracking Down on Texting While Driving from the Caller Times has a strong opinion on TWD, or texting while driving. The author targets all drivers, particulary those who text while driving. This person claims that texting while driving is the most hazardous distraction and should be eliminated as much as possible because it takes everything you need to concentrate on the road such as cognition, hands, and eyes which are being occupied by texting.
There are many studies done to prove this argument, including The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration who claim 6000 car deaths and half a million injuries are pinned on distracted drivers. Not to mention the the 15 times more risks involved in texting then just talking on cell phones while driving. The author claims that the AAA wants all 50 states to have a ban on this situation, who believe it to be a health crisis. Even though the author is clearly against texting while driving, or in that case any distractions while driving, the author is against punishing states who do not yet have the ban. The author sites that AAA is trying to campaign in states such as Texas, which do not have bans.
According to the author, because of the fact that one fith of the states already have this ban, congress should not pressure the other states such as Texas to pass the ban. The author believes that the ban should pass on its own. The company representing Verizon wireless want campains which will further educate parents and teens on the dangers of texting while driving.
I agree with this author that texting is very dangerous and should be banned. I myself am unfortunately guilty of texting while driving. Its very dangerous and has distracted me from the road the minute I look down from driving. If is was banned in Texas i would most likely stop because it is very distracting and dangerous. I'm a college kid who cannot afford a ticket!