Recently, one of my fellow classmates wrote a critique on Senate Bill 6, which is also known as the Bathroom Bill and how it should not be passed because of the nonexistent nature of the 'problem' the bill is attempting to address.
And I agree completely, her argument is strong and valid on all fronts. As my classmate states in her post, the problem that prompted Senate Bill 6 is simply not there. The overall concern is that someone will go into a bathroom that is not their gender assigned at birth and assault someone. Yet, as we see in major cities like Austin, Houston, and Dallas - there just are not cases of this happening to where this would cause any concern. And I believe that while your argument is very solid, it is missing some very vital points as to why this bill is unnecessary.
The other problems with this bill are that there is just no reason to place an overall rule over a state when this is not a state-wide issue. A couple of weeks ago, when there was a hearing over Senate Bill 6 - there were many people who came to voice their concerns and the main point for them was how this Bill only really affects major cities in Texas, those which are often more progressive than the rest of the state. That being the case, it doesn't make sense why this bill should be implemented to the entire state when it does not really matter to the majority of the state of Texas (not to say the transgender bathroom issue isn't important, but if most transgender people are not living in small, rural cities in Texas - why would we make it a law for those in places like Uncertain, Texas?)
The reason this bill doesn't work is that it places this huge rulebook over all of Texas, governing different cities with different perspectives and different experiences with this current issue. Does the state of Texas know what is best for our progressive cities or do we, the people who live within them? While this problem needs to be addressed, it is best left to the local governments themselves to implement ordinances that personally fit that particular cities needs.
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Blog Stage 7: The (Education) Plot Thickens
Over recent weeks, I have been following Texas Senate Bill Three, which, if you recall, proposed to create a Student Savings Account that would be generated from our taxes to provide coverage for expenses for parents wanting to place their children in private or religious schools.
As stated previously as well, I discussed the major concerns for the passing of this bill - how it would only benefit the wealthy in covering expenses for private school, and how the money provided wouldn't even come close to covering the entire cost of putting one's child through private schooling.
Yet, as of March 30, 2017 (if you would like, you can track the progress of SB3 here), the proposed Bill was passed in the Senate and has now moved on to be voted on in the House of Representatives. However, in between that time going through the senate, there has been some reworking of the bill to make it more favorable to everyone. Following along with the article "Private school choice bill likely to get makeover on the Senate floor" by Aliyya Swaby from the Texas Tribune, the bill has been considered for changes that make it much different than when it was originally proposed.
One of the major changes to SB3 is that it would provide businesses with a 'Tax Credit Scholarship Program' - which lets business 'credit their insurance premium taxes in exchange for donations to approved scholarship organizations'. Along with that, these revisions also seem to exclude rural Texas districts and have constrained the bills to make it less universal, restricting the number of people who can use it. For example, a family of three who makes $75,000 a year would be ineligible to participate.
The new version of this bill would also require that 75% of the funding be used to pay exclusively for tuition for the private school, while the remainder would be used for other education expenses.
Now, while I am overall still opposed to this bill, I do believe that these revisions are a step in the proper direction to making it a bill that is fair for all students. Firstly, I do appreciate the specifications that were added to this bill that would state specifically how much of the money would be used for what - rather than seeing it as a large sum that is vaguely labeled "Education Expenses".
Lastly, but most importantly, I believe that the restriction on those who are allowed access to these Education Savings account is a vital component to this bill - No longer does it make it available to everyone - in this case, those who are are more privileged and wealthy, who by no means struggle with paying a private school tuition - rather, it places a set income that cannot be exceeded if they wish to be a part of this program, which allows lower class families to benefit more from this bill.
Overall, SB3 may not be completely ideal, but from the looks of it, it sure seems to be shaping up to being that way. Yet, to truly know if this bill will become a beneficial one to those who need it most - only time will tell.
Blog Stage 6 - Commentary on the Ban on Single-Use Bags
Every year, on average, the United States goes through about 100 billion plastic shopping bags. Between America and Europe, we use up about 80% of the world total of plastic bags produced every year, which estimates to around 4 to 5 trillion. This commentary article, "Why Austin Should Repeal Its Ban on Single-Use Bags", argues for a repeal of this ban, claiming it is not as beneficial as most would believe - I am here to argue that it is very much useful.
