In her blog, Shelly discusses the dispute over the Red River Compact between Oklahoma and Texas. She articulates how the dispute is over water resources that are in Oklahoma. Apparently, Texas wants to sue Oklahoma to get what they deem "excess" water from them.
Shelly does a good job of presenting different ideas. She describes how the compact is worded too vaguely and has too many loopholes to clearly see which resources belong to Texas, and which belong to Oklahoma. She also says that Texas is wanting to take water from the Oklahoma side. She also says that Oklahoma is being resistant, believing that water within her borders belongs to her.
There are several things lacking in her post, though. I don't see clearly what her opinion or stance is on the matter. She does express that she is frustrated with the vagueness of the compact, but doesn't describe where she stands on the matter. She also fails to give much hard evidence or clarify what exactly is going on in the compact. She just articulates the vagueness of it.
Overall, I think this is an informative post that presents some different perspectives on the Red River Compact.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
Texas' Social Services (Or lack thereof)
It is widely known that Texas falls behind in the social services that it offers, compared to other states. This is because our state government has a commitment to low taxes for everyone, and very limited spending on government welfare programs. Social welfare programs in Texas are characterized by the commonly held belief that each person is responsible for making their own way, and taking care of themselves. It is also characterized by a deep-rooted suspicion of big government in general. Both of these ideologies lead to a social welfare program that expects people in poverty to dig their own way out of it, without the governments assistance.
As a result, we continue to favor low taxes over spending money on social services, despite the giant population of needy and impoverished people in the state. 15.8% of the population were said to be under the poverty line in 2008, according to the US Census Bureau. Two main sources of state-aided income for impoverished people are food stamps and Temporary Assistance for Needy people. Out of 50 states, Texas ranks the 4th lowest on the amount of benefits people receive from these 2 programs. These programs alone represent hundreds of different branches and programs of social services that are under-funded. As a result, many different populations of people are marginalized in the state.
This topic of Texas' under-funded social welfare program really hits home for me, because of the field of work I am going into. I have spent the past year volunteering with a local women's shelter, and I see firsthand the effects of under-funding. Almost every logistical challenge we face in the shelter has it's roots in lack of resources: an inadequate number of social workers (resulting in over-worked/burnt-out social workers), lack of space in the shelter for more women in crisis, having to rush the women out of the shelter once they get a room, inability to find somewhere else for them to go afterwards, and the list goes on. With more resources, we would be able to provide a higher quantity and quality of resources for these women in crisis.
And survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse are only one of the populations of people that are affected by Texas' welfare programs..
Sources:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/ranks/rank34.html
http://www.urban.org/publications/310173.html
As a result, we continue to favor low taxes over spending money on social services, despite the giant population of needy and impoverished people in the state. 15.8% of the population were said to be under the poverty line in 2008, according to the US Census Bureau. Two main sources of state-aided income for impoverished people are food stamps and Temporary Assistance for Needy people. Out of 50 states, Texas ranks the 4th lowest on the amount of benefits people receive from these 2 programs. These programs alone represent hundreds of different branches and programs of social services that are under-funded. As a result, many different populations of people are marginalized in the state.
This topic of Texas' under-funded social welfare program really hits home for me, because of the field of work I am going into. I have spent the past year volunteering with a local women's shelter, and I see firsthand the effects of under-funding. Almost every logistical challenge we face in the shelter has it's roots in lack of resources: an inadequate number of social workers (resulting in over-worked/burnt-out social workers), lack of space in the shelter for more women in crisis, having to rush the women out of the shelter once they get a room, inability to find somewhere else for them to go afterwards, and the list goes on. With more resources, we would be able to provide a higher quantity and quality of resources for these women in crisis.
And survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse are only one of the populations of people that are affected by Texas' welfare programs..
Sources:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/ranks/rank34.html
http://www.urban.org/publications/310173.html
Friday, April 12, 2013
Critique on Other Blog
In this blog post, Dolores is discussing whether or not Planned Parenthood should receive federal/state funding under the Texas Women's Health Program. She firmly believes that they should.
