Agreence for Seperation of Church and State

    In the blog titled, Manufacturing Texas, Daniel published a post concerning the separation of church and state. In the the post, Daniel writes about an article, "Texas a Battleground for Church and State Issues." In the article it talks about how this country was founded as a Christian Nation and how they wish to assert faith into government, schools, and town meetings. I for one agree with Daniel that this should not be the case because it is stated in the Constitution that there will be a separation of church and state. Daniel goes on to talk about politicians and how sometimes, maybe all of the time, base their policies based on their religious believes. This makes me think of the controversial matter of abortion. I think that Republicans take in their religious believes into consideration to much on this issue. They think that abortion is wrong because you are destroying a human life that is created by God, but where is the separation of church and state? If there are people out there that want to get an abortion, they should be able to because it is their own personal decision and their life. The Government should not be able to dictate some one's life based on the grounds of religion. Like what Daniel said, "if people feel so strong about living in a religious country that is founded on and whose laws are based off religion, they should think of relocating to Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan which are all countries who enforce laws based off the religion of the majority. The point of the first amendment was that people are able to practice whatever belief that they would like and the state would not take sides nor persecute those that are in the minority."

A Bill for the Wrongfully Convicted

    State Rep. Harold Dutton has filed a bill that aims to prevent wrongful death sentences in cases that involve unreliable testimony from alleged accomplices or jailhouse snitches who receive a reward for implicating someone. HB 189, as he is calling it, would be a bill that would help the accused against individuals seeking awards such as, lesser prison sentences or even immunity. According to the article, Bill Would Restrict Informant Testimony in Death Cases in The Texas Tribune, "informants played a major role in more than 45 percent of overturned death sentences nationwide." The 45 percent does not mean that they were wrongly convicted, but it could account for some who were. The article states that, "under HB 189, prosecutors in death penalty cases would be unable to use testimony from informants or from alleged accomplices of the defendant if the evidence were obtained in exchange for immunity, leniency or any other special treatment. The measure would also make testimony from cellmates of the defendant inadmissible unless the conversation was recorded."
    This would be a great bill if it were passed. I have seen and heard about people spending years and even decades behind bars because of wrongful convictions and it is tremendously sad. People who are wrongfully convicted lose their lives and their reputations and may never regain stability if they do end up released from prison. Criminal informants have a really strong incentive to lie and therefore their testimony is most likely to be completely fabricated. I am not sure why a bill like this has not been already in place but according to Jeff Blackburn, the government relies on criminal testimony when they "really need to convict somebody and they really don’t have the evidence." I don't know about everybody else but I do not think that is considered justice. For those who will be charged with a crime with the death penalty attached, hope for this bill to be passed.

I Side With the Blue too!

    I side with Francisco on his article, "I Side With the Blue." In his article Francisco talks about the Government and its views on same sex marriage. I agree that the Government has no say in who can marry who. Telling people who they can marry, to me, goes against the right to the pursuit of happiness. What is the worst that can happen? The world isn't going to automatically blow up if the Government decides to allow same sex marriage. It will only honor happiness to the people once discriminated against. Francisco mentioned the past's discrimination's and how they are similar to today's society. I have never really noticed the pattern. Just like the segregation of blacks, same sex couples are also being segregated against by society and it just is not right. People are people and let them live their lives how they choose.
    There was also a paragraph on higher education and it's funding. Francisco and myself also believe that the Government does not invest enough money for higher education. At least for me, I grew up always hearing about continuing education to be somebody in life. I would her this from, of course, my family and also society. "College, college, college," is all I would hear from family and society. So my question is, "if you want us to go to college to better ourselves and the society that we live in, then why is college so damn expensive and how do you think potential college students are going to pay for it?" There needs to be some other solution other than falling upon the tax payers, but what?

