Unresponsive

In reply to A Prayerpalooza!

I agree with my fellow student's commentary regarding Rick Perry and his involvement in The Response. With a major economic crisis and more important issues facing Texas, his timing for a religious event to 'save our country,' seems odd, unless it's a clear aim to garner religious conservative support. Furthermore, the event didn't necessarily receive the turnout Perry had hoped for. The one governor who had agreed to attend backed out, and only about 30,000 people attended, less than half of the 70,000 Reliant Stadium capacity.

What boggles me is Perry's insistence in so blatantly shoving his religion in everyone's face. While it is perfectly acceptable for a man to be faithful and strongly religous, when holding political office, consistently blurring the lines between church and state is disrespectful.

The New York Times reports, "Few political figures in America have so consistently and so unabashedly intermingled their personal faith and their public persona, peppering speeches with quotations from Scripture, speaking from the pulpit at churches, regularly meeting and strategizing with evangelical Christians and even, in one recent speech, equating public office with the ministry."

At The Response, Perry denied political overtones, stating that, "[God's] agenda is not a political agenda, His agenda is a salvation agenda." During his seven minutes on stage at the event, Perry reportedly gave no further hints as to whether or not he'd seek The Republican Nomination for the upcoming presidential election (Wall Street Journal).

So, why did Rick Perry go out of his way to attend and help organize The Response? Is he just devoutly Methodist and firm in his Christian beliefs, or are there really ulterior motives? I think Brandyss's blog post offered some good food for thought. Only time will tell if Perry is really setting himself up for a presidential run. All I know is that he's walking down one of the most controversial paths.

For further reading (which is quite disturbing in my opinion), see Rick Perry's Army of God

The Texas School Board is Evolving

It's about time that the Texas School Board joined the rest of the world in the 21st century. On July 22nd, the Texas School Board unanimously approved scientifically accurate biology textbook supplements that teach evolution and exclude any creationism material. In the past, conservatives in Texas have pushed a creationism agenda that would at least offer 'intelligent design' as an alternative to evolution in biology literature. In 2009, a heavily Republican Texas School Board controversially left the teaching of evolution somewhat open-ended and encouraged the "debate over the veracity of evolution science." Just recently, the unanimous vote by the school board designated $60 million to be spent on supplemental online textbook materials (because Texas can't afford new textbooks) and basically closed the door on creationism/'intelligent design' as a part of public school biology. This Victory for Evolution will hopefully end the debates on evolution vs. creationism.


This issue is definitely a matter of separation of church and state. Like I mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts, "Separation of church and state is referenced in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and was officially declared by judicial fiat in 1947." While it is perfectly acceptable to inform students of the worlds' religions in social studies, human geography or history classes, asserting that a supernatural being created life as an acceptable solution to a scientific conundrum in public schools is in contradiction to the principles of separation of church and state. Sacred texts such as The Bible are often used to explain the origin of the universe through Genesis, yet more valid scientific explanations such as The Big Bang Theory and Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection have credible roots. 


Sarah Weis, president of the Americans United Austin Chapter speaks against religious indoctrination, and said that, "placing materials that include numerous factual errors and unsound science in Texas classrooms not only undermines science education, creates constitutional problems, and threatens the religious liberty of students and their families, but such materials deprive the students of our state from receiving proper science education." This ruling by the Texas School Board is a victory indeed. Now, if only Perry could learn from this before he attends this Saturday's 'The Response.'

Dealing With Texas Education Budget Cuts

In response to Educating Texas

I agree that the budget cuts regarding Texas' education system are disheartening. With one of the worst public education records in the nation, Texas could use all of the money possible to increase teachers' salaries, buy new textbooks, upgrade teaching equipment and fund more extracurricular programs. However, the fact of the matter is, with schools closing and the Texas government strapped for money, the funding for schools is simply not there.

The cuts have to come from somewhere, but I don't think immediately singling out athletic programs is the right logic. While athletic programs are an expense, they are well worth the cost. The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) makes The Case for High School Activities and states that, in fact, high school activity programs (sports, music, speech, drama, debate) usually only make up 1 to 3 percent of the school's budget. A number of benefits of athletic programs are evaluated as well.

