Safety on the Drag.

I will have to a agree with my classmate Susie Calderon I her argument, in which she explain how it is not enough to rely o the police to solve the homeless crisis in the Drag.

Just like her I believe that this part of Austin needs more than just 80 officers. Not only because homeless people are pretty much invading the area but because it is close to UT, and we can not let more crimes occur, such as the murder of the student Haruka Weiser. This place is full of students who are at danger.

I also agree that the UT needs to listen to the thousands of parents who are concern about their daughters/son lives. As parents wouldn't you be as well. UT needs to protect their students and make efforts to make this area as safe as possible, looking for other alternatives than implementing more police.

Oh Texas, #1!

We all as Texans brag about how great and amazing Texas is, it might be in some very few thing but not when it comes health care and the state of our children. Texas is ranked # 1 when in comes to percent of population uninsured and non-elderly uninsured, #2 on uninsured children and #7 in children living under poverty. Crazy statistics right!?

This means that most of the about 25.1 million of people who lives in Texas is uninsured. Either because their jobs do not offer them insurance, can't afford it, or because they choose not to pay for I, this needs to stop. Texas needs to wake up and realize that this is not acceptable. Due to the lack of health insurance people do not get checked or are available to seek for help when sick; which may lead to death or serious heath-related illnesses. Drastic measures needs to be taken in place, more jobs should offer health insurance, of some sort, at a decent price where their employees can afford it.

On the other hand, an most importantly are the children. It is very sad that our kids are unsecured and living in poverty. This kids are the future of Texas, and are unattended. This kids need to be able to get medical check ups, to be safe and to have an education. Texas needs to put more money to what matters, such as, making sure that this kids can have and afford a health care , and to have their basic needs (such as food, clothing and shelter).

Agree or Disagree?

I have to agree with Jennifer in her blog, self driving cars can very helpful. They can be a great help for those who like you said, don't like to drive and for those who are very adventurous and want to let a computer-control engine be in control of their lives. However there are serious cons to this idea, such as, a problem that this self driving cars have already faced. The problem of swerving into oncoming traffic or running a person over. in a situation like this where a human life is at risk,do you think that a computer or machine has the capacity to make the right decision? Or the decision that we will take in a situation like that? Who would we blame then the car for not knowing better or our selves for letting a computer controlled engine make that decision for us? The idea is great, but there is some serious problems that will stop me from getting one of this cars.

The STAAR, ain't takin us no where!....

Texas needs to stop focusing about things that are not that important and start paying attention to the education they are offering in their K-12 public schools. Texas has a very inefficient education system that will affect us and our future generations if it’s not taken seriously. Texas is currently raked 43 in National Education, very disappointing. Thanks to, Senate Bill 1031, which called for a replacement to the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) with the STAAR. STAAR is a more rigorous and intensified end of course assessment that was not a good idea.

Texas education is failing badly. Now, that STAAR is being used, public schools focus more in covering material to pass the test than actually teaching something the students. Students graduation are now graduating with the knowledge that was covered on these test not on a well round education. For this same reason, we are now having students as well as teachers stressing out about passing this test. Due to that, failure to pass one test will keep students from graduating or passing grade.However, how can we expect students to be able to pass these rigorous tests if the tests are being written beyond grade level? Students might know the material, but might not understand how it is written. I don’t believe students should carry the burden of having several test at the end of the year, in which are being written in a superior lever than how was taught.

Finally, the STAAR does not only prevent teachers from teaching other material than the one covered in the test, or test being too hard, this test can prevent students from being accepter to college. These score are looked at when trying to go to college, if the score do not add up then students are more likely to get accepted. It is not fair to measure students’ intelligence on scores test. There could be other reasons why a student might not pass a test, such as, text anxiety maybe. Texas needs to graduate students with a good education, not just material covered in an end of course test, STAAR.

Our Religion Is Our Freedom, Not A Law.

