Prop 1

As eligible voters make it to the polls this week for early voting or this coming week on November 2^nd, I urge all fellow Austinites to vote for Prop 1. Proposition 1 will provide renovation to many transportation faults in infrastructure around the city. It will mainly focus on repairing roads, providing wider sidewalks, and making more bicycle routes without having to raise taxes. If passed, the government will issue 90 million dollars in bonds in order to relieve some congestion and inaccessibility that is prevalent in the city. More specifically, the money will go towards building sidewalks, crosswalks, and planting trees on the east side of Riverside drive. They plan on taking advantage of the low construction costs because of the recessional prices are around 30 percent lower. Also, they plan on extending the hike and bike trail on Lady Bird Lake 1.1 miles to the east.

Critics argue that the creators should have separated this bill into two sections because it is combining a traffic issue with a parks and recreation issue. Also, they disputed that they should be voted on separately. I think the creators were full aware of doing this because they sought after the people that want to relieve the traffic related matters first and foremost. It is like when Congress adds earmarks to certain bills that pass through the House of Representatives and the Senate. I do agree with that opposing opinion, but this proposition is better than not receiving financial backing for the infrastructure repairs. Even though there are additional valid arguments, I still don’t see anything negative as a result of this proposition. In the short term it will create more construction jobs for the unemployed and in the long term it will help alleviate the emissions that plague the environment.

Change in DWI laws

Should law enforcement focus on reckless driving or the alcohol content of the driver? Grits for Breakfast comments on the recent DWI laws and whether or not they should changed based on statistical analysis. This blog entry cites another article, in which Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo presents substantial information on the fallacies of the current systematic procedures for evaluating drunk drivers. He testifies that drivers with a lower BAC were more likely to cause more fatal accidents than those with a BAC .08 to .10. Also, he states that people that use cell phones when they drive have the same impairment as people with the BAC of .08. He correlates between the increase of traffic related fatalities and the .08 alcohol law in 2000, and states how roadblocks are a waste of time trying to catch the destructive drunk drivers. This blog entry targets the people that have been affected by DWI laws and people who want to promote a more efficient way of determining the DWI laws.

In my opinion, I don’t think people should be automatically punished for driving over the BAC unless they are driving erratically and destructive. The Police department should implement a more lenient evaluation of the BAC itself, and focus more on the capabilities of the driver and their way of maintaining normal driver behavior. I think the current system is a trap for young adults that are drawn into the alcohol culture because the police know that more times than not that young adults aren’t going to drink just one drink at a bar or drinking establishment. I don’t agree with excessive drinking and driving, but I do think that DWI’s have hindered many young and old people’s lives.

A Loss in the Texas Educational System

Does the Texas Board of Education have the moral right to rewrite and change significant subjects in textbooks? An anonymous writer comments on the current affirmation of the Texas Board of Education’s limit on information about Islam in textbooks. The commentary tackles the narrow-mindedness of the school board and how they are limiting the students from learning an essential religion that is the second largest in the world. Also, it addresses the power and influence the school board has over the publication of textbooks, and rather or not they want to include, for example, Jefferson’s proposition on the separation of church and state. This commentary doesn’t have strong evidence supporting it’s claims, but it implies the clash of cultural and religious integrity of the devote Christians. It presents a more objective view of education as a whole, and how a dominating religious bias shouldn’t tamper with it. This article is targeted towards liberal-minded people, whom don’t want to skew the future generations knowledge of the world, and attacks the incompetence of the conservative, and their choice to edit knowledge.

I agree, and think that changing important aspects of education would hinder the future generations perception of history, culture, and religion. I don’t think overly religious and biased people should be able to take out historical figures or limit the information on other religious entities. If these changes are made, it will perpetually diminish the perception of the Islamic community. We will culturally and ethically move farther and farther away from these people instead of trying to understand them and their religious choices.