I completely agree with your argument against texting in driving in your article "Ex" The Text. I did not know this law even existed as I have seen so many drivers here sms, talk on the phone, even put on make up and drive. I have seen each example on the HIGHWAY! I simply just do not understand why people do it.
The statistics you found were most interesting as it showcased texting and driving could be twice as bad as drinking and driving. Perhaps the reason it is so frequent is not only because it is not advertised enough but also because it is not enforced enough. Or perhaps since Perry did not recognize it as a bill that should pass for a state-wide ban, it is not on the list of priorities for Texas officers.
I also think that Perry was making an excuse for the veto. However, I do think you omitted to mention his full argument for his view. In the Texas Tribune article "Perry Issues Vetoes, Nixes Texting-and-Driving Ban" he states that he fully supports the ban of texting and driving of youth (under 18) but thinks it is over reaching the boundaries when stretched to adults. Perhaps he does want to ban texting for all of Texas, but lets be honest, who do we usually see texting? Young people. Its a youth revolution to text anyway- some adults dont even know how it functions. Although, I still think that it should be higher than 18 years of age. Perhaps if he raised the age of texting and driving to college graduates, it would be more appropriate. Then eventually as our generation gets older and still hasn't learned our lesson- maybe then we should push for a no texting and driving law in the state of Texas period. I think that what Perry is really afraid of is having people complain about their freedom as we've seen with the higher security body scans in the airports. People shouldn't really complain as its for their safety, but they claim its all about privacy and their freedom.
Personally, I feel it is important to ban texting all together in the whole US. If you would be driving safely and value safety, nobody would have anything to complain about. The same goes for the security checks: if you have nothing to hide, then why not do the security scan? However, realistically, I think the test of time and has shown that most Americans do not want anyone telling them what to do and this could push some people's buttons. And everybody knows due to the Texas Creed; nobody mess's with Texas.
Sources:
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/texting-while-driving-ban-on-way-to-governor-1508240.html
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/82nd-legislative-session/perry-issues-vetoes-nixes-texting-and-driving-ban/
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
The Lost Generation
Higher education is now a standard requirement for most job applications. Coupled with the low graduation rate of Texas students, the recent budget cuts on higher education will cause great harm to the future of Texas.
The Texas legislative branch have recently voted to cut the Texas budget in order to compensate for the deficit of 25 billion dollars. Sadly, most of the budget cuts will be centering around human and health services as well as education. As many public schools around the state will have a reduced amount of resources, college students may face a raise in tuition. Also, the cut back on grants for admission will eat away at a population of minority and lower income family students. As such, the already suffering minority population in admissions will decrease and many students will be forced to drop school all together.
Due to the potential increase in tuition for college students, minority students and students coming from low income families will most likely loose their grants for college education. As supported by Sara Calderon in the Texas Observer on April 14, 2011, " these cuts will come at a time when Latino students are making up bigger portions --or even the majority-- of the school-aged students in the states around the country." Therefore, especially when taking Texas into perspective, where the minority are the majority, students will be cut from grants to school. As a result, UT's student population would remain homogeneous rather than sparking the diversity they are pushing towards. The commissioner of higher education, Raymund Paredes, himself explained that these budget cuts on grants would put a whole 'lost generation' of students out of college due to pricing.
Although Rick Perry has held up an initiative to improve higher education and started a movement towards online education, this is not enough to improve the current situation. Western Governors University is an established university meant as a less costly and more flexible way to approach higher education: all you need is a computer and a little effort. Although it has encountered some success and growth since its birth in 1997. However, this primarily targets working adults and does not help college students who are looking for the full four year experience. Although it is important to target adults as well, we should also focus on the youth that are trying to rise up in the social ladder.
Furthermore, the Texas governors position with UT's research resources are also in debate. As the UT student body president Natalie Butler explains, the breakthrough solutions created by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) which, along with Rick Perry's praise, want to separate teaching and research budgets. They think that this way, taxpayers have not been directly paying the teachers to teach, but for their research 'projects' which are irrelevant to the classroom. As Butler keeps reiterating, it is fundamental for the University of Texas to fulfill its mission statement and keep up its first Tier research reputation as it not only interests brilliant professors to the university but also helps UT's professors teach not only book materials but also cutting edge discoveries. Cutting the research budget would create a great dis conformity with UT's motto "what starts here changes the world."
