I read this article in the Texas Tribune  which discusses the  opposition surcharges program faces.
The surcharges program or the Driver Responsibility is a program that  is designed to extract money annually from drivers who committed a traffic offenses. People who are against the program that was created in 2003 will be asking the lawmakers to abolish this law in the next hearing according to the article at that time.


      I believe that the legislators should stop the surcharges program. The point of this program is to punish people who were caught driving without car insurance or were driving while intoxicated and maybe other offenses. While I strongly agree with following the law of having a car insurance and not driving while drunk, this program is just way too much. A person who for example were driving without insurance would have to pay more than  $260 for three years in a row after having to pay the fine at the court.

       People are forced to pay triple if not more the amount of the money of the bills they originally owe. And moreover, the system is just too slow and not flexible. I talk from experience five years ago unfortunately, I was driving without insurance and even though I paid a lot of money, I still had to pay around $270 for three years. You can make payments but still, I believe it's too much, and certainly not everyone can spare that kind of money to give it away for three years, especially after having to pay the original fine. Also, each time you failed to pay because you did not have enough money at the time or you forgot to pay, you driver license is suspended.  As suggested in the article it would be better do the point system in which they will take points off  the driver's licenses in case a person repeat the same offense. Even though I think people who drink and drive must be punished severely so they won't do again, .Taking point off  driver's license in addition to the the fines they have to pay seems a better way than the surcharges program.

This is a reply for my classmate’s blog laura Lazo.  “Texas same-sex marriage ban struck down” I totally I agree with her regarding the same-sex marriage ruling by the federal judge. It is indeed a surprise to finally see such ruling forcing conservatives to accept the fact that people should be with whom they love. Also, I agree with her that Republicans should stop telling other people who they may or may not marry. I believe that  Attorney General  Greg Abbott should redirect his attention to more critical issues in Texas than trying to appeal to higher courts to stop people from marrying the person whom they want to share their lives with.   I agree with every point she mentioned in her blog and, I would like to add that the reason for their apposition is religion. I think instead of them trying to control other peoples’ lives by regulating who they can or can’t marry or for controlling women’s choice to having babies, they should try to focus on more important things that benefit the people of Texas, like raising the poverty line or the minimum wage to try help so many people who are suffering in Texas.  Or find more productive programs for single mothers who can barely support their children! 

     

Religion Rules!

            I read this article in the KUT.org about the tough requirements that the Texas’ legislatures demanded from the entire clinics that perform abortion.  I believe that these harsh regulations are only being enforced to make it harder for women to get an abortion due a religious group of people in a conservative state. Texas legislators should  not have passed this law .  A person reading this might think that this is a personal point of view, but if we analyze the behavior and decisions of most of the Legislators in the the Republican Party, it is obvious to see that they just want to enforce their religious beliefs and traditions.

                     They are bending the constitution to work in their favor as much as they can even when it clearly says otherwise. Because these people are relying heavily on a religion as a background for laws, this is a big indicator that their opposition to abortion is based mostly on religious stand. This fact by itself should be considered. A woman who seeks an abortion now for whatever reason, has to travel hundreds of miles to be able to find a clinic that preform abortion  and not only that she has to go back and forth for at least two times before she can get the abortion.  I’m not saying let’s have no restriction whatsoever on abortion, but still these restriction that were enforced by the Texas legislators are just being made to make it impossible for women to have an abortion. Moreover, there's a big contradiction within this party. They damned that the National government should be less involved in peoples' lives while they want to regulate people on a personal level and abortion is a very personal decision! 

          As a woman who lives in Texas, I’m very frustrated by these rules, health insurance is expansive as it is, but now if women needed an abortion, she would have to pay even more money to be able to get an abortion. Forcing women to see a physician multiple times before getting the abortion and also the mandatory sonogram are just other obstacles to getting an abortion. Furthermore with these anti-abortion laws is requiring physicians to have admitting privileges to hospitals withing 30 miles from the clinic!  What's the point of forcing a family to have a child that they can not afford? Or making  a victim of rape suffer with having to carry a baby of the man who raped her?!   For any classmate who is going to read my work. I'm not saying it is okay to go a head and be irresponsible and get pregnant and get then go get an abortion. And for anyone who think it's just the women responsibility when it comes to getting pregnant ( sadly I read it recently, where a guy was blaming women for getting pregnant and then seeking an abortion)  getting pregnant takes two people, and the guy should be just as much responsible.  

