A classmate's thoughts on smoking

In response to Albert's post entitled Oh! No smoking here! I believe that the post was nicely written and gave both sides to the argument. I work in a restaurant, and as far as i am concerned, there should be no smoking, obviously, but I do not believe that the legislature has a right to make that decision. What I enjoyed most about Albert's post is the way in which he was able to relate what happened in 2007 to what is happening now and still keep me interested and informed at the same time. Albert writes, " I've seen a chef cooking with a cigarette in the corner of his mouth, and the ash barely hanging off the end. It makes you wonder where that ash might be next. I mean, if someone can't smoke in one place, then they'd go off and smoke somewhere else and give other people secondhand smoke. Not to mention, this might hurt some bars that make some revenue off of selling cigarettes to their nicotine addicted customers." This was really gross, yet painted a perfect visual as to how dirty smoking actually is. This was a great post of his. I think that with maybe a little bit more detail we would have been able to form a more valid opinion for ourselves. 

Texas Government and battle scars

The article entitled, Senate passes measure to boost development of solar energy plants, written by Mike Ward and Asher Price in the Austin American Statesman, details how Senate Bill 541 will create a new goal for electricity generated by solar, biomass and geothermal projects across the state. Approval of the bill came as the Texas Public Utility Commission made public a report that concludes that unless the state moves away from carbon-based power generation, federal greenhouse gas regulations could increase electricity prices by as much as $10 billion a year, or $27 a month for the average customer's electric bill. The bill basically goes on to explain how there is a great opportunity for renewable energy in the marketplace, and that this should end up saving us all money in the future. 

As far as Texas government in concerned this is just another example of what our "political heroes" do for us everyday while the legislature is in session. Everyone wants a cleaner environment, right? What i want to know is when do the revisions become too much? I want to know when Texas is going to be ready to scrap the old, stop putting bandages on the open wounds and start over. Renewable energy for example. This sounds great, who wouldn't support that? Oh, and even better, we can save money while we do this! So what ever happened to wind energy? Wasn't that going to be our way out off high electricity costs and a way to save money for consumers? If that really didn't work as well as it should have why are we just covering it up and starting another project, Another example. gambling. Texas has horse racing tracks, and dog racing, and they do have gambling...some what anyway. Is there nothing better for the legislature to do than go back and forth on the issue of having casinos in Texas? The public already knows that this is an issue that is not going to be decided this session, so why bother. Just rip off the band aid and move on to something more important. 

More important I say? What about the biggest cover up of them all; the Texas Constitution. This document that we apparently lean on for all basis of law in this great state has been amended 456 times (and that's in 2007). What is the deal with these lawmakers here in Texas? Can we not spend a legislative session starting anew? Maybe take a fresh look at old problems. Instead of creating new problems like gambling, or solar energy, we should be focusing on the basics. 

The problem with Texas government today is that people don't look at the past, or even at today. Everyone is too busy looking at the future to solve problems that have not even arisen. I believe that it is time to take a step back and get back to the fundamentals of government. 

A classmates blog

I really enjoyed the post entitled Are Sobriety checkpoints the only way by Aleyda. I'll start by saying that the way that the post looks really appealing and easy to read. The paragraphs make it flow together easily, yet stay focused. The most interesting part to her post for me was the way that she added in so many statistics. The numbers really opened my eyes to exactly what she were saying. It seems crazy that less than 1% of people that are arrested at checkpoints are actually arrested for alcohol related reasons. The use of these statistics really help her prove her point and push even those people that are skeptical to her side of the argument. I also really liked how she mentioned that the report that Senator Carona got his information from was from 2007. That is interesting in itself yet when she followed it up with the fact that the 2008 report showed a decline in alcohol related deaths i almost wanted to laugh a little bit. All in all i really did enjoy this post of A. I agree with you in her conclusion, yet she easily convinced me that this seems like an idea that needs some more thought put into it. Her use of statistics as well as specific evidence really made this post stand out for me. She really did and awesome job! 

Will one size fit all tuition reform work?

As the Texas Legislature tackles all the "pressing issues" from steroids to gambling  and everything in between, one major issue that hits close to home for many people is the issue of rapidly rising tuition costs. As a student I agree with many Texas Senators that the cost of tuition must be at least kept somewhat reasonable...although, the word reasonable is debatable. After reading an article in the Austin American Statesman this past Thursday about growing support in the Texas Senate for tuition reform, I began to see a battle emerging between the people, therefore the Senators that represent them, and the public Colleges and Universities. Six years ago lawmakers granted public university governing boards the power to set tuition costs. In those six years "average tuition and fees at the state's 35 public universities has risen 86%." According to my calculations, that comes out to over a 14% yearly increase in tuition and fees since 2003. A chart included with the article shows all the numbers plain and simple as they are; as the years increase, so do the costs of tuition. 

