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.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Push for Recycling
There is a lot of talk about getting Austin to go greener, discussions of making biking more accessable for commuters, and tax breaks for those utilizing solar power, but what about recyling? Reisidential complexes (apartments and multi-family homes) that house 100 or more people, business with 100 workers onsite at the same time and office buildings with 100 or more employees onsite at the same time - within the city limits of Austin - are required to provide recycling and recepticals. But local homes and businesses are not required to recycle if they don't meet these standards. Recycling is also an additional fee for Austin residents and business owners. A residential home pays about an extra $14/month depending on their waste removal provider. It seems that if we are so intent on Austin going green, we should start with something that is already in place and maximize its potential.
If we created a bill that required all residents in Austin to recycle, more residents would recycle. Presently, many won't or can't because of the extra fee for removal, or they just don't want to deal with the extra hassle. Many servers at Threadgills, a local establishment says it pains them to not recycle. In Vermont and other states, residents can be ticketed for not recycling. A $90 ticket is an incentive to recycle. Austin could ticket folks for not recycling and use this extra money for public works (like street repair - which we will soon be out of money for).
Solar energy and commuter bike incentives are great ideas. Taking something that is already in place, like recycling, and requiring it through legislation would cost little to enforce but would bring a big positive result. Or we could just spend more time arguing about Voter ID.
If we created a bill that required all residents in Austin to recycle, more residents would recycle. Presently, many won't or can't because of the extra fee for removal, or they just don't want to deal with the extra hassle. Many servers at Threadgills, a local establishment says it pains them to not recycle. In Vermont and other states, residents can be ticketed for not recycling. A $90 ticket is an incentive to recycle. Austin could ticket folks for not recycling and use this extra money for public works (like street repair - which we will soon be out of money for).
Solar energy and commuter bike incentives are great ideas. Taking something that is already in place, like recycling, and requiring it through legislation would cost little to enforce but would bring a big positive result. Or we could just spend more time arguing about Voter ID.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Support for "Obama Listens to Mexico in Border Security Plan"
Melissa Del Bosque's (blogger for the Texas Observer) general audience for her blog, "Obama Listens to Mexico in Border Security Plan" may indeed be for those on the left, although The Observer does attract a wide audience, including righty's who are looking for something to argue. Bosque notes that while Lieberman and Goodhair feel Obama is not doing enough to fight "drug cartels with the border security plan," He is making a "logical step" by acknowledging "Mexico's drug problem is also our drug problem".
Bosque's comment's; "The word logical never entered the Bush Administration lexicon which focused on building border walls that cost $12 million a mile," and "I’ve used the word logical three times when talking about the federal government," are pretty clear statements that Bosque is in support of Obama and not the Bush administration. Not to mention her stance and audience live in the left, considering her apparent lack of support of the Federal government in general; she's surprised the government is taking a "logical" approach at all.
I think it is sensible that Bosque is looking for a logical approach, since her blog is written in the same sense. She addresses the issue at the start of her article, her stance on the issue, and gives supporting points to show why she feels the way she does. Bosque already has a good deal of credibility, being a blogger for the well known Texas Observer - a paper that has existed to not always be the most agreeable paper, but one that is blunt and hopes to give their audience something to think about (a solid well-thought-out argument).
Bosque's claim that it's stupid to build walls to keep drug cartels out is valid. I can think of a few other walls built throughout history that were bad ideas - The Great Wall of China, and The Berlin Wall. We don't need anymore walls. By acknowledging "Mexico's drug problem is also our problem", we are not 'pointing fingers' so to speak. We are entering in a conversation with Mexico about how to solve a problem, rather than try to post blame. With Obama's plan, we are not only agreeing to communicate with Mexico, but also validating what they have been asking for for years, "a focus on the reduction in drug use in the United States and a crackdown on guns flowing south into Mexico". Bosque also states that in Obama's plan, "100 ATF officers" will be moved "to the border in the next 45 days to fortify ATF’s Project Gunrunner aimed at disrupting arms trafficking between the United States and Mexico." Man power is far more effective than anything we can build. This plan is focused on the "treatment and prevention of drug addiction. . .rather than building more prison complexes." By our trying to take responsibility and work with Mexico, we stand a better chance to accomplish something positive.
