Legalization in TX?

Recently the Obama Administration implemented a new marijuana policy. Medical marijuana users and suppliers will not be arrested as long as they conform to state laws, and new policy guidelines. I came across a post regarding the logic of legalization in Texas and it caught my eye. In the begging, the author stated “Why do we need to make it all about sick people?” When the fact is the new policy is about finding ways to help sick people manage their illness, and pain in the most effective way possible without encountering problems with the law. 

Furthermore I do agree that a very small portion of marijuana is used to manage sickness. For example the author stated it bluntly themselves “I do want to get high…What’s it to you?” The majority of the people whom are supporting the legalization of marijuana movement have the same attitude. But don’t get the impression that they all are bad people or drug dealers. In the second paragraph the author states “We need to assert our freedom to engage in an activity that harms very few people and results in needless jail time and wasted tax dollars.” The author has a valid point, but only to a certain extent. One of our founding fathers of this nation Thomas Jefferson emphasized on “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” Some “stoners” believe legalizing marijuana is one step towards there pursuit of happiness and asserting their freedom. Then the author is deliberately naïve when comparing themselves to a cancer patient struggling with chemo-induced nausea. In the last paragraph the author mentioned prohibition. It’s unfortunate that they did not elaborate on it more. Due to the fact many years ago our nation was facing the same problem. But today’s substance is more momentous than alcohol. 

Overall the author made some valid statements, and even made some irrelevant/naive statements. The author also could have gone into more detail on some certain subjects. It’s obvious that the author supports the legalization of marijuana movement.

"Bring Books Not Guns"

In the past months there has been controversy across the state of Texas whether or not a student can carry a concealed gun on campus due to the recent shooting at the University of Texas. The passage of a campus carry bill during the 2011 Texas Legislative Session would amend state law so that individuals over the age of 21 who have undergone the training, testing, and extensive background checks required to obtain a state-issued concealed handgun license would be allowed to carry concealed handguns at state colleges. I watched Senator Don Patrick address the issue, and support his argument saying it would make the classroom a lot safer. I’m in shock that he even thinks this would be a logical decision if anything I believe it would make things worse. I also strongly agree with my colleague that students should not be allowed to carry guns on school campus. It wouldn’t make me feel any safer. It would actually make me more cautious of my surroundings. I also agree that the campus police officers are well trained but it might possibly a better decision to allow professors to carry a gun on campus then students. I also agree with my colleague there should be an emergency system such as mass texting. Or even better an emergency siren alarm system that would initiate a lock down instantly securing the classroom.

Banning Pitbulls in TX

Cynthia Stevens Kent is a well known attorney who has made millions of dollars suing dog owners. Now she is calling Texas Legislators to introduce a bill in 2011 that would ban pit bulls and pit bull breed mixes. My perceptive on this is dogs don't bite because of breed or appearance; they bite out of fear that could have been the result of poor socialization, neglect, abuse, tethering or confinement or isolation. No pit bull should not be banned in Texas or any other state. It truly is not the breed at all, I own 2 pit bulls. I take them to the dog park and they love to play with other dogs and they also play good with  my little nephews and cousins and I never had a problem with anyone of them.

At the end of the day it really comes down to the owner to be responsible for their dogs. I guarantee you its people who get dogs and leave them in their yards tied up all day and they build up energy and after a while that energy turns into aggression. Some disgusting individuals use that aggression so they can fight other pit bulls or other dogs.  So if they end up passing this bill, many ask are they going to put all these animals down? If so wouldn’t that be animal cruelty. People murder other people and beings everyday around the globe , and you don’t see all them getting the death penalty, they go to jail for a long time, and some even get back out into society in a lot of cases. The problem is you got these wannabe tough guys who think they are tough that turns these dogs into monsters when they really are beautiful animals . It’s the owners fault. 

RE: “Who’s paying for the $25 billion”?

My fellow colleague Rick Trevino wrote an interesting blog “Who’s paying for the $25 billion”? This blog refers to the $25 billion dollar budget gap crisis the state of Texas is facing. If I’m not mistaken, didn't the Wall Street Journal report that only reason why Texas managed to balance its budget last time is because the state legislature pressured Perry to accept funds from the federal stimulus, despite the fact that Perry was and continues to be a vocal opponent of it?

Then again, it should be no wonder that Texas has budget troubles considering the fact that Perry (according to the Associated Press) spent nearly $600K over the past couple of years to rent a luxurious home at the taxpayers' expense while the official governor's mansion was being repaired following a fire. On regards to the repairs of the governor’s mansion I agree with Rick Trevino that they could have got lower bids. He could have went into more detail on the issue and perhaps provided a link to his source. But Overall I agree with Rick Trevino, it is unfortunate that cutting the top of this list is budget cuts on education. He is absolutely right that there are many other places where they can cut from to make up from this gap.

