Uber Preparing to Leave Houston If City Keeps Existing Rules

On Thursday May, 5 2016 Alyssa Rangel covered an article from the Texas Tribune titled "Uber Preparing to Leave Houston If City Keeps Existing Rules." This article was written April 27, 2016. Alyssa goes on to state that Uber would cease operations in Houston, Tx if the city counsel didn't back off with the rules and regulations that were being placed on them. She also stated that Houston is one of two cities that Uber has initiated the fingerprint background checks, and has already left three cities, and will include Austin if the same regulations are approved.

I agree with Alyssa, that nowadays safety is key to survival and that the world we are living in today seems to have many more issues involving dangerous situations. It is also true that we have to be more careful around people we don't know, especially drivers of Uber who we are entrusting our lives to safely get us to our destinations.

Although I am in agreement with Alyssa in that we need rules and regulations to keep us safe from danger, but it is not always going to stop it. There is always going to be something, or someone out there that is going to break the rules, and I don't think that just adding fingerprint background checks is going to change that. If it makes people feel safer, then I say do it, but the way Uber is doing things now seems to be going well, minus a few terrible situations.

I can also say that the same could be said for those who are hailing an Uber driver. These drivers have gone through security checks to be made safe for picking up and dropping off passengers, but the passengers have not gone through these checks. So it is not just the Uber passengers that need to be careful, but also the drivers as well. Suffice to say, we all need to be a little more careful in who is giving us rides and who is riding as a passenger.  

PROP 1

The vote for, or against Proposition 1 has been the talk going around in Austin for what seems, like awhile now. But, the debate is going to be decided on Saturday, May 7. To vote for Prop 1 would mean that Uber and Lyft would keep the standardized criminal background checks, without implementing fingerprinting. The vote against Prop 1 would give the city of Austin control over ridesharing by implementing fingerprint background checks, in addition to the criminal background checks.

If the voters decide against Prop 1, Uber and Lyft might not be around for long in this big city, already having stated that they would leave if the decision against is made. This would not only take away jobs from the citizens of Austin, but DWI rates which have decreased since the arrival of Uber and Lyft, would potentially increase. Also, the control of background checks on drivers would be done by the city of Austin, also adding fingerprinting to the game which would cost more to get done. This could potentially cause taxpayers in the long-run.

To be honest, I think voters should vote for Prop 1. Since the arrival of Uber and Lyft DWI rates have decreased exponentially, making our roads safer to be on. It has also created a safer and easier way to make money, whether it is a full-time gig, or part-time. There are many citizens of Austin who are not able to work full-time jobs and need an easy way to make some money, and ridesharing has helped with that. Since Uber and Lyft already conduct criminal background checks, which are done through Third-party companies, it is safer and it doesn't cost the tax-payers anything. Drivers are also required to go through training to establish a safe driving program, have car-insurance, as well as, mandatory digital safety features which requires drivers to display accurate pictures of themselves with a description of their vehicles and license plate numbers. Ultimately I believe we should vote for Prop 1 before we lose Uber and Lyft in our city.

Middle-school girl is body-slammed by a Texas officer

Alyssa Rangel published a post on April 7, 2016 titled, "Texas officer appears to body-slam middle-school girl in shocking viral video." In this post, Alyssa explains the story of a Texas officer, Joshua Khem, who was trying to restrain a middle school student in San Antonio who was apparently being verbally aggressive with another student. Alyssa explains that during this process the officer was video taped, which showed him slamming the student onto a brick walkway, then proceeding to handcuff her, and then taking her away. This student was 12 year old, Janissa Valdez.

I agree with Alyssa that Police Officers are being targeted a lot more in todays' society than ever before. Officers are being watched more closely than ever before, and being scrutinized by citizens about every detail, no matter what it may be. I also agree with Alyssa and what she says about the videos that are recorded during these particular situations. In most of these situations when there is a video recorded, and with officers being attacked more by the public, it seems that the whole story isn't shown directly. Instead, it seems that in the showing of these videos, it only captures the confrontation and the outcome, which usually ends up being bad for one of the parties involved. In this case, it would be officer Joshua Khem.

With that being said, I DO NOT agree with how the officer handled this situation. This was a 12 year old girl for goodness sake! There was no reason for the officer to body slam this girl. Joshua Khem, being an officer, should know the rules about the appropriate use of force, which I don't believe that he used. I do not need the full video clip to know that this officer handled this situation poorly, and I am glad that he was put on leave by the head administrators, although in my opinion I think he deserves much more.

Should Texas have term limits for Governor?

