Classmate Commentary: Are you a Texter?

John Olson’s “Dexter the Texter” is a great commentary about the seriousness of texting and driving, which is unfortunately becoming a bigger and bigger problem not only Texas but across the nation. John brings humor to the opening paragraph with a nod to the popular television series, writing.... “he is Dexter the Texter, and he is gunning for us!” While this is somewhat comical, it is an effective attention grabber, which is essential for any editorial. 

John then goes on to cite articles and quotes from legislator Tom Craddick, which brings authority to his piece. By citing this article, he makes his commentary more credible than it would be if it were merely pure opinion. John also offers a website, distraction.gov, as a tool for more information on texting and driving, which I think is great because it leaves the reader with a means to implement changes he talks about making. 

I wholeheartedly agree with John’s article. In fact, I am embarrassed to admit that I am a Dexter the Texter on occasion. Before reading John’s piece, I didn’t know that Austin had a ban against texting and driving! The one thing that I was left wondering, is whether the author agrees with this legislative approach to the problem, or whether he thinks it is a moral obligation on the individual’s part. I think that’s the biggest question I found myself pondering after reading this. It kind of ties in to the philosophical question, “do just people make a just society, or does a just society make just people”? If laws are in place against texting and driving, will people only follow them for fear of punishment? Or will they realize that it’s a matter of safety and personal responsibility? 

Good Morning Sonmi-451!

Recently, and issue has arisen in Texas not unlike something out of a Harry Potter book. (At least that’s what I think).  An article in the Austin American Statesman describes how school districts in San Antonio and Austin are now using tracking devices either embedded in student ID cards or in the form of handheld devices to keep track of daily attendance in school. Paul Webber of the Statesman writes that these measures let “administrators track the whereabouts of 4,200 students with GPS-like precision.” With the click of a mouse, students appear as “moving red dots” around a map of the school, not unlike J.K. Rowling’s “Marauder’s Map” in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

There is more than one way this issue can be spun. How does it relate to government, you ask? Webber goes on to explain that for every student accounted for, the school and school districts receive more funding. (About $30 per student).This is especially important in the light of drastic school budget cuts that happened in 2011. It can also be looked at from a safety standpoint, used as a quick way to account for everyone in the case of an emergency. Others, including experts in the field of psychology and technology, have raised concerns that the new monitoring system is an invasion of privacy, which sends the wrong message about society to kids. As the technology becomes used in more and more schools, it is likely that the number of concerns will grow as well.

The thing that stands out most for me when learning about this issue is the clash between Texas ideals and political beliefs, and the driving economic force (MONEY).  At least from what I’ve learned, Texas’s background and political identity has been strongly centered on personal liberty and personal freedom. It seems to me that technology like this is irreconcilable with Texas’s fundamental beliefs. Does money trump ideology these days? While those who approve of this monitoring system insist that it is NOT used for surveillance, I think the issue lies more with the principle of the thing. Just for argument’s sake, what if we put tracking devices on everyone who carried a gun in Texas? Well, it’s not surveillance, it’s just keeping track of them! I’d be willing to bet that Texans would raise hell over that. I may be overstating it, but these student monitoring systems seem almost like a “gateway drug” into a scary world of full time surveillance (if we’re not already there). Since this whole system is still in its relative infancy, (at least in San Antonio and Austin) it will be interesting to see how it unfolds and what kind of reactions follow.  

Classmate Commentary: Where's Your Sense of Civic Duty?!

Amanda Thompson’s editorial, “Getting Arrested for Skipping Jury Duty” brings up something we often don’t think about: our own civic duty! In clear, concise language, she describes how one district judge in Texas recently proposed that jury duty ought to be enforced by deputies making house calls to the summoned and either bringing them to court or bringing them to jail! Amanda does a great job of examining both the pros and cons of this proposal: on the one hand, it might “whip” the population into shape by making an example of people. However, she also notes that on the other hand it might be seen a waste of tax payer’s dollars. She clearly addresses how the issue could be perceived in two totally different ways. 

