"Safety First"

My colleague Ms. Tran's article caught my attention. Austin as a growing city's decision for the no plastic bag use was an innovative idea that effected all of our residents.   “SafetyFirst” is a post about the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance in Austin. Before reading her writing I did not realize what hazards there were for the re-usable bags. She stated that there was potential cross contamination inside the bags. I don’t believe people ever think about cleaning out there bags. When you carry raw meat and vegetables together you don’t think twice about it. I agree with Ms. Tran’s position that the legislature should help educate the citizens on the Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance's potential hazards when people do not clean out their re-usable bags.

The post was well written and informative. Ms. Tran gave the brief on the ordinance, gave the problem with the ordinance, and her idea to resolve the problem. The piece was not too long and kept me interested in the topic. I would suggest others living in Austin or any other individuals living in Single-Use Carryout Bag Ordinance cities to read her blog or find another way to educate themselves on the issues.

Homophobia is a Social Disease!

Texas Proposition 2 was amended to the state constitution November 8^th, 2005. It defined a marriage as being “only of the union of one man and one woman.” It also prohibited the state or any political subdivisions from creating or recognizing any legal status similar to marriage.  The Save Texas Marriage political action committee opposed the amendment and argued that the poorly drafted amendment banned all forms of marriage. Kelly Shackleford, the president of Free Market Foundation, who supported the amendment defended it by saying that it did “not ban marriage in general,” just same sex marriage. There has been attempts to repeal the proposition was died in the process.

 The most recent, in February 2014, a federal judge Orlando Garcia had the case on the repeal of the Texas Proposition 2. He ruled gay marriage was still illegal in Texas. His claims were the gay marriage had no "legitimate governmental purpose."

There is roughly 5 gay couples for every 1,000 house holds in Texas. Whether the conservatives like it or not they are here and queer. Get use to it! In Texas, 48% of individuals have said to support gay marriage. 35 states in America recognizes same-sex unions. The constitution should be amended to keep up with the current times. By not allowing same sex marriage, the constitution is not living up to its purpose to serve and protect the rights of people. Government is over stepping their boundaries. The government is trying to stop the pursuit of happiness of others and stripping them of their marital rights. Homophobia is a social disease! Why does it matter if two men or two women get married? Their marriage does not intrude into any ones life.
 

Commentary: "Pulling Out"

My colleague, Karis, makes good points in her blog “PullingOut.” Her funny and interesting title caught my attention. Her choice in writing shows her voice in the subject and makes it a little more exciting to read. Being a female, I feel this topic is a more relatable subject than for men. I agree with Karis’s opinion. This is our bodies and the government has no right in trying to regulate it. If the abortion laws proposed are to be passed, we will be seeing less abortion, but will the outcome outweigh the product?

Everyone who is against abortion is so worked up about saving babies that they don’t think about the consequences that follow if a large number of the abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, were to close. Karis points out good key problems if abortion clinics. Yes, the recent studies have shown the lowest abortion rates since the 1970’s but these optimistic people aren’t seeing what’s on the other end of the double ended sword of abortion. The foster care system will increase and the numbers of as well as homeless unwanted children on the streets. For a child who is living in a home with a mother who did not want a child, the child is more likely to be subjected to neglect or mental and physical abuse. The amount of money the government must fork out will be a lot as well, when you consider how many of these unfit mothers will need to be a welfare plan for the child they can’t be fiscally responsible for.

There are minimal errors such as word choice. In her second paragraph, she used the word “their” instead of “there.” Also, in the second paragraph, she used the word “a” instead of “an” in front of the word “unwanted.” Overall I thought her blog was well written piece. I would be interested in any future writing she may write.

Oh Shoot! More Guns at School

Credited to Dan Wasserman--Tribune Media Services

      

Program 1033 has slowly taken over the nation one school district at a time. It has changed the meaning of security in public schools, and caused a feeling of uneasiness from the "peace" officers which we as citizens put our trust in to protect us.