Del Bosque, Melissa. Texas Observer Blog. 2 April 2009. http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/
Bosque's comment's; "The word logical never entered the Bush Administration lexicon which focused on building border walls that cost $12 million a mile," and "I’ve used the word logical three times when talking about the federal government," are pretty clear statements that Bosque is in support of Obama and not the Bush administration. Not to mention her stance and audience live in the left, considering her apparent lack of support of the Federal government in general; she's surprised the government is taking a "logical" approach at all.
I think it is sensible that Bosque is looking for a logical approach, since her blog is written in the same sense. She addresses the issue at the start of her article, her stance on the issue, and gives supporting points to show why she feels the way she does. Bosque already has a good deal of credibility, being a blogger for the well known Texas Observer - a paper that has existed to not always be the most agreeable paper, but one that is blunt and hopes to give their audience something to think about (a solid well-thought-out argument).
Bosque's claim that it's stupid to build walls to keep drug cartels out is valid. I can think of a few other walls built throughout history that were bad ideas - The Great Wall of China, and The Berlin Wall. We don't need anymore walls. By acknowledging "Mexico's drug problem is also our problem", we are not 'pointing fingers' so to speak. We are entering in a conversation with Mexico about how to solve a problem, rather than try to post blame. With Obama's plan, we are not only agreeing to communicate with Mexico, but also validating what they have been asking for for years, "a focus on the reduction in drug use in the United States and a crackdown on guns flowing south into Mexico". Bosque also states that in Obama's plan, "100 ATF officers" will be moved "to the border in the next 45 days to fortify ATF’s Project Gunrunner aimed at disrupting arms trafficking between the United States and Mexico." Man power is far more effective than anything we can build. This plan is focused on the "treatment and prevention of drug addiction. . .rather than building more prison complexes." By our trying to take responsibility and work with Mexico, we stand a better chance to accomplish something positive.
Del Bosque, Melissa. Texas Observer Blog. 2 April 2009. http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
No Money for Crack Heads
In the March 20th article, "Point Austin: Removing the Mask," Michael King of the Austin Chronicle continues to write about his frustration with Rick Perry rejecting the $555 million in Federal Stimulus funds. Rick Perry insists that accepting this money would be a bad idea. This money would help unemployed and low income folks get on their feet during this recession, but Perry insists this money is like drugs to a crack-head, people would get addicted. WOW. Of course he replaced Bush, perhaps they work with the same speech writer.
Okay, so the deal is that the state will receive the funds if it expands its "unemployment - insurance eligibility requirements in keeping with contemporary work patterns (spousal dislocation, part-time work, etc.)" Only 20% of those eligible for unemployment are actually receiving it. The point of providing this assistance is to help those in need, and we are in a recession. People have need.
"This sort of argument for turning down a gift horse in hard times is roughly akin to a child refusing to accept his allowance because it will eventually have to be replenished, perhaps even by his own efforts. Maybe that's how they do things back in Perry's hometown of Paint Creek – but in most parts of Texas, it's called cutting off your nose to spite the feds."
Perry doesn't want this money, because it is support from the Federal Government, and Texas is known for keeping itself separate from the Federal Government when at all possible. King basically is trying to prove this, but is also saying that it's a very juvenile response when we are in need. As they say, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
King has been pretty vocal about his feelings towards Perry and the republican party over the past few weeks (anyone who reads the Chronicle regularly will have probably noticed this). In addition to Perry's rejection of the $555 million, there is also the new Voter ID act which specifically targets minorities, making it harder for them to vote, and Perry's interest in helping big business (like how we are digging AIG out of their hole - even though their workers are in Michigan).
Most of the folks who will probably find King's opinion to resinate will be democrats, minorities, low-income Texans, and the unemployed. King does make some good points to the Republicans reading his article. These people who will agree with King's opinion will be unlikely to vote for the Republican party in the upcoming years, and Perry will be running again soon. It's funny how Perry is trying so hard to do right for Texas but is hurting the people that make up the state. The only thing King doesn't hit on is that Perry is doing exactly what a republican would do (supporting big business, and the upper middle-class), even if it means hurting that party's future popularity.
