Classmate's Post Critique

The post We Aim for Injustice written by Susannah Hootman, I found to be a very well written summary of the problems with holding partisan elections. It became clear that the tone of concern was due to the importance of having judges who don't stand behind any particular party. This would allow for fair rulings in cases that incorporate individuals with opposing political views.

Key points on citizens, partisanship and judges were worded in a way that made their connections clear to understand. 
The notion that having judges who claim partisanship can create a biased justice system, was hard to argue against, especially when you are provided with logical explanations.

 "To have a judge openly admit their partiality towards those of their party does not assure one of the fairness of the trail."

Pointing out that people vote based on a political party, was an important matter to bring up because it shows the powers behind "A little "(R)" or "(D)" after a potential judge's name". I believe this was one of, if not, the most important issue that was brought up. 

A tone of frustration was reflected in the last sentence of the post, which explicitly stated the lack of responsibility that is shown by all the actors in partisan elections. 

However, I believe the paper could have benefited from examples of real life court case that showed a biased ruling. Besides it being an interesting fact to add it would have also given the thesis a stronger foundation.

Overall this was a great post! It had all the right elements; relevant content, organization, identifiable tone and good grammar. It fulfilled the job of being informative, and more.

"Bathroom Bill" with no bathroom

The Houston 2015 elections on November 3 put to rest the controversial mandate, H.E.R.O., also known as "Bathroom Bill".

Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (H.E.R.O.) was passed on May 2014 by the City Council but it didn't go into immediate effect due to rising public opposition.

The mandate protected characteristics beyond race, color, sex, national origin and religion from discrimination. All whom are already covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

"the City of Houston seeks to provide an environment that is free of 
any type of discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, 
familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, 
genetic information, gender identity, or pregnancy"

In addition, it would also allow people to use restroom or locker rooms that best fit their gender identity (despite the fact that this section of the ordinance was removed before being passed, it still remained the main focus of the animosity). 

Violation of the ordinance dictated a fine between $250-$500.
Religious institution and organizations were exempted from participation. 

Public figures like 2016 Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, voiced his disapproval on Facebook and encouraged others to petition against it. 

Petitioning required 17,269 valid signatures which were quickly obtained and validated by Secretary of State, Anna Russell. However, a second review of the signatures was made by the City's Attorney, David Feldman, claiming that it fell short 2,000 signatures. He found that some of the signatures were incorrectly notarized and others shared the same handwriting. 

Mayor Annise Parker, guided by Feldman's count stated that the petition didn't have enough valid signatures for a repeal referendum. 

In response, four plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the City of Houston, Parker and Russell arguing that Feldman had no place in the petition validation process.  

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and H.E.R.O. was put on the November ballot, where it was defeated. 

Classmate's Critique

I will admit, border security isn’t a topic I usually place special attention to. That being said, the post, Texas $800 Million Border Security Bill Inappropriate on the Texas Politics blog, I found myself nodding and agreeing along to its key points over the subject.

 

Providing Governor Gregg's approval of a $800 million bill from the start I believe was a good choice. Exposing the reader to large sums of capital shows to be effective in catching their attention. Also, adding the spending of useless gunboats by Rick Perry was a good illustration of the states misguided notion over efficient border security. Both details do well in supporting the claim of the piece.

"The problem with the security border is not about money but rather a problem of the security system."

Reviving the old school saying that history repeats itself and that one must learn from previous mistakes, proves to be useful in initiating a reasonable solution to the re-occurring border security problem. Most, if not all readers can easily connect to these notions, it also plays a part in linking  the writers recommendation over what should be done in order to advance the issue. Which is, that if Texas only kept an organized record of all their previous attempts and set up an official overseer over the data to advise on the matter, there would be more success seen and less spending done. 

Moreover, I didn't get the sense of priority I would have expected from such a controversial topic as this one. Choosing to use more precised words such as, "reckless" or "thoughtless" in the title would have fused better, I believe, with the whole post. Also, adding evidence of why the government keep. trying to solve this problem with the same tactics over and over again would have been interesting to know. For example answering questions like, "Who benefits from border construction or the consumption of weaponry? Who's really pulling the strings over the issue?". Another thing that the post would have benefited from is the explanation of why this issue is important to the reader. This could be achieved by including the percentage funding takes away from the states budget which is compensated from civilians. 

Overall the post was well organized, flowy and had a solid composition. There wasn't any confusion over identifying the problem and solution. In saying that, covering the questions I proposed in my fourth paragraph would give the post a stronger foundation to support its claim.

     

Texas gains a ranking of average

.

