It seems like everyone in Texas is talking about school funding right now and my colleague Adrienne probably won't be the last. I don't agree with with her comment "the rich man and the poor man can attend[,] but the middle-class man has to practically sell his soul." Although, I was intrigued by her mention about the stripping of Fine Arts from the schools; I wish she would have discussed her views on this more thoroughly.
Senate bill 3 , is also known as the School Accountability Bill. This bill will be cutting out the Fine Arts requirement. The option for Fine Arts will still exist, but for how long? If Fine Arts are not required will students still take these classes? If not enough students register for Fine Arts as their electives, these programs could be cut. Fine Arts are especially necessary in low-income areas. They provide a relief and outlet for youth and teens that is an alternative to drugs, alcohol, and street life. Grounded in Music is an example of a non-profit working to bring the arts to the underprivileged as a alternative to more destructive behavior.
As far as the rich, poor and middle-class man is concerned, all are able to attend college. The poor will still have to struggle regardless. The poor man does not have the culture or upbringing that the middle-class and rich-man has. The skills that can get the middle-class and rich-man a decent job, the poor man will lack, unless he or she crosses the class lines. A poor man or woman may be raised in a home sharing a single room with his or her entire family. A poor man or woman may have been raised without access to health care, or proper nutrition. A poor man or woman may have been raised with more adversity that cannot be made up simply in College funds. The poor man or woman has to work while going to college and has no parent to support them. The middle class and rich man and woman usually do. The only shame is that not all students have parents willing to support them - regardless of class. In order to attain a degree, all students of all classes must eventually work hard for themselves in order to succeed.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Ultrasound Bill... Not Abortion bill.
In Abortion-Ultrasound Bill, my Colleague Chase Stewart discusses the bill that passed in the Texas State Senate which requires doctors to suggest an Ultrasound before aborting an unborn fetus.
The mother has the choice to decline the offer. Stewart did not discuss the new Texas vehicle plate that states "Choose Life," which came out at the same time. The ultrasound bill is presently stalling in the House.
Women are already able to have an ultrasound prior to aborting their unborn fetus, this bill would just require doctors to offer the suggestion. I personally don't see it as another 'hoop to jump through' as Stewart suggests it can be seen. I think it's reasonable, but frankly if a woman is going to have an abortion - she's going to have an abortion. The bill isn't exactly a touchy subject as much as abortion is. I often find men are the first to present their views about abortion, which is ironic since they cannot actually give birth.
If we really want to lower the number of abortions in Texas, I suggest implementing more extensive sexual education for youth and teens. Sadly, most conservatives don't support sexual education; they would rather everyone abstain from sex. Considering 74,000 abortions occur annually, I'd say abstinence may not be the answer. I understand pro-lifers want so see less abortions, so meet me half-way. By the way, Texas is presently trying to take support away from Planned Parenthood - they invest a great deal of time educating our youth, and providing services to women who otherwise could not afford them. It's not as simple as pro-life.
The mother has the choice to decline the offer. Stewart did not discuss the new Texas vehicle plate that states "Choose Life," which came out at the same time. The ultrasound bill is presently stalling in the House.
Women are already able to have an ultrasound prior to aborting their unborn fetus, this bill would just require doctors to offer the suggestion. I personally don't see it as another 'hoop to jump through' as Stewart suggests it can be seen. I think it's reasonable, but frankly if a woman is going to have an abortion - she's going to have an abortion. The bill isn't exactly a touchy subject as much as abortion is. I often find men are the first to present their views about abortion, which is ironic since they cannot actually give birth.
If we really want to lower the number of abortions in Texas, I suggest implementing more extensive sexual education for youth and teens. Sadly, most conservatives don't support sexual education; they would rather everyone abstain from sex. Considering 74,000 abortions occur annually, I'd say abstinence may not be the answer. I understand pro-lifers want so see less abortions, so meet me half-way. By the way, Texas is presently trying to take support away from Planned Parenthood - they invest a great deal of time educating our youth, and providing services to women who otherwise could not afford them. It's not as simple as pro-life.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Gimme Gimme Gimme - Some More Bike Lanes Please!!!
