Darius Phillips, a fellow classmate of mine, recently published a blog entitled "Blog 7". In it he described that the amount of impoverished children in this state has increased, specifically from 2000 to 2011 47 percent. Phillips suggests that the reason why Texas has so many poor children is because of its high unemployment rate, and ultimately because the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. At the very end of his post, he suggests that raising the minimum wage will not work. My question to him is...why not? The minimum wage needs desperately to be raised. It does not support the cost of living even a little bit. Just because someone has to rely on a labor job paying minimum wage does not mean they do not deserve to live. What we are seeing here in Texas is an increase in those that are uneducated with children and therefore holding minimum wage jobs. If this is the reality Texas has to adjust to, then raising their pay is the only way this state will survive in the big game of economy. A good post for sure, but I intrigue Mr. Phillips to rethink his stance on the minimum wage. Also I'm no one to talk really but use spell check next time. ;) No real big deal though, the reader still understands the message.
It's been a great semester, I hope the best for all of you! This blog has now come to its conclusion. Fin.
Find his post here.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Going Green?
Austin likes to pride itself on its environmentally-friendly atmosphere and way of life. However, a quick look around the city reveals many flaws within the city's productive use of energy and water. For instance, our city's sprinkler systems for areas like dog parks and walking trails need serious rethinking. It is true Texas's weather patterns are weird and unpredictable, therefore so are Austin's, but it is a failure on the part of the local government when more than half of the water coming out of the sprinkler head goes directly onto the street and dried up by the sun. Our drought has gotten significantly better with the great, productive weather we've been having, but that doesn't mean we as Austinites get to sit back and abuse our resources. Such an example is exactly what I've seen personally at a dog park not far from my house.
I work in a big shopping area that contains a Whole Foods, Taco Cabana, and the like. It experiences much traffic throughout the day. However, the only place to recycle/ compost in this huge shopping area is Whole Foods. Everywhere else simply just has a trash can. I can't even start to think about the shopping areas that don't have a Whole Foods in it and how much they waste in plastic a day. For even where I work with a Whole Foods located near by, water bottles and coke cans are thrown continuously in the garbage. So far, what I've heard from our local and state leaders on these sorts of issues is that it takes a lot of time and money to go as green as we need to be. But we're Austin, aren't we? Aren't we quite a bit...different than the rest of Texas? Why can't we lead this state in environmentally friendly establishments like we seem so inclined to want to do?
All in all, Austin is a wonderful city and I am very glad I was born and raised in it. But it's about time we take a serious look in how we treat our environment.
I work in a big shopping area that contains a Whole Foods, Taco Cabana, and the like. It experiences much traffic throughout the day. However, the only place to recycle/ compost in this huge shopping area is Whole Foods. Everywhere else simply just has a trash can. I can't even start to think about the shopping areas that don't have a Whole Foods in it and how much they waste in plastic a day. For even where I work with a Whole Foods located near by, water bottles and coke cans are thrown continuously in the garbage. So far, what I've heard from our local and state leaders on these sorts of issues is that it takes a lot of time and money to go as green as we need to be. But we're Austin, aren't we? Aren't we quite a bit...different than the rest of Texas? Why can't we lead this state in environmentally friendly establishments like we seem so inclined to want to do?
All in all, Austin is a wonderful city and I am very glad I was born and raised in it. But it's about time we take a serious look in how we treat our environment.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Response to Capitol Politics
Mr. Endter's post "Unemployment Fraud" on his blog Capitol Politics is very well-written and brings up some good points. His argument is that Texas is very "relaxed" in the way we give out unemployment benefits to people that are currently out of work living in this state. Having close friends that make ends meet through unemployment benefits, I was surprised that Mr. Endter convinced me enough in his argument that I was able to see the other side of things. I believe very much that one of the most important jobs of the local and national government is to look after those not so well off, but Endter had a good point in that government support can absolutely be abused.
I personally did not know that there were so many steps to achieving unemployment benefits. However, as Endter points out, it is very easy for someone to manipulate the system, wasting time and dollars away particularly from the Texas Workforce Commission. The person trying to earn unemployment benefits must record that they are actively in search of work and the like, however no one from those places of work is ever contacted to affirm that someone came in looking for a job. Considering the economy is not at its best, it is silly for Texas to be tricked and fooled by people committing fraud through these unemployment benefits. My only critique is that for some receiving benefits, the only way they may be able to stay afloat is to commit fraud. Such busy people as a single mother with five kids who is trying to pursue her GED may not exactly have the time to go out and search for a job, but that doesn't mean she doesn't need help. If Texas could somehow find a way to balance its budget out so that people like that could also be included in the benefits (and fairly) that would be great.
