RE: Re-Education

In browsing through a number of my classmate’s blogs I came upon one that caught my attention. It is by Chloe Yates, and is a critique of the current system of sex education in Texas-- which Chloe points out is currently failing to deter teens from having sex.

The critique begins with Chloe putting Republicans under the limelight for the current policy of abstinence-only education, which is odd considering the teaching of abstinence is more so an issue divided by conservative and liberal ideologues. If you continue to read, you quickly learn Chloe’s disdain of Republicans and their policy of abstinence-only education comes from the fact that as of current it “does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.” Chloe then embodies the ideologue of a pragmatic liberal in wanting “to stop wasting our tax dollars on these obviously failed programs”, and in advocating to teach “raging hormonal teenagers ways to prevent sexual transmitted diseases as well ways to prevent pregnancies” as the solution. This is a great idea, however most schools do in fact already teach how to prevent STDs and pregnancies—my high school being one of them.

Overall, I can agree with Chloe that under our current institution of abstinence-only education we are in-fact not deterring teens from having sex or becoming pregnant, but is there even any way we could? I believe not.

However, I disagree with Chloe in that I do not see the expansion of schools teaching sex as the solution. For such a change is wrong, in that it would deprive parents of their right to choose how to educate their kids about sex.  But let’s not forget that Chloe argued earlier in her critique that it “is up to the parents to speak to their children but it should also be reinforced amongst teachers, staff, or even councilors.” Wait, but weren’t you just trying to indirectly do away with the need for mom and pops’ birds n’ the bees talk? And not to mention, wouldn’t teachers and other school officials speaking to students seeking advice about sex lead to a number of issues? I know I for one wouldn’t want someone in a position of authority that is supposed to be teaching my child Math giving them advice over sex—which among other things could be advice contrary to what a parent would have given.

In the end, Chloe did a great job of highlighting an issue of importance to the reader, regardless of their party affiliation. Yet in offering her solution, Chloe hindered her own argument by devoting a large amount of her critique to pointing fingers at Republicans, instead of elaborating and reinforcing the solution she offers to the problem at hand. Thus, by the end of Chloe’s blog I for one found myself still siding with our current system of abstinence. For sex education is not something the government should have any role in, it is a matter only parents should have a hand in. Which is exactly why the distinct line abstinence draws over sex works, in that it leaves room for parent’s to elaborate and instill their own opinions on sex while not giving teachers the range of motion to instill possibly biased opinions.

Traffic In Austin

In recent years Austin has experienced a great deal of growth, both in population and infrastructure. However the infrastructure of our roads and highways is lagging behind, which has led to Austin having the 3^rd worst traffic in the U.S.  according to the Austin American Statesman. Thus I propose an initiative be undertaken to improve the flow of our roads.

There are numerous benefits that the restructuring of Austin’s roads would bring, that far outweigh the initial cost of doing so. For better roads would among other things lead to an increase in business, in part due to commuters spending less time in traffic and more time in stores and the workplace. As well as attracting more businesses to expand into Austin, for compounding good roads, with a modern economy, and centralized location would be irresistible to businesses. And in regards to our environment—the inherent decrease in  time drivers would spend sitting  in traffic would also lead to less fossil fuel being burned wastefully. Thus by improving our roads, we would also be reducing the enormous amount of emissions produced on Austin’s roadways.

There have by all means been numerous roadway projects in recent years; however they are only band aids when in comparison to what is needed. So how can we fix such a crucial part of our Cities infrastructure?--By focusing on I-35, which is undoubtedly the most congested. Yet where it gets complicated is that due to I-35s location between historical monuments, the University of Texas, and even the Texas State cemetery, it cannot be fixed directly. Thus the only solution is to improve our other slightly less congested roads such as Mopac, so as to reduce their traffic which will in turn disperse I-35’s traffic.

Unfortunately, an overhaul of our road system would cost a tremendous amount of money—which in a recession such as now would be hard to come by. However, if we wait any longer to do so the cost will only multiply in size as our City grows even more so in population and business.  For as of now our City is doing quite well economically compared to other cities in America, yet not for long if our roads continue to handicap us. So to safeguard Austin’s future economy and population, it is only logical that an initiative be undertaken sooner rather than later, which requires that we embrace expansion instead of hindering it.

Texas Voter ID Law

In reading Jess’ post against the Texas’ voter ID law that has received federal scrutiny, I instead found myself in favor of such a law. Jess begins her argument with the rhetorical question, that if the government wants more people to vote “then why is Texas making voting more difficult?” to which I can give a number of not so rhetorical answers. Such as the fact that Texas’ elections are plagued by voter fraud—a problem the law aims to limit. And as according to USA Today--that history actually shows “voter turnout has increased after voter ID laws were enacted, and because Texas provides voter ID cards free of charge, no Texan's voting rights will be affected.”