First, while personal experience is always valid to an extent, the problem of favoring plastic bags over reusable bags simply because of forgetfulness seems to be an irrelevant argument - especially when you do consider that this law was implemented four years ago. Rather than to see these reusable totes as a way for businesses to overprice their reusable bags, it should be seen as an attempt to stop using plastic bags that are threatening to the environment, especially with how easily they can be discarded without a second thought.
It takes about 1000 years for plastic to break down naturally in compounds - so even if they decay in the body of one animal, it will only continue to enter the environment. Not only that but in the ocean, plastic bags act as a sponge, absorbing and holding toxins in them, making them lethal to marine life. Over 100,000 marine animals are killed each year because of plastic bags.
While plastic bags are inherently more convenient than reusable totes (to some), the reality is that it seems like a small price to have to know that you are helping the environment rather than getting plastic bags that offer no environmental benefit.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Blog Stage 5: Clash of the Classrooms
Growing up, I had attended public schools for a majority of my schooling. There were only a few years in which I had attended a charter or private school. This being the case, I have seen the reality of how public schools go underfunded and how that correlates directly to the performance (or lack thereof) of students. This being the case, you can imagine my surprise when I heard about Texas Senate Bill 3 which would use our tax dollars to be given to parents in order for them to put their kids in private and religious schools. According to the draft of the bill, which you can read here, an "Education Savings Account" would be established that would help cover certain expenses for parents enrolling their children into a private or religious school of their choice.
Now, while on paper, it may seem like this bill is simply enabling families to have "free choice" in what school they choose, in practice, it is not as easy as it sounds. While this bill is shifting taxpayer money from public schools, it aims it towards these Education Savings Accounts - it is not as simple as choosing a private school and enrolling into it, there are many important drawbacks to this bill. First of which, you are not automatically enrolled into any private school; as a parent, you would still have to apply your child for consideration and go through that specific school's process of choosing students and even then, nothing is guaranteed as opposed to public schools.
Secondly, the specific amount of how much money is put into these savings account is not given, but with the restrictions as to what this money is meant to be used for, it is not guaranteed to cover the entire cost of attempting to enroll to a public school. It is based on the income of the family and the account can easily be taken away if they receive another form of income that the auditors of this bill believe would cover the costs instead. Think FAFSA but with a much worse understanding of how paying for school works.
Finally, but most importantly, this new bill would only prove to serve those students who belong to wealthy, well-off income families. If you are to look at a map of the distribution of private schools throughout a city, you find that a majority of the concentration of them are placed within more wealthy parts of the city, whereas in more poorer areas of a city, there are seldom private schools. Again, this bill shows its true colors by showing that they do not take into account all students, but it seems to only take those who are more fortunate in their wealth into consideration. If it comes down to sending your child to a public school which is right down the road or driving across town from your neighborhood to a private school, it is not too difficult to see that the parent would much rather prefer the former.
Instead of focusing on the majority of students and using state money to pay for the improvement of public schools, modernizing them and thus creating a much better environment and quality of education, the people who back this bill would rather take that away for some cheap alternative that would only help the wealthy.
When it comes down to it, this is not about Democrats or Republicans, conservatism or liberalism - in the end, it is about whether or not you genuinely care for the future of education for students. Education is a right, not a privilege or luxury. More than that, everyone deserves a quality education; so decide for yourselves, how would you want your tax dollars to be used? For benefitting all or only a few?
Now, while on paper, it may seem like this bill is simply enabling families to have "free choice" in what school they choose, in practice, it is not as easy as it sounds. While this bill is shifting taxpayer money from public schools, it aims it towards these Education Savings Accounts - it is not as simple as choosing a private school and enrolling into it, there are many important drawbacks to this bill. First of which, you are not automatically enrolled into any private school; as a parent, you would still have to apply your child for consideration and go through that specific school's process of choosing students and even then, nothing is guaranteed as opposed to public schools.
Secondly, the specific amount of how much money is put into these savings account is not given, but with the restrictions as to what this money is meant to be used for, it is not guaranteed to cover the entire cost of attempting to enroll to a public school. It is based on the income of the family and the account can easily be taken away if they receive another form of income that the auditors of this bill believe would cover the costs instead. Think FAFSA but with a much worse understanding of how paying for school works.
