Stage Eight: RE: UT Ban of Antibacterial Soap

I first chuckled when I read the title of my classmate's blog, 

"UT Ban of Antibacterial Soap" I thought to myself, "this will be interesting to read, but it's probably just another way for citizens to complain about something."

After actually reading the blog, I wanted to know more facts about the negative effects of anti-bacterial soap.  My classmate's brief blog about the subject made me want more information, so I followed the link on the article they referenced.  This was an article called; "Antibacterial soap ban may be timely" written by Laura Skelding in the American Statesman.  Now, after reading the Skelding's article and my classmate’s blog, I most definitely agree with banning antibacterial soap.

While my classmate's blog stated a brief explanation as to the negatives of antibacterial soap, it was sufficient information to lure me into the issue and agree to ban this item not only from UT Austin, but also from home and work.  Antibacterial soap really has no stronger elements than regular hand soap.  So why do we use it?  Probably because we see the word "antibacterial" and immediately think it'll clean 10 times better than just regular soap.  And that's just an example of how companies can slap a certain word on a product and convince us that's it can work miracles, but that's another story.  As my classmate's blog states, antibacterial soap contains something called Triclosan.  Although Triclosan is used in many other products and the FDA hasn't seen harm in the product BUT is also still investigating how harmful it can be to us.  Using Triclosan too much can make your body immune to it.  This also flows into our wastewater and portions of it also flow into our water streams.  The FDA hasn't completed its study, but do we really want to keep using this product that can be potentially harmful when frequently used?  I don't want to risk any chances.  I agree with students in having it banned from schools.  Let's also get it banned from work space and homes as well.

Your Vote Counts!

Early voting for General Election begins April 30.  Many people have the same mentality about voting, "Does my ONE vote really matter?"  YES!  Your ONE vote DOES count!  Think about how many people say the same thing and then add all those ONE votes in. 

General Election early voting will begin April 30 and your vote will count.  The City of Austin's Mayor and Council Member positions 2, 5, and 6 are up for election May 12.  The City will have election resources for voters.  There will be a list of voting locations, mobile voting resources, votes by mail, voting options for students/military overseas, and even a Facebook page is being made available for information.

The Government makes voting as easy as pie, so why not take just a few minutes out of one of your days and GO VOTE?!  And no one is going to know who you voted for unless you feel the need share that information. 

One of the candidates running for Mayor is Lee Leffingwell, which he is also our current Mayor.  Mayor Leffingwell is definitely my first choice because of his accomplishments for our City so far.  Lee Leffingwell has proved himself as Mayor for the City of Austin by helping bring in more jobs,  has managed to help keep Austin high rated to best place to live, making Austin a green city as well as a more healthy city, finding ways to control traffic a little better, and many other accomplishments.  Lee Leffingwell is an Austinite born and raised, went to UT, has served our Nation, and has been in City positions for several years now.  To me, that sounds like he should be re-elected as Mayor.  The other two candidates for Mayor are Brigid Shea and Clay Dafoe.

Every vote makes a difference and there’s nothing difficult about voting.  Vote today and YOU can make a difference in our government!

Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

I always find it interesting reading about people's thoughts on abortion.  Many arguments on both sides of the subject are valid points; however, I still aim for pro-choice. 

After reading Christina Valdez's blog, "Why Not Give it a Second Look?", I disagree with her points on being pro-life.  Christina gives examples about being pro-life by mentioning a few successful individuals whose mothers almost followed through with their abortion.  Without some of these individuals, our world would be a lot different due to their contributions to Technology or their roles in life.

My argument is that Christina is only giving a few examples of individuals who benefit our society today, but we should let the mother decide what she wants to do with her own body and her own child because we don't know what each mother’s situation is.  The circumstances are different with each pregnancy; we never know if the pregnancy was due to a rape or incest situation.  Let the mother decide whether or not she wants to bring up her child after being a victim of rape.  They are the only ones that know what it feels like carrying a child from being forced to have sex, so why should we also force them to have the child?  A lot of them are already traumatized and you never know if going through the pregnancy would only negatively affect them even more.

Other mothers decide to abort because of the lifestyle they are living; drugs, violence, AIDS or HIV, or homeless.  Knowing they are going to bring a child up in their same lifestyle might not be the best, but that's for them to decide.  A child being raised in that type of environment is more likely to live that exact life when they grow up.

A mother is THE mother and she should be able to decide what's best for her child. Only she knows what the circumstances are and how it'll benefit or affect the child.

Help in Mexico

A lot is going on with our Southern neighbors at the moment.  After reading Don't Lose Faith in Mexico's Recovery on the Austin American Statesman by Antonio Garza, US citizens should re-think negatively about us helping Mexico.  Garza mentions how the drug war in Mexico is not so much the US' biggest threat.  With that being said, Garza also believes that it wouldn't hurt to offer a little assistance by bringing the US President and Mexico's President together to somehow better this drug war.  The author says that the Mexico's recent President has already captured many of the drug lords, which has had a significant change in the amount of deaths as well.  The author is trying to convince the citizens of the US that read her commentary, that Mexico not only needs our help, but it would also bring a strong bond in the future between these two countries.

