When I read my fellow classmates blog titled Austin Smoking Ban- so ridiculous, it kinda makes sense, it sparked my interest because I've been working in a resteraunt for the past 3 years. Now what my classmate, T.J Porter, mentions in his blog about how there is a non smoking ban period inside or out of a resteraunt establishment and if it benifits the public or not. Mr Porter does state that its our votes that counted for this matter to be taken care of, in which of course we as people voted that there should be no smoking even outside on the patio.
I believe, unlike Mr. Porter, in a way it does improve the health of citizens. Sort of. There are people who like to sit outside on the patio that are non-smokers that would not like to get a whiff of second hand smoke. I do agree with most of all the other things he stated in his comment regarding Non-smoking in places. I know from experience that at work, alot of people ask me if there is smoking permitted outside on the patio, which I've gotten this question both asked by smokers and non-smokers. Of course the smokers are bummed that they can't smoke on the patio, but very well can do so in the waiting area that is near the patio. Then of course the non smokers are happy because they can enjoy a nice day on the patio without the scent of smoke looming in the air. For me, I don't mind sitting near a smoker if the wind is blowing the smoke in the opposite direction where I'm sitting. However if its coming towards me, then I really don't want to be smelling like an ash tray when I get home. So to put it simply, I don't like sitting next, or near a smoker when I'm eating. Besides, smoking is just gross period!
Overall my classmate T.J Porter wrote about a very good topic at hand.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The STAAR Debacle: Should They Get Rid of It?
Late in the month of October, on the 26th, one of my classmates blog entry certainly caught my eye. However it was the subject at hand that reeled myself in to further analyize what he was discussing. This article, " Texas Announces New Education Reforms" talks about the new STAAR program for students that are still in High School. With further reading I honestly couldn't agree more, because in a way it kind of hits me in a personal matter. Well more so the TAKS which has now been re-named STAAR.
Speaking for myself the one subject I struggled most during my Junior High and High School years was Math. I know i'm not the only one who isn't a fan of that subject either. Anyways I always dreaded taking the Math portion of the TAKS test every year, and unfortunatly did not pass it my junior year of HS. Now this just put me in a major downfall because this meant I had to take it again. If I didn't pass it, that only equaled one thing- not graduating. Briefly summing things up I missed one or two questions on the first retake then, thankfully, passed it the second time.
Going back on the subject here, I honestly thought they were going to get rid of the TAKS, or well STAAR test away and it would be based on the students courses and subjects that they were taking. Obviously that isn't the case, but by what I read myself in my classmates blog entry the state really didn't. When reading the first paragraph, the STAAR will have more questions and a time limit. A time limit?! Seriously?! Just seeing those two words just puts up a red flag for me. I mean when putting the added stress of trying to prepare for this standardize test and having more questions (which the TAAKS had about 60 I believe, if I remember correctly) then a time limit, I think thats putting the last straw on the camels back. Its going to just make students stress out more than needed, and probably make them rush because their afraid they won't finish in time. Now when the STAAR was TAAKS, students had pretty much all the time they needed to finish the test, which made the test less stressfull.
In aspect I do agree with my classmate about issues about the STAAR and how to fix this such as too many variables of the material to be tested on (like my classmate stated). Now I really agree what he mentioned in the 7th paragraph close to the bottom of his post. Its so true teachers, and the education board, only worry about taking a standardized test as opposed to actually teaching young students how to learn. I couldn't have said that better than he did. Like my classmate further mentioned how memorization is a key factor, but instead use something for efficiant. For instance, I know for one, some things I know how to get but can't solve the problem if its on paper. However there are some students that know how to do the problem and explaining it is alot easier than say, for instance, a word problem.
So in conclusion, I do agree with my classmate. Maybe its time for a new system of learning than some standardized test.
Speaking for myself the one subject I struggled most during my Junior High and High School years was Math. I know i'm not the only one who isn't a fan of that subject either. Anyways I always dreaded taking the Math portion of the TAKS test every year, and unfortunatly did not pass it my junior year of HS. Now this just put me in a major downfall because this meant I had to take it again. If I didn't pass it, that only equaled one thing- not graduating. Briefly summing things up I missed one or two questions on the first retake then, thankfully, passed it the second time.
