Uber Everywhere

     Today we talked about something we are suppose to vote for this Saturday.  This "thing" we are voting for proposition 1, that states that Uber and Lyft will not have to follow what all the taxi cab drivers want them to, (like fingerprint checks).  Most of the things listed on proposition one, and let me say that voting yes, means that Uber and Lyft DO NOT have to follow these, but they will increase the time to hire drivers, and also raise the prices for people to ride.  I believe that proposition 1 should be passed, because they are already doing background checks when hiring, and I believe that is enough.  There hasn't been a problem with Uber or Lyft in regards to people from bad backgrounds, and this wasn't brought up because of it.  Yes, I understand that taxi drivers are going out of business, and the city wants money from something that is so huge in so many cities and states, but that doesn't change the fact that because of these services, DWI have decreased and you are able to get a ride much faster and cheaper.  I have personally not ridden in one, just because I do not go out very much, but my friends do, and they love using it.
     If this bill is not passed, these companies are threatening to leave, but I don't think they will.  But they will cost more, and I think that will do more harm than good.  If the prices rise, people will be more likely to pass the offer of a ride, because they don't want to pay too much.  Lots of these services give out coupons and cards at events like ACL, where you get $20 dollars free first rides, and things like that. These are great deals, and thats why people are raising a fuss.
    I highly suggest EVERYONE go vote on Saturday and cast your vote in as YES to get this passed, and Uber and Lyft do not have to leave or raise their prices.

Abortions.... Comment to Someone Else's Blog

    As I read through Austin McKee's blog, Deep in the Heart of Texas, she writes over abortion in Texas and says that having an abortion is something people shouldn't be judged over, and that if there were no abortion clinics, people would be getting them in unsafe ways.
    I can't help but agree with her while reading her article.  I agree when saying that people shouldn't be judged, because they could be doing it for very good reasons, and they could be really great people. I also agree that people will get them in other ways than a clinic.  This could be very harmful, and more discouraged and ways to be judged than going to a clinic.
     Having a child when not ready would be irresponsible.  I wrote my blog post over cps offices holding kids, and I bet some of these kids come from families that should have had an abortion.
    One thing I would really love to have seen from her blog is her seeing the other side of the story.  Maybe throw in the other sides argument and let us know why that is the wrong way to think, and another point I think should have been made, is all that a clinic does for women  besides just having abortions.
   I think this was a great article, and I know a lot of people could disagree with me and say that every child should be born and live a life, but everyone feels different ways.

They are just children

      Today I wanted to talk about a story we mentioned in class about having a shortage in foster homes for children.  This article troubled me because I spend so much time with kids, (because I work with an after school care program), that it pains me to see that these children don't have the life that they should be given.  There have been no room for children in these foster cares, that they have been sleeping in the cps offices. This brings me to 2 questions. 1) Is it because we are taking too many kids away for something that we shouldn't have? And 2) Are there too many terrible parents.      

       I am not saying that all parents are terrible, but in my opinion you shouldn't be a parent unless you are ready, and that includes being the mature one, and knowing how to handle certain situations.  You can't plan for everything, but you can know that there are certain things you just shouldn't do. By this I am talking about assaulting a child.  There have been a couple cases in which we (the people I work with and I) have had to call CPS because a kid has a big blue bruise of a handprint on his or her face. I can understand simple things like spanking a child, but smacking them is another story.  

     Kids are not only sent to foster care because of terrible parents, but terrible things could happen to the family as a whole.  For example if a child's parents pass away, and they have nobody to live with. There are also times where the parents are taken from their home, (jail) and the home is not safe for children to live in.  That goes along with being responsible.  If you were to have a child, you can't think of yourself anymore, you need to put the child before you to ensure it has a good life.  

     It pains me to see kids sleeping in a CPS office building because they have nowhere to go.  I believe that there should be more places/ homes for these kids to live in. There is however a new policy in Texas that limits the amount of people that qualify to host children, and I believe that is there to ensure a good life for the kids, and should stay. Wether they are actual families or a facilities that can hold multiple kids, it is just important that they live a happy life like they deserve.  

Top 10%

Everyone knows that in Texas you need to be in the top 10% of your school to get into UT, but some might not know that if you are in the top 10% you can get in any public Texas University automatically.  As found on the Texas Monthly, Top 10 Percent Rule on Trial written by Erica Greider, she shows us something that is happening with the University of Texas.  While the supreme court allows schools to accept people off of race, to create a more diverse campus, Abigail Fisher, was not accepted into UT because she was not top 10%, and claims the decision was made with unconstitutional racial discrimination.  Erica agrees with Abigail in this blog, and believes that the supreme court should make the ruling in favor of Abigail, as she says, "A ruling in Fisher's favor would be rightly understood."  She also believes that the top 10% rule isn't creating a much diverse campus.  Erica creates her blog with a style that I like, she starts with the history and the facts, and as she talks about it, she works her opinions in as the blog continues.  She shows her opinion towards what is happening with Fisher v. University of Texas, and that she is also saying that diversity is good thought a campus but needs to be effectively done, and the top 10% rule isn't doing its justice.  Erica's blog is a well organized set of facts and opinions.  The top 10% rule is one that I never cared for just because the class I graduated with was very competitive, but I ended up going to ACC anyway so this never applied to me. I wish UT was easier to get in to, but if it was, would UT still be the same? Is it helping diversity?

Can Religion and Government Mix?

         Found on The Daily Texan, Emily Vernon makes an argument that christianity beliefs should not be brought into governmental decisions.  She starts with talking about the Texas governor Greg Abbott. She says that he sides with christianity when making important decisions, and because the Texas government is made up of christians, they adopt an "ethnocentric religious view".  This is shown when they denied rights to the LGBT community.  She also claims that the constitution gives us the freedom of religion and if you make decisions off your own personal beliefs, then we run into a problem.  As she says, "in a country where freedom of religion is guaranteed, it is paradoxical to institute religious policy".  I can not say I disagree with her either.  She makes a good point, but what I believe she should have incorporated a little more, is the fact that the Texas government shouldn't make decisions off of personal beliefs and they should stay neutral.  She does talk about it, but I believe that singling out the governor is a little overkill and could have been a more general statement.  But she does have a good point.  The Texas government should be more neutral in making decisions, and it could be more beneficial to the citizens of Texas.  

UT Immigration Clinic

Hello Everyone! Today I wanted to talk about an article I found in The Daily Texan, and article written by Elizabeth Hlavinka, over the UT immigration clinic.  Her article was very interesting to me to see how immigrants are actually treated. She talks a lot how poor the conditions where they have to live with children are there.  As a prison for people who have committed terrible crimes, I could see this a valid place for them to stay, but for families with children, it is terrible. These kids are being brought up in terrible conditions, and it is, as she says "hindering their development.  In the article she describes this place as a room with bunkbeds and made of cinder blocks. The mothers of the children would not let their kids crawl or walk on the floors.  I would not wish a situation like this upon anyone unless they have committed a serious crime. Another big concern is about the children, and how these places are not a child care facility.  I know there might be more to the story than just these families being treated poorly, but when reading this article I couldn't help but think about the children in this situation.  A lot of the article is about taking a test and if you fail you are deported and  it is difficult for the women to receive any legal council due to the location of the facilities. But, I believe that no matter where you are from and illegal or not children should be protected.  This is not me saying parents should not be protected, but the parents know what is legal and what is not. This article is very interesting and shows people what it is like for immigrants who come into this country. If you have the time I would go read it.

Welcome!

Hello everyone! Welcome to my blog!