Comment on a colleague's work #2

I most certainly agree with my classmate Adam Gonzales here, and with the critical campus carry law that's been enacted in many 4-year universities, and is soon going to be legal in community colleges, beginning on August 1, 2017. It is definitely a vaguely talked about issue in Texas, considering that our state is predominantly an open carry supportive state, or in simpler words a state that supports our second amendment the "right to bear arms." Although, our very own legislation approved open carry — and sent it to Governor Greg Abbott, who pledged to sign it and officially allow the new law to be in full practice. I for one, significantly agree with Mr. Gonzales that, "having guns on campus would bring a more negative effect than a positive one." But just to make it clear I do believe that open carry without a doubt is not a great law that was passed, but I don't think that it's really going to be such a big problem with college students. By this, I mean that most college students, but not all, are mostly in their early or late twenties and if you take into consideration the fact that guns are awfully expensive — I believe that most college students wouldn't really bother with buying a gun and bringing it to campus. Again, I am just taking into account the financial expenses that not all, but some college students have to maintain or not try to surpass.

As far as the issue that unfortunately, occurred at Ohio State University, I don't necessarily think that college students should be the antagonists in these type of situations. I also agree with Mr. Gonzales that the campus police department should be the ones handling these type incidents, I mean isn't that their lawful job, to serve and protect? If that's not the case then why do universities, as well as colleges even have police departments?  It shouldn't be the job of college students to worry about who might they have to shoot today — in case a tragic incident was to occur. To emphasize, let's also keep in mind that many college students are under a lot of stress as well, and as Mr. Gonzales states, "amounts of stress [and] the [legal] [right] [to] [posses] firearms would probably not be a good idea." Of course, an individual that is under high amounts of stress, and who could possibly be also suffering from psychotic thoughts should probably not be allowed to have legal possession of a firearm. As we know by now individuals that have committed acts of violence in schools tend to be "antisocial" individuals, who are the least expected to commit such acts. All I am saying is that we need to take into consideration the individuals, who I wouldn't necessarily classify as mentally ill, but who could be suffering from rejection within our society, as well as individuals who are as a matter of fact mentally ill. Our government should provide more support to these individuals, and although I understand that out government has implemented money and resources into helping the mentally ill, it isn't enough.

Thus, I definitely agreed with my classmate Adam Gonzales on the very debatable open campus carry law.  All I can say on this issue is "we will just have to see" what exactly occurs in our public universities, and community colleges. Hopefully, we don't witness or hear about in the media of horrifying incidents — which could possibly involve firearms and the harming of our students, professors, and innocent bystanders. Unfortunately, that is all I can suggest. What are your thoughts?

Sincerely, Alfredo Jaimes  

As "El Chapo" Extradition Unfolds, Border Region Could See Impact

 The drug war, although, it might not affect us here in Austin as much as it has touched southern Texas cities, specifically, El Paso. It is certainly an alarming issue that concerns many Texans, right? And with “El Chapo” Guzmán's extradition, some wonder if a surge in cartel violence along the Texas-Mexico border could follow.  America's war on drugs has been a controversial issue, ever since 1971 when former President Richard Nixon, proclaimed "America's public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse" (Sharp 1). From there on the war on drugs especially, on Mexican and Colombian drug cartels was official. The third recapture of one of the world's most wanted drug lord better known as Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, was a significant moment for the Mexican government, as well as the American govt. In the eyes of the government, it would seem that with the capture of "El Chapo," true progression was occurring, against the war on drugs, but is that really the case? (I certainly don't think so) Yet, many experts are worried that with the capture of Guzmán violence can once again hit an epidemic in Ciudad Juàrez, and it's neighboring American/Texas town of El Paso. Although, the violence in Ciudad Juarez is not nearly as bad as it was, during the years of 2008 and 2011, (A time when the Sinaloa cartel and Juárez cartel were at war for drug corridors into Texas) experts are concerned that Joaquin's powerful Sinaloa Cartel still "controls more than half of Mexico's drug trade" (Aguilar, Texas Tribune). It is a never ending battle against the war on drugs, and with the capture of one of the world's most wanted drug kingpin's things seem as if they won't be changing anytime soon either.

  Furthermore, with "El Chapo's" capture along comes many other concerns specifically to the State of Texas, considering the fact that Texas has indicted Guzman with charges of "murder, kidnapping, [drug trafficking] and conspiracy" (Aguilar Texas Tribune). The burden that the United States government along with the Texas government faces is the long extradition process that it will take for "El Chapo" to face justice in the country. It isn't a surprise why the U.S. govt would have pessimistic perspectives on the Mexican judiciary process — taking into consideration that in 2014, former Mexican Attorney General Jesús Murrillo Karaman stated that "[Guzmán] would be extradited in "300 to 400 years" (Aguilar Texas Tribune). As you can tell with Mr. Murillo's words he wasn't so cooperative with the extradition of El Chapo. 