An Intense Face Off

This 2010 election for State house of representatives is an intense race between Patrick Rose and Jason Isaac. Both candidates have publically attacked each other’s moral character, track record and political ideology.  This is a particularly intense midterm year where the majority of Texans, and Americans for that matter, are searching for answers and demanding action from government officials.  The economy and taxes are at the top of every voters mind, and therefore every candidate’s platform.

Rose, a four term representative and former San Marcos lawyer, has flooded the local airwaves with the perceived plans Jason Isaac’s intentions to raise state sales tax.  In this already tough recession based economy, this would mean Texans would pay the highest sales tax in the nation, up to 14.5%.  Furthermore, Rose accuses Isaac of pandering to “special interest groups” and such municipalities as the PEC that he deems does not have the best interest of the average tax paying citizen at hand.

Isaac has struck back with such clever quips as “Everyone had been Rosed,” denoting that Rose wants to tax the elderly, and that his history is taxing and spending.  He wants to paint Rose as the modern day Obama liberal, responsible for out of control spending and broken big government. Isaac’s strategy would be to increases sales taxes for state, while completely eliminating property taxes for his district. Isaac states Rose has “failing grades” among the very organizations that endorse him.  Rose counters that the very statement “been rosed”came from a man named John Sharp, who was allegedly trying to “steal water” from Caldwell county.   While Isaac now aligns himself with this man, Rose claims to have prevented he and his colleagues from stealing millions of public dollars.

The debate ends by Isaac stating “A vote for me is experience, a different philosophy, a smaller government and to cut taxes. Rose ends it by “A vote for Isaac is Austin bi-partisanship style.  As young, but experienced congressmen, Rose wants to stand on a platform of collaborate policy making and proven results.  Isaac is tapping into the strong GOP roots of central Texas and widespread discontent with the current state of power in government.  

Controversy on Education

Controversy swirled across the state of  Texas and the nation on President Obama’s speech to students. The president highly encouraged students to take responsibility for not only their education but for their future too. Many republican conservatives say that the president was overstepping boundaries, and it was an act to boost his political agenda. Especially Governor Rick Perry "I think it's disturbing when you get this message, that you will have your kids, in a forum where the president of the United States is, obviously he's got a message there," Perry said Thursday in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press. "Nobody seems to know what he's going to be talking about ... why didn't he spend more time talking to the local districts, superintendents?" It amazes the author and me that some people are so arrogant and naïve. I understand that everyone has their own opinion when it comes to politics, and not everyone may like our president but they should set that aside their differences and understand it’s for the better of our children’s future.  The author of this article strongly emphasizes that in fact is he didn’t mention anything related to politics. Some of the speech even consisted of his own personal education experiences. There were even some parents that kept their children home the day of the speech.  Thankfully Governor Rick Perry did not agree with that. The author’s intentions on the audience are to inform us that we should set aside their differences and focus on the purpose of this speech which is for students to excel in their education and obtain a success.

Taxpayers cost

 Governor Rick Perry is once again in the hot seat. This time, it’s for what many consider reckless spending of taxpayer money.  According to the Associated Press, the cost of his recent 12 day trip to Asia was well over $129,000. Controversy surrounding this issue even made its way to the Texas Supreme court.  Lawyers from the state have fought vigorously to keep the details of this trip secret. The biggest tax payer expense for the security officers was air fare amounting to $34,399, hotel bills totaled $20,222, their base pay total was $24,222 and overtime totaled $22,769.  I believe they want to keep the details on the trip such as where they stayed secret because they all probably stayed at 5-star luxurious hotels and most defiantly took top flight private jets.  It’s ego stroking at the hands of hard-working taxpayers.  In a sense, Governor Rick Perry is a hypocrite, especially as an advocate for “smaller government.”  Politicians of his pedigree seem to value and showcase power by showing off how many people are needed to protect them.  There’s really no need for such a vast security entourage overseas, when no one overseas really knows who the governor of Texas is.  We taxpayers, as citizens of the State of Texas, should know where our hard-earned tax dollars are allocated and the justification behind why. It’s shocking how this occurred with the state being in a middle of a budget crisis. Governor Rick Perry stated that his trip led to greater exposure for Texas business opportunities in Asia. With no substantial business case our plans proposed, we shall see the outcome over time.  I strongly believe this could have saved some public employees from being laid off or went to or went to a better cause.