Christmas has always been about providing children with presents under the Christmas tree beside the warm, lit fireplace. Recently, however, Santa Clause has been considering immigration status and birth certificates to the list of qualifications concerning the distribution of his presents instead of just being naughty or nice. Several programs that receive donations and distribute them to families now require at least one member of the family to be a U.S. citizen in order to be eligible to apply to be recipients of those donations.
Discriminatory acts such as this truly taint the true essence of giving that comes with Christmas. Programs such as the Salvation Army and the firefighters of Houston, along with the Outreach program have required some sort of documentation proving residential status such as photo identification, birth certificates, and/or Social Security cards. Lorugene Young, the director of Outreach Inc., states that “it's not [their] desire to turn anyone down” and that “[the] kids are not responsible if they are here illegally…it is the parents' responsibility.” This statement indicates that their intention is not to harm the children but their parents for being irresponsible, non-citizens. Despite their round-about justification, in the end they are still denying children that do not have the proper documentation and the kids are still the ones that suffer the consequences.
In my opinion background checks are just too much trouble and they are just creating a pandemonium that they don’t need. They are fusing the issue of immigration with Christmas and the children of the impoverished. Organizations such as Blue Santa do not discriminate when it comes to the distribution of gifts to children by stating that “when you distribute toys to 10,000 to 12,000 kids, it's impossible to background [check] every child” realizing the problem with the proposed new code of conduct.
I always thought that this country was based on equality and strongly enforces the act of brotherhood on which we were built upon. So where is the equality in this discriminatory act that strips equality and opportunity for impoverished children and their family? I believe that if America has tainted any traditions and beliefs that we have placed upon ourselves, this would definitely be decorating the cake. This act just shows that just like everything else that we’ve ever believed is nothing now but history, and that America is down a road unrecognizable even to itself.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Eyes of Texas:"Out With the Old, in With the New"
It’s really great to see a writer compose a statement with such passion and voice about their opinion having such great desire to share with the audience. However, an introduction with such strength can sometimes be perceived as ignorance by the audience and therefore you will only be left with half of the ears that you started off with. It’s good to show passion in writing but the audience must be captured first which means your strength in voice must be strongest in the middle of the statement so that the audience is at least slightly swayed towards your justifications. In my opinion, this serves great importance because voiced belief with no willing listeners is nothing more than a conjecture.
The diction choice could be toned down a bit as well going back to the fact of reaching to the audience. I definitely am not one to one to whine about everyone’s feelings, however, I think respect must be shown to others to provide some sort of validity towards your statements and respect towards your opinion as well.
Another way to appeal to the audience is to acknowledge the fact that they are doing at least something right. Enclosure to one’s own opinion and failing to recognize theirs as somewhat valid will definitely lose a couple more ears that you need to lend.
Despite that, I really like the added solution within the statement because even some blogs are all accusations with no solutions. This really allows readers to see your perspective much better when you’re being proactive about the problem that you yourself are presenting. On a contrary note about the previous statement about diction, I like the power in the words that you present that not only raises awareness towards the problem but also could incite them into making a difference in their environment. The conclusion is good as well in serving its purpose which is to allow the audience to reminisce about the information they have just received and make a decision on whether or not to act on the issue.
Overall, the commentary was pretty good in serving somewhat the purpose of a blog which is to voice one’s opinion. It could have been a little bit more informative and a bit less one-sided but other than that good commentary.
The diction choice could be toned down a bit as well going back to the fact of reaching to the audience. I definitely am not one to one to whine about everyone’s feelings, however, I think respect must be shown to others to provide some sort of validity towards your statements and respect towards your opinion as well.
Another way to appeal to the audience is to acknowledge the fact that they are doing at least something right. Enclosure to one’s own opinion and failing to recognize theirs as somewhat valid will definitely lose a couple more ears that you need to lend.
Despite that, I really like the added solution within the statement because even some blogs are all accusations with no solutions. This really allows readers to see your perspective much better when you’re being proactive about the problem that you yourself are presenting. On a contrary note about the previous statement about diction, I like the power in the words that you present that not only raises awareness towards the problem but also could incite them into making a difference in their environment. The conclusion is good as well in serving its purpose which is to allow the audience to reminisce about the information they have just received and make a decision on whether or not to act on the issue.
Overall, the commentary was pretty good in serving somewhat the purpose of a blog which is to voice one’s opinion. It could have been a little bit more informative and a bit less one-sided but other than that good commentary.