Firstly, she does a good job of alluding to her own personal experience as a reference for her stance. She claims that Planned Parenthood has helped her in the past, and that experience is irrefutable (because it is just that- personal experience).
The only objection I have with the points that she makes is that she claims that Planned Parenthood doesn't promote abortions. This kind of a claim has to be backed by some evidence or statistics, because it simply doesn't seem true (unless proven). For instance, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the US and in Texas. For instance, in 2004, for every 1 person they refer to adoption agencies, they perform 138 abortions. And on top of that, Planned Parenthood is still a business. Abortion is one of the primary ways that they get paid, so it seems like common sense that, in order to thrive as an organization, they must promote abortions.
Overall, I would say Dolores has done a good job of sharing her own experience as support for her claims, but her research and evidence is lacking.
Firstly, she does a good job of alluding to her own personal experience as a reference for her stance. She claims that Planned Parenthood has helped her in the past, and that experience is irrefutable (because it is just that- personal experience).
The only objection I have with the points that she makes is that she claims that Planned Parenthood doesn't promote abortions. This kind of a claim has to be backed by some evidence or statistics, because it simply doesn't seem true (unless proven). For instance, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the US and in Texas. For instance, in 2004, for every 1 person they refer to adoption agencies, they perform 138 abortions. And on top of that, Planned Parenthood is still a business. Abortion is one of the primary ways that they get paid, so it seems like common sense that, in order to thrive as an organization, they must promote abortions.
Overall, I would say Dolores has done a good job of sharing her own experience as support for her claims, but her research and evidence is lacking.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Sex Ed in Schools.
Teen pregnancy has been a problem in Texas for a number of years. Currently, Texas is has the fourth highest rates of teen pregancy in all of the US. This poses a number of problems. Some of them are obvious, such as children that are born unloved, uncared for, unwanted. Teens that have their childhood stripped away from them, and are forced into a position they are wholly unprepared for. Immense tension in families. But, some of the repercussions of teen pregnancy are not so obvious. For instance, it's expensive. It costs taxpayers in this state $1.2 billion every year. That is taxpayers' money that could very well be used somewhere else. Another problem is that oftentimes teens delay prenatal health care to a point that puts their own or their baby's health at risk. 7 out of 100 teens never receive prenatal care at all. In general, teen moms tend to have more health problems (dehydration, undernourishment after labor) because their bodies are still developing. Also, boys born to teenage moms have a higher risk of going to jail in their life, while girls are more likely to become a teen mom as well. All in all, it's fairly obvious that teenage pregnancies are not only detrimental for the lives of individuals, but for society as whole. It's a serious issue that's very prevalent in Texas.
That being said, the rate of teen pregnancy (both in Texas and in the US) has been steadily declining for the past two decades. It appears as though teens are delaying sex or using contraceptives. What is causing this? It very well could have been the sex education that teens have been receiving, which "promotes abstinence but also contains information about contraceptives". Overall, this sex education is comprehensive; it presents abstinence as the best option, while acknowledging it is not the only option. And evidence shows that teen pregnancies have been declining as more and more teens are becoming educated.
Great news, right? Right. But, unfortunately, this is likely to change due to Senate Bill 521. Since 2009, parents have had an "opt-out" option of every sex education they didn't want their child to be a part of. But, this bill requires parents to "opt-in" for their child to participate in a sex education program at their school. The school must get written consent from the parent 2 weeks before the sex ed begins. This means that less teens are going to be receiving sex education simply because of paperwork, deadlines, and the forgetfulness of parents. Essentially, we are moving backwards.
This bill also "prohibits school districts from using sex education materials supplied by any organization affiliated or linked to abortion providers". This bill's main intent is prohibiting Planned Parenthood from supplying sex education material, but unfortunately, AISD is supplied with Planned Parenthood material.
