Only YOU can prevent Drought!

It doesn't take a genius to see the constant drought seasons we have in Texas. With that being said, could relying on more rain be our solution to preventing drought in Texas? In an article posted by a fellow colleague titled water drought issue will not end by Ayan Ali goes on to discuss the significance of rain and the chain of events drought causes. Such as, wildlife dying of thirst, animals dying, ranchers going out of business due to no animals to cattle, and how food prices go up, etc.

Although by the end of the article I could understand the purpose, there were many things that prevented the reader/I from distinguishing that purpose. She starts by saying how we've been getting rain in Texas for the past few weeks, which is good for our drought, but quickly goes on to discuss the negative consequences. For example, she talks about how the drought is killing animals and then goes on to give a link to how it's affecting the bay and the animals living in it. I was confused as to where she was trying to go with her article, but near the end she gives a few clear examples as to how we can all help with our drought condition. The examples she provided lead me to see the purpose of the article which is to discuss the drought and the consequences that come with it.

I feel like Ali wasn't sure where to start her article and it showed. Ali could have started her article by discussing how the citizens of Texas could help the drought and provided examples of the effects that happen when we do not help our drought condition.( Such as the chain of events she discussed earlier) By doing that, she could have helped the reader see what the point of her article was and it could have been convincing. Another factor that threw me off was the grammatical errors in her article. If she would have proofread her article before publishing it, she could have sounded persuasive and been taken seriously.

Another thing that could have helped her article would be if she didn't rely so much on rain as our solution to the drought. Rain helps our drought, but relying on rain solely cannot be our only solution! She addresses that we could all use water less when showering, watering our garden, and etc. She could have then used that opportunity to discuss how Texas isn't so fond of allowing reservoirs to be built, but perhaps if we started approving of them more, then we could help our drought significantly. Additionally, she could have tossed in data to give her credibility instead of personal opinion. If Ali wouldn't have ranted about animals being effected, then perhaps she could have had a persuasive article worth reading.

Tolls won't stop the Traffic, So quit wasting Money!

Whether you're going to school, work, the mall, or out to eat. It's not hard to notice the continuous increase in traffic to get anywhere you want to go. The continuous traffic jams further arise questions as to what could lessen the traffic here in Texas and if building more tolls could be our answer. On an article posted on November 29, 2013 in The Texas Tribune titled "In Austin, Toll Lanes May Give Bus Service a Boost" goes on to discuss that by 2015 an 11-mile stretch of Austin's Mopac Boulevard will expand to eight lanes from six and that the two new lanes will be tolled, which will give drivers the chance to pay premium to avoid frequent traffic.

With that being said, $200 million is being invested into this project and was even stated on the article above that neither the Texas Department of Transportation nor any of the entities involved in this project predict that it will make Mopac into a free-flowing transportation route. I for one do not support this project and feel that it is a waste of $200 million that could be used on another project. If even the people who are investing into this project do not believe it could lessen the traffic, then why waste $200 million is the better question. Texas is getting more populated as time passes and what makes anyone so sure that people will actually invest in paying more for tolls?

One example as to why I don't see this working out is because even with the tollways we now have in place, there is still traffic anywhere you go. Not only that, but some people do not want to pay to take a tollway. Quite a few people I know have said they don't ever intend on getting a Texas "tag" which furthermore shows that not everyone is in on the idea of taking tollways. Another thing I have seen happen with the creation of tollways is that some people will still use it and not pay. They let their toll bills pile up and still do not pay for it. Why waste $200 million if it will only lessen the traffic by a little, some people will misuse it/not pay, and it will create debt overtime?

On an article posted by Kxan News titled Man shocked to find name on list of top toll violators goes on to discuss how more than $27 million is owed to the state by violators across the state with unpaid toll bills. This shows how people will violate the tollways and not pay, which furthermore proves that tollways are not as helpful as one would assume. Sure, they help getting to some places with ease, but why invest more in them if they will barely lessen the traffic and people won't pay? Eventually as time passes this state will get further populated and what will we do next? build more and more tolls as our only solution? I think not. I feel if Texas wishes to lower the traffic population then they need to think of other ways besides building more tolls and wasting money on plans that aren't as effective in lowering traffic. Perhaps if Texas increases the gas prices and makes even more public transportations then more people will result in not using their cars as often, which will lower the traffic significantly! It might sound like I am pushing it with such a thought, but it's a thought/start instead of wasting $200 million and not really lowering the traffic ..

