A Defense of Immigration

      
 In response to Francisco Gomez' "Crisis Down South!"
            I agree with your views on immigration. Immigrants tend to complement the native workforce, rather than compete with it. Legalization of immigration would actually help create new job opportunities for Americans. Increased legal and illegal immigration in the past fifteen years has not increased the number of people living in poverty in the United States. In fact, the number of people living in poverty
decreased during this period as U.S. economic growth expanded, and native-born Americans
attained higher levels of education and new job skills. Legalization combined with a new
worker program would likely continue this trend, creating additional middle-class job opportunities for native-born workers.The notion that immigrants are taking Americans' jobs is generally absurd. With Mexican aliens so eager to work, they tend to take jobs not needing much prior education. Native citizens of the U.S. often times have more thorough education, and will therefore seek jobs that require this higher education.

In Response to: 'I Side With Blue'

                      In a commentary recently posted by Francisco Gomez, he discusses the issue of gay marriage. He asks, "What's the difference between segregating based on color and segregating based on sexual orientation?". Since many believe this country to be a 'Nation under God', there is a difference in segregation and sexual orientation. As we all know, homophobic Christians just LOVE to refer to the Bible in their arguments against gay marriage. While nothing is explicitly stated about segregation, there are many passages that mention homosexuals, for instance “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” —1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV) Upon taking a closer look at this quote, we see that nearly all of the things that God forbids is no longer in wide-spread practice. It is now very common for 'fornicators' to have pre-marital sex on a regular basis. This is portrayed in almost every movie on the shelves at Blockbuster. In Biblical terms, idolatry is the worship of nature, or the worship of an ancestor or personal hero, which has also become very common. Nearly every person covets for what another has, and this is the reason we strive to be better. And are all of the 6th street frequenters doomed to eternal damnation? These customs may have held true at some point, but it is very obvious that we are a prone to moral change as a human race. Not many people give a single thought when they see inter-racial couples, when in fact this, too, is scrutinized and forbidden by God's word. "You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,  for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly." (Deuteronomy 7:3-4) If this is now so largely accepted, same-sex marriage should be as well. 

Marriage Equality in Texas

             Views on same-sex marriage have changed significantly in the past decade. This is true not just for America as a whole, but also for the largely republican state of Texas. The University of Texas at Austin released findings of the most recent study conducted concerning Texans' views on same-sex marriage. This survey shows that 36% of Texans now believe that same-sex couples should have equal rights as those traditional domestic couples. Additionally, 33% believe that gays and lesbians should have the right to civil unions, but not to marriage. Together, these numbers contrast the 27% who oppose both marriages and civil unions by a large percent. Despite this change in beliefs, Texas is still long behind in creating equality amongst couples. Currently in Texas, certain sexual acts between persons of the same sex is a criminal offense considered as a Class C misdemeanor, and punishable by an up to $500 fine. This law was deemed unconstitutional in Lawrence V. Texas case, but has yet to be repealed from the Texas Penal Code by legislative action. Additionally, Texas law requires that the educational programs intended for persons younger than 18 years of age concerning HIV/AIDS state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense. This law was also struck down by Lawrence V. Texas, but is nonetheless, still an enforceable law.  

                  Although as a state we are doing little to accompany change, on a more local level we are making greater strides in securing equality. Austin became the first city in the deeply conservative state of Texas to endorse same-sex marriages. A resolution issued by the Austin City Council states in no uncertain terms that no longer will we abide to discriminatory practices that deny the powerful and important affirmation of love and commitment that is civil marriage.  "BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN," the resolution concludes. “[We] support marriage equality in the State of Texas.” Though Austin is a liberal stronghold that’s unique among Texas cities, even in the dark red areas of the map there have been signs of changing attitudes in the lone star state. Although voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2005 banning same sex marriage, an openly gay man nearly won a race for Dallas mayor just two years later, and his sexual orientation didn’t even come up as a campaign issue. Voters in Houston also didn't seem to think it was an issue in 2009 when they elected their first openly lesbian mayor. Additionally, five Texas mayors have signed a marriage equality petition created by the group 'Freedom to Marry'. Slowly, but surely, gays and lesbians are gaining the freedoms they've been denied for so long. 