The Federal 1033 Program, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act, equips local and state law enforcement agencies with Department of Defense's excess special military equipment. The requirements of the programs are recipients must be governmental agencies whose primary function are to enforce federal, state, and local law. The individual must be TCLEOSE certified, and has the authority to arrest and apprehend. It is mandatory that their is an annual physical inventory of all property received. On the Texas Department of Public Safety's website, individuals can go on, apply, and create a want list of supplies they would like from the TDPS list of equipment available. They also offer training sessions to get hands on practice with policies and procedures to use military weapons.

The bill was implemented in response to school shootings in the United States. Explained by the Cultivation Theory by George Gerber, the constant televise showings of school shootings  has put fear into American hearts. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, statistic shows that there has been a decrease on school shootings since the 1990's. Due to the rise in media technology, unfortunate school shootings have been publicized. Laws such as the Federal 1033 Program was originally a way for congress to help law enforcement who requested for funds to counter narcotics, and counter terrorism. Now, legislatures have manipulated the program to help arm security police officers of K-12 schools for hostile emergencies or scenarios. Fortunately, school may opt out of officers in the facilities carrying the weapons.

Although, the Texas State Department of Public Safety offers training sessions, it is not stated that the sessions are required. The concerns of the possibility of an incompetent officers mishandling the gun, and accidentally firing at a civilian or student rises. Texas law enforcement has had a history of abusing their power and using excess force on minor students. Texas Appleseed, an organization that promotes justice for Texas, has filed several complaints against Texas police officers handling situations at schools. Having military guns on campus could create a hostile environment for students, especially students of color and disabilities. Glamorizing the guns can "contribute to normalization of the criminalization of these youth, worsening educational outcomes, and producing no public safety benefits." For the younger kids, these officers could set an example that guns in public are o.k.

Instead of beefing up the law enforcement around schools, Legislatures should focus on school-based counseling and violence prevention programs to help teach students hot to resolve their conflicts without resorting to violence. Current federal guidance advise schools to emphasize more of evacuation plans, and early identification, and intervention with potential aggressors. The school police department priorities should be more on common scenarios, working with students with mental disabilities, and practicing  de-escalation techniques to prevent and reduce violence in hostile situations. Even in extreme cases of hostilities, officers that were equipped with tasers and pepper spray, had outcomes of dangerous and life threatening effects on students. If we cannot trust a police officer on campus with tasers and pepper spray, how do you expect people to feel with these "peace" officers will military grade weapons?

"Texas Senate touts pig as lipstick"

David Jennings posted an article on a conservative Texas political blog site, Big Jolly Politics, titled "Texas Senate touts pig as lipstick."

Texas Senate passed Senator Glenn Hagar's SB1907, also known as "Campus Carry." The bill allows students with concealed handgun licenses to store their handguns legally in their vehicles on institutions of higher educations' street and parking lots. The House of Representatives have put the senate's bill on their schedule to talk about it, and vote to pass or kill the bill.

Representative Dan Flynn, one of the primary authors of the bill believes the bill will be passed. Most of the opposition party has been in Austin. As a republican bill, the democrats of Austin are against the guns being carried on or around campus.

 Higher education officials fear it will increase campus violence and suicide. When a Texas county's Republican party took to Facebook to praise Senator Hagar's bill, there was clear presents that citizens were against the bill. There were concerns of increase vehicular burglaries in college parking lots. An individual commented, "Ok. Criminals, just hold on a sec while I just run to my car and get the means to defend myself." The person feels the bill would be useless because the weapon wouldn't be on one's person. Jennings feels by allowing guns on to school grounds, it can make other feel uncomfortable and in danger.

David Jennings got his information from Claire Cardona in the Dallas Morning News. Although the written piece was informative, he did not have enough of his own personal writing. He used a lot of quotes from his source. The areas where Jennings did write in his own words were more informal. The pattern of writing reminds me of a written lasagna. There are different alternating layers which consist of dry and straightforward information, and the author's short input in between that was less informal.

 It is clear that Jennings is concerned about the bill. He includes the concerns of people and discuss how it could affect patrons of the schools. The audience intended was probably aimed towards the general public who attends higher educational schools that will be affected by the bill. The purpose of the piece is to make awareness of the bill and how it could affect and endanger college students.