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Teacher's Teachers Step Up Their Game
Texas has always been notorious for having inferior educational results in comparison to the other states in the U.S. The question of the matter is who does the responsibility belong to in regards to performance and results of the students? The teacher was the common misconception having been directly in charge of the children’s education. However, the responsibility is shared not only with the children’s instructors but the instructor’s instructor themselves.
A new rating system proposed through an authored bill has been procured to include the teacher programs ability for the graduates’ ability to produce results on the job. The consequence for having a large amount of “poor” graduates will lose their state accreditation.
The rigid bill includes several new qualifications for upcoming teachers starting in 2011-12. The amount of teachers that must pass the certification exam will be increased to 80 percent from 70. After the graduates pass the exam, the programs will also be graded on the frequency of follow-ups with the teachers during the first year after training.
The plan seems a bit severe and strict to me since the blame goes so far from where the real problem lies: the classroom. The state seems to just want somebody to blame instead of utilizing the legislature to progress educational standards. I agree that in a sense they are raising standards for the betterment of education but losing teachers along the way because the blame is placed on them alone. Many roles play in the educational career of children, not just the instruction or the instructors. Other standards must be taken into consideration such as parental supervision, environment at home and at school, availability of resources and supplies, along with the effectiveness of the instructor.
However, I’m glad to see that the state is taking strong and firm actions to increase the quality of education in Texas. The upgrade in standards has long been in need and the legislature has finally heeded the call. The stronger standards will no doubt increase the quality of the teachers and therefore the education of children.
Although, there is controversy which lies in the state to formulate a system that links the teachers’ ability to improve the students’ performance on tests towards the teacher’s supposedly improved training and teaching methods. This will prove quite difficult and will allow the teachers to counteract with a claim involving other factors such as the environment, parents, etc.
In the end, the state legislature wasn’t really only playing the blame game but instead shows true concern for the improvement in quality of Texas education and decided to take action. The bill will definitely require teaching programs to step up their game along with teachers hopefully creating a ripple effect of increased vitality towards the students. It’s great to know that Texas government is still alive and actually is still good for something.
A new rating system proposed through an authored bill has been procured to include the teacher programs ability for the graduates’ ability to produce results on the job. The consequence for having a large amount of “poor” graduates will lose their state accreditation.
The rigid bill includes several new qualifications for upcoming teachers starting in 2011-12. The amount of teachers that must pass the certification exam will be increased to 80 percent from 70. After the graduates pass the exam, the programs will also be graded on the frequency of follow-ups with the teachers during the first year after training.
The plan seems a bit severe and strict to me since the blame goes so far from where the real problem lies: the classroom. The state seems to just want somebody to blame instead of utilizing the legislature to progress educational standards. I agree that in a sense they are raising standards for the betterment of education but losing teachers along the way because the blame is placed on them alone. Many roles play in the educational career of children, not just the instruction or the instructors. Other standards must be taken into consideration such as parental supervision, environment at home and at school, availability of resources and supplies, along with the effectiveness of the instructor.
However, I’m glad to see that the state is taking strong and firm actions to increase the quality of education in Texas. The upgrade in standards has long been in need and the legislature has finally heeded the call. The stronger standards will no doubt increase the quality of the teachers and therefore the education of children.
Although, there is controversy which lies in the state to formulate a system that links the teachers’ ability to improve the students’ performance on tests towards the teacher’s supposedly improved training and teaching methods. This will prove quite difficult and will allow the teachers to counteract with a claim involving other factors such as the environment, parents, etc.
In the end, the state legislature wasn’t really only playing the blame game but instead shows true concern for the improvement in quality of Texas education and decided to take action. The bill will definitely require teaching programs to step up their game along with teachers hopefully creating a ripple effect of increased vitality towards the students. It’s great to know that Texas government is still alive and actually is still good for something.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Universities Upgrade from Bumblebee to Tier-One Prime
An editorial by the Austin American Statesman addresses Proposition 4 concerning the launching of seven research universities to tier-one status. The article hits closer to home since it addresses the surrounding universities in Texas which include UT Dallas, Arlington, El Paso, San Antonio, Texas Tech, the University of North Texas, and the University of Houston.
The article, called “A vote for Proposition 4 is a vote for Education and Economy,” obviously supports the proposition addressing the first major concern that readers might have which is financial backing for the program. The editorial board of the Austin American Statesman states that “money will come from an existing higher education fund, which has been dormant for several years…therefore, this is not a vote to raise taxes,” defeating the first doubt and fear that the Proposition will raise current tax rates. However, I find it doubtful that the raising of taxes in order to maintain the financial integrity of the program is not a possibility in the future because later in the article it is indicated that the cost of maintenance and running of these seven tier-one research facilities can run from 25 to 100 million dollars a year, each. So I can only assume that not raising taxes is only an introductory slogan lasting only until the higher education fund runs dry.
