Breaking silence on GLBT

     Reading Mary Lee Grants article " A&M faculty urge administration to break ‘silence’ on GLBT center controversy" on The American Independent I noticed both sides of the argument. They both have good points. I can see how the conservatives think the GLBT has things that aren't liked by both homosexuals and heterosexuals, therefore not being diversified. On the other hand I can also see the GLBT's point, that their organizations funds mainly come from students not from the government, so why should there also be an organization that instills conservative values a is funded by the government.

     The GLBT started their own organization by their selves, to be able to talk on what ever subject they would like to bring up. They started it so it would only be fair if they get to organize it and go about it as they wish. However some of their topics should be limited to not be so explicit. They have to be more considerate to all of their audience and not just to a certain sexual preference. I think that as long as they monitor what they are talking about to not make a certain group of their audience feel uncomfortable, then they should be able to carry on without also being ordered to make an opposing organization.

     The conservative is correct by pointing out that not all their topics are agreed by the entire audience. However since the GLBT did self-organize they don't have a right to be funded by the school funds. If they feel so strongly about having an organization instilling traditional values, they should seek students with the same purpose and start their own organization.

     I think the Ms. Grant did a great job in stating both sides and what they are seeking. I think she considered her audience, to not have a preference on both sides. If I were to choose the audience she was leaning towards, I would have to say she might have slightly intended to prefer on be on the gay rights side audience. I think her credibility was good seeing that she brought up both sides properly.

RE: Motorcyclists and Safety

People don't always pay to much attention to motorcycle on the road, but A. Jones kindly brought it up on her article "Motorcyclists and Safety". I agree with everything she pointed out. I believe that motorcyclists are inconsiderate if they drive around with out a helmet, because it’s a simple thing that could go a long way. My dad owns a motorcycle and has owned a couple since he was 18, and he has always worn a helmet, no exceptions. When he bought a moped to get me to start learning he told me to always wear a helmet, and make sure I didn't drive it without one. I asked him why it was such a big deal since the moped we have goes 40mph max and he went on to tell me about a close friend that died while riding a motorcycle. Even though a helmet might seam unnecessary because you might not be going fast, you have to think about other cars that could possibly run into you.

     People driving cars should be more cautious to motorcyclist because one little bump into a motorcycle and it becomes very easy to loose control of it. When I see a motorcycle I always keep my distance because as Ms. Jones stated “We must not ride the bumper of a motorcycle because they stop much faster than vehicles"  is very true. I do not mind if there are crazy drivers just be careful when driving close to a motorcyclist.

     Overall, I liked Ms. Jones article because she stated things that could be done in order to be safer on the road. Her points were very understandable and valid. We can take simple precautions to be safer, and prevent several accidents from happening. Even though I don’t know someone personally who was injured due to a motorcycle accident I think they are a little more of a risk but not as bad as some people make it seam as long as one is cautious.

RE: Paying Criminals for Their Crimes

      I can’t help but agree with Erika De Los Santos, while reading her article Paying Criminals for Their Crimes. It’s ridiculous knowing that with budget cuts continuing criminals are getting a raise. I don't disagree with them being rewarded for helping and working while in prison but I completely disagree with giving them a raise. What’s the point? Although they aren’t paid that much they are still very costly. If "the average cost per youth per day" is $359 dollars, they have to play a big part in the budget.

     Soon there will be many unemployed teachers. No one is paying for there expenses, they are going to have to figure out a way to make ends meet. Just the thought of it bothers me. This doesn't seam like a reasonable expense. Instead of giving them a raise they should be thinking of programs to help all the unemployed teacher to come.

     Will there be certain requirements the inmates must reach in order to obtain a raise, or is it being given to any inmate that works? This would be a little bit more understandable if they had to have good behavior for a certain number of years. It is unfair that this money will be tax-free. Maybe in some way the inmates will not be prepared to go back and settle in with society again. If they are all given a rise they might expect that from then on in life, which is unrealistic. Its a good thing its not set and done yet, because it just seams outrageous.

     Erika made very valid points in her blog and helped me to see a different approach to the subject, mainly when she spoke of the unemployed teachers. The blog was very understandable and interesting. I also thought it was a good blog thanks to the way she framed it, numerically. When someone sees the numbers, they become more interested and are able to relate better.

New Texas Immigration Law Proposed

                       Recently a Texas immigration bill proposed contained a major loophole favoring wealthy people. The bill was introduced by Debbie Riddle under the House Bill 2012.  The bill states that it will be illegal to hire illegal immigrants unless they are hired for housework, this will be punishable by a sentence possibly up to two years in prison and a $10,000 dollar fee. However, people are allowed to hire illegal immigrants for household work such as yard work, maids, nannies, etc.

            Many people are against this for several reasons. Some people think it’s unfair to actual American citizens because they are also in need of a job especially because of the recession. Since there are several people unemployed, they are just looking for a job to feed their families. This includes citizens who lost their job and now have to settle with any type of job they can find. It is unfair to them since they have actual rights and are willing to work, but aren’t hired because illegal immigrants will do the job for less. It should only be fair that they get some sort of advantage in this situation.
            The second most important argument I noticed through comments was that this could be compared to slavery in some way. I am not saying that it is slavery but in some way, they are allowing forms of racism and other types of classification. This bill will allow others to look down on Latinos and only think of them for minor labor work. They’re already not allowed to work because of the immigration status but stating that it will be allowed to hire them for household work is limiting them to just serve the employers. Knowing that they will take the job since there is nothing else, I wouldn’t be surprised if the employer were to harass them and basically treat them as property, since they know they have that power. The employer knows that they need that job, and if the employee complains, they can replace them with another illegal immigrant right away. There are also the illegal immigrants who have lived in America most of their life, who have studied here, grown up with the same values as Americans and this bill would completely limit them to do house work since it would be very risky and illegal for someone to hire them. With all their studies and academic achievements, they would end up at the bottom.

The last argument I noticed was to whom this bill would benefit. The people who do use household workers regularly are wealthy people. The people who would mainly benefit from this would be the wealthy people, who need help and have the money to obtain it. This section of the bill wouldn’t benefit the middle class or lower class because they don’t have the money to have the luxury of having extra help. This bill wouldn’t be fair, and it is obvious it is favoring the wealthy.

How Much Longer Before We Pay Attention?

             Reading an editorial “Saudi’s bomb plot raises visa screening questions” on The Dallas Morning News I noticed several things such as, the US does have to be very precautions and safe is better then sorry.

 The author made a very valid point in his editorial, “But that should be only after visa applicants and their patrons undergo every reasonable measure of scrutiny.” America is a very powerful country, and full of immigrants. Several people are trying to come into the country, including students who want to earn a degree. Being a country that believes in second opportunities and the pursuit of happiness it might be easy to oversee some requirements when attaining a student visa. I don’t think many people would even think that terrorist would take advantage of a student visa to further their plans. It is very unsettling to know that a terrorist could go undetected until obvious signs of him attempting to attain chemicals to make a bomb. I completely agree with the author in taking more precautions and being more attentive when issuing visas.

The author was very credible using the Institute of International Education as a source. While reading the reader can notice, as a concerned citizen, that something could easily happen to endanger our lives. Therefore we should take any necessary precautions to ensure the safety of the nation. It has nothing to do with being racist of course there would be equal treatment to everyone not just taking more precautions on middle eastern students. I understand his point and would hope that others understand it as well for everyone safety.

I think it was a good editorial raising awareness to what is going on. Something that is very easily fixable. What more evidence do people need, a death? I believe its perfect timing and the government should get stated on more requirements when applying for a visa.