What odds would you require to gamble with a human life? Our justice system has failed some of our citizens, and the penalty has been a wrongful execution. Dark and macabre questions aside, this is a sincere issue and a real problem. It has been historically documented that people have been put to death and executed in the United States, who have posthumously been exonerated of their crimes due to new evidence.
In Texas, we allow capital punishment. Tcapd.org, reports the following: "Since 1973, 158 individuals – including 13 people in Texas – have been released from death rows nationwide due to evidence of their wrongful conviction." My question is this: who have we missed? Is it moral to proceed with a system that has wrongfully killed innocent people because in general, we execute the right ones?
I argue that there is no real reason to continue executions under these conditions. It costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to imprison them for life, and there is a possibility that we condemning an innocent person. We claim to value life, and we protect it with laws, but we are willing to risk a wrongful death every time we use capital punishment. We have an imperfect system, and the statistics are such: You have an imperfect chance to be sentenced correctly in a capital offense. You have a chance of being wrongfully executed.
We do not have to gamble. We can still keep our most violent criminals away from the public. We can still provide ample punishment by taking away nearly all choices they can ever have. We can reduce them to a 10x10 cell. It costs less eliminates the risk of an innocent life being taken.
Let us please stop playing a game of dice with human lives.
Friday, April 28, 2017
Friday, April 14, 2017
Response to commentary from TristanSZ :"Lessons for American from my own refuge tale."
Response to commentary from TristanSZ :"Lessons for American from my own refuge tale."
Thank you for the article. I appreciate the perspective.
I also think that it is important to provide opportunities for citizens and immigrants alike. Everyone is technically an immigrant. The majority Caucasian culture is certainly a blend from European immigrants, some of whom migrated early in American history, and some of whom migrated later.
I do see challenges for immigrants that wish to make a meaningful life in America. Some of the practical issues include language barriers and cultural learning curves. Some of the less clear issues include; immigration policy, work visas, international student polices, and financial aid.
Many of the american policies are difficult for natives to understand. Loans, credit, and academic financing are stressful for seasoned navigators. Imagine doing these things when the language isn't your primary means of communicating, which further increases your risk of borrowing from financial institutions who's policies border on usury. We need to institute policies that safeguard American immigrants who are not accustomed to our financial and banking practices. When we give people reasonable circumstances in which to thrive, they are more likely to choose paths that align with their aspirations and passions. People who are allowed to explore these paths are more likely to generate quality work that they care about. Everyone wins.
I think it is extremely important to help immigrant families set up a reasonable life for themselves. There are some naturally occurring barriers that come along with relocating to different countries. We can however, help ease this transition and recognize that it's actually beneficial to do so. When we give people the opportunities to go after their dreams and ambitions, we let them show up and offer their best-selves back into the community. I would prefer to be surrounded by people who are their best-selves, buying services and goods from those who are also showing up with passion and intrinsic motivation.
Monday, April 3, 2017
What about the rest of our Texas students?
Greetings Texans ,
In a recent post, I illustrated the competitive, unhealthy framework that underlies our educational institutions. Our system is designed to initiate the young into a competitive, unrealistic academic marathon, in which only a few on the far end of a statistical distribution can win. Measures of academic success are tailored to those with specific skill sets, specific interests, and specific resources.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following examples are unfortunately not uncommon.
High reading comprehension?
Great job.
Strong written communication?
Fantastic.
High scores on math?
Veneration is in order.
On the other hand.............
You love to dance?
We don't offer anything to help you with that.
Prefer to draw during your math classes?
Pay attention...draw in your spare time.
And perhaps the most disturbing of all.............
Can't sit still and desperately want to go outside to play?
Sit down and learn patience, and if that doesn't work, take this pill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are emotionally and cognitively training a large majority of our children to believe that their interests aren't valuable, and that their instincts are wrong. This is a disturbingly flawed and unrealistic system. Any person is going to have hundreds of different qualities, attributes, and interests. I am very tall 6'6''. If I wanted to, I could train to dunk a basketball. However, my mother who is 5'3'', would not be able to do this, despite her best efforts. She can however, beat the hardest Sudoku puzzles around, something that I personally have little natural skill in, or interests for.
No matter what the attribute, there will be a distribution. Some people will be good at some tasks while others will not. Our biggest mistake in education is the stratification of human development, skill and interests. In some schools, curriculum that is natural and innate to many students, is cut from the curriculum due to budgetary restrictions. Art and music are typically the first to go.
