Originally, I began reading and writing about a House bill that would require students in charter schools throughout Texas to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. While researching the topic, I discovered something that was interesting, yet bothersome. What I discovered was a Texas House member who authored 59 bills that are, in my opinion, fruitless.
State Representative Marsha Farney, R-Georgetown, sure is making big things (sarcasm) happen for the education of Texas children during the 83rd Texas Legislative Session. She is a former educator and author of the bill requiring charter school children to pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags. This is patriotic and well-intentioned, but doesn't Farney's proposal encroach upon the charter schools' autonomy and right to choose how to operate? Farney's bill is not to encourage the charter schools, it is a REQUIREMENT.
It is worth noting the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. An argument can be made that if students cannot be compelled to recite the pledge, why should a school, school district or organization be made to do so. The Star-Spangled Banner, which is the national anthem of our country contains the words, "land of the free." I don't feel we are very free if someone is choosing for us, and requiring us to pledge our allegiance to something. The charter school system should not be required to conduct such an exercise and I feel State Representative and former educator Marsha Farney should spend her time authoring and pushing more practical bills during the Legislative Session. Which leads me to the discovery that bothers me.
During my research I discovered numerous fruitless and frivolous bills authored by Farney. As of today, April 25th, she has authored 82 bills. 59 of those are bills recognizing, congratulating, honoring and commemorating people or places. Why is this so bothersome to me? I feel the time the Legislature is in session should be optimized and I don't call 72% of the bills before me a good effective use of time. I should also point out that though I used Representative Marsha Farney as the example, she is not the exception. We can compile a mile long list of politicians who make poor use of their time.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
Some Meat to Go With Your Bread
One of my colleagues posted a commentary on their blog titled, “Is faster Really Better?” The basis for this article is the author’s criticism of the increased speed limits in and around Austin, Texas. The author left out a variety of useful data and information that could have shaped and backed their argument. The commentary gets the author’s opinion across, but leaves much to be desired.
My colleague poses a simple question right from the start. “What is with the increase with speeds?” I don’t have an issue with the posing of such a question in the beginning of the commentary. The problem I have is with the author not answering the question, nor giving the reader enough substance to answer it themselves. The author should have pointed out that the foreign company that operates the toll road offered the Texas Department of Transportation an exorbitant amount of money to set the speed limit at 85 mph. The author could have also mentioned the incentive that was offered to TxDOT to lower the speed limit on I-35, both of which TxDOT accepted. The manipulation of these speed limits was done to make the toll road look more attractive, so the toll roads would generate more revenue.
The author of the article states: “People die all the time in vehicle accidents.” Rather than stating the obvious, and to produce a more constructive argument, my colleague could have pointed out that the American Trucking Association feels that the toll road speed limit is excessive and dangerous. So much so that the American Trucking Association has asked the Texas Transportation Commission to rethink its 85 mph speed limit on the toll way.
There are plenty of facts and opinions that the article could have included to better convey the author’s opinion/argument to the reader. At the very least traffic fatality statistics, loss of fuel economy while driving over 50 mph, and maybe the cost of the toll road and how expensive it is would have been a nice touch to add to the commentary.
My colleague poses a simple question right from the start. “What is with the increase with speeds?” I don’t have an issue with the posing of such a question in the beginning of the commentary. The problem I have is with the author not answering the question, nor giving the reader enough substance to answer it themselves. The author should have pointed out that the foreign company that operates the toll road offered the Texas Department of Transportation an exorbitant amount of money to set the speed limit at 85 mph. The author could have also mentioned the incentive that was offered to TxDOT to lower the speed limit on I-35, both of which TxDOT accepted. The manipulation of these speed limits was done to make the toll road look more attractive, so the toll roads would generate more revenue.
The author of the article states: “People die all the time in vehicle accidents.” Rather than stating the obvious, and to produce a more constructive argument, my colleague could have pointed out that the American Trucking Association feels that the toll road speed limit is excessive and dangerous. So much so that the American Trucking Association has asked the Texas Transportation Commission to rethink its 85 mph speed limit on the toll way.
There are plenty of facts and opinions that the article could have included to better convey the author’s opinion/argument to the reader. At the very least traffic fatality statistics, loss of fuel economy while driving over 50 mph, and maybe the cost of the toll road and how expensive it is would have been a nice touch to add to the commentary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)