Re: Re: Sexting

 In AJ's vlog about “sexting” becoming against the law he says that he “can't believe that our government is passing laws about common sense” and I agree that it must be really bad times when the government feels like they have to do this but I am not surprised that they are. And really why should anyone be?  There are many laws that might seem like “common sense” but plenty of people break them all the time, such as driving under the influence or like he stated, someone murdering someone.

 I'm not sure it's fair to put all the blame on the parents, kids are called kids for a reason. They sometimes act, lets say, really unintelligently and what do you expect? They are 14 and 15 years old and sometimes younger. Most people that age don't want to listen to their parents no matter how hard the parents try. Part of the whole experience of being that age is making stupid mistakes, only in this day and age stupid little mistakes can really come back and haunt you more so than any other time. And his argument that teens should be thinking through their actions seems like a reasonable argument but a majority of teens don't think through a thing, why would they think through taking a quick picture and hitting the “send” button when they see their friends and celebrities doing it and people still buying their music, movies and so forth.

 This whole “sexting” thing is a new problem and I see this law as the government trying to find a way to assert some kind of control over the new technologies that are developing so quickly and trying to protect minors. I don't think it's a bad idea either, if it can deter even a few children away from sending naked pictures of themselves to someone it can't be a bad thing. I see it as kind of a reinforcement even if it is a “scare tactic”. If they get caught doing it, they will be held accountable and perhaps they will tell their friends that it's not such a good idea.

 I do think it's stupid for kids to being doing this but I don't think this law has a negative impact on anything and hopefully it will cause some people to think twice before they consider “sexting”.

budget cuts

 The new budget took effect last September which included a 5.4 Billion school funding cut, billion dollars. At first I was almost hoping I had misread and that the 5.4 billion was the whole budget cut but nope, 5.4 billion dollars was cut from the already not so great Texas school system. Money that teachers, students and their parents could greatly benefit from. Classes are having to make room for more students and get by with fewer teachers. Some school are now charging for bus rides and students now help keep the school clean by sweeping classrooms and other little tasks. It has already begun to take a toll on the teachers, parents and kids in Texas.

 While I don't mind that kids are learning to keep their environment tidy, I think it's outrageous for Texans to allow a budget like this to go through when it effects so many people in a negative way, and the long term consequences of this action are almost scary to think about.

This budget cut surely stresses out teachers even more than they probably already were. Classes with at least 25 students will make it even harder for teachers to help every single one of the students and forces them to fall back on a “one size fits all” teaching style. The budget cut especially makes being a K-12 teacher seem very undesirable, since Texas doesn't compensate their teachers appropriately and having them in charge of so many students without proper materials and low pay doesn't sound like the best situation to put yourself in.

 Charging parents a fee for their children should ride the bus is a little ridiculous. I thought the whole point of the school bus was to help parents or guardians that are busy working or unable to bring their children to school. I don't believe that we should be charging them for something that is state mandated for the children they look after.

 Adding more kids to already overcrowded classrooms is a horrible idea, especially for children who need that extra attention from their teachers who are already spread thin. I speak for those kids myself when I say that crowded classrooms plus one teacher was more of a time to talk and listen to other kids talk and goof off rather than learn anything from the teacher. The kids who do need more help but aren't able to get it, yet are expected to pass a standardized test along with all their other classmates will get into a cycle of failing and trying to catch up that is seriously hard to get out of. The cliché that “children are our future” may be overused, but it is undoubtedly true and the truth is we should be doing everything we can to make sure students have every resource they need to not only learn but want to learn and excel at it.

I really think the Texas government should be doing all they can to ensure that every kind of student is able to have quality education and teachers are compensated for their time and they are given the tools they need to do their jobs. With this huge budget cut that seems highly unlikely.

second look

 In Christina Valdez's post titled “Why Not Give it a Second Look?” I find that the most important people in the situation were ignored. The main focus should be on the women in this situation who are doing the choosing, yes choosing, for themselves to go through the procedure. I think it's very arrogant and condescending to make them “rethink” their decision. As if they probably didn't put much thought into it, but the second time around they will suddenly come to their senses and give in to public pressure.

 The woman who makes the decision, is a living, breathing, thinking human being. In my opinion the fetus does not have the same rights as the person carrying it. If there is an argument about the life form growing inside a person, the person should be the one to decide what is best for them without government interference.

