Are Schools Getting Closer to Achieving "Just" Punishment With Their Students?

The Zero Tolerance Punishment rule is in a way a good thing but at times it is not that fair. Although students get beat up or picked on and refuse to defend themselves they will still be punished as much as the one who started the fight. I totally believe that only the kid that started it should be punished since the other acted out of self defense. Yet, the problem is that how are people going to know exactly how the fight happened. Although my colleague, John, states that witnesses can help to find the truth, how are the officials going to know whether the witnesses are not favoring one kid over the other and lying about what really happened. So, what I am trying to say is that whether or not you do the Zero Tolerance rule some will end up with worse or less serious of a punishment than they really deserve. I believe that there is no way that you can make fights something more "just" unless an official witnessed it. I think a good way to help them be fair when problems like these happen, is to set up better security at schools, i.e. security cameras, or security people. This way schools wont have to rely on the students or teachers as witnesses, rather a trained security guard or the actual video footage. So, John, I completely agree with you on the passing of the bill, but i think schools will have to do more research than just talk to both sides of the fight because not all witnesses tell the truth.

Is The Texas Legislature Trying to Raise Texas' Youth?

In an article that i read lawmakers were been accused of targeting teens in many of the recent bills, for example, they want to prohibit any driver under 18 from texting or talking on a phone while driving, make driver education classes more intense, prohibit anyone younger than 16½   from using a tanning bed, if you are 16½ - 18 years old you need a parent to sign a consent form. They also proposed to raise the legal age to buy cigarettes from 18 to 19, and for anyone under 18 participating in rodeo activities they are required to wear a helmet during the activities. The current curfew for 16 year olds when driving, is to be off the streets before 12, but now they are proposing to change the curfew to 10 p.m. for 16 and 17 year olds. 

Honestly, i think the Legislature is spending way to much time on things that really are none of their business. They are trying to control everything and this is supposed to be the country that promises freedom and that there is a separation of society and state. Whether a kid wants to go to a tanning salon and is allowed to go by their parents then they should be allowed to go without being questioned and asked for parents to sign consent forms. Although tanning can lead to health problems, it is up to the kids to realize it for themselves and not have the government ban things from them. It is almost as if they are not letting teens mature and know how to make decisions by themselves. There will always be danger everywhere and it is not the government's job to raise kids the right way, rather the parents. I don’t think government should be able to have so much power over the rules that parents are supposed to set for their own children.

I come from Mexico and my youth was incredible, we were free to roam the streets, play and do whatever we want. This was how i learned to think for myself and when to back down from situations. Now, i know Mexico is not the best country right now, but to my knowledge, Europe, and many other countries give more freedom to their youth and they are perfectly well off. When a child is banned from doing something or obligated to follow a certain procedure when doing things is completely up to the parents not the government. Not only that, but the Legislature has far more important things to do than worry about raising the smoking age, raising the driving curfew of minors, tanning rules, or drivers education classes. There are far more important things for them to be discussing rather than coming up with pointless laws that are depriving the youth of doing whatever they are allowed to do by there parents or guardians.

Foreclosures Should Be Avoided

Foreclosures are a thing that affects a family in an intense way. Yet, it also tends to affect most of the people around them. When someone realizes that someone well paid goes into foreclosure, and you are a well paid person as well, than it puts you in panic mode thinking that you might be next in line. And this is why the economy becomes bad because its kind of like a domino affect, one person does bad then others begin to hold back on spending and from their the idea of an economic crisis grows and everyone's spending cuts down. Affecting one company than the other, and the other. So yes i completely agree with you the state should increase their foreclosure notice period to 45 days because it will give the owners a longer period to try and earn up the money to pay for their homes and become more organized with their spending habits.

You can find this article here.

The Research Behind Child Births

According to the Austin American Statesman the house has tentatively approved a bill that would require the state to tell parents about the practice of storing blood that is taken from their newborns. It would let the parents refuse to do so but still allow the state to screen for birth defects and other disorders. Originally the bill stated that the parents would be given disclosure forms and they would have been allowed to ask the state to get rid of the samples after 60 days. But Rep. Jodie Laubenberg amended the house bill 1672 saying that it did not do enough to guard the rights of the parents and children.