Although, in theory, I might agree with the premise of this bill, prohibiting Planned Parenthood from teaching my child about sex (because in my mind, they are affiliated with abortions), in practice it doesn't make much sense. This is primarily because the instruction material that Planned Parenthood provides is comprehensive and promotes abstinence above anything else. It simply informs them of the other options available to them. This doesn't mean that teens will be more likely to get abortions once they know what it is- evidence actually shows that this means they'll be more like to not have sex in the first place. Isn't this what parents want?
Senate Bill 521 is going to result in less teens receiving sex education. It shouldn't come as a result to us that this is going to lead to rising teen pregnancy rates again. I believe that the Texas Senate should either revise or altogether trash SB 521 and leave sex education in schools the way it was before, because that was resulting in lower teen pregnancies. Afterall, this isn't about the ideological or cultural wars going on right now, between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, those who believe in abortion and those who don't... this is about the lives of our teenagers and the well-being of our society as a whole.
Sources Used:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/bill-a-step-backward-for-sex-education/nWzTY/
http://www.ehow.com/about_4616358_problems-teen-pregnancy.html
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/teenpregnancy/a/Teen-Pregnancy.htm
http://legiscan.com/TX/bill/SB521
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Thoughts on the Texas "Shame" Act
On February 6, 2012, Texas passed something called a Sonogram Law. This law required that women who are getting an abortion are required to receive a sonogram and be shown the fetus they're about to abort 24 hours before the abortion. Also, they are required to listen to the heartbeat and a description of the fetus inside of them.
This law has been very controversial. The purpose of it is said to protect the health of women, and to make sure they are making an informed decision in their abortion. It's argued that for some women who don't want to have an abortion- it just adds to the pain and hardship of the decision. An example is one woman's story who aborted her child at the doctor's suggestion because the child would be disabled for the rest of it's life.
KVUE recently featured an article on a Doonesbury comic strip that is about abortion. In the comic strip, a woman planning to get an abortion is sent to the "shaming room" to meet with a "middle-aged white man". This comic is intended to make fun of the Sonogram law that was passed by Rick Perry.
In her blog, Rachel talks about this comic and article. She notes how in the article, the CEO of a non-profit anti-abortion group says that this comic shouldn't be in the papers where "families and children can see it" and that we need to give women "the privacy [they] deserve when making that decision. Rachel argues that the fact that it's not suitable for women proves that the law itself is not about protecting the privacy of rights and women at all. She claims it's "state-mandated shame", and proceeds to call it the Texas Shame Act.
The first thing I noticed from Rachel's blog post is that it was extremely short and contained little to no background information on the Sonogram law itself. All she seemed to do was state her opinion very strongly without much logic or evidence to support her view. She seemed believe that this law contributed to the shame women face when they decide to have an abortion, and that shame is wrong and unneccessary.
I disagree with Rachel's viewpoint that this law only serves to increase the shame involved with abortion. I think there are many instances where frantic young women- girls, even- go into an abortion clinic, thinking they have no other options. Soon after the procedure, the weight and reality of their actions haunt their conscience for years to come. This has happened to many different women in my life. Things would be very different for women in this situation if they were more informed about what they are doing when they are getting an abortion. In this way, I think this procedure is not only saving innocent lives, but helping women make more informed decisions.
This law has been very controversial. The purpose of it is said to protect the health of women, and to make sure they are making an informed decision in their abortion. It's argued that for some women who don't want to have an abortion- it just adds to the pain and hardship of the decision. An example is one woman's story who aborted her child at the doctor's suggestion because the child would be disabled for the rest of it's life.
KVUE recently featured an article on a Doonesbury comic strip that is about abortion. In the comic strip, a woman planning to get an abortion is sent to the "shaming room" to meet with a "middle-aged white man". This comic is intended to make fun of the Sonogram law that was passed by Rick Perry.
In her blog, Rachel talks about this comic and article. She notes how in the article, the CEO of a non-profit anti-abortion group says that this comic shouldn't be in the papers where "families and children can see it" and that we need to give women "the privacy [they] deserve when making that decision. Rachel argues that the fact that it's not suitable for women proves that the law itself is not about protecting the privacy of rights and women at all. She claims it's "state-mandated shame", and proceeds to call it the Texas Shame Act.
