Response to "Flusing Money Down the Toilet"

A recent post from "Keeping Texas History Weird" caught my attention as one of the most interesting so far. The article is about funding for public schools in Texas and I completely agree with this point. The academic decline in the Texas public school system is not a direct result of it being poorly funded. In fact, Texas spends most of it's money on funding schools. In large, I think that the problem lies with the standards set for students. I'm hopeful for new school improvement bills passed last week that will eliminate tedious requirements placed on students and teachers that don't prepare them to succeed on the SAT or in college, i.e. the TAKS test. Students are not performing at such low rates solely because of money, but because they are ill prepared. I found an interesting quote on this topic from House Public Education Committee Chairman Rob Eissler, saying, "The current system did not help our kids as much as we thought it would, we have serious, serious achievement gaps in terms of preparing students for college." He continued to say that while scores on the TAKS test jumped substantially over the years, Texas scores on the ACT and SAT have remained low. So its not so much that we need more money, but that we should put the money we have to better use before "flushing" more funds down the toilet. 

On a side note, I also was greatly entertained by the facts given in this post concerning highly funded schools who perform the worst in the nation.  I don't understand why on earth Obama would cut the No Child Left Behind program that provided vouchers for students who could not afford private school. I recently read a story on the news about a teenager in Washington DC who was going to school on the voucher program and talked about how her single mother was willing to get a second job in order to keep her in private school for her junior and senior year. It honestly makes me angry. He himself would NEVER let his kids step foot in a public school in DC.  

Uninsured Children

There is a pull in the House and Senate to work together on partisan lines and find solutions for uninsured children in Texas. Being that 22% of 1.5 million children are uninsured, the issue needs to be addressed with long-term solutions. Texas ranks number one in the nation with uninsured children and also ranks high in teen birth rates. I am on the fence for a new bill that will allow working parents to buy into the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) if they (a family of four) do not qualify because they make more than $44,100. I think this is a great idea because it will cost families who make under $66,150 premiums from $88 to $120 a month. This would add 80,000 children to CHIP costing the state about $38 million over two years. As a strong Republican I sometimes wonder when enough is enough and if throwing money at an issue can really create a long-term solution, but this seems fair and will keep primary care needs out of the emergency room and therefore save local taxpayers from paying the bill. Then again, emergency rooms cannot turn away any patient so it may not actually change anything. I am all for promoting personal responsibility and I know that some families will not take advantage of this plan because they would rather have free health care in the emergency room and a flat screen TV than a low premium for their children's health insurance.  I do not want to support irresponsible parents of large families who are unwilling to do what it takes to earn their own way before going to the State. Where is the line drawn between the responsibility of parents and the responsibility of the State? I think that health insurance should be the priority and responsibility first for families.  Those in crisis can depend on the government and have something to fall back on, but a lazy and materialistic culture is no excuse for uninsured children. In light of that, the 22% of uninsured children in Texas are without a doubt not responsible for being in this predicament and deserve quality healthcare. 

Political Racism

This is a response to a post from my classmate's blog, Texas Talk,  concerning the deportation of American citizens. I have some comments and strong disagreements concerning the conclusions drawn in this post. On the topic itself I do agree that there must be drastic measures taken to ensure that United States citizens are protected from being deported. Whether it is 10 or hundreds of people a year, that is a given. On the other hand, citizens should also be protected from the threat of illegal immigration and the violence of drug wars in Mexico, as well as terrorist attacks. I prefer not to wait for something like 9/11 to happen again before deciding to crack down on national security. Unfortunately, I believe thats what it will take for liberals to decide it may be a good idea after all. 

Concerning the man deported in the story, I think we should be careful when we call a mistake "racism." I know that there are, without a doubt, law enforcement officials who treat citizens with bias concerning race. I am not denying that fact, but I do not think racism is the issue in every similar case. It is mentioned in the article cited, that "agents investigate any claims to U.S. citizenship, but they often turn out to be false...immigration officials never knowingly hold someone they can definitively determine is a citizen." That being the case, easing up on border control will not solve any problems, but only cause more chaos within the system. Allowing illegal aliens access to what is not theirs creates an extreme injustice. It steals jobs, tax dollars and opportunities from deserving American citizens, but also mistreats and underpays immigrants. Yes, I know a few who pat themselves on the back for helping out an illegal immigrant by hiring them, but of course for much less pay. The justification in this is that we are letting them enjoy freedom outside of the oppression in their country. The fact is, there are certain rights for tax paying citizens that should not be invaded upon by illegal aliens. 

