Critique of "Locator chips for students"

I recently read an intriguing editorial written by one of my classmates on her blog, Thoughts from an open-minded Texan. The editorial was written in regards to the San Antonio school district's experimentation with implanting locator chips in students' ID cards, with the intention of making sure they're in school. My classmate made some extremely good points as to why the idea is so ridiculously bad, a main one being that   "students these days are being treated like babies." She also brought up the fact that it could be a matter of safety for the students.

I agree with all of my classmate's points, especially the idea that students need to be treated like adults. As she said, if they are old enough to drive, they should have the freedom of choice (even if they are bad ones). The only thing I could possibly recommend for my classmate's article would have been to mention the funding involved with the locator chips, as it seemed to be a focal point of the original news article. But overall, I enjoyed reading her article--it was short and to the point, and her thesis was established early and supported well.

My main concern with the locator chips was the funding involved; just the experimentation process has cost the school district over $200 thousand. I personally cannot fathom why implementing harsher attendance policies wouldn't accomplish the same task. It could be argued that there are too many students with bad attendance, but if it's that bad, then how is just knowing where they are going to achieve anything? The chips are located on the students' ID cards, not under their skins. If I were in high school and wanted to skip class, I wouldn't take my ID with a tracking device around with me. This is an insane waste of money. I want whoever is behind this to look students and their parents in the eye, and be able to tell them that this money could not possibly have gone to better use. Ridiculous.

You can read the original news article here at the Statesman.

Green Works

For the last editorial I'll be posting on this blog, I decided to go with an issue that gives me some optimism for the Texas government. It's not a hot issue by any means, but I think it bodes well for Texas' government's future in regards to a more "green" agenda.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife department has begun to work on a project to have green burials in Texas' state parks. For those of you that haven't heard of green burials, they basically entail burying people who have passed without using embalming methods or a casket/shroud that isn't biodegradable. The idea behind it  is to allow bodies to decompose naturally, and it's another option for people who aren't a fan of traditional methods of burial.

Such projects are common in other states, but the difference here is that there would be a partnership between a state agency and death service providers. According to Ted Hollingsworth (the director of land conservation at the Texas Parks and Wildlife department), "We wouldn't own or manage the cemetary, but where people pay for those burials a certain part of that payment takes out that land, and pays for that land, that then does get added to the state park." Hollingsworth also stated that they would look toward land near urban settings in order to save it from development.

Personally, I'm planning on being cremated. But I think this is a great idea that will help to preserve the beauty of the Texas landscape while also promoting the idea of a green burial. Considering how outdoorsy most of Austin citizens are, I think it'd be an especially popular option here. I'm totally behind tax dollars going to fund the organization of this project.

You can read more about the idea here, on the KXAN website.

Critique of "Getting off Track"

I recently read an interesting article by a classmate of mine and the writer of Texas Two-Cents. Her article, titled "Getting off track..." describes the ambitions of a woman named Jessica Tunon. Tunon is apparently obsessed with getting fences put up around the Union Pacific Railroad line in downtown Austin, stating that allowing pedestrians to cross the tracks poses a threat to their own safety.

My classmate referred information from the article at the KXAN website, making sure to point out that there have only been four train-related deaths in Travis county between 2009 and 2012. She was thorough in pointing out the flaws of Tunon's arguments (which mainly revolve around the safety of pedestrians), and suggesting that the money projected to be used for the project be used elsewhere to improve sidewalks for pedestrians.

I have to wholeheartedly agree with my classmate. The idea seems to be a waste of finances, and considering that more pedestrians are killed on the street, I'm not sure why we aren't enforcing proper driving habits in regards to pedestrians. I myself do not have a car, and a week does not go by without having a driver cut me off in the crosswalk (note: this is while I'm crossing with the pedestrian light on) and/or yell obscenities. In a lot of major cities, the drivers would receive a ticket for this behavior.

If I had to point out anything in the article by my classmate that needs attention, I would say that there are a few grammatical errors that could be tended to. Other than that, I think she makes excellent points, such as "...I do realize that it is illegal to cross [train track crossings]. I also know it's illegal to drive faster than the posted speed limit...But there is nothing PREVENTING me from breaking any of those laws...As a citizen of Austin, I have the responsibility to choose to obey the laws." I think this statement raises some excellent questions about Austin's local government.

