Not only is it disappointing that only one person in the 1,703-student district turned out, it’s downright pathetic that one, if not both, of the candidates didn’t even make the effort to vote themselves. What has our society come to when even the people claiming to represent us, claiming to want to make change, can’t be bothered to participate?

Voting isn’t hard. It’s the best outlet we have to shape government and make our voices heard. It’s our duty to use it. Don’t let someone else – maybe even just one person – decide your future.

Last week several media sources reported that Senator Birdwell’s bill to legalize concealed carry on campus by licensed, law-abiding CHL holders would likely not be scheduled for a committee hearing. You stated that your reluctance was due to the need for a “cooling-off period” after the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, and other incidents still fresh in the American mind.

While I understand your concerns, they are misplaced.

During the last legislative session, campus carry became a hot-button issue as students from all over the state visited legislative offices, urging state senators and representatives to vote based on facts, not feelings. At that time, just over 70 college and university campuses allowed concealed carry – with no resulting negative incidents, such as “Wild West shootouts,” increases in suicide rates or accidental discharges, reported. Since then, according to Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, that number has increased to more than 200 campuses nationwide.

As you know, Senator Birdwell’s bill would allow only adults who have undergone training and classroom time, been deemed of sound mind and passed a background check to carry weapons onto campuses. These individuals are already allowed to carry their weapons nearly everywhere in the general public, where concealed carry has been legal for nearly 20 years.

Refusing to schedule SB 182 for a hearing due to events that have only one thing in common – a gun – makes little sense. The shooting in Newtown was conducted outside of Texas with an illegal, unconcealed rifle by an individual with a history of mental health problems, and it did not happen on a university campus. While tragic, and certainly worth remembering, it should not prevent others from having a chance at self-defense.

Many have told you that emotions run high on college campuses or that guns on campus would threaten academic freedom. However, as you also know, disagreements and heated arguments are just as common in everyday life as they are in classrooms. By and large, Texans with CHLs have not resorted to shootouts or duels to resolve their differences in the many places they have already been allowed to carry since 1995. They will not do so on college campuses.

The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most important rights the American people hold dear – so important it was included second in the Bill of Rights. Texans who have proven themselves responsible enough to carry a concealed weapon in public should be able to do so on both sides of the arbitrary line that defines campus versus non-campus.

Senator, I encourage you and your colleagues to schedule SB 182 for a hearing. Texans deserve to let their voices be heard on this important legislation.

Thank you for your service to the State of Texas and for your consideration.

But every now and then, I’m flabbergasted that such a law was passed, let alone found constitutional. How can this have happened?

And then I’m even more horrified that in between those waves of shock, I had gotten used to the idea that purchasing a product can be mandatory for every single American. And I know it’s not just me. As our attention spans reach their limit and eventually snap, even leaders who should continue fighting government growth cave in to political pressure and misleading offers of “free” federal funding. Since Obamacare’s going into effect is inevitable, we may as well tag along for the ride, right?

Wrong.

That’s one of the many dangers of public policy: becoming complacent. Just because a law has been around for a while doesn’t mean it’s a good or even mediocre one. When an offense to liberty or our nation’s values occurs, we can’t let it fade into the background when more interesting or sensational topics hit the news.

Obamacare will only make struggling programs like Medicaid worse, grow government and burden families. As Attorney General Greg Abbott put it last week, Obamacare is “ultimately going to implode.” It will only worsen the unsustainable path the federal government is on: spending, spending, and more spending. It may have swung a Supreme Court thumbs-up, but that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t keep fighting in Congress to repeal and replace.

The conservative movement must maintain constant vigilance. (Did I just quote Harry Potter in a post on healthcare reform? Yes, yes I did.) We can’t give up on – or, rather, we can’t forget about – such pivotal issues as this. Obamacare may be the law of the land, but that doesn’t mean we can’t keep pushing to change it.

So here are a few facts for the folks who can’t understand why we think our state is so great.

