Mr. Ryan is definitely one of the most perceptive bloggers I have met. I do think the swine flu is blown out of proportion. This is all because how the government made of the swine flu. All they did was put tremendous fear into commoners like us, people that don't read or have any facts about the swine flu are even more terrified.
When Ryan writes, "I believe that the actions taken by many different governing bodies in the state of Texas is only playing to the crowd and essentially making the situation worse." He hit right on the spot. I feel that the government uses the swine flu as a scapegoat for the economic troubles we have. Do people with higher education not agree with me? Maybe I am making it bigger than it is; I could be making the same mistake they are right now by doing this. Nonetheless, Ryan is right. I do wish Ryan elaborated on why he thinks closing multiple schools is outrageous. What is Mr. Ryan's level on comprehending what is outrageous?
Even though Mr. Ryan enforces his statements with evidence, but I am still a little uncertain when he states, "So far there has only been one confirmed death in Texas, also the only one in the entire United States." Because after listening to the radio or reading the news, a lot of which they confirm a lot more death results compared to one. One is a REALLY small number, if not the smallest. This is only one of the very few noticing encounters with this article; otherwise I only had to read it once to understand where Ryan was coming from. His flow and word choice helped me understand his article even more.
Your opinion on how government is reinforcing people's fear is very understandable. I believe the government runs with a lot of flaws, and this is definitely one of them. The way Mr. Ryan talk about the swine flu, makes me feel ever better about it due to his positive reinforcement.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Somalia Pirates?
I'm surprised we haven't taken care of the problem dealing with the Somalia pirates. I could see that the U.S. has their hands full with other situations involving a new presidency, troops still in Iraq, and the economic problems in the country. We always butt our noses in everything dealing from Vietnam in the past to Iraq in the present, so why not the Somalia pirates?
I don't mind the United States being late for a week, or maybe even two weeks at the most! This particular problem has been lingering for a whole month. I might have not known about America's attempts to stop this, but the efforts seem a little minuscule in my eyes due to the lengthiness of this problem dragging out. I understand that my view on this problem is quite harsh on the government, but it is a problem that affects everyone. Not only doesthis problem disturbs other countries' trades, but ours too.
I discreetly remember Mr. Seago's wisecracks on how United States put their nose in other people's business and how it is suppose to be not. Even though I agree with Mr. Seago's HILARIOUS comments on United State's habits, but I will have to agree. People around the world already label us nosey, and some others label us as a world police, so why not keep that title? It doesn't seem to be wrong, just maybe a little expensive on our part to poke into every world matter.
So why is the U.S. taking so long? Obviously I don't know, so that's why I'm asking. If the government is taking so long on this matter, who knows what they could take forever in even though it could affect us negatively. Before you know it, this small pirate problem could arise to something so huge that we might not be able to handle it. I believe something needs to be done before it gets out of hand.
I don't mind the United States being late for a week, or maybe even two weeks at the most! This particular problem has been lingering for a whole month. I might have not known about America's attempts to stop this, but the efforts seem a little minuscule in my eyes due to the lengthiness of this problem dragging out. I understand that my view on this problem is quite harsh on the government, but it is a problem that affects everyone. Not only doesthis problem disturbs other countries' trades, but ours too.
I discreetly remember Mr. Seago's wisecracks on how United States put their nose in other people's business and how it is suppose to be not. Even though I agree with Mr. Seago's HILARIOUS comments on United State's habits, but I will have to agree. People around the world already label us nosey, and some others label us as a world police, so why not keep that title? It doesn't seem to be wrong, just maybe a little expensive on our part to poke into every world matter.
So why is the U.S. taking so long? Obviously I don't know, so that's why I'm asking. If the government is taking so long on this matter, who knows what they could take forever in even though it could affect us negatively. Before you know it, this small pirate problem could arise to something so huge that we might not be able to handle it. I believe something needs to be done before it gets out of hand.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Commentary on "Texas + Education = Failure"
I agree with Myles Kratzer's position in his blog post "Texas + Education = Failure" which states Mr. Kratzer's view on the Texas's education dealing with evolution. He points out quite a few valid statements dealing with education that involves with evolution and god.
