Public School Teachers do Need a Miracle

Both my mother and my father have been elementary school teachers for about twenty-ish years so I personally agree with Politically Texas in her blog post titled "Public SchoolTeachers Needing a Miracle." I agree that teachers do not get paid enough for the enormous amount of work they put in to their jobs. Teachers are the ones who mold and shape the minds of young people. Teachers can either make or break a child’s love for learning. Teachers deserve so much more than what we give them. On top of already not giving them what they truly deserve, we are going to cut education funds and make class sizes grow? I find this completely unfair. I have noticed personally that my parents are becoming more and more tired and worn down when they come home from a day of teaching. They tell me that being a teacher is incredibly emotionally rewarding by having children look up to them and love them. They also tell me though, that I should do something with my life that is emotionally rewarding but also financially rewarding as well. My parents are incredible people and I look up to them every day for what they do, but they have had to worry about money for their entire lives.  

I believe that education funding is incredibly important and if it means we have to raise taxes, maybe that’s something we should think about doing or at least come up with another, better, way to get more education funding.

Gun Control

As always, there are Texans who want stricter gun control laws and Texans who want more lenient gun control laws. In my opinion, people should have the right to own a gun to be able to protect themselves and their families. Gun rights are granted by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” All political viewpoints agree that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the government to maintain an armed militia to protect the nation, but there is disagreement as to whether or not it guarantees the right of all people to own/use guns at any place at any time. People who dislike the idea of having just anyone own a gun are most likely scared of the fact that some people are insane and could go off and murder people for no reason. I think, though, that if people who are that crazy, crazy enough to want to take another human being’s life for no apparent reason other that they’re messed up in the head, stricter gun control laws would not stop them from getting a gun and killing people. If that’s what they wanted to do, they’re most likely going to find a way to do it. If they’re already planning on killing innocent people, which of course is against the law, do you think gun control laws are going to stop them from getting a gun? The simple answer is no. If they’re already planning on breaking a law, another law is not going to stop them.

This controversy is not one that anyone should take lightly. I believe that people should have the right to be able to protect themselves and their families. If having a gun helps people feel like they’re protected, then so be it. I don’t think people should use guns wherever or whenever they want to, but if it makes people sleep better at night to know they have a gun in case of an absolute emergency, I think that’s okay.

Blue is also my View

Francisco Gomez wrote a blog post titled "I Side with the Blue" where he comments on the polls found on the Texas Tribune. He found out that based on the polls done at the University of Texas only 11 percent of the people polled thought education had improved and only 37 percent agreed that Texas isn't spending enough on higher education. These numbers don't add up in my opinion. If most people think education is NOT improving, why don't more people think Texas should spend more on higher education? Surely if Texas spent more money on higher education it would be bound to improve more. I think either more people should think education is improving or more people should think Texas should spend more on higher education to get it to improve. I agree with Francisco in that we should invest more money into higher education because it promotes individuality and it creates an open environment that welcomes partisan identification. I also agree that candidates are scared to increase spending too much because their constituents wouldn't want that. Constituents wouldn't want to increase the budget for higher education because it would mean that they would have to pay more out of their pockets to help pay for more of the money going to higher education. If the constituents don't want it, then the candidates won't want it because it means they won’t get elected.

Francisco also wrote that only 36 percent of the people polled agree on allowing same sex couples to marry. I completely agree with Francisco that this is startling and the more I think about it the more angry I become. Francisco and I strongly believe that it is NOT up to the government to decide who is allowed to marry and who isn't  Along the same lines as Francisco was writing about, we used to believe that people of the same race should not be allowed to marry. Now we call that racism and discrimination. I believe that making it illegal for same sex couples to marry is also discrimination and it is unreal to me that it is still going on. No matter what our sexual orientation is we are all human beings who deserve to have the same equal rights no matter what.   

