Commentary on Texa's Education

I think Levinson did a great job on the structure of his argument. He had not only a strong argument, but explained his reasoning to his own opinions. When Levinson says "Politics have no place in the classroom" I couldn't agree more. Education shouldn't be based on politics and only on one's own political leanings as the author said. Levinson also goes over the credibility of those who make the decisons as to what children are taught in school. I'm on Levinson's side when he says these people usually aren't able to teach a class of their own.
Levinson also goes over how the teaching is being done. He says that "We teach how to take tests and not how to think" which I find to be true. Based off of my experience as a student, I have had to take standardized testing and have been taught material that can potentially limit me. The material isn't as much for growth as it is to scrape by with a grade. Since teachers have only a certain amount of time to cover material that is required of them, they might not get to everything. Also, in classes I've taken, teachers have told me that they can't teach what they really want us to learn because they are too busy teaching us what is in the curriculum and what we need to know to pass the test. I think if teachers really had complete control of what they wanted to teach, things would be different. We would be more required to think with our minds rather than memorize and later forget information taught to us. Teachers would probably also be more passionate with teaching since they are teaching something they like, which would help students learn better. That doesn't go for all teachers, since some are already passionate. I agree that educators' pay should be increased since they do a job that is so beneficial for those who are taught.
I think Levinson did an outstanding job supporting his ideas and opinions with evidence. It would help his argument immensely if he provided links to his evidence. This would verify the facts and support his ideas. Otherwise this was a very well-written and thought-out commentary on Texas education.

Ricky Perry's Rejection to funds

According to the Houston Chronicle Rick Perry has in the past, and present rejected millions of money that could benefit the citizens of Texas. In his most recent action, thousands of taxpayer's dollars were rejected which were presented in the form of federal funding. The Economy is in a recession and the search for jobs is still running strong for Texans. If he would have accepted the federal funding it would have been basically like the taxpayers getting back the money that they've paid. This would obviously help those of us who are still looking for a job, low on cash, or have a job but cannot make ends meet. He also disagreed to participate with the "national health care law's insurance pools for high-risk individuals". Garnet Coleman, who is the "vice-chair of the committee monitoring" the Texas plan says that it will cover more individuals who do not have insurance. Perry disagreed with this because he says that the "rules are not clear enough on how states will run the plan" and that the funding isn't enough. In the past he rejected a $700 million "educational grant, in spite of appeals from school leaders to enter."
I think that Perry is just setting us back as a state. It is ridiculous that we can't benefit from something that we paid for. Insurance is a difficult thing to acquire, and if the Texas Plan along with the national health care law can benefit the uninsured, then why not? Insurance pools for high-risk individuals should be used by Texas for Texans who are denied insurance. They probably need it more than some other citizens because they have had a pre-existing condition. The whole idea that someone is denied insurance for a pre-existing condition is ridiculous in itself! If Garnet Coleman is correct than others who have not had a pre-existing condition will also benefit.
He has also rejected a beneficial huge grant for education. This majorly sets us back because some Texas' schools aren't up to the level of education they should be. That grant could have helped find good teachers and change educational systems of schools or school districts to help improve educating younger generations of Texas. Since our younger generations are our future, we won't have much of a future to look forward to because children being educated today might not have been given the advantages they could have had academically. If more children could get good educations they could go on to recieve more education and get better jobs which would in turn, help out our economy. So basically if Perry at least accepted some of these offers he would have benefitted Texans immensely. Since he hasn't we are left to deal with our circumstances.