Overall, I belive Mr. Endter did a fine job on his blog. Hopefully fraud is not rapid in the system of unemployment benefits, but one can only hope.
I personally did not know that there were so many steps to achieving unemployment benefits. However, as Endter points out, it is very easy for someone to manipulate the system, wasting time and dollars away particularly from the Texas Workforce Commission. The person trying to earn unemployment benefits must record that they are actively in search of work and the like, however no one from those places of work is ever contacted to affirm that someone came in looking for a job. Considering the economy is not at its best, it is silly for Texas to be tricked and fooled by people committing fraud through these unemployment benefits. My only critique is that for some receiving benefits, the only way they may be able to stay afloat is to commit fraud. Such busy people as a single mother with five kids who is trying to pursue her GED may not exactly have the time to go out and search for a job, but that doesn't mean she doesn't need help. If Texas could somehow find a way to balance its budget out so that people like that could also be included in the benefits (and fairly) that would be great.
Overall, I belive Mr. Endter did a fine job on his blog. Hopefully fraud is not rapid in the system of unemployment benefits, but one can only hope.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Not all Under God
It's no secret that the state of Texas has a reputation of being a majorly right-wing religious state. Many Texans, especially those that live in less populated areas of the state, hold to their church's ideals very seriously, since it is their community and overall way of life. Growing up in a religious household, I am no stranger to the belief in God, though it is something I have strayed from as I have gotten older. Not becuase of a hate of it or becuase of an ignorance to fully understand it, but more becuase it doesn't have a lot purpose for me. However, our state in my opinion needs to reexamine our handingling of religion, particularly the relationship between church and state. The installment of "Under God" in the Texas's Pledge of Alligiance and also the installemnt of the Moment of Silence in public schools not only is a failure to divide chirch and state, but is also a violation of personal rights. When a state places "Under God" in thier Pledge of Alligiance, that state severely segregates the individuals who are citizens of that state who do not believe in God or worship any form of God. And when the Moment of Silence too is instilled into a classroom's daily routine, how are the children that were not raised around prayer or any form of religious reflection to feel a part of that classroom activity? The fact that we make such easly impressionable young people recite the pledge with "Under God" and participate in a Moment of Silence is inconsistent with everything Texas claims to be: bigger, and better.
Such repetition and obvious favor of religious folks in public schools isn't just unfair to those that think differently; it hurts those that think similarly too. The length of time of the Moment of Silence and the "mandatory" recitation of "Under God" in the pledge is not regulated throughout all public schools in Texas. Therefore, it is up to the school how closely they follow this legislation or not. For example, when I was in elementary school, I remember getting in serious trouble for speaking during the moment of silence. In middle school, some classrooms were more strict than others, and therefore the kids that did actually physically pray during the moment of silence could only do so if they were in the right class. In high school, the Moment of Silence was never practiced, except for its quick mention of it and then onto the morning announcements. I have seen such inconsistently too with "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. However, this inconsistency is not a sign that we have to crack down on our schools to make them more rule-abiding. It instead is proof that the rules just aren't working, and really, they shouldn't. I propose Texas repeals the legislation of having the Moment of Silence in public schools and "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance. Texas is a state in free nation, a free world. We might be bigger and better but we aren't badder. And the sooner this state realizes that when it comes to this issue, I guarantee you the more respect we will receive from other states and our own citizens.
