Comment: Rain Water Collection

This is a direct comment to JBaylo's blog titled, "Will Rain Water Save the Day?"  Baylo basically talks about the drought problem that Texas has along with a simple solution that could possibly help stabilize it.  This solution has to do with storing rain water into large containers.  Rain water is 100% safe drinking water and if stored, can be used to help in numerous ways, such as in the case of a terrific drought.  In encouragement, the people who collects rain water can actually get paid through means of rebate.  For ever one gallon of non-pressurized storage you get 50 cents while a gallon of pressurized water gets you a dollar for a maximum of 5,000 dollars, not a bad paycheck if i had to say.

I agree with this move, in terms of encouraging people to collect water.  The more water they collect, the less   they will have to rely on regular tap water and the more chances that a drought would not affect them as drastically as some did before.  What I wouldn't necessarily agree on is the fact that you would need to buy these storage devices and it turns into a type of investment which most would find "not worthy of their time."  The idea is very nice with the perfect approach to this situation, but the fact that their might not be any rain could really hurt the investment plan, even if your goal was to help the drought situation.

In conclusion, I agree with the approach to the drought situation but would encourage a better method to store water with a little more cash return to actually be worth the investment of time.

Toll Lanes. Yay or Nay?

As we all know, there has been one thing on the road that we all tend to sway away from.  Aside from cops, the answer is toll roads.  Toll roads has been this infamous infrastructure that we all tend to hate, especially when it is between your home and work/school.  But why is that? Do we even know their purpose?

According to an article on the Texas Tribune titled "Tolling Texans: More Cities Planning Toll Lanes," more and more cities in Texas are starting to implement toll roads in addition to highways or alongside free roads.  The author Aman Batheja believes that this is all part of a trend of public officials finding themselves with little tax revenue to spend on new roads.  According to Batheja, "the addition of toll lanes can bridge the gap in financing for major highway projects and many more." She also states that the addition to toll roads, "highways will become less congestive and will save gas...gas that you would be using just mindlessly sitting in traffic."  In head of Houston's toll roads, many big Texas cities like Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth and El Paso have all considered adding toll lanes to many highway projects, according to transportation officials in those cities.

The real question would be if this is worth it or not? If you think of it economically, then the answer would be yes.  Toll roads will give congestion relief to highways and will pay off over time; implying that the toll range be anywhere from 75 cents to 5 dollars.  People will take these roads to avoid the rush hour and will stay their permanently which will pay off the debt eventually.  But if you think of it ethnically, not quite.  Its almost like creating a brand new highway (which costs a lot of money) to make a system that helps create more money (which is what they're looking for).  Kind of a tug and pull type of management  with no quick benefits, especially when most of the day the roads will be free of congestion.  Another study shows that this will benefit by lowering carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere by processes of allowing transit buses, registered van pools, emergency vehicles, etc to move in and out of toll roads for free (quicker than taking the high way) which enforces car pooling.  But that raises the last question that is if this is worth it or not? Government funding is used to fund this project and the outcome may or may not be good news according to those who agrees and/or disagrees.

Comment Regarding Voting Turnout Problem

This is a response to an article titled "What's The Problem With Voting?" on a blog called Politically Texas.  This article talks about the recent statistics regarding the relatively low voting turnouts in Texas.  The author says that voting turnout should not be ignored and that something should be done about it.  One particular detail pointed out is that most of the Texas voting eligibility turnout is particularly filled with many "uneducated voters."  The author continues to solve this problem by suggesting a quick and easy political class that could be taken so that many of those who are uneducated can then be educated by what they are actually voting for.  She also points out that it would not just be a class to be taken for fun, but could also be as a sort of college credit course that could give you certain numbers of hours and become educated at the same time, knocking out two birds with one stone.

I particularly like this idea but would argue that turnout for coming to even a FREE class about voting is highly unlikely when going out to cast a single vote is already low in the beginning.  You could make it as interesting as possible but unless this turns into a required coarse to enroll in before you turn 18 as in high school, I won't be positively sure that this would create as great a turnout as other simplistic ideas as making voter registration easier.

All in all I think this was a very well informative post with many great ideas that could greatly increase voter turnout in Texas which we are in dire need of increasing.  I hope there are many more people who agrees as I do and will finally create an easier system for voting and overall increase the voter distribution in Texas.

Race-Based Admissions

"Getting into UT may be one of the most life fulfilling objectives," says a wise old man known as my father.  Though that was before I even came into high school.  Admissions for top notch Universities like the University of Texas at Austen has changed since that time.  Due to an extreme increase of students per a year, policy makers soon had to change this by lowering the number of admissions each year as more and more students start applying - but that's only what we know on the outside.  Little did we know that beneath the sheets underground detective James Bond style, UT has also been accepting applications of individuals predominantly on race.  Although that may not be as juicy as some may have wanted, but it has a very interesting case, such as the recent Supreme Court case: Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin.  