Okay, so the deal is that the state will receive the funds if it expands its "unemployment - insurance eligibility requirements in keeping with contemporary work patterns (spousal dislocation, part-time work, etc.)" Only 20% of those eligible for unemployment are actually receiving it. The point of providing this assistance is to help those in need, and we are in a recession. People have need.
"This sort of argument for turning down a gift horse in hard times is roughly akin to a child refusing to accept his allowance because it will eventually have to be replenished, perhaps even by his own efforts. Maybe that's how they do things back in Perry's hometown of Paint Creek – but in most parts of Texas, it's called cutting off your nose to spite the feds."
Perry doesn't want this money, because it is support from the Federal Government, and Texas is known for keeping itself separate from the Federal Government when at all possible. King basically is trying to prove this, but is also saying that it's a very juvenile response when we are in need. As they say, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
King has been pretty vocal about his feelings towards Perry and the republican party over the past few weeks (anyone who reads the Chronicle regularly will have probably noticed this). In addition to Perry's rejection of the $555 million, there is also the new Voter ID act which specifically targets minorities, making it harder for them to vote, and Perry's interest in helping big business (like how we are digging AIG out of their hole - even though their workers are in Michigan).
Most of the folks who will probably find King's opinion to resinate will be democrats, minorities, low-income Texans, and the unemployed. King does make some good points to the Republicans reading his article. These people who will agree with King's opinion will be unlikely to vote for the Republican party in the upcoming years, and Perry will be running again soon. It's funny how Perry is trying so hard to do right for Texas but is hurting the people that make up the state. The only thing King doesn't hit on is that Perry is doing exactly what a republican would do (supporting big business, and the upper middle-class), even if it means hurting that party's future popularity.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Go Solar Energy Go!
Austin is becoming more and more interested in solar energy. The City has been proposing tax-cuts to residents interested in investing in solar power, and/or breaks on solar panels. This topic has been under a great deal of discussion at my building, as we are considering going Solar. The problem is always money, the cost of the panels, and installation.
On March 6, the Austin Chronicle article by Katherine Gregor, "Cool City: Solar Subtleties" Solar Power in Austin is further discussed.
The city has proposed a $250 million solar-power-purchase agreement which is to be "the first step toward becoming a partially solar-powered municipality, as required by the City Council-mandated Austin Climate Protection Plan."
Presently, Austin is trying to lock-in a fixed low price for solar energy. Solar power is expensive, but is getting more reasonable. One of the most expensive attributes will be the start-up contract price, which may raise energy rates overall. In numbers, a non-green home pays about $37 per month, whereas a green home could end up paying about $155 per month. Residents like Robert C Duncan criticize the plan, preferring Austin adopt a "nuclear-power-purchase agreement" instead. The council mandate seems very clear about using "solar power by 2020."
Local is on its way, but presently, panels are produced in China, and Gemini Solar (whom Austin is negotiating a plan with) is based in San Francisco.
Overall, it's clear Austin is firm about attaining solar energy. Austin wants to start using solar energy now as a means to learn more and become most efficient in harnessing it. Why you should read this article? This may effect your future energy costs, and way of life.
On March 6, the Austin Chronicle article by Katherine Gregor, "Cool City: Solar Subtleties" Solar Power in Austin is further discussed.
The city has proposed a $250 million solar-power-purchase agreement which is to be "the first step toward becoming a partially solar-powered municipality, as required by the City Council-mandated Austin Climate Protection Plan."
Presently, Austin is trying to lock-in a fixed low price for solar energy. Solar power is expensive, but is getting more reasonable. One of the most expensive attributes will be the start-up contract price, which may raise energy rates overall. In numbers, a non-green home pays about $37 per month, whereas a green home could end up paying about $155 per month. Residents like Robert C Duncan criticize the plan, preferring Austin adopt a "nuclear-power-purchase agreement" instead. The council mandate seems very clear about using "solar power by 2020."
Local is on its way, but presently, panels are produced in China, and Gemini Solar (whom Austin is negotiating a plan with) is based in San Francisco.
Overall, it's clear Austin is firm about attaining solar energy. Austin wants to start using solar energy now as a means to learn more and become most efficient in harnessing it. Why you should read this article? This may effect your future energy costs, and way of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