In the end, Texas's 44th ranking in the nation for graduating students might hit the bottom due to these budget cuts. Cutting grants to help out the Texas budget will essentially cause a lowering in admissions, diversity and grant recipients. So, why is the government doing this again?
The Texas legislative branch have recently voted to cut the Texas budget in order to compensate for the deficit of 25 billion dollars. Sadly, most of the budget cuts will be centering around human and health services as well as education. As many public schools around the state will have a reduced amount of resources, college students may face a raise in tuition. Also, the cut back on grants for admission will eat away at a population of minority and lower income family students. As such, the already suffering minority population in admissions will decrease and many students will be forced to drop school all together.
Due to the potential increase in tuition for college students, minority students and students coming from low income families will most likely loose their grants for college education. As supported by Sara Calderon in the Texas Observer on April 14, 2011, " these cuts will come at a time when Latino students are making up bigger portions --or even the majority-- of the school-aged students in the states around the country." Therefore, especially when taking Texas into perspective, where the minority are the majority, students will be cut from grants to school. As a result, UT's student population would remain homogeneous rather than sparking the diversity they are pushing towards. The commissioner of higher education, Raymund Paredes, himself explained that these budget cuts on grants would put a whole 'lost generation' of students out of college due to pricing.
Although Rick Perry has held up an initiative to improve higher education and started a movement towards online education, this is not enough to improve the current situation. Western Governors University is an established university meant as a less costly and more flexible way to approach higher education: all you need is a computer and a little effort. Although it has encountered some success and growth since its birth in 1997. However, this primarily targets working adults and does not help college students who are looking for the full four year experience. Although it is important to target adults as well, we should also focus on the youth that are trying to rise up in the social ladder.
Furthermore, the Texas governors position with UT's research resources are also in debate. As the UT student body president Natalie Butler explains, the breakthrough solutions created by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) which, along with Rick Perry's praise, want to separate teaching and research budgets. They think that this way, taxpayers have not been directly paying the teachers to teach, but for their research 'projects' which are irrelevant to the classroom. As Butler keeps reiterating, it is fundamental for the University of Texas to fulfill its mission statement and keep up its first Tier research reputation as it not only interests brilliant professors to the university but also helps UT's professors teach not only book materials but also cutting edge discoveries. Cutting the research budget would create a great dis conformity with UT's motto "what starts here changes the world."
In the end, Texas's 44th ranking in the nation for graduating students might hit the bottom due to these budget cuts. Cutting grants to help out the Texas budget will essentially cause a lowering in admissions, diversity and grant recipients. So, why is the government doing this again?
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Texas and Conflict with Religion and Science
The argument over evolution and its discrepancy with religious beliefs has sadly been left unresolved. In his article, Texas School Board of Gym Teachers, William Gee clearly points out the clash by pulling on his own experience of dealing with being a science major with a religious background. Although I agree with his idea that religion should not even be a debate as one is based on tested theories and the other on a set of 'deep rooted beliefs', I think it is important that children get a view on both perspectives. Perhaps Texas School Boards decision to have alternative online material to be taught along with evolution as a curriculum standard can be a good thing.
Science and religion are completely different realms and, as Gee has concluded, they should not be intertwined. Facts are facts and you can still trust them even if spiritually you are taught to believe in God. However, I feel it is vital for children to have a well rounded education and it is important for kids to see different perspectives on all issues in order to better form their own argument. For example, in my science classes whenever we learned about evolution we had to learn about creationism. It was not something I ever believed, but it really opened up my eyes to the existence of this debate. I had no idea it was out there before and I simply assumed that everyone believed in evolution. By learning about the other perspective and discussing the issue with my classmates, I think I learned to better approach the issue and try to understand the other side's argument. Therefore, I feel it is important for schools in Texas to have even a mandatory class on creationism in order to discuss its relevance to the whole debate. Perhaps this way, the children can be educated to understand the difference between science and theology and that it is okay to be religious yet still be a devote Christian. I think its especially relevant to Texas as I believe there are a lot of strictly conservative thinkers who should allow for healthy debate on the issue rather than force one perspective on children ie brainwashing them.
