Commentary Review #2, "Courts & Toilets."

In this commentary I'm review today is classmate Jennifer Silva, Taking Culture Wars to the Toilets. This original article talks about gender identity issues involving using the restroom.

Since this addresses about a public grocery store, from a point of view the "issue" is understandable. Of course, a bunch of people of any notion will enter the store. Unlike a small restaurant where you immediately see the person who enters. So I could see how it could make Parents nervous since public bathrooms are more or less private. I agree with Jennifer, you could never be too safe.

But I believe that transgenders should be able to use the bathroom to the gender that they say they are. It’s a person identity. It’s a concept of who they are. I think that adding in that men who falsely dress up as women and go into the women's bathroom is just supporting a fear that is not related to the transgender community. If a man did that, then that's a different court problem that involves mentally ill perverts, not self-identity or civil rights.

Look the only reason why anyone would go to the bathroom is to use the bathroom. There are no interviews going on in there. You get in and you get out.

What I find ridiculous for Texas to do is to try to pass a bill.  Specifically speaking according to KXAN article, "House Bill 1748 authored by Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Spring) says if someone over the age of seven uses a bathroom that doesn’t match their gender, they can be charged with a felony." I feel like that is an excessive ordeal and inappropriate.  Okay...How does this not apply to mothers bringing in their toddler sons into the women's bathroom? If a transgender goes into the bathroom then that's their goal is to use the restroom. Ask no questions, keep bathroom issues out of the court house.

Proposition 1: $8.1 million. Bluff?

From the following article I'm going to go about is something that I haven't really been involved with. Which is UBER and Lyft. I never had a true thought about the companies because I always had my on transportation. But when I was talking to my friend of mine, who lives in Australia, had the knowledge about knowing something controversial involving the topic. So I've became interested to review about it since I live in a state with one heart of the problems.

If you haven't heard this issue has been starting from Texas municipal government news to now world wide about Uber, Lyft, and Austin. It's been said that there has been misleading opinions by Uber as of Texas wants to drive them out do to recent Texas regulations. Yet, Uber and Lyft are funding Proposition 1, “the political action committee funded entirely by Uber and Lyft, have risen to a whopping $8,100,000.”

What is Proposition 1? Just a leading campaign to go against of Texas regulations of having the drivers fingerprinted, background checked, and possible use of uniforms.

I can see that Austin’s argument would be for the safety of Texas citizens. But I Lyft and Uber are not a creation by Texas and are their own company. I think that people who use those kind of drivers should really be independent of their choices. Ride at their own risk. There’s no need to turn the companies into a similar process of the way Taxi cabs are.

Maybe Texas was depending on if anyone did care about municipal government. Well, back to $8.1 million during pre-voting secession. Says that they do.

But I think they may be doing this to boost the companies up economically. I mean there's never one reason to raise $8.1 million.

Dan Solomon, Texas Monthly writer of Austin’s Prop 1 Vote Has Big Implications Around The State—And Around The Country  , kindly provided where the money is going, “That money has gone to a lot of things: a near-constant blanketing of ads on the airwaves, a forest’s worth of direct mail, and salaries to folks including former Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell and former candidate for state representative Huey Rey Fischer.”

Non of this is really hurting Uber or Lyft economically. They have already left 3 other Texas cities.

But what doesn't make any sense is that they would bend backs to Houston’s regulations.

“The fact that the fight over Prop 1 isn’t strictly about Austin is clear in other ways too. Opponents of the recall campaign note that, when fingerprinting requirements went into effect in Houston, Uber continued to operate in that city.”

Really it's whatever Austin voters respond in voting, once something is in the ballot box it’s the last word on May 7th.

Commentary Review, Haruka

In this commentary I’m reviewing today is classmate Anairisprieto, Murder of Haruka Weiser on UT campus should shake us all.  This article is about how University of Texas at Austin immediately reacted to its students to help give warning and identify the suspect that murdered Haruka Weiser. From my understanding the writer has agree with these actions that has been taken over the investigation.