Below is a link to Natalie Schwamova, playing Mozart's impromptu version of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. She was 11 years old during this recording. As an aspiring pianist, she was told by her teachers that she simply would not make a good pianist. Fortunately, she practiced furiously regardless of the feedback, and is now an international star.
Natalie Schwamova - Motzart's - Twinkle Twinkle Little Star
Natalie was given the opportunity to grow and explore naturally by her parents, despite her teachers recommendations. It begs the question back home......How many Natalie's are we missing?
We need to stop asking, "How can I help this person prepare for a future who's economy will demand certain jobs.?" We need to start asking, "How can I help this person become exactly who they were meant to be."
Friday, March 10, 2017
Addressing Educational Needs of Texans
I was recently perusing the Austin American Statemen for editorials when I came across an article by a UT professor named Cynthia Franklin, titled "Commentary: All lose when charter, public schools presented as rivals" I have a specific interest in education and was intrigued enough to read the authors opinion. In the article, professor Franklin outlines her 20 years of experience in educational research and then states planely,
"I can tell you that regardless of which side of the debate you may fall, pitting charter schools against public schools does not lead to better education for anyone."
Professor Franklin then describes modern research that indicates the majority of charter schools performing no better than public schools. She describes the need to look at the variables that matter: Faculty, staff, and resources. She then describes the fundamental assumption behind charter school advocacy.
"Charter schools have been positioned against public schools based on the idea that school choice will lead to a better education. To most Americans, choice is a cherished value, but offering school choice through charter schools is not a cure for educating all children."
Professor Franklin then highlights special needs children, or children struggling with mental health issues as illustrative cases in which Charter schools may not be willing or able to enroll these students. This effectively eliminates choices for the families of these children.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with the authors' initial assertion. Pitting charter schools against public schools does not lead to better education quality for everyone. However, I believe there is a deeper issue.
It is an error to assume that interpersonal competition within education will lead to the best results. This philosophy can be seen at the micro level by students who run the stress gauntlet and compete for GPA's, placement exam scores, and esteemed university attendence. If you pull back a litter further, you can see local schools and colleges fighting for their share of public education resources, and frantically highering experts to help them 'fix' low graduation rate issues. If you look at the issue nationally, policy makers scramble to adjust to a data driven world in which the US has only a middle of the pack ranking in math, science, and reading. (Pew Research)
I argue that the problem isn't resources, it isn't teacher quality, it isn't public schools or charter schools. Out biggest issue with education is that we slap reactionary policy band-aids to fix EXTERNAL indicators of academic success, when in fact, we have a very real INTERNAL issue.
We do not approach education in a healthy and sustainable way. This is an actual article I found after a quick google search "Getting First Graders Ready for Standardized Testing and Evaluation". These are children who are 6 years old.......They are barely cognitively aware of the world, and yet they are expected to perform. The joy of intrinsic learning is quickly replaced with an achievement expectation, and with that, an internal belief is programmed, "If I perform well, then I have value. If I do not perform well, I am not valued." This leads to a fear-based system of performance in which a persons' identity, value, and self-worth are intrinsically tied to their level of achievement.
We do not perform at our best when we are under psychological duress. People are designed to function at their best when they are happy, intrinsically motivated, and can be creative. This has been known to psychologists for generations. Corporations caught onto this in the late 20th century. (Think of Googles' method of employee care). There is a host of educational resources that confirm results like these. Schools with Montessori philosophies, centered around fostering innate curiosity have been in the US since the 1960's.
We need to rethink our approach to education. Our current performance-based model is unsustainable and unhealthy. We need to focus on developing an educational model at the national, local, and individual level, that leverages intrinsic learning motivations. Instead of trying to steer the educational ship, let go, and let us do what we were designed to do.
"I can tell you that regardless of which side of the debate you may fall, pitting charter schools against public schools does not lead to better education for anyone."
Professor Franklin then describes modern research that indicates the majority of charter schools performing no better than public schools. She describes the need to look at the variables that matter: Faculty, staff, and resources. She then describes the fundamental assumption behind charter school advocacy.
"Charter schools have been positioned against public schools based on the idea that school choice will lead to a better education. To most Americans, choice is a cherished value, but offering school choice through charter schools is not a cure for educating all children."