     On March 22, 2016 , Kathy Miller , the President of  the Texas Freedom Network, wrote to Start-Telegram an article named, " Texas attorney general is undermining religious liberty ". In this article she expresses her discontent about the new attorney general, Jeff Mateer. She believes that it is fundamental to keep the church separated from state in order for our right to be protected.

      Mateer is against the separation of church-state, under the argument that the law is no where to be found in the Constitution. Mateer has "explicitly rejected this key constitutional principle" of separating church and state. Along with other politicians they have used "Religious Freedom" to defend other politicians or business that fire or will not give services to a specific kind of religion. Allowing this mix between church and state could also discriminate against certain groups and make others vulnerable, not to mention politicians could manipulate this mix and use it to further their own agenda rather than that of the country.
   
     I would have to agree with Kathy Miller and say that having separation of church and state is essential to protect our rights. Agreeing with Mateer would only bring more discrimination to our country. It would give politicians the right to go against laws and bills that have yet to pass and that have already passed such as legalization of gay marriage. Opening an avenue for religion to take place in politics could give these politicians an excuse to not vote a certain way or an excuse to not vote at all. It would also give state officials an excuse to not follow a certain law like it happened locally when a state official would refuse to grant a marriage license to a gay couple.

     We can not let this happen to our country. It may not say it in the constitution but it is a right that has been upheld many times by courts just like other rights such as,"fair trials," "right to privacy" and "checks and balances." Why not give it the same importance to this? The list of negative possibilities is endless and perhaps it is something that we shouldn't take too lightly.

    
    
    

It's a individual decison!

On Monday, February 22, 2016 the Statesman Newspaper published an opinion article by the Editorial Board, named “Lawmakers need torevisit campus carry opt-out for state colleges.” In this article the author believes that public university officials should have the same authority as private campuses do, which is to opt-out from allowing student to carry guns in campuses.

More than 20 private campuses have already declined this law. On a Texas Tribune conference, Baylor University’s Ken Starr said, “We’re here as seats of learning, and I do not think this is helpful,” in which I agree with. Public or private, universities should serve as a seat of learning and no more. Even though there is some of who think that this measure is to ensure safety, guns should not be allowed inside campus. I am not against of allowing certified civilians to carry guns, but I do believe there should be a strict definition of where and when they should be allowed.

In this article it also mentions the repercussions that this law has already cause in the University of Texas. After having no other choice than to accept this law President Gregory L. Fenves has already expressed his discontent with this law. Last week he said, “I do not believe handguns belong on a university campus, so this decision has been the greatest challenge of my presidency to date,” however, the discontent has not only been expressed by the president himself, but by a large number of faculty members. Some of the current faculty member have already indicated that they will continue to fight against this rule, others have already said that if there is no changes they will resign from teaching.

The last that the author points out and which one I agree with also is that, “No one has a better grasp of the real security needs at a specific campuses more than the leaders of those institutions.” As the president of any institution they know what’s best for them and into what level they need to adopt this safety measure. This decision should be left to the decision of the presidents of all Universities to decide whether it is need or not, because like the author of this article said they are the ones responsible for the universities therefore they know whether they need to implement that law and to what extent.

Going against their OFFICIAL OATH!

The Texas Tribune, released a article called "State Bar Will Investigate Paxton for Conduct After Marriage Ruling." According to this article Attorney General Paxton is being investigated for possible of professional conduct. As it follows to explain, Paxton who already faces three felony charges for claims that he mislead investigators in business dealing he took office is now is being accused for violating his oath. This so because after the ruling that same-sex marriage had been legalized nation wide Paxton issued his opinion in telling the county clerks that if this had any objection with their religious beliefs they could opt issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Even though the original complaint was dismissed by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's, a group f attorneys to strongly believe that Paxton violated his own official oath to "‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state..." have appealed to the Board of Disciplinary Appeal. It's amazing to read things like this, where people try to find their way to not enforce the law, what is funny to me, is that like this article says, some people go against their oath to stop a law from going through completely. This does not only happen with same-sex marriage, it happened with a lot of cases.