Gay Marriage

Many citizens in Texas have different opinions about gay marriage. People who are against it think that it is not right because it’s a sin in their religion (“Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve”) or that it would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. Some say that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope that could lead to polygamist and inter-species marriages. People who are pro gay marriage think that denying same sex couples the right to get married is a violation of their religious freedoms and is a form of unconstitutional minority discrimination. They say same sex couples should have access to the same marriage benefits and public acknowledgement enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

I personally agree with those who believe that same sex couples have the right to get married and denying them that right is unconstitutional. Letting same sex couples get married doesn't hurt anyone in particular and it does not hurt society or the institution of marriage. It is a person’s right to do what they want in this country as long as it doesn't violate any laws. Aren't people in this country supposed to be free? Free to speak their minds, free to hold any job title they want to, and free to get married to whomever they want to. Not that long ago we thought that it should be against the law for people to marry outside of their race. Now, as we look back we think that’s crazy! I believe we were going to look back at this time and think “Wow, we used to think it was a huge deal to let same sex couples get married? That’s so weird and wrong. It is stupid.” just like we think that it was stupid for us to think that people should not marry outside of their race. Same sex couples should be treated equally because they are people just like the rest of us. We are all human beings and we all deserve to have the same, equal rights; that includes the right to get married. Man and woman, woman and woman, man and man, it does not matter. We should all have the right to marry whomever we want to marry. I strongly believe it should be about love, not politics.

Email Privacy in America

This blog post titled “US SenateReady to Wipe Out Email Privacy in America” was posted on "The Burnt Orange Report" on November 28, 2012 by Renato Ramirez and James C. Harrington. Ramirez is Chairman of the Board and CEO of IBC-Zapata and Harrington is Director of the Civil Rights Project, so we can infer that they are both highly educated people. How they are credible in the area of e-mail privacy, though, is still unknown. The authors’ intended audience is people who care about having their personal emails read without their permission and without a warrant. Also under the intended audience category are people who have the ability to stop the bill from becoming a law by writing or calling their Senators and pleading with them not to sign this bill proposed by Senator Patrick Leahy.  

Ramirez and Harrington try to win the reader over using mostly logos, logical appeal, appealing to our reasoning. They write that the US Senate will soon vote on a law that would authorize widespread warrantless access to Americans’ emails, Google Docs files, Twitter direct messages, etc., without a search warrant signed by a judge based on probably cause. They believe that this will gravely undermine Americans’ privacy and let government agencies have unbridled surveillance over Americans’ emails. Ramirez and Harrington say the bill would also give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying wither the owner or a judge. The bill would only require the federal agencies to issue a subpoena to be able to gain access to Americans’ emails and such. Even in situations that would still require a search warrant, the bill would excuse law enforcement officers from having to get a warrant if they claim an “emergency” situation. They also write that a provider would have to notify law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell its customers they’ve been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena. The agency then could order the provider to delay notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed, from three to ten business days or up to 360 days. The authors argue that there is no legal reason agencies need all around success to people’s personal information without a search warrant. Ramirez and Harrington also argue that expectations of government officials should be higher in terms of protecting our constitutional freedoms.  They also give an example of former CIA director David Petraeus whose email was read without a warrant. They argue that if even Petraeus, who has much more power and prestige than most normal citizens, could have his emails read without a warrant, we should all be worried because it would be much easier to read out emails.

Ramirez and Harrington conclude their argument by writing that we should all preserve our constitutional protection from warrantless searches that haven’t been reviewed by the courts. They write that we shouldn’t allow the government to undermine our rights even in the name of national security. Lastly, using pathos, emotional appeal, they write that all of us—conservatives, liberals, and libertarians alike—should stand together on this because we all live under the constitution and deserve to keep our basic fundamental rights.

I agree with most of Ramirez and Harrington’s arguments. I do not think it is right for government agencies or FBI agents to read Americans’ emails without proper reasoning or warrants, however, if something bad were really happening that could put the nation in danger, I think they should have the right to do whatever they need to do within reason to try and keep the nation safe. I agree with Ramirez and Harrington in that there is a fine line between what government officials call “national security” because it actually is a matter of national security, and what they call “national security” to be able to do whatever they want to do. How do government officials know if it’s an “emergency” matter or not? How do we know if it’s a matter of “national security” or not? At some point I think we have to trust that our government officials know what they’re doing and trust that they won’t misuse and abuse their power.   

Single-Gender Schools

This article titled “Stop Austin SchoolDistrict’s Flawed Proposal for Single-Gender Schools” was posted in the Austin American Statesman on Monday, November 26, 2012. The editorial was written by the “Editorial Board” which doesn’t give us much credibility since we don’t know exactly who wrote it or what makes them credible authors for this subject. The Editorial Board’s intended audience is people who care about Bradley’s proposal and those who have the ability to implement change; more specifically the four new trustees that have been sworn in and the new leadership team that has just been elected for the Austin Independent School District board. The Editorial Board wants the trustees and leadership team to “get rid of distractions that are dividing the community and diverting attention from the district’s primary goal of improving high school graduation rates.” They want the trustees and leadership team to stop a proposal that would turn Garcia and Pearce middle schools into single-gender campuses. The Editorial Board says they understand that Trustee Cheryl Bradley, who represents the East Austin community where the schools would be located, has a strong belief that single-gender schools would improve the performance of middle schools in her district, but it is wrong to gamble on such a belief when there are proven methods the district can employ to improve student performance. They say the proposal is deeply flawed and gives five reasons why this is so.