So Laubenberg agreed to compromise that doctors, nurses, and others would be forced to disclose the storage policy and tell them that blood samples might be used for research. If parents did not want their children's blood to be used for research they would have to sign an opt-out form from the hospital or at home and then send it to the state. Under a stricter amendment that Laubenberg withdrew hospital and all others will have to have written consent to store the blood.

This bill is a great addition to our government. Parents have a right to know what their children's blood will be used for and whether or not they want their child to take part in the research. Like Dawn Richardson of Austin said "we have to absolutely safeguard how it is used...It may be used for things not in our children's best interest." Which is completely true although it may seem like a dumb bill to pass and many may say that we need the research but truly what is the research all about? We have no idea what the state is testing for and no parent would want to find out that the research was for DNA profiling or employment and insurance discrimination. 

All in all this is a great way to clarify what many parents have been wondering. It lets them choose whether or not they want to give their child's blood for a research that they might have not approved with at all. This is something that should have been done since the beginning, since every being reserves the right to know what goes on behind closed doors, especially if they, or their family member, are involved in it.

Was President Obama's Take Over the Auto Industry a Suspicious Move?

Robbie Cooper is the author of the "UrbanGrounds" forum and in his post, from March 30th, 2009, he states that Obama's take over the auto industry was a bit hostile. He says that it is a clear example of socialism, since the Government's take over the GM company is "the state ownership of the means of production." President Obama has fired the CEOs of the company and is making all tax payers pay for the warranties of all GM vehicles. Cooper makes it clear that although he does not own a GM vehicle he should not have to pay for the warranties. I totally agree with Robbie that we should not have to pay for warranties of vehicles some of us do not own. Yet, I do think he is exaggerating about President Obama being a socialist. It is clear that the past attempts to save the auto industry have not helped at all. So when the country is in such bad shape the President will go to extremes to help the situation get better. As far as President Obama firing the CEOs of the company I believe that is a step that definitely had to be taken. The CEOs were doing things completely wrong and lavishing in luxurious things when really they did not even have the money for those types of expenses. The CEOs needed to be fired because when you have people like in charge of a huge company it will be more difficult for things to get better, or remain well. I think Robbie is exaggerating on the whole socialist topic, and it is clear that his intended audience is for strong conservative republicans. I really think he should read more over the whole auto industry topic and really take in all the details of it, not just the ones that could make President Obama's actions seem suspicious.  This paper is mainly based on his views and opinions of the President, if he had actual facts and events that proved Obama could possibly be a socialist I would maybe then think more highly of this author's credibility. 

The problem with Sexual Education in Texas

"Texas, it's time to get real. It's time to talk to our teens about abstinence and protected sex." Says the author of the editorial in the February 27th edition of the Dallas morning News. He is referring to the topic that an abstinence only health curriculum is failing the youth in Texas. he states that Texas ranks among the top five states for teen pregnancies. According to a new study 96 percent of Texas school districts teach and abstinence only health curriculum or just avoid the topic. Although Texas law doesn't prevent discussing safe sex in schools, teachers are still scared to get fired if they were to talk beyond abstinence. So teachers choose to stay away from sexual education. He makes it known that he does believe that abstinence is a good message, but teens must also be told the dangers of having intercourse without protection. It is also clear that he is directing this message to adults, school faculty, and maybe even the Texas Board of Education. I completely agree with the author on his view of sexual eduction. Although abstinence is a great message to teach young people, it is not realistic, and according to the evidence the author has shown in his editorial teens are no taking the advice into consideration. It would be wiser for the Board of Education to make safe sex and abstinence both very important topics when it comes to sexual education in schools. Not only does it promote a less risk for pregnancy but also it helps the fight against sexually transmitted diseases. Although this would not stop all teen pregnancies it would definitely bring down the number of teen pregnancies in the state of Texas. 

The Government Wants Texas to Require HIV Screenings

Texas ranks fourth place in the country for known cases of HIV/Aids, meaning there are 62,700 people infected with this disease in this state. This article tells us that more than two years ago the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and now two lawmakers are trying to make Texas the first state to require their doctors to offer the test to their patients. This would mean that the doctors would offer the HIV test to patients from the ages 13-64 and the patients could choose to not take it. Although, the idea is said to face opposition by the patients rights advocates, it still seems like a smart idea to reduce the number of infected people. This is a great article and a good read, so far senator Rodney Ellis wants to promote this proposition and Dr. Ed Sherwood, from the Travis County infectious disease physician, says this would help get rid of people who assume they are not infected when really they are.