Amanda then goes on to give her own opinion, specifically that sending law officers to people’s houses to enforce jury duty is a good idea. “It might take a week of hard work to accomplish the task” she writes, but the precedent that jury duty is an important obligation would quickly be reestablished. She also takes care to address the opposing viewpoint, that change can be slow. I think it’s great that she takes a clear stance on the issue and makes her opinion known. Personally, I think that a tax break might be a better incentive, but of course, our hope is that people fulfill their civic duty without needing any incentive, negative or positive. 

I fully agree with Amanda’s statement, that “there used to be so much more respect for the system.” More and more, jury duty is brushed off as unimportant, when in fact it is incredibly essential to our judicial system. We often forget that our Bill of Rights mandates that we have the right to a “trial by jury” and to an “impartial jury in the state and district where the crime was committed.”  People fought and died for these rights! It’s right up there with our civic obligation to vote! I think her commentary examines an important, often overlooked issue. 

Perry's Assault on Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood, a federally sponsored program, has long been a subject of controversy in Texas. But recently, issues against the program that provides women’s healthcare and abortions have come to a breaking point with Governor Rick Perry’s proposal for a new, state run program. This Texas Women’s Health Program will provide many of the same services as Planned Parenthood (contraception, screenings) for low income women, but will not provide abortion. According to the Austin American Statesman, Perry stated “Let me be clear. Texas will not allow a program that includes abortion providers, or their affiliates like Planned Parenthood, to be a provider. And if they file a lawsuit challenging the Texas program, and they were to prevail, they will kill this program, and they would be responsible for denying these important services for the low-income women of Texas.” By stating the issue in such absolute terms, I don’t think that Perry is being quite fair. Choosing one’s healthcare provider is protected in the constitution. Perry himself said that even if the federal government refuses to give funding to the state program, Texas can and will do it alone. If this is true, and feasible, why can’t both programs be an option to women? Because Perry has proudly taken a Pro-Life stance, and all but swears to stomp out Planned Parenthood and its evil ways. 

Governor Perry’s veritable crusade against Planned Parenthood as an abortion provider is regrettable, to say the least. While some may think that his staunchly Pro-Life attitude is attractive, I think it is nothing short of dictatorship. According to CNN, Perry is quoted saying “In Texas, we chose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice.” This broad generalization puts words into the mouths of Texas women, and takes away their freedom as Americans to make that choice. Personal liberty and freedom is a tenet of Texas ideology and I find it ridiculous that Governor Perry plans on taking that away for Texan women. That being said, if low income, Pro-Life women wish to receive services from a clinic that doesn’t perform abortions, the Texas Women’s Health Program seems to be a good choice that they ought to have access to. But isn’t that a lot of funding for two programs that would offer identical services except for abortion? 

I find it absurd that Texas is spending time, effort, and money not only going to court over this issue, but even creating the program in the first place. The federal and state government will always be inextricably linked. Making a choice regarding abortion should always be an option for women. If Texas doesn’t want government funded programs, then it shouldn’t be part of the union. I truly believe that it will be a dark day for democracy in Texas if Planned Parenthood and the services it provides are defunded and no longer an option to those seeking them. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. 

“Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” ~ Obi Wan (Revenge of the Sith) 

Click here for satire!

Border Safety

The author of “Grits for Breakfast,” a blog concerning Texas justice, posted an interesting commentary on the relative safety of Texas border towns, and how their reputation is inextricably linked to their Mexican counterparts. A website entitled “Laredoissafe.com” has been making an appearance on billboards along Texas highways. This site serves to debunk the hype that labels Laredo as a dangerous town because of the violent drug wars that are taking place only miles to the south. Grits acknowledges that yes, although the town has seen a significant drop in reported crime over the last year, that this is not the only indicator of Laredo’s safety. The article concludes by asserting “So yes, "Laredo is safe." But to the extent its fate is intertwined with Mexico's, regrettably that isn't the only consideration.”