Do Women Deserve the Right to have Abortions?

Whether you are pro-life or not, should women have the right to decide whether to abort their baby or not? In an article posted by a fellow colleague titled One State, One Choice, Every Woman by Silvia Trejo. She goes on to start her article by addressing how women have always been beneath men and have fought long for their rights. As her article progresses, she goes on to discuss how Rick Perry signed an abortion bill that bans women in Texas from getting an abortion.

Miss Trejo's main argument was that Rick Perry should not have the right to decide for women, since he will never know how they feel and that in signing such a bill, it has stripped women of their rights and put them back where they started years ago. While I agree to a certain extent and can see where she was coming from, I feel that Silvia wasn't able to persuade her audience/I. I felt she relied mostly on her feelings and views of how women are not given the same respect as men, and how men get paid more and treated better than women at a work environment, etc. I feel she could have taken that opportunity to give us information and facts and could have used a link such as On Pay Equity Day, Why Women Are Paid Less Than Men by ThingProgress.Org that states "Women on average make only 77 cents to every dollar earned by men"in order to give a more convincing argument.

Furthermore, Silvia goes on to say that "When it comes down to it, when Rick Perry signed the abortion bill he took away the power over every woman in Texas". I can see how she feels that women are no longer in control over their situation and are now having a "man" decide for them, but I feel she saw only one side to this instead of both sides. In an article posted on LifeNews.com titled "Study: One Abortion Increases a Woman's Death Risk 45%" it goes on to state "A single induced abortion increases the risk of maternal death by 45% compared to women with no history of abortion, according to a new study of all women of reproductive age in Denmark over a 25 year period". Instead of relying with a point of view that here comes a man again, just taking away women's rights. She should see that he in a way is helping women by lowering their maternal death risks that are associated with abortions and helping avoid other things that arise from abortions (Hemorrhage, handicapped newborns in later pregnancies associated with cervical/uterine damage, excessive bleeding, infection, emotional distress, etc). Additionally, while I do not favor abortions, I tried my best to be as bias free as I could be with this article and to see all sides to it, but when it comes down to it, Silvia implies that it should never be at the choice of a man to decide what a woman should do with her body and that women should have the right to have their own choice. With that being said, if you and another person make the "choice" to have sex, then you should be prepared to handle the consequences that come with it!



There are so many ways of preventing pregnancies and even family planning centers you can go to for birth control. Although I know in some cases, women are raped, etc. I personally believe that abortion should not be the option to go. There are so many complications or things that can go wrong with abortions and if you feel so strongly that you do not want a kid, then you do have another "choice". There are so many families out there who can not have kids of their own and are waiting to adopt. You can always put up your child for adoption and go down your own path.


In the end, while I saw a bit of Silvia's point of view, I personally was not persuaded and felt she went with her feelings and could not convince. Furthermore, I feel that if we are going to make an argument about the ability to make your own "choice" then we should all not be hypocrites and let the baby have a choice as well. No matter how many weeks of pregnancy anyone may be, if "you" make the choice to have sex without any sort of protection, then you should be prepared to face the consequences that come with it and give the child a choice to live, since your "choice" is what brought it about in the first place. Therefore I conclude that abortion is not the way to go and maybe Perry did go overboard in not letting a woman decide, but in the end he might have "saved" more than just a baby's life in doing so.

$2 Billion Won't Bring you any Water!

Water almost feels like an animal close to extinction if you live in Texas! Only those who live here can understand how often we must be put "limits" on water usage due to drought seasons. The constant limitations and droughts in lakes, rivers, etc. further show that our water supply is only getting worst and in a few years our reservoirs will be dried out or so was said on an article titled With or Without $2 Billion, Water Woes Here to Stay on Nov 4, in The Texas Tribune.

