Blog State 8. Colleague Commentary

     Natasha Ahmed, a grad student at UT, wrote in her latest blog 3peat: Perry's Political Problems about the mistakes that Perry made and what we can learn from them.

     Overall her blog page is well designed and her article is fairly well written, grammatically speaking. There are a few parts however she fails to elaborate on. For example, the first line is that "in 2000, Perry found his silver lining." I'm not entirely sure Ahmed articulates the concept of a silver lining which is defined as "a consoling aspect of a difficult situation." If becoming the governor was the event that she metaphorically identifies through the silver lining comment then I would ask: what was the difficult situation for Perry at that time to say that being given governorship was a small but important "silver lining." She may have been referring to his having been the only governor elected to 3 full subsequent terms. In either case the article doesn't clearly elaborate on what exactly the bad situation or silver lining was.

     In the remainder of the article the one thing I am clear on is that she does not care much for Rick Perry. As a fairly neutral person on the matter  I have no particular bias that would cause me to view her article through any type of pessimistic lens. Even in neutrality however it is hard for me to side with her persuasive argument for a few reasons. There seem to be several slippery slopes (claims+claims without proof), conjectures, and outright speculation with little reference or support. Furthermore, the use of line strikes,  consantly changing font sizes and colors is a bit uneasy on the eyes and would cause question these stylistic elements. Do they serve a purpose? are they a distraction from an argument that could be supported more thoroughly? The blog looks nice, but such stylistic elements don't seem to really add much to the point of persuasion.
   

Bag Ban: The Impacts

     When legislation was passed in Austin, Texas to require that stores no longer issue single-use plastic bags as of March 1st, 2013 I was upset. I will admit it. I realize that many of my reservations were more than likely a simple resistance to change and indeed within a couple of months it has become no longer an issue for me. In this blog I wish to briefly outline some of the advantages and potential disadvantages of the ordinance for the public as well as the businesses themselves.

Advantages: 

     Banning plastic bags is obviously a good thing for the environment. While folks may not like the idea I hardly doubt anyone could provide a reasonable argument for how discontinuing the use of plastic bags (which are not biodegradable) can be a good thing for the environment. In the long run, especially if this catches on everywhere else in the nation and the world we could significantly reduce our damage to the planet. Additionally, the businesses stand to benefit from this as well. Although I am reasonably certain the cost of purchasing plastic bags was not a significant ding to a company's bottom line, I would be as confident that removing that cost altogether along with now being able to sell bags in their absence has to be a profitable venture. In other words, bags have gone from a cost center (of some scale) to a revenue center (of some scale).
     Another advantage for me at least, is that it causes me to buy less food at a time. I generally go to the store once a week now. While this isn't the most convenient way to do things, it results in significantly less wasted food at my house. Whereas before I would try to buy a month's worth of groceries - which forces me to either buy unhealthy frozen junk, or conversely fresh food that winds up spoiling before I can consume it - I now go with the intention of stocking myself up for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for that specific week. I rarely waste anything now.

Disadvantages:

     Okay I can't say that at times this ordinance isn't annoying. Very annoying. There are few things worse than stopping by the store on my way home and grabbing some milk, bread, a couple odds and ends, and a bottle of wine, getting to the register and realizing I forgot my bag because it is either in my car or at home still. I am then forced to make the choice of purchasing another bag, knowing I already have several, or trying to juggle my items out to the care like those circus performers so eloquently do with their spinning plates. A small disadvantage I know, but a disadvantage nonetheless.

     On the business side according to KVUE in Austin, having reusable bags makes shoplifting easier. I can agree to this. Before you go accusing me of shoplifting let's settle down for a moment. While I haven't actually shoplifted personally I could see how easy it could be, especially with groceries. When I go to the store for only a few items and I carry my bag in, guess what I am using in-store to carry my items around? If you guessed my own bag as opposed to the store's mini carts you were right. Walking around the store with an opaque bag full of items it is easy for one to at least ponder "I wonder how hard it would be to just walk out with some or all of these items?"

