Re: "Bag Ban: The Impacts"

Classmate Wes Davis wrote a nice editorial called Bag Ban: The Impacts. He talked about the bag ban in Austin that prohibits the use of plastic carryout bags in retail stores. While Davis was able to write about both the advantages and disadvantages of the ban, I mostly only see negative things.

I agree with Davis that the bag ban is supposed to be a good thing for the environment. However, Austin is just one of few cities to implement this ban. Does it really make much of a difference to the environment if all the other hundreds of cities are still using plastic bags? Should we really bother? Whenever I decide to take a detour to HEB on the way to my apartment, it isn't until I'm in the checkout line that I realize I don't have my reusable bags. It's no problem to use the shopping cart to load all of my things into the car, but once I get home, I have to hope my roommates are home to help move all my food and crap into the house. It's a hassle for no reason if this ban won't catch on. Although, I would love to see Davis's "circus performer act."

Unlike Davis, the ban doesn't prevent me from wasting food, because I've always been frugal as hell. I don't let any of my food spoil or go bad, so having to take multiple trips to and from the store, buying a small amount of items at a time when I forget to put the bags back in my car, is nothing but an inconvenience.

The worse thing of all has to be the huge increase in shoplifting. Davis was correct in saying that reusable bags has made shoplifting much easier, especially since some people use backpacks instead of the reusable bags.

What I want to know is what's wrong with using paper bags. When the ban was first enacted and I went to HEB without knowing about it, I asked if there were any bags they could give me. The cashier told me that they could give me some paper bags, but they'd cost me about a dollar each. One, paper bags aren't very strong. They're paper! Do you know how many paper bags I'd have to purchase to carry all of my groceries?! Two, why are you charging me for paper bags? Stores always used to ask their customers if they wanted paper or plastic bags. If you're trying to save the environment by cutting out plastic bags, why offer me paper bags? You're cutting down the trees to make these paper bags. That seems counterproductive to helping the environment. And while you're offering these paper bags, why are you making me pay for them if they're okay to be used? I don't get it.

In the end, I enjoyed Davis's humorous commentary and was happy that he at least found something positive about the bag ban. However, I think maybe we should keep our plastic bags and just force people to start recycling them, or something.

Austin: Where 150 pounds is equal to 2000 pounds

After reading yet another article about an Austin cyclist being hit and killed by a vehicle, I finally knew what I wanted to write about! Can someone explain to me why Texas legislature believes it's safer for cyclists to ride in the street rather than on the sidewalk?
I guess ideally it's because bikes can move faster than human beings and we don't want our pedestrians to get mowed down. However, isn't a car several times faster than a cyclist?
I'm sure it's much easier to see and avoid pedestrians on a sidewalk than it is to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting a cyclist biking at 15 mph.

Back in 2009, Texas legislature passed a law it believed would better protect cyclists by requiring motorists to give cyclists a 3 to 6-foot buffer zone. The law also prohibits motorists from cutting off bikers at right-hand turns. Honestly, I think that buffer zone is pretty useless. I have had cyclists cut me off in the middle of the street when I'm driving my 2-3 ton SUV at 40 mph. How does the buffer zone help either of us in that situation?

In 2012, hundreds of cyclists rallied at the Austin capital to protest the "lack of punishment" for motorists who hit cyclists. They strongly believe that motorists need to share the road with cyclists. Austin may be too cyclist-friendly for its own good. How is it okay for a cyclist to take up a whole street lane backing up traffic behind him? On a further note, Texas legislature claims that the law requires cyclists to follow the same traffic laws as a motorist, but I've definitely witnessed cyclists who don't stop at stop signs and "run red lights." When you think about it, even the tiniest car may weigh at least 2000 pounds versus a 150 pound cyclist. In a collision, the car will always win no matter who's at fault.

In actuality, cyclists are allowed to bike on sidewalks, but usually choose not to, in order to avoid riding on prohibited sidewalks. Chapter 12-2 in the Austin City Code specifies exactly which sidewalks that cyclists in Austin are absolutely prohibited from riding on. Ironically, there are few, and those streets are the ones that receive the most traffic from both pedestrians and motorists. Texas Legislature plans to improve cyclist laws as soon as possible, but in the meantime, Chapter 12-2 forces bicyclists to ride in the streets where traffic is most congested. Oh yeah, that's safe. Thanks.

Re: "Why People Should Support Bill HB866 and Waive NCLB!"