None of this is news to anyone I'm sure, but I am not about to criticize leaders who have and are doing their job by protecting the rights of American citizens, i.e. by securing our border. I am also refuting the idea that the Bush administration used propaganda that caused these events and will eventually desensitize the American people to the violation of human rights. I would like to hear more than your view and see evidence that can back up such a bold statement. I was further intrigued to see the assumption that this will end in another holocaust if its left in the hands of the right wing. I see a hint of hypocrisy in that you can call discriminating against American-Mexicans racism and turn to discriminate against republicans who value national security. I'm weary of partisan wars that focus all of their efforts on demonizing those across the aisle from them. Instead, we should respect our fellow Americans and work together to make our country great.

At least now we can put our minds at rest, safe in the hands of President Obama, knowing that the right wing scare tactics will be thwarted from causing a second holocaust. You must really have a one sided view of things to make such dramatic and hateful conclusions without much logical evidence. It sounds like you've been spoon fed some propaganda of your own. 

Sex Education Reform

The Texas Legislature is seeking to pass bills that will expand the current curriculum for abstinence based sex education. This "abstinence-plus" program will include information about contraceptives and different forms of birth control. There is a developing controversy over this proposal. San Antonio lawmakers say change is necessary because Texas ranks third nationwide in teen births. Of course they don't mention how many teens within those statistics are married.

Texas spent $18 million on abstinence programs last year and lawmakers want to add to that cost by expanding a program that is failing. This is honestly more about money than anything because teen pregnancies are costing 1 billion each year. The accusation is that abstinence education does not prepare students to protect themselves.   It is no surprise that the scapegoat in this case is the former Governor George Bush, newly elected in 1995. That year, the Texas Legislature made public schools teaching sex education classes teach that "abstinence only" is the best method of birth control and disease prevention. The rise of teen births and STD's from 1995 until now is blamed on this method of teaching, but those who support abstinence only say that its is working. Both are mistaken. No one is mentioning the dramatic demographic change in Texas and how that plays a part in this crisis. It is a fact that the Hispanic and African American population in Texas has increased in great numbers since the 1990s. The majority of the Hispanic population are Catholics who frown upon any form of contraceptive or birth control. Teen births and STD's are sadly more prevalent among this growing majority and take up a higher percentage of those in the public school system. We do need to find a solution, but is this the best we can come up with?

Since students among the entire population are already becoming sexually active at younger ages every day, giving them tools to protect themselves and others will definitely help decrease the number of teen pregnancies, abortions and the spread of STD's. While there is no doubt that an increasing number of young teens today suffer these things, are we certain that preventing them will be more than just a quick fix? Should we just accept that the majority of young adults are adapting to sexually active lifestyles, many times among various partners? If we do, it is possible that the abstinence message will eventually become extinct in our culture. Honestly, I don't see how the "just say no" method can exist alongside the "here's a condom" approach. How can we teach students that abstinence is right while instructing them on the best way to do what is wrong.  Are we going to change our approach for teaching them about drugs and alcohol as well? It's hard to imagine a teacher saying, "Drugs and alcohol are dangerous, illegal and very bad for you, but if your looking for a good time here are the best ways to avoid suffering the consequences." If these bills are passed, the abstinence message will coexist with more appealing options that will confuse students perception of right and wrong. The consequences of sex outside of marriage will no longer apply, and we are told to see this as a good thing? Articles all over the news say that we should not be motivating students out of fear and shame, and I agree, but do we want our kids to view sex as a casual activity rather than something that should be done within a mature and adult commitment? 

The fact is that parents who have neglected their children to the government's upbringing on topics like sex are experiencing the consequences. Many kids, at even 11 years old, have no boundaries and are free to make adult decisions as children. In turn we are blaming this problem on the failing abstinence only education. The government is not responsible for making abstinence only education work, parents are. We cannot count on our government to raise our children from afar. Young people should be taught about the physical and emotional consequences of early sexual activity, and parents should guide them on living responsibly. 

