The Way I See It...

 In response to Chloe Yates' article "The Bright Side of Suffering"  in which she argues that the laws passed in Texas, which require women to have a sonogram 24 hours before they have an abortion, are losing their right to privacy :

While your rights may be "challenged" by these laws, the way I see it is that such legislation is trying to provide the most basic right to the "fetus"- the right to be seen for what it actually is, a baby. It is words like "fetus" that de-humaize and make lesser of such a weighty issue.

What Governor Perry, and others in favor of this alw are trying to do is get all women, teen or adult, who are considering having an abortion to realize what exactly they are doing by having the unborn baby "terminated." I don't think that there is anything wrong with wanting mothers to be fully informed before making that decision.

Which do you think would be worse: having a baby as a teen mom, and either keeping it or giving it up for adoption, OR making a spur of the moment decision to have an abortion and possibly going on to regret it later in life? I am completely aware that there are women who think long and hard about such a decision and still choose to have abortions, and I get that having a sonogram when one has already made their mind up to do so would be extremely difficult and uncomfortable, but what on earth is wrong with thinking twice?

I know a women who is now in her late thirties and has two kids, who got pregnant and ended up aborting her baby and I know for a fact that there is no decision that she regrets more. If she had been required to have a sonogram as this law requires, she may have decided to have the baby and either keep it or give it up for adoption (an alternative that I believe you overlooked), both of which would have saved her the immense pain and and suffering that her choice has brought upon her.

What doesn't make sense about that?

Proving your identification is a part of everyday life in the US. I had to show my ID in order to prove I was really myself so that I could take the SAT my junior year of high school. I had to show my ID a few months ago when I bought a scratch off at a gas station, to prove I met the age required to do so. I had to show my ID last week when I purchased clothes at Old Navy in order to prove that I was the person that I was claiming to be when using my credit card.

All of these events required me to prove I was who I said I was and that I met to requirements for whatever action I was trying to accomplish. I feel that voter laws are asking the same thing of voters.

ID laws would require voters to prove that they have met the qualifications to vote which are that they have to be a US citizens, at least 18 years of age and cannot be a convicted felon or be deemed mentally incapacitated. Not that strict right? I don't think there is anything wrong with requiring voters to show some form of state or federal issued ID. Such laws would keep elections "fair, beyond reproach, [and] accurately reflecting the will of the people, as Governor Perry stated while commenting on the purpose of voter ID legislation.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/12/24/3617464/texas-voter-id-law-may-not-be.html#storylink=cpy

How is this discrimination? I don't see how it is. It is simply making sure people have met the requirements to have a say in the matters of their state and country. While it may end up lessening the vote of the minority in Texas due to the large amount of illegal immigrants, I believe that this is fair because they are not citizens and have not met all of the stipulations to have the right to vote, and that's just the way I see it.

There Will Always Be Those Few...

This post is in response to the post on the blog "That's what I like about Texas" by Danielle Smith:
While I support the second amendment right, I also think that there needs to be some kind of system that holds gun users accountable. I am strongly for requiring gun ownders to take safety courses before they are legally allowed to use them. I think your idea about creating some sort of psychological test would be beneficial. Perhaps some way to prevent such psychologically unstable people from access to fire arms would be to require a gun control course that had a psychological portion to it that was made mandatory before being allowed to purchase firearms. On the other hand, while background checks might help to a degree, they wouldn't have kept James Holmes from purchasing firearms because he had nothing on his record to encourage any sort of suspicion.

The intended audience of this article isn't made crystal clear, but one can determine that the reader, for which it was written, is one who has heard enough about the recent "tragedy in Aurora" to have had some sort of emotional response to the events. While the author isn't purely using emotional appeals to present her opinion, they are embedded in the argument because of the widespread remorse shared for the friends and families of the victims in Aurora.

These events also create quite a logical argument for the author because they are hard evidence that proves that the current gun control system has its flaws. However, I do feel that people will always be able to get weapons by means of the black market and other illegal ways, which would make such laws pointless.

While a reformed system may have stopped James Holmes from committing such a horrifying crime, there will always be those that bypass the system in order to accomplish their mission...no matter how disturbing it might be.

Did your mother not teach you to play nice?

Politics makes me sick. Although I believe it is a necessary evil, I find that things have gotten way out of hand. As I was looking around on various newspaper sights the other day, I kept seeing these adds that flashed red and black letters with an unflattering picture of Ted Cruz below them. The message read something like "The Real Ted Cruz- a trial lawyer helping Chinese conglomerate kill American jobs." I read this, having no earthly idea whether it is true or not, and can't help but think that the person who would PAY to make someone else look bad must be a real piece of work. Well that would be David Dewhurst, but in reality it wasn't just him, but nearly every politician out there. Do they really think that people are going to want some sissy who has to resort to name-calling in order to win, to run our great state? I know that I really don't.

