The blog post by the Burnt Orange Report is about the decline of funding Texas' Pre-K. The author's intended audience is those who have children in Pre-k or those who were outraged of the funding decline.
The author of the blog post is named Ben Sherman. He has been a BOR staff writer since 2011. A graduate of the University of Texas, Ben has worked on campaigns, in political consulting, and has written for other news outlets like Think Progress.
Ben Sherman's claim is that Texas lost out of the federal funding because Texas refused to meaningfully use the money. His evidence is that, Texas made clear on its application that it intended to use any share to fund private educators in a voucher program.
I agree with the author on his stance on how important Pre-K is to a child and their parents. Since the state only pays for half day pre-k a lot of Texans feel that their child isn't getting enough education that is needed at such a critical time of learning in their life. Another thing is the increased cost of child care. Parents and their children would benefit more if the Pre-K system would be taken more seriously.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Blog Stage 3
The blog post I'm critiquing is about the idea of police officers having body cameras with them. The post is from The Daily Texan and was posted on December 4th 2014. The idea has come up obviously because of the controversial decisions of the grand jury declining to indict any of the officers of the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases.
The intended audience of this post is for everyone in general. Maybe more towards those who feel that this is a good step forward if in fact body cameras do go into effect. Although like the blog post says "sometimes -as in Garner's case- a recording is not enough."
The Daily Texan Editorial Board is the author of the blog post. The Board is composed of Editor-in-Chief Riley Brands and Associate Editors Amanda Haight, Noah M. Horwitz and Amanda Voeller.
Their claim is that it would help prevent tragedies such as these, as well as ensure justice is carried out when police brutality transpires. Their evidence comes from studies from The Guardian which shows that the presence of these cameras reduce incidents where physical force is used, protecting both the officers and the community at the same time.
The logic here is that there will always be prejudice people, but I agree with the author that this is a step in the right direction. This idea has potential to save innocent lives or bring justice to those victimized.
The intended audience of this post is for everyone in general. Maybe more towards those who feel that this is a good step forward if in fact body cameras do go into effect. Although like the blog post says "sometimes -as in Garner's case- a recording is not enough."
The Daily Texan Editorial Board is the author of the blog post. The Board is composed of Editor-in-Chief Riley Brands and Associate Editors Amanda Haight, Noah M. Horwitz and Amanda Voeller.
Their claim is that it would help prevent tragedies such as these, as well as ensure justice is carried out when police brutality transpires. Their evidence comes from studies from The Guardian which shows that the presence of these cameras reduce incidents where physical force is used, protecting both the officers and the community at the same time.
The logic here is that there will always be prejudice people, but I agree with the author that this is a step in the right direction. This idea has potential to save innocent lives or bring justice to those victimized.
Blog Stage 8: Commentary #2
I chose to comment on Shayy Tavarez's blog post about the Michael Brown shooting.
Was it self-defense? Was it a racist act? No one truly knows except Darren Wilson. The fact is that Mr. Brown was unarmed and 18 years old. If the officer was intimidated by the kids height and weight he could have taken other actions besides simply taking Michael Brown's life. Like my colleague Shayy Tavarez stated, "Darren Wilson could have easily pulled his taser out and made Brown surrender and if that did not work why not shoot your gun at his leg or in a place where he has no choice but to be at your mercy?"
Officers today often seem so above the law. I believe that when there is a serious case like this one, the officer involved should be treated as a person and not an officer. The officer should of been punished for his actions and I don't believe the jury got it right. I respect all the peaceful protesters who came out and let their voices be heard.
Although, I do believe all cops get bad reps for the ignorance of the bad and corrupted officers. Officers risk their lives everyday in order to serve and protect us. It's sad to know that so many good officers get bad reps just because of the few corrupted ones who are nationally televised.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Blog Stage 7: Ban Texting While Driving in Texas?
According to the National Safety Council, drivers texting was a contributing factor in more than 1,000 Texas crashes. The council also states, “talking on a cell phone while driving makes you four times more likely to crash, and texting while driving increases your chances of a crash by up to eight to 23 times.”
Texas should approve a ban on texting while driving with appropriate exceptions for options like hands-free use and the governor should sign it into law.
The Legislature approved a texting ban in the 2011 session but Governor Rick Perry vetoed it because he said it tried to micro-manage Texans' lives. A similar bill didn't get out of committee in 2013 because legislators knew it would be declined again by Perry's veto.
But in January Texas will have a new governor for the first time in 14 years, and Greg Abbott should sign it into law.
The bill won't end texting while driving no more than other laws stop drunk driving. But the bill and the resulting publicity would put new force behind this common sense effort. A ban would save some lives in the short run and be a step in the right direction.
Forty-four states have prohibited texting behind the wheel and Texas should become the 45th.
Texas should approve a ban on texting while driving with appropriate exceptions for options like hands-free use and the governor should sign it into law.
The Legislature approved a texting ban in the 2011 session but Governor Rick Perry vetoed it because he said it tried to micro-manage Texans' lives. A similar bill didn't get out of committee in 2013 because legislators knew it would be declined again by Perry's veto.
But in January Texas will have a new governor for the first time in 14 years, and Greg Abbott should sign it into law.