The author presents another reason why Texas might be in great need of more tier-one research facilities which he/she takes from a competitive point-of-view: we just don’t have as much as the other states do. The editorial board introduces a statement by James Huffines, the chairman of University of Texas System Board of Regents, stating that “Texas is at a competitive disadvantage when compared with California, with nine tier-one universities, and New York, with seven.” This does prove to be a logical argument taking into consideration the 10,000 high school graduates lost each year looking for doctoral-granting universities outside of Texas’ already limited slots for enrollment. Since Texas only has three tier-one research universities with UT Austin and Texas A&M being the two public research universities and Rice University being the third and final, yet private, research university, only 4,000 of the students are contained in Texas losing not only about two thirds of doctoral grantees but also the possibility and capability of attracting more, out-of-state doctoral candidates to Texas.
Lastly, the editorial board indicates that despite the heavy financial ramifications of tripling the amount of research universities the future does look bright with future prospects such as a plethora of jobs and about just as much in local and state tax revenues. Even though the full potential of the advantages don’t kick in until 2035 they seem to be worth the wait supposedly creating “more than 340,000 jobs and generate $1.3 billion in local tax revenue and $4.2 billion in state revenue a year” (Perryman). With projections like that, I think twenty five years is a reasonable timeframe for these kinds of benefits.
Overall, I thought that the articles argument proved to be very effective in presenting very powerful statistics. However, I’m still not completely convinced into erecting seven new research universities seeing as the maintenance and funding for these schools would be outstanding and would probably eventually turn into asking a little bit of charity from not only Texans but also those who go to those colleges. Maybe allowing the upgrade of two or three universities to tier-one level and seeing how those pan out over a decade would be the smartest decision in my opinion. This will definitely catch the eye of college students not only of current status but also of prospective. The passage of Proposition four will no doubt create a huge impact towards Texans and will definitely influence the future of its’ educational prestige.
The article, called “A vote for Proposition 4 is a vote for Education and Economy,” obviously supports the proposition addressing the first major concern that readers might have which is financial backing for the program. The editorial board of the Austin American Statesman states that “money will come from an existing higher education fund, which has been dormant for several years…therefore, this is not a vote to raise taxes,” defeating the first doubt and fear that the Proposition will raise current tax rates. However, I find it doubtful that the raising of taxes in order to maintain the financial integrity of the program is not a possibility in the future because later in the article it is indicated that the cost of maintenance and running of these seven tier-one research facilities can run from 25 to 100 million dollars a year, each. So I can only assume that not raising taxes is only an introductory slogan lasting only until the higher education fund runs dry.
The author presents another reason why Texas might be in great need of more tier-one research facilities which he/she takes from a competitive point-of-view: we just don’t have as much as the other states do. The editorial board introduces a statement by James Huffines, the chairman of University of Texas System Board of Regents, stating that “Texas is at a competitive disadvantage when compared with California, with nine tier-one universities, and New York, with seven.” This does prove to be a logical argument taking into consideration the 10,000 high school graduates lost each year looking for doctoral-granting universities outside of Texas’ already limited slots for enrollment. Since Texas only has three tier-one research universities with UT Austin and Texas A&M being the two public research universities and Rice University being the third and final, yet private, research university, only 4,000 of the students are contained in Texas losing not only about two thirds of doctoral grantees but also the possibility and capability of attracting more, out-of-state doctoral candidates to Texas.
Lastly, the editorial board indicates that despite the heavy financial ramifications of tripling the amount of research universities the future does look bright with future prospects such as a plethora of jobs and about just as much in local and state tax revenues. Even though the full potential of the advantages don’t kick in until 2035 they seem to be worth the wait supposedly creating “more than 340,000 jobs and generate $1.3 billion in local tax revenue and $4.2 billion in state revenue a year” (Perryman). With projections like that, I think twenty five years is a reasonable timeframe for these kinds of benefits.
Overall, I thought that the articles argument proved to be very effective in presenting very powerful statistics. However, I’m still not completely convinced into erecting seven new research universities seeing as the maintenance and funding for these schools would be outstanding and would probably eventually turn into asking a little bit of charity from not only Texans but also those who go to those colleges. Maybe allowing the upgrade of two or three universities to tier-one level and seeing how those pan out over a decade would be the smartest decision in my opinion. This will definitely catch the eye of college students not only of current status but also of prospective. The passage of Proposition four will no doubt create a huge impact towards Texans and will definitely influence the future of its’ educational prestige.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Wait in Line; Death Will Follow
When an epidemic breaks loose and the whole world falls into chaos, the last thing that you need is a support system that doesn’t exist or is filled with so much shuffled processes that it might as well not. An extreme yet perfect example would be the black plague or the first discovery and cases of chicken pox. Bob Dunn’s editorial concerning the “Other White Meat Flu” pandemic called “Pandemic Report Card: We’re Dead” states that “only one lab was designated to conduct pandemic flu tests in a region including much more than just Houston – and more than 6 million people” and that “by April, more than 1,000 suspected pandemic flu patients were waiting…and waiting…and waiting for test results to find out what they had.”