Professor Franklin then highlights special needs children, or children struggling with mental health issues as illustrative cases in which Charter schools may not be willing or able to enroll these students. This effectively eliminates choices for the families of these children.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with the authors' initial assertion. Pitting charter schools against public schools does not lead to better education quality for everyone. However, I believe there is a deeper issue.
It is an error to assume that interpersonal competition within education will lead to the best results. This philosophy can be seen at the micro level by students who run the stress gauntlet and compete for GPA's, placement exam scores, and esteemed university attendence. If you pull back a litter further, you can see local schools and colleges fighting for their share of public education resources, and frantically highering experts to help them 'fix' low graduation rate issues. If you look at the issue nationally, policy makers scramble to adjust to a data driven world in which the US has only a middle of the pack ranking in math, science, and reading. (Pew Research)
I argue that the problem isn't resources, it isn't teacher quality, it isn't public schools or charter schools. Out biggest issue with education is that we slap reactionary policy band-aids to fix EXTERNAL indicators of academic success, when in fact, we have a very real INTERNAL issue.
We do not approach education in a healthy and sustainable way. This is an actual article I found after a quick google search "Getting First Graders Ready for Standardized Testing and Evaluation". These are children who are 6 years old.......They are barely cognitively aware of the world, and yet they are expected to perform. The joy of intrinsic learning is quickly replaced with an achievement expectation, and with that, an internal belief is programmed, "If I perform well, then I have value. If I do not perform well, I am not valued." This leads to a fear-based system of performance in which a persons' identity, value, and self-worth are intrinsically tied to their level of achievement.
We do not perform at our best when we are under psychological duress. People are designed to function at their best when they are happy, intrinsically motivated, and can be creative. This has been known to psychologists for generations. Corporations caught onto this in the late 20th century. (Think of Googles' method of employee care). There is a host of educational resources that confirm results like these. Schools with Montessori philosophies, centered around fostering innate curiosity have been in the US since the 1960's.
We need to rethink our approach to education. Our current performance-based model is unsustainable and unhealthy. We need to focus on developing an educational model at the national, local, and individual level, that leverages intrinsic learning motivations. Instead of trying to steer the educational ship, let go, and let us do what we were designed to do.
Friday, February 24, 2017
Addressing the needs of the Homeless
In an editorial by The Dallas Morning News, the author addresses the ongoing struggle to meet the challenges of a growing homeless population. The author makes an argument based on successful implementations in other cities: "Get homeless people into a safe environment and then support their transition, with coordinated social services to keep them from returning to the streets, jail or emergency rooms at taxpayers' expense." The author is anonymous. This immediately worries me because I do not have a way to gauge the level of knowledge the author has on the subject matter. They also produce a premise without giving references to the cities or areas in which long-term strategies have been helpful. Without actual data, my skepticism increases again.
If I put aside the anonymity and the lack of sourced references I to do understand the argument within the paper. I agree with the author's basic premise. Previous attempts to simply provide Homeless individuals with basic necessities such as simple financial support, occasional meals, clothing and temporary housing is not enough to tackle the larger issues of chronic homelessness. Cities in Texas need to adopt policies that finance multidepartmental efforts to root out the underlying causes of chronic homelessness.
In order to address the issues of the Homeless, we need to focus on long-term solutions. This requires substantial resources that are dedicated to addressing the mental and physical needs of each individual, as well as skills development programs that are necessary for self-efficacy and economic security. Many people who are homeless suffer from addiction and other severe mental health disorders. People in these circumstances require strong support systems to help them cope with their diagnosis. The Homeless population needs clinical support, access to group support such as 12 step fellowships and mental health support groups, as well as living assistance training for basic self-care skills and job skills training.
Homelessness is often a chronic rather than a temporary issue in which those who are afflicted also report severe mental and physical health challenges. We need to focus on getting people out of homelessness permanently to avoid the economic consequences of chronic need, and to give a frequently underrepresented population of our citizenry a chance at a reasonable life. I also see a need for higher quality research inquires with the transient population. A lot of my own opinions are based on my experiences with the homeless and clinical work. One report from Houston gives strong arguments for this need, and provides some interesting data of their own. Homeless in Houston.
Think long term....
If I put aside the anonymity and the lack of sourced references I to do understand the argument within the paper. I agree with the author's basic premise. Previous attempts to simply provide Homeless individuals with basic necessities such as simple financial support, occasional meals, clothing and temporary housing is not enough to tackle the larger issues of chronic homelessness. Cities in Texas need to adopt policies that finance multidepartmental efforts to root out the underlying causes of chronic homelessness.
