Response to "Texas Sued"

The blog titled Texas Sued on my classmate's blog A Texas Thing, captured my attention.  She is a criminal justice major, mainly law enforcement and her main position in her post is arguing the law.  I find this to be very interesting because most of the law enforcement officers that I have encountered are like robots, they don't argue the law whether they personally believe in it or not.  She did make an excellent point when she stated that laws should not be based on personal morals or beliefs.  Like she said, Planned Parenthood is a much needed resource for many woman and as long as abortion is legal then it should not be discriminated against just because they deal with abortion. It's like the state saying that they are going to stop funding a school that has students of a different race than they believe deserve state funding.  It is not the old days, woman have rights.
She lays out the facts clearly.  This new "law" violates their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and association.  The clinic consists of more than abortion services, it provides S.T.D. screening, breast cancer screening, contraception, and general woman health check-ups.
I strongly, agree with the arguments she addressed and I feel that her approach was not based solely on personal opinion or bias.  The government should not have the ability to make a law based on personal beliefs, the rights of woman and Planned Parenthood are clearly protected by the constitution.

Immigration. Do Something.

Immigration laws in Arizona are currently being examined by the Supreme Court.  Which brings to light  issues of the immigration laws in Texas.  Arizona's laws are being scrutinized for being too extreme and harsh and that may be the case but at least Arizona has broken ground.  The controversial laws gave the issue national attention.  We are called the United States of America (key word "United") and if each state is held responsible for making their own laws on immigration then the nation should stand behind whatever the state decides is best for them.  Obviously, each state has different degrees of the need for laws on immigration.
The major issue surrounding immigration is labor.  I am torn on this issue, many argue that immigrants have stolen millions of American jobs.  I agree that they have taken over many jobs, but they are mostly jobs that many Americans would likely refuse to do. I personally feel that the world should be free and everyone should be able to live anywhere they wish to live.  My biggest argument supporting laws on immigration is taxes.  As a working American we are all required to pay taxes while immigrants are being paid "under the table" and are not required to pay taxes.
This may be a crazy solution but I think that we should make it easier to obtain a green card.  Allowing more immigrants to feel free to be in this country legally, therefore requiring them to pay taxes just like all the rest of the citizens in America.  The demand for cheep labor is too high for business owners to abide by the strict laws and they will continue to look the other way when they hire illegal immigrants. I think this issue is a lot like the debates on the legalization of marijuana, if you make it legal then it will reduce crime and it can be monitored and taxed.  People continue to sell and partake in marijuana no matter how strict the laws are, much like no matter how strict the immigration laws are immigrants will remain and continue to come and work without paying taxes

Commentary on Education

"Education" posted by Bunnyn on the blog Politics, Texas Style! captured my attention.  She is a full-time mom and student who has a liberal point of view and has little political education.  Despite her political knowledge she presents very impressive points on this issue; likely due to the fact that she is a mother and this issue immediately effects her.  She argues that education is being put on the back burner behind less pressing issues.  I believe her argument is directed toward political officials and voters who may have the ability to make a change.  The first statement is what captured my attention "I realize that there are bigger fish to fry then worrying about the education of Texas' children.  With illegal aliens crossing our borders, same-sex marriages and the evils of Planned Parenthood who has time to worry about the $4 billion dollars being cut from education this year."  This statement shows that the government is worrying about issues that are far less pressing to the point that it is almost embarrassing.  Although, some may counter attack on sight of this statement and dismiss the sarcasm as there being some truth that these issues are more important than education. 
Her argument is education is being sacrificed. Assuming that the government has the ability to make a change, they have the funds but they choose to use them elsewhere.  Government should value education in order to maintain a democracy in this country.  She presented a very interesting point, the wealthy districts receive $800.00 more per student then lower-income districts.  This is a trend that seems to go further than just education, the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.  Which makes me wonder: what happened to equality and the American dream? 
She uses and quotes creditable sources which makes her argument credible.  I believe the her emotional attachment to this issue is what truly drives her position and makes the reader see the reality of how pressing this issue is.  I have always supported this argument so my mind has not been changed, I have only become more supportive after reading this.
Elections are coming up and I feel this is an interesting subject that needs attention.  This is an excellent time to get this issue out to the people while they are susceptible to political policy and funding talk. This is an issue that the government often sweeps under the run but it needs to be put on a shelf in plain view otherwise the future will suffer.  To add to her argument, how many politicians' children attend the schools that receive $800.00 less in funding?  I assume slim-to-none, causing this argument to have little importance to them.  Making the funding equal for every student is common sense, every student deserves an equal education regardless of the income they were born into.  It is called public education for a reason. If rich parent want to argue that their child is entitled to a better education they can send them to a private school and fund their education themselves.  No parent wants a bad education for their child.

Smoking Ban in Texas: Common Sense

Texas should pass a statewide smoking ban.  The ban has been in talks for awhile and even passed by the house but it has not made it through the senate.  Twenty-two out of the twenty-nine states with statewide smoking bans have even banned smoking in bars and taverns.  The biggest argument against the ban comes from businesses fearing it will have a major impact on their economic growth.  The biggest argument supporting the ban is the general health of the workers and patrons of the businesses.  I think that Texas needs to worry more about the health issue rather than the financial side of it.  Personally, I would not eat or have drinks at a place that allows smoking, along with ninety percent of my friends.  I previously lived in a town where smoking is allowed in the bars and restaurants and I would travel twenty minutes anytime I wanted to go out to eat or grab drinks with a friend.  Smoking, not only smells bad and lingers in your hair and clothing, it also is very bad for your health.  Everyone knows second hand smoke causes cancer so why would Texas continue to allow this to continue?  Did people stop flying on airplanes when smoking was no longer allowed? No, therefore I think that the argument that businesses will suffer would not be valid if smoking is no longer allowed anywhere. Health should be the most important focus.  If someone dies from secondhand smoke that is one less person that will be eating at restaurants or drinking at bars. It seems like common sense to me; come on Texas!

