Responsible MADD

     Ironically, I start this paper in the comfort of my home sipping a glass of 2008 Pinot Noir named The Crusher.  Honestly, not sure how I would begin to criticize a colleagues piece of work. However, this one blog caught my attention and mildly struck home.

     About five years ago, my three year old daughter was hit by a drunk driver while in transit with her father. At the time, I was coming home from school and received a frantic phone call from a relative to rush to the emergency room because my daughter was due there at any minute. Needless to say, this traumatic experience inrepairably battered my heart.  I learned that in a blink of an eye, the person most important to you could be stolen by ignorance.

     The “No Refusal Policy” states that a police officer can obtain a warrant to draw your blood in the instance that you refuse to take a sobriety test.  My classmate argues in her blog that this has gone too far and questions if this tramples our constitutional rights. In this case, does it matter? Honestly, if an individual was giving enough suspicion to a police officer that led them to probable cause then more than likely then individual was acting in a questionable state.  

     My classmate continues to say that she believes in other ways to stop drinking and driving but never says how. Is there really a way to completely stop it? No. There is ways however for a person to not do it again- once caught.  My classmate mentions that if we had a better transportation system then it would reduce the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers. How? I am still left wondering.

      My classmate finalizes her blog by disagreeing with DWI’s but doesn’t feel this measure will stop it. I simply think, nothing will. Is it even about what will stop it or what we can do to reduce it?

     In closing, I would like to admit that I am no sober angel. However, I take responsibility for my actions and drink responsibly. Now whether that is every day bad day or weekend, I’ll never tell because it doesn’t matter. What matters is that people drink responsibly and take responsibility for their actions once they decide to get behind that wheel. I do not have sympathy for “drunk drivers” but respect a responsible drunk. There is a difference!  Especially if the No Refusal policy could save one life and one family from a life of grievance.

-ALO

Just Say No To Standardized Testing

       Upon reading the Daily Texan, I came across an interesting article by J Hermes, an astronomy graduate at the University of Texas. The article, ”Standardized Curiosity” focuses on the TAAS generation and how they’ve become a dying breed. Standardized testing is fed by schools to shape our memory for the sole purpose of making a good grade but not caring if we will remember it.

       The state has just replaced the TAKS test with the STAAR test as their way to see if our children are really learning. The TAKS was not working for kids and parents were noticing.

       Hermes defines our educational environment as standardized testing. Schools drill into our kids brains everything they need to know that is on the TAKS test. At the same time, telling our children that if they don’t pass then they will not move on to the next grade. Last year, my daughter’s school stressed her out by telling her that she had to do well on the TAKS or she would fail the second grade. Another parent even told me that her daughter was diagnosed with dyslexia during the school year but later found out that it was really anxiety. She blamed it on the pressure administered by the school to do well on standardized testing.

       In the article, Hermes characterizes the testing as dull, uncreative, and a stunting way to quantify learning. This opinion made me think about the children who are smarter than the TAKS testing. These children are not challenged because what they are taught is easy to them. What do the teachers do for the kids who are this smart? They freeze the child’s learning time so they can help the other students who are not as advanced as they are and even make them feel special by naming them “helpers”. Children should always be challenged to learn more regardless of what is taught to students around them.

       Hermes is a student aide who administers the reviews for exams. He was first irked by the idea that reviews were not a chance for him to blow student’s mind but instead it was used to feed the student the exam. Its safe to say that every student’s mind is trained early to think of school as a way to absorb what will advance you then unknowingly throw it out once the information has served its purpose. This is why students are not really learning. Hermes admits that during the exam review a student will always ask anything they can to find out what exactly is on the exam or how much will they need to know about a subject that is on the exam. This proves that students are not looking to fully understand but to temporarily know to get by.

       This article points out exactly what every school official knows but will never admit. I do not like standardize testing and have been guilty of the “temporarily absorbing” to get by. Now that I have a child in Elementary school, Texas’ lack of education strikes home. I see what standardized testing does to our children. I can only hope that the STAAR test will actually make a change.

Why Be One When You Can Be Many

     Every September, the University of Texas Counseling and Mental Health Center hosts Suicide Prevention Week, with hopes to reach out to UT students who suffer with suicidal illnesses. In an article from the Daily Texan, Be The Many With Suicide Prevention, Katherine Taylor expresses her dislike for the new slogan. Taylor makes a lot of sense to point out that “Be that one” slogan seems misleading and inappropriate for the subject of suicide.
     What were they thinking, “be that one” to what? The campaign aimed to influence UT students to “be that one” to talk to a friend about their mental illness. Taylor correctly argues that suicide awareness should be stopped by many not just one person. The slogan seems to imply that only one person is needed. If suicide prevention needs only one, then more than likely people will think they don’t need to be involved.
     Taylor gives evidence collected from the University of Texas supporting importance of suicide awareness. According to the CMHC, suicide is the second leading cause of death in college students. Reports prove that 90% of people who commit suicide had a diagnosable mental illness. In 2009, 46% of college students reported feeling that things were hopeless and one third felt depression was making it difficult to function. This information alone should be enough evidence as to why we need to focus on a strong campaign for suicide awareness.
     Taylor makes a great point about how fast people are to say they are sick, but will never say they are mentally ill. If one is feverish, they know what to do. That individual would stay home in bed and maybe post a Facebook status for the whole world to see they are not well.
     Taylor nails it when she identifies the stigma related to mental health issues. This stigma labels an individual weaker than others because they admit to a mental illness. This leads to a fear of being known as “crazy” by others and not fitting into a perfect world.
     This article is a good representation of a misleading, perhaps severely understated slogan to prevent suicide. Clearly she gathered evidence that suicide is a huge problem among UT students. The CMHC at UT is not creating a strong movement by using “Be that one” when they really mean “Be the many” if they are going to make a difference. Katherine Taylor brought true light to the urgency of mental health awareness and damage control to a poorly created slogan.

HPV Underestimated

      In the not so surprising article, “On the Record: Perry Understated Merck Money” U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann sheds light on the motive that Perry might have had during his controversial order of the Guardasil shot in 2006. Perry lied about the funds he received from the drug manufacturer Merck and even got offended by the criticism he was given for taking the money.
     Accusations started on Monday nights Tea Party debate when Michele Bachmann gave proof from the Texas Ethics Commission that Perry seriously underestimated the amount he was given from Merck. Perry has admitted to receiving $5000 and went as far as to say he was offended that people would accuse him for being bought out for such a small amount when he had raised about 30 million.
     The Texas Ethics Commission, who’s goal is to promotes public confidence in government, supplied proof that Perry received $29,500 from Merck. The bulk of this money was given right before he ordered his Guardasil requirement for teen girls. We will never know if he is truly passionate about this health issue or why he pushed so hard for it because he was bought out. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and Perry should have known the truth would come out eventually.
     Interestingly, the end of the article provides a link to viewers who want to see a detailed breakdown of who is contributing to the Perry fund. It’s definitely worth your time to view this link.
     Articles like this add to the resistance of trust among politicians and people. I really indulged in this article because of the proof given to back up the accusations. For once its nice to read something and leave it not wondering if it is based off speculation.