In an annual report card published by Education Week grading states on education, Texas received an overall C-. Similar reports by other agencies have left the state in embarrassment due to its low re-appearing ranking. The revelation didn't sit well with Texans who are commonly known for their extreme nationalism at a state level. The good news is that districts have now put an eminent amount of pressure on legislatures to fix the problem to increase public school funding. 

In 1993, focus was given to the funding system of  districts in Texas, the unequal distribution resulted in legislatures passing a bill known as the "Robin Hood Plan". The law granted the sharing of property taxes from wealthy districts to poorer districts in order to equalize the amount of money schools obtained. The arrangement prevailed, and for a time it seemed that Texas had abandoned its notion of individual self-reliance, and adopted the value of community. But in 2011 there was a $15 billion revenue shortfall in the state's budget that forced cuts to be made wherever possible. Due to education occupying the largest portion of the money, it suffered the greatest lose of $5 billion in funds. Since then the cut has remained, but recent headlines over Texas' low education quality, a demand for the return of the $5 billion has been made.

In addition, only a few years later (2005) the Texas Supreme Court ruled against the "Robin Hood System" claiming it was unconstitutional because it had grown into a broad state property tax. The reverting of the helping hand resulted in 1/3 of the funding provided by property taxes to be cut. An increase in business and cigarette taxes was made in order to compensate for the lost revenue. 

Texas' regressive tax system, means an individuals tax rate decreases as their income increases. Along with being one of 7 states without an income tax, which is in itself progressive, means that the state must find a different way to fund itself. A spike in sales and property taxes generates enough revenue to keep it proficiently running. 84% of the population who are middle class and below are the main contributors of the states budget. People in poverty which make up 17% of the population, lose overall the highest percentage of their income to taxes. They also have the least representation in government which explains why their districts have some of the worse school facilities and test scores.

Now, you may be asking yourself "what do taxes have to do with a student's school performance?". Well, it's no secret that poverty can substantially influence a persons academic turnout. More money in a school can produce new programs and better facilities. Working class parents who may not have either the time or education to help their children benefit the most from the rise of such programs. After school activities and tutoring can fill the gap of an absent parent and keep kids up to pace with the curriculum.

Moreover, only half of Texas' 4 year-olds attend pre-K which is alarming seeing as studies have shown that age 5 is a critical period for learning. Luckily the importance of pre-K attendance has been noted by the Senate who this year approved an additional $130 million into the program. 

Although, steps have been made towards the improvement of the states education system, the urgency of the issue has not been prioritized. Until Texas adopts a progressive tax system along with an income tax, the wage gap between the wealthy and poor will continue to grow. And with it, much of the population will continue to be under represented in political matters that they, as main contributors, are entitled to the most consideration. 

Blog 5

     Texas moves to kick Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid, written by Chuck Lindell, state capitol reporter and staff member of the American-Statesman, is an editorial that broadly describes the most recent clash between government and women health clinics. In a letter written by Stuart Bowen Jr., inspector general of the Texas health and human service commission, on Monday announced that Texas would no longer allow Planed Parenthood to be funded as a Medicaid provider. The reason being that new evidence had arisen against doctors of the organization, who on video seem to be associated with fetal tissue research. The heavy claim has left Planned Parenthood with the choice of either allowing its de-funding or to challenge the allegations. Although, at the moment no action has been made from the organization, a court case in the very near future can be predicted.
     At first the writing can appear leaning to one side of the debate, but for the most part shows no clear side. That is until you compare it to other articles covering the same story like, Texas Removes Planned Parenthood From Medicaid Program on nbcnews.com. In this article the readers are given straight forward information; removal of Planned Parenthood, video proof, Louisiana, quotes from both sides, questionable video conclusion. There is absolutely no inclination to any side, only minimal clear cut info that is easy to understand and quick to read. On the other hand, Lindell doesn't make any direct statements indicating the removal of Planned Parenthood. Instead an overlooked but notable portion of the editorial consist of the sections in which he highlights the only two choices left for Planned Parenthood to decide over, either do nothing or take legal action. In emphasizing these parts one can assume that the writer is leaning towards the recovery of Planned Parenthood. Even more important to understand is that even though the State has ordered for their(PP) removal, it does not mean the end for the organization. Government may be powerful but it obeys by the same law that we all do and anyone who feels that they've been wrongfully convicted of something can challenge the State in court. So when Stuart Bowen Jr. sent the removal letter to Planned Parenthood it was understood that it was only a small step in the unitary strategy by Republicans to cut costly health services off the payroll.

"Monday’s action came as Republicans across the nation have made it a priority to strip money from Planned Parenthood..." 

     In addition, the use of certain words "strip", "according" and "suggested" when talking about Bowen or Republicans, shows Lindell's negative opinion over them. Which leads me to believe that his intended audience includes: democrats, liberals, women and young adults.  