Between 2001 and 2011, Texas created more jobs than every other state combined. (Even PolitiFact agrees, and that’s saying something.) And we continue to lead the nation in job growth and boast a consistently low unemployment rate. A brand new report from the Brookings Institution shows only 14 cities in the nation have more jobs now than they did before the nationwide recession began. Guess what? Six of them are in Texas.

You’ve probably heard, mostly from people who opposed Rick Perry on the presidential campaign trail, that the jobs everyone is talking about are all minimum wage or government jobs. Not so, my friends. Will Franklin put it well:

Contrary to the “it’s all minimum wage jobs” postulation from the likes of former Enron-advisor Paul Krugman, Texas is adding a disproportionately high number of high wage jobs:

For industries paying over 150% of the average American wage, Texas could claim 216,000 extra jobs; the rest of the country added 495,000. In other words, the Lone Star State, with 8% of the U.S. population, created nearly a third of the country’s highest-paying positions. Texas also added 49,000 positions paying 125% to 150% of the U.S. average; the rest of the country lost 74,000 jobs in that category.

I’m not sure whether or not Krugman knows that Texas’ income gains as a share of national income were bigger than the rest of the top ten states combined, but he probably wouldn’t let that or any other fact get in the way of a good narrative.

Regardless of how much you make, your money goes farther in Texas. The cost of living here is much lower than, say, California, who we like to pick on. And not only does the Lone Star State have no income tax, our franchise tax is just one percent – and even lower than that for some – providing businesses more flexibility to invest, hire people and take risks. All this leads to a healthier economy and job market.

And people are moving here for that reason: to get a slice of the prosperity Texas can offer. For most, that comes with a job – maybe in tech-savvy Austin, along the Eagle Ford Shale where the energy industry is booming, or in one of our many small but growing towns. This post from the American Enterprise Institute, while a few years old, shows just how strong the pull is from blue, high-tax states on the coasts to liberty-loving Texas. Just take a look at this graph:

It gets better. The more people move to Texas, the more demand for products and services increases and the more jobs are created. The more jobs are created, the more attractive Texas looks to people and companies. And so on.

To top it all off, if Texas was a nation (again), it would have the 14th largest economy in the world. Not bad for a place that has “all” minimum wage and government jobs.

Convinced? You should be. If not, well, we’re okay with you not moving here. Bless your heart.

Starbucks. Gun rights activists love it. Traditional marriage advocates? Not so much. News of CEO Howard Schultz politely suggesting a shareholder who contested the company’s stance on same-sex marriage invest elsewhere has quickly sparked outcry on the right.

When a company makes an announcement we don’t like, our knee-jerk reaction is to blurt out, “Well, I’m never shopping there again!” But do boycotts actually work? In our modern era of political exposure and hypersensitivity, my answer is… probably not.

Boycotts can be effective under a few limited circumstances. They are probably most successful when they are:

• New. Was anyone surprised that Chick-fil-A’s executives oppose gay marriage or that Starbucks’ CEO is liberal? It’s hard to fire up a large crowd of supporters when there’s really nothing new or pressing to talk about.
• Immediate. Let’s face it: people are horrible organizers. But when people can act now, they want to. Think of Susan G. Komen for the Cure and how quickly its donations skyrocketed after it announced it was cutting ties with Planned Parenthood.
• Huge. Walmart’s executives, for example, probably couldn’t care less if a few thousand people decide to shop elsewhere. But if a few thousand people stop going to the only grocery store in town? That’s a problem. It doesn’t mean large-scale boycotts can’t work, but for major corporations, they need massive support bases.
• Prolonged. Boycotts that last a few days or weeks and then fizzle out don’t achieve much. For example, most conservatives - and liberals - I know still shop at Target, despite calls for boycotts from both sides in the past. For true success, a large chunk of a company’s target market needs to stop shopping there permanently.
• Active. Remember Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day? That made a lot more headlines and more than made up for revenue lost from the people who decided to stop eating there.

Time will tell how the call for boycotting Starbucks pans out. I’m betting Starbucks is just too good for most to pass up over a political disagreement.