Finally, but most importantly, this new bill would only prove to serve those students who belong to wealthy, well-off income families. If you are to look at a map of the distribution of private schools throughout a city, you find that a majority of the concentration of them are placed within more wealthy parts of the city, whereas in more poorer areas of a city, there are seldom private schools. Again, this bill shows its true colors by showing that they do not take into account all students, but it seems to only take those who are more fortunate in their wealth into consideration. If it comes down to sending your child to a public school which is right down the road or driving across town from your neighborhood to a private school, it is not too difficult to see that the parent would much rather prefer the former.
Instead of focusing on the majority of students and using state money to pay for the improvement of public schools, modernizing them and thus creating a much better environment and quality of education, the people who back this bill would rather take that away for some cheap alternative that would only help the wealthy.
When it comes down to it, this is not about Democrats or Republicans, conservatism or liberalism - in the end, it is about whether or not you genuinely care for the future of education for students. Education is a right, not a privilege or luxury. More than that, everyone deserves a quality education; so decide for yourselves, how would you want your tax dollars to be used? For benefitting all or only a few?
Monday, March 6, 2017
Blog Stage 4: Education For All or the Few?
For my political blog critique, I chose the article "Will Vouchers Save the Schools or Starve Them?" which was published on February 28th, 2017 by R.G. Ratcliffe on the Burka Blog which is a subset of the Texas Monthly newspaper.
Ratcliffe's commentary focuses on the debate between those who support 'private school vouchers' versus those who do not. As far as the intended audience, Ratcliffe seems to gear his argument towards those who are in support of private school vouchers as well as those who may be unsure on where to stand regarding the debate. This is evident in his opening by using a recent video that was secretly recording of Texas Senator, Don Huffines, revealing how he had spoken rudely to a group of students and PTA as they debated the controversial vouchers. By adding this at the very beginning, thus essentially undermining the credibility and reliance of a prominent Republican figure who supports Senate Bill 3.
Along with that, this ties directly into the author's credibility. While their argument is sprinkled throughout the article, the majority of it is simply a presentation of both sides of the argument, while still deconstructing the side in favor of the Senate Bill. Ratcliffe furthers his deconstruction of the favoring side by providing statistics of the locations of private schools (specifically in Dallas) to different sections of the proposed bill, revealing how it can become problematic to most families, especially those who live in poorer areas of the city.
Overall the argument is well founded on statistics that prove how the private school vouchers can offer more harm than good. The author even helps clear up where any misinterpretation may arise by helping define what the reality of Senate Bill 3 would actually look like if implemented. Even near the end, the Ratcliffe provides a source from the Texas Tribune which talks about how even other Republicans oppose this bill - which, to me, helps people who may be in favor for it simply because it is a bill proposed by fellow Republicans see how just because their preferred party proposed the bill, does not mean they should support it blindly. All in all, Ratcliffe provides a thorough run-down of the controversy that surrounds this topic, provides both sides of the arguments while still being able to prove and support their view that the private school vouchers will only create more problems for education a a whole.
Ratcliffe's commentary focuses on the debate between those who support 'private school vouchers' versus those who do not. As far as the intended audience, Ratcliffe seems to gear his argument towards those who are in support of private school vouchers as well as those who may be unsure on where to stand regarding the debate. This is evident in his opening by using a recent video that was secretly recording of Texas Senator, Don Huffines, revealing how he had spoken rudely to a group of students and PTA as they debated the controversial vouchers. By adding this at the very beginning, thus essentially undermining the credibility and reliance of a prominent Republican figure who supports Senate Bill 3.
Along with that, this ties directly into the author's credibility. While their argument is sprinkled throughout the article, the majority of it is simply a presentation of both sides of the argument, while still deconstructing the side in favor of the Senate Bill. Ratcliffe furthers his deconstruction of the favoring side by providing statistics of the locations of private schools (specifically in Dallas) to different sections of the proposed bill, revealing how it can become problematic to most families, especially those who live in poorer areas of the city.
