I responded to Song Mayo's response about Uber and Lyft leaving Austin. My response follows as such:
While I totally agree that it’s inconvenient for Austin to lose a major source of transportation and employment, I don’t agree that everyone should have voted in its favor. I certainly don’t think it’s anything to question the government over. In fact, it’s something to question its contingents over.
Why are we so obsessed with keeping a simple security measure out of a ridesharing program? I, personally, have still not fully decided which way I would rather the program go, even after it’s left Austin. I consider Uber and Lyft to both be taxis and believe they should be held to that standard.
The response both companies gave after “yes” was ultimately decided upon was childish and immature. A major corporation like Uber should not pout about not getting their way. The fingerprinting law wouldn’t have even applied until February 2017, as stated in Councilwoman Delia Garza’s lengthy Facebook post regarding the issue, and businesses would be free to run as they had. Nobody was forcing them out of Austin.
Uber and Lyft are -- while mostly very reliable, especially if you’re not fit to drive -- not 100% safe. Every ridesharing and taxi company will have its downfalls and occasional unreliable, unpredictable driver. This is another reason why I believe fingerprinting isn’t such an evil thing after all, because it could just cut down the small percentage of less-than-safe drivers and make the whole experience just that much better.
Friday, May 13, 2016
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Phase Seven: Voting for Voter's Votes
As we are all aware by now, the USA is in the midst of a heated primary season. Politicians are at each other’s throats, and their constituents are going tooth-and-nail as well. Voting has become a risky thing and with the recent cases of voter fraud and suspected hacking, people are becoming more discouraged to make their voices heard.
Fraud comes in all shapes and sizes, but the most popular of late is voter suppression. During its primary, Arizona citizens were complaining that there were “a limited number of polling places, extended wait times and issues with the ballots.” The plaintiff, John Brakey, brought the case to the local court and it was ultimately decided that while his evidence was taken as true, there was not enough to prove true fault anywhere. Unfortunately, this issue is not uncommon, as inconsistencies in voting apparatuses and laws between counties and states are making it increasingly difficult to cast a ballot.
I can’t decisively say who is to blame for these acts of suppression. Is it the voters who have been “hacking” the system? Not really, because the chances of this happening are actually incredibly slim. I also can’t say that we should blame the government entirely for this, considering that voter turnout took a sharp downturn in 2012, showing a decrease in interest. I do agree, though, that the way voting has laid out for this year’s primaries, it truly does seem unfair and restricted.
Friday, April 15, 2016
Phase Six: Democracy is Dead
I responded to Eddy Castillo's post, titled "Voting for a man you hate?"
While I see where you’re coming from with your perspective, Eddy, I must respectfully disagree. Manteuffel is suggesting that retracting her potential vote for a candidate she truly believes in will prevent Donald Trump from gaining the votes he needs to win the nomination.
How does this make sense? Imagine I am an avid Bernie Sanders supporter, and I see that Donald Trump is leading the Republican party by a lot. In this situation, should I do anything that I can to stop him from winning the nomination -- which, by the way, is entirely inevitable at this point -- and give another Republican my vote? Or would it perhaps be a better option to ignore the stigma that “Democrats don’t stand a chance” and actually cast a vote for a person I believe in?
It is not only naive to believe that a singular vote in most parts in the United States will sway the nomination far enough from Trump, but nonsensical to vote for a candidate one does not believe in. “Vote for someone you despise” is a dangerous idea to experiment with, and it would be safer to vote for someone whose politics you stand behind. Tim Shea suggests that the two-party system the States are so insistent upon enforcing in a less-than-democratic manner is convoluted. Democracy is no good if its people do not take advantage of their right to vote for whom they choose.
Friday, April 1, 2016
Phase Five: A Critique on the Social Elite
The healthcare system in America is skewed. I know it, my doctors know it, and privatized healthcare corporations know it, which is why they are able to take advantage of and profit from needier citizens, such as myself.
Recently, I have woken up and become more angry with the way things are for people with disabilities. Promises to make healthcare "affordable" have been made, and promptly thrown out the window. The options citizens have to get proper medical care are extremely limited if they don't make a certain income. Medicare, while a very useful service, has been made extraordinarily hard to get. The only people guaranteed to get this service are those who require kidney treatment. Medicaid is equally as difficult to come by, which begs the question, is this government truly "for the people"?