Such repetition and obvious favor of religious folks in public schools isn't just unfair to those that think differently; it hurts those that think similarly too. The length of time of the Moment of Silence and the "mandatory" recitation of "Under God" in the pledge is not regulated throughout all public schools in Texas. Therefore, it is up to the school how closely they follow this legislation or not. For example, when I was in elementary school, I remember getting in serious trouble for speaking during the moment of silence. In middle school, some classrooms were more strict than others, and therefore the kids that did actually physically pray during the moment of silence could only do so if they were in the right class. In high school, the Moment of Silence was never practiced, except for its quick mention of it and then onto the morning announcements. I have seen such inconsistently too with "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. However, this inconsistency is not a sign that we have to crack down on our schools to make them more rule-abiding. It instead is proof that the rules just aren't working, and really, they shouldn't. I propose Texas repeals the legislation of having the Moment of Silence in public schools and "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance. Texas is a state in free nation, a free world. We might be bigger and better but we aren't badder. And the sooner this state realizes that when it comes to this issue, I guarantee you the more respect we will receive from other states and our own citizens.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Commentary on an article from the Texas Observer
The Texas Observer's article Climate Change Conference: Adaption Crucial for Central Texas is a commentary well-written and somewhat terrifying. The claim of the article is that Texas's odd climate patterns topped with the stark reality of Global Warming could seriously damage the Texas frontier, as well as the people that inhabit it. Because the East sides' population of mostly elder, poorer people, a lot of the environmentally-friendly structures that are in Central Texas are in that area, a reaction to the terribly hot summer of 2011. The article states that "'green' buildings that often have features that can reduce exposure to
heat, flooding and other extreme weather conditions—(are) clustered west
of I-35". However, according to the article such structures need to be everywhere-not just in the places where the damage has already been done.
The author, Priscila Mosqueda, has credibility because she has lived in Texas for some time now (she just recently graduated from the University of Texas). The attended audience for the article are people living in Texas and concerned about the ever-changing weather conditions in this state and its impact on their lives. The evidence the author uses to support her argument that Climate Adaption is crucial for Central Texas is in her statement about climate change, which "means longer and more frequent droughts; more numerous and severe wildfires due to higher temperatures; and rainfall that could come less frequently but with more intensity, worsening Central Texas’ status as the flash flood capital of the nation and producing more fatalities and property damage". The logic of her argument is clear- if we don't take into consideration the affect Greenhouse Gases has had on this earth, the less likely we as Texans will be prepared for future impending natural disasters.
The author, Priscila Mosqueda, has credibility because she has lived in Texas for some time now (she just recently graduated from the University of Texas). The attended audience for the article are people living in Texas and concerned about the ever-changing weather conditions in this state and its impact on their lives. The evidence the author uses to support her argument that Climate Adaption is crucial for Central Texas is in her statement about climate change, which "means longer and more frequent droughts; more numerous and severe wildfires due to higher temperatures; and rainfall that could come less frequently but with more intensity, worsening Central Texas’ status as the flash flood capital of the nation and producing more fatalities and property damage". The logic of her argument is clear- if we don't take into consideration the affect Greenhouse Gases has had on this earth, the less likely we as Texans will be prepared for future impending natural disasters.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Critique on an editorial from the Austin Chronicle
I recently found an article on The Austin Chronicle website entitled Abortion Rights Lawsuit Filed Against State of Texas. The article, written by Jordan Smith on October 4th, 2013, discusses HB (House Bill) 2 and its effect on Amy Hagstrom Miller's Whole Woman's Health and Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas. Though this article is fairly unbiased, the audience it is probably most intended for are the people who are against HB 2 and all of its provisions. Smith states in his article that "HB 2 contained four provisions that create new and sweeping restrictions to abortion access" and "that the state has not allowed doctors trying to comply with the admitting privileges portion of the law enough time to do so." The author's credibility in this subject is unknown to the reader at first glance of the article. There is no "About the Author", not even a distinction if Jordan Smith is a woman or man. However, the author did site very credible sources in her/ his article, such as quoting Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Smith's argument is that the lawsuit filed against Texas when it comes to this abortion debate was bound to happen with the State not giving free clinics enough time to adjust to the new laws and, consequently, the lack of care women would receive in areas such as Fort Worth, Killeen, Waco, McAllen, Harlingen, and Lubbock. Smith also, however, states that "...hospital admitting-privilege requirements have been enacted, and subsequently blocked by courts, in Mississippi, Alabama, Wisconsin, and North Dakota", as if suggesting that this, too, shall pass, and abortion regulations will someday once again not be overly-strict. Smith's evidence comes from the people he has quoted in his article (people like Richards) and also the very statements that lie in this lawsuit enacted on behalf of abortion providers against this state. The logic the author uses here is also sugar-coated with emotion (as most abortion debates are), quoting Richard's statement in the end that "'Texas women deserve bettter'".