With that being said, a current proposition will be able to be voted upon tomorrow that could possibly help Texas with the water deficit. Proposition 6 is a constitutional amendment that is said to take out $2 Billion out of the Rainy Day Fund (state's savings account) in order to help create 2 accounts to help fund water projects in the state. Although there are those who favor this proposition and those who oppose it, the real question here is whether this proposition could indeed help with our water deficit. The supporters argue that this is needed to ensure that the state will have enough water to meet it's future needs. I for one do not support this proposition and feel it will be a waste of 2 billion that could be used elsewhere.

One example as to why I don't see this working out is because a North Texas water supplier fought for over 10 years to win state approval of the first reservoir to be built in decades, and it is still waiting for a federal permit. If this water supplier is still waiting on approval after all these years, what makes us think that passing this proposition will guarantee water infrastructure projects to be built and help our deficit? Although we have a reservoir already being permitted to be built, such as Lake Ralph Hall. It had been nearly 25 years since a reservoir was last built, so it only furthermore shows that Texas is constantly hesitant in allowing water reservoirs to be built which leads me to believe that this proposition will be a waste of our state's funds/time and should not be passed.

Even on the article in The Texas Tribune, they have an environmental law researcher say "By the time projects are identified, bonds are issued, and projects are actually initiated and then come online, that's some ways down the road" from the University of Texas at Austin. This furthermore shows that it will take a while before water infrastructure plans can be implemented and even if this law passes, it will more than likely help future droughts, but not the current one. Additionally, our state is being populated on a daily basis and that only contributes to even more water usage. Even with the current water drought, I still see people down the road make huge misuses of our water supply. I've seen people watering their lawns at night time or even sprinklers being on as it's raining outside. Whether we pass this proposition or not, some people will still misuse the current water supply we have and we will end up right back here in drought and water limitations.

What makes me oppose this proposition as well, is the fact that it will take 2 billion out of our state's savings. That just speaks getting into debt and a misuse of such a large fund. Simply because some people will still misuse and not obey restrictions as the ones that are being implemented now on water, I feel that they should hold off on this proposition. This proposition won't get us out of anything overnight, so why even pass it now? They should wait and see if more reservoirs will be passed in a timely manner that could help with the deficit so we won't have to get so much funds out, misuse them, and waste our time waiting to see if they can get water infrastructures to be built. I think if we wait a while and see if Texas improves on permitting reservoirs to be built, we will be able help droughts, not get into any sorts of debts, or misuse state funds over a period of time!

Are Texas DPS checkpoints Justifiable?

The Texas DPS is now conducting roadblocks in certain areas to keep our streets safe and in compliance. Although they are conducting roadblocks to check that you are in compliance with regulatory traffic statutes (Valid license, insurance, and vehicle registration, etc) could there be more to that than what meets the eye?

I found an article interesting in which it stated that the Texas DPS is conducting roadblocks not just to check for compliance with regulatory traffic statutes, but to also check for evidence of DWI, as well as running warrant checks on drivers. In an article titled "Show me your papers, comrade': DPS vehicle checkpoints further degrade Fourth Amendment" posted on October 2, on the Texas Political blog Grits For Breakfast. The author of this article goes on to reply to a column that was posted by DPS Col. Steve McCraw in the McAllen Monitor. In McCraw's column, he goes on to state that although these stops check for a license, insurance, etc. That a warrant check and the authority to address obvious criminal violations could be conducted! Although his justification to this relied on various criminal activity in that area and many citations of no drivers license and insurance, The author of Grits does not agree with him.

Furthermore, Grits goes on to say that although it is not certain if these stops could result in immigration detention, that these DPS checkpoints are more so degrading than anything else and violate the Fourth Amendment. He goes on to state that in his youth, checkpoints like these could be associated with that of a "totalitarian communist"state. Although he did call out McCraw's column for using contradictory court cases such as the Supreme Court Case(City of Indianapolis v. Edmond) in which they ruled against checkpoints, I felt he couldn't convince the audience well enough. Grit's article was aimed to persuade the citizens of this state of how unlawful these DPS checkpoints are. Although that is what he aimed to persuade, he failed to do so in my opinion.

