¿Por qué hay una pared aquí?

     In his article, "Blog Stage 7," Johnny Albarran makes a well established argument. He makes it very clear that he is against the building of the wall on the border between United States and Mexico. He uses many facts pertaining to the current and post construction of the wall. He is clearly very knowledgeable on the subject. He presents numerical data in regards to the costs of building the wall, using a fence that has been built in San Diego. I think the use of the financial burden of this one wall is a key argument to use. Since the economy is not in a great place at the time, using the financial burden of the wall is a great way to convince readers that a wall is not a good option for society. I am not sure if construction on walls in other parts of the country exists, but I think Johnny could have made a much stronger argument if he included the financial status of other walls. However, one financial crisis that goes from a projected $14 million to an actual $77 million is more than enough to convert many American citizens. Money is frequently the strongest argument for any project and it was a very critical argument to be used. He did it very well and organized the given data in a way that was straight forward and not mind boggling confusing from having numbers thrown around. The financial argument was very well put together. 

     Johnny also argues that building a wall will not prevent illegal immigration or drug trafficking. " if someone wants to come in, they will find a way" (p. 4). He supports this idea by giving a specific example of one tunnel connecting Tijuana and San Diego. The use of examples is very important when making an argument and he even talks about the level of sophistication established in this one tunnel. 

     It is clear to me how Johnny feels about a wall between the United States and Mexico. Although he does not expand into more detail, I think he does a great job supporting his idea. I would have liked to see proposed alternatives expanded on and some of the costs there, I think it would have made a more solid argument. However, I do think Johnny made a well thought out and put together argument, focusing on what many American citizens would consider some of the biggest problems. I do agree with Johnny, but for slightly different reasons. I simply think it is insulting and rude to want to build a wall. We are the United States for goodness sake, we should have some class.     

Wait, what was I supposed to do today?

So, many like to say that history has a way of repeating itself. Others, think history can be analyzed and learned from to prevent unwanted repetitions. So, why doesn't government realize that history is currently repeating itself? Ever heard of prohibition?

Even though it only lasted thirteen years, the Temperance movement and Prohibition was a complete failure for the United States national government. However, they have been relatively more successful with keeping marijuana illegal. Living in Austin, this can be considered a nuisance. In Texas 2002, over half of all drug related arrests involved marijuana. 

  

Today, marijuana seems to me like 1920’s alcohol consumption. Maybe it is because I live in Austin, a typically weed friendly population, that I feel this way. Eventually, Congress will realize that marijuana is a battle that they may not win.

As with alcohol, marijuana can be regulated and have restrictions. However, it can also be abused just like alcohol, and McDonalds, and the gas pedal of a motor vehicle. Human’s ability to make choices and have free will make everything potentially dangerous. If people were more educated about things, maybe we would make smarter choices, but because subjects like drugs are so under-discussed, people have a tendency to make just as uneducated decisions.

Even states like California not only realize the inevitability of legalizing weed. Even though it was formally voted against legalization in the most recent election, there are many cannabis clubs located throughout California that distribute marijuana for medication purposes. All it takes is going into the doctor. Some doctors even distribute where they hold their practice. Not only does marijuana help ease pains from simple headaches to severe injuries, but it can also help a person sleep or relieve stress. 

Personally, I have only ever known one overweight "pothead." Even though a common side effect is hunger and minor laziness, most people I encounter that smoke (or eat) marijuana on a regular basis are rather slim. Reasoning for this? Unknown, just a personal observation. Willie Nelson is 77 years old, and to the best of my knowledge, still putting on performances and leading a successful life as a well known pot smoker. 

Government needs to wise up and realize that having such a hard thumb in regards to marijuana is about as pointless as it was on alcohol. It is in such high demand these days that people are going to acquire it whether it be legally or illegally. The government might as well tax the hell out of it and make some profit. 

Personally, I would not mind weed remaining illegal. One less thing for government to tax and money-rape American citizens with. And the risk of getting a small fine is worth the savings to most.

Disclaimer : I am in no way endorsing the production or consumption of marijuana in any way, nor do I encourage anyone to partake in any illegal activity or substance. Never operate machinery or anything more complicated than a basic remote control whilst under the influence of any mind-altering substance whether it be legal or illegal. Never grocery shop whilst under the influence of marijuana and always remember to be responsible. Actually, never do anything besides watch TV if under the influence of marijuana. Thank you, and I hope you have had a great semester. Don't do drugs. 

National Healthcare

Working in the healthcare industry, health insurance requirements are among the focus of many conversations. The company I work for bills out about twenty-five percent of claims as self funded, about thirty-five percent government funded, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare, and the remaining forty percent are covered by commercial insurance companies such as Blue Cross, United Healthcare, and Cigna. Of the self funded patients, less than five percent of what is billed out is collected.

The company I work for bills for durable medical equipment such as arm slings and crutches. Our average bill is $105, a small price to collect in comparison to the bill for the services rendered by the physician. If each of these individuals had valid health insurance, the company would be collecting about fifty percent of charges billed out instead of less than five. Needless to say, the people in charge around here would be much more content with a higher percentage pay rate.

However, this company doesn’t even offer health insurance to their employees; much less pay them enough to have the ability to afford health insurance on their own.

I think healthcare is something that should never be denied to anyone. Free National Healthcare available to everyone would create a healthier nation. I think that even if it is not of highest quality, that every American should have the option to go to a physician and get treated for illness and/or injury. And if you are of the higher class, then by all means, continue to pay large sums of money for your insurance and doctor visits. But all people should have the ability to be cared for and seek help when they are not well.

