Political Traffic

Sitting in traffic, annoyed because of street closures, I wonder if it is all worth the while, all worth the effort that is of President Obama visiting the University of Texas at Austin campus to deliver a speech. While there is no denying the honor and excitement of the President visiting my college campus, I wonder if it is all worth the while.

So after putting up with my fair share of traffic for a speech I did not even witness, I google for the record of the speech online. Upon finding the speech, I decide to copy it into http://www.wordle.net/create to see what were the President's main points with seeing which words were repeated the most throughout the speech. To my surprise, the words "Education," "Make," and "College," were the most repeated. I had gone into my search thinking it was more a a publicity stunt than the President actually talking about a relevant topic to his audience.

However, somehow I could not get over the trouble the US Government had to take so the President to could speak to college students when Congress is having a hard enough time passing bills that could save our planet. Maybe it could have been the traffic that ticked me off, or the witnessing of government taxpayer dollars used to block streets and direct traffic, but still couldn't President Obama be making more of an effort to help build bridges in Congress instead of blocking the already clogged Austin streets?

Not Quite the Same Thing...

In response to your post, Re: Arizona's New Immigration Law, I will have to say your argument that illegal immigrants sometimes actually hurt the economy by sending much of their earnings abroad is sound, I will have to disagree that the discrimination of the Arizona Immigration law is similar to a clerk asking for an ID at the liquor store. While the discrimination of Arizona's Immigration Law seems to be suspicious, when a clerk asks for identification they ask all people he or she believes to be under-age, not just a particular race or ethnicity. They are not discriminating because he or she usually asks ALL young buyers whereas in Arizona the law seems to have targeted a specific race of illegal immigrants, not the illegal immigrant population as a whole.

For example, when the bill was being signed, according to New York Times article "Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html), "Hispanics, in particular... railed against the law as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling." This demonstrates that even the local population felt that the law was not going to be applied equally to all illegal immigrants which makes it different from a young person walking into a liquor store feeling like he or she will be asked for an ID because of her age because it is usually applied to all suspects not just one race.

Moreover, as I can agree with your argument that illegal immigrants might do more harm than good for the U.S. economy when they send earnings abroad, supporting a law that is clearly a target for a particular race is not the answer. If anything the law was a cry for help from Arizona to the United States Government to fulfill promises on immigration reform.

Two Nauseating Issues

While you, Ashty, discuss several issues in your post The gentlemen will observe regular order and sit down!, the ruthlessness and confusion of Congress as well as if the first-responders to 9/11 deserve medical compensation, as much as I agree with the former I tend to disagree strongly with the latter issue. Yes, Congress is confusing and there is probably an excess amount of bargaining and as you say "teasing." It is very upsetting that party lines can draw such a rift between Congressmen causing them to focus more on what his or her party wants rather than what is in the public's best interest. Therefore I am very much in agreement with your stance on this point of your post.

However, your choice to take the stand of not being a supporter of giving medical compensation to the first-responders is very upsetting. Yes, you mention that the danger is part of the job and those who signed up should have realized this, as seen with your comparison to the military. But, veterans today receive ample federal aid especially if they are injured in the line of duty. For example, on the website: http://www.veteranprograms.com/ veterans are given access to federal funded counseling, hospitals, and other compensation. Therefore, your argument that those in dangerous professions that serve our country do not deserve medical compensation is questionable seeing as though the United States gives veterans much more than financial support.

In all, no matter your stance on the particular issue of medical compensation for first-responders the chaos and tension rising in Congress is far more upsetting.