In order to address the issues of the Homeless, we need to focus on long-term solutions. This requires substantial resources that are dedicated to addressing the mental and physical needs of each individual, as well as skills development programs that are necessary for self-efficacy and economic security. Many people who are homeless suffer from addiction and other severe mental health disorders. People in these circumstances require strong support systems to help them cope with their diagnosis. The Homeless population needs clinical support, access to group support such as 12 step fellowships and mental health support groups, as well as living assistance training for basic self-care skills and job skills training.
Homelessness is often a chronic rather than a temporary issue in which those who are afflicted also report severe mental and physical health challenges. We need to focus on getting people out of homelessness permanently to avoid the economic consequences of chronic need, and to give a frequently underrepresented population of our citizenry a chance at a reasonable life. I also see a need for higher quality research inquires with the transient population. A lot of my own opinions are based on my experiences with the homeless and clinical work. One report from Houston gives strong arguments for this need, and provides some interesting data of their own. Homeless in Houston.
Think long term....
Friday, February 10, 2017
Blog Stage 2: Overview of the article, "Is the end near for straight ticket voting?", Feb 10th, 2017 by Charles Kuffner - Off the Kuff P
Hi Everyone! I think this article is an important read because it highlights a feature of the election process that has big implications on candidate selections. I think it also demonstrates a need for clear, easily accessed information about the plethora of candidates on our ballots. Visit here for the full article: Here
According to the Author of the article, Charles Kuffner, my concerns are shared by a warning from Texas Supreme Chief Justice Nathan Hetch. Chief Justice Hetch describes the process of straight ticket voting as being substantially impacted by the Presidential candidates on the Ticket. Indeed, further in the article, Kuffner describes a usual instance where straight ticket voting unintentionally leads to good candidates being dismissed, and damn near crazy individuals getting elected. According to the article, this type of voting also drastically limits third party effectiveness and allows the classic two-party system to stay in power.
I see two issues here. One, straight ticket voting allows us to be politically lazy, which results in further polarization of Democrats and Republicans, while simultaneously reinforcing the belief you are either Blue or Red, no other options exist. Two, we need clearer platform information for candidates, and the public needs to be educated on where to find that. We shouldn't have to scour google and filter out nonsense pages from reasonable sources. There should be a clear and politically uncharged resource for voters that spells out candidates beliefs without extremism. To make informed decisions as voters we need information that is as unbiased as possible.
Friday, February 3, 2017
Survey Poll: Are Native Texans more inclined to believe in Texas exceptionalism than non-natives?
Participation Assignment #1: Polling survey. Below is a breakdown of the survey, the results, and conclusions.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Are you a Native Texan? Y / N (Circle one)
Directions: Please describe how much you agree with the following statements by circling one of the possibilities below.
1) If Texas could secede from the United State, it has enough resources to be its' own Country.
Strongly-Disagree Disagree Neither Agree/Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
2) Texas governmental decisions have little influence on the rest of the Country.
Strongly-Disagree Disagree Neither Agree/Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
3) Texas has the best food in the Country.
Strongly-Disagree Disagree Neither Agree/Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
All questions were answered using a 5 point likert scale, and were given numerical quantities for the analysis; Strongly Disagree being 1 and Strongly agree equal to a 5, except for question two in which the point values are reversed. My assumption was that higher scores reflect higher opinions of Texas in general.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the data breakdown using Minitab Analytical software: (You'll learn how to do this if you take Intro-Stats here at ACC)
Question 1: If Texas could secede from the United State, it has enough resources to be its' own Country.
Native Texan average: 2.714
Non-native average: 3.667
Question 2: Texas governmental decisions have little influence on the rest of the Country.
Native Texan average: 3.357
Non-native average: 3.333
Question 3: Texas has the best food in the Country.
Native Texan average: 3.286
Non-native average: 3.111
Total Averages of all scores
Native Texan average: 3.12
Non-Native Average: 3.37
***One participants information was thrown out. It looked mischievously like an outlier, in which all answers were marked straight through as Disagree. I admit here that the sample was not representative of Texas as a whole, and is at best classified as a convenience sample. Extreme caution is recommended when making any inferences about this data.
Conclusion: I ran independent T-tests comparing the groups for each question. There was only one statistically significant result, and it was not what I expected! You may be able to guess from the data provided, but strangely Non-natives had stronger faith that Texas had the resources to secede from the Country than Natives!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)