Responsibility A.K.A. Prostitution

A Georgetown Law students' recent testimony to a congressional committee regarding a contraception mandate has lead to off-the-wall political commentary.  A couple blog posts caught my attention on this subject. One post was made by Eileen Smith, the editor of the liberal blog In The Pink.  The post titled If Sex is Outlawed, Then Only Georgetown Law Students Will Have Sex argues the ridiculous commentary made by Rush Limbaugh, Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Rick Santorum against the Georgetown Student, Sandra Fluke. Another post I found very interesting and supportive to Eileen Smith's argument I found on Juanita Jean's blog under the title It's Sing Along Friday.  This post is a video that further illustrates how the commentary made about this subject truly is ridiculous.  
I felt the need to include the video but I am going to continue my critique on the post by Eileen Smith.  The argument was made out of sheer reflection of how immature people can be and the fact that the "birth control issue" continues to be an policy that is being made into a huge political battle.  Sandra Fluke simply found the need to stand up, take responsibility and request help from the government.  Eileen argues that this is not a battle worth fighting against. I believe Eileen targeted this post towards anyone who may agree with commentary made against Sandra Fluke and also to gain support for Sandra Fluke's general cause.  Eileen was able to attract and keep the audience by highlighting the controversial comments that were made and adding humorous side comments in response.
The basic argument is how the comments made were ridiculous and uncalled for.  Sandra Fluke's outreach to get help from the government to support a contraception mandate on private insurance companies was redefined by Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh states that she is asking the government to essentially pay her to have sex and continues to say that this makes her a slut and a prostitute. She also reflects on comments made by religious and political leaders who have equally immature and uncalled for comments.  She argues that their are greater battles to be fought and condemning a girl who is just trying to be responsible is cowardly.  Of course in support of her argument the general assumption is that Sandra Fluke is an average American law student who is not a prostitute, she is simply just a responsible student who is asking for a little help in her efforts of being responsible.  I don't feel this is a risky assumption to make and it does not effect my support one way or another.
The values at hand are free speech, responsibility and freedom of religion. I feel the government should help out with birth control costs because it will only help out in the future.  Less costly abortions and less children being born into poverty, which leads to  an increase in government spending anyways. The only way I could see this affecting values or being an invasion of rights would be if the government said that every woman is required lawfully to take birth control.
The evidence to support Eileen's argument is based on empirical observations. It is shown overtime and across the world people are going to have sex and reproduce.  Not mandating a birth control policy is not going to stop people from do so. The laws in China over the years for example have been viewed as extreme and unlawful by America.  Maybe if everyone had greater access to birth control then they wouldn't of had to take such measures to control or reverse their population.
I believe Eileen's argument to be a success, although the opposing side basically "dug their own grave". I am convinced but it really did not take much, I have always believed it is ignorant not to support birth control contribution.  Honestly, I am a college student who is not able to be on birth control because I can not afford it and my insurance does not cover it. Ironically, if I was to get pregnant it would cover most of those expenses which is was more costly for them.
The argument really develops because of underlying political significance. The argument of pro-choice versus pro-life, the separation of church and state, population control and the economy concerning welfare government funding.  It introduces the understanding that in the political world no matter what your opinion is, someone will argue against you. You could say "puppies are cute" someone will argue and support it with ridiculous comments. When such extremes are presented points are seen but rarely gain full support.

I Know How to Spend Your Money

A recent editorial submitted by the Editorial Board in the Austin American Statesman “What to do with Perry's fundraising leftovers? Governor has options” argues just as the title suggests. The ideological point of view in the Austin American Statesman generally leans more liberal that the rest of the state of Texas' papers. This editorial is no different, it has a very liberal feel throughout. The argument was addressed because in general everyone likes to put their “two-cents” in about what others should do with their money. Questions will always rise when a money based decision is in order. I believe the Editorial Board had more than one audience in mind when posting this piece. I am sure they hoped to catch the attention of Rick Perry himself or political influences that surround him. Perhaps, just providing general public awareness on the issue at hand. Throughout the article they tend to balance both sides and make suggestions rather than harsh and direct statements to persuade the audience. Which prevents the reader from raising their guard to protect themselves from attack on personal opinion and encourages the reader to continue reading. The general assumption made is that Rick Perry will likely use the left over money to form a political action committee. The unclear argument wavers in support for a political action committee but then points out other uses for the money such as charity, help for non-profits and other state expenses. Due to the wavering stress in the argument it leaves me a little confused on what they are truly trying to support. I really do not believe I am the intended audience. But, if I was Rick Perry I would be confused because some points that were made supported the decision in forming a political action committee and doing what is best for me (Rick Perry) because it is money raised though my hard work in fund raising. Then they throw in suggestions and concerns but with out much influential backbone. Government consists of people and people are going to act like people. At the end of the day wether the money goes to Rick Perry or the Boy Scouts there will always be someone who is not satisfied with how the money is spent.

The Importance of Education in Texas

 A post made by Kate Alexander on November 1, 2011 states plans that many school job cuts will be made throughout the state in 2012.  Job cuts that could potentially effect 39% of Texas students due to budget concerns.  She states that the anticipated cuts are below the original prediction of 100,000 school job loses.  I find this article to be very alarming, because these job cuts affect more than just the individuals that are loosing their jobs.  Parents will make many financial sacrifices to ensure their children's success.   Texas needs to think like a parent who loves their children because the children are the future.