In this commentary I fully agree with Garza.  I also believe that Mexico could use a little help from the US in all the drug wars and deaths caused by this horrific problem.  I mean sure they've captured many drug lords, but that still hasn't fully resolved the problem.  From experience, the streets in Mexico are like those of a ghost town.  People are having to hide out in their homes and quit their jobs or close their businesses so that they won't be killed nor asked for money from the drug lords.  Mexico has never been too safe to walk the streets, but now it's gotten way worse.  You can't even walk the streets in plain daylight.  People shouldn't have to live in fear everyday because Mexico is ran by a President not by drug lords, right?  Like Garza has mentioned, bringing our two Presidents together to join forces in fighting the drug lords would create a pact between these two countries and this would benefit us down the road.  It might not benefit us right now, but it's good to have allies because you never know what could happen.  I say we help Mexico if we are able to and feel accomplished in saving the lives of people in Mexico.

With or Without the Planned Parenthood?

The blog The Brief: Top Texas News for March 9, 2012 On The Texas Tribune explains to Texans a bit about Governor Perry's attempt to sustain the Women's Health Program alive regardless of funding from the Federal Government or not.  Basically they are trying to say that Perry wants to keep the program alive, yet it wants to get rid of one of the major providers, Planned Parenthood, for the program even though about 130,000 participants receive services from them.  They claim that Planned Parenthood should be eliminated from being a part of the Women's Health Program only because it involves abortions in their services.  They also let us know that the Obama administration isn't very fond of that idea and they will not provide funding for Texas' Women's Health Program if that happens.  Agreeing with Perry to keep the program in Texas is great, but not so much encouraging to do away with Planned Parenthood.

I honestly believe that keeping the Women's Health Program is a necessity for the Health and Human Services Commission.  Getting Medicaid from the HHSC is based on low income and it's very hard to get into the program unless you completely don't have a job or have a large number of kids and don't make enough.  Having the Women's Health Program also is for people with low income, but it's more flexible in getting accepted into the program and you can still have an okay paying job.  I agree and am behind Perry in keeping the program, but I disagree with him in doing away with Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood is getting criticized for abortions, but Perry isn't looking beyond that.  I feel like he should look more on what all Planned Parenthood has to offer other than just abortions.  It's not like abortions are funded by the program anyway, so why should it matter?  Let's keep Planned Parenthood alive as well; we need their other services.

Failed Occupy Austin Movement

Reading the "Occupy Austin's eviction from City Hall was timely" Editorial Board's section in the Austin American Statesman was interesting indeed.  The author's opinion seems very clear he feels glad Occupy Austin was evicted off City Hall property and he intends to let the citizens of Austin know why.  He expresses himself by writing about the way the protesters took it upon themselves to trash City Hall; slowly recruiting mostly homeless and being nothing but a campsite on the property.  He states how Occupiers turned the movement into a mission with no real clear purpose as to what they were there for, especially as the four months went by. He writes how not only were the protesters trashing, but also costing the City and its' residents money.  He mentions how we spent about $800,000 with constant cleaning, maintenance, and police patrol at City Hall.  The author definitely shows his emotions by the way he write negatively about the movement.


I agree somewhat with the author.  The movement that originally started with Occupy Wall Street in New York back in September 2011 was a protest to target social and economic inequality and corruption among other issues with our government.  While very loyal protesters for Occupy Austin here stayed until the date of the eviction, others were arrested during the four months and issued trespassing citations.  I agree with the author that Occupiers did trash City Hall which belongs to all the citizens of Austin and I also agree with him in the the sense that too much money was spent during the movement, but I actually had a chance to stop and chat with some of the individuals participating in the protest and many had interesting ideas for the movement.  Unfortunately, when most of the protesters were arrested, it was as if the their ideas were too.  Occupier's denied access back onto City Hall property caused homeless citizens to move into the Occupy Austin campsite and that's really when it started going downhill and no real purpose came out of the movement from then on.  Had the movement had a better initial plan, maybe something productive might have came from the protest.  I too; however, am glad that the movement is over and City Hall is once again looking beautiful.

The Cons of a Coal Mine

I never knew how much a problem coal mining could be to some communities until I read the Article, "Texas Border Battle Over Mexican Company's Coal Mine" on the Texas Tribune by Julian Aguilar.  I would think that bringing in a new company to a town that has a high number of unemployment would benefit the community, but there are always several factors to take into consideration.  It's interesting to read this article that mentions some of those negative factors. Not only would this effect the community air quality, but also their main water supply.  Also, another factor to look on is, will a local company take the task opening coal mining or will it be companies based out of town, as well as having foreigners work the mines instead of locals.  The pay offer for coal miners is a very well paid hourly wage job.  Some residents would rather move than to deal with the new coal mining business in the future.

I would rather take into consideration the quality of air and water my family will be breathing and drinking instead of the rate of pay offered.  I for certain would hate to see my child suffer from respiratory or lung disease problems.  Although, this would offer a great deal of employment for the community, you also have to think about whether or not the residents of this community are qualified or experienced enough to operate certain machines required for coal mining.  And if they aren’t qualified, then who WILL get these jobs?  Having foreigners come in to take over these jobs will boost revenue to local businesses; however, these will be new strangers coming into a small community that the local residents have worked hard to build.  Too many negative factors should reflect on the decision why NOT to bring this business to a small border town. 

Moving from a town you have practically either grew up in or made your home just because a new company is trying to take over should NOT be the only solution.