They have provided evidence that shows proof of the University’s care towards their students. In the end the actions that U.T. has taken has been proven successful, as the suspect has been caught this April.

U.T. Austin has at least over 70,000 students and informing them is important even though they can’t be available to head count every student that was warned.

What I don’t understand about the article is the title. “Should shake us all.” It kind contradicts because in the article it informs how successfully it went. Making an assumption that this article is actually gives off a positive outcome when reading.

What I find interesting about the article that fits better with the title is the last paragraph.

 “Although UT didn't mention this but the Statesman post did, mentioned that this kind of stuff distressing lot of women, who must look over their shoulder's in dark places.”

This could be expanded more because it’s important to know that women should be able to feel safe.

Taken from the Statesman article they provided,

“Sunday night to the female victim was likely to rock the feeling of safety and security on the Austin campus and in this city for some time to come.”

This makes me wonder how is U.T. going to react from now. Will they enforce more security? What can they do to make women, yes women, feel safer on campus? Does this anger students knowing that even though they pay tuition to a big University that they can’t make more efforts of protecting their students? Will there be a larger boundary against the homeless?

There are so many questions that are left unanswered but what has been done in the past is done. What I agree about the article is that the Campus did its job to inform the students and then the Police was able to get the suspect.

Toll Talk, we need a small loan of 30 billion dollars.

The way how tolls are discussed over time has evolved. It was only last year were it was a face that greeted you at some point then to just pay as you go. Except, we can all agree that nobody likes paying tolls. There is enough tolls in Texas and I state that Texas should not support any more projects involving tolls. In fact the better idea is to reduce them, instead of paying for more roads that we are going to be charged more than once on. 

Currently, Texas Transportation is already in debt in an increasingly amount of $30 billion, according to James Bass, executive director of TxDOT. Although $30 billion was a guess estimate back in late March 2016 for 2053, now you can find other articles (i.e. Texas Tribune or Dallas News) related to debt up to $50 billion.

Where does the money go from the tolls?

TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) has a partnership with the RMA (Regionally Monthly Authorities) and as they are not a funded organization they get to exercise the money with new projects toll related and non toll related. The money is usually to reconstruct, update existing free lanes, and making more tolls. It's really a never ending cycling but the only thing that goes up is the debt and the money wasted.

 

There is already a report in motion lead by Rep. Joseph Pickett, from the transportation committee, proposing about eliminating all toll roads in Texas. As this may seem promising the question is

"Who is going to pay for it?"

When we all know that the state's "financial assistance" is the Texas Citizens. Which makes me have to disagree on their process as that idea sounds too good to be true.

Another idea was just as optimistic that I support as perhaps its time to look at the regions with the most debt and use the money revenue used from our taxes and put it there to narrow down some costs of that debt. But this notion may be hard as TxDOT states that they "wouldn't be able to pick and choose which roads get paid off early." BUT this shouldn't stop them to not use the money wisely.

I can agree that a good pro to tolls is that they are fuel friendly of promising less stops and just go at 85 mph. But when the bill arrives in the mail in a week later or so, it becomes a pain to see that passing through one toll is just about equivalent to a gallon of gas. So please stop taking our money.

Texas Republicans and their cry "Voter Fraud"

Andrea Greer, Burnt Orange Report blogger of Voter Fraud: If Abbott & Cruz Smelt It, Who Really Dealt It?, writes an eye-catching article on Texas Republican Politicians seamlessly adding in quotes about voter fraud with no actual proof to back up their claim to get media coverage points.

The writer is aware of using “fourth-grade humor” so don’t let their choice of vocabulary catch you off guard. Greer documents the argument with background evidence from major sources like Houston Chronicle and other supported hyperlinks in the article. Being said Greer reasoned that even though that voter fraud is an important topic the media only seems to cover it when like a Republican candidate Senator Ted Cruz or Texas Governor Greg Abbott talk about it ignorantly.