Today, I am commenting on an editorial written on Jamilia's Blog, titled "Why People Should Support Bill HB866 and Waive NCLB." Jamilia chose to discuss HB866, an education reform bill passed in June that lowers the amount of standardized tests a child has to take in his grade-school career. Ideally, if a student receives satisfactory scores on a standardized test, that student won't have to take a standardized test the following year. HB866 waives the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2002 by George Bush. NCLB required schools to administer standardized tests every year and the students must meet "adequate yearly progress". If the students didn't do so, steps were taken to try and improve the school. While Jamilia clearly vouches for HB866, I do not think it's a good idea.

I do agree with Jamilia that the No Child Left Behind Act needed to be done with. The NCLB caused instructors to "teach to the test", which means teachers were only focusing on subjects they knew to be on the test and not on all the subjects that students need to know in life. For example, I volunteered as a teacher's assistant last semester, teaching 5th graders during an afterschool program. The students could tell me that 5 times 5 was 25, but could not tell me a number that was a factor of 25. They didn't know what a factor was. The students could also tell me that one-half was equal to three-sixths, but they couldn't tell me what a numerator or a denominator was. When I tried to teach them those things (and a better method for finding equivalent fractions), the teacher told me not to worry about it as long as they were getting the answers correct. That is not okay.

Now, I don't know much about the small, intricate details of HB866, but I believe that its main goal of lowering the amount of standardized tests is more hurtful than helpful. Sure, I complained about taking my standardized tests each year (which used to be called TAAS, and soon changed to TAKS), especially because I always excelled at them. I thought the questions were dumb and way too simple and wondered why I had to take them every year if they were that easy. However, taking those tests just proved that I knew more material than the minimum requirement, and that was a really good thing. But exempting students from STAAR tests for knowing 9x3 is 27, when they can't tell me why one-half is the same as 50%, is not helping them. It's better to know too much than just enough.

What is the solution then if I just put down both the HB866 and the NCLB? Well, I think the NCLB was a good idea with a bad execution. It seems we should just improve the NCLB and find a way to avoid "teaching to the test." Jamilia believes it's better to improve upon HB866 and be rid of NCLB. In the end, I'm glad that Jamilia and I both agree that neither option as it stands will solve the education problems going on right now. Hopefully, legislature will find a better solution than NCLB and HB866.

Why did the fetus cross the road?

I have just learned that Austin State Representatives filed a bill to try and make abortions illegal as soon as five weeks into a pregnancy. Their reasoning behind this is to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Not "will be detected," but "CAN be." And on occassion, that can be as early as five weeks.
I have many problems with this bill. Once again, it shows Pro-lifers trying to force their ideas on other women and their bodies.
I am pro-choice, yes, and even I still believe every baby should have the chance to live. Yes, I believe it's unfair to the child, and yes, I believe it's unfair to the father who wants to keep the baby... but it's still the woman's decision! You don't know her situation or what she's going through in her life. Maybe she was raped, maybe she's not at a place right now where having a kid is an option, maybe her birth control failed... You just don't know. And if she does get an abortion, how does that affect anyone else but herself? No one will have to deal the decision but her.

I agree that life should technically start when the embryo/baby has developed life-sustaining organs, like a brain or a heartbeat, but prohibiting an abortion before the woman may even know she's pregnant is ridiculous. It's absurd and may actually be unconstitutional.
Some women don't know that they're pregnant until they're at least 5-6 weeks when they realize they've missed their period. It can actually of some women not knowing until they were 3 months along because their periods are normally irregular.

Also, a child with a fetal defect will not show for way longer than 5 weeks. For instance, the child has to at least have developed a spinal cord to know if it has spinal bifida! That could take nearly 20 weeks to find out.
According to Fox 7 News, Representative Harold Dutton stated, "I was under no illusion that the bill would pass but what I was trying to do is prick the conscience."
I hate that Pro-lifers see us Pro-choice people as though we're without a conscience. They think we believe it's okay to "murder" our children and that we don't value a fetus's life.
That isn't true. We just don't see everything in black and white. Quality of life should be a factor in the abortion debate and that's what we realize. Is it better for a child to suffer with a horrible or fatal abnormality than be aborted? You may think so, but I don't.

The whole abortion debate is very ironic. The Senate passes SB1 to prevent people from receiving birth control (because abortion clinics do provide free birth control), but then they try to ban abortions for the babies they're making us have. And yet, the Senate won't offer any assistance to the women who are forced to have those babies and Senate won't play any part in raising it.

Honestly, most of the people I see nowadays protesting abortions are men, who have never and will never get pregnant in their entire lives. Men don't have to feel the fear of finding out you're pregnant, experience carrying it to full term, or deal with the risk of complications during childbirth. In the most unfortunate cases, when the man decides he doesn't want to deal with the situation, the woman gets left alone with the child, and that'll take a toll on her physically, emotionally, and financially. If men got pregnant, they would definitely be pro-choice and there would be abortions in convenience stores and in local gas stations. Beef-jerky flavored.

