Less Than Desirable or More Than Enough?

The Texas constitution has been amended more times than a toddler can count. Deemed a disorganized mess- with poorly written amendments, limited executive power, part-time legislature, partisan election of judges, and unnecessary restrictions on local government- the Texas constitution could use a complete reproduction. However badly Texas needs it, every chance at a reproduction has either failed or been trashed.

These facts lead me to ponder a question: Why are so many people flocking to a state with such a poorly developed governmental structure?

According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, the population in Texas was at almost 26 million in 2011. With the population jumping almost 5 million people in less than a decade, Texas has obviously become the state to live in.

If living in Texas is such a trend among Americans, it can’t be all bad can it? Yes, the skies are bigger, wild flowers bloom all over, and it almost never gets cold; but, what else is there? What makes Texas so desirable?

According to shenkitup.com, a website that attempts to make government entertaining, people love Texas for many reasons. This website mentions (of course) that Texas has a variety of scenic characteristics, everyone’s friendly, and that the food is phenomenal- but the nitty gritty is what I am more interested in. People love Texas because of the importance of history, the low standard of living, and of course: its rich economy. This website points out the fact that Texans have MONEY. Being ranked as one of the world’s top economies and having more Fortune 500 companies than any other union puts Texas under the spot light- something that people who are having hard times across the U.S. can definitely appreciate. Why live in a state where making enough money to support your family is hard, when you can move to Texas (where there is more than enough free space), buy a bigger home at a cheeper price, and make more than enough money to support the ones that you love?

Thus, my question is answered. Although, the Texas constitution could use a little (and by little, I mean substantial) tweaking, the economy tells people that we are stable. In a world where money sometimes determines fate, a stable economy can mean a hell of a lot.

http://shenkitup.com/2011/08/06/10-reasons-why-texans-love-texas-2/

https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/popdat/ST2011.shtm

A Simple Review of a Simple Blog

From what I can tell, Eileen Smith’s Blog “In the Pink Texas” is full of a lot of opinion and less than enough fact. Although Smith provides credible evidence for most of the things that she talks about, she goes for a more humorous than informative take on the current presidential debate and all things politics. One blog entry on Smith’s page caught my eye today, and it just so happens to be all about women. Does this blogger consider herself a feminist? With the blog entry “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown”, Smith very well could be.

Written on October 16, 2012, Smith provides her honest opinion of this year’s presidential debate in the opening paragraph. Obviously, Smith is for Obama taking the seat as president once again, but admits to having her doubts about his success in doing so. With this opening paragraph, it is apparent that Smith is writing to a young audience. Lacking extreme details and using simple language, this particular article stands to individually express instead of inform on a widespread level. Smith wrote this entry to express her feelings about a particular campaign strategy that both 2012 presidential candidates, Obama and Romney, have decidedly taken on: the role of perfect husband and dependable father.

Although Smith makes a valid argument in pointing out the fact that the role of the domesticated woman is being belittled, she does not consider the other side of the coin. What if domesticated women are the target because statistics have revealed that this demographic has shown the largest patterns of voter turn-out in the past? Both candidates will do whatever it takes to win the presidential election, even if it means that domesticated women become their center of attention. Smith adds a humorous touch to keep the tone of the article simple, giving it an even greater appeal to the audience she is attempting to attract.

 Personally, I appreciate Smith’s wit and her sarcasm. Although it gives her article less of a serious tone, it does add a relaxed atmosphere to the topic of politics. Reading various snip-its of Smith’s articles does not leave me better informed necessarily, but certainly more aware of details circulating the presidential debate. Her stance is an extremely opinionated one, but it is her opinions that provide a bit of entertainment as well as an awareness of what is happening within this debate.

One Man and His Opinion

Jody Seaborn details David Dewhurst’s loss in the race for Texas U.S. senate to Ted Cruz in the 2012 election. In the very opinionated article, “Dewhurstburned by a fire he could no longer control”, Seaborn knocks Dewhurst’s attempts at victory as if they were meager and deserved a loss. Seaborn puts Dewhurst to shame, stating that he is politically arrogant, non-participatory, absent at forums, and an awful public speaker. Whether or not Seaborn’s opinion matters is questionable, but the facts remain: Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst lost to Ted Cruz by 14 points in this Texas election.

If Seaborn was attempting to report to Texas citizens, his attempts were a success. The article is written with a clear intention, to state how one man feels about a candidate in Texas. Seaborn fluidly incorporates his opinion among the sea of facts that he presents and does it so that the reader easily interprets the details. A major flaw in his presentation, however is that the article is written with a somewhat overly strong view. Immediately, the reader is able to tell that the author feels distastefully about Dewhurst, but no other aspect of Dewhurst’s success is given. The candidate obviously made it as far as he did on some kind of momentum, but it is this author’s intention to completely mull over any positive points that Dewhurst may have.

On the opposing end, Cruz, the winner of the election, is given a fair amount of praise. It is obvious that Seaborn favors Cruz, but not to the same extent that he dislikes Dewhurst.

The fact that Seaborn critiques Dewhurst without a bit of mercy seems low and arrogant. Anyone can point out a lot of negative points in a person and call it fact, but to compare and contrast Dewhurst’s strengths with his weaknesses would have made a stronger argument. Although Seaborn includes a load of facts to back up his opinion, his writing style comes across as if his opinion is fact. Noting unforeseen occurrences, such as Cruz’s climb to the top, Seaborn adds a “know-it-all” tone to his article. He is full of facts and seemingly knowledgeable of a population consensus of the subject, but Seaborn’s argument could use a little tweaking.