As many of us already know, Germany, Sweden and Canada all offer free universal healthcare, and are among 11 nations who currently do the same. Many other countries have been offering affordable healthcare for years. Why did it take the United States so long to get aboard?
There's been a lot of skepticism over charts released, comparing United States tax rates on healthcare to other nations. What truly sets America apart is the fact that even though we pay more for healthcare benefits, we aren't guaranteed coverage. We paid more than the United Kingdom, Italy, and New Zealand combined on private healthcare in 2007.
Thanks to Obama's Affordable Care Act, everyone at least gets the opportunity to get health coverage, and some people can get it for $20. Only recently has public healthcare spending exceeded private, and by a small margin. I can only hope that someday our leaders will realize how truly large this issue is, and erase the line between medical care being a 'basic human right' and a 'luxury.'
Recently, I have woken up and become more angry with the way things are for people with disabilities. Promises to make healthcare "affordable" have been made, and promptly thrown out the window. The options citizens have to get proper medical care are extremely limited if they don't make a certain income. Medicare, while a very useful service, has been made extraordinarily hard to get. The only people guaranteed to get this service are those who require kidney treatment. Medicaid is equally as difficult to come by, which begs the question, is this government truly "for the people"?
As many of us already know, Germany, Sweden and Canada all offer free universal healthcare, and are among 11 nations who currently do the same. Many other countries have been offering affordable healthcare for years. Why did it take the United States so long to get aboard?
There's been a lot of skepticism over charts released, comparing United States tax rates on healthcare to other nations. What truly sets America apart is the fact that even though we pay more for healthcare benefits, we aren't guaranteed coverage. We paid more than the United Kingdom, Italy, and New Zealand combined on private healthcare in 2007.
Thanks to Obama's Affordable Care Act, everyone at least gets the opportunity to get health coverage, and some people can get it for $20. Only recently has public healthcare spending exceeded private, and by a small margin. I can only hope that someday our leaders will realize how truly large this issue is, and erase the line between medical care being a 'basic human right' and a 'luxury.'
Friday, March 11, 2016
Phase Four: Bernie Sanders's Great Big Mistake
L.A. Times writer Michael McGough published an article this week regarding a comment Senator Bernie Sanders recently made in a debate. Sanders “[made] a joke about wrong-thinking...Republicans, and it backfired.”
I initially expected something entirely different from what the article offered, anticipating criticism towards Bernie Sanders’s actions. While I agree with McGough that perhaps the accusation made was a bit crude and uncalled for, particularly coming from the president of the Ruderman Family Foundation -- which is a Jewish organization that “advocate for and advance the inclusion of people with disabilities” -- I believe that politicians in the spotlight, namely Bernie Sanders, should be held accountable for repercussions and more cautious of their wording. Regardless of intention, misuse of wording when referring to mental disability of any variety can come off as mocking and as though the speaker does not take the issue seriously.
Perhaps the interjection included from a Twitter user was a bit too personal and irrelevant to be included in the article. Personally, I feel that the implementation of a random user’s Tweet, along with the fact that the user was not named, takes away from the author’s credibility. Using a legitimate and popular Twitter critic instead could have added to the article.
As I understand it, the article was intended for a more democratic audience, seeing as it defends Sanders and his statement, asking the reader to “cut him some slack.” McGough is the senior editorial writer for the L.A. Times, and has a heavy law background, having graduated from Yale’s school of law. He notably writes more opinion articles than unbiased, and most tend to lean away from Republican views. In conclusion, the author sees the criticism Sanders receives as unfair judgment, considering all that the candidate has advocated for in regards to mental illness and protection of the disabled.
"Bernie Sanders jokes about the 'mental health' of Republicans." L.A. Times. L.A Times,
7 March 2016. Web. 11 March 2016.
N.P. Ruderman Family Foundation. Ruderman Family Foundation. Web. 11 March 2016.
Friday, February 26, 2016
Phase Three - An Opinion on the Supreme Court
In USA Today's article "Supreme Court obstructionism: Our view," the newspaper's editorial board collectively decided that it was unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to prevent the current President from nominating a new Justice during an election period.