Therefore, although I understand your view Gee I think that its important to let science be science but also allow for other perspectives to be explored. I am not saying they are valid or that they should be presented in place of evolution- but they should be there for children to learn about, especially in Texas. Perhaps then the Texas School Boards decision was not a complete disaster after all. Unless of course, I misinterpreted what the meaning of 'alternative online material.' If so, this would be my only criticism about the article as it remained slightly unclear. All in all though, I really enjoyed the personal insight that was presented about the issue and the way the article was easy to read.
Aleksandra.
Science and religion are completely different realms and, as Gee has concluded, they should not be intertwined. Facts are facts and you can still trust them even if spiritually you are taught to believe in God. However, I feel it is vital for children to have a well rounded education and it is important for kids to see different perspectives on all issues in order to better form their own argument. For example, in my science classes whenever we learned about evolution we had to learn about creationism. It was not something I ever believed, but it really opened up my eyes to the existence of this debate. I had no idea it was out there before and I simply assumed that everyone believed in evolution. By learning about the other perspective and discussing the issue with my classmates, I think I learned to better approach the issue and try to understand the other side's argument. Therefore, I feel it is important for schools in Texas to have even a mandatory class on creationism in order to discuss its relevance to the whole debate. Perhaps this way, the children can be educated to understand the difference between science and theology and that it is okay to be religious yet still be a devote Christian. I think its especially relevant to Texas as I believe there are a lot of strictly conservative thinkers who should allow for healthy debate on the issue rather than force one perspective on children ie brainwashing them.
Therefore, although I understand your view Gee I think that its important to let science be science but also allow for other perspectives to be explored. I am not saying they are valid or that they should be presented in place of evolution- but they should be there for children to learn about, especially in Texas. Perhaps then the Texas School Boards decision was not a complete disaster after all. Unless of course, I misinterpreted what the meaning of 'alternative online material.' If so, this would be my only criticism about the article as it remained slightly unclear. All in all though, I really enjoyed the personal insight that was presented about the issue and the way the article was easy to read.
Aleksandra.
Monday, July 25, 2011
2011 Redistricting a Repetition of 2003 crisis?
For this editorial, I used an article and recent class reading and discussion to get me started on a topic we have recently studied in class and relate it to what's currently going on in Texas politics.
The Austin Statesman article "Travis County Will Be Split Four Ways Under State Senate Redistricting Map" of May 12, 2011 by Mike Ward presents the constant issues that plague the Texas government. As the title itself suggests, the article describes the political party turmoil amongst Democrats and Republicans over the drawing out of the current redistricting map. It appears that the Senate decided to divide Texas in such a way as to essentially limit the Democratic power by reassigning political 'coverage'. As such, the Democrats are not in agreement with the new redistricting poll and it must go into revision. This bickering over redistricting of Texas is the very similar issue that the Senate faced in 2001, leading to the 2003 crisis.
Specifically, Ward's statistic explain that the Senate holds a Republican majority of 19 to 12 Democrats. This obviously tilts to a huge favor on the part of Republicans gaining a greater position in redistricting than the Democrats. Therefore the results of the Senate's decision shouldn't come as a huge surprise to be bending towards favoring Republican senators.
Most importantly, it is obvious that this system of redistricting is no longer working as members of the redistricting committee are being left out of the process of redistricting. Senator Zaffirini after all herself claims that as a board member she never actually found out about her own new alignment until she was handed the redistricting map. If its true, that hardly seems fair. If there are decisions to be made about redistricting I feel that all parties should be present for voting the final decision and aware of their own jurisdiction.
If the redistricting process was no longer a duty assigned to the Senate, but chosen by a non-partisan party, then this gerrymandering would finally come to an end. Complicated as it is, the Texas government needs to be simplified. Obviously, the government constantly needs redistricting to be re-mapped by non-partisan groups anyway, so why not make it a law? This would eliminate at least some of the nasty bickering amongst the two parties and perhaps allow the growing independent voters of Texas to agree with more of what's going on. Additionally, this could help the agitated voters, who are constantly wavering between parties due to the unnecessary bitterness, to finally settle down with a vote and cut down on the split ticket voting.