Conclusion:

     Stores can keep track of theft and forgetting bags is more of a petty grievance than anything. The positive impacts on the business and environmental side seem to outweigh the possible negative impacts to the consumer and the business.

Comment on Colleague's Blog (Blog 6)

     Eric Wang's article, which can be found HERE, discusses the voter participation rates in Texas compared to those elsewhere in the nations. Overall I enjoyed his writing style and his discussion points. In fact several of them I voiced on my Exam number 1, such as the fact that failure to vote gives a voice to a less and less representative part of the population. Ultimately that can "break the system," as Eric put it, by listening to the voice of only a few when the system itself is built upon hearing the voice of many.

     Although I am confident Eric was throwing some hypothetical ideas out there as a possible resolution I will have to disagree with his notion that " maybe the only way to jolt the public awake from their deep sleep of apathy is for the government to something so unpopular and controversial that a major public backlash would ensue, sparking an interest in local and state government as a defense mechanism towards the government. " 

     Does this type of thing not happen quite often in the government? It seems like nearly every time I turn on the news, on any channel, there is some sort of nation-wide scandal involving the public, business, or government. Perhaps it is these very events that one would think to "jolt the public awake," is in fact putting them into a deeper and deeper sleep. I cannot speak for everyone when I say that I personally stopped watching the news because I got enraged and eventually bored with their continuous efforts to make every event overblown and taken out of context. Their constant coverage of political, racial, and economic scandals became too much to bear. 

     This is similar to the "scary world syndrome" which local news stations are mostly guilty of perpetuating. In this instance however, the national news which covers most of the election, propositions, and other political happenings tend to create a "conspiracy world syndrome" (if that phrase hasn't been coined yet) where we are made to feel like every piece of information is wrong, misused, misleading, and ultimately the person disseminating it is of unethical character.  It teaches us to trust no one. 

     And so I conclude. Well written blog Eric, but I don't agree that a major political event or scandal would do anything to improve the situation.

Rick Perry Tries to bring Guns to Texas

     In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook elementary school shootings Connecticut and New York both passed stricter gun control laws. Interestingly enough, both states house two of the largest manufacturing sites of firearms in the United States. Attempting to take advantage of the manufacturers adverse reaction to new gun control regulations, governor Rick Perry has been in contact with the folks at Colt and Mossberg & Sons trying to convince them to bring their business to Texas. His tactics have included visits and radio advertising campaigns that display Texas' strong pro-business laws.

     Although no plans have been made as of yet for those companies to come to Texas, I find Perry's intentions interesting. From an economic standpoint it seems to make sense. Gun control laws have upset manufacturer A, B, and C in State X and thus a perfect opportunity is presented to wrangle up some fresh business for the already thriving Texas economy presents itself. According to our textbook Texas has always been "pro-Texas business," and this political maneuver by Governor Perry appears to be upholding that notion. Whether or not Perry's initiative is a direct result of the Sandy Hook incident and corresponding gun control laws is not completely known however. According to spokesperson Lucy Nash, these conversations between Perry and gun manufacturers in various states have been ongoing for some time. Whatever the reason, any new business in Texas can't be a bad thing..right?

Blog #4 - Critique of Editorial

     For blog number four I took a look at the liberal blog Letters from Texas and found an article entitled "Republican outreach to minority voters hits overdrive, seen as wildly successful." In this article author Harold Cooke argues that Phyllis Schlafly is a bigot against Latinos and other minorities yet she will be found in History books, which he seems to take issue with. Harold obviously speaks to both republicans and Latinos in this blog, although I'm certain he also wishes to bring this situation to the eyes of any reader. He first provides a bit of biography on Phyllis, her political position in the republican party and then from there he turns to her importance warranting her Political contributions being required in History books.
     While I do not disagree with Cooke's view on her being racist towards minorities and having no problems expressing that racism, I do not agree with his implied idea that her stance has anything to do with whether or not she should belong in a history book. There were many, many, figures in history books who held less-than-popular opinions but that is part of history. Spanish conquistadors had no reservations about landing in American and then conquering and enslaving the native population. Yet, they are a staple of history books and that is because history is not to be written based on what is morally right or wrong. We are obligated to commit the truth to paper however unappealing it may be. I do not personally have a working knowledge of Phyllis's contribution to the history of the Republican party but I would argue that if it is substantial enough to warrant that others read and learn about it, then it should be part of history regardless of her views.