I personally am completely against HB 2 and all four of its provisions on abortion in Texas. I can honestly say it is very hard being a pro-choice young woman born and raised in the state of Texas and seeing (mostly) white older republican males dictating what a Texas woman can and cannot do with her body based on x, y, and z. While Smith has a point that these propositions could be easily overturned in time, the fact is by then it will already be too late. What the republicans want in this state (particularly those that are in favor of these new restrictions on abortion) is a lag on the easy access of getting such healthcare for women in this state, since they have not been able to successfully ban abortion completely with the support of the voters. By the time the new law has been overturned, the damage will already have been done-Planned Parenthood in most parts of this state, having been shut down, will have to start all over. And that, in my opinion, is a shame.
Smith's argument is that the lawsuit filed against Texas when it comes to this abortion debate was bound to happen with the State not giving free clinics enough time to adjust to the new laws and, consequently, the lack of care women would receive in areas such as Fort Worth, Killeen, Waco, McAllen, Harlingen, and Lubbock. Smith also, however, states that "...hospital admitting-privilege requirements have been enacted, and subsequently blocked by courts, in Mississippi, Alabama, Wisconsin, and North Dakota", as if suggesting that this, too, shall pass, and abortion regulations will someday once again not be overly-strict. Smith's evidence comes from the people he has quoted in his article (people like Richards) and also the very statements that lie in this lawsuit enacted on behalf of abortion providers against this state. The logic the author uses here is also sugar-coated with emotion (as most abortion debates are), quoting Richard's statement in the end that "'Texas women deserve bettter'".
I personally am completely against HB 2 and all four of its provisions on abortion in Texas. I can honestly say it is very hard being a pro-choice young woman born and raised in the state of Texas and seeing (mostly) white older republican males dictating what a Texas woman can and cannot do with her body based on x, y, and z. While Smith has a point that these propositions could be easily overturned in time, the fact is by then it will already be too late. What the republicans want in this state (particularly those that are in favor of these new restrictions on abortion) is a lag on the easy access of getting such healthcare for women in this state, since they have not been able to successfully ban abortion completely with the support of the voters. By the time the new law has been overturned, the damage will already have been done-Planned Parenthood in most parts of this state, having been shut down, will have to start all over. And that, in my opinion, is a shame.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Howdy ya'll! Welcome to Tall Texas Talk. This is my first post of the semester. Though not all of my posts will talk about articles concerning the same thing, this blog will represent a good collection of things I think are important to Tejas politics. Enjoy, and feel free to comment!
On September 14, 2013, Francesca Mari of the Texas Monthly published the article Did Playboy Screw Prada? on the Texas Monthly website. The article describes the dispute between the Texas Department of Transportation and a piece of artwork right outside of Marfa, Texas that is a locked-up Prada store. Though the depute has been going on for an extended period of time now, the Playboy Marfa visual-just down the highway from the Prada Marfa visual-has been a point of discontent for even longer, the transportation system saying that both pieces of art are "illegal signs without a permit".
This is an interesting debate in my opinion. Why would a town like Marfa, Texas, that is so heavily defined by its art culture, allow such discontent between its displays and the Texas Transportation System? Also, aren't there bigger fish to fry than an empty, locked up Prada Store and a giant neon bunny in front of an old Dodge Charger in the case of the Texas Department of Transportation? As of now, the fate of both "illegal" signs are still up for debate, the obvious opponents of the Department of Transportation's claims (practically all the art supporters of Marfa) slowing down any sort of action actually happening to remove them.
On September 14, 2013, Francesca Mari of the Texas Monthly published the article Did Playboy Screw Prada? on the Texas Monthly website. The article describes the dispute between the Texas Department of Transportation and a piece of artwork right outside of Marfa, Texas that is a locked-up Prada store. Though the depute has been going on for an extended period of time now, the Playboy Marfa visual-just down the highway from the Prada Marfa visual-has been a point of discontent for even longer, the transportation system saying that both pieces of art are "illegal signs without a permit".
This is an interesting debate in my opinion. Why would a town like Marfa, Texas, that is so heavily defined by its art culture, allow such discontent between its displays and the Texas Transportation System? Also, aren't there bigger fish to fry than an empty, locked up Prada Store and a giant neon bunny in front of an old Dodge Charger in the case of the Texas Department of Transportation? As of now, the fate of both "illegal" signs are still up for debate, the obvious opponents of the Department of Transportation's claims (practically all the art supporters of Marfa) slowing down any sort of action actually happening to remove them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)