Going back on the subject here, I honestly thought they were going to get rid of the TAKS, or well STAAR test away and it would be based on the students courses and subjects that they were taking. Obviously that isn't the case, but by what I read myself in my classmates blog entry the state really didn't. When reading the first paragraph, the STAAR will have more questions and a time limit. A time limit?! Seriously?! Just seeing those two words just puts up a red flag for me. I mean when putting the added stress of trying to prepare for this standardize test and having more questions (which the TAAKS had about 60 I believe, if I remember correctly) then a time limit, I think thats putting the last straw on the camels back. Its going to just make students stress out more than needed, and probably make them rush because their afraid they won't finish in time. Now when the STAAR was TAAKS, students had pretty much all the time they needed to finish the test, which made the test less stressfull.
In aspect I do agree with my classmate about issues about the STAAR and how to fix this such as too many variables of the material to be tested on (like my classmate stated). Now I really agree what he mentioned in the 7th paragraph close to the bottom of his post. Its so true teachers, and the education board, only worry about taking a standardized test as opposed to actually teaching young students how to learn. I couldn't have said that better than he did. Like my classmate further mentioned how memorization is a key factor, but instead use something for efficiant. For instance, I know for one, some things I know how to get but can't solve the problem if its on paper. However there are some students that know how to do the problem and explaining it is alot easier than say, for instance, a word problem.
So in conclusion, I do agree with my classmate. Maybe its time for a new system of learning than some standardized test.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Teaching Abstinence "Plus"?
This is probably, if not, a really good topic to discuss after my previous blog post dealing with Mean Rachel about teen pregnancies. I was reading an article about how now, in the state of Texas, public schools will now be teaching both abstinence and about contreception. With this new "plus" added on about teaching 7th and 8th graders about condoms and birth control. It seems as though it lifted a red flag in the Texas government department about the new plan. Apparently 172 students enrolled this year that are expecting a child in the public schools which prompted that they needed a change.
In the article Tracey Dees, who is the supervisor of health services, mentioned girls that are as young as 13 years of age pregnant or have already a sexually transmitted disease. Alot of these schools including the MidWest all the way to Houston are moving forward with this actual plan. The board and district are hoping that this will work even though the legislative have been struggling with this for several years.
Even though I wasn't supposed to find an article, read it, then give my opinions over it, I just found this one relevant and something that could start a conversation. Now for me and my two cents its seems as though teaching about condoms, birth control, and contraception is pushing the boundries, yet if it gets girls that are 12 years old to wait then thats excellent. As long as the parents are fine with teachers informing thier little girls about what condoms and birthcontrol its okay. However, by teaching students (both young boys and girls) contraception will they get the idea that its okay to be sexually active because there are condoms and that they can use birth control? I mean it can lean both ways on this subject at hand. Like what the article I read it was discussing about how young kids in this age group are exposed to alot of sexual things that they see, hear, and watch on television. With this the more we talk about it with preteens and inform them about it, the better. I remember hearing something on the radio about a couple of years ago, or maybe it was on TV, that alot of the teens that are young parents wish that their own parents would have talked to them about it (or something around that same area). This doesn't go for all teenagers but for some its true. Now one thought would be, should the parents talk about contraception to their kids and have this not be taught in a class.
So with this being discussed, I feel that this should be pushed to be taught in class- to a certain extent. I do agree that the more we talk about it to pre-teens the better, or at least get it through their minds on the right thing to do.
In the article Tracey Dees, who is the supervisor of health services, mentioned girls that are as young as 13 years of age pregnant or have already a sexually transmitted disease. Alot of these schools including the MidWest all the way to Houston are moving forward with this actual plan. The board and district are hoping that this will work even though the legislative have been struggling with this for several years.