First of all, it does not come to my understanding why only one lab was designated to more than six million people. One lab is not enough to research and provide enough evidence to not only contain the flu epidemic nonetheless find a cure for it. The article obviously emphasizes and shouts out for the 1,000 pandemic flu patients that were sitting idle waiting for results that would have proven only their death had the white meat flu been fatal. Dunn basically accentuates on the lack of concern of the CDC and the ineffectiveness of their Response Network. However, he acknowledges the difficulty in providing accurate progress and spread of the flu taking into consideration the acceleration of the pandemic’s spread. This argument proves logical except for the small fact that the CDC would be ignoring the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people.
Another fault in the CDC’s system was mentioned in the article concerning the distribution of the vaccine for the white meat flu and its efficiency, or lack thereof. Dunn bluntly states that “you can manufacture a King-Kong’s buttload of vaccine, but if you don’t distribute it until after most people have caught the disease, it might as well be so much iced tea.” His point in this argument proves to be irrefutable as he further indicates that the companies set to distributing the vaccines would not be able to handle a tripling in their normal production capacity.
I definitely agree with the author concerning the CDC’s negligence of the white meat flu pandemic and believe that the situation could have been handled in a more organized and professional manner. This not only further decreases the prestige of the organization but also allows the public to question their effectiveness, and therefore existence. Out of a scale of 10 I would have to rate Bob Dunn a 7. His score is not as high as it could have been because I feel that more of the CDC’s perspective could have been introduced and refuted therefore providing more credibility towards the article and reinforcing the argument. I really enjoyed how surprisingly informative the article was despite Dunn’s empathetic flare for the victims towards his audience, the people unaffected and unknown to the disease. Overall, the article proved effective but could have used more information from the opposing side allowing the reader to sway towards Dunn’s argument as opposed to being forced there.
First of all, it does not come to my understanding why only one lab was designated to more than six million people. One lab is not enough to research and provide enough evidence to not only contain the flu epidemic nonetheless find a cure for it. The article obviously emphasizes and shouts out for the 1,000 pandemic flu patients that were sitting idle waiting for results that would have proven only their death had the white meat flu been fatal. Dunn basically accentuates on the lack of concern of the CDC and the ineffectiveness of their Response Network. However, he acknowledges the difficulty in providing accurate progress and spread of the flu taking into consideration the acceleration of the pandemic’s spread. This argument proves logical except for the small fact that the CDC would be ignoring the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people.
Another fault in the CDC’s system was mentioned in the article concerning the distribution of the vaccine for the white meat flu and its efficiency, or lack thereof. Dunn bluntly states that “you can manufacture a King-Kong’s buttload of vaccine, but if you don’t distribute it until after most people have caught the disease, it might as well be so much iced tea.” His point in this argument proves to be irrefutable as he further indicates that the companies set to distributing the vaccines would not be able to handle a tripling in their normal production capacity.
I definitely agree with the author concerning the CDC’s negligence of the white meat flu pandemic and believe that the situation could have been handled in a more organized and professional manner. This not only further decreases the prestige of the organization but also allows the public to question their effectiveness, and therefore existence. Out of a scale of 10 I would have to rate Bob Dunn a 7. His score is not as high as it could have been because I feel that more of the CDC’s perspective could have been introduced and refuted therefore providing more credibility towards the article and reinforcing the argument. I really enjoyed how surprisingly informative the article was despite Dunn’s empathetic flare for the victims towards his audience, the people unaffected and unknown to the disease. Overall, the article proved effective but could have used more information from the opposing side allowing the reader to sway towards Dunn’s argument as opposed to being forced there.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Crimes By Cops Go Unpunished and Unnoticed
"Texas Liquor Cops Rarely Disciplined"
Integrity, respect, and responsibility are a few of the things that officers require of us when it comes to the law and when within proximity to fellow citizens. However, just because they serve as enforcers of the law does not exempt them from the rules of conduct that citizens have to follow. They are excluded from this contract only when administering force or action is necessary; but excessive use and unnecessary abuse of violence breaches certain codes of conduct that not even they are allowed.
