Who DOES Want a Tuition Increase?

The author of “Who really wants a tuition increase?” examines and criticizes the constant higher education tuition hike, claiming that the raising rates may be hurting future students more than they are helping them. Some universities’ tuition are reaching levels that are becoming more unattainable by lower economic classes. Though it is still not impossible to raise the funds to attend these schools, it can often be overly discouraging to some that have their “sights set high.” The author makes many valid points; even if one succeeds at raising sufficient funds, it is possible for dispiriting effects of debt burdens to last for thirty years.

I believe that a drastic reformation of state education funding is needed. However, many disparaging clichés come to mind: old habits are hard to change, no free lunch, same $#*% different day, life is not fair, and so on. Many higher education institutions, inside and outside the country, have had great success by making education virtually free. It is possible for a school to make monetary sacrifices and not lose prestige. It appears that prestige is ultimately what UT and some UT students seek with higher tuition, though they guise the rates hikes with such reasoning as “better student services, better teachers, teacher retention.” Reading between those lines is not difficult; those are more prestigious qualities. However, a humungous student body reduces prestige, and UT has one of the largest in the country. It is very unfortunate if UT’s tactic is to “weed out” students with higher tuition.

So who does really want a tuition increase? Those that stand to gain, like alumni, who have already paid their dues. Those that are not really interested in producing an educated and diversified Texas population, maybe? Those that are not willing to sacrifice any economic lag due to a sociological catch-up. Hopefullly, time will heal all, and there will be a big sunshine after heavy rain, and the chickens will come home to roost, but only time will tell.

Joe Horn Shoots

November 15, 2007, Joe Horn of Pasedena, TX told the 911 dispatcher "I'm not going to let them get away with it. I can't take a chance in getting killed over this. OK? I'm gonna shoot. I'm gonna shoot." The 61 year old man was working at his computer around 2 p.m. when he heard the sound of breaking glass next door. The sound was Miguel Antonio DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, both of Houston, in the act of burglarizing Horn’s neighbor. Horn’s first call to 911 was to alert the authorities of a burglary in progress and to declare his intentions to stop it. The operator repeatedly told Horn that he should not go outside, but the determined man ended the first call with, "Well, here it goes, buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

The second and last call to 911 was a shaken Horn telling the dispatcher to get someone over to his house fast. The authorities found a bag of cash on the ground and both men shot dead: one on Horn’s property and the other across the street.

Luckily for Horn, unfortunately for the criminals, the Texas Constitution allows for the use of deadly force to protect personal and neighbor’s property. Horn has not yet been charged with any crime; the specific details of the incident are still being scrutinized closely by lawyers and police to determine if Horn was within his right to shoot.

Texas has one of the longest and most amended constitutions in the country, making it less than perfect and less revered as a sacred document among its citizens; however, it does get some things right. I support the Texas Constitution, especially Article 1 Bill of Rights Section 23- Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It states, “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

The Constitution further permits Texans to use deadly force to protect personal property and the property of others. Joe Horn felt he was acting in accordance with the law, and he acted as many Texans say they would act in the same situation. He will get criticized and praised, but when he gets charged he will most likely get a sympathetic Texas jury.

One cannot determine if Joe Horn was acting as a hero or a vigilante from articles that have appeared in the Houston Chronicle and the 911 dispatch. There are surely more extenuating circumstances and possibly more laws broken than publicized that lawyers will sort through, but his eagarness is questionable. However, one resolve should be certain: Article 1 Section 23 should not be amended to lessen the people’s right to protect themselves, their neighbors, or their neighbors bag of cash. The Texas Constitution's directive allowing its citizens to protect themselves and their property is a vigilante's law, for a "vigilante" is by definition a law-enforcing citizen, but the law is established for a just cause: to ensure human rights are not infringed upon.




