What's Big in Texas? Gas emissions.

   An editorial on the Dallas news, Despite court ruling, Texas should redouble clean energy policies, argues that Texas voting against “Clean Power Plan” isn’t the right choice.  They write, towards those who are informative about the CPP, that they show that they are supportive about the plan and adds within the article, “We hope the future generations won’t look at the missed opportunity…” to emphasize the reasoning. 

   The article first provides background information from a national standpoint first as this plan was/is to be a “U.S. signature stand point” to even to treaty this with China and India. But now if U.S. doesn’t comply with their end of the bargain they are out. But the U.S. Supreme Court voted against “Clean Power plan” which sets back the efforts to reduce carbon emissions. 

How does this relate to Texas?

   Texas Attorney Gen. Paxton states that this issue has nothing to do with Texas.  Apparently Texas was a “huge plaintiff” in halted the plan making it a win for state officials. As to argue against this, the editor tries to persuade the reader on what Texas should do instead of being part of the problem. 

Which is a simple statement, “Actively leveraging its impressive clean energy opportunities”

   Because as a huge threatening effect to Texans, as natural gas increases from the factories that pollute the air, with suffer from illnesses and death.

   Then concludes with PROS about supporting cleaning carbon emissions. Which I see is some convincing evidence that supports his claim why to support by those who are active readers. BUT to convince someone with a political stand point I believe the use of numbers would help too.

A/N: Here’s a link to also help you understand about the Climate Power Plan.

On Carry laws leave Texans confused

H. Drew Blackburn, Texas Monthly writer of Look's like Texas's New Law Gun Laws Are Confusing Everybody, writes an attentive perspective on how people are not educated about the Texas gun laws.  If his second subtitle didn’t catch your attention, “Where can you take that hunk of metal," then perhaps your part of the audience that’s a gun owner and or would like to know about why the confusion on the “specifics”. 

The main focus of the confusion takes place on where and when people are able to carry their guns. 

“Essentially, open carry is legal in the same places that concealed carry is, but whether or not open carry is legal in churches or campuses when school isn’t in session, the specifics of bringing guns into businesses, and whether law enforcement or businesses can ask for a license are all still murky.” 

In addition from the quote above, he provides evidence to support about the confusion on open carry that occurs in local grocery stores such as WALMART and HEB. This involves policies that the police enact himself or herself on the gun owner about having a permit for gun ownership.

As the articles continues, what stood out to me was followed by this quote.

“But the problem extends beyond businesses.” 

Which led to his final example on campus carry at the University of Texas. Blackburn discussed about University of Texas System Chancellor William McRaven stating that this could matter could change with a lawsuit. 

His conclusion makes it understandable that confusion shouldn’t be surprising, considering the many perspectives people say about the right to bare arms. But I would have to say that I never read such an article pointing out the confusion, only on black and white opinions on who is against and who is for this law. This article made me think that perhaps this law system should be more informative to the public so everyone will be safe; that way there would be more grey area opinions.