Even though I wasn't supposed to find an article, read it, then give my opinions over it, I just found this one relevant and something that could start a conversation. Now for me and my two cents its seems as though teaching about condoms, birth control, and contraception is pushing the boundries, yet if it gets girls that are 12 years old to wait then thats excellent. As long as the parents are fine with teachers informing thier little girls about what condoms and birthcontrol its okay. However, by teaching students (both young boys and girls) contraception will they get the idea that its okay to be sexually active because there are condoms and that they can use birth control? I mean it can lean both ways on this subject at hand. Like what the article I read it was discussing about how young kids in this age group are exposed to alot of sexual things that they see, hear, and watch on television. With this the more we talk about it with preteens and inform them about it, the better. I remember hearing something on the radio about a couple of years ago, or maybe it was on TV, that alot of the teens that are young parents wish that their own parents would have talked to them about it (or something around that same area). This doesn't go for all teenagers but for some its true. Now one thought would be, should the parents talk about contraception to their kids and have this not be taught in a class.
So with this being discussed, I feel that this should be pushed to be taught in class- to a certain extent. I do agree that the more we talk about it to pre-teens the better, or at least get it through their minds on the right thing to do.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Rick Perry Singling Out Women
Oh Mean Rachel, you are certainly a crass lady. OK well, not really. In her most recent blog entry post titled What a Rick Perry Presidency Would Look Like for Women the title is something that is eye catching to someone who just might pass by her blog. If your a Woman that is, I was pretty intrigued myself. By actually reading one of Rachels blog posts, this certainly isn't "mean" persay, as the actual blog is called "Mean Rachel". It seems as though she was stating ugly truth. Like people say, " The truth hurts". However, some of it I can disagree along certain lines of what she is explaining. I have a little different view on the subject at hand.
So pretty much, to sum things up with her blog post, Rachel talks about how Governor Rick Perry has all these laws directed straight to women about abortion topics, shots, and so on and so forth. Like for instance, one she talks about DIC, and goes on to state that the state of Texas has the third highest teen birth rate in the country (eesh). Going further, Rick Perry wants all these plans to protect young women from having a baby at such an early age. With the whole abstinence topic, apparently Perry wants something to pass about this. Which there is one already that will take place pretty soon. During one of our mornings a student (in the class) brought up the subject about how women, during a certain week, will have a choice to look at the ultra sound and hear the heartbeat of the baby. However this is pushing the boundries a little to far, coming to the fact that it may abuse the first amendment. Whatever the case, I feel the whole abortion thing to be such a very fragile subject to even further discuss.
Even when Rick Perry passed the law having women my age, and urge them to get the HPV shot to protect girls. Which I totally agree with that. Whatever the case I do see Rachel's point about the whole topic, but is Perry really trying to single out women in our state? I mean it seems like its the case, but I don't blame him in some aspects. Heck, were the third state that has the highest teen birth rate. Thats just an embarrassment if you ask me. I mean there are some ways to try to prevent the high pregnancy rate in Texas, and it might go down a little if those things are put into action. It really all depends.
So pretty much, to sum things up with her blog post, Rachel talks about how Governor Rick Perry has all these laws directed straight to women about abortion topics, shots, and so on and so forth. Like for instance, one she talks about DIC, and goes on to state that the state of Texas has the third highest teen birth rate in the country (eesh). Going further, Rick Perry wants all these plans to protect young women from having a baby at such an early age. With the whole abstinence topic, apparently Perry wants something to pass about this. Which there is one already that will take place pretty soon. During one of our mornings a student (in the class) brought up the subject about how women, during a certain week, will have a choice to look at the ultra sound and hear the heartbeat of the baby. However this is pushing the boundries a little to far, coming to the fact that it may abuse the first amendment. Whatever the case, I feel the whole abortion thing to be such a very fragile subject to even further discuss.
Even when Rick Perry passed the law having women my age, and urge them to get the HPV shot to protect girls. Which I totally agree with that. Whatever the case I do see Rachel's point about the whole topic, but is Perry really trying to single out women in our state? I mean it seems like its the case, but I don't blame him in some aspects. Heck, were the third state that has the highest teen birth rate. Thats just an embarrassment if you ask me. I mean there are some ways to try to prevent the high pregnancy rate in Texas, and it might go down a little if those things are put into action. It really all depends.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Supporting the Jasper Killer?
Since the topic was brought up into class this morning, I found this article relevant to what we were discussing at the beginning of our class. Even though it wasn't about "the last meal" prisoners are able to get before thier death sentence, but it certainly focused on the Jasper killer and on the death penalty. The writer of the blog, written by Rodger Jones, goes on through his blog talking about what his views of the death penalty; touching on the subject of the latest prisoner to the death bed.
