RE: Texas Politics: Rising Tuition Rates

This is my response to Kayla's blog regarding the Legislative debate over Texas' Universities deregulated tuition:

Kayla,

I think your post is very interesting, and considering all the classmates on our blogrolls, it clearly is applicable.

I'm curious to see any outside links, blogs, newspaper articles, anything in your post showing where you got your information from. Also, the numbers regarding percent increase from 2003 to 2007 may or may not be accurate, but they are no longer current. NextStudent.com (http://www.nextstudent.com/student-loan-blog/blogs/sample_weblog/archive/2009/05/14/19754.aspx) posts that an 86% increase in tuition from 2003 to 2008 is the number that the Legislature has facing them.

You did extremely peak my interest in the part about textbooks, considering we all spend a fortune on them each semester in the bookstore OR we spend a fortune and gamble on getting the right textbook and supplemental materials when we order or rent them online. But again, I really wish there was a link to your source for this so I could read more about it. Granted, I'm about to go Google it myself, but for convenience and credibility's sake, it would be nice.

Again, I think you chose an excellent topic to post about, but I believe there is much room for expansion, explanation, and research.

Re: Texas Talk: Keeping my fingers crossed...

This is my comment on Julie's wonderful post regarding scrapping NCLB and implementing a new program:

Julie, I'm so glad you posted on this topic! My sister is a high school teacher, and I took the liberty of sending a link to your blog post to her, even though she may (or may not) already know about the issue.

We all know that teachers state-wide are positively thrilled with the impending changes, as it will streamline their job requirements back down to "educating" in the best way each teacher sees fit for each student.

I think it's important to emphasize, as you did in your second paragraph, the stress taken off of the student. In high school, I was a PAL (Peer Assistance and Leadership), which is a mentoring program for HS juniors and seniors to mentor 5th graders. My 5th grader was Maria who got held back from moving on to the 6th grade. When I asked her why she thinks that happened, she said it was because she didn't speak "good enough English." She failed the TAKS and had to repeat 5th grade, even though she excelled in science and math, and spoke English and Spanish fluently (besides the minor grammatical error and her struggles with spelling English words). She was also placed in remedial English and History courses, which under challenged her.

Also, as for high school students, the exit level TAKS was taken in the Junior year, and yet Seniors in AP level classes were forced to spend weeks reviewing for TAKS tests which they would not be taking.

So, after these years of NCLB, we all have personal and/or secondary "horror stories" of the TAKS, and reading your post seemed like a breath of fresh air to me! I'm glad for the kids I know who will get to experience the new regime, and we can only hope and pray it will be a success unlike its predecessor.

Clean-ish Coal Technology

Dave Montgomery at Star-Telegram.com wrote an interesting article about the recent legislation tentatively passed by the House regarding Clean-Coal technology and a $300 million incentive. Rep. Phil King lead the effort for the bill and states that it would "make Texas a pioneer" in the race to develop clean coal technology.

Pause.

May I insert here that I agree with blogger WCNews from Eye on Williamson when he or she states that there is no such thing as clean coal. The blogger suggests "not so dirty" coal and "cleaner" coal, but I personally am fond of "clean-ish" coal and "less yucky" coal. "Not so gross" also would suffice, in my opinion.

Play.

Now, while we are all severely concerned with the HOW's of "not-so-grimy" coal technology, let's first take a look at the $300 million and where it is going. The money is incentive: the first three corporations to develop and implement the technology are eligible for up to $100 million in tax breaks. King makes a point of saying that the tax break will not be given until certain benchmarks are reached, but between blogger WCNews and his sources, the point is also made that "it seems foolish to offer this kind of money" when the technology for it has not even been properly developed, utilized, and/or proven.

The type of "nearly immaculate" coal technology to be implemented is called Carbon and Capture Storage (CCS). The general idea is to capture carbon dioxide (the CC part) and store it (the S part) underground, therefore keeping it out of the atmosphere. Those in favor of the bill toss out an almost philanthropic point that the stored CO2 can then be used to push hard-to-reach oil into more reachable heights within depleted wells. According to the Bureau of Economic Geology at UT Austin, this would put between 4 and 5 billion barrells of oil back into the Texas economy. And, why, look at that. That 4 to 5 billion barrells of CO2-producing fossil fuel retrieved from the hard work of CCS technology designed to protect our environment will make up for that $300 million lost in general tax revenue from these big corporations.

Let's repeat that in case you didn't get it: Oil. Fossil fuel. The basis of the product you use in your car. It produces CO2 which from your tailpipe then pours into the atmosphere. This oil/fossil-fuel/product-used-in-your-car will be retrieved from CO2 deposited into the earth with the intent that it will then not be in the atmosphere. Therefore, we are using captured and stored CO2 to ultimately produce free and acquitted of all charges CO2.

