Money for Education = Bad?

This last assignment is to critique a fellow student’s blog regarding a Texas state issue.  I have to disagree on some points made by my fellow classmate Reanna.  Reanna’s blog “Race to the Top Funding” discusses the hot issue of Federal funding for our schools.  I am struck by a comment that Reanna made, “We are doing what works best for our Texas students and I doubt Washington D.C. knows more than people who live here.”  I am sorry but I have to disagree with this statement.  Texas is lagging so far behind in education that I am surprised the federal government hasn’t ordered Texas to do something about it yet.  We have the highest drop put rate and some of the lowest SAT scores.  We are one of the lowest ranked states for per pupil spending.  I do not think we are doing what’s best for Texas and Washington may actually be able to do this one better.

I do think it is getting better for Texas kids but I think we could stand to do a lot better and maybe the Feds can help with that.  Reanna also stated, “Parent involvement plays a crucial role in the participation and drive of students”.  I am really confused as to why you think parent involvement will dwindle if we apply for this program.  As a parent I have, and will continue to be a large part of my daughter’s success as a student.  I study with her after school and I stay on her to get her assignments done.  The other pivotal people in her success are her teachers.  Her teachers are amazing.  My daughter is a 7^th grader and I have never had a teacher refuse to stay late to help her or not go out of their way if she is struggling.  Her teachers want her to learn and make a personal investment in her learning.  If this program would make it so my daughter’s school life would be better and her teachers are treated better than sign me up!  We need more programs to help our kids succeed and I think this program will help us do that and get us out of the rut we are in educationally.  I wish Reanna the best as a teacher!  J

As my last blog comes to a close I have to admit I have enjoyed this more than I thought.  Texas Government has been way less boring than I anticipated and this Blog was more than mildly tolerable.  Best of wishes to you all

Keep Texans Safe

Opposed to sobriety check-points??  Senator John Carona is proposing a bill for sobriety check points to be set up in Texas.  There has been much debate as to whether this violates people’s civil liberties or not.  Sure there is a good argument that pulling people over can seem like opening a can of worms on who to target, etc.  But the same argument could be made about airport security and full body scanning.  But if sobriety check points keep the number of drunk driving fatalities down isn’t it worth it?

Texas has the highest rate of drunk driving fatalities in the country.  I don’t understand why anyone would want to argue restrictions placed on drinking and driving.  There is much more that could be done though.  As a born and raised Washingtonian I noticed a different drinking culture in Texas when I moved here.  It seems like everyone drinks in Texas.  Beer is the most popular and seems to mix with almost any social gathering.  If you go to the lake you bring beer, if you go to the movies you drink beer, if you hang out at the park you bring beer, trick or treating with the kids bring beer.  I have never been to so many activities where drinking is a norm.  Even a 5K will warrant cocktails after it.  Drinking is a huge part of society as is drinking and driving.

I have also noticed the culture in the bars.  Texas makes it mandatory that anyone who is serving or selling alcohol go through TABC training.  This is all well and good but is not enforced.  TABC certified servers are not supposed to serve someone if they are intoxicated.  In Texas being TABC certified just means that the bar you work for isn’t liable if you serve someone who is intoxicated.  Servers are sometimes uncomfortable cutting people off because often times intoxicated people get very angry when you won’t serve them.  Servers also get better tips when people are more intoxicated.  Tips are a big part of it being that Texas pays servers 2 dollars an hour.

The culture in Texas needs to change in regard to drinking.  Drinking and driving kills innocent people, period.  There are many things that can be done about this, not just sobriety stops.  Tougher sentencing for DUI’s is a start.  Many of the traffic fatalities that occur because of drunk driving involve repeat offenders.  Texas needs to enact a no tolerance policy so that repeat offenders are not given the chance to kill innocent people.  TABC servers need to stop serving people that are intoxicated and Texas needs to pay these servers better money.  More funding towards prevention and safe ride programs would be good too.  Maybe we need to make it easier for people to get home if they do have too many to drink.  Deferred prosecution programs for DUI offenders are a joke and have become a game between lawyers.  Defenders seem more concerned with getting a lesser sentence for their client than public safety.  