Rodger's blog does point out really good things about the death penalty and why or why not it should be done. In the first half Jone's points out how the media made a big deal about the death of a prisoner in the state of Georgia, yet it seemed as though they didn't pay much attention to the recent death sentence of Brewer here in our own state of Texas. Rodger pointed out, or seemed, like Brewers should have had caused some commotion in the media. Like he said this death was bigger as of what Brewer committed to James back in 1998. I do know that our state of Texas is one of the very few states that has the option of the death penalty, and it is a touchy subject to some in which people support or not.
Going on further the victims son (quite surprisingly) didn't want Brewer to be sentenced to death row, and stated " that it doesn't accomplish anything". Jame's son, Ross, then goes on further in quote " Life in prision would have been fine". However other family members said that this execution provided closure to what happened back in 1998. With this being said, I can agree on some aspects on what Ross was trying to come by, yet I fully believe Brewer deserved what was coming to him, and to recieve the death penalty. Even if Brewer wasn't sentenced to death, and sat in prison the rest of his life, what does that do? To put into another aspect, or question to think about, what is worse; staying in jail for the rest of your life or the death penalty?
I feel that what Brewer committed was absolutly horrifying and that he should recieve the worst punishment possible (which of course happened). Even looking at the last picture in Rodger's post is chilling. I really don't know why someone in thier right mind would do such a thing to an innocent man and I'm glad that he recieved the death penalty.
Rodger's blog does point out really good things about the death penalty and why or why not it should be done. In the first half Jone's points out how the media made a big deal about the death of a prisoner in the state of Georgia, yet it seemed as though they didn't pay much attention to the recent death sentence of Brewer here in our own state of Texas. Rodger pointed out, or seemed, like Brewers should have had caused some commotion in the media. Like he said this death was bigger as of what Brewer committed to James back in 1998. I do know that our state of Texas is one of the very few states that has the option of the death penalty, and it is a touchy subject to some in which people support or not.
Going on further the victims son (quite surprisingly) didn't want Brewer to be sentenced to death row, and stated " that it doesn't accomplish anything". Jame's son, Ross, then goes on further in quote " Life in prision would have been fine". However other family members said that this execution provided closure to what happened back in 1998. With this being said, I can agree on some aspects on what Ross was trying to come by, yet I fully believe Brewer deserved what was coming to him, and to recieve the death penalty. Even if Brewer wasn't sentenced to death, and sat in prison the rest of his life, what does that do? To put into another aspect, or question to think about, what is worse; staying in jail for the rest of your life or the death penalty?
I feel that what Brewer committed was absolutly horrifying and that he should recieve the worst punishment possible (which of course happened). Even looking at the last picture in Rodger's post is chilling. I really don't know why someone in thier right mind would do such a thing to an innocent man and I'm glad that he recieved the death penalty.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
No ID Means No Vote
Now when you go up to cast your ballot for the next election, you just might find yourself being asked for your ID. This article posted in the Texas Tribune, the Texas legislature is pushing forward the law to enforce this act. However, the coalition argues that this bill " targets minority, and senior voters." The article further goes on saying that this would affect others who " do not have the financial wherewithal as thier counterparts". In truth this bill will be passed, and come in law as early as January.
We, as in the class, discussed this topic not too long ago talking about whether or not this was acceptable to enforce on local Texans. For me, please don't bash me here, think this might just not be a bad idea. I mean it would help limit the fraud that might possibly take place come election time. The article did mention that there wasn't much of criminal activity taking place at the polls, and that those who were caught haven't even been punished. The only question is, once this bill is passed, will it affect the amount of voters that come out to cast thier ballots?
We, as in the class, discussed this topic not too long ago talking about whether or not this was acceptable to enforce on local Texans. For me, please don't bash me here, think this might just not be a bad idea. I mean it would help limit the fraud that might possibly take place come election time. The article did mention that there wasn't much of criminal activity taking place at the polls, and that those who were caught haven't even been punished. The only question is, once this bill is passed, will it affect the amount of voters that come out to cast thier ballots?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)