RE: Gun Crazy

In a recent blog article, Daniel wrote about the Guns on Camps and Workplace bill. I must say that I completely agree with his article. He had some very interesting and valid points in his post. First, he points out that there's no need to have a gun if you can only keep it inside your car. If you have a night shift and you're walking out to leave work at 3a.m. and someone is hiding around the corner in the dark and decides to go after you, what are you going to do? The gun is in your car. He correctly states that the only form of protection it would cause would be if you were sitting in your car and happened to see someone in a grave situation. In this event, the gun would come in handy. He also points out the curiosity of what would happen when an employee got angry at his boss. The feelings of fear, anxiety, and anger cause individuals to do things without thinking about the act or the consequences involved. This could end with a very dangerous and unexpected outcome.

*insert title here*

The Texas government just seems like a big jumbled mess to me. I definitely don't understand how all the pieces of the "puzzle" fit together, but I definitely know more now than I did when I walked into this class on the first day. As we have written a number of blogs over the course of the semester, I have noticed a few things that I would change about the Texas government had I an input, as well as a few things I would keep the way they are.

First, I would not have passed the concealed handgun / weapon bill. It frightens me to know that next semester, when I come back to school, it is probably that there will be other students in the classroom with guns in their backpacks. And for what purpose? Shootings don't happen daily. I don't think I've even heard about a shooting since Virginia Tech in April of 2007. Before that, I have absolutely no recollection of any school shootings. So whats the point in passing this bill?

Second, I totally and completely approve of the sonogram bill. According to an accredited website, there were 81,591 abortions in 2008. The reason why I disagree with an abortion is because of the statistics. By Day 22, the heart begins to beat. Most women find out they are pregnant between 4 - 8 weeks. At this point, the baby's heart is already beating. By the third week, the child's backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape. I think that alot of women do not know the fetal development timeline, such as how early the heart beats, etc., and for this reason do not think much of abortion. I think that women being required to see the sonogram and hear the heartbeat 24 hours before giving the abortion will lessen the number of abortions per year.

In Reply to "Do You REALLY Think God Hates Gay Marriage...?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Allowing Guns On College Campuses?

In a recent blog post titled, "Sonogram Bill Passes House - Republican Rep. Davis Objects", put out by BigJolly Politics, Republican Representative Sarah Davis says that the sonogram bill is an "intrusion to healthcare". The author of this blog post, David Jennings, disagrees with Rep. Davis, claiming that does not intrude healthcare. I, like Jennings, also disagree with Sarah Davis. I do not believe that the sonogram bill is an "intrusion to healthcare". Abortion is taking an innocent life and killing it, hereby murdering the unborn child. I think that to save this child's life, sonograms should be performed on the individual, allowing them to see the photographs before, ultimately, arriving at a final decision. I think that it is not intruding healthcare because it is, in fact, saving a life. If the doctor was going to do something to harm the individual, then yes, I can see how that would be an "intrusion of healthcare". However, this is not harming the individual. It is simply making the individual more aware and decreasing the abortion rate per year.

Abortion Legislation Gets Green Light From Senate

In the editorial titled "Abortion Legislation Gets Green Light From Senate", the Cougar Editorial Board claims that the abortion bill, in which a woman must have a sonogram prior to the decision of abortion, should not have passed through the Senate. The Staff Editorial section of this newspaper has it's creditability in being a part of TheDailyCougar.com, which has been the official student newspaper of the University of Houston since 1934. One of the major concerns that the Cougar Editorial Board brought up in this particular editorial was that "in the middle of a multi-billion dollar budget crisis, the state Senate has passed a bill that requires even more tax dollars to sustain". The newspaper logically suggests that "forcing a pregnant woman to be subject to trauma for a decision that is entirely her own is an extreme form of government intervention" and that "leaving someone with no option but turning over control of her body and using cruelty to push a conservative agenda is an abomination of human rights". The Cougar Editorial Board uses these points to back up his main point of why the abortion bill should not be passed through the Senate. The board comes to the conclusion that it is a waste of the tax dollars during a budget crisis and it is not worth the money to be spent. A woman already has her mind made up of which path she is about to partake of, whether it be abortion or not, and the choice is completely hers - the government should have no say in the choice. I believe the board of this editorial explained his views on the bill very clearly and logically, making his argument successful. If my mind was not already made up on the matter, it would probably have convinced me because of his valid points. However, because my mind has been made up due to my strong faith, religion, and the environment / home in which I have grown up for nineteen years, it was not successful in changing any beliefs I previously held.

Community College Costs Climb

In a recent article featured on KVUE, Texas community colleges were in the spotlight. The article focused on how the reducing of state funding for the schools will greatly effect the cost of tuition per student. The probable outcomes of the cutting of the funds are raise in tuition, increase in property taxes, and enrollment caps due to the growth of the schools taking place during the meantime. It is likely that many students will not be able to afford the colleges, as financial aid will be cut.

This is an informative article and is a great read for college students in Texas, more specifically the students at community colleges, such as ACC. It is worth the few minutes to read this article about colleges like ours in order to get an idea of what is to come in the future of our school.