Commentary on Writing the Truth out of Texas Textbooks

Mary (Kura) Hill's blog about the State Board of Education was really interesting. She says "how in the world did we end up voting in people who want to implement religion into the school curriculum and take out facts and true events related to minority groups?". I found it very disturbing that this was even happening. A reference from where she found this news would help but she still has strong evidence to support her argument. She believes that the SBOE shouldn't have anything to do with implementing religion in the school's curriculum and that the people should be the ones to decide what is put into textbooks of Texas. The argument is against the implementation of right wing beliefs intertwined with christianity to be taught in schools. I'm highly against this because it would only set a generation of people in Texas backwards instead of forwards. These beliefs would also include a neglect towards other races due to predominantly white christian biased teaching. I think that if religion was taught at all in schools it should introduce all religions. She also identifies Don McLeroy of the Texas SBOE and gives evidence of an interview exposing the SBOE's beliefs in the matter. It explains basically what is above that left-wing history should be countered with right-wing history. Mary closes the blog with her opinion that the "founding fathers" would have liked us to make our own decisions towards religion rather than having another "entity" try to convert us. I couldn't agree more. She used good evidence and made a great argument.

Legalization of Marijuana and Hemp

The debate for the legalization of Marijuana is a big one. I think the benefits of its legalization would outweigh the problems personally. The biggest benefit would have to be the medical contribution of marijuana to sickness. It is dispensed in California for cases ranging from back aches to cancer. Several states besides Texas have legalized medicinal marijuana.

Aside from the medicinal use of it there are several other uses for Hemp. Hemp and Marijuana are both illegal and are related through the Cannabis Sativa Plant. Hemp has nutrional benefits which can become a major staple in Texas' or America's diet. It is a great source of fiber. It can also make fuel that is non-toxic. It was also used in the textile industry hundreds of years ago because it can make a large quantity of products that go beyond plants like cotton.

Hemp Seed Oil can also be produced which is extremely beneficial to skin. Hemp can make paint and household cleaners like detergent. Paper originating from hemp does not need to be bleached so it doesn't pollute the environment. Even a construction worker can use it. Hemp gives the possibility to make cement, plywood, and plaster. It can even be used to make a car which is unbelievable!!!

As for Marijuana, it can substitute several prescribed drugs that are artificially made with less side effects since marijuana is natural. Drug trafficking might be less prevalent or the use of dangerous drugs might decrease. If this decreases, the crime rate might go down which would be better for Texas. If cigarettes and alcohol are legal and dangerous to our health, marijuana should be legal because it is less harmful to us unless smoked(because smoke is always going to harm your lungs) or laced with something. All kinds of harmful ingredients are put in cigarettes, yet they're legal. By legalizing marijuana and hemp, it would make a lot of lives as well as the economy better.

Texas Clemency Critique

I found this blog post at Grits for Breakfast. The author Scott Henson brings up the Hank Skinner case. This man is under suspicion of murdering his girlfriend and two sons. He has been put on death row for years and has "retained his innocence". What Texas officials won't do is shed light on the case by letting him take a DNA test. Many think he is innocent. The case leads to the subject of Texas clemency. Henson says that "Skinner's case is casting light on some particularly dark corners of the justice system, most recently the clemency process, which has withered and atrophied from disuse."

He then gives us an article by Brandi Grissom which "gives voice to critiques of enigmatic and abstruse clemency practices at the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole." It explains the process of clemency or the decision of if someone faces death or is able to stay alive and basically how disfunctional it is. There are "seven board members [who recommend to the governor wether an] execution should be delayed, called off or carried out. Yet it's one of the most transparent agencies in state government" (Grissom). The members fax in their votes. This article later explains that if the vote isn't unanimous, it is void and clemency is no longer a factor. It also says that "Criminal justice advocates and some lawmakers have called for reform of the Texas clemency process for years, calling the system opaque and arbitrary"(Grissom). People want change towards clemency before an innocent life is wrongfully taken away.

I would say the intended audience would be the people wrongfully accused of major crimes and for those on deathrow who don't deserve to be there. This could also be for those who want to change Texas clemency. I think the author is credible because he has done political research and "worked professionally in politics [his] whole adult life" (Henson). He was a journalist and is an author of a book. He is a political volunteer and "In 1988, [was] a cofounder of a local political action committee, the Sunshine Project for Police Accountability" (Henson). His background seems to show that he has a lot of political experience and has knowledge of the law. Their argument is that clemency should be taken more seriously since his evidence of the article by Brandi Grissom explains the clemency process and why it isn't effective. He thinks we should take the decision that is literally life and death much more seriously and the clemency process needs reform. I agree with the author because the board of clemency seem to act as if a life is expendable in a way. I agree that much more thought should be put into the decision. The process should be changed so the board members can meet and honestly give a vote and why they chose it. It just seems ridiculous to me that someone isn't given a second chance when they could have been innocent all along but left to suffer on deathrow for possibly years.

