Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness- These are 3 inalienable rights that are promised to the citizens of the United States of America. There were no asterisks added in the original document that holds this promise so why should we add them in now? My colleague, Dylan, presents a very true argument about same the sex marriage speculation that is consuming the media today. It has been repeated multiple times that we are a country of diversity, so why is it that we judge people so much for their individual views?

There is no reason that the government should stop a couple from being together just because of their gender. We all have our own individual preferences. We make a commitment to the person we want to marry. It is not a commitment to the state, country, and public. If it was, I doubt anyone would want to get a divorce because instead of splitting things in two, we would have to give a little bit to everyone.

There are more pressing matters that our government should be worried about than who is lined up at the county court requesting a marriage license. We love who we love and there is nothing that can change that. I may not be gay, but I wouldn't want anyone who is to have to live a life where they can't be with the person they love. I hope our legislators and senators come to their senses and leave all of the business and political side of things in the back corner and really focus on their human values. No one's pursuit of happiness should be inhibited. Our founding leaders were able to see that. Why can't our leaders see that now?

Texas Politics does not cease to amaze me. There is a short, little article about a bill that will legalize marijuana in Texas on the Dallas Morning News' website. We all know that other states have already taken the liberty of legalizing marijuana whether for medicinal use or overall, but the reason that State Rep. David Simpson gave for legalizing it was just appalling. "Marijuana comes from God and therefore shouldn't be banned by government" is Simpson's argument for this bill. Lets just take a step back for a second and try and grasp this.
Now, I am a believer in God without a doubt, but this is the Texas State Government we are talking about. Where does the separation of state and church come into play with this? If saying that marijuana comes from God is a valid statement in the house, then can I commit a crime and say I come from God as well and be let off free of charge? There is no way that this can possibly be an argument that a state legislature will humor. There are scientific studies that give evidence that marijuana can be used as a therapy. There are studies that say alcohol is worse than marijuana. Unless we look directly at the research, we won't be able to tell whether these accusations are true, but they have a more suitable sound than bringing religion into the government.  David Simpson could have gone to a laboratory where they study the effects of THC in the body and made his argument based off of his findings there. I would have never thought that bringing God into the government would allow something like this to pass a committee in such a conservative state like Texas.

My classmate, Kim Hernandez, wrote an interesting blog about gun control with private businesses titled, "Do Private Businesses Have A Say?" The gun control legislation has really caught my attention just because of how much controversy it has brought upon us. I do agree with the fact that businesses should be able to have the deciding factor about open carry, but I don't think they should have a say when it comes to concealed carry. I wrote a blog about what I felt about opened carry on school grounds and specifically said how having a CHL only certifies you to handle a firearm but not how to handle your own emotions in extenuating circumstances. I think there are two different arguments that you have brought up in your post. One is whether businesses should be allowed to regulate open carry, and the other is whether CHL holders are allowed to bring in their concealed weapons. We honestly can't tell what people are hiding under their clothing for the most part. Therefore, I don't see a problem with people bringing in their concealed weapons as long as they don't show it to the customers in the business. It would shatter my nerves if I saw a person walk into a business that I was in with an assault rifle strapped on his back. People take our rights a little too literal in my opinion. Just because we have the freedom of speech doesn't mean we can say anything we want, whenever we want, and however we want. There are consequences for your actions in every situation. For example, shouting "BOMB!" while you're on an airplane wouldn't set very well with authorities or the other passengers. Gun control is a very "touchy" subject to talk about with many different points of view. I am always willing to hear other people's opinions about the matter and compare them to my own.

I believe we can all agree that taxes are a big deal to us, so when I saw a blog entry in the Burnt Orange Report it immediately caught my eye. Emily Cadik submitted a blog titled “Texas has the Third Most Regressive Tax System in the U.S.” The information in this entry does pose some intriguing information about how taxes work in the state of Texas. As I read the blog, I realized this was geared toward low-income citizens of Texas. The redundancy about how Texas charged low-income earners more than they did the top 1% of the population was inevitably present.

She only uses two sources for her information instead of gathering a variety of different sources. Having multiple sources tells the reader that there has been a good amount of thought into the topic since so many people have published information about it. This attracts more people to consider the issue in the blog. It could also spark the necessary action that needs to be taken in order to fix how our state taxes work.

Although, typically, blogs are supposed to be fairly short as compared to a full report, I do believe that they should not only educate but propose some insight on what the blogger feels about the topic he/she has written about. With that in mind, I feel that this entry would have a lot more impact on the readers if it had the author’s insight on the topic instead of just having data. As a writer, your purpose is to strategically impose your opinion into your readers. Blogs are supposed to be a reflection of whom the author is and what their stand is on the type of topics they choose to write on. Without this, a blog is just another news report. Emily Cadik chose a great topic to write on, but I feel that her blog could have been a lot better with some of her own insight on the way Texas taxes its citizens.

As our legislature in the great state of Texas proceeds with their 2015 session, there are many bills that are presented for them to review. Quite predictable, one of the bills that is getting a lot of attention is the open-carry bill.  The Dallas Morning News issued an editorial titled, “Texas Bills to expand ‘campus carry’ are misguided.” It is clear that the author of this editorial is against the bill. The author argues that campus carry is highly unfavored by both law enforcement and campus administrators. He quotes William McRaven who is UT’s new systems chancellor and strengthens his opinion that open carry would be a catastrophe instead of helping with the safety of faculty and students. I find it interesting how quick the author was to call out State Sen. Brian Birdwell, State Rep. Allen Fletcher, and Gov. Greg Abbott and their support for open carry. It gives me a feeling that he is trying to convince his audience that they are the so-called “bad guys” that want to bring us to our demise. This is a hard editorial to write in my opinion because there isn’t much evidence to back your argument up. The only real evidence there is are the opinions other people have. Therefore, you’re using opinions as evidence for your own opinion. Texas will be the guinea pig with this campus carry law if it is passed. Seeing that Texas is a very conservative state, and a state that likes its guns, I wouldn’t be surprised that this editorial and others like it will be overlooked. While the author does a very good job at providing his claim and evidence to back it up, there aren’t any substantial facts that will catch the readers’ eyes. Both sides have decent arguments on why this bill should or shouldn’t be passed. As a college student, I know that campus is an environment filled with stress. Although I can handle stress well, I can’t say the same for my peers. With that being said, if campus carry is passed, I will definitely be on high alert as I walk around campus. Having your CHL only licenses you on the handling of a firearm and not the handling of your actions under extenuating circumstances.

Today, Joe Straus spoke at the University of Texas at Austin regarding a bill that lets illegal students pay in-state tuition at state schools. Straus thinks that Texas shouldn't repeal the law that put this into effect. He spoke out saying that Texas should stay as "a place of opportunity." He defends the students that fall under this category by making the public and political eye aware that these students are trying to better themselves by getting a higher education. Straus believes that these students could be a pivotal part of our society by boosting our economy and helping pay taxes. There will be more on the interview on the Dallas Morning News on Thursday February 12, 2015. Although I can see Mr. Straus' view on this topic, I have to ask myself, "what are these students supposed to do after college?" They may have a higher education, but they still don't have their citizenship. Until they are able to obtain their U.S. citizenship, how are they going to help our economy and pay taxes if it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants? This is a topic that has ad the spotlight for some time now. I am curious as to see how this all will play out.