Blog Stage 8: Comment on a Colleague's Work # 2

In response to Cinthia's "Texas and Shared Transportation" post.

Interesting article about something I don't see a lot about: public transportation in Texas. I would have to agree completely with Cinthia's arguments here. I've heard many times of how terrible the traffic is in Austin, so considering the enhancement of public transportation may definitely improve things.

Cinthia points out that Austin's growing population will only worsen the traffic situation here. This in my opinion is a crucial point in her post. There is no denying that Austin and Texas as a state has been growing rapidly, so there will need to be changes implemented in order to adapt. More people would mean more cars on the street.

There are some issues with the public transportation system however. I myself ride the bus often to get from place to place. Sometimes, riding the bus takes me an hour to get to a destination because I would have to transfer buses and wait at the stop. The time difference is drastic compared to a car ride, which would otherwise get me to the same place in 10 minutes. The reason this is so is because there aren't a lot of buses for each route, which means the frequency of a bus arriving at a stop is pretty low. This is most likely because of the lack of riders, so there isn't a need for a lot of buses. The examples that are stated in the post, about Europe and Asia is a great way to explain this. A lot of people in these areas of the world use the public transportation a lot more than in Texas, which is why countries there invested more into improving their trains and other public forms of transportation. What I'm saying is, if we want local and state authorities to improve public transportation, there needs to be more demand for it. If more and more people are coming into Austin, will they bring this demand necessary for change? Or will they bring their own cars and nothing really changes other than congesting the highway even more?

One thing mentioned briefly in the post was that this could reduce carbon emissions. I think this is a pretty important point to touch on. I personally believe in issues like global warming, so I support anything that could potentially help make the environment cleaner and safer. If people choose to ride these forms of transportation, we would see fewer cars in the street, which would reduce the emission of green house gases, and that's a great thing.

I am still a little skeptical because the question from earlier still remains. Will more people use these public transportation systems should they be implemented? The answer really depends on how efficient these things turn out to be. If they could match the efficiency of owning a personal car, or even better, then there will be the right demand for it, which would mean things like trains and buses would see a lot more success.

Ultimately, I think Cinthia did a great job in conveying her argument of the need for greater public transportation in Texas. If this turns out to be a success, then like she said, we would "improve commuting, reduce carbon emissions, and alleviate traffic". This would be a wonderful thing, so I agree with her, and would really like to see some more emphasis from policy makers in Texas towards this field.

Blog Stage 7: Original editorial or commentary #2

During this year's legislative session, the Texas Legislature has recently passed House Bill 2908 (HB 2908). What this does is it essentially increases the severity of the punishment for crimes towards law enforcement and other peace officers. Peace officer is just a another way of referring to law enforcement. While I agree that committing violence against the police is a huge no-no, I don't believe this is the right way to solve the issue.

The first thing is that because the consequences are more severe, it could dissuade others from fighting a case against them. For example, the blog post from which THIS post is based on: "Bad Enhancement Bill Boosts Pressure for False Convictions" by Grits for Breakfast talked about a man named Carlos Flores who was accused of assaulting a police officer, but in fact HE was the one who was assaulted by the officer himself. Despite doing no wrong and only acting in self defense, Flores pleaded no contest because he didn't want to risk losing in a trial, as he did not want to risk the incredibly harsh punishment. This happened in 2009, a while before House Bill 2908 was passed. The fact that innocent people are already getting wrongfully punished is an absolutely terrible thing, and should this bill be passed, the likelihood of this could potentially increase.

Another point that I want to touch on is that the punishment for assaulting a police officer is already pretty severe, so making it even more so in some instances seem like it has gone overboard. This is why in the Carlos Flores' example above, Flores decided to plead guilty even before this bill was passed. The Grits for Breakfast blog post I mentioned says that under this new bill, something like assault while intoxicated could mean "first degree felony (up to life in prison) if the victim is a police officer". This is absolutely crazy considering the fact that first degree felonies generally go towards murder, robbery, kidnap, etc. Also, what if the person who was being charged couldn't afford their own lawyer? This could potentially increase the chance of them losing the case, and suffering the absurd consequences.

Ultimately, I believe that House Bill 2908 is unnecessary. I understand the need to protect public servants and I completely support that idea, but as discussed above, this bill could definitely be taken advantaged of. Police officers could use this as a way to cover their own mistakes and actions, which could potentially lead to innocent people being accused and even punished. Also, those who did commit a crime could be punished to a degree that was completely over the severity of their crimes, which simply does not make sense and would not be fair. I think a reasonable solution would be to simply abandon this bill. There should be some other way to deal with this, possibly a way where peace officers can operate safely and also not at the expense of the people.

