Response to "Aborting Ignorance"

Texas is the reason... Commentary

I agree with you regarding your opinion about trying to fix something that is not really broke. I do however see HB 2364 as a means of prevention for future cases that may occur. I actually see her argument of the baby feeling pain as a strong argument. Say a person kills another person with a gunshot in the head, and the victim died instantly, didn’t even feel a thing. Let’s say another person killed someone by slitting his or her “nerves” until the person bled to death in a very painful manner. Who is more to blame, the person who shot with a gun or the person who cut with a knife? In the end all that matters is that two people died. I am in awe of how people think it’s okay to kill someone just because they cannot “feel”. That’s just my personal opinion just as we all have one. That “minimum” number of 420 does not change the fact at all that 77,592 lives were lost. With all due respect, why don’t we just kill bad people with a shot in the head, I’m sure evidence will suggest that they won’t feel a thing. 

Texas' Education Reform

Recently there have been many Education Reforms taking place in different States. After NCLB’s attempt to raise standards by requiring more testing many legislatures are now heading in the opposite direction. Lawmakers have been looking into reducing the amount of standardized tests that are required to graduate from high school. Some states will have new graduation requirements that do not require that students take four years of math science, social studies and English. Students will have more time for “technical training” leading to high-paying industrial jobs.

Like many other states Texas is rethinking its testing curriculum standards. The Texas House has approved 145-2, HB 5 that allows students to graduate without having to take Algebra II or other advanced math and science classes. Republican Sen. Dan Patrick, chairman of the Senate Education Committee states that, “algebra II should no longer be treated as the ‘holy grail’ of education”. The number of high-school standardized tests in core subjects has been reduced to five from the original fifteen tests that were established in 2009. I’m sure students will be pleased to know about this, but I also fear that Texas may be moving a bit too fast with its changes.

Of course like any current issue there are those who favor the change and those who entirely oppose it. Some say the change will be great because it will reduce the amount of high-school dropouts caused by the great amount of students who do poorly in the standardized exams. It will also help students be better prepared to join the workforce without needing to graduate from a four year college that come along with a lot of debt. Others however, are not in favor of the change and believe there should be more time and thought put into it before making a decision. Many believe the proposed curriculum changes will create mediocrity. They do favor a change, but fear that schools will shift from testing to not testing at all while many school districts will only offer enough courses to meet the new minimum requirements.

As a future teacher I am glad to hear that there are reforms going on although it does worry me a bit. I do believe a change is needed regarding existing testing policies. However, I do not believe that nearly eliminating testing is the solution. Every school should aim to have high standards, but not every standard should be required to graduate. Legislatures need to be careful not to head in a complete opposite direction that may not have the outcome desired. It’s true that there are probably many students who do better in life without even attending college, but there are also many who would do better in life if they did attend college. Every student in high school has a distinct and unique future. We should encourage them to continue with there education, but at the same time we should offer them real life standards that will help them experience their future life in the best possible manner. 

Response to "Austin Passes Plastic Bag Ban"

Just Like A Texan Commentary

I think the governments intent of decreasing plastic waste by banning plastic bags is good although many do believe that is not their real intent. I myself have been using reusable bags for about a year and a half and have become accustomed to it. I started using them because I would really give no other use to plastic bags besides piling them up in my kitchen drawer. 

However, most of my friends and family do use them for other various things around the house.  I’m pretty sure many people do not use reuse them and just end up throwing them away.  I agree with you on how it’s really not fair to label people as if they do not care about the environment just for the fact of using plastic bags. I also agree on the danger of cross-contamination that could result from unsanitary conditions that people have their bags in.

I believe the government should not ban them entirely, but rather encourage and promote the use of reusable bags. HEB has just recently been offering one free re-usable bag in exchange for 5 plastic bags. That’s an okay incentive, but they can do better by maybe giving discounts or something.  I guess I’m not really for the bag ban, but I’m not against either because it’s not really affecting me. If they do remove it they should still give incentives to those who choose to use reusable bags. I understand it’s hard for some people, but I see it as a beneficial habit to develop. 

Senate Bill 275 Increases Penalties for Hit-and-Run Drivers

On Tuesday April 2, 2013 the Texas Senate passed Senate Bill 275. This bill states that fleeing from the scene of an accident that has caused injuries will now be considered a second-degree felony. Austin’s democratic Senator Kirk Watson stated that because leaving the scene of an accident was only a third degree felony, many drunk drivers were fleeing from accidents to avoid greater punishments. The Bill will now go to the House for consideration. If passed, the penalty for such incidents could result in up to 20 years in prison and a 10,000 fine. 

I personally am in complete favor of this new bill. Although I honestly do not think implementing this particular bill will necessarily decrease the amount of accidents that occur; I believe it will most likely decrease the amount of hit-and-runs that occur. On average, every day four people in the US will die in an accident involving a hit-and-run driver. When someone flees from the scene of an accident, it often lengthens the time before emergency help arrives. This increases the risk of death when a person is seriously injured in the accident.

There are an infinite amount of cases where a person could have had the opportunity to live if only the driver would have not fled. The passing of this bill is good start into creating awareness of the importance of being responsible of ones own acts.  I also believe that government should enforce the city’s police department programs to pursue unlicensed and uninsured drivers who are the most likely to flee from an accident. It’s important for people to understand that many lives can be saved not only if we are more responsible drivers, but also if hit-and-run incidents decrease. 

I found this chart with very interesting statistics, sorry it's super huge, but it's the only way to be able to clearly read it. Scroll down..

HB 23 and 133

On Thursday March 21,  “Grits for Breakfast” posted a commentary titled “Bills promote digital scarlet letters for drunks, sex offenders”. They talk about two different bills proposed by Democrats, which are on the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee agenda today.

The first bill, which is HB 23 would require sex offenders on social networking sites to ensure information such as their full name, DOB, sex, race, height, weight, eye color, hair color, home address and type of offense that was committed is viewable by everyone. HB 133 would require the creation of a searchable website for people that have been convicted on intoxication-related offenses. After ten years of the conviction, the person’s full name, last known address and recent photograph would be published.

The bills intentions are on the right path, but I do agree with a point made by the publisher of the commentary. They argued that the bills seem to be aiming more towards publically shaming those who are convicted rather than actually keeping the public safe. They also argue that there already are existing websites such as sex-offender registries for those who really care.

The outcomes of the bills may be positive but they may be counterproductive. Their last argument was that applying this sort of digital shame might actually promote further misconduct. If offenders get jobs and reintegrate into society, they are less likely to commit new crimes. I believe the publisher’s arguments were well thought out. It is basically a personal opinion leaning to one side of the issue involved. It introduced the bills that were going to be commented on and it made reasonable comments and opinions.