In conclusion, it simply sounds like the Texas Senate needs help with forming fair redistricting maps. Obviously the current process is not working and causing more problems than good. A new format of going about the process could help save lots of people the energy put in fighting each other towards a common good for the Texas people. After all, its not meant to be about who's winning Republicans or Democrats, but how to best serve Texans as a whole.
Granted, this will probably involve a lot of participation on the Texas voter front and also a huge amount of effort for legislators etc to pass the law. However, I think the benefits outweigh the cost that this process is causing to general attitude towards Texas politics. Perhaps this way Texans could be encouraged to vote more as they would feel their voices will be better heard and not ignored due to silly inter political "i win, you loose" teasing. Who cares?! I would like to believe people have grown up since high school, especially grown humans who are meant to represent the state of Texas.
*I feel it is important to note that being a foreign student, I find it hard to fight for either party which probably explains my stance. Even though I feel slightly ridiculous fighting for a certain position in a problem that is not mine to begin with, I was simply responding to the assignment at hand as I would if I were an American citizen with a right to vote.*
The Austin Statesman article "Travis County Will Be Split Four Ways Under State Senate Redistricting Map" of May 12, 2011 by Mike Ward presents the constant issues that plague the Texas government. As the title itself suggests, the article describes the political party turmoil amongst Democrats and Republicans over the drawing out of the current redistricting map. It appears that the Senate decided to divide Texas in such a way as to essentially limit the Democratic power by reassigning political 'coverage'. As such, the Democrats are not in agreement with the new redistricting poll and it must go into revision. This bickering over redistricting of Texas is the very similar issue that the Senate faced in 2001, leading to the 2003 crisis.
Specifically, Ward's statistic explain that the Senate holds a Republican majority of 19 to 12 Democrats. This obviously tilts to a huge favor on the part of Republicans gaining a greater position in redistricting than the Democrats. Therefore the results of the Senate's decision shouldn't come as a huge surprise to be bending towards favoring Republican senators.
Most importantly, it is obvious that this system of redistricting is no longer working as members of the redistricting committee are being left out of the process of redistricting. Senator Zaffirini after all herself claims that as a board member she never actually found out about her own new alignment until she was handed the redistricting map. If its true, that hardly seems fair. If there are decisions to be made about redistricting I feel that all parties should be present for voting the final decision and aware of their own jurisdiction.
If the redistricting process was no longer a duty assigned to the Senate, but chosen by a non-partisan party, then this gerrymandering would finally come to an end. Complicated as it is, the Texas government needs to be simplified. Obviously, the government constantly needs redistricting to be re-mapped by non-partisan groups anyway, so why not make it a law? This would eliminate at least some of the nasty bickering amongst the two parties and perhaps allow the growing independent voters of Texas to agree with more of what's going on. Additionally, this could help the agitated voters, who are constantly wavering between parties due to the unnecessary bitterness, to finally settle down with a vote and cut down on the split ticket voting.
In conclusion, it simply sounds like the Texas Senate needs help with forming fair redistricting maps. Obviously the current process is not working and causing more problems than good. A new format of going about the process could help save lots of people the energy put in fighting each other towards a common good for the Texas people. After all, its not meant to be about who's winning Republicans or Democrats, but how to best serve Texans as a whole.
Granted, this will probably involve a lot of participation on the Texas voter front and also a huge amount of effort for legislators etc to pass the law. However, I think the benefits outweigh the cost that this process is causing to general attitude towards Texas politics. Perhaps this way Texans could be encouraged to vote more as they would feel their voices will be better heard and not ignored due to silly inter political "i win, you loose" teasing. Who cares?! I would like to believe people have grown up since high school, especially grown humans who are meant to represent the state of Texas.
