In his Blog Stage Seven, Dillon makes a very compelling argument for why we should have armed guards within schools. I agree with Dillon in-part. His argument can be summarized into three different arguments. The first is an argument that safety is proportional to the number of guns in an area. The second argument is the natural deterrence that comes with armed citizens. The last argument is an appeal to an authority. Then he offers his specified solution to the problem. Overall it is a good structure. We can now look at the actual content looking at each separate argument. 

            First, he argues that safety is proportional to the guns in the area. He says, “you don’t see bad guys going into a place with armed citizens…NRA conventions or the like.” This is a very good argument. It goes hand-in-hand with the second argument of deterrence. The more guns that there are the less reasonable it is for a shooter to come in. This takes into account the perspective of the shooter. The shooter, although deranged, is still a reasonable person when it comes to accomplishing their goal. If a shooter’s goal is attention or a high mass of casualties, the shooter would likely go to another place to accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, we have recently seen these shooters attack churches as well. That being said, if a school is a place that have as many guns as an NRA convention, then the deranged shooter may likely go somewhere else for their goal. Therefore, his argument is a good one, but the issue is: would a shooter find another means to their end? Perhaps at churches, conferences, or the like where there are less guns. One critique that I may have is that although this solution does take into account the perspective of the shooters goal, it doesn’t really stop a shooter from taking an alternative route than a school. We have to ask ourselves if we need better mental health evaluations to actually address the reason for the shooter’s goals rather than the goals themselves.

            Secondly, is the deterrence issue, there is not much dispute there. As stated here this takes into account the perspective of the shooter. The shooter may be scared away from the guns of the armed guards. It’s a great argument, but I would like for him to expand or hear his opinion on those who may not have feared because they have decided on a suicide mission. Perhaps they may still come into the school and kill what they can, maybe just one person and then themselves. A counterargument to that is that if we look at this in a utilitarian view, losing one person is a win.

            Third is the issue of appeal to an authority. It seems like a safe authority to lean on. A high ranked officer in the military will probably understand proper safety measures. It is true that there is a problem with not having a proper safety measure for something that is likely is unreasonable. However, I would argue if implemented, this shouldn’t be a permanent solution. Making armed guard synonymous with fire extinguishers doesn’t seem to be correct. Fires will always be a problem (unless we live in the world of Fahrenheit 451), but school shooters don’t have to be a permanent problem. There was a time before Columbine where this wasn’t a national crisis. There seems to be a bigger issue, perhaps within the home or a lack of mental health issue solutions. Arming guards is a prevention, not a solution, they may just move to churches. We have to look deeper than just armed guards to solve this permanently. 

            Dillon does end with his solution to the armed guard which makes sense. You have to have the best trained and with the best records in the profession. There is no dispute there.   

Something that has always interested me is Texas’ reluctance when it comes to the accessibility of alcoholic beverages. When you visit other states, you will not find gas station or large retailers such as Walmart that don’t have some sort of hard liquors (spirits) in their stores. To me, it seems that the only state that does not have them in gas stations or in Walmart is Texas. Texas prides itself in being largely republican meaning small government to put it simply. But for someone that touts small government it seems odd that there is not much choice when it comes to the type of beverages you drink. A recent bill was just passed in the house that would allow for people to take a six pack home after a visit at a brewery. 

Rep. Eddie Rodriguez introduced a bill that would allow for consumers to purchase beers from a brewery after a visit and take a six pack home. Surprisingly, this was not allowed before this bill. It still has yet to pass the senate but I believe Texas should pass the bill. This comes down to the freedom of choice. It makes sense that Texas wants to look after the safety, welfare and health by not allowing whiskey in its gas station, although I don’t agree I can see a valid argument there. 

However, it doesn’t make sense that you can’t buy a six pack at a brewery, a place that literally makes beer. It may be going a step too far in the limitations of choice. Texas should vote Yes to Rodriguez’s bill. The sad fact is that the bill was only passed through the house on a technicality yet it is so helpful to our economy. According to Rodriguez, breweries generate over 4.5 billion to Texas’ economy per year. If an individual can go to an heb to get a 24 pack, why can’t people go to a brewery to get a six pack. Texas should pass this bill 

In response to Micah Eaglin’s April 5th Blog on Scooters, I wholeheartedly agree. It is an issue that is so apparent to those of us who work and live in Austin, yet a few may put any thought into how those scooters work. There are two main issues that Mr. Eaglin brings up. The first is the regulation on the scooters misplacement. The second is the regulation having to do with the speed limits and the age requirements. 

These scooters really did pop up out of nowhere starting last year so it makes sense that there must be some sort of regulation for them. I agree that it seems as though there are no regulations or rules to how these are placed. They are abundant in certain areas and sparse in others. Having specific areas where scooters can be parked would be a get rid of their nuisance of being piled up on sidewalks. Additionally it would make it easier for those who charge them to find them instead of stopping on random streets in the middle of traffic to pick them up.

Whether or not there should be age requirements and speed limit requirements is up to the legislature and perhaps needs to be studied in whether it actually makes sidewalks and streets safe. Regardless, I do agree Mr. Eaglin, it would make sense that Scooters and bikes would be regulated similarly. Unless the two have demonstrated significantly different safety statistics, they should either both be regulated or not regulated. 