The Texas Constitution Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"


Protection of the Property of Others

"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

Teacher to Serfdom Response

The author of “Two Wasted Votes Will Get Me Eight Wasted Years” writes of a topic that flummoxes me every time I give the subject consideration. It is claimed in the nicely titled blog “State of Texas Education System: Forced Serfdom with a Touch of Discrimination,” that anyone that enters into the education workforce is handing over their freedom of ever becoming independently rich beyond their dreams and, at the same time, they will ultimately be the “fall guy” when certain test scores are not achieved. Teachers can forget about such sarcasm as being rich beyond their dreams and move on to considering if their retirement will be non-existent or if it consist of wearing a blue vest, greeting and counting people with a metal clicker at Wal-Mart.

Teachers receive more scrutiny, and sometimes disdain, from their superiors, peers, and parents of students that need to blame something or someone else for the shortcomings of their kids. I do not think that teachers should not be monitored or that they should be exempt from a little constructive criticism. However, being a son of a teacher, a stepson of a teacher, and a fiancé of third year teacher, I know from personal experience that their workdays rarely end early, and they receive more than a little monitoring, criticism, and blame.

The "State of Texas..." blog author appropriately addresses that the responsibility which befalls this job is so proportionally out of whack to its benefits and the consideration people give to it, it makes one wonder why anyone would volunteer for such a tough racket. The author clearly recognizes the teacher's plight and rightfully takes aim at the one in charge, Rick Perry. Excellent points are made. There must be a huge positive shift in public teacher appreciation, starting with increased wages or more widespread respect. If it is not obvious that more is needed, maybe everyone should live with one for awhile, or worse, three.

To Drill or Not to Drill?

The Barnett Shale is a large geologic formation in the Dallas-Fort Worth area that could possibly be one of the nation’s largest onshore natural gas fields. Future prospects of the field are looking optimistic since one company, XTO Energy, has invested just over three billion dollars in property acquisitions since July. This field can predictably affect three parties: government, corporations, and residents of Texas. Residents in the immediate area must determine if there should be boundaries and limitations established early, and, if desired, what measures can be taken to prevent corporations such as XTO Energy and Fort Worth Energy from leaving a figurative footprint in their almost literal backyard.

A very former Texas Railroad Commissioner, Elizabeth A. Jones has recently advocated tapping into domestic natural resources and cites the Barnett Shale as a perfect example that can produce great benefits for our economy. Although monetary gains for local economies are obvious, Jones understands that disrupting Artic National Wildlife Refuges and residential neighborhoods might not go over so smoothly with some people; therefore, she offers further support for her stance by mentioning advantages such as increased national security, energy independence, and the creation of funds that could be dedicated for alternative energy research.

When two very big entities such as government and large, multi-billion dollar corporations stand to post significant gains, residents in the immediate vicinity of a future drill site might feel intimidated or be so discouraged as to believe that they can not have an impact on such a considerable development in their neighborhood. While a complete victory for residents may be unlikely, a compromise such as the one that neighborhood leaders near Eighth Avenue in Fort Worth achieved is a perfect example of how determination and action can make a difference in a local community.

The new Fort Worth skyline

Footprints in Domestic Dirt

To fully understand the impact that the quest for oil and other natural resources has impressed upon not only Texas but the world, one could not simply read an essay, single book, or watch enough PBS specials. The benefit on energy independence on economies can be monumental, and the pursuit of it can indeed leave “footprints” on societies and the land. Elizabeth Ames Jones, a member and very former past chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission (TRC), recently wrote an article that appeared online at the Houston Chronicle’s website which advocated appropriate legislation be passed to ensure that the domestic search for oil and other natural resources be allowed.

Being a commissioner of the TRC since 2005, Jones understands the importance of how a cache of oil and gas resources can affect an economy. She cites advantages in seeking more natural resources domestically that include more security for our homeland and the ability to produce funds that could be used for researching alternative energy sources. Moreover, the experience Jones has gained from being a top overseer of a state that is the nation’s leading producer of natural resources should give her a great perspective of how domestic natural resource stores can positively influence an economy.