I think that this commentary, though short, is both accurate and credible. The author not only cites the actual website (laredoissafe.com) but also refers to studies done across the state regarding statistics about violence and traffic violations in other major cities. The article also provides some explanation as to why the city of Laredo might be taking these measures. (Specifically, that a “PR campaign being undertaken by Agricultural commissioner Todd Staples” is slamming border towns for their lack of security). This background information also helps give depth and credibility to the article. 

The author’s main argument is that although it’s certainly plausible that Laredo is safe, that isn’t saying much considering the amount of violence that takes place just across the border. I think that this claim is very accurate, backed up by the author’s logic and use of several other sources. The only thing that would perhaps strengthen the article a bit is if the author provided some specific examples of the referred-to violence occurring in Nuevo Laredo. Many Texans are already aware of this, but an uninformed reader (or someone who isn’t from Texas) might not have that insight. I assumed the intended audience to be those interested in Texas justice, particularly blog readers and internet users, who may be of the younger generation. That being said, I think this strong, concise piece would be informative to any audience. 

Generally appealing...but not really.

An article by the Austin American Statesman's Editorial Board on October 3rd finds "Perry's tuition proposals generally appealing." The editorial describes the governor's ideas for boosting higher education, and reflects on some of the difficulty students face when paying for college. Overall, the tone of the article is a moderate one. The author illustrates the facts of Perry's proposals, and acknowledges that many of them are good ideas. With regards to Perry's intent to freeze tuition rates for four years, the article states "it wouldn't lower tuition rates...but it would make the cost of college more predictable." This editorial is definitely credible, as it quotes directly from Governor Perry and also references the specifics of the proposed legislature.

 

After what seems like a simple description of possible changes in higher education, the author then starkly states that Perry's "call for a $10,000 degree, it remains, almost two years after he proposed it, more gimmick than realistic goal." This claim seems to come from out of the blue, but the author then goes on to argue the point with strong evicence. The article cites previous research done by the Statesman, which examined the value of such a degree, as well as the effects of past legislature on the current issues. The details and specifics add credibility to the piece, making it more than just an opinion. The article bleakly wraps up by concluding "...but it's foolish to wish for something that will not be. Not with this governor or the incoming Legislature." This is in reference to the sad fact that Texas universities have no restrictions on capping their per-credit-hour price tag.

 

The intended audience could be anyone who is interested in higher education, but this editorial seems especially targeted toward students and their parents, giving them facts about obstacles they might face when applying for college. As a young person facing some of these exact challanges, it certainly got my attention. The point the author argues, namely, that Rick Perry has effectively done next to nothing with our state's education system, is one I happen to agree with. That being said, I think the article would do a good job arguing the case to anyone, due to its heavy use of numbers, facts and basic logic. The article ends on a point I strongly agree with, that "a college education is about more than career training-- an aspect that seems forgotten in discussions of tuition and grauation rates."

Have No Faith

‘No Bueno,’ an article written by Michael King for Point Austin, a column in the Austin Chronicle, sheds light on U.S. District Court’s ruling on the proposed voter ID law in the state of Texas.  Although the article is somewhat satirical in nature, it touches on important points surrounding the issue. King acknowledges that reading actual legal decisions “can be a mind-fracking exercise,” and therefore breaks the case down into more understandable terminology for the reader. 

For those who aren’t familiar, Texas proposed a voter ID law which, if passed, would have been the harshest in the nation. It would make voting unnecessarily difficult for minorities, poorer citizens, indeed anyone without proper identification. Thankfully, the federal court struck this proposal down, saying “A law that forces poorer citizens to choose between their wages and their franchise unquestionably denies or abridges their right to vote.” As King goes on to point out, GOP congress members didn’t exactly try to make this discriminatory act subtle. Nor did they try to hide the discriminatory intentions of their proposal for redistricting the state. In fact, the intention is to bring the case to the Supreme Court! 

I must admit that reading this article saddened me. It saddened me to read that the actual words from a court of law admitted “...we are also persuaded by the totality of the evidence that the plan was enacted with discriminatory intent.” What does this say about our state?! What does this say about our elected officials?! Granted, King’s article does have a leftist slant, but facts don’t lie folks. I would recommend this article to anyone who wants to keep abreast of this controversial topic which is so close to home.