Blog Stage 6: Comment on a Colleague's Work #1

Commentary on Emily Ward's The Lack of Logic Behind HB 375- Commentary 

I think there are some great points being stated here. The argument in this blog is against supporters of The Texas House Bill 375, also known as the "Constitutional Carry Act".

In her first paragraph, Emily points out the irony of gun-rights activists unwilling to pay a fee because this fee pales in comparison to the cost of hundreds or even thousands of dollars for the gun itself. She goes on to point out that those who carry guns claim that they are for self protection and simply because it is their right. Her counterargument to this is that this bill will create a rise in gun owners, which could potentially increase the level of danger. I completely agree with all of this. 140$ and 70$ for getting and keeping a license really isn't that much if we compare them with the actual prices of guns. I also think having a license for a gun is pretty important. It is sort of like having a driver's license, so it shows others that you know how to properly handle these things. House Bill 375 loses the need to have a license when carrying a handgun, so I definitely think it will create some unease.

Emily states that "if this amendment was formed in the modern day I would assume tragedies like school shootings, accidental gun deaths and mass shootings would be taken into consideration". This is in my opinion the best argument here. The right to bear arms (2nd amendment of The Constitution) was created in the late 1700s . The 1700s! A time when things like muskets existed and were considered to be extremely inaccurate and inefficient. Compare those sort of weaponry to what we have today, and we are sure to see a massive difference. Back then, it took a long time to shoot and reload 1 shot. Now, we shoot multiple bullets in mere seconds. The fact that these weapons have become deadlier means that like the blog says, things like mass shootings have become more common, so we really need to take a look at how these laws were formed. I think what Emily believes is that we simply cannot follow something that is in a sense outdated.

The last paragraph talks about what would happen when certain aspects of a gun license are lost. She believes that there could be "handgun carriers as young as 18" because without the license from House Bill 375, the 21 year old age requirement  wouldn't apply anymore. This is an interesting point that I never considered, but after reading got me thinking. Even though people who go to college (ages 18+) are legally adults, I would still consider them adolescent and naive, so I also wouldn't exactly feel safe if they were allowed to carry weapons on campus.

Ultimately, I agree with everything that is stated in this blog post. It seems that the argument here is against House Bill 375 (Constitutional Carry), talking about the potential dangers of allowing open carry without a license. Emily believes that there should at least be some compromise with this bill, and I think this post does a great job in expressing her concerns for safety.

Blog Stage 5: Original Editorial or Commentary #1

Background research:
http://kxan.com/2017/03/21/public-to-testify-about-school-choice-tuesday-morning/

Texas lawmakers are planning to vote on Senate Bill 3, which is a plan that creates a savings account from tax dollars for families to use for their child's education. It also gives businesses tax credit if they donate towards a scholarship account.

I actually think this might be a bad idea. One main argument against this bill is that private schools and religious schools will benefit from this, while public schools may suffer. Others also say that these private institutions should not receive public taxpayer money. I think these arguments are completely valid. While I believe people should send their children to whatever institution they want, what this bill will do if passed is that it will create competition between public and private schools. This is good, but the problem is private schools generally already have higher funding due to higher tuition, grants, etc. People want to send their children to prestigious or challenging schools, so in order to attract these people, schools will have to improve their level of education. Since private schools already have an advantage in terms of resources, the quality of education may already be higher, so if this bill is passed, then it is definitely possible we see more people going the private school route. Some may argue that this will motivate schools to be better at what they do. The problem is, they can't.  The money from this bill comes from the taxpayer,  which means if the people spend it on private schools, there will be even fewer funds given to public schools, so their level of education could and most likely will deteriorate. Without extra funding, there is absolutely no way for any public school to actually be able to compete with private schools, because they wouldn't be able to even sustain themselves.

Ultimately, I think this is a bad idea because while giving people money for education is good, it could potentially reduce the quality of public schools which could set back the education for a lot of people. It's not like everyone will just all of a sudden attend private school because of this bill. According to the article "Public to testify about school choice Tuesday morning" from KXAN, the bill gives back "$5,000 to $8,000", depending on the income of the family. Even with the money from this bill, some people may still be unable to afford private school tuition, so they have to go to public schools. What I think should happen is that we can simply have this money go to public schools. The quality and level of education will hopefully rise, which will close the gap between private and public schools. This way, people can have a fair choice on what type of school they wish to go to without really having to worry too much about pricing.

Blog Stage 4: Substantial Commentary or Criticism 2

The blog post "Texas innocence compensation still looks pretty good (compared to Kansas)" from the blog Grits for Breakfast talks about the amount of compensation Texas gives towards those falsely accused of a crime. There are no specific authors stated because of it's editorial nature, but we can find out about it's board of writers through here: bios. The targeted audience of this blog is pointed towards local government officials and the everyday people, as it is trying to convince them that this part of the criminal justice system is a good idea and should be supported and implemented, as it would save both the government and taxpayers a lot of money to be used somewhere else.

