Party At The Moon Tower

In the course of this semester I have learned many things about the issues that Texas government is facing and will face in the future, however, the most fascinating things I learned were not about what the government will do about things but the way in which it is set up to deal with this enormous state and its enormous issues. Texas is "business friendly" and small government focused and has been since its inception but because it is not willing to move forward with the progress of the state in population or ideology it will further cripple itself, and ultimately, fail its citizens.

Texas' legislature, which is elected, works part time, specifically 140 days unless called for a special session demanded by the governor. Texas is the second largest state in both geographic size and population. In order to resolve and, at the very least represent such a vast number of people it is unfeasible that the Texas legislature is doing its job properly. While an increase in the amount of time the legislature works means an increase in pay, the potential savings results in having decision making body ready to conceptualize the best solution to the state's problems and act on them in a timely manner could very well be invaluable. 

The Texas Legislature, the law making body of nearly 27 million people, needs to be employed full time. As population increases and Texas' decisions get put off and misrepresented, the state will fail in every way a state can. The government is failing us now and this will end in catastrophe, not for those in power but for those of us here at the bottom, who did not pay enough attention to change things. VOTE,

I'm here man....

On Tuesday April 5, 2016,Hannah Newborn published a blog post to her blog Capitol Politics entitled Ending Homelessness in which she argues that the state of Texas should do more to end its homelessness problem. Newborn postulates that the burden of this issue is being to heavily burdened by private institutions and that the addition of government aid would hasten and strengthen a solution. Her argument is incredibly concrete and convincing, in my opinion nearly a perfectly constructed viewpoint.

Ms. Newborn starts her argument by detailing the ways in which homelessness not only affects those suffering under these conditions but also how it affects the reader, assuming they are a taxpayer. Placing the consequences of this problem in the life of the reader immediately strengthens her stance. She further utilizes a balance of empirical evidence and emotional appeal to provide no deniability of the affects and garner empathy for the sufferers, as well as those dealing with unseen consequences. Newborn goes on to disclose the true heroes that are remedying homelessness and, simultaneously, states that they should in no way be burdening this responsibility alone. It is subtle and powerful.

My only issue with Newborn's argument lies in its conclusion. She lists a series of rhetorical questions about the benefits that Texas government could provide if they got involved but she does not provide an answer. It would have strengthened her conviction tremendously had she made a simple affirmative statement as to what the government should do. Without this, however, her post is well founded and formulated.

You oughtta ditch the two geeks you're in the car with now and get in with us.

As requested, I will revisit the topic from my third blog posting and express my opinion as to how Texas Republicans seeking refuge from the atrocities of Trump and Cruz should be voting. My critique of Bell's argument was done prior to the Texas primary and its results. The article advised Texas Democrats and those seeking solidarity within the Party to vote for any Democratic candidate other than Senator Bernie Sanders. Bell seems to have received his desired result, Clinton and Cruz won the Texas Primary. Cruz won, but not by the margin expected by the polls, while Clinton did about as predicted, with the exception of the Travis County vote, which Sanders won handsomely.

While I agree with Bell on the topic of voting Democrat, and that voting for anyone other than the frightening front runners of the Republican party, I do think it is foolish to eliminate a possible sanctuary for those fleeing the freak show. The Republicans leaving to vote Democrat are likely left-center Republicans with conservative reservations about the idea of voting for either Clinton or Sanders. Sanders has, however, garnered much enthusiasm and support from even those demographics that other "old, white men" have not received. According to the most recent information, he is still a real contender for the candidacy.

Not only is it my opinion that Sanders is an amazing option to Republicans, I think he is the right choice for this country and its citizens, which is why he received my vote.

You gotta do what Senator John Cornyn wants to do man.

On Monday, March 21, 2016, Senator John Cornyn of Texas posted an article to CNN entitle Public Should Have Voice in Picking Next Supreme Court Justice. In the piece Cornyn clearly states his opinion as to when the next Supreme Court Justice should be chosen and that is when the next president is in office. The vacancy in the Supreme Court causes it to posses an even number of Judges, which leads to a potential inability to break tie votes in what are arguably the most important court cases in the nation. Cornyn argues that because the Senate is controlled by Republicans, who were voted to serve by the people, that the people must want his party to hold back the progress of the Obama administration. "The American people made clear that they wanted a check on the Obama administration when they put Republicans in charge of the Senate in November 2014." He postulates that representation in the Senate is the people picking the next Justice and that should not be Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas has been representing the great state since 2002, before which he was the Attorney General of Texas for one term, and an associate justice of the Texas Supreme Court. He earned his law degree at St. Mary's University School of Law. Cornyn may very well be the definition of right wing conservatism. Not surprisingly he was a strong proponent and ally to former President George W. Bush. His political positions include: Pro- Patriot Act, Iraq War, tax cuts, T.A.R.P., and NRA; Anti- abortion, same sex marriage, family leave, universal healthcare, Veterans' Education Bill 2008, and "Murderabilia". Cornyn, based on how he represents himself in the article, may also be an Originalist and Textualist in his interpretation of the Constitution. His readership should include that of CNN, his constituents, others in the law field, and the opportunity for a broader audience.

