Politically Provoked

Instead, why not invest in remodeling the bathroom?

2009-05-10T23:52:00.016-05:00

A response to "Flushing Money Down the Toilet"

The Texas education system fails in many ways. Compared to other states, we don't pay our teachers well, have low SAT scores, and aren't as good at keeping students enrolled until their high school graduation. In light of that, I think it's important to note that we also don't invest as much in our students as other states do.

To be fair, I do agree with you in that funding alone will not solve our problems. As seen by the cases you mentioned in South Carolina and Washington DC, it's possible for a district to spend a lot on students and have that not necessarily equate to an improvement on their system. But what these programs may have failed to notice is that a quality education comes from various outlets, where money only plays a small role. Active involvement from parents, teachers that are fully involved in their students' progress, and a consistent level of quality among public schools are other aspects that can provide a young student with the opportunity to achieve success.

Like you said, it will take a combination of reforming our system alongside a monetary investment to move things forward. I'm not sure if a bussing system between social demographics is the answer, but lowering teacher ratios, especially in urban districts, would be a good start. Perhaps even a rewards program to offer teachers the motivation to continue a good job could help as well, but such ideas need the support of better funding to work toward a better system. Funding isn't the only answer, but it's not the culprit. Once we acknowledge our weaknesses, we can begin to make a smart investment toward the future of our next generation.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

2009-05-04T17:17:00.027-05:00

At 437, Texas has seen the most executions since 1976. In an interest to preserve a citizen's right to be free from "cruel and unusual punishment", I question the right of our state to engage in capital punishment. Previous means of execution such as hanging, burning someone to death, and decapitation are obvious violations of the 8th amendment. Even electrocution, used for the better part of the 20th century, sometimes ignited prisoners on the chair. But what about the state's current go-to method? Does lethal injection, a procedure approved by anesthesiologist Dr. Stanley Deutsch in 1977, also pose an ethical dilemma?

Lethal injection seems to be the one that would satisfy the 8th amendment. The protocol involves placing an intravenous line in the prisoner and injecting them with a high-dosage cocktail of drugs. The inmate is first injected with sodium thiopental, which serves to cease brain function and induce a coma. Pancuronium bromide is injected a few minutes later, causing paralysis by relaxing the muscles. Finally, potassium chloride is used to induce cardiac arrest. It is less disturbing to witness than other methods, and health professionals are commonly present to ensure a proper carry out of the proceedings.

The American Medical Association currently frowns upon physician participation in this procedure. Though Texas does not require physician involvement, it has been shown that the presence of one cuts down on complications. An article published in the medical journal "The Lancet" analyzed toxicology reports from Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. It found that post-mortem blood concentrations of thiopental were lower than that required for surgery in 43 of the 49 executed inmates (88%). Another 21 inmates (43%) had concentrations consistent with awareness. Personnel administering the lethal injection without proper training and expertise in anesthesia, by means such as using standard protocols instead of customizing doses to individuals, risk failing to induce unconsciousness after the injection of sodium thiopental. The inmate might then instead suffer an agonizing death from suffocation due to pancuronium bromide or feel an intense burning sensation caused by potassium chloride.

Even if carried out properly, I see a way in which our government has perverted medical practices for use against its own citizens. Medicine has turned from an instrument of healing to one of punishment. The field of medicine prides itself on holding an ethical standard. "Above all, do no harm." As the field evolves, so will a government interest in order to use innovative techniques for its own purposes. It is vital that not only health professionals maintain an ethical standard, but that we as citizens continue to hold one for ourselves. I feel that includes a second look at our approach to criminal justice.

Ultrasound Bill is a terrible approach to "touchy subject"

2009-04-23T11:56:00.035-05:00

In response to Abortion-Ultrasound Bill

Contrary to your comment, my opposition to this bill actually has nothing to do with the idea of putting a woman's health in jeopardy. It comes from my belief that women should not have to keep jumping through more hoops to make a decision about their bodies. If you really analyzed both sides of the argument with fairness, you would have at least tried to put yourself in another woman's shoes when she learns of an unexpected pregnancy... the thoughts on how her body will change, the cost of prenatal treatment, the time she would have to take off from work and/or school, and how her life would be changed through childbirth (whether or not she gave it up for adoption). To put things in a way you can relate... what if a bill was proposed that required males to pay a tax equivalent to a month's worth of child support payments before having sex? What if you had to wear a fat suit before you ordered a tasty meal at your favorite fast food chain?

My point is that, just because the decision to abort a pregnancy has serious consequences, such a decision should not subject women to unnecessary procedures in an attempt to guilt them out of it. You make your case under the assumption that a human being is a life from conception, that everyone shares this belief, and that women don't already give a considerable amount of thought to "pulling the trigger". In reality, we all have different beliefs, and among these sets of beliefs include the thought that as long as a fetus cannot survive outside the womb on its own, a woman can have the right to end her pregnancy if she wishes. Just because a woman does not "see" (read: believe) that the fetus is a human life does not mean that she doesn't grasp the concept of terminating a pregnancy.

One opinion I do share with pro-life people like yourself is that, in light of such a high number of abortions, we can make better attempts to reduce them. I disagree, however, that this bill is a good step in that direction. We can take measures to do so without subjecting women to something they do not want. Why not look toward preventing pregnancy in the first place? Educating people about the health risks of sex in conjunction with the benefits of birth control can do a lot to cut down on pregnancies. The power of information would go much further than the power of forced guilt trips.

