response to blog #2

It is indeed really sad to see the lift on the ban of the single use plastic bag go. I do however think people are more aware with the circumstances that come with using these plastic bags. When this ban was first admitted it created self awareness for people to now carry reusable bags to not harm our environment, the place that we should cradle with love because it is our only home. More people shop now with reusable bags not only when it comes down to getting groceries but also just normal retail shopping. If we continue this self awareness it will help reduce waste and continue to protect our environment even without the ban.

THE BIG BAG BAN

So what was the bag ban again? just as it sounds, the ACT on November 11, 2011 banned plastic bag use in most retailers and grocery stores in Austin. Single use plastic shopping bags litter and harm our environment as well as our animals. Most plastic bags end up in landfills or in waterway and oceans. In the past five years in order to conserve our environment retailers such as HEB and Walmart have handed out 200 million fewer plastic bags each year. So where did the ban go? and why are retailers handing out plastic bags out again? Austin announced that it will no longer enforce this ban. The whole purpose of this ban in the first place was to protect our environment, without it people become forgetful and see no harm in littering or wasting plastic. "The bags kill animals, impede flood control and blight the landscape" - Justice Eva Guzman. It may seem like nothing but if we all work together we can all help protect our planet, by keeping the bag ban consistent.

Blog Stage 5 Original Editory

Most of us remember the 2017 "Bathroom Bill" that kept the transgender Texans from using public restrooms and only using them based on their birth sex. Many christian conservatives insisted that this would protect the privacy of women, by not having men in the same restroom as them. However, Many businesses such as amazon, and apple were very upset with this bill, as it caused problems with customers and is said to be "unnecessary, discriminatory, and divisive measures that would damage Texas’ reputation and create problems for our employees and their families." This statement defends the LGBT community very well. Not allowing a person to use a public restroom in restaurants, or students having to only use a nurses room to use the restroom is dehumanizing. Bringing back this bill from the dead would not be reasonable or smart for Texas to bring back, as most of the population in last two years has grown to be less conservative, and the LGBT community has grown to be stronger and has the support of many. 

Blog stage 4: School finance plan from the texas house.

In " School finance plan from the Texas house" the authors audience is directly for texan tax payers. The editorial analyzes both sides of house and senate, in dealing with bill 3 that was filed, which is the "texan plan" in investing about 9 million dollars to provide meaningful school finance reform. The senate wants to give money to the teachers,  and has done so by giving a raise to school teachers. While house is just "allocating more dollars to the same educrat administrators, who have thus far failed to prioritize classroom spending." The author seems to be against the Texas house school finance, by providing evidence of marketing strategies the house has used, which affects texan tax payers, in that through this many are prone to be in a troubled position. I agree with the authors advice in having us tax payers asking our state representatives "Why would the House spend so much money without trying for substantial property tax relief?" this shows awareness from us tax payers in which the house may strive for substantial tax relief for us all. 

Blog Stage Three: Critique an editorial or commentary from a Texas newspaper

The author of "cornyn, cruz must stand and be counted" stands firm in stating that the presidents declaration of a national emergency should be nullified (canceled) because there is "no emergency in any practical sense, neither at the border nor with immigration generally". Using this editorial the author hopes that congress as well as two senators John Cornyl and Ted Cruz of Texas employ common sense in residing the presidents national emergency. The author provides evidence of both senators being indecisive when it comes down to their vote for the declaration. The author takes advantage of the lack of certainty to draw americans to notate this and act accordingly come election time. The author argues that the need of building a wall is unnecessary, by stating opinions that are very well true, such as the idea that undocumented immigrants are not responsible for crimes in our country and that crimes by immigrants are relatively rare and usually committed in a larger scale by native americans. Another point made by the author was that with building a wall there will be consequences for americans in taking jobs that many have rejected because of hard labor. in conclusion the author hopes that senate stands with the house in rescinding the presidents emergency declaration. Taking into consideration all of the authors point i strongly agree with the idea of working hard to nullify this so called national emergency. 

Greeting

hey hey hey!