"Providing" for State College Funding

    On The Texas Tribune, there is an article tilted, "State College Funding Turns on Definition of 'Provide,'" that talks about how the State Constitution says that "the state will provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class." This ultimately means that the state has to dedicate half of every dollar to higher education. According to the article, nowadays only 13 percent goes to the University of Texas at Austin and 22 percent to Texas A&M University. So the question that is posed is, is the state really providing for the first class education stated in the State Constitution? Some individuals might say that the state does not provide enough money to provide for the maintenance, support and the direction of a University. One reasoning for this conclusion may be that if the state were providing enough money, then why are the tuition rates so high? The 13 or 22 percent being offered at the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M seems to be considerable low compared to the amount of tuition owed. On the other hand some individuals might say that the state is providing enough funding for a University of the first class. Due to the fact that the state is only part of a whole that makes up funding, it is up to the other methods of funding to pick up the supposed slack and not the state's. With that being said, is it really legally the job or even the concern of the state to provide more than constitutionally stated?

"Political Gimmickry"

    The Dallas Morning News has an opinion article titled, "Editorial: Texas budget gimmickry," whose intended audience is for the politically knowledgeable. This opinion article focuses on Texas' budget and where it is all going to. The author of the article argues that the lawmakers are "siphoning off taxes dedicated for one purpose and pouring them into the general fund" and not spending the money where it really needs to go. One will find this argument unclear if they do not have any prior knowledge of the Texas' budget. One might find themselves asking,"Do they really pour tax money into another fund or is this person lying? Where's the proof? In this article, there isn't any proof of the authors findings. There isn't any charts or documents leading to the conclusion that the Texas lawmakers use the tax money for other purposes. The author guides the reader to believe their claim, even though it may not be all entirely true. Due to the lack of evidence, this argument can be dismissed and therefore the argument is unsuccessful.

Self-deportation: Is it really the answer?

    I found a really interesting opinion article on the Austin American Statesman which talks about self-deportation of illegal immigrants. The article titled, Navarette: Keep immigration solutions simple, humane talks about how self-deportation of illegal immigrants is," more orderly and allows families to stay intact." According to Navarette, self-deportation of illegals is the answer to the illegal immigration fiasco. To my understanding, self-deportation is an idea that the illegals will deport themselves back to their country due to the lack of available jobs. In my opinion, this is not the answer to illegal immigration. If anything this says to people wanting to come to this country illegally, "Hey everybody! Come to America, illegally, take all the jobs and raise the taxes for the American citizens, and if it doesn't work out for you, then you can leave and come back and try again!" I do not understand how self-deportation will solve anything concerning illegal immigration. It will increase the flow of illegals, in my eyes. To me it will be even harder to find available jobs because employers have no problem hiring people who are willing to work for smaller wages than the American citizen. From my understanding, people leave their country to come to America because America provides a better way of life than their country offers, so why would anyone in their right mind would want to go back? I wouldn't. Navarette also talks about how "Obama's America" is making the lives of the illegals "miserable." I wouldn't say miserable, just inconvenient. People can't just come into the country illegally. If you want to live in America take the steps to becoming legal and if you become impatient and enter illegally, then maybe your life might be miserable, always looking over your shoulder. That is not the Government's problem. Their job isn't to make the lives of illegals comfortable. Their job is to protect the border and remove those who have broken the law and deport them in a "I will do it for you attitude," because who is really going to self-deport themselves?

Pinata Politics

       On KXAN news website, there was an article with a video attached called "Pinata Politics:" Cruz & Castro debate that basically talked about illegal immigration. Two budding Texas politicians debated about illegal immigration on Sunday, September 22nd and each had different perspectives on illegal immigration. One thinks that we should accept the immigrates because the very people that founded this country were after all immigrants. He also stated that America is content on the individuals that we have here and do not wish to allow any others in. The other does not completely disagree. He thinks that the illegals should be welcomed but go through the proper channels to becoming a citizen. I think this article is important for our class because illegal immigration is not only a big issue for the country, but a huge issue for Texas because we are a border state and see a lot of the illegal immigration traffic. If you click on the link for the article there is a video clip of the debate if you wish to check it out.