Whether we like it or not Drinking and driving is a public safety issue.  Sobriety checkpoints are a hassle for those that have to go through them and haven’t been drinking.  But if check points are one measure that ensures safety for others than we need to implement it.  Texas legislators need to stop being so concerned with civil liberties where public safety is concerned.  Implementing DUI check points and other DUI prevention programs is a good start towards lowering traffic fatalities in Texas.

Passion may Ignite Change??

I am writing a personal commentary on Dan’s Blog five titled, “ Education…The Governor’s Responsibility”.  I had not planned on critiquing this particular student’s piece of writing because I did not feel it would be good “sportsmanship” since he critiqued mine.  But after reading all of my classmates’ blogs (twice) I realized Dan’s blog was the only one that left me even mildly interested.  I am quite confused about the point of Dan’s commentary but I think it vaguely resembles some sort of gripe about politics/education.  Although I may be unsure about the writer’s point to the whole blog I do respect his straight forward attitude about things.

 I may not believe in bringing corporal punishment back to the schools in order to teach discipline but I do understand his point.  The idea that parents need to quit treating schools like a daycare does not fall on deaf ears either.  I appreciate the fact that he has put some thought into the fact that our kids don’t have as much respect as they used to and that parents are not held accountable for their kids education.  As a parent I would disagree but he has a valid point. 

While I may disagree with Dan’s strategies to fix the problem of education in Texas (including the lack of discipline towards the little dirt bags that need it), I agree with another point he makes.  He states, “Politicians always spin what they say and never give direct answers”.  This to me is the whole point of this article.  We can sit around spinning which way looks right but nothing is going to change because none of it is real.  It is all for show.  Dan makes the point that Texas spends 40% of its budget on education but the schools still suck!  So here we are again.  The Right wants to spank the kids and the Left want to provide services to people who may not deserve them.  Neither of these approaches comes anywhere near solving the problem of the sub-standard education that our kids in Texas receive. 

Until politicians stop trying to feed us full of crap on what is going to solve the “education crisis” nothing will change.  I propose that more politicians need to be opinionated such as myself and my classmate Dan.  It seems neither of us is afraid to say what is on our mind.  Left and Right need to duke it out in a way that makes sense, that leads to something. I have more respect for someone who preaches to bring back the wooden paddle than I do for someone who just tells people what they want to hear.  Our politicians need to reignite their passion for issues that need changing instead of worrying about whose butt they are going to kiss today.  Thank you for an article that invoked a little bit of feeling!  :-)

Freedom or Equality?

The many political and governmental issues I oppose stem around the lack of rights for workers, environmental issues and the lack of dollars spent on human services.  Employers are not entitled to give workers rest breaks, wages for social workers are low and services for the low income are shoddy.  Equality of wages and treatment of people are not priorities here like they are up North.  Texans drive trucks that would rival small semis and I have yet to see a recycle service at any place I have lived since moving here.  I have not seen much emphasis on the environment (with the exception being Austin).  They seem a gluttonous lot, caring little about minorities and the low income.

It is easy enough to write another rant about how much Texas sucks.  I could have (and already have) written a few words on the subject. I choose now to focus on the really great thing about Texas government, Freedom!

While one side of the ideology favors governmental assistance to support equality, the other side favors governmental assistance to support freedom.  Texans believe that personal freedoms should be supported by their government.  I can think of at least 1,000 reasons why wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle would be a good thing.  The fact that people even ride around on those things makes no sense to me.  In 1998 alone 500 lives were saved from the use of helmets.  The leading cause of death in motorcycle accidents is head trauma.  While this would seem like a good argument for helmet laws, Texans value freedom.  I appreciate this value in Texans.  The ability to make a personal choice can be empowering and makes a lot of sense to me.  Texas government strives to support personal choices when it comes to have freedom over your personal well being.

