Analysis: Many in child-sex cases serve no time

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5232562.html

As I was reading an analysis in the Houston Chronicle called “Many in child sex crime serve no time” I felt relieved and disgusted at the same time. It was a relief to see someone publicly critical of the Texas punishment system for sexual offenders but disgusted because it doesn’t appear much is being changed in the system. The article goes on to say although there are new harsher consequences for sexual offenders even the death penalty offenders move on with minimum punishment.
The author said it best “Some victims advocates say that while the new legislation may be politically popular, it doesn't attack the root of the problem.”
All sexual crimes are difficult but sexual crimes against juveniles and/or children can be particularly difficult because they are typically committed by someone known to the victim. So many emotionally gripping factors come into play when dealing with this issue and it appears the author of this article truly grasp were the real problems are. It doesn’t appear our Texas government wants to address or commit the resources needed to effectively punish sexual offenders. These types of crimes can be deeply rooted in a family. Putting the law in ones living room can bring on feelings of guilt, exposure, embarrassment and shame for the victim and families involved. Victims who don’t deal with their abuse or feel their offender was adequately punished can carry burdens well into their adulthood. Also, statistics show those who are violated and don’t deal with their abuse are more likely to sexual offend themselves opposed to those who deal with their abuse. My point, if the Texas legal system doesn't properly deal with sexually abused victims they might one day be dealing with them on the opposite of the law.
So I ask myself why did our Texas legislature spend so much time to pass new laws which are not implemented, only available? I agree with the Director of The Family Place in Dallas, Liz Hodges the legislative changes are "a way for everybody to feel like they've done something. The more important question, what is our state going to do to address the “root of the problem?” These crimes go on legally “swept under the carpet” because this is a huge task to tackle. If our Texas courts system and legal experts can’t handle sexual crimes against juveniles and/or young children committed by the “guy next door” how is a Texas family expected to handle the issue on their own?

Bush vetoes children's health care bill

In the Houston Chronicle on October 3rd an article titled Bush Vetoes Children’s Health Care Bill by Jennifer Loven talks about Bush vetoing a bill to expand Childrens Health Insurance.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5183555.html

The article initially seems to be a genuine concern for the four million children who will be deprived of medical insurance as a result of Bush’s veto but the article shifts gear and focus’ on democratic political agenda and how the veto works against Bush. Loven goes on to discuss the veto as a “high stakes gambit” and how the decision “pits” him (Bush) against democrats and his own party. I do feel how we get to change is important but should it supersede the issue at hand? For the most part, the people in public office or the voting public aren’t significantly affected by this particular decision therefore the bill lacks representation compared to others.

I think it’s equally important for Loven to discuss how this will directly affect America’s children. I would like to know what it means for the 4 million children who will go without insurance. How will this impact our economy? When a child is sick and goes to a public hospital with no insurance, who picks up the tab? How does it affect children long term to go with out medical coverage as a child? I prefer to see an equal focus on the children/people directly affected by Bush’s decision.

Bush can’t be re-elected so how much can the veto hurt him? At this point in his term he doesn’t seem to be fighting for the public favor. Does it matter? Bush fought for more funding for our war which overtime seems to be alive as a result of a great marketing campaign staged from the Bush administration and others who stand to gain from it. The only positive thing I can pull out of Bush’s decision is truth. We may be seeing the true heart of our President and were his priorities lye. Will the voting public take note and if they how will it sway their next presidential vote.

It’s seems in politics the issues at hand take a back seat when compared to making policy. I am personally very interested in public policy and want to get as close as I can to bringing about change without taking office because there seems to be something corrupt about being in office. Specifically, it seems sustaining office is more important than the issues on the table. Politicians seem to advocate or lean towards a decision that will likely secure their office.