I look at it this way: we all have friends we squabble with on political issues, but that doesn’t stop us from spending money on them. Some of what we contribute, whether it’s money we give to them directly or money they save when we buy their lunch or birthday presents, will undoubtedly go towards campaigns and organizations we don’t support. We do it anyway because, as friends, we enjoy their company.

For me, the same goes for businesses. I’ll keep visiting Starbucks every now and then for my beloved peppermint mochas. It’s delicious and convenient. Will I go there a little less and Chick-fil-A a little more? Probably, but I would do that anyway, in the same way I’d rather buy a Ford than most any other brand of car.

I don’t mind CEOs having different opinions any more than I do my friends or colleagues. Plus, we would have precious few companies left to buy from if we consistently enforced boycotts based on every political issue that matters to us, which I doubt even the staunchest conservatives do. I prefer vigorously supporting companies I agree with than cutting ties with those I don’t.

But I do draw the line at charitable organizations. At a place like Starbucks, you pay for a product, and maybe for the ambiance and the privilege of using the bathroom and free wi-fi. The company has every right to use the profit for whatever they see fit. But when you donate to a charity, the “product” you’re buying is the satisfaction of knowing your money is going to a good cause – and the one you signed up for. That’s why I don’t donate to Livestrong, run Komen for the Cure races, or eat Girl Scout cookies. I know some of my money, even if just a small amount, that I would want dedicated to saving and improving lives will end up at Planned Parenthood ending them instead. I may not care what the barista or even the CEO does with their portion of my $3, but I do care when I willingly give money for a specific purpose.

What are your thoughts on boycotts? Will you consider quitting Starbucks for good?

My family and I woke up bright and early (pitch black and early, actually) on Saturday to head to Lockhart for our “Learn to Shoot” class with Ross Bransford and his wife, Dottie. For the days leading up to the class, I was simultaneously excited and terrified. Fortunately, their interesting stories, calm demeanor and perspective as highly skilled and experienced gun owners put me at ease.

The class definitely reflected the current political climate. The Bransfords got so many requests that they had to open a second time slot. Interestingly, the majority in my class were unaccompanied middle-aged women. I suppose it’s fitting as Second Amendment rights are threatened by federal legislators, gun violence draws substantial media attention, and female gun ownership (and gun ownership in general, judging by the crowds at Cabela’s and Academy) increases.

If there was one overarching lesson in the four-hour course, it was this: Don’t take anything for granted.

Don’t assume your weapon isn’t loaded or that it won’t accidentally fire in whatever direction it’s pointing. Be precise in your grip, in lining up your sights, in controlling your breathing.

And this doesn’t just apply to guns. At the same time, be precise and meticulous in your worldview. Question assumptions and know your facts. Guns are no more dangerous than cars or knives or grande mocha frappucinos with extra whipped cream when left to their own devices. It’s a lack of attention, care, and precision that causes harm – to people, to ideologies, to societies.

Question assumptions. Be meticulous. And don’t take anything for granted.

Overall, it was a good experience, both for the sake of practical knowledge and so I can say I’ve exercised the right I’ve been advocating for. Plus, I’m actually a pretty good shot. Those circled holes in the first quadrant are my first shots ever – not a bad grouping for a newbie, eh?

Pro: Curing Career Politician Syndrome

Both the Texas Legislature and U.S. Congress were designed to be part-time endeavors for those who make it through the sometimes grueling election process. Things have clearly changed over the years, and many feel measures should be taken to discourage “Career Politician Syndrome.”

The Conservative Texans Political Action Conference writes:

The longer and more entrenched our career politicians have become, the more they have been influenced by the pressures of the next election and the need to raise monies in the worst ways possible … the incumbent politician has a distinct advantage over the citizen legislator due to the long time connections available.

Though I find Career Politician Syndrome generally distasteful, there are plenty of legislators and other officials who stay in public service because they truly care about their constituents. By installing limits, what accomplishments might we be squelching?

For perspective, 11 sitting senators and 48 representatives have served at least 12 years. In each group, about half are Democrats and half Republicans.

