The Debate With Electronic Cigarettes

I agree with S. Singh's article, but only to some extent. Smoking has always been a big health issue in our recent history, causing companies to stop sponsoring cigarettes' companies and causing the government to publicly discourage the public to consume such products because of their negative impacts on health. There's many proven cases of cancers and diseases caused by the sole reason of smoking, but I will not go into details because Singh's article is about e-cigs and their impacts.

Although I agree with the main point of promoting electronic cigarettes in states and allowing Texas to fully benefit from e-cigs, Singh argues that e-cigs should not be banned in bars which I don't agree with. Although e-cigs aren't dangerous to the health and don't produce the smoke and smell that comes with regular cigarettes, it's still an action; the action of smoking. Smoking in public institutions has been ruled against, and that's how it should be. E-cigs were put in the market to allow people to slowly step away from their smoking habits and of course not having to deal with the harm that regular cigarettes cause. Allowing e-cigs in public institutions only promotes the idea of smoking. It doesn't matter that e-cigs are not dangerous, they are still promoting the idea of smoking in public institutions which I don't agree with.

However, I agree with Singh's idea of promoting e-cigs. As the author stated, e-cigs don't have the 4000 chemicals that the regular cigarettes have, and that's definitely great for e-cigs. However, Texas should aim to reach out to smokers about e-cigs, give special deals on them, promote the idea of using e-cigs instead of regular cigarettes. However, I refuse with Singh that they must go out of their way and allow them in bars and such; places that smoking in general is banned. E-cigs can and will save hundreds of millions of lives, and that can easily happen; but smoking in general should be disallowed in public institutions that has already banned regular cigarettes. Our goal as a society is to eliminate regular cigarettes, and by keeping smoking in general restricted in certain places will help to do that.

The Success of Governor Perry

As the state of Texas is blossoming as a whole, many of the deserving credits go to Governor Perry. There are people, mainly his political opponents, who claim that Texas' success has nothing to do with Perry, but I completely disagree with such. Since 2009, Governor Perry has enabled the state to gain 40% of the new jobs in the country, and the unemployment rate stands at 8.2 which is well below of the national average of 9.1. Governor Perry and his colleagues were able to bring jobs to Texas, and that alone solved a lot of the crisis that was happening back in the mid-late 2000s. In fact, Perry enabled Texas to boost their high-education professional jobs (engineering, science, math-related, technology) by 11% since 2009. That is the fastest growing number compared to all other states, and nearly four times the national average growth. One of the biggest issues in America today is how these types of jobs can grow, and Texas seem to be doing a very well job at it. Also, the cost of houses in Houston, Dallas and Austin is much less than those in for examples Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco. Keeping the cost of living in the state reasonably lower than other states, is one of the great jobs done by the Governor.

Besides the economic reasons, Governor Perry has not waited for President Obama to take action against illegal immigration. Since Texas has the borders connected with Mexico, Governor Perry has strengthen the borders patrol without waiting for the Federals to take action. In fact, he's on a mission to completely reduce the illegal immigration happening in the country because if we recall, the 2012 President Debates mainly included such discussion in every discussions held between President Obama and Governor Romney. Governor Perry has publicly stated many times that the Congress should actually do what their supposed to do, giving them no slack since he works with high expectations and standards. His leadership is something to admire; he took the country's problems and turned into his own in which he does a good job at minimizing the negative impacts of it.

Finally, there's a strong reason why Governor Perry has been the longest serving Governor in the history of Texas. He has not upset the state and that is proven from his re-elections over the years. Although he has stated that he will not be back in the next re-election, he will always be remembered as a savior of the state in times of crisis for the country.

Sources: 
1- http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2011/08/22/what-does-rick-perry-have-to-do-with-texas-success/
2- http://conservativetribune.com/rick-perry-to-congress-do-your-job/

Drugs in Texas

Here's my commentary on Brenda's post.

I don't agree with her stance. She believes that by allowing the sell of their execution drugs, the state will allow transparency to their public and therefore not allowing secrets within the state when it comes down to the execution drugs Also, it is believed that it will proceed the execution process much more smoothly than having the electric chair execution, for example.. I disagree with this stance because we have to realize that execution drugs can have a domino effect. In fact, if the state start manufacturing these drugs, thugs & criminals will try to get their hands on it. One or two solid contacts at the manufacturers of these drugs and you can get your hands on it; for a very low price. This will eventually increase the crime rate in Texas, and therefore have the domino effect I have explained. If European drug companies do not wish to cooperate with the country anymore when it comes down to selling the state execution drugs, then the state should find another exporter of such drugs; private companies they can privately deal with. Bringing these materials in cities or around them in the country will only cause more danger to the public. These are the reasons why I disagree with her article.