 In her argument and in other pro-sonogram bill arguments I've seen is that they somehow seem to think that women with an unwanted pregnancy quickly, with no hesitation come to the conclusion of having an abortion. They don't think that women have already thought about the consequences, and thought about what it would be like if they decided to keep the baby, or adopt.

 Her argument that we could be saving a future technological genius is not really an argument for life as much as it is an appeal to American's materialism and our sympathies. There's no arguing that Steve Jobs was a brilliant man but there are millions of other brilliant people, if he wasn't around someone else would have been around, and we would be consuming what they produced. That's why we should be focusing on the lives that are here, in the present in this certain situation.

 If we begin to let legislation begin to try and deter us away from making our own choices, how long will it take for them to make even more radical legislation. The question “Why not give it a second look?” is unthoughtful and rude, to me the question should be“Why not leave people to choose what they want”?

land of the free?

 Although I addressed this topic briefly in my blog, I feel that is important to expand on the problem with Texas's new laws regarding abortions. Especially since it has hit close to home with me and affected someone I am close to. Within the last couple of weeks my friend of around 10 years had to deal with the entailments of the sonogram bill, and she described to me how frustrating it was to feel like she was being dissuaded from an already hard decision and how she felt she was “shamed” to even consider having an abortion. Hearing the actual consequences of the bill from someone I know, and reading articles of the people who have to deal with it made the reality of it apparent. It is really depressing when you find out that you don't have total control over your own body. And everybody should get their heads out of the sand to pay attention to the basic human rights the Texas Legislature is abusing.

 Abortion has been present since the 5^th century. Aristotle thought that it was fine, up until the 40 day mark for boy and 90 day mark for girls when, he believed, they gained a soul and became a human being. And in the time of early American colonies, people were totally against abortion and it was a misdemeanor if you had one until the 19^th century. Then, thank goodness, people in the 1970's gained some sense and passed Roe V Wade which made abortions legal. That ruling should have precedence when bills like the sonogram one come along, where it just hinders the freedom of choice Roe V Wade offers.

 Even though it is still possible to go through with the procedure, the legislation enacted has set up a dozen hoops that women, who are probably stressed enough as it is, have to jump through.

 The sonogram bill states that women who choose to have an abortion must hear the fetal heart beat, view an ultrasound image and the doctor must describe the condition of the fetus. Then she has to wait 24 hours (presumably to to have that time to be more upset and maybe even back out of it) before she can have the procedure. It doesn't make sense that we have these type of idiotic bills when abortion has been legal since Roe V Wade and especially due to the political climate in Texas. Texans love their personal freedom but when it comes to a woman's personal freedom, they back track and create this piece of hypocrisy.

 It seems to me that a lot of the taboo of abortion and the creation of this bill stems from the religious aspects that should we not have to deal with in government. Because Texas is a predominately christian, conservative state it's hard to not believe that religion doesn't influence politics. Church and State should ideally be two completely separate entities but unfortunately most people accept that it is not. How many personal freedoms will have to suffer before people actually start caring to change that truth?

Abortion is always going to be a controversial issue, but it is hard to justify anything other than what an individual feels is right for them.  

disgruntled

 The blog by Robbie Cooper entitled “Why Liberals Cheer When Conservatives Die” is one that drew my attention simply by the fact that it was so harsh towards all liberals but it had no coherent argument that validated any of the authors amateurish claims. He just seemed more hurt by the fact that Matt Taibbi, a liberal columnist of Rolling Stone magazine wasn't very sensitive to the fact that a man, Andrew Breitbart, had recently died. Not that there is any excuse for being harsh to someone who has died, but this was a man who tarnished the image of Shirley Sherrod, a woman who was innocent and a group called Acorn by releasing heavily edited videos of them and others. Not to mention that Breitbart wasn't very sensitive to death either proclaiming minutes after Ted Kennedy died that he was a “villain” and “a pile of human excrement”.

 But, no matter what Andrew Breitbart or the columnist that Cooper disagreed with did, Cooper's argument that all liberals are basically “immature” people with “mental disorders” seems more of a rant than an actual piece based on logic or evidence. His audience of conservative minded people probably ate it up though, since Breitbart was something of a larger than life character in the conservative world and took down those whose ideology he opposed. Cooper probably gets away with this type of writing since it's something that his audience can kind of feel an empowerment in his outlandish rhetoric.

