With such a memorable election coming up, there are people out there trying to get the last minute comments about the dozen of choices we are going to have on the ballot. Most of these propositions and candidates we know nothing about and will simply vote ‘straight’ for the party we are committed to. In this editorial, the author is trying to get his audience, the tax payers, to approve a tax increase in Austin during a time of financial crisis. For propositions there isn’t a way to determine what is ‘straight’ unless people look at how democrats/ republicans have voted on the subject. In this article, the author is showing how crucial it is for a tax increase to occur for teachers, since that is the source of their income. While he admits that ‘timing for a tax rate increase couldn’t be worse’ he does make a good point as to why it should occur. Even though it is more money out of our pockets, it means that teachers can stay afloat financially during our economic crisis and keep their salaries steady during inflation.  

Their argument is obviously meant for the tax payers, to persuade the tax payers, who have the power to make this needs become reality. Without the approval of the tax payers this proposition could never get though, so it is up to all of us to make the difficult decision. The author’s credibility is valid since he has obviously looked up key points and researched the numbers to accurately provide information to his audience. The author has spelled out every financial detail about this bill, explaining how much of a tax increase will be needed, and where we stand now when it comes to how much in taxes they obtain and where it goes. Their overall claim is that the tax payers need to approve this bill in order for teachers to remain financially comfortable, or as they previously were before inflation. Without the tax increase their income decreases since it does not meet with the demand of inflation. As people, teachers need to have their pay increased as well in order to stay economically stable. It is a job just like everyone else’s, with the exception of the tax payers paying for their income, and just like everyone else, they need raises too. With this reasoning, I agree that teachers should have a raise. The bare minimal will allow them to keep up with the inflating dollar, but keeping income stable and reasonable for them could change the quality of their performance, since they will have less to worry about financially. The more financially stable a person is, generally the happier they are. Therefore, in theory, the more willing teachers are to teach and put quality into their work.  

Blog Part 2: The Judiciary system

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Murder_Trial_No_Body.html

After listening to quite a few detective shows on T.V. I would have to say that this is a bizarre verdict. A man in Fort Worth (Owens) was convicted of murder ALTHOUGH there is NO body to prove the killing; the 'victim' (Furch) is still considered "missing". Instead of using the body to prosecute this man, they linked Owens with peculiar things that were found in Furch's trash can such as "electrical and telephone cords tied in unusual knots, a towel, clothes, and other items belonging to Furch". In the end, this man gets life in prison due to the courts assumptions of the circumstance. The only thing that they can relate him to is a piece of duct tape they found in her trash can that had his fingerprint. That is very weak evidence, and the court completely bases their case against him upon the circumstance that he happened to be her next door neighbor.

Could it just be that he was rushing out of his house after taping up something and didn't have his own trash can out so he used his neighbors? It's guilty till proven innocence, once they found any DNA besides the victims in the trash can they HAD to be the murderer. Remind me to never have neighbors if I’m going to be accused for murder simply by throwing something away in someone else’s trash can because I didn't have time to rush back into the house.


If the man in THIS article can get life in prison for having his DNA in her trash can then THIS man:

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/10/10/06/1006woodford_edit.html

Should DEFINETLY get life in prison, or death row. He was on death row, but California temporarily banned death row while he was on it, therefore he got knocked down to jail WITH probation. This is a man who DEFINETLY killed someone, and HE was able to get out of jail for a few months. Just long enough to kill another person and assure the court that he should be on death row.

In my opinion, this shows the inconsistency between the states and the judicial system.

I find the first article to be very important because this is an example of our judicial system. With the power of assumption, anyone can easily be put in jail. What happened to Innocence till proven guilty? Has this constitutional right been forsaken? Shouldn't the evidence be stronger than just a piece of duct tape that's in the victims trash can? Assumptions like these can leave the wrong person in jail for a very long, an unforgivable amount of time, and it has before.