The ban of plastic bags by Austin city

Austin should keep the ban on plastic shopping bags in their city. In fact, Texas isn't exactly the role model state when it comes down to an environment-friendly state, and this is because a large portion of their economy runs on oil and natural gases. That said, for them to ban plastic bags which can actually be deadly for sea animals, is a great thing. Actually, 90% of our debris in oceans are actually plastic bags. Besides saving animals' lives, they will be increasing the growth of reusable shopping bags which don't cost that much these days. Also, it's been seen in the past that plastic bags can in fact block drainage systems in the cities. Also, due to the shopping bags being fabricated in plastic material, this material can take up to hundred years to decompose. This means that whenever one is produced, and used on the market, it'll remain on our earth for at least 100 years. Although Austin has taken the right step, the whole state of Texas ought to do the same, and the whole country should as well. In fact, China has already banned plastic shopping bags in their country in 2008, and many countries have started to implement a tax for each plastic shopping bag acquired. Canada is a great example for that. In 2009, it was reported that 102 billion of plastic bags were used in the United States alone, and this should be alarming for every city and state of the country to take action against this unnecessary good. So far, the results have been positive for Austin city; less waste on parking lots, less litter in waterways and generally a more environmental-friendly atmosphere around the city after such decision was taken in 2013.

Perry expected to call up National Guard to Rio Grande Valley

In the article, "Perryexpected to call up National Guard to Rio Grande Valley," the author makes an argument that Texas needs to improve their border patrol. The current security of the border is pointless because once the illegal get deported back to Mexico, the same illegal crosses the border again. The security is poor so Perry needs to tighten security significantly!

The author's intended audience is the Federal government of USA. Although he speaks to all citizens of the country, he targets the government of the country for not doing enough efforts to protect the borders of the country. As for the author's credibility, he makes good points and solid arguments, but he goes off with anecdotes such as "I personally know..." which doesn't make it credible unless proof is provided. He also exaggerates the situation by claiming that the "nation is being invaded by illegal". However, the main argument of the author is that the Federal government should be involved in the increase of border patrols in the country, and not a responsibility for a single state, Texas in this case. He goes on to expose the government that reduced the funds of the Border Patrols troops, in which resulted less productivity from those troops. He makes a bold statement by saying that it's not just the current U.S. president that has not helped the situation, but also past presidents and governments. He goes on to attack democrats by describing their philosophy sarcastically. He finishes his argument by claiming that the country is heading to a "Third World Dump", meaning that the "invasion" of illegal immigrants will turn this country upside down. I personally disagree with this author, because even illegal immigrants work hard in our own country. Despite their lack of social services and support from the population, they ought to work hard and do the jobs that no typical middle-class American wants to do. Also, the government is doing their best to work with illegal immigrants and providing them the needs of  becoming a legal immigrant, and that does cost a lot to do. Although I agree that Texas shouldn't hold the burden of the costs of the increase of guards for their Border Patrol, to say that the country is heading to a "Third World Dump" because of these decisions is quite an exaggeration I disagree with.

Confederate flag on Texas license plate

The article, "Despite court ruling, Confederate flag does not belong on Texas license plate" is very interesting!

Author is against the allowance of the confederate flag on license plates.

Intended audience are faithful Americans who consider the display of the confederate flag on a DMV Registered State license plate inappropriate in terms of racial equality.
Article is posted in a very reliable source on the Star Telegram. The editor works with the Star Telegram. The Star Telegram presents current events such as news articles by information and communication services.
The state DMV should ban the allowance of the confederate flag on state-issued license plates. Those who vote for the allowance of the confederate flag considers it unjust if it is banned because the state DMV allows other wars such as the Buffalo War, Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc in acknowledgement of their honor. Those for the confederate plates thus considers it an honor for the civil war and the "honor the Confederate heritage". However the author argues that the confederate flag symbolizes the remembrance of the nation's past internal conflicts. It sends a message of discrimination "especially African Americans, as it is a reminder of slavery" which is unjustly for the nation. I agree with the authors argument in terms of being faithful for equality against the ideals of discrimination. The allowance of a confederate flag on the plates present a different sense of pride compared to the pride for fighting for the nation such as the Korean War. The confederate flag is a remembrance for the nation's internal conflict which caused the Civil War. If the state allows the DMV to accept discriminating plates, then it will be acknowledged that the state is corrupt for supporting discrimination.

The growing humanitarian crisis at the border

In the Star-Telegram article, “Can Texas officials lead the way on the border crisis?” highlights the efforts being done to solve the humanitarian crisis in the U.S.-Mexico border caused by the massive inflow of unaccompanied minors coming from Central America. In particular, it highlights the recent efforts of Texas legislators. The article also points to the President’s $3.7 billion plan – and the Republican opposition to it – which shows just how difficult of an issue this will be to solve. The article concludes with a brief illustration of the Washington gridlock as it relates to this issue and the overall comprehensive immigration reform debate.

This article is definitely worth reading because it deals with an issue that is important to the entire country (and neighboring countries) – and that is continuing to unfold. This country has been having a debate for some time about comprehensive immigration reform, and this may be the crisis that may eventually make reform a reality. It is often said that Washington gets things done only when faced with a crisis. (Look at the Financial Crisis of 2008.) Whatever your view on immigration, there is no question that something has to be done – now.