The Barnett Shale is a natural gas field in the Dallas-Fort Worth area which has become a very successful source of natural gas; it may be the largest in the country. Jones uses the success of the Barnett Shale to illustrate how beneficial local resources can be. She states, “America’s undeveloped oil and gas resources should be considered our generation’s victory garden in the face of today’s struggle to maintain energy security.” Therefore, it would not be a surprise that Texas’ former TRC commissioner is a proponent for drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, asserting that the environmental impact would be miniscule, but she does acknowledge that a “footprint” is left behind. Driving through oil fields in the Texas-Louisiana border area, “Bigfoot prints” are visible and very apparent. Even though technology has much improved the means of searching for natural resources, disrupting a national wildlife refuge should be approached with careful consideration.

More lessons can be learned from Texas’ success with bountiful natural resources than just a positive economic outcome: environmental sacrifices were made, and the discovery of such valuable resources in East Texas has touched lives all over the world. Becoming an energy independent nation is a coveted goal of all economies; the attainment of personal wealth is a coveted goal of many people. It is important to be able to analyze certain events to distinguish which party is benefiting the most.


Gov. Rick Perry, Elizabeth Jones, and former Governor Bill Clements

American Heritage For Sale

In the southern-most portion of the Mountains and Basins region of West Texas lies the Christmas Mountains, just northwest of Big Bend National Park. Texas’ Land Commissioner, Jerry Patterson, has decided to auction this area off to the highest bidder. The sale of publicly owned land is not uncommon, but the specific details of this sale will make one wonder if the Land Commissioner is making the correct and most ethical decision.

The Christmas Mountains were gifted to Texas in 1991 by the Mellon Foundation, a major philanthropic group, with only one condition attached: Texas must care for the land wisely. This non-specific stipulation allows a lot of freedom of control, depending on what one thinks is wise, to whomever makes public land allocation decisions. Patterson asserts that his decision to sell is based on the need to protect the land from poachers and, but maybe not secondly, that is in Texas need of money.

The Land Commissioner’s justification for selling may be wise from a General Land Office (GLO) perspective, but is it the wisest option overall? Two main duties of the GLO, as per their mission statement, are protecting the environment and expanding economic opportunity in Texas. Not considering the ethical aspect of the land sell, Patterson is performing his duties perfectly. But when the Mellon Foundation’s condition of gift is factored in with the unlimited possibilities of what can happen to public land when it becomes privately owned, Patterson’s decision must be reexamined.

Although the Christmas Mountains is not yet a state park, it may someday become an extension of Big Bend. Its scenic terrain and archeological value cannot be measured; the Mellon Foundation realized this area was a special place worth conserving and a place that should be available for enjoyment for all. Jerry Patterson will carry out his duties according to what he thinks is most beneficial to Texas, but citizens have a responsibility to remind state officials that there are unmeasured qualities which also increase the standard of living that do not include expanding economic opportunity.

For more details concerning the sale of Christmas Mountains, visit Douglas Brinkley's commentary at the statestman.com.

Pepper Spray Controversy Heats Up, Again

The Texas Youth Commission has received more media attention recently as the first lawsuit was filed challenging the recent freedom granted to authorities to pepper spray juveniles in lockup. Two groups are representing six youths, three of which have mental disabilities, that have been sprayed.

The Youth Commission has been under fire since August when it passed a directive which allowed the use of pepper spray as a first means of keeping unruly youths under control. This has turned out to be a controversial change from the previous policy which required that the spray only be used as a last resort and after physical restraints, and no child with mental or emotional impairments or other medical issues could be sprayed.

Since becoming a first means of order, the use of pepper spray has naturally risen, but many people are upset because the rate of use is soaring. It is thought that youths with mental disabilities will be unfairly targeted for their tendency to misbehave. Currently, the policy remains in place with senior directors defending their authority to make such a policy change.

This is an interesting issue because it concerns the allowed powers of the State, a topic where ideologies typically clash. It might be important to follow this issue because it could give future indications on which direction Texas will favor when considering allowable government control.

For more details, visit the article at statesman.com