Another prime example of Texas government valuing personal freedom is laws regarding minor consumption of alcohol.  Minors can consume alcohol if in the presence of their parent and with their parent’s consent.  Although I do not (necessarily) condone underage drinking, I appreciate that Texas government has left a little of this choice up to the parents.  This freedom allows the parents to instill their parenting beliefs on their children rather than letting the government choose for them.  These parents may also believe as I do, that sometimes prohibiting things make those things more easily abused.  

The refreshing thing about Texas government is that it values a person’s right to make their own decisions.  The government strives to protect its citizens from over regulation of personal freedoms by the government.  The general attitude of “letting people be” resonates in the way that Texans treat each other; with kindness and goodwill, with respect and friendly smiles.  A more liberally minded government could stand to learn from some of these tactics.  Maybe Texans feel a sense of control over their choices.  Is that why people are nice to each other here?

What are Words Anyways?

 “When is ‘Gay’ Gay?” is a blog written by Bob Parks.  He argues that using the word “Gay” isn’t really that bad.  He claims that recently there has been uproar of the use of the word in a movie trailer.  The word Gay was used in a negative connotation but the Parks thinks it is no big deal. He claims that when the word is used in a derogatory manner that people can “automatically assume there is malice when in fact there is not”.  Park claims that there are two meanings to the word; one meaning homosexual and one meaning “rubbish or stupid”.

I believe Park’s intended audience is conservative and heterosexual . He is probably very appealing to republican racial minorities and uses this as an angle for his viewpoint on things. 

Park’s “proof” that using the word is not so bad is quoting the Flintstones song.  The Flintstones is 50 years old and at the end of the song they sing, “We’ll have a gay old time”.  That is hardly a derogatory use of the word Gay when that is how the word was used then.  The writer is arguing that since so many people use the word gay to describe something stupid or dumb, that it should be ok and socially accepted. 

Park goes on to say, “So, when did the meaning of the word change and why is everyone expected to have acknowledged the change (as few of us had any input)?”  Parks is claiming since the Gay community has taken ownership of the word (without his consent) that he ought to be able to use the word however he likes. Park’s general attitude is that Liberals need to be quiet and quit being so sensitive over the use of the word Gay to mean stupid or dumb.

There are many words that have varying meanings.  The word “Fag” has many different meanings; it can be a cigarette, a tire, a servant and a verb meaning to labor hard.  It can also be a derogatory term to describe a gay man.  “Dyke” has different meanings as well.  Is the author insinuating that it is ok to use whatever words we feel like it just because it has multiple meanings?  The author is inferring that the gay community needs to get over it and let people use the word gay to describe something stupid or rubbish.  He expects the gay community to adapt and accept what the dominant members of society find tasteful (hmmm…isn’t the gay community already doing that?).  The author’s “proof” of his opinion is flawed and ultimately is a way for him to justify oppression.

Playing devil’s advocate I can understand where the author is coming from.  Maybe he thinks the people in this country should “lighten up” and start becoming less “P.C.”  I think this is a valid point of view.  It can be exhausting keeping up with which labels are o.k. and which labels aren’t.  However, the word gay has been used for quite some time and is hardly a trend.

Ultimately the author’s opinion did not work.  He had little proof or evidence that the derogatory use of the word gay is alright.  He did not consult with any people in the gay community when forming his opinion.  It was a poorly written piece coming from a place of dominance and ignorance over the topic of sexual orientation.  With suicides rising in the gay community this is no time to be taking the things we say lightly.  I am left to ponder how the author would feel if we deemed it ok to start throwing the “N word” around?  Just a thought.