*I feel it is important to note that being a foreign student, I find it hard to fight for either party which probably explains my stance. Even though I feel slightly ridiculous fighting for a certain position in a problem that is not mine to begin with, I was simply responding to the assignment at hand as I would if I were an American citizen with a right to vote.*
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Blog #4: Texas Blog Commentary
The blog Does Perry Get Any Credit? by Charles Kuffner was posted on Off the Kuff on July 18th, 2011 and you can access it here. The post essentially critiques the Statesman's point about evaluating Perry's involvement in having Texas be recognized as one of the only states to be in relatively good economic standing. He uses the issue from Statesman to suggest that although Perry may be a relatively good governor- he is not responsible for the betterment of the economy.
The intended audience of the post is obviously for liberals as he attempts to criticize the Republican politician. Kuffner sarcastically ends his post by saying "You want to give Perry credit for that, fine, but then he also deserves the “credit” for all of the austerity-induced job losses and all future educational setbacks resulting from cuts to public schools." Therefore, he is basically suggesting that Perry should not be credited for something like higher percentage of job growth than other states as "it will continue undoubtedly when he leaves."
The format of copy and pasting an entire article from the statesman is in my opinion a poor structure to an argument. Someone essentially made this argument for Kuffner- he just copied and pasted it and agreed with it, whats so special about that? Although the Statesman does make valid argumentative points by displaying both sides to Texan economy and job growth, Kuffner is not responsible for any of that work. Therefore in a sense, although the Statesman is a credible source, it makes me doubt Kuffner's credibility and argumentative edge. You can use the Statesman, but at least reiterate what they said with your own research and specific ideas rather than just copy and pasting half of the article as your form of evidence.
Therefore, although perhaps I agree with what Kuffner was trying to get across (Texas did not solely improve in jobs but also lost some and with no direct thanks to Perry), his manner of simply copy and pasting the statesman article as his argument was weak. Anybody can do that. I think his argument is logical based on the facts given by the Statesman- but I think Kuffner's ability to argument cohesively was absent.
The intended audience of the post is obviously for liberals as he attempts to criticize the Republican politician. Kuffner sarcastically ends his post by saying "You want to give Perry credit for that, fine, but then he also deserves the “credit” for all of the austerity-induced job losses and all future educational setbacks resulting from cuts to public schools." Therefore, he is basically suggesting that Perry should not be credited for something like higher percentage of job growth than other states as "it will continue undoubtedly when he leaves."
The format of copy and pasting an entire article from the statesman is in my opinion a poor structure to an argument. Someone essentially made this argument for Kuffner- he just copied and pasted it and agreed with it, whats so special about that? Although the Statesman does make valid argumentative points by displaying both sides to Texan economy and job growth, Kuffner is not responsible for any of that work. Therefore in a sense, although the Statesman is a credible source, it makes me doubt Kuffner's credibility and argumentative edge. You can use the Statesman, but at least reiterate what they said with your own research and specific ideas rather than just copy and pasting half of the article as your form of evidence.
Therefore, although perhaps I agree with what Kuffner was trying to get across (Texas did not solely improve in jobs but also lost some and with no direct thanks to Perry), his manner of simply copy and pasting the statesman article as his argument was weak. Anybody can do that. I think his argument is logical based on the facts given by the Statesman- but I think Kuffner's ability to argument cohesively was absent.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Editorial Critique
In the Dallas Morning News, the editorial "Lawmakers cover up financial woes with slick budget trick" of July 8th 2011, it is clear that the anonymous author had a specific audience and purpose in mind for their argument. The author uses colloquialisms such as "abracadabra" and reference to lawmakers being like magicians. Although this simplifies the argument as to make it accessible to a larger audience- it also has a way of degrading his argument. As such, the author's credibility can be put into question. Further, his short sentence structures and lack of cited work make it seem like the statistics he comes up with throughout the article are dubious.
The argument itself also lacks a scholastic respectability and coherent argument supported by actual evidence. He supports his claim of lawmakers being dirty crooks with various incidences throughout Texan politics citing that "when revenues are short, though, the Legislature pulls a tax and switch". However compelling and perhaps true this statement may be, he never actually provides factual evidence that this is going on in Texas government. Although I agree with what he is saying, I find the editorial to lack substantial evidence. One can not deduce that lawmakers are crooks, even if they really are, unless they have something that can back up their claim. Therefore, in the end, I find this editorial less than substantial in that, although very humanitarian and pro taxing for the better of the whole state of Texas, it purely lacks professional etiquette and meaningful evidence.
