Now a’days, everyone is concerned with unemployment levels, and it is as if one cannot turn on the television without hearing the unemployment percentage being thrown around on the news, but after reading Melanie’s Blog Shake Up the System on minimum wage, I have to agree with her that it is a real issue. People don’t normally consider this an issue, because these days if you have a job, you are considered to be ahead of the game. The way she breaks down the numbers of the average income of a family dancing around the minimum wage mark, inspired an empathy that I don’t share too often.

I believe that Melanie’s audience consisted of those in their 20’s who make minimum wage and have become accustomed to the amount of money they bring home each week. It is when people get comfortable that advancements in situations begin to deteriorate. Look at the way roads were invented. People were tired of walking all over the place and couldn’t stand it anymore, thus through their uncomforts, humans have created endless networks and solutions to transportation problems. She couldn’t be more correct when she says, “We have to get out of hum-drum lives”. Repeat with me everybody, “COMFORT KILLS CHANGE”
The only thing that I might argue with in this article, was that the financial breakdown was for a family with a daughter and both parents on minimum wage. Personally, and I know it happens, but if a man and woman are married and thinking of having children, they should take their financial status into consideration. I’ve been in a relationship for 4 years, but I won’t be having any children until I’m off minimum wage.
All in all it is a well written article, expressing a concern that we don’t normally hear about. What particularly earned Ms. Melanie points with me is that she pointed out solutions in her argument. I am so sick of hearing people complain without doing anything about it.

With another college campus shooting happening within the last month, the debate on whether or not students and faculty with concealed weapon permits should be allowed to carry on campus is being sparked yet again. Ironically, according to Star Telegram, the shooting occurred the same week that Students for Concealed Carry were protesting with empty holsters to symbolize how defenseless they are. Is it a good idea for Texas' legislatures to pass a bill allowing students and professors to carry concealed handguns on college campuses?

First off, lets take a look at the facts. In the past 12 years there have been 27 shootings on college campuses across the nation. That's a little less than 2 a year. No one knows exactly what to attribute the rise in school shootings to, yet the most popular things to blame are video games and poor parenting. The solution is just as obscure as the problem itself. Many anti-gun advocates like to go after the second amendment, claiming that without gun's there would be no shootings. Unfortunately, this assessment of the issue at hand is flawed. There are simply too many guns in this country to just start taking them away from people, and I can assure you that with as many gun "lovers" there are, that wouldn't turn out good for anybody. So if we can't take them away, are Texas' legislatures doing the right thing by allowing them on campuses?

Well, it depends on how you look at it. For those worried that everyone around them in the classroom would have a gun, this couldn't be farther from the truth. Getting a concealed carry permit is not easy, trust me, and putting your name on a state list of concealed carry holders usually wards away the ill willed. Most criminals that have concealed weapons don't get permits, because, well.... they are criminals. Also, knowing that campuses are no longer gun free zones may deter murderers from even pulling the gun in the first place. This opinion can be seen from statistics from Just Facts.


Since 1995, when the Texas right to carry law came into effect, homicides declined by 30%. Could this have the same effect on campus shootings? The main problem is that, because campuses are gun free zones, armed gunmen are met with no resistance when they decide to do their massacre. Campus police SOP for dealing with an armed individual on school grounds is to 1. Fall back, 2. Establish a perimeter, and 3. Wait for backup. This leaves the gunman with opportunity to lay waste to the hundreds of unarmed students at his leisure.

The argument that the whole school would turn into a shootout has many holes. The first thing a CHL holder understands is that one is to not respond with force unless they feel that their life is directly in danger. This means that a CHL holder has been instructed that if he hears gunshots on the other side of the campus, he is to get as far away from the situation as possible, not charge in with guns blazing.

On the other side, I know that firing a gun in a life and death situation is far from shooting at targets in a controlled environment, and the concealed carry holder may be a threat to more than just the gunman while responding to the threat. One thing that I feel video games have done, is misconstrue what being in a firefight is really like. People that think they would "pwn" like they do in "Call of Duty" are in for a real surprise. Only after the adrenaline dump and wetting themselves will they realize this and they may place shots that harm others rather than hitting the intended target.

The issue is not a black and white one, and the Legislature will have their hands full figuring out this one. No matter what they decide, just remember not to live in fear.

If we do that, the bad guys win.

Transportation is something that Texas has fallen behind on. With Texas being a now more urbanized area than rural, and housing the countries third largest city in the world, it's a wonder as to why public transportation has not been a bigger issue through out the years. A good friend I have made this semester named Keturah posted in her blog some of these same questions.

Coming from New York, New York, one can assume that her credibility on the topic is stronger than most in Texas. I honestly can't remember the last time I took a bus simply because I have a car, and the convenience out weighs that of public transportation, but that is simply because our public transportation system "is" in fact a train wreck. Keturah supports her argument by stating that the four most beneficial things that would result from improved public transportation, are the decrease in traffic congestion, accidents, jobs, and the economical advantages to those who participate in public transportation. Each one of her arguments appeals to logos, as one can see that these would indeed be the side effects of improved public transportation, that is, unless we hire really bad bus drivers who have accidents all the time.