After some research on the editorial board, I discovered that most of their controversial articles are paired with an opposing article that argues from a different side. I imagine this would be helpful in formulating a new opinion on a less popular topic, or as a good way to further knowledge and gather opinions on any subject.
The article's general claim states that the "outright obstructionism" put forth by Republican Justices and Senators is oppressive in nature. However, it is also acknowledged that while it is unfair for these officials to stop President Obama from making a nomination, the Senate will ultimately reject any proposals made. This is not an unreasonable assumption, as President Obama has had little success getting proposals and projects past Congress since the beginning of either term. The board referenced recent events regarding Justice Scalia's passing, and questions the constitutionality of the President not being allowed to at least make a nomination.
It is clear that the board intended the article to be read by a democratic, leftward-leaning audience. I base that assumption on numerous attacks on Republican and conservative officials throughout.
All in all, I find that I neither agree nor disagree with the article. I don't believe Obama should waste time making a nomination presently, as any potentials are likely to be disliked by the Senate and conservative Justices. I can only hope that the next President will be wise enough to choose someone based on integrity and actual stance on issues versus political standing alone.
Editorial Board. "Supreme Court obstructionism: Our view." USA Today. 24 February 2016: 1.
Web. 26 February 2016.
After some research on the editorial board, I discovered that most of their controversial articles are paired with an opposing article that argues from a different side. I imagine this would be helpful in formulating a new opinion on a less popular topic, or as a good way to further knowledge and gather opinions on any subject.
The article's general claim states that the "outright obstructionism" put forth by Republican Justices and Senators is oppressive in nature. However, it is also acknowledged that while it is unfair for these officials to stop President Obama from making a nomination, the Senate will ultimately reject any proposals made. This is not an unreasonable assumption, as President Obama has had little success getting proposals and projects past Congress since the beginning of either term. The board referenced recent events regarding Justice Scalia's passing, and questions the constitutionality of the President not being allowed to at least make a nomination.
It is clear that the board intended the article to be read by a democratic, leftward-leaning audience. I base that assumption on numerous attacks on Republican and conservative officials throughout.
All in all, I find that I neither agree nor disagree with the article. I don't believe Obama should waste time making a nomination presently, as any potentials are likely to be disliked by the Senate and conservative Justices. I can only hope that the next President will be wise enough to choose someone based on integrity and actual stance on issues versus political standing alone.
Editorial Board. "Supreme Court obstructionism: Our view." USA Today. 24 February 2016: 1.
Web. 26 February 2016.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Phase Two - An Introduction
Seeing as we are in the midst of one of the most heated elections the nation has seen since 2000, it can be difficult to find online articles purely about government functions and decisions. After some digging around, I was able to find this article on defense spending.
Politico is one of my personal favorite e-magazines because of their modern flair. Essentially, they are able to translate contemporary events that would otherwise be written in "adult speak" into something more human.
In the case of the aforementioned article, the United States Defense Secretary, Ash Carter, has gotten himself into a bit a pickle. He believes that we should continue to boost our defense department, creating more powerful arms, -- mind you, the Pentagon will set aside a mere $583 billion for this purpose, only an estimated $59 billion reserved for war costs -- while the Navy Secretary (Ray Mabus) wants to use this fund to build a smaller warship that will stay close to the coast. The fear, and reason for the disagreement, is that the 40,000 soldiers taken will show weakness. However, this is Carter's only chance in his brief term as secretary of defense to leave his mark.
Politico is one of my personal favorite e-magazines because of their modern flair. Essentially, they are able to translate contemporary events that would otherwise be written in "adult speak" into something more human.
In the case of the aforementioned article, the United States Defense Secretary, Ash Carter, has gotten himself into a bit a pickle. He believes that we should continue to boost our defense department, creating more powerful arms, -- mind you, the Pentagon will set aside a mere $583 billion for this purpose, only an estimated $59 billion reserved for war costs -- while the Navy Secretary (Ray Mabus) wants to use this fund to build a smaller warship that will stay close to the coast. The fear, and reason for the disagreement, is that the 40,000 soldiers taken will show weakness. However, this is Carter's only chance in his brief term as secretary of defense to leave his mark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)