Abortion, (Women's) Right or Wrong?

     For this assignment I chose to critique "Texas Women Aren't Going to Take Abortion Restrictions Lightly," written by Leslie Tisdale, who is a political communications Senior from Corpus Christi.  The Daily Texan has published her article which can be found HERE. Obviously her intended audience fall into three categories which are 1.) Texans 2.) abortion advocates and 3.) women. I will start by explicitly stating I am middle of the road on abortion and that isn't what I wish to discuss. But I will at least share my view to start.

     It is hard to say what is right or wrong in the case of abortion. In the case of a rape crime then I would side with those that are pro-choice. In the case of ignorance and lack of responsibility I would say that I am pro-life. In either case however a single question beckons an answer: Should the person be allowed to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of cause? Should the person be denied the ability to terminate and be forced to raise a child in a potentially unfit and unprepared environment? Or perhaps some combination question of the two? As one could see I do not have the answers. When I do think I've found one it inevitably leads to more questions. But that isn't what this blog post about.

     What riles me up about her post, this topic, and the recent onslaught of op-ed pieces by such authors is that rather than focusing on the [Human] Rights issue at hand, Feminists such as Tisdale have managed to turn this argument into a struggle for [Women's] Rights. With her fiery passion and comments such as "For many women, it seems as if men have always wondered why women carry on about their rights- I mean, women get to vote now, don’t we?" or the emotionally charged "Texas women are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it, " it seems that Tisdale isn't as concerned with the question of whether or not abortion is right or wrong or whether or not it is safe (and oddly in this abortion argument she fails to really touch on either of these questions) as she is with whether a woman should have the right to make the choice she wants: In this case, terminate a pregnancy.

     That a pregnancy - which is the foundation of this hot political issue and thus this blog -  happens to occur inside of a woman's body should not inescapably thrust the issue into the realm of Women's Rights. It is still fundamentally a Human Rights issue asking the question, Should a Human, or anyone, have the  right to terminate a (potential) life? Drawing into this discussion the notion of Women's Rights ultimately is an irrelevant rhetorical device to help advance the cause and, at least in my opinion, giving folks like Tisdale an immature and unprofessional image as they attempt to further convolute an already difficult subject.

Drink, Drank, Drunk

     The Austin Chronicle's article "Who Says You're Drunk?", written by Chase Hoffberger, discusses the TABC-enforced responsibilities of bars to safely serve alcohol to its patrons, ensuring that nobody is "overserved." It highlights the importance of those responsibilities by depicting several instances in which bars  and bartenders have failed to monitor intoxication levels of customers resulting in major accidents, collisions, and even deaths. The article steps back and takes an even broader look at the lack of responsibility on the part of the city who fails to provide any adequate means of public transportation during the late night entertainment hours.

     This article is interesting because many of us have experienced the contradiction of trying to have a fun yet safe night out. I have, in many cases, been served at a single bar to the point not remembering leaving that bar. While I take most of the blame for overdoing it, I also agree with the TABC that the bars and staff should have guidelines to prevent these instances when serving a mind-altering substance. Beyond the doors of the club or bar it is - as previously stated - very difficult to get yourself home safely. Cabs are hard to find and very expensive if you do not reside in the immediate vicinity, and public transportation is spotty at best.  As a result, many of us wind up taking our own vehicles home when we know we really shouldn't have. While I am not pro government intervention I do believe that when such a substance as alcohol is made legal  the government should indeed play a role (other than arresting offenders) in ensuring that the public has the means necessary to consume the substance safely and find their way home. The TABC seems to be on the right track.