While Cornyn may be qualified to speak about the law, in my opinion, his credibility is largely in question. In 2004 during the debates surrounding the equal rights of same sex couples he's quoted as saying, "It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right... Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife." Which leaves one to wonder. This is just one of many questionable quotes and/or decisions.

Cornyn states Americans want this delayed appointment of a Justice simply by electing an oppositional party than that in the White House. In fact, the most recent data indicates this is incorrect. He further states the gravity of choosing the next Justice, claiming that "... the next Supreme Court justice could change the ideological direction of the court for a generation..." Being an adamant conservative and traditionalist this is not at all surprising. It is, however, revealing. In saying you don't want anyone else to have control, you reveal that you want said control. Also not surprising, but, in my opinion, it is frightening. Cornyn's only solid evidence on why a delay might be permissible, is that it is not the first time it has been attempted and by both parties. He uses historical dates and names to recall when these things occurred which strengthen his argument, however, that is as far as he takes them.

I disagree with Senator Cornyn on most everything, and this is no different. I think that the cases being decided by the Supreme Court are far too important to even have the potential to tie. Attempting to halt social progress and have it your way, by trying to wait it out is cowardly and foolish.

It'd be a lot cooler if you did.

On Friday February 19, 2016, The Dallas Morning News published an article entitled Chris Bell: Wake up, Texas Democrats. You're about to blow it. Bell describes an opportunity afforded to the Democratic party in Texas created by the outrageous and outspoken Republican Presidential Candidates. He states that, "so many Republicans are obviously horrified by the prospect of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz being their presidential nominee." Bell urges Texas Democrats to exploit the opportunity of fleeing Republicans by an earnest attempt to nominate any other Democrat than Senator Bernie Sanders, because "... the American people are not going to elect a Socialist president. Its as simple as that."

Chris Bell is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, a former member of the Houston City Council, and a former Houston mayoral candidate and Texas Governor nominee, losing by a small margin to Rick Perry in 2006. He is a former political journalist, who is obviously still freelancing. Bell is currently a practicing attorney dealing mainly in commercial and securities disputes. Given the title of his publication, Bell's target audiences are Texas Democrats that read the Dallas Morning News,  all Texas Democrats, a potentially much broader readership, and apparently himself.

Bell creates an emotional argument inciting Democratic responsibility through his word choice and use of anecdotes that paint the Republican party in a vibrant shade of racism and intolerance. Founding an argument on emotion and the ethical culpability for a potentially terrible future is a strong and solid basis. He attempts to discredit the Republican party's validity not only in the coming election but also in past held offices through a telling of one man's deplorable words and actions. Bell further establishes what the Republicans have been doing well for many years, not only in Texas but in general elections as a whole, all of which is utilized to shame the Democratic party and urge it to not blow it.

Despite his incredible emotional appeal, Bell's word choice and anecdotes are also, in my opinion, the weakness in his argument. He only passively urges his party to act,  saying things like "don't blow it" or "we need to be relevant again." Bell's argument could have been so much more impactful had he chosen active language such as, "We can fix this" or " we need to continue progression." People do not want a false sense of importance they want to make a real difference, and that would have been a stronger argument.

Crystal City L-I-V-I-N

On Tuesday, February 4, 2016, Katie Urbaszewski of the Austin American Statesmen published an article entitled Crystal City mayor, city manager arrested in public corruption raids. Urbaszewski
details the arrest of the entire City Hall, with the exception of one Crystal City employee. The city employees have been charged with corruption and bribery. The indictment against the accused lists ten pages, however, the story of what the bribes were used to do. Some reports state that the officials and a business man exchanged money for votes and tax cuts on land. Its also been suggested that the city council encouraged inspectors to be lenient when conducting their inspections. While Crystal City recovers from this tremendous turn over, it will be interesting to see the progress and repercussions of this monumental case.

Introduction

Alright, alright, alright!