First, "activity programs provide valuable lessons for practical situations – teamwork, sportsmanship, winning and losing, and hard work. Through participation in activity programs, students learn self-discipline, build
self-confidence and develop skills to handle competitive situations." These values instilled in students set them up for success later in life. Involvement in sports has been shown to decrease the number of kids doing drugs and  getting pregnant in high school as well. Students playing vigorous sports, (such as soccer and football) performed about 10% better in class, and attendance rates, on average, also increase with sports involvement.

Furthermore, I think the 'no pass, no play' law (while unethically bypassed by some high schools) overall is quite beneficial. Even if a student is not fully committed to academics, at least they are making the effort so that they can play sports. I've tutored high school students for several years, and many of their parents hired me so that they could pass their classes to play sports. The kids' involvement in athletics was more or less fueling their education.

The editorial was not just an argument to cut athletic funding, but on a greater scale a proposed solution as to where the budget cuts should be directed. When it comes to education, cutting any aspect of its funding is unfortunate. I'm not an economist or politician, but I personally think siphoning a little of every department's budget would be the best way to handle the budget cuts. Rather than killing certain programs or drastically cutting one area's budget, small cuts all around would hopefully ease the pain.

Bottom line, Texas needs to revamp its education system.

Will Concealed Guns on Campuses Stifle or Promote Violence?

The Texas government is no stranger to controversy. With its stance on the death penalty and now the concealed  carry on campus bill making its way through the legislature, Texas does not shy away from tough issues. Given recent events such as the Virginia Tech shooting and the gunman on UT campus last fall, concealed weapon rights have been pushed to the forefront.

Senator Jeff Wentworth, a Republican from San Antonio, when at first unable to get the votes to pass the proposition as its own bill, attached it to a university spending bill and it has since achieved momentum. (In March, 2011 the bill passed in the Senate) The bill will essentially allow gun license holders to bring their guns to campus, as long as they are concealed. Proponents of the bill cite personal protection and the right to bare arms as liberties which would allow students and faculty to protect themselves from an armed assailant on campus.

While I recognize the potential benefits of concealed carry on campus, I am in fervent opposition to the bill. The solution to dealing with gun violence is not to add more guns to the situation. As a student who was in lockdown for four hours on the UT Austin campus when a sophomore ran through campus with an automatic weapon,  I can say that due to the confused nature of the situation and fear in the students, guns in the classroom would've only made things worse. Some students were panicking, and if they were to have a gun, who would know how they'd react if a professor or police officer walked through the door. Furthermore, the UT police secured the entrances and exits to the classroom and made me feel safe without a weapon of my own.

Additionally, student stress and anger could lead to a mental breakdown, and if guns are more prevalent on campus, violence could actually increase. Alabama professor Amy Bishop's actions are a prime example of what the concealed carry law could lead to. (The Examiner)

To combat the argument that the concealed carry law would give students an opportunity to defend themselves during a shooting, it would in fact only pertain to a portion of the student body. The minimum age requirement in Texas to obtain a gun license is 21, and most freshmen and sophomore students would not be of age.

Gun violence on college campuses is tragic and saddening, but a concealed carry law will not make these events any less probable. The Texas legislature should focus more attention on funding mental health programs at universities, and work to strengthen emergency action plans and train campus police to respond to these specific scenarios. A college campus can never be truly safe, but a concealed carry law is not the solution.

Background information from:
The Huffington Post
The Horn

Rick Perry, The Chosen One

Eileen Smith, of In the Pink, has regularly been covering Governor Rick Perry and his affinity for combining religion and politics, delivering snarky commentary. For this reason, I'll be evaluating a few of her articles, rather than just one, as the content is just too good to overlook.


In a series of recent posts, Smith touches on Perry's current position in the spotlight, as his presidential run seems eminent, and controversy begins to erupt around his proposed Prayer Day. (See International House of Prayers, Livin' On a Prayer, Waiting for God, Going Toe to Toe, Your Nobody Called Today, and Don't Call Me. I'll Call You.) Smith's blog is self-run and therefore solely reflects her opinion, but allows her to be delightfully blunt and give an unfiltered opinion on politics. Her stance on Perry's handling of Texas Government, and his potential presidential bid is clear - she's not a fan. 