Though it is terribly controversial, health is not something that should be denied to anyone because they do not have the means to pay a ridiculous amount of money for services that are essential for the survival of a human being. The government does offer aid to those who are considered under poverty levels, but those poverty levels are ridiculous and if you are a man over the age of eighteen and without children, you can pretty much consider government aid out of the question.

Everyone should be able to go to the doctor when they are unwell and be tended to without having to file for bankruptcy a couple years later because the cost of getting sick without insurance is thousands of dollars. The options for that person shouldn’t be bankruptcy or death.

Health insurance requirements are only a way for businesses to make more money. Offering healthcare for no or little cost serves no benefit to companies or their profits, and all America seems to care about is money money money money money. The well-being of its citizens is much less important.

Dirty Hands

In his article Yes On Prop 23 Campaigners ‘Very Thankful’ For Out-Of-State Oil Companies’ Funding, Alex Seitz-Wald expresses his concern pertaining to out-of-state oil companies having influence over California law. His argument is built well, providing the reader with multiple embedded links to get a more firm understanding of the issues he discusses. This immediate availability to check his facts provides reliability in his argument. 

His main audience is most likely that of California voters who may be upset with companies based out of other states who get involved in their (California’s) campaigns and thus influencing laws.

Seitz-Wald makes a claim that large oil companies in Texas such as Valero are some of the largest contributors to California's Proposition 23, which would 'suspend' California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 until rates of unemployment goes down. Seitz-Wald references and quotes three supporters of Proposition 23 to see their opinion in regards to the out-of-state companies throwing campaign money around. He uses many sources to develop his argument and includes the opinions of the people who do not necessarily agree that the companies’ involvement in campaigns is bad.

Seitz-Wald’s opinion is mostly expressed through his choice in quotations. He chose to quote Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger using the term “black oil hearts.” He later quotes a Proposition 23 supporter calling global warming “a hoax.” I think he used this quote because Global Warming is such a big deal today and most people would get angry if told Global Warming is a hoax. Seitz-Wald pulls at human emotion to urge the reader to look at the supporters of the bill as bad guys, especially the large out-of-state supporters.

He really is quite skilled when putting together his argument, because he hardly says anything himself, yet by reading his blog, you know how he feels. He spits out a few facts that are all linked to other articles or websites and then throws in some quotes from the Governor and a few from supporters that do nothing but enhance his argument that it is wrong for out-of-state companies to have such influence over statewide campaigns. However, though he made a valid argument without saying much, it doesn’t give the reader real insight as to why he thinks it is wrong. I think he needs to be more opinionated himself and give his own reasons why versus quoting other peoples reasons.  

Happy Toking

In his article “Reefer Gladness,” Timothy Egan makes an argument in favor of legalizing marijuana. His intended audience tends to lean towards people who are already for the legalization of marijuana or for those who are undecided but not leaning heavily towards one opinion. His claim is well put together, countering am arguments used in protest of the legalization of marijuana. Egan’s point is built strongly because he does recognize the most common arguments from people who are against legalizing marijuana. He identifies their point of view on the matter and expresses an equally strong notion counteracting their uncertainties regarding legalization. Like any intelligent person, he does acknowledge people who abuse the drug, but also points out other legal substances that can have an equally harmful effect if consumed in excess. Egan’s political argument regarding marijuana and money flow is one argument I would have liked to see in more detail. But, he instead turns his focus on the various interest groups opposing legalization and explains why he thinks they are so against the ideal. His points are valid and he does a good job putting everything together. His article is not difficult to read and flows nicely from one claim to the next. His strongest claim, in my opinion, however is the one he makes about the appearance of government if they were to legalize marijuana. American people in general and as a whole do nothing but worry about what others see in them and expect out of them. After years of marijuana being categorized as a drug, it makes it that much more difficult for government to legalize it knowing that it would make them look like hypocrites. (but what doesn’t make the government look that way?). Egan gracefully connects the benefits government could have to the oppositions of the people currently benefitting from the fact that it is not legal. He not only brings in the clubs in California that grow and distribute for medical reasons, but he uses another of human emotions to try and persuade the reader to see things his way. The drug cartel is often looked at as dangerous and violent. Egan presents the reader with the thought that the government is threatened by these cartels and is hesitant to legalize due to the fear of possible repercussions from drug lords and the powerful people currently in possession of the marijuana market. Overall, Timothy Egan has a well stated argument, but it is one that is not exactly original. His points are the points of many “pro-legalizers.”

Ruling against military's gay ban puts pressure on Senate

An all too often problem these days is discrimination based on a person's sexuality. U.S. government can be considered by some to be no exception. The current policy in your U.S. military regarding homosexuals is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. According to this, as long as you are not openly gay, you can fight for your country. A person can be the best sniper in the field keeping others alive, but if it is discovered they are gay, they are out. In May, the House of Representatives made the choice to repeal the policy banning homosexuals from serving in the military. As the pre-election recess draws nearer, it becomes more and more tense as to whether this is going to happen or not. Many democrats fear the Senate will be re-elected more republican heavy and make the chances of repeal more unlikely. According to David Crary's article for Austin American Statesman, "The Justice Department hasn't yet said whether it will appeal the ruling."

I think the ruling should be appealed. Gays have just as much citizenship and rights to fight for our country as anyone else. It is, afterall, their country too.