The post then continues onto pointing out the fact that the proposed required IDs are restricted to “particular government issued cards which excludes even student IDs.” However, is it so hard to see why non-government issued IDs, such as student ones that could be fraudulent, are not acceptable as proof of identity to vote in government held elections? Jess then continues on to say that “all citizens do not have IDs and would be penalized” under the law, which is a fair statement. However, in Texas can you not obtain a suitable ID at the DMV, where you already register to even be able to vote? In answering such a question, you find that by no means is Texas asking too much of its voters, especially considering Texas is well within its constitutional rights in seeking to identify its voters for the sole reason of ensuring the integrity of elections.

Jess’ post finishes with the idea that the ID law prevents “minorities from taking part in the voting process” since the “highest percentages of people without IDs are within such minorities.” Which is an idea I hold to be irrelevant, and see more so as an attempt used by those opposed to the ID law to use racial discrimination in their favor. As well as the fact that the statement Jess makes fails to note, that the minority groups who have a higher percentage of people without IDs, also have a comparably high percentage of members who are not eligible to vote, which is why such an argument among other reasons is irrelevant.

Why Planned Parenthood Is Good For Texas

In the past couple years; the government funding received by Planned Parenthood has caused a good amount of controversy. Funding which recently was ended when Planned Parenthood and other organizations affiliated with abortion facilities were deemed no longer being eligible for funds through the Women’s Health Program. For those that may not know, the Women’s Health Program is a Medicaid initiative intended to provide contraceptives and other healthcare services to low-income women. Now normally I am against the expansion of welfare and other dependence fostering programs, yet I am not in this case. For, I believe Planned Parenthood serves a vital role in our society and is still deserving of WHP funding.

It is goes without saying that the reason many people are opposed to Planned Parenthood is the fact that the organization is synonymous with abortion. However what many fail to see is that abortions are not being done by Planned Parenthood, but in fact by entirely separate corporations. Hell, even Texas law requires that groups receiving any government funding be both legally and financially separate from abortion clinics—requirements which Planned Parenthood obliges by.  But the problem that some have is that Planned Parenthood does indeed give contributions to such pro-choice corporations. Thus, it is not hard to see why a primarily conservative legislator would cut Planned Parenthood’s state funding—for they do not want the taxpayers’ money paying for abortions.

 However, were taxpayers really paying for abortions? Not exactly, for when you view the situation macroscopically it no longer looks so ominous. For the abortions were in fact subsidized, not paid for in whole by taxpayers. So can it not be viewed that Planned Parenthood was helping women terminate their pregnancies in a safe manner--instead of forcing them to seek more questionable alternatives? For women wanting to end their pregnancies are going to regardless, so it is imperative that they be able to in a healthy manner.

The conservative values of legislators are obvious in their choice to exempt Planned Parenthood from the WHP due to pro-life beliefs, as well as the desire to cut government spending. But in doing so, they were extremely shortsighted. In that it is arguably cheaper to continue providing Planned Parenthood funding. Because ceasing to can only lead to a spike in unplanned pregnancies among poor women--who will in turn, become reliant on the still in place Medicaid. So we are now facing more government spending that will only increase as, even more “at risk” youth are born in to unfit homes, a situation that will no doubt clog up our prison system even more so.    

Besides, Planned Parenthood offers a multitude of health services to women that many advocates don’t realize due to their focus on abortion. Among the numerous services offered, they provide annual exams, access to birth control, and even cancer screenings. So in the end, conservatives may oppose much of what Planned Parenthood is based upon, but it is an organization essential to Texas’ future—in that it promotes women’s health, a more well off population, and in fact saving tax payer’s money in the long run.

The Growth of Poverty

It has been a common trend for American’s in recent years to blame the Bush administration for the poor state of the economy, regardless of their party affiliation.  However, there has been a change in such thinking for many Republicans, a shift that TexasFred’s blog recently elaborated upon quite well.

            TexasFred begins his post with an excerpt from The Associated Press about how the current level of poverty is only expected to get worse, and is in fact on track to rise to the highest levels since the 1960’s. So there’s the punch line, but where’s Fred’s conservative spin? That comes next, when he asks spitefully that hadn’t Obama promised to “turn the economy around and repair all the damage done under the EVIL Bush administration?” However that’s not to say Fred gives Obama full responsibility, for he goes on to recognize that Bush by all means “bears much of the blame for our current financial difficulties”. Yet, Fred unlike most democrats does in fact give Obama some blame, for he has “been in office almost four years” which makes him at least partly accountable. He then goes on to give the “incredible amount of deficit spending” Obama initiated, which yielded poor results as evidence that Obama has in fact contributed to America’s economic downturn.

