Perry Cabinet

Our longtime former governor is just about in Donald Trump’s cabinet, as the secretary of energy, a department…. that he famously wanted to eliminate back in 2011…. that he forgot the name of….

Welp, that’s politics for you, but as odd as the appointment sounds, he actually has an extensive resume in dealing with energy matters both during and after his tenure as Texas governor, among others drastically increasing wind energy in Texas, and trying to construct 8 new coal plants. The media coverage is primarily concerned with political relations with praise and condemnation by various groups, as well as tracing the history of relations between Trump and Perry that would seemingly put them at odds with each other.

While Perry has overseen the diversification of Texas energy, it’s interesting to note he’s by no means a tree-hugging, earths-saving, environmental conservationist. So what’s the deal? Why didn’t he give a full pass to fracking and coal? Well, he did try with coal but was countered by opposing action of the people, but considering his position as the governor of Texas, he does have certain state interests to maintain, that alternative sources of energy fulfill, and of course, the several economic interests involved both for his and the state’s finances. Sometimes business provides a better incentive than scientists telling you your grandchildren’s potential fate, but if it works, it works. It’s useful to note conservative reasoning for passing energy legislature characteristic of liberal policy as a matter of economic benefits for the state as well as those involved. This business-centered approach to energy has as much potential to change things for the better as it does for the worse, in a relatively shorter amount of time, and President Elect Trump has chosen a specialist.

Commentception

    Alrighty, so this week I'm a commentary on a commentary of another colleague's work (?),  Raj's aptly named post, Comment on a colleague's work provides a commentary on Berehanu's Texas "Campus Carry" Law post.
    
     Raj's commentary is not so much an assessment of Berehanu's rhetoric and composition, but rather a reflective post that simultaneously addresses fundamental issues of the campus carry law. Raj openly offers his opinion on the matter of campus carry, establishing the difficulty of the issue from the beginning while making an observation critical to the interpretation of the law, being that "we all have different experiences with guns and each one of us has a different opinion about this Texas "campus carry" law". The following points in his commentary are (in my opinion) a mirror image of the way most people (including myself) in the country feel, (somewhat) regardless of political stance, where people feel do identify a need for a measure of self defense, but are equally if not more worried over the prospect of any college-aged youth carrying on campus.

       In the closing lines of the commentary, Raj offers a very intriguing point on the matter of the potential impact of campus carry on free speech, as well as identifying the possible interests of "outsiders" at play seeking to make a "political point". Raj's succinct commentary broadly summarizes the debate on the matter. Well done!

     Alrighty, so this time we have an article from the Burnt Orange Report with the chuckle inducing title, "Why Is Dan Patrick Such a Pussy?" Instead of featuring a video of the Lieutenant Governor refusing to wrestle an alligator, the article questions his manhood for opting to publish an out of the way tweet in which he briefly condemns Donal Trump's words on women before turning attention to a similar controversy regarding Hillary Clinton. 
      
             Written for a liberal blog, the author holds no reservations as she thoroughly grills Patrick with ardent sarcasm and ad-hominems for seasoning fit to serve a casual liberal audience. The author raises the question as to why our "fearless dear leader" is unable to shell out a full bodied, fully public condemnation of Trump's words and actions regarding women, ending the article with a summary "Why is Dan Patrick such a pussy? What is he so fucking afraid of?" Though the author does a great job in conveying raw emotion through her diction, she fails to really elaborate upon her point in relation to a political context. Written as an inflammatory piece meant to rally supporters against a particular figure, it serves the author's purpose to charge the subject with a particular accusation instead of explaining the political considerations in Patrick's statement. 
     
           As mentioned in the article, Dan Patrick is Trump's Texas campaign chair (not to mention Lieutenant Governor of Texas) and as such faced a dilemma regarding his approach to Trump's words and actions regarding women; by openly and wholly condemning Trump, Patrick would risk an external show of division in the Trump campaign as well as further party division by voters and politicians who follow suit in his actions, essentially tossing a wrench into the Republican campaign. By not addressing the issue he himself would face ridicule and risk in-state political stability. These challenges resulted in the tweet that represented the best political move for his interests while attempting to redirect fire towards Hillary's own controversies. 
    
          Of course the author and audience don't care about his interests and as it would have in the liberal interest for Patrick to burn Trump, therefore the resulting (effective) rhetoric is to criticize the politically savvy decision as a function of fear, lack of genuine indignation (which may be true), executed by rallying around women's rights and capping it off with concrete criticism of Patrick's attempt to redraw fire.

Overall, pretty fun article.

Alrighty, so this week we've got this little number on The Texas Tribune.

So for a few months now there has been a considerably large issue regarding The Baylor Bear's ability to keep their paws to themselves as rape accusations against Baylor athletes, most notably the football team, continue to emerge after an alarmingly long period of being ignored, even discouraged and/or kept under wraps not just by the coaches, but by the (former) school president Ken Starr who resigned earlier (though official evidence has not yet emerged to indicate his role or awareness of the occurrences). The recent events have, as expected, brought the dark eye of the NCAA (and law enforcement) over Baylor to investigate the matter further.

Though not directly connected to Texas government, I feel that occurrences such as these are important to recognize and observe how the state reacts, as the collegiate environment encompasses and addresses a great deal of Texas' concerns as well as reflects the impact of public policy on a wide demographic and as a result, tends to be focal point for all political issues in state government.

How ya doin?