Overall the argument is well founded on statistics that prove how the private school vouchers can offer more harm than good. The author even helps clear up where any misinterpretation may arise by helping define what the reality of Senate Bill 3 would actually look like if implemented. Even near the end, the Ratcliffe provides a source from the Texas Tribune which talks about how even other Republicans oppose this bill - which, to me, helps people who may be in favor for it simply because it is a bill proposed by fellow Republicans see how just because their preferred party proposed the bill, does not mean they should support it blindly. All in all, Ratcliffe provides a thorough run-down of the controversy that surrounds this topic, provides both sides of the arguments while still being able to prove and support their view that the private school vouchers will only create more problems for education a a whole.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Blog Stage 3: A is for Aggressive, Abbott
For my critique, I choose the article entitled "Abbott wrong to put politics before the needs of people" published by Eddie Rodriguez in the Austin Statesman on February 15, 2017.
In this commentary, the author discusses Texas Governor, Greg Abbott's,'especially egregious' way of handling the disagreement between immigration policies installed by Travis County newest Sheriff, Sally Hernandez and how Abbott's brash decision to cut state funding from Travis County should be a concern for all Texans and what this could mean in the future for people who find themselves on Abbott's bad side for disagreeing with his personal views.
While Rodriguez's article speaks out as a warning to all of us who live in Texas, his powerful and harsh choice of words seem to specifically target those who are either on the fence regarding the fight between Abbott and Hernandez or who lean towards support of side of our Governor; as he states, "Don't be fooled by Abbot's rhetoric...Sheriff Sally Hernandez is on the right side of the law."
As far as credibility goes, Eddie Rodriguez is a member of the Texas House of Representatives, was elected originally back in 2002 and has been serving seven terms since; representing District 51, East, and Southeast Travis County. This being the case, he has worked very closely with the one's that Abbott's actions directly affect. It also explains the reasoning behind his passionate attack on not only the decisions of our Governor but his character as well, often comparing him to that of a bully and to our current President, who is also often described in very negative terms for his similar view on immigration.
Now, though I may personally agree with Rodriguez's stance toward Mr. Abbott (having worked with Sherrif Hernandez when she was leading Travis County Precinct 3 for two consecutive Summers, I am more favorable to her and believe her policies are fair and just), the argument that Rodriguez uses comes off as a bit too ardent and because of that, the reader finds the article lacking in substantial evidence to support his stance.
Though I do understand that on the face value, our Governor looks very much like a man who is using his power to knock down anyone who does not support and follow in line with his views, Rodriguez seems to rely solely on pathos, by describing his and the public's struggle to find a way to make up the federal funds that were cut and the fear that many of the immigrant communities are facing currently. To me, a man who has served up to seven terms in the House of Representative should have more practical advice than "we won't take your (Abbott's) punches sitting down." Rodriguez uses emotion very well throughout his argument, but there is no helpfulness to be found in it. All that it comes off as is a list and attack on Abbott and the decisions he has made recently, justified as it may be, unfortunately, he ends up preaching to the choir. For many of us, we are already very much aware of the nature of the Governor and his viewpoint regarding immigrants.
What I had hoped to find in this article was a criticism of Abbott's actions and possible solutions that we, as citizens, could take in order to be more involved - ultimately, I only found the former. Though what Rodriguez lacks in practicality, he makes up in credibility and logos. While I can assume, he, too, is unsure of what our next move should be in response to our Governor's actions, I know that Rodriguez comes from a good place of understanding that one can only get through first-hand experience - so I know he does not criticize groundlessly.
In this commentary, the author discusses Texas Governor, Greg Abbott's,'especially egregious' way of handling the disagreement between immigration policies installed by Travis County newest Sheriff, Sally Hernandez and how Abbott's brash decision to cut state funding from Travis County should be a concern for all Texans and what this could mean in the future for people who find themselves on Abbott's bad side for disagreeing with his personal views.
While Rodriguez's article speaks out as a warning to all of us who live in Texas, his powerful and harsh choice of words seem to specifically target those who are either on the fence regarding the fight between Abbott and Hernandez or who lean towards support of side of our Governor; as he states, "Don't be fooled by Abbot's rhetoric...Sheriff Sally Hernandez is on the right side of the law."
As far as credibility goes, Eddie Rodriguez is a member of the Texas House of Representatives, was elected originally back in 2002 and has been serving seven terms since; representing District 51, East, and Southeast Travis County. This being the case, he has worked very closely with the one's that Abbott's actions directly affect. It also explains the reasoning behind his passionate attack on not only the decisions of our Governor but his character as well, often comparing him to that of a bully and to our current President, who is also often described in very negative terms for his similar view on immigration.