"Keep Military Gear Out of Texas Schools"

          Brennan Griffin is the development director at Texas Appleseed, the organization that promotes social and economic justice for Texans. He shared his opinion in an editorial he wrote in the Texas Tribune, called “Keep Military Gear out of Texas Schools.”

          Recently, public schools, grade K-12, have been armed with weapons and military equipment in 10 Texas school districts. The federal 1033 Program provides “military surplus for free or at a very low cost to local police departments” assisting in monitoring the safety of public schools. The individual school districts can voluntarily return the guns. Some school police departments claim that they need the weapons in instances of active school shootings, even though they are rare.

          Griffin argues that the government should “keep military gear out of Texas schools.” Local and National civil rights, and advocacy organizations are against the distribution of the guns into public schools. They have called the U.S. Department of Defense to end the transfer of the weapons to the local school district police department. Few school police department do not have the proper resources to train their officers to use the military weapons. The organization suggest that the weapons could pose a dangerous risk if guns were handled by untrained hands in school settings.

          Current federal guidance advised instead that schools emphasize more on evacuation plans and early identification, and intervention with the potential aggressors. The school police department should focus on common scenarios in more effective ways, such as, working with students with mental disabilities, and practicing de-escalation techniques intended to prevent and reduce further violence in hostile situation.

           The Texas school police department has a history of having aggressive techniques to subdue violators at school. In the past 2 years, Texas Appleseed filed 2 complaints against school districts whose policing policies were violating students’ civil rights. In Bastrop, a Hispanic student was tased by a sheriff deputy while  the boy was breaking up a fight at school.  The taser caused the boy permanent brain damage. This incident showed the people if we cannot trust regularly armed school police department to act appropriately to a basic school fight, what makes any parent feels safe with their child at school where the police officers are armed with military grade weapons.

          The tone of the editorial was formal and informative. The audience intended was for the parents of the K-12 schools that were affected by the 1033 Program. Brennan introduced the subject well. He began b defining what the Federal 1033 Program was and the reasoning for the program. He brought the problems with the schools handling the guns issue to light. Brennan mentioned of the actions he and other organizations did to speak out on the distribution of the guns. He then continued by including examples of why the program was not necessary and gave alternative techniques school police officers could use to help lower the level of hostile situations. The piece could have ended on a stronger note. Brennan ended on a lighter note commending the school police officers on how they did on reducing the numbers in issuing misdemeanors to the students.

"Gun Rights Activist' Latest Strategy: Armed Demonstrations"

The Texas Tribune published Cathleen Qiao Chen's article on "Gun Rights Activists' Latest Strategy: Arm Demonstrations" on April 25, 2014.

       In early April, advocates for tighter restriction on guns assembled at Austin City Hall to discuss gun regulations. A small group of opposing gun carrying members of Open Carry Texas rallied outside of the building to protest against the stricter gun laws with their long guns and signs captioned, "Come and Take It." C.J. Grisham, the founder of Open Carry Texas, wants lawmakers to allow Texans to openly carry their handguns as they do with their long fire arms. He commented on the protest at city hall, "You've got a group of people who are carrying firearms, kids and women, smiling and waving. If we truly mean to hurt anybody, would we draw attention to ourselves by waving flags and smiling? If you think about it logically, the fact that someone is alarmed is unreasonable."

      The law in Texas states that "it is illegal to openly carry handguns, and a license is required to carry a concealed handgun." But, "it is legal to visibly carry a long arm--shotgun or rifle-- so long as it is not done in a 'manner calculated to alarm.'" Kevin Lawrence, the director of the Texas Municipal Police Association, concerns, "There's a certain point where law enforcement has a right to step in and say, 'You've crossed the line.'"

      These demonstration are not just occurring up and down the streets. People are carrying their weapons in public places such as the mall, parks, and restaurants. The armed men exercising their right to bear arms know they have good intentions. As on-lookers of these gun carrying men, how are we to know if we are truly safe?