I read a blog from the Burnt Orange Report by Katherine Haenschen discussing the position of the Republican candidate Greg Abbot on the Equal pay right issue.  She argues that if Abbott is elected to Governor position women in Texas are going to continue being under paid compared to men.  Also, she mentions that Abbot was trying to avoid answering the question about his position on equal pay, but since the women in his office are paid less than men for doing the same job the answer is clear as to where he stands on this matter.

            Haenschen, in my opinion was effective in her argument because she used evidence from other sources to support her argument. She has links to videos with transcript of the Abbot’s surrogates females who were saying indirectly that his office is not going to support the equal pay through the legislature by admitting the issue and saying thing like women are “Too busy” and  “ men are better negotiators than women.” She was successful in doing that because it showed how women in his office are addressing the issue which reflects ultimately on him.

             Moreover, she uses another source that counter claim Abbot’s office claim that women are only being paid less than men in office such as lawyers and state general attorneys because of experience and longevity  some men have in office.  “Abbot’s office said the difference is explained by the amount of time that men have been licensed as lawyers and have served at the agency. But drilling down into different classifications of assistant attorney general, the figures provided by Abbot’s office show there isn't always a direct correlation between such experience and pay.” Furthermore, she used time updates in her blog following Abbot’s developments on the Equal pay. “Update 11:48 a.m. Greg Abbott has finally clarified his stance on Equal pay, telling the Associate Press that nope. He doesn't think women should be able to sure they’re paid less because they’re women.” Finally, I think this a well-organized blog, and the writer was able to prove her point.

I read this opinion article in the Dallas news about the Democratic Texan candidate for the Governor position Wendy Davis. The author of the editorial mentions that it does not really matter who supports the position on open carry handgun in Texas, the bottom line this standpoint is bad.  Even though his editorial is pretty short but he does present his point of view in an effective and simple way. He states that he does not mind carrying a concealed weapon since that is a second amendment right.  And as long as a person has no criminal history and does not present any threat or danger to other individual it’s a right"I’m not against registered gun owners carrying concealed weapons for self-protection. That is a Second Amendment right given to those who aren’t criminals or pose a risk/ threat to others. And it can be exercised without turning gun ownership into a dangerous ego trip". His argument is very clear and as a matter of fact he further uses another source to support his argument. The writer proves his argument through two points. The first one is how non concealed gun is perceived by people. Open carry gun will cause intimidation to others and also cause a negative energy increasing the chances of provoking others. Secondly, the purpose of carrying a gun is self-protection a way of showing how strong or a dangerous a person might be other people "he point was the ability, within the law, to protect oneself or one’s family — not to convince someone else how tough or dangerous one might be because, well, Check out this Glock on my hip!." I find this editorial very effective in stating the argument and making it clear by presenting a well explained to the point explanation without using very lengthy explanation. Also, the author's audience was not specific to anyone of the two parties’ candidates and he does mention that in the beginning of the editorial. 

Good bye Algebra II!

 On January 31 first Kxan published an article about the Texas Board of  Education approving a new curriculum for high schools. In this new curriculum students are no longer required to take Algebra II to graduate high school.  By 14 to 1 vote, the law has been approved and will take effect in September.
Backers of this new law say that it will create more flexible choices to students to focus more on what they want to do with their future. I personally agree with the  opposing side to this new law. Making student choose not take Algebra II is really unfortunate. We are setting the education bar even more lower than it already is. Helping students to pick more fixable plans to fit their goals is different than setting them up for failure. All students will be required to take college level in college, a student who chose not to take Algebra II in high school or decide to take less than advanced algebra class will find himself or herself having to take a  remedial math courses in college before being able to take a college level math. Some argue that  the new law would help student  who want to seek a degree in liberal art, to be less burdened with taking algebra II. And students who want to seek a degree in science would still have to take Algebra and chemistry and it's win win for both sides. I believe this is a really bad decision the legislatures made. Most students especially at a young age are not even sure what they want to do with their lives, so making them pick and choose an easy way out and less challenging classes is not going to beneficiary for them  once they are in college like i mentioned earlier. And not only that we are sending younger people the wrong message here. Next thing you know they will be making some other classes probably English classes or other scientific classes no longer required because some students just don't have going to college as part of their future plan!
I do agree with the other part of the law which is cutting down the standardized test from 15 to five, because it's not about the number of exams  students have to take, it's about the foundation of knowledge they gained during these three years of their lives in high school and to be able to build on that foundation of information and knowledge once they are in college.