An article from the Houston Chronicle called "Texas Liquor Cops Rarely Disciplined" states that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) has been accused of “improperly tackling, punching and using pepper spray” and has a “reputation for heavy-handedness.” When I read this statement, I took into account the officers’ need for self-defense and the unwillingness of the drunkard to consent to the officer’s wishes. However, as the article progresses one of the allegations concern a patron of a Fort Worth gay bar being put into a hospital for more than a week. Then I ask myself, “was the lack of compliance so bad that enough force was utilized and needed to place the person in the hospital for a week?” These are the times when the integrity of the officers comes into question. The agents were fired as well as the supervisor which indicates that there must have been a breach in protocol and improper methods were most likely administered.
Another shady detail that I thought was interesting was that the supervisors are the ones that overlook the cases of their agents. I was very skeptical about this fact because of the strong bias this must have against the victims since both the officers and their supervisors have a mindset contrary to the victims'. It comes to no surprise that only 39 of the 234 allegations of excessive force or unprofessional conduct have been closed without disciplinary action. The article further states that Alan Steen, the commission’s administrator since 2003, “acknowledged [that] there were problems early in his tenure with the thoroughness of some misconduct investigations but that the process has improved since new officers were hired to run the internal affairs unit.” The question comes to mind whether violence that officers use will decrease significantly just through replacement of previous accused agents.
One TABC agent named Jeff Rendon has even had three excessive-force allegations which were the most of any officer in 2004. Two of the allegations he escaped from without a scratch because one was ruled unfounded by his supervisor and the other was ruled justified, even though TABC never contacted the alleged victim.
I strongly feel that the TABC needs a new protocol in not only assessing the allegations brought on by victims but also the procedures that officers utilize when apprehending drunkards. They need to have a way to justify their actions in a court of law such as camera-to-station feedback or even have a different supervisor aid in assessing the case. The importance of the article lies in knowing that in that given situation I or anyone could be subject to that kind of violence and yet in the aftermath could do nothing about it. Until then, feeling safe proves very difficult considering our protectors are able to breach the limits of integrity and the codes of conduct that we protect ourselves with.
Integrity, respect, and responsibility are a few of the things that officers require of us when it comes to the law and when within proximity to fellow citizens. However, just because they serve as enforcers of the law does not exempt them from the rules of conduct that citizens have to follow. They are excluded from this contract only when administering force or action is necessary; but excessive use and unnecessary abuse of violence breaches certain codes of conduct that not even they are allowed.
An article from the Houston Chronicle called "Texas Liquor Cops Rarely Disciplined" states that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) has been accused of “improperly tackling, punching and using pepper spray” and has a “reputation for heavy-handedness.” When I read this statement, I took into account the officers’ need for self-defense and the unwillingness of the drunkard to consent to the officer’s wishes. However, as the article progresses one of the allegations concern a patron of a Fort Worth gay bar being put into a hospital for more than a week. Then I ask myself, “was the lack of compliance so bad that enough force was utilized and needed to place the person in the hospital for a week?” These are the times when the integrity of the officers comes into question. The agents were fired as well as the supervisor which indicates that there must have been a breach in protocol and improper methods were most likely administered.
Another shady detail that I thought was interesting was that the supervisors are the ones that overlook the cases of their agents. I was very skeptical about this fact because of the strong bias this must have against the victims since both the officers and their supervisors have a mindset contrary to the victims'. It comes to no surprise that only 39 of the 234 allegations of excessive force or unprofessional conduct have been closed without disciplinary action. The article further states that Alan Steen, the commission’s administrator since 2003, “acknowledged [that] there were problems early in his tenure with the thoroughness of some misconduct investigations but that the process has improved since new officers were hired to run the internal affairs unit.” The question comes to mind whether violence that officers use will decrease significantly just through replacement of previous accused agents.
One TABC agent named Jeff Rendon has even had three excessive-force allegations which were the most of any officer in 2004. Two of the allegations he escaped from without a scratch because one was ruled unfounded by his supervisor and the other was ruled justified, even though TABC never contacted the alleged victim.
I strongly feel that the TABC needs a new protocol in not only assessing the allegations brought on by victims but also the procedures that officers utilize when apprehending drunkards. They need to have a way to justify their actions in a court of law such as camera-to-station feedback or even have a different supervisor aid in assessing the case. The importance of the article lies in knowing that in that given situation I or anyone could be subject to that kind of violence and yet in the aftermath could do nothing about it. Until then, feeling safe proves very difficult considering our protectors are able to breach the limits of integrity and the codes of conduct that we protect ourselves with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