Now, though I may personally agree with Rodriguez's stance toward Mr. Abbott (having worked with Sherrif Hernandez when she was leading Travis County Precinct 3 for two consecutive Summers, I am more favorable to her and believe her policies are fair and just), the argument that Rodriguez uses comes off as a bit too ardent and because of that, the reader finds the article lacking in substantial evidence to support his stance.
Though I do understand that on the face value, our Governor looks very much like a man who is using his power to knock down anyone who does not support and follow in line with his views, Rodriguez seems to rely solely on pathos, by describing his and the public's struggle to find a way to make up the federal funds that were cut and the fear that many of the immigrant communities are facing currently. To me, a man who has served up to seven terms in the House of Representative should have more practical advice than "we won't take your (Abbott's) punches sitting down." Rodriguez uses emotion very well throughout his argument, but there is no helpfulness to be found in it. All that it comes off as is a list and attack on Abbott and the decisions he has made recently, justified as it may be, unfortunately, he ends up preaching to the choir. For many of us, we are already very much aware of the nature of the Governor and his viewpoint regarding immigrants.
What I had hoped to find in this article was a criticism of Abbott's actions and possible solutions that we, as citizens, could take in order to be more involved - ultimately, I only found the former. Though what Rodriguez lacks in practicality, he makes up in credibility and logos. While I can assume, he, too, is unsure of what our next move should be in response to our Governor's actions, I know that Rodriguez comes from a good place of understanding that one can only get through first-hand experience - so I know he does not criticize groundlessly.
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Blog Stage 2: Travis County Controversy
Hello, everyone!
In this post, I wanted to bring to your attention a development in an extremely controversial issue that has been going on in Austin since it elected Sally Hernandez as Travis County Sheriff.
One of Sheriff Hernandez's key points, when she was campaigning, was that she ultimately wanted to make Austin the first "Sanctuary City" in Texas. Now, while a good majority of Austinites are in favor of this, there is a sizable amount which is not.
Among those in the "not in favor" category is none other than our own Governor, Gregory Wayne Abbott. Yet, to say that Abbott is simply against Sheriff Hernandez's policies would be a major understatement. In this article written by KUT, it follows the events that led up to Governor Abbott cutting $1.5 million in criminal justice grants from Travis County in an effort to best Sheriff Hernandez to step back on her immigration policy.
Though I am extremely concerned concerning our nation’s travel ban on Muslims, I also feel very strongly about the relentless bullying Sheriff Hernandez has received from Governor Abbott.
Through this article you will be able to become more informed with Sheriff Hernandez’s sanctuary city policy and how she is still abiding by the state and federal law - she is simply refusing to do ICE’s (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) job for them. Not only that, but this article highlights the amount of power that Texas has allowed the Governor to possess. You can decide for yourselves - is our governor bullying his way to keep Texas the way he likes it or is Sheriff Hernandez in the wrong, despite not breaking any laws?
In this post, I wanted to bring to your attention a development in an extremely controversial issue that has been going on in Austin since it elected Sally Hernandez as Travis County Sheriff.
One of Sheriff Hernandez's key points, when she was campaigning, was that she ultimately wanted to make Austin the first "Sanctuary City" in Texas. Now, while a good majority of Austinites are in favor of this, there is a sizable amount which is not.
Among those in the "not in favor" category is none other than our own Governor, Gregory Wayne Abbott. Yet, to say that Abbott is simply against Sheriff Hernandez's policies would be a major understatement. In this article written by KUT, it follows the events that led up to Governor Abbott cutting $1.5 million in criminal justice grants from Travis County in an effort to best Sheriff Hernandez to step back on her immigration policy.
Though I am extremely concerned concerning our nation’s travel ban on Muslims, I also feel very strongly about the relentless bullying Sheriff Hernandez has received from Governor Abbott.
Through this article you will be able to become more informed with Sheriff Hernandez’s sanctuary city policy and how she is still abiding by the state and federal law - she is simply refusing to do ICE’s (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) job for them. Not only that, but this article highlights the amount of power that Texas has allowed the Governor to possess. You can decide for yourselves - is our governor bullying his way to keep Texas the way he likes it or is Sheriff Hernandez in the wrong, despite not breaking any laws?
Let me know what your thoughts and remember to stay informed! This is your city, make sure you know what goes on in it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)