People Commit Murder, Not Guns

Thomas G. Palaima wrote a commentary for the Austin American Statesman titled, U.S. Gun laws allow a Normal day at UT take a Scary Turn. The title is indicative of the feelings of the writer on gun laws in America. Palaima describes his day at UT on September 28 when a gunman came on to the campus an opened fire. The gunman did not kill anyone, but did eventually kill himself. The author describes the amazing Austin police and their response to the situation. But then towards the end of his article he states, “Why is an AK-47 — or any gun for that matter — legal to buy and use?”
Palaima claims that if guns were illegal in America then there would be no more horrific mass killings. I would disagree. Of course the pure speed of a machine gun allows the rapid succession of bullets into a crowded area, increasing the chances of a mass killing. But illegalizing guns is not going to make psychopaths or other disturbed individuals sane. Ted Bundy, Jeffry Dahmer, Gary Ridgeway, Jack the Ripper and Ed Gein all have something in common; they killed multiple people without the use of a gun. In the mass murder category we have Richard Speck. Speck managed to kill eight women in one place without the use of a gun.
Guns do not kill people. People kill people. It takes a severely disturbed person to actually plan and execute a murder of any kind. So a gun may increase their chances of hitting multiple people at once. But would a lack of a gun make them harmless?
I will take the side of the devils’ advocate by going to the other side of the debate now. We all know 9/11 happened without the use of guns, and 3,000 people died. What if the gun laws allowed people to carry a concealed weapon? Would 9/11 have produced more or less casualties? Many people (especially in Texas) argue that all Americans should be allowed to carry guns on their person for instances such as Virginia Tech. They argue that if Americans were all allowed to carry guns then the casualties of such crimes would be lessened.
I believe the writer was attempting to appeal to an extreme liberal view sometimes held by some college students. He described what it was like in the situation being faced with mortality and described the college kids around him. To propose such an idealistic approach to gun laws is unrealistic and naïve. He is basically saying that if we get rid of crack we will have no drug problem.
I argue that, whether I am in agreement or not that we uphold the 2nd amendment of the U.S Constitution which is the right to bear arms. We need to allow people to protect themselves within limits. People should have the inalienable right to feel safe in their homes and the right to protect their property and family. I do not agree with Palaima that removing gun will eliminate mass killings. Removing guns will be just that; removing guns. Removing guns does not take away psychopathic thoughts and actions from individuals who commit pre-meditated murder. It is absurd to blame murder on the weapon instead of the individual.

Too Much Equality in School Curriculum??

                Is equality threatening to ruin the very core of Texas conservatism?  It appears as though we have been given our children too much information on the rest of the world.  The Texas Board of Education has drafted a resolution limiting what is written about Islam in social Studies books.  They have also proposed limiting information about the Constitution’s stand on separation of church and state.  Apparently the Board sees the information provided on the Islam religions to be over shadowing what is presented on Christianity.

                The conservative bloc on the board of education is afraid that such equality may be heightened by the mention of Islam.  Texas will be educating their children on terrorism and how to hijack airplanes.  Islam is bad.  Christianity is good.   The board has a skewed reality on what religions are dominant in the world.  They would rather present their interpretation that Christianity is the dominant world religion.

This resolution says nothing of educating its schools’ social studies and history teachers though.  The presentation of history seems more important to what is written in books.  The ideology of the teacher and the emphasis placed on certain highlights in history will have more impact than the tweaking of a social studies book.  My daughter came home from school one day last year and said’ “Mr. Henry wanted me to ask you if Buddhism was a religion or not”.  Apparently my child told the social studies teacher that her mom was a Buddhist.  Mr. Henry wanted to make a point to me and the class that Buddhism isn’t an actual religion.  I caught on early to what he was trying to prove by letting my daughter know that technically it would be more of a philosophy than a religion, because Buddhists don’t worship a god.  Mr. Henry didn’t win that time.  But it showed me that he was dead set on letting his kids in class know that certain religions are “valid” and certain ones are not.

The Board proposed to remove any mention of Hispanics dying alongside whites at the Alamo.  The board also rejected adding Hip Hop as a cultural movement.  It is no surprise to me that Institutional inequalities exist for racial and sexual minority groups.  In this case, The Texas Board of Education is an instigator in these inequalities and they help to fuel the fire. Whether we hide the fact that Thomas Jefferson had sex with his slaves or the fact that Taoism and Buddhism are valid religions we are left with the same issue.  Why are the conservatives on The Board of Education so against diversifying our children’s knowledge of different cultures?  It is a frightening thought that we are ok in Texas to keep our kids ignorant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-app_n_497440.html