I don't know what to talk about so I'm just going to state my opinion about Texas government. I honestly love Texas government and I hate Texas government at the same time. It's tough to find a place that really syncs up with each and every one of your beliefs and ideals, or at least most of them. Even then, I'd imagine if you did so very luckily find such a place, eventually with time, it would change, and unless you're willing to change with it, you either deal with it or move on to the next best option you have. Texas government seems to follow the majority of my beliefs with economic matters in the private sector, mainly that government should keep their nose out of it as much as possible, which they do more than the average state. No income tax and cheap community college tuition? Sign me up.

What I really can't get behind is how there's a very apparent lack of separation of church & state here and nobody seems to be doing much about it. Texas government allows their religion to influence their policies far too much, and usually the worst parts of the Bible. I'm talking about those parts that make most modern Christians embarrassed to admit are written in their holy book of choice, such as the parts that influence Texan anti-gay laws banning gays from even having sex with each other in the privacy of their own homes, and not allowing them to marry one another! Last time I checked we make laws according to the Constitution, which says all men are created equal, not the Bible. There are a few other examples, but I don't want to spew hate on my blog. All that said, whether just a natural progression of society or Supreme Court rulings, or a bit of both...Texas is definitely and slowly catching up.

        Blogger Charles Kuffner informs the Texan public of an old rule that was quietly nullified from Texan law in this Off the Kuff blog. The law was concerning a certain requirement to file for candidacy for all statewide judicial practices, where you once previously needed to gather a bunch of signatures on a petition for you to run. The law was somewhat controversially removed from law by adding in the last few lines of text in HB 3118 by saying that law SB 1073 will no longer be in effect, without stating what the law actually does. SB 1073 was made in order to prevent unqualified people from running, but as I thought and as written in the blog, it really just arbitrarily prevents potential good candidates who otherwise would have fit very well in office, but don't feel like or have a plan to gather signatures. Any skilled liar or schmoozer and even fools can gather a bunch of signatures, it's not necessarily evidence of competence as a state official by any means. I'm not sure whether the author's take on it is positive or negative, but I am assuming he thinks its positive as he quotes a judge who had very similar thoughts to it that I did, and I'm assuming the author also shares this same sentiment. Regardless, I'm in agreement that this is a step in the right direction, it improves the democracy of this state by getting rid of as many unnecessary obstacles to people being able to voice their opinion and position on the current issues. That said I don't like how it was removed, and gives me a dark, eerie feeling when I think about the capabilities of how sneaky legislators can be.

The Real Point Behind Presidential Campaigns this Early before Elections

     In the opinion column of The Daily Texan, University of Texas - Austin journalist Walker Fountain weighs in on the matter of presidential campaigns over a year before the actual presidential election. He argues that political campaigns are designed to present your position and ideas to the public and there's hardly any feasible way of doing so, at least in a manner relevant to the presidential election as the current time is far too away from the times of the issues that they will actually be dealing with, (assuming they are elected). This is self-evident in the commercials and events that are sponsored and held by the campaigners, as very few of them are about actual issues or opinions but more so just announcing that they're running for President, they're going to be a great President and empty-promise us to fix all of our problems. Hell, even Jeb Bush is asking $500 just to hear him talk! So are these events more about informing the public and what they stand for as a candidate, or just raising attention, publicity and of course, fund raising cash? I'm pretty sure it's the latter in this case. As stated by the author this has huge implications for not just the election process but modern American society at large, are we a nation of people whose government makes decisions from votes that meet the majority of the people's needs? Or are we a nation whose government makes decisions from votes that meet the majority of people that were fooled with empty promises the fastest?

This confirmed Politifact Texas article, (at least confirmed according to Politifact Texas), is important to read because it so accurately reflects the insanity of the death penalty in the most persuasive way, the way through your wallet. Ron Paul states that property taxes rose by 7% because of one death penalty case that cost Jasper County courts $873,669 from the years 1998 to 2000. Each property owner in Jasper County had to pay thousands more to kill one person. If that doesn't convince you the death penalty literally isn't worth it then I don't know what would! Think about it, do you really want to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to kill people?