Even for a first time reader of Fred’s blog, it should be easily recognized that he has a rightward leaning stance. Thus it is no surprise that this post—and many of his past ones, are intended for at the very least moderate republicans. And in this case, his Republican favored views are evident when he spells out that Obama and the majority of democrats are wrong in their mindset that only Bush is still to blame for the economy.

Yet in this article Fred appeals to more than just Republicans, for he also makes his post appeal to the elderly. Which he does by recounting his own economic distress and how he, as well as other older Americans managed to turn their tough times around. This elderly success is thus used as evidence in convicting the “able-bodied youngsters” who elected Obama of failing to turn their own finances around despite the fact that they are more capable.

In wrapping up the post, Fred offers some food for thought when he questions Obama’s “supporters [who] are living off the sweat of someone else’s brow” how their “Hope and Change BS” will work when their “public welfare benefits [are] coming to a close as” Obama bankrupts America.  Fred then goes on to offer a solution to the distressed economy, which is replace Obama with someone who is “a business man that has held REAL jobs, hired REAL people, run successful businesses and knows how to make money”.  Which is the logic for Fred’s final thoughts-- that Americans should “give Mitt Romney a chance”, for Obama’s “Hope and Change” were just failed promises.

In the end, I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Fred's points--for the solution to fixing our economy lies not in the expansion of taxes and social welfare, but in the promotion of business and free trade. However, I by no means think Mitt Romney is the perfect candidate, but I do believe he would be able to solve our economic woes more than sufficiently. 

Nurses and Medicaid

I recently came upon a commentary published online by The Austin American Statesman. It was written by Toni Inglis a neonatal nurse over Governor Rick Perry’s opposition to the expansion of Medicaid. Toni begins the commentary with the pungent words, “Gov. Rick Perry threw Texans under the bus”--so right from the start it becomes apparent that the commentary is more so of a one-sided rant, and a poorly convincing one at that. This leads me to believe that Toni’s ideal audience is without doubt a reader with a leftward leaning ideologue, or if not at the very least someone who opposes our current Governor. The latter of which, becomes very apparent when the jabs at Rick Perry culminate into claiming he is “stuck somewhere between the American Revolution and the Wild West” in regards to him “[drawing] a line in the sand” and not giving in to taking federal grants. Now Toni, is it really that hard to believe the Governor of an overwhelmingly conservative state is denying federal funding just as he had numerous times in the past?

Now Toni may not have realized it, but he indirectly compared Rick Perry to William Barrett Travis— who drew a line in the sand at the Alamo and was actually from the times of the “Wild West”. Such a correlation that any reader can gather is contrary to Toni’s argument, for why would someone who has a blatant hatred for Rick Perry choose to make a connection between him and a Texas Hero? I tell you why, because the author was more focused on his patchwork rant than making a stable and grounded argument.

Roughly half way through the commentary makes a sudden shift to a more ethos oriented appeal, which is drastically more convincing than the first half was. The first  hook Toni throws to grab at the reader’s hearts is about those who “might not be able to get insured… lost their insurance with their job…can't find a primary care provider… might go bankrupt with medical bills”, that she has spoken to. However all of Toni’s accounts are flawed-- you can’t get insured? I don’t see how this could be true; it’s not like insurance companies are turning away people who can pay. Now for the--lost the job, insurance, and now bankrupt people, all of which are fixable, it’s called getting a job and paying for the services you need. And for those who for whatever reason can’t find a primary care provider, try finding one in a busy intersection because if you’re that incompetent natural selection failed its purpose long ago.

Overall the author has many facts in regards to the why Texas should embrace the expansion of Medicaid, but instead of giving support to those facts he more or less goes on a rant. But it is by no means hard to see why someone who works as a neonatal nurse in intensive care would be biased in regards to healthcare. In the end, it becomes apparent that the author more or less has the mentality that we should help everyone—a mindset that is not hard to envision a nurse having.

Rick Perry On Health Care

In the fight over health care reform, President Obama recently championed a crucial step forward when the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional this past June. Yet the fight against reform still ensues in Texas, as seen by Rick Perry’s stance in a recent interview where he outlined his opposition of two key components of President Obama’s health care law—the creation of a state health insurance exchange program and the expansion of Medicaid.

The Daily Texan has an exceptional article on the matter, which outlines not only the stance by Perry and his fellow Republicans but also those of Democrats who favor Medicaid funding. What makes the article worthy to read is the fact that it records accounts of Texans from both parties and presents them in an opposing, yet unbiased manner. Thus, by the end of the article a reader should be able to tell what side of the fence they fall on, be it in line with the classic anti-government mentality centered upon individualism that has come to be synonymous with Texas conservatism, or the less prominent liberal mentality that favors state dependence upon federal funding.