Grit's tried to state many times how McCraw just relies on excuses but after reading this article, he doesn't do much to support his argument. He relies mostly on his feelings of how it's just wrong to do this, how he remembers in his childhood, some court examples, and etc. Although the article seemed to start on the right foot, it ended up going downhill for me and I did not agree with what Grit's had to say. Even though I could see where Grit's was coming from, that it is wrong to do more than just check for a valid license and registration. I could see that McCraw was looking out for the safety of the people. I for one have witnessed bad driving on my way to school and find it good to do these stops and check that people are not intoxicated in order to protect public safety. If I am not mistaken as well, earlier this year, the Cafeteria lady of this Northridge Campus was killed by a drunk driver. That furthermore proves that these DPS checks should check all that they can in order to ensure everyone's safety!

To sum it all up, Grits was making a good story by letting us know what the opposing side was saying but ended up failing in convincing the audience. Had he relied more on examples of how it is not justifiable instead of on his feelings and childhood memories, he could have been able to persuade the citizens and readers that it is not right to allow these DPS checkpoints to do more than just check for regulatory traffic statutes!

Does Texas need this Reservoir?

Could allowing to permit one reservoir to be built, be the key for Texas to building more reservoirs as part of the Texas 50-year water plan? An editorial in The Dallas News believes so!

On Friday, September 20, 2013 The Dallas News published an editorial titled North Texas needs Lake Ralph Hall.  The article goes on to state that the following Tuesday, an important decision for North Texas would be made that would set a precedent for all of the state. The author of this article who was not named, seeks to persuade the citizens, as well as the state, as to why the proposed Lake Ralph Hall is needed by North Texans. Furthermore, the author does a great job of covering the issues at hands. The article goes on to say that the Denton county is planned on exceeding it's population from 2010, which consisted of a population of about 663,000 to 1 million in 2030 and 1.84 million by 2060. With the current water supplies and increase in population, water supplies are enough to meet the needs for about the middle of the next decade and not beyond, according to the district's executive director Tom Taylor.

Additionally, the article goes on to say that this is the part where Lake Ralph Hall would come into play because if a permit were to be issued for Lake Ralph Hall, it would help the fast-growing region meet its water demands. However, the article states that if the TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) refuses the construction permit, that the rejection could cause effects way beyond the Denton and Dallas counties. Since the state has not issued a permit for a new lake in about 25 years, it is crucial for this permit to be accepted. Furthermore, the article states if the state cannot issue a permit for a lake such as Ralph Hall then that pretty much forecasts that not much good will come for Texas' ability to building other reservoirs as part of the 50-year water plan.

For the most part I agreed with what the author wrote and felt he provided a good amount of data to back up his claims as to why North Texas needs the TCEQ to allow the permit for Lake Ralph Hall. Although I think it was a bit far-fetched to say that if this one lake was not permitted that it pretty much forecasted what was in store for Texas' ability to build other reservoirs. Additionally, the author did address that strategies were in place that included a healthy reliance on water conservation. I however, would have liked the author to have addressed what type of water conservation plans are already in place and would like to have seen some data on it but nonetheless, the article was presented well, had convincing arguments, and information to further back up their argument and convince the audience.

Immigration Rising in Texas

On Monday, September 23, 2013 The Texas Tribune published an article titled "Study: Undocumented Immigration May Be Rising in Texas". The article goes on to discuss that in several states the number of undocumented immigrants has decreased, while the number of undocumented immigrants in Texas has remained the same and possibly even increased. Furthermore, this article goes on to say that out of the 6 states(California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas) with the largest numbers of immigrants, Texas was the only one that did not witness a fall in immigration population that took place a few years ago.

I feel that this article is worth reading because it makes you brew up a bunch of questions, such as "Why is it that other states are seeing a decrease in immigration population, but not Texas?" and "how is the increase of immigration population going to affect Texas in the long run?". Texas is becoming a very populated state and with the increase of immigration population, one can only imagine if Texas will become the largest populated state in this country in a course of time. Additionally, the article goes on to say that the study's data on population growth could come into play since Congress is continuing to debate immigration reform.

Furthermore, the border security is one of the main sticking points between both parties(Republicans and Democrats). Republicans are arguing that the border must be secured to prevent a future flow of immigration, while the Democrats are arguing that the border is more secured now, than it ever has been and are using customs and Border Protection data to back up their claims. Immigration reform is one of those topics that truly never has a conclusion since many debates arise from many sides. Whether you favor Immigration reform or not, in time we will see why immigration population is not decreasing in Texas and the effects that come with that later on.