When Kratzer states, "I think Texas is walking a thin line by doing this." I couldn't agree more. I feel that the way people respond with education conflicting with religion is ridiculous. Does it really make you that much more blind? This is one of the few of many factors that make not just Texas lag in education, but the US. Mr. Kratzer feels uncomfortable for his son not to be taught evolution, I feel as if he should elaborated on why he feels more comfortable for his son to be taught evolution. What type of education is approvable in Mr. Kratzer's eyes?
I don't agree with Mr. Kratzer when he says "Instead of focusing on personal beliefs, our representatives need to be voting based on the majority beliefs of their constituents." Because how does he know what the majority of the constituents believe? Even though I know where Mr. Kratzer is getting at, I believe the wording is just misleading. I couldn't understand some parts of the article and had to read through a couple of times, but nothing too bad. There is a part that does pull my attention when he writes "How will this non-standardized method of teaching fair compared to that of the nations other students?" which I absolutely agree.
Your idea about how education should be teaching evolution is fairly reasonable. I believe the whole US education system is very flawed compared to other nations. The step that Mr. Kratzer implies to take about teaching evolution, is a step to better our education instead of handicapping it.
When Kratzer states, "I think Texas is walking a thin line by doing this." I couldn't agree more. I feel that the way people respond with education conflicting with religion is ridiculous. Does it really make you that much more blind? This is one of the few of many factors that make not just Texas lag in education, but the US. Mr. Kratzer feels uncomfortable for his son not to be taught evolution, I feel as if he should elaborated on why he feels more comfortable for his son to be taught evolution. What type of education is approvable in Mr. Kratzer's eyes?
I don't agree with Mr. Kratzer when he says "Instead of focusing on personal beliefs, our representatives need to be voting based on the majority beliefs of their constituents." Because how does he know what the majority of the constituents believe? Even though I know where Mr. Kratzer is getting at, I believe the wording is just misleading. I couldn't understand some parts of the article and had to read through a couple of times, but nothing too bad. There is a part that does pull my attention when he writes "How will this non-standardized method of teaching fair compared to that of the nations other students?" which I absolutely agree.
Your idea about how education should be teaching evolution is fairly reasonable. I believe the whole US education system is very flawed compared to other nations. The step that Mr. Kratzer implies to take about teaching evolution, is a step to better our education instead of handicapping it.
Guns going to College?
After the mourning of the Virginia Tech shooting two years ago, many people became suspiciously cautious of college students at Universities. It has always been thought that Universities have been an institution of knowledge. A place where students of all ethnic backgrounds who were capable of being there. People that wanted to further their education could merge under one facility and pursue the task of doing so.
Now that shootings at universities have been happening more in these past years, faith in the facility’s security has dwindled to the point where students want to take initiative into their own hands. Students basically want the push for carrying concealed firearms. I don’t believe the concept of carrying concealed firearms to campus is justifying. It is quite ridiculous if you ask me.
The legislation has passed in Utah and one other state. The remaining has either rejected or is still pending the legislation. Legislatures conclude by asserting that firearms would only be obtained by the mentally capable. I wonder, where is the line between that of who is capable or not. Some people who may seem or even are capable of carrying a gun may still pose a hazard to the student body. I feel as if that rational person may lose his thought process when caught up in the heat of an argument or dispute. This could result to a quick judgment to pull out a firearm and use it. Have you ever been so furious at another person, you said or did something you regretted later? I believe a common dispute between people that would force them to act in such a way they may deeply regret. Some arguments, no matter what it may be, may make a person act before they think.
In conclusion I feel that enabling a students with such ease to access firearms would result in more shootings due to the fact that people are not always rational at all times and access to a gun could be the bridge between animosity and violence.
Now that shootings at universities have been happening more in these past years, faith in the facility’s security has dwindled to the point where students want to take initiative into their own hands. Students basically want the push for carrying concealed firearms. I don’t believe the concept of carrying concealed firearms to campus is justifying. It is quite ridiculous if you ask me.
