Religion in the House?

I have mixed feelings about the legalization of marijuana. I too saw this article when it came out and when he stated that he believes God blah blah blah... Not to include my religious beliefs or anything, but this argument could be used in almost every case, for example abortions. It's always a toss up in the house between state and religion. What will happen in the long run?

This was my reply to Adrian Munoz

Banning Insurers From Covering Abortion?

On Tuesday, the senate passed a bill that would stir up many arguments. The senate passed a bill that would ban insurers from covering abortion. Apparently, now “under SB 575, private health insurance plans and those offered through the federal Affordable Care Act’s marketplace could only provide coverage for abortions in cases of medical emergencies”. Abortion rights has always had a conflict with religion, naturally. However, church and state should remain separate, and I feel as if this bill has a religious motive. I mean, why else would one create a bill that would furthermore cripple an individual’s right to have an abortion.

After Republican state Senator Larry Taylor had passed this bill, he was questioned as to “not knowing how much supplemental insurance for abortion coverage would cost and questioned why the bill did not include an exception for abortions in cases of rape or incest”. I mean…was there any thought being put into this? These are simple questions we would all like to know the answers to.

While this bill doesn't come out and state its religious motives, in my eyes, they are quite evident. Let me explain. An abortion is a perfectly legal medical procedure if I am not mistaken. Not only are there medical reasons ones might have to partake in an abortion, but financial as well. So what possible logical reasoning could there be on this bill, for anyone in their right mind to pass it or even support it. Come on now people. 

Hooray For Little Texans!

I commented on my fellow classmate's blog post K-12 reform starts from the bottom up regarding money being put toward a program that is going to help benefit pre-k and up. Glad to hear that we will be putting our money toward something that will only benefit our future. The next generation can either make or break us considering the fact that they will be preceding us. I'm sure we all hope that every child takes advantage of this.

Do Private Businesses Have a Say?

With the whole talk going on in Texas about open carry gun rights, it’s starting to bring up the question if private owned businesses can restrict the public to bring a gun into their building. On the Texas Department of Public Safety website, you can find a pictogram that shows, on a white background, a handgun drawn in black ink within a red circle and diagonal red line across the handgun that private businesses can print out and hang it on their front door. These printable signs are required to be no bigger than the size of 8.5 by 11 inches and include text from that provision in English and Spanish, with block letters at least one inch in height.

Some incidents that have occurred involved a business having a sign up showing a red circle and diagonal red line across a picture of a handgun that was clearly restricting no guns allowed. But the sign did not meet state requirements. Gun owners are trying to expose businesses like this and trying to bloat about how they have the right to still bring their concealed handgun into the building because the sign again, didn't meet state requirements.

The debate over “no guns” signs revolves around competing Second Amendment and private property rights. I believe that a private business should be able to freely hang their “No Guns” sign on the entrance of the building. Gun owners have the right to carry their concealed hand guns out in public, but if anything if they see the sign hanging as they are pulling in into the parking lot, they can just easily leave their gun in the car and lock it. Once they exit the building they can carry on with their day.

Barack Jobs or Steve Jobs?

In Katie Kieffer’s blog “The President: I'll take the Credit...and Charge You $100 Million”, she explains how new jobs are being created thanks to Barack Obama along with numerous sarcastic remarks. She is bashing Obama supporters while informing those who are not aware of TechHire, Obama’s new plan to create 500,000 new job openings. She begins with informing us that “Last week, Obama announced, TechHire, a plan that takes $100 million from the H-1B visa program and gives it to select universities, community colleges and corporations in the form of grants to train and hire American tech workers”. Kieffer explains how these “new jobs” that he will be creating are already indeed created but as you guessed it in her title…the $100 million will be coming from us. She sarcastically compares Obama to Steve Jobs to exaggerate how different they are job making wise, claiming that Steve Jobs creates NEW jobs, while Obama simply takes credit for ones that already exist. She then brings up the fact that “Obama has spent [our] money at a faster pace than any prior president” implying that spending other people’s money would get you sent to jail. I can understand how wrong it may seem to be taking our money out to provide something that’s already there. So in this case, I can agree with the author. Throughout her blog, Kieffer backs up her statements with facts from other articles/blogs. She provides related information to show that she is knowledgeable about the subject and keeps up with current events. 

There has to be another way...

In Ben Sherman’s article “Campus Carry Would Literally Take Money from Students And…”, he briefly discusses the possibility of students being allowed to carry handguns on campus. Sherman mainly focuses his article on the fact that funding for this would be costing “state colleges millions in preparation and gun safes”. Points can be made on either side and everyone is set on their own opinions and won’t budge. But is the public aware of where most of the funds will be coming from? Those funds will be coming directly from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center’s University Police Department. “Associate director for external communications at Julie Penne said the “costs would be covered out of proceeds from patient revenue, which would normally go toward cancer research, education and prevention efforts”. Sherman stays true to his argument in his belief that we are in the wrong of ever even thinking about using funds from ACCAPD for “something that will leave students dead”. He is aware that some of the public will disagree with him and are willing to take money from whoever to get this whole thing on a roll. He hopes that with digging deeper, rather than just looking at the big picture of allowing students to carry handguns, the public will be aware of what it’s not only costing us out of our pocket’s, but who else it would be affecting…hospital patients in hope of treatment. Besides that fact, he points out that if this were to happen, it would put “student(s) and staff lives at risk by creating a chaotic equity of targets in a highly emotional environment, and it robs students and patients of funds to which they are due”. Sherman presents all of his evidence without necessary targeting anyone as a bad guy, but gets his point across to those opposed to his view.

Fund Our Teachers!

I'm sure we all have that one favorite teacher who we may have friended on Facebook to keep in touch with. One of the few last things we would want to hear is that our state is running out of money to fund that teacher’s health care insurance, not only for them but for their loved ones. As I sit here after reading Jim Malewitz's article, Health Insurance Fund for Retired Teachers Drying Up, I begin to wonder how we ran out of money so fast. After all the years they spent contributing to our communities and making an impact on students' lives, lawmakers have yet to come up with a plan to prevent this situation from happening. When this program was first created, it was supposed to be expanded upon to maintain a sustainable program. Now, here we are 29 years later with the same, not expanded upon program, trying to figure out how we’re going to fix this. Apparently “the retirement system has just two main tools to keep the fund solvent: hiking premiums for the fund’s more than 233,000 retirees and their dependents, or cutting their benefits”. Why didn’t we take any action sooner?