Term limits date back to the American Revolution and the framing of the Constitution. With most states having already adopted term limits for governor, Texas is one of the states that has not limited the governors' term limit. With that being said, Rick Perry served as governor of Texas for 14 years, which is a record held among Texas Governors. I believe Rick Perry was governor for too long and that there, indeed, needs to be term limits. He may have done an "alright" job while in office, and he may have been liked by many voting citizens, but there has to be a limit. Not only will it create opportunities for someone new to come in, but it will open the door for new changes to be made that Texas may need. No person should control state office for that long. The governor has too much power to be controlled by one person for multiple years, and there should be an amendment that adopts a term-limit for being the governor of Texas. I am sure I am not the only one who thinks this, nor will I be the last. We citizens need to care more about our great state of Texas, and not let politicians take control of our state and turn it into their own playground where they make the rules.

Beware of Efforts To Curtail Requests

Tony McDonald, the author of "Beware of Efforts To Curtail Requests" written in the blog Empower Texans is a licensed and practicing attorney, as well as General Counsel to the blog Empower Texans. McDonald explains to Texans that 'Sunshine Week' had recently passed which is an initiative to remind Americans of the importance of government transparency. He argues that in order for the people to gain better control of the government, that all measures to set back transparency become dead on arrival. With that being said, bureaucrats and lobbyists whom are tax funded are complaining and do not believe in open record laws. These government officials actually believe there should be a charge to the Texas people, just to submit an open record request which is supposed to act as a form of deterrent to what these government officials like to call, "vexatious requestors." These type of requestors seem to be higher, especially when there might by controversial information that they are trying to bring to light. McDonald also goes on to explain that more questions are asked when the citizens feel that the government is being slow to answer requests. With this plan in action, the bureaucrats think that they might just outlast the requestors for months at a time, hoping that they will back off at some point. McDonald feels that transparency makes Texas government stronger, and that the requestors are doing a civic duty by caring to ask questions. He argues that we should work to clear obstacle, and not to create them. I believe that McDonald's argument is correct, and that we should all help out more to ask questions, whether they are annoying or not. There is no reason that government officials should be hiding any records from the people. Doing so creates a lot of distrust in the Texan people. I believe McDonald when he says that we could make Texas stronger with transparency.

Students Voice for Campus Carry isn't Influential

With open-carry laws being passed for Texas Universities, and being implemented August of 2016, there is much cause for concern. In the article "Students voice for campus carry isn't influential" published in The Shorthorn, a news source for UT at Arlington, questions whether or not the students' as well as staff members have any influential power at all over campus carry decisions. If any decision is going to be made, and implemented it rests on the shoulders of Vistasp Karbhari, the eighth President of the University of Texas at Arlington, as well as, the Board of Regents, or other governing boards. UT System Chancellor Bill McRaven sent a letter to Texas Legislators stating, "In light of all these concerns and apprehensions, I feel the presence of concealed weapons will make campus a less-safe environment." With Chancellor McRaven being solely against campus carry, he is wanting a majority, if not the whole campus, a "gun-free zone." Vistasp Karbhari went on to say, "I think the Chancellor speaks for all of us. That's the systems position." The author goes on to say that even if Karbhari was for campus carry, that it wouldn't matter much anyways since the UT System has a huge influence on UT Presidents. The UT Systems hierarchy is as follows, The Board of Regents, the Chancellor, and then the President. Even though the President is able to make decisions, his decisions can be overruled by the Chancellor, or the Board of Regents. And with the President not having a fixed term, who's job is subject to the Chancellors approval, he isn't even all that powerful in making decisions anyways. Either way the final say is given by the Board of Regents. This whole system is driven by people with power who don't even take in to consideration their student body opinions, or even the staff. It is a crazy system in which we live, where decisions are made by people who don't even consider the bigger picture.

McRaven: UT System Schools Need Tuition Hikes

I find this reading fitting since we have just gone over the Personal University Fund in class. On, February 10, 2016, The Texas Tribune released a story saying that the UT System Schools Need Tuition Hikes. Chancellor Bill McRaven's reasoning for this is because the eight universities that he oversees are collecting less tuition than the other universities around. Because of the lack of money coming in, it is causing low faculty salaries, which is also holding back these schools from moving up in the rankings. Regents have to approve the tuition hikes, which is already in motion and should be up for a vote and final approval later this Spring. I believe in the school systems needing to be at their best, but I also believe that it is hard enough for some students to pay for school, without having to take out student loans which pretty much rob students, and end up taking a life-time to pay back. I just wonder if there is a better way to help with the school rankings without putting a bigger dent in students pockets.