The legislation has passed in Utah and one other state. The remaining has either rejected or is still pending the legislation. Legislatures conclude by asserting that firearms would only be obtained by the mentally capable. I wonder, where is the line between that of who is capable or not. Some people who may seem or even are capable of carrying a gun may still pose a hazard to the student body. I feel as if that rational person may lose his thought process when caught up in the heat of an argument or dispute. This could result to a quick judgment to pull out a firearm and use it. Have you ever been so furious at another person, you said or did something you regretted later? I believe a common dispute between people that would force them to act in such a way they may deeply regret. Some arguments, no matter what it may be, may make a person act before they think.
In conclusion I feel that enabling a students with such ease to access firearms would result in more shootings due to the fact that people are not always rational at all times and access to a gun could be the bridge between animosity and violence.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Public Citizen Sues DHS Over Fence
An editorial about Department of Homeland Security violating a law posted on March 12th, 2009 at 8:42 pm by Melissa Del Bosque. A local writer that got me to realize I don't take care of the housing so I couldn't relate too well. I do understand what she is talking about and what frustrates her.
In this commentary, the author names another person that took action first. I personally see the audience being my parents generation, looking as they take care of the housing and property lines of the house. Doesn't look like it is aiming at a certain political ideology crowd, just the general public.
As I said earlier, I'm not too familiar with the process for property lines and such, but I understand her arguement. Department of Homeland Security should have documents supporting what and why they are doing it. Freedom of Information Act supports a public citizen just wanting information on what is happening, nothing serious unless they have something to hide. Not only are they breaking a law, but it makes people more suspicious to why they won't give the information more clearly compared to heavily redacting it. Bosque believes it is unfair "that the federal government can seize a person’s home and property to build an eighteen-foot fence, but U.S. citizens are not allowed to see DHS’ decision-making process" (TexasObserver). The argument does make a lot of sense and everyone should take a stand like Bosque and Gilman.
I think the author puts up quite a fight, but this problem doesn't necessarily require a debate. It is just plain wrong for DHS to do what they're doing without informing the public properly. As you can tell, I agree with the author to my fullest and believe the government to do something. If documents are requested from a public citizen, it shouldn't have to take a year and heavily edited: "After a year, she’s only received a small portion of the documents she requested and they have been heavily redacted" (TexasObserver). If we were to do what Bosque and Gilman are doing, we could hope for the government to stop putting the blind eye on it and enforce the law. Even though I may seem to be too hyped up over this, but this problem is ridiculously unfair period. Since I am strongly for the author, I don't see anything in her post that I don't agree with at all. All in all, if everyone pushes for the information, the law will make them provide it. For Bosque's and Gilman's sake.
In this commentary, the author names another person that took action first. I personally see the audience being my parents generation, looking as they take care of the housing and property lines of the house. Doesn't look like it is aiming at a certain political ideology crowd, just the general public.
As I said earlier, I'm not too familiar with the process for property lines and such, but I understand her arguement. Department of Homeland Security should have documents supporting what and why they are doing it. Freedom of Information Act supports a public citizen just wanting information on what is happening, nothing serious unless they have something to hide. Not only are they breaking a law, but it makes people more suspicious to why they won't give the information more clearly compared to heavily redacting it. Bosque believes it is unfair "that the federal government can seize a person’s home and property to build an eighteen-foot fence, but U.S. citizens are not allowed to see DHS’ decision-making process" (TexasObserver). The argument does make a lot of sense and everyone should take a stand like Bosque and Gilman.
I think the author puts up quite a fight, but this problem doesn't necessarily require a debate. It is just plain wrong for DHS to do what they're doing without informing the public properly. As you can tell, I agree with the author to my fullest and believe the government to do something. If documents are requested from a public citizen, it shouldn't have to take a year and heavily edited: "After a year, she’s only received a small portion of the documents she requested and they have been heavily redacted" (TexasObserver). If we were to do what Bosque and Gilman are doing, we could hope for the government to stop putting the blind eye on it and enforce the law. Even though I may seem to be too hyped up over this, but this problem is ridiculously unfair period. Since I am strongly for the author, I don't see anything in her post that I don't agree with at all. All in all, if everyone pushes for the information, the law will make them provide it. For Bosque's and Gilman's sake.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Why Texas is flunking sex ed
A commentary about sex ed published on Wednesday, March 04, 2009 by Nancy Daley, a licensed psychologist and a adjunct assistant professor at UT's College of Education. A local contributor's opinions that got me thinking about Texas's teenager birth rates and general knowledge of young adults in our community.