Health or Shame?

                         Rachel Farris recently posted a commentary in her blog 'Mean Rachel' entitled The Texas Shame Act. In this article, she responds to the recent enforcement of a law popularly called the Texas sonogram law. This controversial law requires physicians to provide a sonogram before performing an abortion. A woman seeking an abortion can choose whether to view the sonogram images and whether to hear the fetal heartbeat. She also is required to hear the medical explanation of the sonogram at least 24 hours before the procedure. Her commentary is most likely written towards other Democrats, and women who disagree with the sonogram law. For a law that has the potential to affect such a wide audience (any woman who MAY become pregnant at some point), one needs little more credibility than being a woman to have a strongly opinionated voice on this matter. Farris argues that this law serves no medical purpose, and that the only purpose it serves is to shame and humiliate women who have made a very difficult decision to have an abortion. She additionally comments on the recent 'Doonesbury' comic strip that was recently published in response to the Texas sonogram law. She disagrees with the decision of numerous newspapers to either display the comic strip in the Opinions section, or to exclude the strip all together. Farris states that if the law is "truly a plight to keep women safe, then why can't I read about it while I gulp down OJ and Cheerios?" This is great use of logic on her part; it is clear that women's health is indeed NOT the aim of this law. She deploys further evidence of the unjustifiable nature of the removal of the comic strip by comparing it to another popular comic strip 'Ziggy'. This strip also takes aim merely at women's health, but yet somehow escapes ridicule and controversy. Could this be because the Texas sonogram law is in fact not aimed at women's health whatsoever? Farris' point exactly. 

Technology Integrated in Education

                As expected for many years now, education is making a giant shift. The days of cracking open a textbook are coming to an end sooner than we know it. The introduction of iPads and school-issued laptops in K-12 education was discussed  in the Austin American Statesman in an article titled "Electronic instructions calls for careful legislative study". According to this article, "in January, ninth-graders in both Round Rock high schools will be issued laptop computers. In Eanes, the high school students just received iPads bought with bond money. One class of third-graders at Leander’s River Ridge Elementary is now using iPads in replace of textbooks." There are many reasons for this technological shift. The typical view among educators is that technology can be used effectively to improve instruction by providing instructional variety, by helping to make abstract concepts concrete with the use of new programs, and by stimulating interest among students. Additionally, electronic texts are easier to update, and since today’s students grow up consuming information on computers and hand-held electronic devices, the educational information will be better, and more easily received. However, somebody is going to have to fund all of this new technology. Besides the devices themselves and the costs associated with rewiring buildings to meet increased demand for Internet connections, teachers have to be trained in using electronic learning effectively. School districts have used a variety of techniques including parent donations, using bond money, and even dipping into savings. In the next session, legislators should expect school districts to seek additional state help to fund the transition from hard-copy textbooks to electronic learning devices. Texas school finance will be front and center when the civil trial over the current law opens in Austin this month. Taking a look at the implications of the transition toward electronic learning would be a wise investment of time when the session opens in January.

Perry to Lock in College Fees

Friday evening at the Texas Tribune Festival, a three-day public policy forum in Austin, Gov. Rick Perry announced an expected expansion of his earlier push against escalating higher-education prices. In an effort to give incoming students a little more piece of mind, Rick Perry endorsed a four-year tuition "freeze" at state colleges and universities. This would affect well over 1 million students currently attending Texas' public colleges and universities, and more than 51,000 students attending the University of Texas at Austin. If this was enacted into law, freshman students' tuition will be locked into place for the duration of 4 years, including exemption from any tuition increases. In the past, Perry has pushed back against escalating tuition rates in Texas. University of Texas regents earlier froze tuition for two years under pressure from the governor. One of the positive aspects of it is that it could be an incentive for students to finish their degree in four years, because the price would be frozen.



http://www.statesman.com/news/local/perry-outlines-plan-to-lock-in-college-fees-2464454.html