  Sadly, the outlook for the Mexican govt wasn't so great after Mr. Guzmán escaped a Maximum prison for the third consecutive time. But, many experts, for example, "Shannon O"Neil" are now hopeful because, according to the new Mexican Attorney General Arely Gómez Gonzáles, she would fight to make the extradition of the kingpin a much more collaborative process.  All I can say is that with Arely Gómez Gonzáles in office things seem to be slowly heading in the right direction. In my perspective, the drug war is never going to end in Mexico and abroad, but it can sure be a working process and that is what I see Ms. Gómez Gonzáles fighting for.

 Ultimately, the extradition of El Chapo is certainly going to be a long process, considering that his attorneys can appeal, however, many times that they wish. But is El Chapo ever facing American justice? Possibly, he may even get extradited to Texas, or other parts of the country, because as we shall all know by now he isn't just wanted in our state. 

  The concern at the beginning of this article was the possible violence that Guzmán's capture could mean in the city of Juárez, but specifically what it can mean on the American side of the border, which was the primary concern. So far the percentages of murders in El Paso, Texas are relatively low in connections with the drug trade. Actually, early June and July of 2016, Juárez was the city that has seen an increase in drug war related murders, but although what I am about to say is doleful; the numbers of deaths aren't nearly as high as in the years of 2008-2011. Thus, in my perspective, it will certainly be nice if Mexico wasn't in such a bad state in regards to the drug violence, but as long as there is demand there will always be supply or in this case suppliers. Ultimately, could this war actually spill over to the Texas side of the border. What do you think? 

Commentary on a colleague's work #1

Hi, Ms. Angione,

I suppose most of us of the younger generation were as a matter of fact shocked with this year's presidential election, considering the rhetoric used by our President-Elect. The bigotry, racism, and economic promises that the Donald promised was what in my perspective intrigued many American voters specifically, rural residents to vote for him. Economic frustrations, as well as paranoia, was key in winning votes this year. It's understandable why many rural residents feel left behind in today's booming economy, most of these Americans were used to simply graduating High school, or dropping out at an early age — and simply finding work at the local manufacturing company etc. But, with the fast-paced and high-value services better known as economically knowledge jobs, it leaves rural residents out of the picture.   

Furthermore, with the hardships of finding a job, rural residents develop anger, frustration, and even repugnant point of views. The frustrations of not being able to financially provide for themselves, and more importantly their families, results in people looking for a so-called hero. Coincidentally, Donald Trump's rhetoric evoked a passionate emotion and more importantly, he was the new voice for rural America. A true savior in the eyes of the forgotten Americans.   

The economic misfortunes of many Americans have led to a much greater divide between us of the urban side of America and those of the rural side. Everything from politics, education, economics, as well as sociological perspectives. What urban Americans consider acceptable, for example, gay marriage, rural America would most likely think of that as a norm. As my colleague, Ms. Angione says, "we are more divided than I ever thought" I certainly agree with her, I feel as if our country is very divided this year, considering the differences in politics between us and rural America.   

It is honestly very sad and shocking that till this day some Americans support racism, bigotry, and sexism. I guess we don't learn from our history that these kind of beliefs aren't necessarily going to "make America great again". In fact when was America ever great? but our entitlement to speech gives us the right to speak with such hateful rhetoric, which as we saw in 2016 is still acceptable among many Americans. Ultimately, this year’s election startled me, I have to put into mind that we might be even more divided than ever. We will have to see what and how our President-Elect runs the most prestigious office in the country. Overall, I enjoyed My colleague's work  and her perspective on America’s current demographics. It was a very intellectual, informative, and eye-catching topic.

Sincerely, Alfredo Jaimes

El SALVADOR'S GANG VIOLENCE THRIVES IN AFTER CIVIL WAR

  May I ask you something, what if one day when you woke up your community, no wait for it; your country is now the murder capital of the world? I'm assuming that as Americans we would think of this as an atrocious, and unacceptable situation, right? I know, I know, I'm totally right on this one! I apologize for feeding my ego here. Now, onto the most serious issue here. In case you aren't fully informed, or aware of what's currently going on in the Central American country of El Salvador; don't worry that's perfectly fine. That's why I am here for. To inform you. Lately, immigration, as we all know has caused a passionate, emotional, and heated debate within our political spectrum. Specifically, among Hispanics like myself. What a coincidence that I of all people would be writing about this. Sarcasm at it's best! The issue of immigration might not necessarily be of a great importance, but it sure does seem like a popular topic in our current presidential election, but then you ask yourself what does this have to do with Texas? And I will say this. Texas has a lot to do with immigration. Why? because it is believed that up to 90 percent of immigrants that have been apprehended on our southern Texas border are from Central America. That's why.  A quick note before I begin writing even more. I tend to be very biased, and I do apologize for that, I also seem to be somewhat of an activist. But someone has to speak the truth. Go democracy! 