Science Rules

2009-04-06T12:04:00.058-05:00

"Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned."
-John West, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute

Last month, the Texas State Board of Education removed the obligation from textbooks to explain the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories, and instead put forth a requirement that students look at "all sides" of the theories. According to board chairman Don McLeroy, part of the new standards would require students to analyze evolution as an explanation for the complexity of cells or the sudden appearance in species in the fossil record. Board members claim that, by encouraging students to question evolutionary ideas in light of accepting opposing ideas that have yet to be published in prominent peer-reviewed journals (i.e. intelligent design), the students learn to think critically.

What some of the board members fail to recognize is that science relies on intellectual honesty to maintain its credibility. The beauty of science is that, though it is always open to new ideas, such ideas must have credible empirical support. New studies that refute previously published research are held to a high standard before being recognized by other scientists. By performing controlled experiments and publishing research related to natural selection and genetic drift, scientists have given credit to the theory of evolution.

Evolution has sparked a lot of debate, especially due to the fact that accepting it as a theory conflicts with the religious beliefs of many Americans. Presenting children with opposing ideas is not necessarily a bad thing, but those ideas need to at least have a basis in reality. I do not want to see students questioning evolution in a science classroom for the same reason that I would hate to see a presentation of the stork theory to let the students "think critically" about how babies are made. Inserting the seemingly harmless phrase "all sides" into the state's science curriculum sends the message that students should doubt credibly tested ideas, a mindset in direct opposition to the foundation that science exists upon.

"Triggered" Fear

2009-04-02T13:19:00.060-05:00

In an effort to make some students feel safer on their campuses, Texas legislators have proposed a controversial bill. House Bill 1893 would allow anyone at least 21 years of age who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun the right to bring it on any Texas college campus. A recent editorial in the Austin American Statesmen attempts to use fear mongering as a means of convincing the reader why this bill is a bad idea.

Most of the editorial involves the author resorting to ignorant misjudgments of those who want to exercise their right to carry a concealed weapon as a form of protection. The author places those who've obtained permits in the same group as those who've previously used guns on innocent people. This brings about the unfair presumption that these same people will turn a drunken exchange of words at a fraternity party or an angry email to a professor over a bad grade into homicide cases. The obvious flaw with that argument is that the people who have met the requirements to obtain concealed handgun permits and the people who've spent a few rounds of ammunition on college campuses are not the same people.

In reality, "gun free zones" have no bearing on people who plan to use their weapons with bad intentions. Case in point: Virginia Tech is a "gun-free" campus. People who have an intent to kill will find the means to do so, regardless of the kinds of laws currently in place. Restrictions only leave the law-abiding citizens who merely want to protect their life and property vulnerable.

It's a cliche line: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." But it's something that the author of this editorial fails to grasp. Instead of offering any legitimate support for their stance, the author puts too much of a paranoid focus on the instrument of a crime rather than take a rational look at the people actually committing it. We've all seen the fear-based approaches toward issues before. The points will resonate loudly with those who already share the same stance, but the rest of us will see right through it.

A tan a day needs a doctor's "okay"?

2009-03-23T15:42:00.050-05:00

Current tanning salon restrictions require those under 18 to have parental consent, under 16 to have a parent present, and under 13 to have consulted a physician. Bill author Burt Solomons wants to expand those restrictions to include everyone under the age of 18. A recent editorial in the Austin American Statesmen supports this bill, mainly arguing that there is "no medical need for teens under 18 to tan" and that "the potential for long-range health problems is real."

It doesn't logically follow that just because tanning is not considered a "medical need", it warrants this extent of regulation. Tanning is a recreational activity, and it is no secret that some of the recreational things that our culture participates in have their fair share of risks. Many adults are well aware of the risks of associated with using tanning beds, including the increased chance of developing skin cancer, and still choose to tan anyway.

It's fair to comment that the Legislature should be more concerned with the "welfare of the state's teenagers". However, I disagree with such a comment in the sense that it only applies to tanning. The author lacks consistency when it comes to putting the same risk-based argument to practice with similar issues. With childhood obesity rising at an alarming rate, why doesn't anyone have to consult a dietitian before buying that tasty combo at McDonald's? By starting off the article with a comparison of the number of all tanning salons in Austin (58) with the number of only one fast food chain, McDonald's (32), the reader is mistakenly led to believe that the cardiovascular risks of eating fast food are of less concern. The author can feel free to focus on the risks of one thing while ignoring that of others in order to show a necessity for restrictions that are already reasonably covered under current Texas legislation.

Texas' abstinence-only approach to sex-ed receives a failing grade

2009-03-05T23:39:00.007-06:00

For the past 15 years, teens attending public high schools in Texas have been given a fear-based approach to sex in an attempt to encourage abstinent behavior. A recent Austin American Statesman article, "Learning about sex the Texas way" points out some alarming statistics that seem to be the result of this approach. Of the 50 states, Texas currently spends the most taxpayer money on its abstinence-based sex education program. It is also home to one of the highest teen birth rates in America. The article goes on to highlight a study done by two Texas State University professors who found that many high schools were not giving proper information about the health benefits of birth control and condom use.

So what is suggested to be done about the $18 million spent on Kirk Cameron videos and misleading information? Rick Perry may say he's "comfortable" with the abstinence approach "until heterosexual marriage", but it seems many teens are not. In recognition of such, some Texas lawmakers are proposing an expansion to the current program that would include factual medical information about contraception and STI's to help inform teens about the dangers of premarital sex.