Now that that's been said, allow me to state that I am entirely for the bill IF and only if the technology can be implemented in a timely and safe manner. I believe a lot of good can come from using CO2 as a resource to extract desperately needed fossil fuel instead of simply allowing that power to go unharnessed, and I believe that the $300 million is a fair incentive to these companies to do just that considering the large investment that I'm sure it will take and the possibility of failure resulting in no tax break.

But let's be honest with ourselves: this bill is about making money and leading the way into new technology in order to make money and look good to the rest of the nation as a "pioneer." This bill is well designed because it satisfies the environmentalists (particularly those who are too excited about "shiny" coal technology to think the oil thing through), grimly satisfies those of us who support protecting the environment and treating it as a resource to be used respectfully although we recognize the paradox the bill presents, and satisfies the ones concerned about the costs of the bill and how it will help the state financially and economically.

I see the bill as very well-rounded. It has been praised for not adhering to one party or another (both sides of the ballot were bipartisan), and particularly for the way it has caused Republicans to agree that CO2 emissions are a problem.

I'm rather excited to see what unfolds and who the 3 companies will be that will potentially receive the tax cut. However, I am interested to see some numbers regarding the difference between CO2 emissions from vehicles and the 4-5 billion barrels of fossil fuel that is to be obtained and the CO2 emissions from these companies.

Carrying Handguns onto a College Campus?

On March 30, the House of Public Safety Committee heard and considered a bill that would allow concealed hand gun licensees to carry guns onto campus. Currently, the law is such that a gun may be brought and left in a vehicle, but cannot be carried on a person.
It has been reiterated that the bill is only pertaining to LICENSED carriers (a.k.a. LEGAL gun owners with a CHL,) and that the number of CHL carriers on a college campus is very small because to even take the first class, one must be 21 years old. These people are highly trained individuals with wonderful statistics nationwide regarding their levels of violence, accidents, etc., and are allowed to carry their concealed weapons in most buildings including but not limited to churches, state capitols, and movie theaters.
The argument against the bill is that allowing weapons on campus of any kind will only foster violence, accidents, and theft. Surprisingly (and at the same time, not surprisingly), universities and campuses are the main ones standing in opposition to this bill.
However, the argument for the bill is that by allowing legal and licensed, concealed hand guns on campus, the students will be further protected. Those for the bill promote the example of the Virginia Tech shooting: How many students would have been saved if a CHL carrier shot down the shooter faster than the shooter could shoot down innocent, unarmed citizens? Also, the North Texas Conservative blogger presents all sorts of information in this blog regarding statistics.
We can also look at this mandatory gun owndership law in Kennesaw, GA, and the statistics regarding crime rates. To sum it up, every household was required to own a gun. Crime rates? They plummeted. 3 murders since the passing of the law 16 years ago, 2 with knives and only one with a firearm.
Basically, I think allowing legal, licensed, concealed hand guns to be carried onto campus would serve only to protect in the same manner that police officers carry weapons. Only to protect, and only to be used in extreme circumstances. CHL holders are, again, highly trained individuals. Who's a raving lunatic going to attack? A campus that allows concealed, licensed weapons or one that doesn't? You decide.

Salvia Posession May Soon Equal FELONY Jail Time

State Rep. Charles "Doc" Anderson seems to be quite intimidated by the currently legal substance called salvia divinorum.

Salvia divinorum (Salvia), if you haven't heard about it, is a mild hallucinogen with immediate effects lasting about a few minutes. Salvia may be followed by a headache, but typically is associated with improved mood, calmness, and a renewed sense of being "in tune" with nature -- You know, "That Hippie Stuff." But that's enough about the Salvia "hangover." Let's talk about Salvia's immediate effects, which can range anywhere from (you guessed it!) salivating, to the sensation of being in several places at once, to intense, uncontrollable laughter.

Doesn't that sound just god awful? Laughing. Sounds like a dangerous substance to me. I mean, being tickled is extremely unpleasant, but it makes me laugh. Salvia must be the same thing. These poor Salvia addicts must be set free!

Oh, wait. I forgot to mention, Salvia is not believed to be an addictive substance. And it is suggested to use salvia, not at a party, but as a personal journey in a controlled setting with a sober "sitter". Hmm.

I wonder if Rep. Anderson has done all of his research before pushing this bill to make posession of less than a gram of salvia a felony offense. Curious, don't you think, seeing as possession of marijuana begins as a misdemeanor?

The author of the Capitol Annex blog points out that most of Anderson's supporters are members of the same evangelical church, that the media has taken this story and run, and that Anderson's bill seems incredibly harsh considering Congress declined to regulate salvia and it is currently available over the counter in Texas. The author also lists the history of the marijuana fight and the uncanny resemblance between the beginning of that with the beginning of this salvia fight.

So, friends, you may want to start saying your goodbyes to this centuries old and legal, but highly dangerous hallucinogenic substance, because it may not be available much longer. OR, Anderson may find himself the recipient of many protesting letters. Mine will be one. Will yours?

Write to:
Charles "Doc" Anderson, State Representative
PO Box 7752
Waco, Texas 76714

Phone: (254) 772-7363
http://www.docandersonfortexas.com/