The first thing I noticed from Rachel's blog post is that it was extremely short and contained little to no background information on the Sonogram law itself. All she seemed to do was state her opinion very strongly without much logic or evidence to support her view. She seemed believe that this law contributed to the shame women face when they decide to have an abortion, and that shame is wrong and unneccessary.
I disagree with Rachel's viewpoint that this law only serves to increase the shame involved with abortion. I think there are many instances where frantic young women- girls, even- go into an abortion clinic, thinking they have no other options. Soon after the procedure, the weight and reality of their actions haunt their conscience for years to come. This has happened to many different women in my life. Things would be very different for women in this situation if they were more informed about what they are doing when they are getting an abortion. In this way, I think this procedure is not only saving innocent lives, but helping women make more informed decisions.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Why pay for empty beds in prisons?
There are 111 prisons in Texas, and $123 million of our tax dollars are spent on leasing beds from private prison companies each year. As mentioned in this article in the Austin American Statesman, there are 10,000 unused bunks in these prisons. This is due to the lowering crime rates and lowering number of incarcerations. The declines are expected to continue, as Texas is focusing more on putting convicts in rehabs and community-based programs instead of prisons.
The editorial board at the Statesman takes a firm stance on this issue- claiming this $123 million "is money poorly spent that could be redirected elsewhere". They see the empty beds as an opportunity to close even more prisons and end contracts with private prison companies.
One reason that the State is having a hard time closing prisons is because prisons means jobs for the community. But, research shows there is a 90% turn -over rate for prison employees because of the low pay and job benefits. If more prisons were consolidated, that would mean a portion of that $123 million could be spent on prison employee raises- which would reduce the high turn-over rate and help "stabilize prison employment."
I completely agree with the editorial board in their claim that "every dollar misspent on prisons is a dollar kept from education, health care, and... public safety and fighting crime." It seems to me a matter of common sense. Why pay for something unneccessary whenever there are so many other things that need to be paid for? Especially if it's with other people's money (tax payers)? The Statesman makes a clear argument that even the employment that the prison provides could be greatly improved and stabilized if this $123 million was redirected. Texas is a state in great need of a larger budget for public services, and this- to me- appears to be money just waiting to be used on things that really matter.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
AISD to open single-sex schools
On January 28, 2013, The Austin Chronicle announced that the AISD's board of trustees added three new single-sex schools on the East side of Austin. These schools are intended to serve as "safe havens" for minority youth. The general idea was to first take the general attendance of Pearce and Garcia middle schools and combine them, and then split them along gender lines. This plan was proposed by a trustee to the AISD board, but nothing ever came of it until recently. It seems like there wasn't an alternate plan at all- that this was going to happen either way.
Apparently, there is evidence that shows that single-sex schools don't actually help people learn, and they typically reinforce gender stereotypes, as well as cause problems for transgendered people. Another issue is transportation for the students in those districts that don't want to attend a same-sex school.
This article caught my eye because I spend a lot of time volunteering at a local feminist-modeled women's shelter and am very interested in women/gender issues. I've also gotten to know a small portion of the transgendered community in Austin recently, and these kinds of local government decisions have huge implications in their lives. It seems like by now, AISD should be able to take a step back and see that history tells us same-sex schools don't work. And on top of that, they should have the ability to see all of the almost guaranteed negative repercussions of this decision.
Apparently, there is evidence that shows that single-sex schools don't actually help people learn, and they typically reinforce gender stereotypes, as well as cause problems for transgendered people. Another issue is transportation for the students in those districts that don't want to attend a same-sex school.
This article caught my eye because I spend a lot of time volunteering at a local feminist-modeled women's shelter and am very interested in women/gender issues. I've also gotten to know a small portion of the transgendered community in Austin recently, and these kinds of local government decisions have huge implications in their lives. It seems like by now, AISD should be able to take a step back and see that history tells us same-sex schools don't work. And on top of that, they should have the ability to see all of the almost guaranteed negative repercussions of this decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)