"Unsanitary" Behavior

The article Señor Abbot was written by Eileen Smith, the creator of the blog In The Pink. In her article, Smith first touches on how Governor Rick Perry made an announcement of a statewide ban of any feminine products that may be thrown at or used to harm state officials. When Senate Bill 5 was passed, a bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks and places more restrictions on abortion providers, women became angry and began to toss miscellaneous purse items at the state officials (e.g. pads and tampons). As a result, tampons and pads were confiscated from women who would attend the House proceedings. Her point is that Perry is making Texas a "national laughingstock." Smith uses humorous sarcasm to make fun of the situation that I agree is ridiculous. Who bans pads and tampons but still allows guns?

Smith then goes on to talk about Greg Abbot's raid of the Texas French Bread company. Abbot and multiple ICE agents barged into the deli and arrested 5 illegal immigrants. In a later interview, Abbot proclaimed that he was not necessarily concerned with attracting Hispanic voters and in an attempt to not seem racist, he mentioned that his wife was Hispanic. "His wife is Hispanic so apparently that cancels everything out," Smith says, once again being sarcastic, "I used to end all my offensive statements with, "But I can say that because my husband's Hispanic!""

Smith's target audience is Texas women against SB5 and Texans who find Greg Abbot's recent actions to be quite silly. By joking with the audience, Eileen Smith is able to talk about serious or controversial issues while making light of the subject. It makes the situation a funny discussion instead of inciting a heated debate.

Eileen Smith may be a blogger, but she is a funny and credible writer. When she makes a statement, she'll hyperlink her words to the specific article in order to defend her claim or to prove her point.

In this article overall, Smith wants to inform her audience of the absurd actions by our state representatives and believes that they should behave better.

Secessionists, what are you doing? Stahp.

The article "Exploring The Secessionist Impulse in Texas" is written by Cindy Casares and is posted on the Texas Observer website. Cindy Casares talks about the Secession movement, which has been started by Governor Rick Perry and past US Senator Candidate Larry Kilgore. In her article, Casares appeals to all Texans, especially those opposed to secession. The basic argument of the article is that Texans who push the idea of secession aren't actually aware of the consequences of seeing it through. Casares insists that the majority of secessionists are white, conservative, southern men who argue for "racist nativism", where Caucasian Texans are favored over immigrants and the minority races. What they don't realize, she states, is that once Texas secedes from the Union, Texas will become a nation where minority races are the majority. She proves this fact with evidence from the 2010 census.

In her article, Casares also mentions that The White House claimed that it will respond to any petition that receives 25,000 signatures in 30 days. However, even though the secession petition got well over 100,000 signatures before the 30 days were up, Rick Perry himself chooses to ignore the petition and states that the Texas would not be seceding from such a great Union. That should prove by itself that secession is not the best move.

Casares wants secessionists to realize that seceding from the Union will not solve any problems. I have to say that I agree with her. I believe Texans would face the same problems upon leaving the US: financial issues, having to deal with immigration, fixing the education system, healthcare, ect. Although Casares establishes her points and shows her credibility with evidence, her argument may not be very successful in the long run. The last few paragraphs of her article become slightly patronizing to Texans who do support the idea of secession. Her word usage, such as "those poor secessionists", would only lead to resentment and cause secessionists to tune out what Casares is trying to say.

Overall, Cindy Casares made her article both informative and amusing. And even though her article may not convince secessionists to change their opinion, it helps on-the-fence Texans to chose a side and gives liberal Texans an entertaining read.

Who the heck is Greg Abbott?

On Monday, July 15th, Texas Monthly published an article about Greg Abbott, the Attorney General now running for Texas Governor. I think this article is worth reading because it informs us what is going on in our government. Normally, I would have skipped past reading this article for an article about a car accident or something more scandalous. But after our supplemental reading this past week that explained how America can name the entire Simpsons family but not recognize past Presidents, I'm beginning to think it's important to be somewhat informed about governmental changes.

According to the article, Greg Abbot introduces his life and discusses his political beliefs. He is pro-life, committed to low taxes, and believes "our schools must do better". Abbot also explains how he plans to solve some of Texas's problems and speaks of how he overcame a tragic accident that left him paralyzed from the waist down. I realize now that I need to read articles like this, because I need to know which candidates have my interests in mind. Also, even being slightly informed can help to avoid electing someone who will ultimately hurt our state (or country), instead of making it better.

So far, Greg Abbot is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. The question now is whether or not there's a point to a Democratic candidate running against Abbott since a Democrat hasn't won statewide office since 1994.