The first reason the Editorial Board gives is that is inefficient because there is a similar proposal that Bradley’s proposal is competing with that is already being partially financed by the Moody Foundation. There has been no collaboration between the two proposals and there is no data to show that the district could sustain two all-boys schools.

The second reason The Editorial Board gives is it is wasteful. If Bradley’s proposal was stopped, the program financed by Moody could share a space with Garcia’s co-ed program which would maximize the district’s facilities, but since it hasn’t been stopped yet, the campus is off limits. It would cost more money to have it at the Alternative Learning Center which is where it will be if Bradley’s proposal isn’t stopped.

The third reason they give is the plan is deeply flawed. The Editorial Board says there is no comparable model the district can point to regarding Bradley’s proposal. There is however a model for the Moody proposal. Successful all-male academies usually require students to apply for admission while Bradley’s proposal is relying on zoned attendance. The Editorial Board says that a merger of the two plans could offer both approaches, offering admissions first to Pearce and Garcia students and allowing the extra seats to be filled by application.

The fourth reason the Editorial Board gives is that Bradley’s plan would likely decrease enrollment at Garcia and Pearce. The Editorial Board says the district came up with figures saying that about 30 percent of students in the attendance zone already transfer out of Garcia and Pearce already and if they were converted to single-gender schools even more would transfer.

The fifth and final reason they give is the proposal would displace more East Austin schools. The Editorial Board says that if Bradley’s proposal was given the go-ahead there would be a huge displacement of students not going to Garcia and Pearce anymore but if the Moody plan was given the go-ahead there would be a huge boost of enrollment in those schools.

I agree with the Editorial Board’s argument that Bradley’s proposal is flawed and most likely would not benefit East Austin schools as much as a combination of Bradley’s proposal and the proposal that is being partially funded by the Moody foundation. I do not, however, agree with the evidence the Editorial Board gives to support their argument. The reasons they give are somewhat flimsy and don’t hold a lot of factual evidence. For example, the third reason they give to argue that the Bradley proposal is deeply flawed is just again that the plan is deeply flawed! The Editorial Board makes a good point that the combination of the Moody plan and the Bradley proposal would be a much better way of helping both Garcia and Pearce middle schools in having higher enrollment and possible bettering the schools themselves, but that is not what they said in the very beginning of the article. At the beginning they mentioned nothing of the Moody plan and just said they wanted the Bradley proposal to be stopped.

I agree with the argument that Bradley’s proposal is flawed and that it would not benefit East Austin schools without the combined efforts of Bradley’s proposal and the Moody plan, but I think the Editorial Board could have done a better job in staying constant throughout the editorial and having better, backed-up evidence supporting their claims.

Natural Gas vs. Coal

On Sunday, September 23, 2012, the Austin American Statesman published an article by Marty Toohey titled "If Austin sheds its coal power, would the city's carbon footprint shrink?" This article is important to look at because it affects all of us who live in Austin.

The article deals with the question of whether or not to sell Austin's share of the Fayette power plant, which is coal-fired and provides about one-third of the city's power, and use the proceeds to invest in natural gas instead. Steve Smaha, a tech investor and member of the advisory panel, says that while natural gas creates about half as many greenhouse gases as coal, it could actually result in significantly more carbon being emitted into the atmosphere, which most scientists say contribute significantly to climate change. Also,Smaha thinks, if we do sell our share, the new owner of the share might burn more coal than Austin does, which would defeat the purpose of selling it in the first place.

Phillip Schmandt, chairman of Austin's Electric Utility Commission and energy lawyer, agrees with Smaha for the most part but thinks swapping coal for gas would eventually lead to reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the future, which would be good to do. Schmandt wants to get away from coal because it is "the dirtiest resource out there."

Over the coming months, Austin Energy will be getting offers for the coal plant and searching for other replacement options such as natural gas or mixing natural gas with renewable resources instead of relying solely on natural gas, and the debates will probably intensify.