Guns on Campus

Guns are a hot ticket item for anyone in America. Either for or against guns, the people of the United States have some strong opinions on the matter. Some people think that every citizen should be packing at least a handgun while others would want to do away with guns all together. But some people think that students should carry guns... Don't misinterpret me, I think guns are awesome, I've shot my fair share of boar in the Texas hill country, I'm applying for a CHL soon, but guns should not be on campus. Period. There is a reason for university police. The argument that a student will stop a rampage on campus is absurd. No one in a college setting is trained to diffuse a dangerous situation in the way that an officer of the law would. One bullet flies from the attacker and twenty kids start blasting off rounds: now who is the main killer? Which are murderers and which are defenders? The situation will only end poorly with more guns involved. In addition, there was recently a gun situation that was diffused by a student with no weapons at Seattle University. So guns are not necessary for extreme situations. There is a time for a place for everything and that place is usually college, but not when the thing is a gun in a young man or woman's hand. If you want to stop violence look to mental health issues and socio-economic disenfranchisement, not more violence.

                In his post on the blog “Big Jolly Politics,” Ronald Kimmons calls out the left for their support of homosexual marriage while condemning polygamy as being hypocritical. He argues against Princeton professor Stephen Macedo who made the case against polygamy but for homosexual marriage. Kimmons argues that the rise of legal homosexual marriage will bring a plight on the country, and that the same problems would arise should polygamy be legalized. He goes on to say that the same argument that the left uses for gay marriage could be extended to polygamy and the left is hypocritical to not apply the same rational for both.

                I wholeheartedly disagree with Kimmons. His argument is comparing apples to oranges and saying anyone who thinks that both are not apples is wrong. The existence of marriage as a government certificate is not the same as a religious based union. Benefits from marriage exist in tax benefits and visitation rights in hospitals to name a few. The fact that two people want to unionize their relationship to gain benefits from long term cooperation is not the same as a social structure outlined by reinforcement of historical values.

Kimmons is also under the impression that because men are attracted to more than one person, then that means that they naturally will desire to be in a polygamous relationship which echoes a gay person to desire someone of the same sex. The two are completely separate logical steps. Finally, the fact that legalizing gay marriage will somehow harm children is completely unfounded in any research from a credible source. Kimmons should understand the toxicity of bigotry. History is moving forward.

The Utter Hypocrisy of Leftist Opposition to Plural Marriage July 24,2015 Ronald Kimmons Big Jolly Politics

Republican's Effect on Texas

In his article, “Republican leadership is responsible formany improvements in Texas,” Daniel Hung of the University of Texas argues that Republicans have left the state better than when they took power. He brings up several main points first of which is that the economic boom in Texas is not only the abundance of resources such as oil, but due to careful planning by the government to incentivizing industry in Texas. In addition, he states that Texas has massive job growth and has proven time and time again that it is on the fast track to being the most economically successful state. However, the author fails to mention that through this economic growth, Texas continues to sit at the bottom of the list for income inequality. Being ranked 43rdin income inequality provides evidence that perhaps the economic boom Texas is experiencing does not affect all Texans, but may leave some out in the rain. He mentions as a quick addendum that there are a few problems left to fix, however, does not feel that these are important enough to warrant a discussion as to whether these policies should factor into the “prosperity” of the state. There are a plethora of social failures that come as a direct effect of republican economic policies that the party fails to fix through legislature. While I agree with the author that the economy in Texas is bright, there is an ugly side of the party that is moving backwards in social policy.

“Republican leadership is responsible for many improvements in Texas” Daily Texan. Daniel Hung, 2015.

An interesting article from the Texas Tribune appeared today about the gap between the two parties in Texas. A study conducted by a Rice political scientist shows the divide clearly. What the scientist, Mark Jones, found was that there is no middle ground or crossing of parties at all. The most conservative democrat and the most liberal republican are vastly separated ideologically. This trend not only exists in the U.S. house for Texas representatives, but in the Texas Senate and the Texas House as well. There are no democrats more conservative than the most liberal republican, and vice versa. The author of the article, Ross Ramsey, blames district line drawing; redistricting to keep party’s power in specific districts only furthers the issue of more extreme positions for both parties. What the article fails to provide is an opinion for what the growing divide will mean for Texas. That opinion is up to the reader; so read the article and decide for yourself if this gap is a problem for our state.

Analysis: The Center Did Not Hold, Texas Tribune, Ross Ramsey