Critiquing Andrea Coj

Although I agree with Andrea Coj's message about the Obama administration, her argument is poorly supported and leaves a lot to be desired in the way of references, making it seem like a rough draft rather than a final blog post. Coj's message is that the Obama administration is not as bad as everyone is making it out to be and cites the new immigration executive order as her evidence of this, saying that Obama "secretly working" on this plan makes his administration worthwhile.

Ignoring grammatical errors, her argument is very weak, relying mainly on her experiences only and general statements about what has been happening in the political sphere. Coj also references ebola in what seems to be an afterthought, a point which, having been more developed, could have greatly improved the viability of this piece. Like I said, although I agree with the message that the Obama administration is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be and blame is laid on the president for things out of his control, I do not believe this article would convince anyone who disagreed with her point that this is a viable opinion.

The Root of the Issue of College Costs

Everybody knows that a college education in America is not cheap. 69% of students left college in 2013 with student loans and the borrowers owed an average of $28,400 in combined private and federal loans. The cost of college has increased by over 500% from 1985, compared to a 286% jump in medical costs and a 121% increase in the consumer price index in the same period. This ridiculous increase makes college difficult to afford for many students and increases the economic disparity in America. With this increase in price, the demand and competition for federal aid, scholarship and loans has greatly increased over the years, further making it difficult to finance college without taking out loans. Do you want to know who does't have this problem? Students in Germany. The entirety of the country's universities have been tuition free since this past October when the last of their states got rid of fees. Other countries such as Finland, France, and Brazil have little to no fees to go to their public colleges. In Germany the effect of this has been an increase in the proportion of the population that is entering and graduating from college. If America took steps not to increase aid to fund each individual's education, but deal with the problem at the source and decrease the cost of college, much less strain would be put on families who cannot leisurely afford college. Currently there is a lot of aid for the financially disadvantaged, as long as you know how to apply for it there are already generous sums of money awarded to people who otherwise would not be able to afford college. This is a great thing. In the upper class college can be paid for because they have enough money to pay for it. That leaves out the middle class we are oh so proud of in America out in the cold. The middle class consisting of those who are missed by federal financial aid but cannot easily pay for college out of pocket. The strain that is put on families of this type increases the economic disparity by only allowing the very elite of them, who can gain enough scholarship through academics, to consistently pay for college. This makes it increasingly difficult for the average middle class person to pay for college without gaining loads of debt. Raising aid is not the answer to this issue, problems cannot be fixed by throwing money at them. Decreases in the cost of public college would benefit all classes and be a factor in helping preserve our already declining middle class.

Obama "Trolls" Republicans Over Immigration

Yesterday, November 18th, POLITICO Magazine published the commentary by Bill Scher from the Campaign for America's Future titled "Trolling* the GOP" detailing a Republican response to the news of Obama's immigration executive order. In essence, this immigration plan puts the Republicans in a very bad spot. If they oppose the law they will lose what Latino support they have, They really only have two options, let the order happen or push through their own modified immigration legislation, since they have control of Congress. The second option will not happen however because of the inner turmoil in the party over this issue. Obama has chosen the perfect time and strategy to work this issue into law, and it has definitely "trolled" the republicans. The GOP response is absolutely hilarious, some are calling this an impeachable offense, some republicans are calling for the government to shut down like it did in 2013, some say Obama is playing with fire. Obama has already gotten done much of what he has come to office to do, except revision of immigration policy. If he gets this order through, he will need support of the next president to keep it in place. By causing this much turmoil in in the GOP, he might just keep the presidency for the Democrats. This article is directed towards Republicans and is designed to portray Obama as manipulative. With that however, Bill Scher thinks that the Republicans need to work out within the party how they want to address the issue of immigration going forward. Scher almost congratulates Obama for a job well done, saying he has "reopened the [Republican] party's divisions heading into 2016" possibly making sure that his "opposing party can't get anywhere near the White House [and d]riving Republicans crazy."