The bill won't end texting while driving no more than other laws stop drunk driving. But the bill and the resulting publicity would put new force behind this common sense effort. A ban would save some lives in the short run and be a step in the right direction.
Forty-four states have prohibited texting behind the wheel and Texas should become the 45th.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Blog Stage 6: Commentary
My colleague, Mr. Bagby, couldn't have said it any better. All of the points he mentioned play a part in our low voting state. I know there's a lot of Texans that don't care to vote. The question is why? I'm sure the majority of non-voters would care if they were educated about the issues, the candidates running and how politics work. But not a lot are. Maybe we as a state should take some responsibility and ask if we did a good enough job educating our people and showing them how truly important it is to participate and vote? Other states exceed our voter turnout by a lot. Although, they have more competitive elections then ours and easier ways to vote as in mail-in voting.
In conclusion, I do believe that as the majority of Texans become Hispanic we'll see a shift to Democrat or at least far more competitive elections than the most recent ones. But then again, not many Hispanics in Texas vote as of now.
In conclusion, I do believe that as the majority of Texans become Hispanic we'll see a shift to Democrat or at least far more competitive elections than the most recent ones. But then again, not many Hispanics in Texas vote as of now.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Blog Stage 5: Should Texas ban fracking?
Fracking shouldn't be banned in Texas because fracking's benefits overcome the negative.
Texans should support fracking because of its economic benefits (royalty payments to landowners, jobs, local taxes, etc.) Fracking can dramatically change the economic state of a city or town because of all the jobs it will provide considering that there is alot of natural gas to obtain. For others, opposing fracking makes sense. A couple reasons may be because they believe that fracking pollutes the environment and that for some, fracking has changed their small, quiet town into a loud industrial area.
I believe many people have no idea of what fracking is which takes away a number of people's opinions. According to the University of Texas at Austin Energy Poll, 59 percent of Americans say they are “not familiar” with fracking. Among those familiar with fracking, a plurality 47.5 percent support its use against 35.7 percent opposed. Support exceeds opposition in all the shale gas states except New York.
For those who are "unfamiliar"; fracking involves the injection of water, sand and chemicals deep into shale formations to fracture rock, freeing formerly inaccessible natural gas. To be sure, we are still learning about the environmental impacts of fracking, but there is no real support in the scientific literature for the notion that fracking poses greater pollution or health risks than those we regularly accept in connection with our reliance on the primary alternative electric generation fuel – coal. To the contrary natural gas-fired power plants give us electricity that yields half the greenhouse gases (and much smaller fractions of the more deadly pollutants) that we get from coal combustion. That is good for the environment, for all of us.
Therefore, I am a supporter for fracking because Texas benefits enormously from it and banning it would be a bad idea.
Texans should support fracking because of its economic benefits (royalty payments to landowners, jobs, local taxes, etc.) Fracking can dramatically change the economic state of a city or town because of all the jobs it will provide considering that there is alot of natural gas to obtain. For others, opposing fracking makes sense. A couple reasons may be because they believe that fracking pollutes the environment and that for some, fracking has changed their small, quiet town into a loud industrial area.
I believe many people have no idea of what fracking is which takes away a number of people's opinions. According to the University of Texas at Austin Energy Poll, 59 percent of Americans say they are “not familiar” with fracking. Among those familiar with fracking, a plurality 47.5 percent support its use against 35.7 percent opposed. Support exceeds opposition in all the shale gas states except New York.
For those who are "unfamiliar"; fracking involves the injection of water, sand and chemicals deep into shale formations to fracture rock, freeing formerly inaccessible natural gas. To be sure, we are still learning about the environmental impacts of fracking, but there is no real support in the scientific literature for the notion that fracking poses greater pollution or health risks than those we regularly accept in connection with our reliance on the primary alternative electric generation fuel – coal. To the contrary natural gas-fired power plants give us electricity that yields half the greenhouse gases (and much smaller fractions of the more deadly pollutants) that we get from coal combustion. That is good for the environment, for all of us.
Therefore, I am a supporter for fracking because Texas benefits enormously from it and banning it would be a bad idea.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Will wage increase benefit long-term?
An article posted on September 22, 2014 in The Daily Texan explains the possible drawback on increasing the minimum wage. The article written by David Davis, Jr. suggests that simply increasing the minimum wage will not resolve the poverty problem but that it may in fact increase the problem.
His thoughts are that if you increase the minimum wage then you are decreasing the amount of profit the company will be making which will lead to less employment overtime. He believes that the right way to go about this is to attract more companies to Texas which will then increase the demand for employment and increase minimum wage that way.
The article is beneficial because I believe the vast majority of low-income workers will vote yes to minimum wage increase and this article explains that by doing so it can potentially hurt low-income workers long-term by leaving them unemployed.
His thoughts are that if you increase the minimum wage then you are decreasing the amount of profit the company will be making which will lead to less employment overtime. He believes that the right way to go about this is to attract more companies to Texas which will then increase the demand for employment and increase minimum wage that way.
The article is beneficial because I believe the vast majority of low-income workers will vote yes to minimum wage increase and this article explains that by doing so it can potentially hurt low-income workers long-term by leaving them unemployed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)