Separation of church and state is referenced in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and was officially declared by judicial fiat in 1947. However, Perry still likes to blur the lines. Governor Perry recently released a video in which he called upon Americans to pray and fast, "like Jesus did, and as God called the Israelites to do" in order to save our country from itself. Furthermore, Perry helped organize a Prayer Day for August 6th, at the Reliant Stadium in Houston. The atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a lawsuit against Perry, “asking the federal court to declare unconstitutional Perry’s initiation, organization, promotion, and participation in the Aug. 6 prayer event.” Even though Perry is not directly promoting his Methodist religion, or Christianity as a whole, even bringing prayer into Texas Government and using it as policy does not respect the freedom to practice (or not to practice) religion.


Furthermore, Smith references Perry's recurring statements as having 'a calling' to serve in government, and possibly run for president, "the man actually thinks he's our Savior." The Dallas Morning News reports that Perry says his political office is “a pulpit” that “God has put me in this place at this time to do His will.” Perry's religious rhetoric worries Smith, but she has 'faith' that "mainstream Republicans are not going to vote for a fringe candidate who advocates for prayer and fasting over actual policy solutions, calls himself a prophet, hints at secession, hangs out with evangelical haters, and executes innocent people for fun." While it is uncertain whether or not Perry will run for president, one thing seems clear, he won't be abandoning his religious ideals anytime soon.

Blowing Smoke

A new ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week will require 27 states, including Texas, to reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions from its coal-fired power plants by installing updated equipment. The decreased output of greenhouse gases will benefit air quality on a national scale. Despite resistance from Texas officials, The Houston Chronicle argues that the mandate is perfectly reasonable, and states that "clean air does not start or stop at the state line."


Perry and republican leaders cite federal overreach, loss of jobs, and increased expenses for Texas families as reasons why the new plan is not in Texas's best interest. However, no one can dispute the significant incentives for instating the new regulations. The EPA projections are clear, "by 2014 the rule will prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 1.8 million sick days a year, saving up to $280 billion annually in health costs." Furthermore, The Houston Chronicle counters Perry's claims by noting that the $800 million required annually to bring about the change will cost Texas families about an additional dollar to their monthly electricity bill. The logic in these straightforward arguments are credible and aim to convince opponents of the new ruling that these required improvements will benefit Texas, and the United States, with extremely minor inconveniences for Texans. 


Finally, support of the EPA's new ruling is a moral obligation on Texas's part. The state of Texas has 19 coal-fired power plants (the most in the country) and is the biggest polluter of the nation. Texas pollutes the air of many other states, and is the leader in nitrogen oxide emissions. Rather than resist environmental policy at every turn, Perry should welcome the opportunity to improve Texas's environmental record and take steps to lose the title as "the #1 polluter in the U.S." (and #7 polluter in the world!, climateark.org)


As The Houston Chronicle states, "we're all in this together." Let's help to enact this change, rather than fight it.

The Leal Execution: What does it mean for Texans, Americans, and Perry's Potential Run for President?

In 1995, Mexican citizen Humberto Leal Jr. was convicted of the rape and murder of a 16 year-old girl and sentenced to death by a Texas jury. Just last week, the day scheduled for his lethal injection finally arrived. Despite pleas from the Obama administration, and objection from the global community, the death penalty was carried out as planned. The controversy surrounding the case was that Leal, as a Mexican citizen, was not informed of his right to seek assistance from the consulate. The execution was noted as violating international treaties and potentially endangering Texans (and Americans) abroad. John B. Bellinger III, a former Bush administration State Department lawyer stated that we did "not comply with our obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the U.N. Charter." 


Texas's stance on the death penalty has always been controversial, but with a Mexican citizen involved this case received international attention. Not only does this force Texas to reflect on its policy, but places the spotlight on Governor Rick Perry, who could have granted a 30 day stay on the execution. With an expectation to announce his intentions of a presidential run in the next couple of months, Perry may face some political fallout as a result of Leal's execution. Leal's lawyer, Sandra Babcock, said that "Perry needs to start looking at, 'what are the countries' interests in this case?' not just what are Texas's interests." However, disapproval from foreign dignitaries could actually be a positive for Perry in the Republican primaries, notes political pundit Harvey Kronberg, publisher of The Quorum Report.