In this editorial, the author addresses the sex education flaws of Texas. I personally believe the audience to be around my age, but looking at the editorial at a different angle it seems to appeal to everyone else in Texas. Let it be conservative or liberal, mostly just to inform the general public.
I understand what the author's argument is about. State government shouldn't have made it an official policy for schools to employ an abstinence-based approach or run the risk of losing federal funding. The author claims that sexual education should be properly done at home since the schools are not necessarily supporting. She believes this could save all these young people from disease, unwanted pregnancy, or other sex-related traumas. The argument does make a lot of sense and it could change quite a few numbers.
I think the author puts up a pretty debatable argument. I agree with many of her viewpoints, especially when she stated immaturity and fear plays a pretty big role in why sex education is not gone over with the parents: "I believe two factors are at work: immaturity and fear" (statesman). Even the thought of role playing with peers may seem a little odd, but it helps. This argument ties into drugs and alcohol a bit because it is also an adult decision problem dealt with young adults. Parents could tell them only the consequences about having sex and to never do it, or inform them both the positives and negatives evenly about these actions. There is one paragraph I don't agree with the author. It is when she states "By taking the trouble to learn about human sexuality and how to teach children about it, parents convey that caring". Either I interpreted that part of the editorial wrong, but I don't like the way she puts so much responsibility and blame on the parents though. Maybe that is just my opinion. In the end, basically inform the children about sex and talk to them as if they are adults, then it will create better results in the long run.
In this editorial, the author addresses the sex education flaws of Texas. I personally believe the audience to be around my age, but looking at the editorial at a different angle it seems to appeal to everyone else in Texas. Let it be conservative or liberal, mostly just to inform the general public.
I understand what the author's argument is about. State government shouldn't have made it an official policy for schools to employ an abstinence-based approach or run the risk of losing federal funding. The author claims that sexual education should be properly done at home since the schools are not necessarily supporting. She believes this could save all these young people from disease, unwanted pregnancy, or other sex-related traumas. The argument does make a lot of sense and it could change quite a few numbers.
I think the author puts up a pretty debatable argument. I agree with many of her viewpoints, especially when she stated immaturity and fear plays a pretty big role in why sex education is not gone over with the parents: "I believe two factors are at work: immaturity and fear" (statesman). Even the thought of role playing with peers may seem a little odd, but it helps. This argument ties into drugs and alcohol a bit because it is also an adult decision problem dealt with young adults. Parents could tell them only the consequences about having sex and to never do it, or inform them both the positives and negatives evenly about these actions. There is one paragraph I don't agree with the author. It is when she states "By taking the trouble to learn about human sexuality and how to teach children about it, parents convey that caring". Either I interpreted that part of the editorial wrong, but I don't like the way she puts so much responsibility and blame on the parents though. Maybe that is just my opinion. In the end, basically inform the children about sex and talk to them as if they are adults, then it will create better results in the long run.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Westwood High School Student Tasered
I read in the Austin American Statesman that A Westwood High School student was arrested Tuesday after being Tasered when he charged at the school's principal, Williamson County officials said. This article obviously easily caught my eye due to my curosity about a student being tasered. Now exactly what did this student do to get tasered and arrested in the first place? Well it all starts with an arguement.
A student named Sherman Merritt, 18, got into an argument with his teacher about 10:45 a.m., the teacher then told Merritt to go to the principal's office. The Student got into an argument with the principal and results to Merritt leaving campus. Deputy Deanna Lugo, the school's resource officer, and the principal went to look for Merritt. They found him near the intersection of Missel Thrush Drive and Millwright Parkway, where Merritt elbowed Lugo in the face. Merritt then charged at the principal and Lugo Tasered the student. Merritt was charged with assault on a police officer.
Several questions pop up like, is it right? Or was it necessary? Or even what was he thinking? Some may argue, but I think it was necessary to stop the student from doing anything worse because it could have led to an even worse charge than the already assault on a police officer charge. Some people have bad days, I guess he really woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)