Austin was named a Silver Level Bicycle Friendly Community in May 2007 by the League of American Bicyclists. "The city of Austin was evaluated on engineering, education, enforcement and encouragement of bicycling." Austin is considered a very bike friendly city, although there is still much to be desired for the local cyclist. Chicago was actually much easier to bike, with it's bike lanes leading directly downtown. Neighborhood streets were safe, could be taken most anywhere, and bike theft wasn't quite as regular as it seems to be here. Austin may be a good city to bike in some areas, but Austin is a difficult city to bike due to a lack of bike lanes.
The Austin Police Force have recently been using their power to give out tickets to cyclists. Ticketing started after Critical Mass received some negative attention from the APD. They don't seem to see the function of Critical Mass and are trying to stomp it out. The Austin Police Department started handing out tickets to cyclists for not stopping at stop signs and red lights. "A bicyclist shall comply with the requirements of this title imposed on a driver of a vehicle, to the extent that the requirements may be applied to operation of a bicycle."
Are they doing this as a means of enforcing policies to keep people safe, or are they doing it as a bike lash to Critical Mass and biking in the city of Austin in general? March 27, the Austin Police Department took 2 Critical Mass Cyclists to jail after running red lights. According to the Austin Chronicle article, Critical Mass Arrests Pride or Policy, Officer Jason Mistric was the one who arrested Critical Mass Bikers and said that "From now on, running a red light is not a ticket; it's a trip to jail." Critical Mass can have the potential to be unsafe at times, but Critical Mass is trying to inspire more people to bike. It is amazing to see hundreds of bikes on the road at once. Biking is good for the health and for the environment. Critical Mass riders shout "get on your bike" to people who they pass.
The APD says they want motorists to respect cyclists, and they want cyclists to be safe (which is why they made arrests at the March 27th Critical Mass). Critical Mass just went north instead of South (toward downtown) for their April ride -most likely to avoid the Austin Police.
Both sides have points, but if we really want more saftey in Austin for cyclists can we put in some much needed bike lanes instead of just ticketing folks? A downtown commuter station (where a cyclist can shower before going to work) is really nice... but again shouldn't we be putting in some bike lanes first? You've gotta learn to walk before you can run.
The Austin Police Force have recently been using their power to give out tickets to cyclists. Ticketing started after Critical Mass received some negative attention from the APD. They don't seem to see the function of Critical Mass and are trying to stomp it out. The Austin Police Department started handing out tickets to cyclists for not stopping at stop signs and red lights. "A bicyclist shall comply with the requirements of this title imposed on a driver of a vehicle, to the extent that the requirements may be applied to operation of a bicycle."
Are they doing this as a means of enforcing policies to keep people safe, or are they doing it as a bike lash to Critical Mass and biking in the city of Austin in general? March 27, the Austin Police Department took 2 Critical Mass Cyclists to jail after running red lights. According to the Austin Chronicle article, Critical Mass Arrests Pride or Policy, Officer Jason Mistric was the one who arrested Critical Mass Bikers and said that "From now on, running a red light is not a ticket; it's a trip to jail." Critical Mass can have the potential to be unsafe at times, but Critical Mass is trying to inspire more people to bike. It is amazing to see hundreds of bikes on the road at once. Biking is good for the health and for the environment. Critical Mass riders shout "get on your bike" to people who they pass.
The APD says they want motorists to respect cyclists, and they want cyclists to be safe (which is why they made arrests at the March 27th Critical Mass). Critical Mass just went north instead of South (toward downtown) for their April ride -most likely to avoid the Austin Police.
Both sides have points, but if we really want more saftey in Austin for cyclists can we put in some much needed bike lanes instead of just ticketing folks? A downtown commuter station (where a cyclist can shower before going to work) is really nice... but again shouldn't we be putting in some bike lanes first? You've gotta learn to walk before you can run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