Con: Spreading Lame Duck Syndrome

However, term limits could facilitate another unpleasant disorder: “Lame Duck Syndrome.” When legislators know a term is their last, they could see fit to disregard their constituents’ wishes and try to ram through legislation that would spark outrage in their districts. (Assuming they were following the delegate model of representation, that is – which they should be if they care to be reelected.)

Con: Spreading Special Interest Syndrome

A friend from Missouri also told me that lobbyists and special interest groups have significant power in the state’s legislature. With term limits forcing high turnover rates, some say it’s easier for lobbyists who know how to work the system to cut deals with the many inexperienced freshmen coming in each term. One interesting paper by a University of Illinois professor even found that in term-limited states, there are typically more lobbyists, lobbyists are more influential, and that unethical behavior is more common.

Generally, I tend to resist blaming “special interest groups” or the “such-and-such-issue lobby,” as most everyone who gives a darn about politics has at least one “special interest,” and these groups are made up of concerned citizens who have as much right as anyone else to use their skills and talents to support or oppose legislation. Either way, Texans need to think carefully about the role of lobbying in our state and the changes term limits could cause.

And what about elections?

Let’s not forget that there is already a built-in mechanism for removing elected officials from office. While it’s true that incumbents generally have an advantage, facilitating Career Politician Syndrome, they are not always safe. Just look at Senator Donna Campbell’s victory, not to mention the 45 other freshmen just elected.

Ultimately, we are entitled to vote for whomever we want for whatever reason we want – even if it’s as simple or silly as not having heard anything bad about the incumbent – and it’s not the legislature’s responsibility to coax voters to do their homework. Perhaps what we need rather than arbitrary alarm clocks telling elected officials when their time is up is a more informed, involved electorate. I don’t know what the solution is, but I doubt it will come through legislation.

The diagnosis

In short, I’m not convinced that we need term limits. Please sound off in the comments: Do you support term limits in Texas? Why or why not?

I appreciate the good work that senators in both parties have put into trying to fix our broken immigration system. There are some good elements in this proposal, especially increasing the resources and manpower to secure our border and also improving and streamlining legal immigration. However, I have deep concerns with the proposed path to citizenship. To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally.

Too often we lose sight of the fact that illegal immigration is just that: illegal. For no other crime is it considered acceptable to lessen the sentence or, worse, let the illegal action continue just because it’s already happened. Going easy on illegal immigrants for no other reason than that they’re already here is incongruous with our nation’s rule of law and nothing more than an incentive for others to break the law.

And, as Senator Cruz said, it’s simply not fair to families like his who made the effort to do things the right way and respect our country’s laws.

We should actively encourage immigration – but the right way. The only “path to citizenship” conservatives should support is one to the back of the line.

Exit polls in November showed more voters believed Barack Obama “cared” about people like them. But relying on personality rather than principles is a dangerous move – on any level of government and any side of the aisle.

Let’s remember to not place individuals on a higher pedestal than our values.

As with most issues, the best solution is to calm down and take a look at the facts.

School shootings are quite rare. Violence in general is also not as common as you might think. In fact, our violent crime rate has dropped significantly, by over 50 percent, in the last 20 years. If you haven’t seen this video, which analyzes unbiased crime statistics, take a few minutes to watch it now.

Not as bad as all the media hype, eh? Even with plenty of privately owned guns and crime-heavy urban areas, violent crime in the United States is not only decreasing, but also much lower than that of England and Wales, where even most police officers don’t have guns and competitive pistol shooters are barely allowed to train.

This is not to say that violent crime in our nation, with or without firearms, shouldn’t be addressed. But perhaps – shocker, I know – letting law-abiding adults own guns, including “assault weapons,” is not the problem. Everyday Americans will follow rules like which guns they can own and how many rounds they can have. The people who commit crimes like this horrific shooting couldn’t care less.

There’s one thing the president has said on this issue that I agree with:

“We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future.”

Talking points are not reality. Challenge assumptions, no matter which side they’re from.