Jeff Cason and Sex Offenders Article Critique

I found this article at http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/. This article was about Republican Todd Smith's opponent, Jeff Cason. It's also about the laws of the registry of sex offenders in Texas. Rick Casey, the author of the article is extremely sure of himself that he predicted how Jeff Cason would lie. He says he predicted it last May. The lie was about the Texan laws on sex offenders and changing things so that the matter would be dealt with common sense instead of punishment that was undeserved.
In May, Republican Todd Smith won by 131 to 12 "for a bill that brings a bit of common sense and compassion to Texas laws on registration for sex offenders". It was later passed with small changes. It targeted those who had commited the crime of having sex with someone who was at age 14. The victim had to be "less than four years younger" than the offender. This bill did not save any of the offenders from punishment. Usually the offenders were young males. This bill did give them a chance to be exempt from being added into the registered sex offender list for life. It made it possible for judges to hold a hearing and exempt them from the list if they met certain criteria. The sex had to be consensual. The single factor to make it a crime had to be age. These cases mostly ended in having a baby.They also lead to early marriages. Being a registered sex offender affects the support of the family. It's hard to pay a decent amount of child support and to support the family. Victims of these crimes are then put in a bad position, economically. The fact that some of these "sex offenders" actually try to be supportive fathers but are stuck in an everlasting problem makes it worse. Young men put in this position are more likely to commit crimes and are held accountable for them. "But they are, as Smith told his colleagues, "sinners" and not "predators". Smith thought of the legislation as "morally compelling". He also said, "Whether...Republican or a Democrat, if your opponent comes and says that you were soft on sexual predators, I make a personal pledge to come to your district and call that person a liar" (Casey 2010). Cason then sent out a piece of propaganda containing a picture of a battered girl and a false message of Smith letting sex offenders live in neighborhoods.
I think the article was for people who have been wrongfully convicted of being sexual predators and the families that are affected by these laws. I think the author does have some credibility because he's written dozens of articles for the Houston Chronicle. The claim is that Jeff Cason is a liar because he basically states in his propaganda that Smith is letting sexual predators live in people's neighborhoods when the bill doesn't allow it. The propoganda is also the author's evidence. I agree with his logic because not every offense is true, the non-offenders should be treated with more respect. His logic makes sense because being registered into the sexual offender list for life is unfair if the person wasn't guilty and it makes it difficult to support the family that resulted from the crime.

Farouk Shami displays racial controversy

I found this article at The Dallas Morning News. The Friday of this week, Farouk stated that "white people aren't willing to work in factories." He also goes on to say that if they were to work in a factory they would want to hold a higher position than the average person and get payed more. I'm just thinking well who wouldn't? I'm sure anyone no matter what race or ethnicity they are would want a higher paying job. Farouk also states that the dominating races will become Hispanic and African American. Which leads to the Texas economy. Farouk thinks that Hispanic labor is essential for Texas economy because whites are supposedly lazy. The former governor of Houston had a rebuttal to this. He said he didn't know what Farouk was saying and that "Texas is too good for stereotypes. Everybody is made in the image of God." Becky Moeller (president of Texas AFL-CIO) also disagreed with Farouk. She thinks Farouk's statement as "preposterous" and claims that Farouk can't back up his statement with any valid information or facts. She then says that all races work in manufacturing jobs. It is also apparent that Farouk could care less about illegal immigration. A reporter Doug Miller, asks Farouk about 9/11 and he answers saying that he doesn't know the truth and that a government conspiracy could be afoot. I think this article is worth reading because it shows you the candidate Farouk Shami's thoughts on race and the economy as well as illegal immigration issues. You also get to see where Bill White stands on some of these issues as well.