Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that it is constitutional for Texas to issue a license plate with the Confederate flag printed on it. The court made this decision based on the First Amendment, which allows for the freedom of speech. Those who support being able to print Confederate flags on license plate say that it is a symbol of a past heritage, sacrifice, and independence. I do not agree with this view. Many people view the time of the Confederacy to be a time of racism and oppression that should not be praised or glorified. Those who choose to display this flag on their license plate seem to give off the message that they approve of a time in history in which slavery was popular and the federal government was condemned. Though I cannot speak for all people who have a confederate flag displayed somewhere, many people who do this still do not believe that desegregation should be put in place and are often thought of as being racist. This causes a problem between if this type of display should be allowed. There is not a doubt in my mind that if a state decided to print a swastika on their license plate there would be tons of back lash, and I honestly do not believe that a court would even try to say it is protected under the first amendment.

 I believe that the use of the Confederate flag on license plates should not be allowed. Yes, supporters of the Confederacy have waved their flag in front of their lawns or put bumper stickers on their cars, but it seems much worse to have a state allow and take part in making sure people can display this on license plates. It gives off the idea that the state does not care if people are racist or want to rebel against the government. Furthermore, I believe this case involves a much deeper look at the First Amendment and whether a future amendment could be added that takes into account hate speech that is directed toward group of oppressed people.

         In one of his blog posts on offthekuff.com, Charles Kuffner discusses Planned Parenthood’s launch of a campaign to try to bring out voters for Democratic candidates, which includes gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis. Planned Parenthood plans to spend $3 million dollars on this campaign to reach out to over 300,000 women through phone calls, personal visits, mail, and online advertisements.  Kuffner points out that he loves this idea, but wonders why it took until now to be put into place. He states that the “bad guys” have been engaging in this tactic for years, and that he wonders where other groups are that should be doing the same thing. Though I agree with Kuffner that this type of campaign has been done before by others and that it seems odd that this has not been done already, I think this campaign is coming about because supporters of Democrats are now seeing that they are increasing their probability of having a fighting chance against Republicans in statewide elections.

         Kuffner then quotes Matt Mackowiak, a Repulican consultant in saying that this campaign will, “put the abortion spotlight back on Davis and could stymie her messaging as a candidate focused on a broad range of policies.” Mackowiak is also quoted in stating, “the campaign knows that talking about abortion is a net loser for her.” Kuffner, whose blog is intended for a Democratic audience, surprisingly agrees with Mackowiak. Kuffner states that his reasoning is because putting the spotlight on Davis’ abortion views is not a good move because there is not much she can do as governor for reproductive rights, except for using her power to veto.  I agree with Kuffner on this statement as well. I also believe that focusing too much about reproductive rights could push away any conservative voters who may have voted for her. Talking about a more diverse set of issues could potentially lure in unexpected voters and give Davis’ more of a chance in the upcoming election. Furthermore, not sticking to being known as a reproductive rights activist could also bring other organizations to campaign for money to bring in voters just as Planned Parenthood is starting to do.

Michael King is a news editor for the Austin Chronicle since 2000 and has reported on politics throughout his career. In this Austin Chronicle article, King criticizes gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott’s statements on the Attorney General office ruling that the Department of State Health Services is no longer required to disclose information on whether or not a company has dangerous chemicals stored. According to King, this ruling came out of a 2003 Homeland Security law that was put in place to try to keep useful information away from terrorists. One of King’s main points of criticism comes from his argument that it was not, in his words, “ ‘terrorists’ who blew up West, Texas,” last year. He also states that, had the first responders who arrived at the scene known that the explosion was caused by ammonium nitrate, their lives may have been saved because they would have known the extent of the danger they were heading into. Abbott is reported to have said, “You can ask every facility whether or not they have chemicals or not. You can ask them if they do…and if they do, they will tell which ones they have.” I agree with King that this response by Abbott to this decision that came out of his office, is comical. My first reaction was to think about how people who want this information, such as the suggestion that terrorists do, could still gather this information if it is so easy to just ask companies if they are storing chemicals. It seems to me that average people, who are not actively looking for dangerous chemicals, would benefit more from direct information than from taking it upon themselves to ask companies.

               King then relates this information to the current gubernatorial race. He states that Wendy Davis’ campaign will likely be better off because of this situation. Though King does not necessarily think Davis’ campaign will benefit greatly, this issue could not hurt it. However, I believe this issue may hurt Abbott’s campaign and benefit Davis’ a lot more. The explosion in West last April caused a lot of heartbreak, and seeing that people, generally, regardless of party identification, do not want to be shielded from information that could kill them, I think people are more likely to pay more attention to a candidate that acknowledges the idea that citizens deserve to know if where they are living is safe. However after reading King’s statement that the fertilizers in West are still there even after the explosion, I question my stance on how much people care about living near chemicals. King states that our leaders “go right on poisoning our air, land, and water… and the best we can manage is: ‘Please tell us where the bombs are buried’.” Throughout this article King does a good job at not particularly choosing a side based political party affiliation, but writing an article that is directed at every Texas citizen who is affected by chemical storage in the state.

       In a blog post in the Burnt Orange Report, Joe Deshotel discusses the current situation at the Texas border where there has been a surge of immigrant children from Central American countries entering illegally into the United States. Deshotel summarizes Governor Perry's stance on this issue by stating that Perry has demanded that the federal government deport these children and cut off aid to their home countries. Deshotel also analyzes the complicated issues associated with this current dilemma. He states that even opponents of immigration reform have had surprising reactions to this crisis that involves young children. For example, Glenn Beck, a popular conservative radio host, plans to bring toys and water to the children held at the border and has stated that the US must "open our hearts" to them.  Deshotel then criticizes Perry's position on immigration by stating that the "immigration problem" is a "refugee crisis" and putting the blame on immigrants' home countries. This article is worth reading because it shows the complicated nature of the recent undocumented immigrant children crisis, argues that political climates in other nations affect Texas government, and also relates the border situation to the larger immigration issue through quoting certain Representatives' views on immigration reform.