"Texas moves to kick Planned Parenthood out of  Medicaid" 

      The wording I believe is no coincidence, "moves" and "kick" are words that correlate with a game. The tennis matches between Government policy and Planned Parenthood have been covered throughout U.S history for the past 100 + years. The players: politicians and institutions change over time, even so they never fail to keep a spectator's eye balls glued to the ball, back and forth, back and forth. And of course things get tense and a clear winner at first may be hard to identify, but luckily the outcome is always the same. 100+years... not much has changed.

PPH:1  GOV:0

      At the end of the editorial, Lindell provides an array of quotes from elected officials from both sides of the debate. The use of their opinions over the matter is like providing special commentators to re account the match. This addition to the writing further proves the logic of a game. Like the sports fans in a real game we may feel that when our team wins, we win or when they lose, we lose. That is also the type of bond made between citizens and political parties. I believe that Lindell's claim is to understand the difference between right from wrong, regardless of your partisanship. Sometimes the right thing like providing affordable health care services for women can be get shadowed over abortions. Don't miss the sky over a few grey clouds.

Comment Critique

The Austin American-Statesmen, is the online news source chosen for this blog. More gun on campus will not make us safer by Editorial Board(the writers of this commentary are editors from the Austin American Statesmen), is a short article found on the sites OPINION tab. It's political and social context is directed to young adults especially those in higher education. Due to the rise in school shootings, the topic of gun control has become a popular debate.

In response to the massive record of school shootings in the U.S. many people have shown extreme concern over the fluidness that goes into obtaining a gun. The fact that many of the shooters were reported to have suffered from serious mental illnesses is repeatedly looked over. Recent studies have shown that a very large percentage of students in college suffer from depression and thoughts of suicide. The gravity of the situation has been noted by the president who stands with the people's concerns, but with congress in disagreement, nothing has been done in resolving the problem. The students, staff members, parents of students, and even the president have spoken, and they stand behind strict gun control. It's alarming that their voices aren't heard by the legislative branch even after indication that the attacks show no inclination of decelerating. 

In reference to the title it serves as a claim, More guns on campus will not make us safer. The choice of the word, us, indicates the directed audience is young and in college. In considering that mass shootings are becoming more and more frequent, it is appropriate for the writers to take the direction of educating students in the dangers of allowing guns on campus. 

The first focal point, is the numbers,  "142 school shootings and nearly 1,000 mass shootings"(Par. 3)  in the time span of three years. This allows for immediate emotional response from the readers, who may have been surprised to learn about such high numbers. In addition, in order to solidity their data the author(s) name their source, The Guardian's database.

The next thing was to identify the big names that support their claim. Opening with the Chief of Command aka. The President, UT Systems Chancellor William McRaven and moving on to more intimate supporters like school faculty members, students, and parents. In incorporating different levels of people who also share their same point of view broader connections can be made with a array of personalities.

The articles main source of evidence are the statistics, records and recent studies found about mass shootings. By showing that a big ratio of the shooters fit a certain profile and emphasizing that if guns weren't so attainable in the U.S., many of the tragedies could have been avoided. The closing statement urges individuals to take part in speaking out on gun laws and to not give into the notion that a gun for a gun in the hands of students will not subside the number of school assaults that occur.

XOXO x-ray


 

Worth Reading!

In looking through the many news resources online, I noticed that many had nothing to do with Texas government. Although, they didn't put a limit on articles involving presidential candidates for the 2016 election. However, I did come across an interesting article on TheShortHorn.com titled, Texas bill aims to raise assault awareness written by Dylan Bradley. It's a short article that summarizes the details on a Texas House Bill that covers dealing with sexual assault victims. I highly recommend reading this article because it highlights important sources that are useful if you or anyone you know is sexually assaulted. The article also gives a brief history of the bill's history and the evidence that stand behind it. I believe it is important for not only college students, but anyone who associates college in their life to understand the actions being made in part of the Texas government to put a stop to sexual assaults. In many assault cases the person getting assaulted doesn't understand what has happened, or the person doing the assaulting does't feel they've done anything wrong. With this new bill that has passes to open up more help centers near colleges, people can get informed and take quick action. Due to the very little bit of actual news I could find from ALL these "news" sources, it was a breath of fresh air to stumble across this particular article. In addition to it being informative, its clear and straight forward writing was fast to the point. Clear and simple is how news should be presented to the readers/watchers(TV), not covered with scandal and headlines that cause an extreme reaction. If you're looking to come across something useful and have 10 minutes to spare I'd highly suggest checking this article out!

-x-ray lady