I believe her intended audience is those in a position to do something about the issues at hand. Here in Austin, I must say that Public Transportation is better than I've seen anywhere else in Texas, but if you know anything about the new rail system we have here, then you know how easy bad accounting can step in and destroy a good idea.

With the Obama administration shutting down the Republican-supported law requiring voters to show a state ID when placing their vote, Gov. Rick Perry is accusing the President of continuing his "pervasive federal overreach." Obama claims that the Texas Voter ID Law would potentially harm turnout for Hispanic voters, but how is presenting ID to vote any more difficult than presenting ID to register to vote? 


In order to register to vote in Texas for the first time, you need an ID. And if you don't have an ID at the time of registration, the letters "ID" are put on the top of your voter's registration card so when you do go to vote a poll worker knows to confirm that you are who you say you are.     


Most people today have photo IDs; anyone with a bank account, moving vehicle, or even a library card (at least in my case) has a state issued piece of plastic with a name and a picture. In today's world, I can guarantee you that there are more people with state issued ID cards than there are voter registration cards.

One might ask: "What is he getting at?" All of us know someone at one time or another that felt passionately about the decisions being made at the polls and yet were unable to vote due to the fact that they hadn't registered, or had missed the deadline. I can think of three, and yes... my name made my own list.


In fact, I would find it less detrimental to voter turnout if they demanded state issued IDs at the polls and did away with voter registration all together. Call me a "radical" if you will, but I don't think it is a far fetched idea that voter registration is keeping voters from voting.

My stance on this issue is multi-pronged. With the things that most of us put up with in our lives, remembering to register to vote is not always at the top of the list. Therefore we may see a larger flow of voters if registration is either able to be done the day of voting at the the ballot box or done away with all together. In either case an ID or "proof of citizenship" is necessary to vote.

Living in Texas, most of us don't have an issue with our neighbor to the south. I feel that most have just accepted the way cultures spread through geographic locations and have decided to put our focus elsewhere rather than get pulled into another Border Security debate, but it seems that the rules change when violence becomes an issue. As you may know, we here in texas (especially in border towns) have seen an increase in violence tied to drug cartels. According to Off the Kuff, outsourcing border security to the private sector may not be the best choice.

With millions of Federal dollars pouring into border states to promote "border security" after 9/11, I can see the concern author Charles Kuffner presents. He brings up in his blog that so much money coming to the state of Texas should be allocated by the state of Texas and not outsourced to a private organization regarding security. The company that the money went to was ALIS which was founded by Gen. John Abrams, who was a Military Analyst in 2002 during the invasion of Iraq. The money went to the organization to develop a "public and media outreach campaign" (Kuffner)  to raise border awareness. Kuffner presents the idea that if selling the war is this Generals game, and he does it well, he will undoubtedly be able to score more contracts with the success of his campaign.

(Gen. John Abrams)

The author has been writing for years and clearly has an internet following. The intended audience for the majority of his blogs are definitely Democrats, yet in his article, other than contextually categorizing Gen. Abrams as a war monger, the article is written quite fairly, and he does point out good points. It's nothing but logical to assume that a private security contractor is going to aim to score more contracts while on the job, but if it has to be done through "misinformation" through a wide spread public and media campaign then maybe they aren't the best boys for the job. Just remember that there are some things that the private sector handles better than government.

The locks on my doors are made by Brink, not the Federal Government, but then again my locks don't lie to stay on my door...

If one has followed the news in the past 12 months, I'm sure they have heard about fracking. If you have not, visit my link here, but if you have, you may like to hear that it has been considered to have "minimal impact on ground water" according to tests done by University of Texas Energy Institute. At least, that's what the Houston Chronicle would like us to think. According to their editorial here, it has been deemed safe, and  will "be a cornerstone for the state's economy for decades to come." This piece is clearly written to be on the defense against scrutiny from the "highly urbanized Northeast" who are claiming that studies taken from the same UT tests bear a different conclusion. 
This editorial is clearly written with the intent to reinforce the idea of an economic boom from the shale fracturing industry. His target audience is most likely those who are living in the Houston area working in an industry with some type of tie to the natural gas industry. The editorial goes as far at times to appeal to ethos in it's accusation of other media sources of giving the shale fracturing a horrible name. Houston is one of the largest in the country, and with a lot of the economy riding on oil and gas, the chronicle's stance on the topic is far from surprising. Who can blame them?

The truth of the matter is that one cannot just say Shale Fracturing is safe because one found the words "minimal impact on ground water" in a 78 page report. It seems that at this point UT has made efficient steps to break the mystery behind "fracking," but it is still a sensitive issue and should not be taken lightly for ecological reasons.

Thank the deity of your choice for the rain, because the truth is we needed it. With the state of Texas in what some are calling a 100 year drought, last weekend brought the rain so many so desperately needed. In San Marcos, the city decided to lift Stage 1 water restrictions which had been in effect since the early summer. With noticeable changes in the water pumps after the restrictions had gone into effect, it is simple enough to say that they were a huge success. But, a little rain never hurts either. The Edwards Aquifer Authority set the restrictions into effect after certain pump stations read well bellow 660 feet above sea level for longer than 10 days. With these drought quenching storms comes the ability for individuals to now water their lawns in the 10pm to 8am time range. It's as if they want to use it as fast as they can before it's gone again.

KXAN