The link:
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20110708-editorial-lawmakers-cover-up-financial-woes-with-slick-budget-trick.ece
The argument itself also lacks a scholastic respectability and coherent argument supported by actual evidence. He supports his claim of lawmakers being dirty crooks with various incidences throughout Texan politics citing that "when revenues are short, though, the Legislature pulls a tax and switch". However compelling and perhaps true this statement may be, he never actually provides factual evidence that this is going on in Texas government. Although I agree with what he is saying, I find the editorial to lack substantial evidence. One can not deduce that lawmakers are crooks, even if they really are, unless they have something that can back up their claim. Therefore, in the end, I find this editorial less than substantial in that, although very humanitarian and pro taxing for the better of the whole state of Texas, it purely lacks professional etiquette and meaningful evidence.
The link:
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20110708-editorial-lawmakers-cover-up-financial-woes-with-slick-budget-trick.ece
Monday, July 11, 2011
Abortion Revisited
In Judge Weighs Injunction Against Texas Abortion Law, the article explains the current law in Texas as forcing doctors to make a woman who wants an abortion listen to the babies heartbeat and explain the fetus's features. This law was brought upon by a suggestion of women who had abortions and later regretted it. Its meant to change the female's mind and slant her views towards keeping the child. The Daily Texan demonstrates how the debate is pro-republican as Rick Perry brought it into Texas law claiming that the loss of life due to abortion "is a tragedy we must work together to stop". The doctors who refuse to follow these regulations in Texas have very high repercussions for their inaction: they can be charged with fines up to 100,000$, be charged for a criminal misdemeanor, and can face loosing their medical license. The Center for Reproductive Rights is suggesting that this law is actually in violation with doctor-patient confidentiality and essentially unethical.
I find this article very interesting as I do not agree with the law itself. Although I understand that Republican parties and such believers strongly are in support of life and against abortion, I do not think it is constitutional to force someone who is not a government official to conduct their job in a specific manner. Doctors should have the right to dismiss such a law. I am positive that there are doctors in Texas who are Republican and look down upon abortions, but the one's that are less conservative and more liberal might view this as an intrusion and infringement. Furthermore, Perry seems to think that by implementing this law people in Texas will cease to have abortions (that are not caused by rape, incest or deformity). Does that really hold true? I strongly believe that even if abortion was completely illegal in Texas they would travel to where it was illegal and still do it. I just feel in order for Texas to be a part of the USA and follow its Creed of independence, shouldn't doctors have the right to their independence in practice? However, I find its interesting that the group who is opposing the law is actually based from NY- maybe their political stance had an influence on this debate in the first place. I think it would make a more compelling argument if a Texas based clinic was raising the same concerns.
Thus, I essentially find this article worthwhile because it sheds some light on the different dynamics of state and local government on the issue of abortion and private practice.
I find this article very interesting as I do not agree with the law itself. Although I understand that Republican parties and such believers strongly are in support of life and against abortion, I do not think it is constitutional to force someone who is not a government official to conduct their job in a specific manner. Doctors should have the right to dismiss such a law. I am positive that there are doctors in Texas who are Republican and look down upon abortions, but the one's that are less conservative and more liberal might view this as an intrusion and infringement. Furthermore, Perry seems to think that by implementing this law people in Texas will cease to have abortions (that are not caused by rape, incest or deformity). Does that really hold true? I strongly believe that even if abortion was completely illegal in Texas they would travel to where it was illegal and still do it. I just feel in order for Texas to be a part of the USA and follow its Creed of independence, shouldn't doctors have the right to their independence in practice? However, I find its interesting that the group who is opposing the law is actually based from NY- maybe their political stance had an influence on this debate in the first place. I think it would make a more compelling argument if a Texas based clinic was raising the same concerns.
Thus, I essentially find this article worthwhile because it sheds some light on the different dynamics of state and local government on the issue of abortion and private practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)