I think that the immigration executive order that Obama is attempting to pass will be very beneficial for many people who have been in an awkward legal limbo. It sounds like the only way Obama would be able to get this passed is to troll the party since the Republicans are apparently in no state to negotiate anything having to do with immigration leaving congress in gridlock. I'm actually quite impressed with the planning and ingenuity it must have taken to figure out the best time to try to pass something about immigration. So I guess I agree with the commentator that Obama is trolling the Republicans, except I think it's a bit exciting!


*Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message...with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument - Urban Dictionary

Chill Out About Ebola Already

Today, Monday November 3rd, The Austin American Statesman published the article by Mary Sanchez of the Kansas City Star Titled "Sanchez: Ebola Should not Spawn more useless 'security theater.'" In this column, Sanchez comments on the miss matched overreactions that different states are having to the return of doctors without borders to the United States. Specifically in the case of nurse Kaci Hickox who is suing the state of New Jersey for quarantining her in a warehoused plastic tent after her return from Sierra Leone, showing no signs of ebola, and against her will. Sanchez takes the position that there should be some regulation as to what people returning from countries where Ebola is a major issue, however we do not need to take extreme measures such as quarantine or isolation. Sanchez takes her evidence from Judge Charles C. LaVerdiere who presided over Hickox's trial and science. Ebola is only contagious in people that are showing symptoms, and therefore, contact with asymptomatic individuals will not spread the disease, ruling out the need for isolation and most definitely quarantine. Judge LaVerdiere attributes the overreaction of officials to "the 'misconceptions, misinformation, bad science and bad information' surrounding Ebola." Sanchez also blames the upcoming elections for governors' overreactions saying they "[want] to look tough" and are "afraid of being pilloried as being weak with elections days away." Sanchez hopes that the Hickox controversy will create more intelligent decisions from state officials, leading to more standardized rules from state to state not the treatment of people retuning from countries where Ebola is a issue.This audience is intended to both inform and persuade common people and lawmakers that Ebola in America is something we are largely overreacting to and putting in place unnecessary protection measures that only infringe on the rights of people coming back from infected countries.

I agree with Sanchez's stance. Ebola is a very dangerous virus if it is in a country with a less equipped medical infrastructure. However in America the likelihood of Ebola becoming a pandemic is highly unlikely, mainly because in sanitary conditions where people practice regular hygiene and are educated very quickly about this disease, it is very hard to contract the virus from someone else. To contract Ebola, one must get the bodily fluids of a contagious individual to touch one of their mucus membranes (basically go in your mouth or eyes). Ebola patients are not contagious until they show the very obvious symptoms of Ebola, so I think it is reasonable to have people that show signs of Ebola isolated. Also lets be honest, if you had been to a place where Ebola was common, and started showing the symptoms of Ebola, I don't know about you but I would be getting to the hospital as fast as I could to keep myself alive. All of the science shows that isolation and 21-day quarantines are unnecessary and can actually deter people from going to help in countries struck with the disease. Like Sanchez, I too hope that the Hickox case brings more sanity to the issue and that after elections are over American policy on Ebola will mellow out.

Conservative Texas Strikes Again

Today, October 14th, Time posted the article "Supreme Court Halts Some Texas Abortion Restrictions." The Supreme Court suspended a Texas ruling that required abortion clinics to "spend millions of dollars on hospital-level upgrades." This ruling was originally being debated in the 5th Circuit and was enforced while this was happening. It has led to over a dozen clinics on Texas closing as because they do not have the funding to meet these high specifications. Before the ruling was suspended but the Supreme Court, the only clinics that remained open were in large population centers such as Dallas-Ft Worth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. No clinics were left open along the Texas-Mexico border. Critics are calling this and measures like it in other states a "backdoor effort to outlaw abortions." The fight over the constitutionality of abortion restrictions across the county is a tough one and General Greg Abbott(R), a favorite in the Texas governor's race, strongly defends the Texas ruling. Wendy Davis, the Democratic candidate for governor of Texas, actually launched her campaign by temporarily blocking this law in the state senate, but is not the favorite.

This Article is worth reading not only because it deals with women's rights and the controversial topic of abortion in American law, but also because it deals with the upcoming election for governor and the position of one of the candidates in relation to the direction of the nation. It is important to be informed of how our more local policies are interacting with the bigger picture of the United States and the national trends of change. On this issue, I think Texas is on the wrong side of history.