Austin should re-institute its ban on the providing and selling of plastic shopping bags in order to reduce waste and ensure a healthier environment. Austin’s city ordinance essentially banned plastic bags in the city in order to strengthen beautification efforts and to protect the environment until it was struck down by the Texas Supreme Court.1 There are several issues that the reinstatement of the ban would have to face, the obvious is that of the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court. The second is the opposition to the bill, namely AG Ken Paxton and other anti-environmental groups who may just oppose it due to the opposition’s support of it. Concerning the second issue, it is difficult to find a reason that the right opposes the ban of the plastic bags in several articles. Perhaps the right may argue that “the left is violating your free will and right to choose for yourself whether or not to buy plastic bags.” However, this argument can be made on the other side. The plastic bag ban is a municipal ordinance, meaning it is a choice made by Austinites for the city of Austin. The state of Texas is the “Big Brother” here that is restricting the choice of municipalities. The right loves small government, but it can’t get any smaller than cities deciding how to govern for themselves. The city is as close to will of the people as it can get. The biggest issue comes from the ruling of the court that such a law is unconstitutional. However, not trying to speak in the first person, but I did do my own research as to why it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because there is a state law that already regulates the issue and cities can’t pass laws where the state has “preempted” the issue, rather where the state is already governing. 2 This means that plastic bag bans themselves are not unconstitutional, it is because there is a Texas law already regulating it. Therefore, the question is not whether we should reinstate the bag ban by itself, rather, whether we should do that and also whether the legislature should invalidate the provision of the state law that preempts the city from doing so. Both of the answers should be yes. The fact of the matter is that plastic takes a long time to decompose therefore filling landfills, an eyesore therefore disrupting the beauty of Texas, and can harm wildlife. There really comes so many long term benefits that outweigh small inconvenience of relying on the consumer to remember to bring their reusable bag. Additionally, the duty of the consumer to bring their reusable bag then in turn allows a business to save their costs by not having to buy plastic bags for consumers to use. It is really hard to find a con, the simple matter is that if you don’t like a city’s ordinance, then the solution is the political check often referred to as voting, but for the state of Texas to take an Austinite’s choice is, as our President would say, “SAD"

1 https://www.texastribune.org/2018/07/03/report-austn-end-its-bag-ban-ater-texas-supreme-court-ruling/
2 https://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=d2d63c75-135a-48f0-97ad-a39aeeef9594&coa=cossup&DT=OPINION&MediaID=0119eb7a-20aa-4e8b-908a-88915b417b76

In his blog titled, The Electoral College is in Jeopardy on Texas Scorecard, conservative blogger Matt Stringer argues that the Electoral College is being attacked but should be protected. His audience is fairly clear since it is a conservative blog source. However what makes it clearer is the inflammatory and unnecessary language to prove his point. He calls attacks against the Electoral College as a devious plot and that the framers would agree. To the first point, it is pretty obvious that opinions on other solutions aren’t ‘devious plots,’ rather they are criticisms. It isn’t a bad thing to step back and ask if what we’re doing is working. 

Secondly, the question shouldn’t be whether they would agree or not. The question should be are they wrong or right. The fact of the matter is that the framers got some things absolutely wrong. We saw that when Jefferson and Adams ran against each other a second time, they had to immediately fix the ballot system using the 12^thamendment. We had to fix the entire way we look at a class of people with the 14^th  and 15^thamendments to allow them to be a part of the political process. Then the 17^thamendments also restated the fact that we need to look hard at how we elect certain individuals, specifically the direct election of senators. To say that reevaluating our system of government is un-American is completely false. What makes America great is that we have systems that allow for change and can admit when we did wrong. 

The substance of course is not important here, he makes the argument that the Electoral College is a check on federal power and protects large rural areas like a lot of Texas, which makes sense. However, should the small rural areas really have more political power if more people are living in large cities? Should it be minority rule, a president who lost the popular vote wins? 

In the article, titled, The Crisis at the Border, Congressman Roger Williams of the 25thDistrict of Texas argues that there is a crisis at the border and that the US Congress has failed to respond to the crisis, specifically blaming Democrats. It is fairly clear that his audience is his own party. He already starts the assumption that the border issue is a crisis. When it comes to credibility, it isn’t really an issue of whether he is credible or not. He is a politician, so he will simply say what his constituents want of him. Whether it is right or not, that’s a question of content. It is hard to place credibility on ideology, that’s simply his belief, if we knew where he got his facts, maybe we could look at his credibility. I would be inclined to disagree with him, however he provides very little logic or facts and simply blames democrats with no basis. Furthermore, it doesn’t sound like logic is involved at all. He even makes the statement that he is willing to support, ANY proposal Trump would bring. That’s a very broad invitation, you have to wonder if he has any kind of opinion of his own. Even the most damning number he provides works to his disadvantage. He says over 300,000 people were detained at ports of entry. If the border patrol is detaining people at the border that sounds like they’re doing their job and no other proposals are necessary based on his argument. It is clear he is making statements just to play on emotions. To say that “democrats hate the president more than they love their country has so many flaws with it.” It is a one liner that perhaps a young conservative would cling to and think is brilliant, but in reality, it is completely absurd to generalize an entire ideology that has an extensive spectrum within itself. There are numerous flaws but it is perhaps better to summarize it by saying that it is very opinion based.

            As the United States Government has now approved funding for the border wall, it is time for us to assess what such a wall will bring. What was formerly consider what was a formerly campaign a campaign rally outcry of, “build the wall,” is now a reality. This issue is inescapable to Texans since we make up more of the border with Mexico than any other state. 

            The article in the Austin American Statesman entitled, “Bracing Wall in South Texas,” gives us an in-depth look at the impact of the wall on normal Texans living on the Southern Border. The article gives stories of the fear of real Texans who will mostly lose their land through eminent domain (federal government seizure). Some might say that it is a necessary trade-off for national security. That might be the case, but to ignore the property rights and sentimental attachment of landowners in the process is something that the federal government must wrestle with. After reading this article one has to ask if it is worth it to allow a judge who knows little about the value to the owner decide if they have a right to possess it over the words, “build the wall”.

Hello!