While reading the article this quote/question is something to think about,

"Are Abbott, Cruz, and other Republicans so focused on voter fraud because they themselves engage in it, and therefore assume everyone else does?"

Also as you read the article you can tell how confusing on why would some of the known Texas Politicians would even bring up voter fraud out of no where. 

Such as, "Both Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee worked with a consulting firm that they let go after evidence surfaced that the consultant was committing fraud like registering dead people to vote—but that didn’t even happen in Texas."

It’s more so obvious that Greer is against Republicans, but this is also an open argument to where Republicans could also agree that repetitive use of a important topic is get covered by the media can be annoying. Do I agree with Greer? In a more compose matter (that’s less bias), I agree. But I say that I wouldn’t solely point fingers towards the Republican side for both parties could have used this tactic.

A/N: From one of the cite sources used by Greer, I've found an interesting article to follow up after this one, "Lightning strikes more common in Texas than in-person voter fraud...."

What's Big in Texas? Gas emissions.

   An editorial on the Dallas news, Despite court ruling, Texas should redouble clean energy policies, argues that Texas voting against “Clean Power Plan” isn’t the right choice.  They write, towards those who are informative about the CPP, that they show that they are supportive about the plan and adds within the article, “We hope the future generations won’t look at the missed opportunity…” to emphasize the reasoning. 

   The article first provides background information from a national standpoint first as this plan was/is to be a “U.S. signature stand point” to even to treaty this with China and India. But now if U.S. doesn’t comply with their end of the bargain they are out. But the U.S. Supreme Court voted against “Clean Power plan” which sets back the efforts to reduce carbon emissions. 

How does this relate to Texas?

   Texas Attorney Gen. Paxton states that this issue has nothing to do with Texas.  Apparently Texas was a “huge plaintiff” in halted the plan making it a win for state officials. As to argue against this, the editor tries to persuade the reader on what Texas should do instead of being part of the problem. 

Which is a simple statement, “Actively leveraging its impressive clean energy opportunities”

   Because as a huge threatening effect to Texans, as natural gas increases from the factories that pollute the air, with suffer from illnesses and death.

   Then concludes with PROS about supporting cleaning carbon emissions. Which I see is some convincing evidence that supports his claim why to support by those who are active readers. BUT to convince someone with a political stand point I believe the use of numbers would help too.

A/N: Here’s a link to also help you understand about the Climate Power Plan.

On Carry laws leave Texans confused

H. Drew Blackburn, Texas Monthly writer of Look's like Texas's New Law Gun Laws Are Confusing Everybody, writes an attentive perspective on how people are not educated about the Texas gun laws.  If his second subtitle didn’t catch your attention, “Where can you take that hunk of metal," then perhaps your part of the audience that’s a gun owner and or would like to know about why the confusion on the “specifics”. 

The main focus of the confusion takes place on where and when people are able to carry their guns. 

“Essentially, open carry is legal in the same places that concealed carry is, but whether or not open carry is legal in churches or campuses when school isn’t in session, the specifics of bringing guns into businesses, and whether law enforcement or businesses can ask for a license are all still murky.” 

In addition from the quote above, he provides evidence to support about the confusion on open carry that occurs in local grocery stores such as WALMART and HEB. This involves policies that the police enact himself or herself on the gun owner about having a permit for gun ownership.

As the articles continues, what stood out to me was followed by this quote.

“But the problem extends beyond businesses.” 

Which led to his final example on campus carry at the University of Texas. Blackburn discussed about University of Texas System Chancellor William McRaven stating that this could matter could change with a lawsuit. 

His conclusion makes it understandable that confusion shouldn’t be surprising, considering the many perspectives people say about the right to bare arms. But I would have to say that I never read such an article pointing out the confusion, only on black and white opinions on who is against and who is for this law. This article made me think that perhaps this law system should be more informative to the public so everyone will be safe; that way there would be more grey area opinions.