While I have to settle to vote for whoever fits best ideologically, I am constantly annoyed by the smear campaigns of politicians. What even shocked me more than the smear ads of those running for Senate, were the ones I receive in the mail for local offices. A few months ago, I received a flyer for a woman running for country commissioner, against another woman, and while the text accused the other woman of "Obama-like spending" and a laundry list of other offenses, it was the presentation that struck me to be the most outrageous and ridiculous. The ad included the worst possible picture of the opponent, double chin and all, and was not only a small wallet sized picture on one side, but the flip side of the ad had the same face as the other picture, but this one was black and white and blown up to cover the entire half-page sized flyer. Upon seeing this all I could think is, what kind of rude, classless woman would resort to such a thing? At that point I was more than disgusted, not only because the picture was actually disgusting, but that the woman who created the ad included a small picture of her cute, young, manicured self lounging in the grass with her family. As if I'm supposed to see you as some sweet, innocent, loving mother now that you've said all this about someone else.

Who wants a hypocritical bully running their county, state or even country- not this girl.

Who says that Change is always good?

In Robbie Cooper's blog entry on his conservative political blog, UrbanGrounds, he discusses the fact that unemployment rates are at the highest levels that we have seen in 50 years. Cooper argues that Obama is trying to create his "egalitarian" society by bringing the rich down, instead of trying to boost poverty-stricken families by creating new jobs and lowering the unemployment rate. While Cooper doesn't have the most polite way of writing, his crude language reinforces the fact that he honestly finds what Obama is doing to be a complete travesty. This use of language is completely different than what one would find in a newspaper or magazine because blogs are controlled by the people who write them, not by a company, and by no means do they have to seem unbiased or neutral. Because blogs are this way, it usually means that their target audiences are going to be people who believe the same things as them. While Cooper may use strong language to make his point, he also includes facts about such rises in unemployment and includes quotes from the Associated Press which boost both the ethos and logos of his post because he isn't merely ranting and raving about something that he believes, but is backing his argument up with numbers and facts. I would have to agree with Cooper in that I feel that the Obama administration has always claimed that they will give hope and bring change, and yet with unemployment rates rising, there is little hope for those currently unemployed and as for change, well it definitely isn't for the better.

Seeing Education from the Other Side

 The word education encapsulates many different people in many different walks of life. In the article Re-thinking the GOP platform written on July 9, 2012 in The Daily Texan, the author is arguing that recent Republican education platforms which oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills are really trying to remove the parts of their education that would encourage students to think critically. He/ she states that "the party goes astray by making the insulting and incorrect assumption that Texas students are unable to think for themselves." While this author is clearly considering the college-aged audience as the main population affected by this, I don't believe that they are looking at the subject from the perspective of a parent. While I don't agree completely with the legislation, I do understand that if I am a parent, and I send my 9 year old kid to school, I don't want them being taught that evolution is fact, I want them being taught what I believe as well as what others do, which was a part of the recent GOP platform. Critical thinking in elementary and middle school versus in college are two very different animals. The author of this article neglects to realize that while critical thinking in college may mean challenging your the "fixed belief system" of your parents, it most certainly does not in elementary. The Republican party was not stating that they don't want children to learn how to solve math problems that require you to think out of the box, they are wanting what children are taught to respect the authority that currently resides over them- their parents. I don't understand what is wrong with that. Once you go off to college those beliefs will be challenged primarily by the world around you, not the professor in front of you, so again I ask- what is wrong with encouraging kids to listen to their parents?

Don't Rain on Our Parade

With the Texas economy improving, things are looking good for Texas, but recent budget deficits are stirring up trouble in the Senate. According to Fox 7's article "Texas Economy Better, But Budget Still Short," written on Feb. 21, 2012, legislature budgeted $4.1 billion too little for Medicaid in 2012-2013. Lawmakers must come up with a way to cover for this debt, and Democrats have an idea. The Rainy Day Fund, created to help out when the Texas government faces deficits, will have approximately $7.3 billion in it by this October. Democrats called for a special session to use the fund for the deficit and to use 4 billion out of it on the recent cuts on public schools. However Governor Perry and Republicans disagree. Despite the deficit, consumerism and employment rates are up, and Texas is still growing and recovering.

I found this article interesting because it looks at Texas' budget shortcomings, AND it's economical improvements. It introduced me to the Rainy Day Fund, which I hadn't heard of. I found it comforting to know that our government is prepared and able to make up for budgeting mistakes like this when they occur, instead of raising taxes.