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.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)