The article's main argument is that the amount paid towards the innocent is a fair and decent amount, especially when compared to other states like Kansas, who are currently considering using a similar compensation policy. It provides evidence by stating Texas gives a  "lump sum of $80,000 per year served, along with lifetime annuity payments of $40,000 to $50,000 plus $25,000 for every year someone was wrongfully registered as a sex offender"

One major evidence that this blog post uses is the historic data of previous events. For example, the article says that one person in Kansas named Eddie Lowery was wrongfully sentenced to 9 years for rape. But then, he won 7.5 Million dollars from a settlement. He declined the state compensation after being released because of how low that annual compensation was. If he were given $80,000 a year for a total of the 9 years he served, he might have accepted, and the total would only amount to $720,000, a significant difference from 7.5 million. Basically, by raising the amount given, they are still able to potentially save large sums of money.

Because of this, the author's logic behind this argument is that the reason these states are increasing compensation amounts is because "civil suits can cost local government much more". What this means is some people who are wrongfully accused refuse to accept the low compensation and instead sue the government, which would leave them "open to much larger liability".

Ultimately, I would have to agree with this author that Texas' current innocence compensation does indeed look good. I would imagine anyone would be pretty upset if they had to spend many years in jail for a crime they did not commit. If they discovered that the compensation for spending say 10 years in jail is $25,000 annually, the amount Texas USED to pay, then they would probably be very angry. The article also says that many people who are released after a long time in jail often possess "few marketable skills and/or an array of health problems", so they really aren't in a good position to start working again to sustain themselves. By raising the the amount paid, these wrongfully convicted people can quickly get back on their feet, and most likely won't sue the government.

Blog Stage 3: Substantial Commentary or Criticism #1

The article "Texas lawmakers want to cut pre-k funding; don't let them" is an editorial of the Dallas Morning News. It was written by the Dallas Morning News Editorial Board, so no specific author is named on this article, since editorials are supposed to reflect the opinions of that news station as a whole. However, if you would like to learn more about who is on the board and their background, here is the link: Meet the Editorial Board. All of the writers there have backgrounds in journalism and have experience writing with other news outlets.

The audience is pointed towards lawmakers but even more so for the everyday citizen living in Texas. The author wants the people to actively participate and urge lawmakers to keep or increase funding for Pre-k education, because they believe it is extremely important for a child's development.

Basically, the article states that due to a "tightening state budget", lawmakers are looking to spend taxpayer money on policies that are the most useful and worthy to be funded, something that does not include Pre-K education. The article reveals that according to early senate and house proposals, grants funded for improving Pre-k education has decreased. The author then argues that Pre-k education is important, which is why decreased funding for it is bad. They support their claim with studies of children and their early academic achievements. Also, the author provides a concession and counterargument, stating that "we know that these programs are costly [but] this short-term financial expediency will have long-term consequences for the state's children".

Some examples of their evidence are from local studies, showing that "children who attended high-quality pre-K ended up scoring higher on the third-grade STAAR reading test than those who did not; they also were more likely to read at a college-ready pace"

Another states "Those who [attended a Pre-K program] were three times as likely to be reading at grade level by third grade".

The article then says that even with the current funding, some school districts still aren't getting enough to maintain a effective program, which leads into this big question: why are they cutting the funding then? If some schools aren't being given enough money already, then further cutting the funds would only make the quality of education even worse.

Ultimately, I completely agree with the author in this article. I also believe that Pre-K education funding should at LEAST stay the same, if not increased, despite budget concerns. It has been scientifically proven that humans learn better at a younger age, so I think we should really take this chance and teach children as much as they can before they grow older. Think of it as an investment. Pay the price now, prosper later.

Blog Stage 2: Article Introduction and Colleague's Blogs

Hello everyone! Check out this news article from KXAN titled "Texas Rural Schools Wary of State Money to Private Schools" written by Phil Prazan.

The article talks about a plan known as Education Savings Accounts. It’s a bill that might be passed in the Texas senate and basically gives children state funding of about 5,500$ per child, and is spent for educational purposes. This can be a good thing because it allows families for more flexibility on what type of education their child can have. There are also downsides however. Since this money comes from Texas taxpayers, if people choose to spend this money on private institutions or things of such nature, the public schools would suffer because they might receive less funding from the government. Some people are saying this is actually a good thing because it creates competition, which means people will go to the schools that give the best education. Either way, I think it will be an extremely interesting topic that is worth reading because this may affect the future of education in Texas. I actually think we might see more students in private schools should this bill be passed. If we use this money wisely, then there is definitely potential for change in the quality of education in Texas.