"Budget Cuts in Texas Education" reaction

My classmate, Caitlin,  made some excellent points in her discussion on the widespread and overt budget cuts occurring in the public education system in Texas in her blog  'Deep in the Heart of Texas'. I loved that she made several concrete suggestions of alternative methods our school system can save and budget money in order to keep the budget cuts from destroying several assets to our public school system. I think these suggestions, along with others should be seriously taken into consideration by our government as ways to save money without cutting entire departments.
I also think that some of our schools need to be examined to see how their money is truly being spent. The disparities between schools serving different socioeconomic groups are huge and unfair. Schools where booster clubs and parents are providing more than enough money should divert their government funding to underprivileged schools who's parent populations are not financially able to support their schools as well.
I thought her points on the negative affects this will have on future teachers were interesting as well. I'm not sure that there is evidence to support this deterring those who want to be teachers pursuing that career. I am personally pursuing a career in Special Education and while I have been appalled at the budget cuts and the low value our state is showing that it places on education, I have not felt that there was any pressure to seek out a different career due to these cuts.
These budget cuts are affecting each and every one of us, as we are all currently students and are undoubtedly connected with someone being served by the public education system in Texas. We must realize the negative impact these budget cuts are having and respond accordingly, like Caitlin, by providing our concrete ideas and opinions on how to redirect these budget cuts so that our students are afforded every possible opportunity.

http://caitlinhuber.blogspot.com/

The end of Death Row

In Texas, we have been  conditioned to think that some kind of action can warrant the organized, government supported and enabled execution of another human being. While the government is in place in order to protect her citizens, I have a hard time believing protection occurs through intentional death. By achieving 'justice' by punishing those who kill, it seems that the government would find a way to maintain her integrity while extending punishments. However, through the death penalty, it seems that she is simply crouching down to the criminal's level and committing the same crime she is claiming to exert a punishment on. While we can convict a citizen of a crime worth of capitol punishment based on the fact that he or she took another human's life, we stand behind the government as she continually takes life after life because it is 'justice'. While I understand the financial strain of keeping criminals alive in our prison system, I think there are other ways we can cut back on the mass amounts of spending that occur toward our prisons. However, the financial issue is hard for me to grasp, as the death penalty itself brings extra costs upon our prisons. The risk of a wrongful conviction also makes it hard for me to stand behind a punishment of death. There is no hope in death, no turning back, no room for mistakes. And as a people who are defined by continually making mistake after mistake, I cannot believe I would ever be certain enough in my own decision, much less someone else's to take such a permanent action. Lastly, the inconsistency between who is actually sentenced to death and who escapes with life sentences is troublesome. The line between convictions is blurred and too easily influenced by factors such as location and timing. These circumstances lead to difficulty in supporting the death penalty. Since the death penalty is such a serious and permanent act, we must have a solid defense in order to truly support it.

Death row inmate seeks mediation service

On the blog, "Grits for Breakfast", an story dealing with a death-row inmate who wants to use the prison's mediation service to seek healing with his victim. This inmate committed a hate crime in which he shot another in the face, however his victim survived the attack. Just eight days away from his death sentence, this criminal wants to seek restoration with his victim. His attorney is seeking to do away with his death sentence all together. This blog points out that victim's rights tend to only apply to scenarios where the victim is seeking justice through vengeance, which seems to be a good point. If the victim is wanting this mediation and is willing to cooperate, I do not think the government should be able to deny him that right because of what they think the punishment should be. The victim is who the government is supposed to be representing and protecting by issuing this punishment of death, and if the victim has a desire for healing through a mediation process, the government should not stand in their way. The government would, in fact, be doing a disservice to one of its own citizens in that. The government obviously was quick to jump at the opportunity to convict this shooter of a hate crime and send him to death row, why should it be any different for them to seek reconciliation if that is truly what the victim here wants?
The author of this blog asks on what grounds the victim should be denied this right of reconciliation through mediation, and I think that is a great question. What, in the law, could the judicial system use to prevent this victim from receiving the mediation in question? However, I wish the blog writer had entertained some of the possible trains of thought for the judicial system, as to help us, the readers, gain a greater understanding of the situation as a whole. If the decision is as obvious as the blogger makes it seems, it should be easy to refute any of the likely trains of thought that the judicial system may entertain.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/07/victim-rights-restorative-justice-and.html

Guns cross borders illegally, too

In the editorial Guns cross borders illegally, too, the editorial board at the Austin American Statesman remarks on our border security and the dangers of not only what is coming this way over the border, but also what is traveling into Mexico. In this case, a gun used to kill a law enforcement agent in Mexico was traced back to Dallas, Texas and was transported into Mexico illegally. Lately we, as Texans, have not stopped hearing about the dangerous conditions in Mexico and near the border. This is an interesting look at how the state government is failing to protect its population by allowing firearms to enter a danger zone. By not having better restrictions on what is leaving our country at our state's border, we are providing fuel to a fire of drug violence. As a nation, we should have the right to control what leaves our country, especially when it comes to items such as firearms.
I agree with the case this editorial is making. There are legal ways to transport firearms if necessary, and it is dangerous to turn a blind eye to this illegal and dangerous act simply because we are gaining financial revenue from these purchases. Texans who live at or near the Mexican border are greatly affected by the drug violence going on in Mexico and it is wrong of our government to allow the smuggling of firearms into Mexico at the risk of this population's safety. The border between Texas and America represents a place of international travel and should be treated as such. We, as a state, need to crack down on the sale of firearms, making sure that this is done in a legal manner, and then we need to establish regulations for the transport of goods over the Mexican border. The editorial board makes a claim in this article that 'anything that even hints at interference with Second Amendment guarantees of fun ownership is likely to run into well-organized resistance." While this is generally true in a state like Texas, I believe if the case was put forth as more of a safety matter than a second amendment matter, people would see reason to support it. Every Texan understands the desire to feel safe and feel that their family is safe. By humanizing this issue and bringing the families affected by the violence at the border to the forefront of the move to increase security in buying and transporting guns in Texas, I believe many Texans will fully support this movement. Like the editorial board, I believe legislation needs to be put into place and enforced well that protects us from the violence in Mexico and that limits our aiding in the expansion and increase in severity of that violence.

Perry Defends Mexican's execution

This Perry Defends Mexican's execution article, deals with the story of Humberto Leal, who, a convicted rapist and murderer, was executed by the state of Texas penal system. Claims have been made that he was not made aware of his right to contact the Mexican consulate, breaking an agreement between Mexico and the United States. This matter has even been addressed by the United Nations in Geneva, however in this article, Rick Perry takes a stance supporting what the state of Texas did.  In my opinion, this article does a good job of showing how the state and national governments interact with one another, as well as with other nation’s governments. In this case, I believe Leal was subject to American law, specifically Texas law, due to the fact that his crime occurred in Texas, and that injustice did occur if he was not provided with the knowledge of all his options while dealing with the law, but even so, the Texas government here prevails.  He was warranted a due trial and was found guilty. Although I feel the national government is too big to get involved here, the Texas government seems like it acted appropriately within its laws.