You Can't Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too

Churches are categorized as "501(c) organizations." To speak in layman's terms, this means that they're nonprofits and, as such, are tax-exempt. This also means that they're either heavily limited or completely barred from any kind of political activity, which includes endorsing a political candidate.

Well, that certainly seems fair. But wait:

So I'm not an IRS agent, but man. If that's not endorsement of Romney, I don't know what is. What you're looking at, ladies and gentlemen, is the sign in front of Church in the Valley, located in Leakey, Texas. The pastor of Church in the Valley, Ray Miller, has taken all responsibility for the sign, and is apparently known for posting bold statements such as this one outside of his church. The sign was put up earlier in October, and it created a fair amount of squabbling over whether or not this should be considered free speech or a violation of the church's nonprofit status.  I think Miller is entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else, and I also think he's entitled to have as many Romney signs in his front yard as his heart desires. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that he realizes that the church's front yard and his own are not one and the same.

This all begs the question: how is this church's status as a nonprofit legitimate? For the record, I don't believe that it's status should be permanently revoked, but if anything it should be treated as any other organization would be under these circumstances. Considering the financial state of the country, I don't understand why it wouldn't be prudent for the IRS to look into the matter.

You can read more about it on San Antonio's KENS 5 website here.

Lower Taxes for Heirs?

In an editorial posted on October 18th entitled "Republicans Propose Lower Taxes for Richest Heirs, Higher Taxes for Lower- and Middle-Class", the author--Emily Cadik of the Burnt Orange Report--described the tax proposals being made by Republican leaders of the House and Senate. Essentially, they want to provide a big tax break to the estates of the wealthiest people each year, enabling their heirs to receive as much as possible, while also expiring improvements to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC). The Credits are said to help over 13 million moderate-income families in America.

Cadik starts off her post by stating her opinion on the subject: "Despite the fact that decades of economic policy have shown this theory to be grounded in fantasy, sometimes it's really hard to imagine how their tax 
policies would ever actually grow anything." She continues on to provide evidence from an article from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and describes the benefits of the EITC. The article ends with statements as to how regressive tax policies only benefit those that are receiving them, but not everyone, as the Republican party likes to insist.

Cadik's intended audience seems to be of Americans that are left-leaning, and fall into the financial bracket that would be getting the short end of the stick in this situation. Throughout the post, Cadik uses direct links to the other articles that she quotes or gets her information from, and is very thorough. Her writing is easy to follow, and comes full circle by ending on the same note with which it began (which I'm a big fan of). There are only subtle opinionated remarks that imply Cadik's feelings on the matter, which works to keep her article inline and seem unbiased. Altogether, it is a very well-written and thorough piece on one of the major topics of the 2012 Presidential Campaign.

Cool story, bro.

In an editorial from the Dallas Morning News, it was claimed that Governor Rick Perry has stated that "secularists and leftists are trying to keep people of faith from the public arena." The writer of the article openly disagreed with that statement, declaring that religious people are actually heavily involved. I have to admit that I'm not even sure where the author of the article took offense, considering that Rick Perry did not openly state that people of faith are denied a place in politics. If anything, he seems to be fueling a feeling of persecution that religious people have been voicing. The article goes on to prove just how involved the religious community is, describing how an evangelist leader is working to organize conservative voters across 117,000 churches. 

It is clear that the author intended this to reach a community of religious people who might feel like they are being persecuted for their religion (the irony here is staggering). Personally, I feel as if the author misunderstood Rick Perry's statements--to his or her detriment. It's not a surprise to anyone that religion plays a great part in Texas' government, and to write an article to prove that point doesn't do the religious community any favors. The author seems to be riled up for no reason, other than to excite Christian voters and in doing so encourage them to attend some kind of forum. From what I can tell about the community response to the article, the author may as well be talking about how hot it is outside.

Introductory Post

Hi everybody! I'm going to start off this blog by linking you all to this article from The Daily Texan about the Democratic party's efforts to organize Hispanic voters in Texas. I think the article is noteworthy in that it brings up a somewhat untapped group of voters--who are known for mostly voting Democratic, but given their religious beliefs could potentially become Republican advocates. It's a big deal because Hispanics in Texas are growing in number, and soon won't fall under the "minority" category. The article talks about a political action committee (or PAC) that's trying to engage Hispanic voters by focusing on trying to put Hispanics in Texas legislature, which is pretty great, in my opinion.