Riding the Metro

As a poor college student without a car, the Metro should be a huge asset to me, right? Wrong. I live a mile from campus, which has the nearest bus stop, so my daily commute is done on my bike. What I, and many other people in this college town, really need is a way to get around town for other events like concerts or bar crawling or social rides. The problem is that Capital Metro only runs during the day, so I'm left high and dry for any evening activities. The extra runs during South by Southwest this year showed what catering to the party crowd, as opposed to the commuters, can do to bring them profit. The usual fare only covers about 27% of the operating cost, while the busy buses that week made up 74% of the operating cost. The rest is usually covered by taxpayers. Capital Metro plans to implement evening runs on a trial basis this summer, and I'm really hoping to see more evening activities in the future. If people didn't have to worry about paying for parking downtown, they could hit up multiple locations without spending an arm and a leg on lots or cabs. Congestion would be considerably diminished.  There would be less drunk drivers on the road if everyone could just take the bus back home. It provides a better opportunity for people to go downtown, so the local economy would be stimulated, plus it would open up more jobs for bus drivers. It's an all around winning situation, and then I could get my party on! : )

Give me liberty...

Several of my friends were involved in protests about the recent abortion legislation, and so for this weeks assignment I chose to find an editorial about the topic. Problem was, most articles I found were really trying to maintain neutrality on the subject. I can understand why, it's a touchy subject after all, but after a lengthy search I found one published by the Houston Chronicle titled Editorial: Abortion bill is unwarranted state intrusion on woman’s right to choose.

I would name the author so as to give he or she credit, but I couldn't find a listed author on the page, which is fishy in and of itself.  I'm sure that the article was aimed at Houstonians as it draws quotes from Senator Dan Patrick, the writer of the Senate bill, and Houston resident. Other than that I can't pinpoint an audience. The author's points made sense to me, but I feel like they didn't spend enough time explaining the details of the situation like other articles did. There was a short list of unexplained facts at the end, two of which were contradictory about how long before the procedure the sonogram is required. I happened to know what the author was referring to because of my other reading, but not every reader will be like me. I think it's important, though, that the author mentions the Supreme Court ruling that it is a woman's right to choose because that is really the central issue in this legislation. If it's not medically necessary, and women are exempt from it if they have been raped or if there is a medical reason for termination, what is it really hoping to gain other than pressuring and stressing women about what THEY think is right to do. And by THEY I mean the predominantly male legislature, people who will NEVER be affected by this law they are trying to impose on others. The author could also have made many more valid points about the costs that the state would incur because of this, the ridiculousness of Governor Perry calling this an emergency,  the affects of placing doctors in the position of being an enforcer of legislative morality, or the irony of a male legislature passing these bills as I mentioned. Overall, I think it was a weaker article than it could have been, but the author had one valid, streamlined point; women have the right to choose without harassment. Obviously, I agree.

Exceptional Editorial

The discussion on Texas Exceptionalism really made me think, so when I saw this article written by Michael King in his op/ed for the Austin Chronicle I was excited to see this theem as it applies to current politics. King's intended audience seems to be those of us in the public who may unconsciously believe in Texas exceptionalism, and therefore take Governer Perry's words at face value. The claim he is making is that Perry has made "a recklessly callous exaggeration" in saying that  "By any meaningful measure, the state of our state is strong." The evidence he uses to back this up is well cited, concise, and clear in pointing out that in fact our state has several key weak points that the government seems to be ignoring. He makes some other points that are less sustantiated however, such as stating that the currently proposed budget is going to adversely affect the Texas economy. The evidence he presents most centers around the current situation being less than rosy, not what led us to this poor situation and what will plunge us further. I do think he was a little unfair in pointing out that Perry did not specify what his sources of "meaningful measure(s)" were because Perry, giving an address to the Legislature, was unable to defend himself and cite sources in response. Maybe that's green of me, but it seems unreasonable to tear down someones argument in that way without them having an opportunity to respond. His arguments and information are well done on the whole, though, and I for one found myself seeing things from his perspective.

Library Lacerations; An Article Summary

As a business major I've spent some time studying economics, and as a member of a nation whose economy has seen recent decline I can hardly afford to not pay attention to what makes an economy stronger. One of the most important things to a strong economy is an educated workforce. Education betters not only the individual, but the society as a whole because human capital is a crucial resource, and with more resources comes more productive capabilities. 

Unfortunately the Texas State Legislature is not of the same mind. In this article in the Austin Chronicle, it is stated that our legislators have passed a bill in both the senate and the house to cut 28 million dollars from the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, completely eliminating three statewide programs that make information available to the masses. The three under the chopping block are the Loan Star Libraries program, which provided 6 million dollars in funding to all but 20 Texas libraries in 2010 on a grant basis, the TexShare program, which provides access the the world's best databases to any Texan for a little over a tenth of what each library would have to pay individually for the same resources, and the Texas State Law Library, which provides publicly accessible legal reference material, hosts historic legal documents, and provides research services for the Texas Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Texas Attorney General's Office. In other words, you can kiss your public library (and all of the great services provided there) goodbye. No more money for new equipment or books. No more access to job training, genealogy databases, or searchable, online, reliable reference materials. No more online access to your legal options if you're in a bind. Nada.

You'd think that Texas could find a better place to tighten its belt instead of cutting off the flow to its brain.