  I find it quite bizarre though (Ironically speaking) that El Salvador seems to be what I call a "U.S. Puppet" by that I mean since the level of violence that the gangs MS-13 and 18th street pose to society can be traced back to El Salvador's Merciless, 12-year civil war, which till this day still cuts deep wounds in the country. Now, back to the U.S. involvement in the Salvadoran civil war. The United States just so happen to have"U.S.-backed, right-wing soldiers" in El Salvador, but the left-wing (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front) opposed their political philosophy and declared a full-scale war. It was official! The Salvadoran Civil war had begun, which sought out to see more than "75,000" deaths, beginning in 1980, and ending in 1992. It was truly horrendous times for El Salvador. But while the war was in full action many Salvadorans decided to flee their country and head North to the U.S. in order to not be killed by the guerrillas. Gustavo Villatoro, a former assistant attorney general states, “Those of us who lived in areas dominated by guerillas had to migrate,” he said. “Because I didn’t want to be a guerilla by choice, I was going to be made to be one. And if not, they’d kill me. And they’d kill my family, too.” When immigrants set foot on American soil they arrived with literally no money, leading them to start from scratch, forcing many families to live in poverty-stricken areas. A most famous area East Los Angeles where the MS-13 and 18th street gangs were formed. But these gang members who were mostly young and wild teenagers were soon deported back to their countries, bringing with them a new level of war. Gang war. I am not necessarily pointing the finger at the U.S. for this current uprising gang problem in El Salvador, and various Central American countries; but what I am questioning is why not deal with the problem that we as a country began; rather than just leaving it to a vulnerable country in which I call a proletariat of the United States.

   If you're wondering why so many Salvadorians are now suddenly migrating to Texas, It is because unfortunately, El Salvador is now home to two of the most brutal gangs in the world: The Mara Salvatrucha, and (La 18) or eighteenth street gang. In the 1990s when "former president Bill Clinton"-- was in the white house he, and his administration "aggressively," decided to deport as many illegal gang members as they could. Although what the Clinton administration didn't realize was that the new gang problem originally formed in the U.S.  was going to be a real burden on the Central American govt. It was a fact; the Central American govt wasn't prepared to deal with the "level of organization" that the MS-13 and their counterparts brought to Central American countries.  

  

 It really doesn't surprise me why so many Salvadorans, Hondurans, and Guatemalan's have decided to flee their countries. They're fleeing the violence and drastic poverty levels that they face. The ruthless violence that the MS-13 and 18th street gangs have brought with them has influenced them to recruit as many members as possible, including children as young as 10 years old. Then people wonder why so many Latin Americans decide to flee their countries, they're not leaving because they want too, it is due to the very limited economic opportunities that their countries offer them. What I am trying to convey here is that most of the people fleeing, El Salvador, are families, single parents, and even lonesome children. Better yet Salvadorans along with Central Americans are now considered refugees as well. The main priority of many immigrants like the Salvadorans, Hondurans etc... is to be able to give their children a better life. So that they won't have to endure the penurious situations that their countries face. Ultimately, Texas happens to be a clandestine route for immigrants, and I frankly do not blame them. Nor do I recommend them to come to Texas, but they're in search of the fallacy known as the AMERICAN DREAM. Is that something that we should deny humanitarianism, the ability to dream. What do you think? 

PARENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN DESERVE SCHOOL OPTIONS

 Dianna Muldrow, a policy analyst for the Center for Effective Justice of The Texas Public Policy Foundation, is emphasizing the unfortunate fact that many children in Texas are being denied their rights to a good quality education. A recent investigative report from the Houston Chronicle alleges that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has systematically lowered the number of students granted special education status in the state since 2004. Muldrow's, main intended audience are the parents of children with either diagnosed or non-diagnosed learning disabilities, as well as administrators, teachers, and especially the (TEA) for not taking into full consideration the resources that children with learning disabilities deserve.  

  Imagine, your child has the very same potential than that of a scholar; but he/she is being denied the resources to help them succeed? wouldn't that make you as a parent angry, questionable, and even untrustworthy towards our educational system? That's exactly what the public education system has/is doing too many children who deserve the benefits of special education. As Muldrow, argues on behalf of the parents who have children with learning disabilities, "what is certain is that many parents do not feel that the needs of their [children] are being met by the schools district." what this results in, is more parents turning to alternative educational methods, making parents turn to private, charter, or online schooling. 