Abigail Fisher is a white student who graduated outside the top 10 percent of her high school class whom was denied entry into UT-Austin in 2008.  She claimed that students with lower test scores and less extracurricular involvement were admitted to UT-Austin over her because of their race, and therefore proceeded to sue the university.  In her argument, she states that UT-Austin's admissions policy violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protecting Clause and federal civil rights statutes because it considers a persons race during the process of accepting applications.  In the university's defense, they claim that this is all part of creating a university with "compelling interest in achieving a diverse student body," in which we all see as complete B.S.  

Even though a more diverse student body would make the overall university sound less racial, it can also be seen as being more racial then what they are trying to sweep away from.  It is a never-ending circle of hopeless hope as anyone tries to venture down the steep hole that is racism.  Racism has been a controversial topic for many decades now and  will keep going for as long as we stay segregated.  Turning to the government and asking for help will only "fuel the fire" and create more hate. So the best thing to do now would be to avoid any type of segregation that has anything to do with race.  Base admission rates predominantly on class rank/GPA and avoid compelling interests ideas that have nothing to do with anything.  

Problem Solving: Criminal Justice

              This blog is from MeanRachel titled "An Endorsement: On Problem Solving and Criminal Justice," by Rachel Farris.  This blog mainly talks about Rachel's concerns on the topic of poverty and poor decision-making that is emanate in the area that she lives in.  She includes many examples of the kinds of problems that she is constantly seeing such as homeless people asking for money at her doorstep, people trying to sell Popsicle sticks through a shopping cart, people in need of health care, etc.
              I believe that Rachel's main claim in this article, however, is that some people need to address these problems and make them right. One person she suggested was a man named Charlie Baird who is running for the Travis County District Attorney's Race.  According to his claims, "has part in solving them (criminal problems such as poverty and poor healthcare)."  This is the main reason why Rachel is supporting him and his race to become the district attorney is because she feels like it is one of many ways that she can help solve the problems in her neighborhood.  That is why her intended audience in this case would be people just as herself, living in poverish neighborhoods facing crime everyday and whom want justice.
             I agree on this particular topic (lowering poverty rates and healthcare) because I too have sympathy for those who live in poverty for their entire lives.  I too have experienced this in an early year of my life and I can assure you, it is not pretty.  As for Charlie Baird's cause, I also believe it is a great step in the right position.  Promising the help and give aid to many poverty families, much in Travis county, is a great point to address because sometimes that's all it takes, is a little promise.  A little promise gives many families hope for their, sometimes what feels, hopeless lives, and to shine light where needed.  I hope that in the future, more and more people will enforce many more problems just like these.

Is Apple Losing Its Touch?

This news article is from the statesman titled, "Now king of hill, Apple likely to start losing innovative edge," written by Joe Nocera.  This article basically talks about how Apple(the most valuable company in America) is starting to degrade drastically, especially after the death of its chief executive, Steve Jobs.  The author talks about many main flaws in Apple's newest project The iPhone5, such as the new "poorly unmitigated disaster" map application.  It was pointed out that this was a "inexplicable mistake" and many even compared the new application similar to that of MapQuest on a BlackBerry, which we all can inter that it is down there in terms of map technology.

The author's main audience of focus in this article is most likely to all Apple users or fan-boys. According to the way that this author argued you can infer that he does not support Apple much at all, especially after seeing the products produced by after post-Jobs.  He points out multiple times that Apple products in Job's era were so "amazing and innovative" as if they had no flaws at all; which in theory, everything has flaws.

Even so, he still sticks to his claim that Apple is starting to lose their innovative edge, that of which I can agree partially on.  Yes, Apple has made a big mistake by dropping the already great Google Maps to replace with their own product has turned to backfire on them, I'm sure they realize the mistake and will only move on from then.  Apple is still a young company which has many years of improvement ahead of them.

The Rainy Day Fund. What is it?

On September 12, 2011, Claire Cardona posts an article on the Texas Tribune titled, "Can Texas Use the Rainy Day Fund to Fight Wildfires?"  This article is basically about a fund that has been saved up for cases such as wildfires, natural disasters, etc. that would be substantial enough to cover the damages that would have been done such as the loss of homes and expensive household items that may have been destroyed.  Many believe that this fund is being wasted away or "stored" for no good reason and that there are better uses the money could go to.  Gov. Rick Perry however disagrees.  In early 2011, Gov. Perry has "led the fight to prevent the state's Rainy Day Fund from being used to help fill the state's enormous budget shortfall for the 2012-13 biennium."  After seeing large disasters and aftermaths such as the earthquake/tsunami that devasted Japan in March, Gov. Perry believes that it is a type of "insurance policy against major natural disasters" and should therefore be kept safe.  To do this however, you would need an agreement upon the Texas Legislature by a two-thirds majority of the state House and Senate during a legislative session.  Since the 82nd session was already closed on May 31, 2011, the next session won't be until 2013 until something could be done.  This would be a substantial case to not take likely, considering that it is "estimated to contain $6.4billion dollars by August 2013."