What I find incredible about this is that it took the legislature six years with tuition rising to this point in order to address the situation again. The article mentions a few proposals from different Senators about what to do to solve the problem, all of them sound better than what we have now. My problem with the whole thing is that i cannot seem to understand how it works that you can enter college, say in 2002, paying $2, 741 in tuition and somehow graduate in 2005 paying nearly DOUBLE at $4, 607. That's crazy to me. Another huge reason why this needs to be addressed now is that the population of Texas is rapidly changing. As I wrote in a previous post the number of Hispanic children in Texas classrooms has been increasing dramatically, therefore creating a new generation of students bound for college that will have a hard time paying the tuition as it is now, without any more increases. The two main proposals that the article revolves around is one by D- Judith Zaffirini from Laredo who proposes that tuition increases be limited to 5% a year. The other proposal by Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen, would propose a moratorium on tuition for two years and limit the increases afterwards to the rate of inflation. Although both are very different proposals, Senator Dan Patrick from Houston stated that "Obviously, there is unified support in the Texas Senate to do something." In my opinion, it's about time. 

A blogger's argument

In the blog entitled Off the Kuff, the most recent post involves the author of the blog detailing how it's a good thing that the Texas House did not pass a bill that would allow for the "strengths and weaknesses" theory to be taught in science classes. He writes, "that's very good news, as it avoids Texas becoming the laughingstock for the time being." The bill would have required that science teachers teach the "weaknesses" of the evolution theory as part of their curriculum. Them article gives a little bit of recent information on the issue including that it was proposed by Ken Mercer from San Antonio and that the vote on the amendment failed by one today. The author of the blog later goes on to write his enthusiasm that the bill did not pass. Through sarcastic words and comparisons he is able to put an image in the minds of the reader of what a bad idea this would have been. His argument revolves around the fact that this will never really go away, therefore we must constantly keep an eye on things. I liked the way he argued only for the fact that he kept the argument entertaining yet obviously he was against the amendment through the entire post. The argument would have been better if he had given any of the reasons why he was against this in the first place. For example, if he let the readers know what his beliefs were, or why he disagreed with the amendment i would have been better aware of his argument. 

Critiquing a Commission

An editorial written in the Austin American Statesman on February 20th by an anonymous writer does a great job at picking a fight with a news topic and holding its own. Entitled, "Looking for the truth? Bush witch hunt is bogus" this article takes on the idea presented by Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative John Conyers. These two men have put together a commission to probe into the events of the Bush administration in order to "examine" the actions of the former administration. The commission has even gone as far as to say that they have created themselves in order to look into the "failures of the recent past." The anonymous writer of the article does a very good job at thoroughly putting the original article or story in perspective while using quotes from the mouths of the people who have said them. The writer uses strong words to convey their message such as this following passage that pretty much sums up his or her views on the news topic. "Leahy's reconciliation commission would be little more that a partisan witch hunt, a way to humiliate the architects of such Bush administration controversies as the Iraq war, torture, rendition, firing U.S. attorneys who were thought insufficient partisan, and warrantless wiretaps." In this one sentence the writer is able to adequately describe his feelings on the issue while still using historical and factual information. Another thing that the writer has done well was to include rhetorical questions throughout the piece in order to add dramatic syntax as well as make the reader question the same things along with the writer. By asking questions such as, "But if members of the previous administration were guilty of criminal acts, they should indeed be prosecuted, not invited to testify under a cloak of immunity. Why have them admit wrongdoing only to escape punishment?" the writer is able to make me think about those exact same things. I had to ask myself the same question, it actually made me wonder. Towards the end of the article the writer begins to appear more frustrated as his questions and statements become far more opinionated and strong. The writer ends the article with a question that sums everything up nicely; "if the commission is not about vengeance, not about prosecutions and not about improving legislation, then what's the point?" Although i do happen to agree with the writer in his statements it is the way in which he has written his article that impress me more. I was impressed by the questions that they asked, and the ways in which he made the same points that surly many others have considered as well. 

"Latinization" of Texas 1st grade classrooms?

According to an article written by Bud Kennedy in the Fort-Worth Star Telegram, Hispanic children have become the majority in 1st grade classrooms. Coincidentally, Hispanics would have become the majority even without the addition of a single student. Does this mean the "Latinization" of Texas has begun? According to Karl Eschbach, the official state demographer, "it's already happened". The article adds that in 1st grade classrooms across the sate Hispanic children have become the outright majority with 50.2% of the students. Not only is the Hispanic population increasing, the number of white students in classrooms is decreasing at an alarming rate. The Texas Education Agency reports that there are 130,000 fewer white children enrolled in school than 10 years ago. The obvious question is, what does this mean for Texas government? For starters, "Eschbach and the Texas State Data Center now predict that Texas will become predominantly Hispanic within 10 years, and that the current white population of about 11.5 million will begin shrinking". That will leave us with a state full of young children, the majority of whom will be Hispanic. Taxes? Education? To put in bluntly; the future of Texas depends on how well we prepare our children, and in this case, our minority children. Now facing Texas will be the challenge of getting these children not only through the 1st grade classes that they dominate, but getting them through college as well. As the population of Texas changes and grows the state will need to prepare for different expenses and also become better staffed to accommodate the new "majority" of the "minority". 

Check out the article here: http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/1205353.html