Prejudice in Crisis

In a recent blog editorial from the Texas Rainmaker, Barack Obama Hates White People, the writer compares the disaster in Fargo to New Orleans.  I guess you could say he is comparing the response of certain groups to the crisis as well as the actual disasters. The author gives a "conservative lawyer's view of the world through analysis and humor." The blogger is a well respected conservative spokesperson, quoted in the Wall Street Journal and Time Magazine (about Texas Rainmaker). 

This particular column is geared towards a Bush administration loving audience, but addresses those who accused him of racism during hurricane Katrina.  The Hollywood and media uproar over the levees breaking in New Orleans as a "government conspiracy" against black people, is again brought up for the white community in Fargo.  Of course the author is not accusing Obama of racism against white people, but proving the ridiculousness of that accusation towards George Bush during Katrina.  

This editorial thrives on the irony of the situation.  It provides logical evidence concerning how people took advantage of an awful circumstance, Katrina, in order to bash conservative government leaders. The author implies that this was done in the hopes of falsely leading the nation to distrust it's leaders.  This argues the point of bias in the media towards leaders of their leaning (A.K.A. the left). 

Interestingly, the community in Fargo is responding differently to this crisis than those during Katrina, by "busting their asses in sub-freezing temperatures to help themselves." I would hope all Americans could respond this way and avoid making a very bad situation worse. This is a logical and straightforward argument, begging the questions that went unasked during the New Orleans disaster. 

Ultrasound Bill "Invasive"

This editorial about the Ultrasound bill in Texas was written under the Austin American Statesman, "Ultrasound Bill is an outrageous intrusion by the Texas Legislature." The author is writing to pro-choice readers and the argument frames Republican leaders as those who want to humiliate women in the process of getting an abortion. In the introduction the writer is clear that women are going to be forced to receive "information designed to humiliate them." Interestingly, the slightest bit of research on this bill reveals this as a dramatization. Jim Vertuno of the Houston Chronicle writes in his article, Senate panel hears ultrasound bill, that it only gives a woman the option to see the results of the ultrasound and gives her the opportunity to ask newly discovered questions.  In fact, it is in the interest of women's health and rights that this bill is presented. How is giving information to a patient before a major procedure designed to humiliate anyone? Women should be presented with a choice, especially the young mothers who may have been pressured into having an abortion over adoption. Resisting this bill denies a woman the right to choose.   It is ironic that we can call an ultrasound inhumane and support abortion procedures.  The author further exaggerates the argument by stating, 

"It is an incredibly invasive requirement forced on women, many already traumatized by an unexpected pregnancy and the decision to have an abortion."

I find it hard to believe that a woman will feel ashamed or invaded if a doctor asks her if she wants to see the ultrasound.  You aren't pro-choice if you refuse to fully inform women of the choice they are making. Those who make a fuss about republicans "shaming" women out of abortions are using that argument to cover for their true agenda. They don't want the woman's conscience to play any part in the "choice" she is making. God forbid a woman hears the heart beat of her baby because she may decide it is a life after all.  In the end, this bill is bad for business because it appeals to conscience and life in the womb.  

CHANGING THE TOP 10% LAW

A new law on it's way to the Senate will influence UT, bringing the top 10% of high school graduates allowed automatic entry down to only the top 6 to 8 percent.  An article called "Top 10 Percent Law Heads to Senate" can be found at www.myfoxaustin.com/subindex/news/politics and discuses the positive and negative effects the law will have on Universities in Texas.  Lawmakers want to solve the problem of overcrowded schools like UT, who take in 80% of their students automatically from the top 10%.  A concern many have is that this will bring down the number of minorities accepted while some argue that schools will ignore white students, who do not qualify automatically, in order to maintain diversity.  All in all, it may hurt a wide variety of students competing to get into UT.  I thought this article was interesting because of its objective style, strictly stating the facts and different arguments. That's what news articles are supposed to do in the first place, but more times than not they defend their own bias and criticize the differing views without much evidence.  I try to avoid the name-calling and finger pointing.  If you prefer to decide for yourself on political issues, this article is worth your time.