 Certainly, there isn't anything wrong with educational alternative methods; if you can afford them? but for the single parent or families who unfortunately do not have the financial necessities for this kind of education; it can be an indefinite burden on their part. Actually, it impacts the children even more, because they're the ones not receiving the adequate education that they drastically deserve. As you might have been able to tell with my diction, I most definitely agree with Dianna Muldrow stance. Mainly, because every child should have the right to fully reach their academic potential, but if you have a system that's not fully letting children strive for their academic excellence; because they have a slower cognitive process. It just isn't ethical! Think in terms of how the children are going to psychologically feel when it comes time for them to actually step out into the real world. What do you think? is it going to be all sunshine, or is that child who is now an adult going to fully strive to succeed? No matter the circumstance every child should have the right to a prosperous education, and that to me is final.   

LE'S TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE PEOPLE!

  The editorial, columnist writer, Alberta Phillips of the Austin American-Statesman makes a very clear, and engaging argument; in regards to More evictions pushing low-income scale families out of schools, and communities.  She argues the fact that local residents are being kicked out of their homes, considering the increase in the construction of condos, and upscale housing in the East Austin area of Mueller development. In my perspective, she is trying to convey, and catch the attention of many "slumlord" owners as well as city leaders, by taking into consideration the burden that many low-income scale families are facing, due to their decision-making.   

   Phillips is also arguing the fact that many landlords who are evicting lower income scale families are residents who have been living in these long-term affordable residences for years, and who have children who attend the local schools. Blanton Elementary School is located near these complexes and has a strong reputation for educating children who come from predominantly Hispanic families. The school is known for being a helping hand for many of these children who at times come to the school, not knowing English, and sadly even starving. Mainly, since their parents are having to choose "between paying rent or buying enough food to last the month." To sum up, Phillips is trying to point out the reality that nowadays it's a true hassle to find affordable housing. Yet, what landlords and various investors are doing to many low-income complexes is negatively affecting many long-term residents, who have work hard day to day to just meet ends meet. 

   I personally agree with what Phillips is arguing here, why you might ask? well, I understand that Austin is without a doubt one of the nation's fastest growing city, and along with that growth comes the booming real estate business, and investors etc. But I don't necessarily agree with the evictions of many residences, who are just simply trying to make a living for themselves, and their families. I don't agree with the fact that many landlord owners, who have been repeatedly violating city codes, have all of a sudden decided to become "real estate speculators." As "Tovo," stated in the opinion based commentary written by Phillips "the city should examine ways to help landlords who are financially strapped"  I fully agree with his suggestion as well, because I am sure that being a landlord isn't necessarily an easy task, and whenever you have financial burdens on your property your only option could possibly mean selling the property to wealthy real estate investors. In either case, It just isn't right, and ultimately the people who are affected by these decisions are, unfortunately, of lower income, and frankly DO NOT have enough resources to find affordable housing, which is just not humane. Certainly, It would be nice if landlords and city leaders did a bit more in helping these families stay in their communities, but sadly our economy doesn't function that way.  

x

TEXAS UNINSURED RATE CONTINUES TO FALL

  Texas still has the highest percentage of people without health insurance in the country Now, Let me ask you something. What do you think is the number of people uninsured in Texas? In case you're curious the numbers are extravagant. 5 Million Texans were reported uninsured. What's also a bit harsh to hear/read about is considering the fact that many of the folk's uninsured most likely fall under the lower Income scale. As well as people whose income doesn't quite fall under the low-income scale, but at the same time still wouldn't be enough for coverage, which makes it harder for them to find affordable Health insurance. Mainly since our State of Texas is one of, or in other words the most strict and stingy state when it comes down to ensuring certain people. Specifically, since Texas is a state who unfortunately decided not to expand Medicaid coverage.

 Here comes another question for you. Why do you think Our Texas Government doesn't ensure residents?I don't want to sound like a Liberal now, but as you might already know Texas is predominantly a republican state. The ironic thing is that Texas can actually grant insurance to "about 800,000 adults living in poverty if the state expanded Medicaid." The Republican Party considering their conservative point of views strongly oppose the Idea of Medicaid "They've criticized Medicaid, as an inefficient and broken system." Now, The Republicans might have a point there, but what they should consider first is the insuring of their residents. Instead of putting political favoritism first. I know what I just wrote might sound as if I am speaking about a dream world, but with this kind of decision making does is ultimately affect the people of Texas.

  In my perspective, I believe this article is worthy of reading mainly since we as Texans can possibly be affected by this or even currently experiencing being uninsured. We as citizens need to have the right information, In regards to issues that frankly can touch home for some of us, not all of us, but a significant proportion. So go ahead and read this article to expand your knowledge on what the "POLITICIANS" are abiding by. Trust me it will surprise you. Actually it might not even surprise you, but still, you should read it!

Hello Fellow Classmates!

Best Regards, Alfredo Jaimes