 Even though he is on defensive because some liberals were cruel about the death of Breitbart, he goes on to say that, “Taibbi will likely die alone, afraid, and in horrific pain”. Who's the insensitive one now? His attacks on the whole liberal spectrum are full of circular reasoning, such as “liberals are stupid because they are idiots”. He never really offers any genuine reasoning behind his thinking besides that he is obviously a devout conservative and kind of arrogant. His whole post is basically a temper tantrum.

 Just because he is a conservative does not mean he was in the wrong to feel as if that particular author was unfair, too cruel or even wrong. Cooper could have taken a more mature tone and made Taibbi the fool in this situation. Instead not only did he not make Taibbi look bad like he intended, he made himself look like someone who can't articulate a real point and a hypocrite.

 Perhaps the author of the Rolling Stone article was harsh, although it was his opinion based on things that Breitbart did. But Cooper's “response” blog that could have called Taibbi out, instead summed up to an elementary piece of work where all liberals, according to him are stupid and evil. Why? Because they are!

may the force be fair to you

  Since the infamous case of Rodney King, police brutality has been a controversial thing to cover in the media. Who should be given the benefit of the doubt in that situation? The hopefully law abiding officer, or the victim/criminal, who no matter how innocent on the receiving end if they are brutalized will always be questionable in the eyes of the public. Did they in fact deserve what they got?

  In the editorial section of the Austin American Statesman an article was written about acceptable use of force regarding police officers. Recently a debate has been reignited by an upcoming trial, involving a fatal shooting of a young man last May, and wether or not the police officer was justified in opening fire. It is a very fine line that a police officer has to walk on, they must be able to maintain order while not letting their emotions get the best of them and of course, not all of them are capable of doing that.

  The author of this article has a very liberal target audience of Austin which I think is a good outlet for this important subject. The logic behind the article is really refreshing because It uses common sense, and the “more power equals more responsibility” attitude. The author is very adamant when they state that police officers should indeed be held at a higher standard. They are fair in their assessment of the flawed system and how a police officer largely has to decide for themselves what an appropriate response to any given situation should be.

  

  Of course, this should be obvious. Who wouldn't want a police officer to be able to exercise more composure than your average person especially in a very uncomfortable situation? And then I realized that some people don't feel that way, they don't really question the means an officer uses to get what they want, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with them and they believe they are safe.

  I agree wholeheartedly with the author of this article. We should always question those that are in power, especially officers, whom we expect to protect citizens and use rationality and fairness when doing their job. We should never have to worry about officers abusing their power. For example, in 1977 a man in Harris County Texas was beaten mercilessly by two police officers, his body was found in the Buffalo Bayou two days later. We should not have to worry about this, and the sad thing is a lot of these incidents get looked over and brushed under the rug.

  It's important that this article was written even if it's not a headline, the word has to get out somehow. It's hard to say if this is a common occurrence or just something that happens every so often. The point is, it should never happen. The author makes it clear that in an ideal world, people shouldn't have to wonder if some of the people who should be protecting citizens are using their power to have an advantage.

So, what's next?

 In Texas we pride ourselves upon being first and foremost, Texan. We love the land we inhabit and the freedom that it and our state provides us. However, a disturbing law has been passed that should not only shock women in our state but everyone as a whole. It was passed Tuesday and it dictates what should ideally be the specific person's right to choose what they feel is best for their particular situation. Not only is this act extremely invasive on a very private matter but Texas is the only state to have it in effect.

   It was recently decided by the State Legislature and Governor Rick Perry as an “emergency legislation” that women seeking an abortion in Texas must view a sonogram 24 hours prior to their procedure, hear the fetus' heart beat and have the doctor explain to them the condition of the fetus. Although there are few ways to opt out this decision applies to all women in the state. The act is seen by most doctors and patients as an extreme detriment to their rights. The judge who previously ruled against this act deferred to an appellate court who passed this controversial law. Texas is the only state to have such a drastic act come to fruition. Any woman living in the state of Texas should be disturbed by this decision because no matter what your view is on the subject, it is irrefutable to believe that this doesn't undermine a very personal right to chose what happens with your life and should definitely not be decided by a select few.