I think both of these videos show the compassion that does in fact exist in our world. The sad part is that so many people seem surprised. And even if people are not surprised that these nice things are happening in our world, the videos are still posted on the blog, which shows some abnormality in the situations. I think these videos are great, I just wish they were more common themes in our world and we wouldn’t need to be seeing them on the news or in videos online. It is really sad when simple and even major acts of kindness (like donating a kidney to an acquaintance) seem so rare.

I find your post to be contradictory. Our country was not founded on legal immigration. The founders of the U.S. came and took control of the land; there was nothing legal about it.
I also think it’s pretty contradictory to say illegal immigrants should have no rights expect to be treated humanely. I’m guessing health care would fall under humane treatment? I think the right to health is a pretty basic human right.
As far as illegal immigrants being a burden to society, sure they use public resources that they do not pay for, but read the post above. The U.S. would not be able to compete on a global scale without cheap labor. To say that illegal immigrants are only a burden is simply false.
I like your solution. I agree that we need to document illegal immigrants, but the system isn’t set up to allow low-skill legal immigration. There are many illegal immigrants that would be happy to pay taxes and gain more access to resources - like health care. But the system doesn’t allow low-skill immigrants to come into the U.S. legally.
So yes, let’s change the system so that the low-skilled workers (that our country depends on) have documented citizenship or temporary visa status, but don’t disregard the U.S.’s need for these workers in the process.

I think there are two easy ways to answer this question. First from a human rights perspective, a person is a person and to deny someone access to essentially “health,” then that person’s human rights are being violated. I understand that to some people it seems completely off the wall to offer something that cost money - like health care - to someone who entered this country illegally. But there is a human component here - it is completely unjust to deny someone health care. But from a real worId stand point I also understand this is often not a powerful argument. I mean let’s face it there are many people that do not believe human rights can be extended to rights that require money in order for the right to be delivered.

But from a strict financial stand point, yes definitely extend health care to everyone living in the United States, regardless of their resident status. Because it is illegal to deny someone medical coverage, people who do not have access to primary health care use the emergency room for their health care access. For example, common ailments that go untreated can turn into serious medical problems and that is when people without medical care seek treatment in the emergency rooms. In turn, because they do not have health insurance the hospital bares the cost of their medical care. These costs are then transferred to the patients with insurance, because medical providers need to increase the cost of medical care for insured patients to offset the expense of uninsured patients.

So it’s simple, no one is talking about giving free health care to illegal immigrants, but why not let immigrants buy health insurance? In the end it would be better for all of us. Immigrants are paying into the system and the system is eliminating unnecessary expenses. To me it seems pointless not to allow illegal immigrants to purchase health care when it will benefit the overall health care system. I think the argument not to allow illegal immigrants to purchase health care is simply based on the fact that the people are here illegally, with no other rationale included in the argument.

I understand that people are pissed off people are entering our country illegally, but come on, let’s take a step back and look at the system. Like we talk about in class Thursday, big businesses are controlling immigration and illegal immigrants are here to do the jobs people in the U.S. are unwilling to do. It is also funny how today we criminalize illegal immigration, but when our great-grandparents were doing it immigration was fine and in fact a story of struggle and bravery. But today when people try to make a better life we see them as near criminals. I think if it was our great-grandparents wanting health care we would hope they had access.

I don’t think the point here is for anyone to stop their life, but maybe instead realize the struggles of other people. I mean sure 300.000 people died. These natural disasters happen every year. Why care? What can we do anyway? These are the thoughts of so many people in the United States. I mean I care a lot about what happened in Haiti and have participated in many fundraising projects for the relief efforts. The question that I think about is why do some people care and some people not? And the weirdest part of it all is that some of us genuinely care about other people and others do not.

I think it’s funny how some people are talking about the value of hard work. I mean sure there are two parts here. A lazy person probably won’t be successful on their own. But there are numerous hard working people in the United States and around the world who never see high profits for their hard work. So from one side innate characteristics matter, but from the other side it’s all about one’s access to resources. I think some people hold on to the American dream model, but let’s face it the American has been out of the picture for many years. The middle class is declining and middle class wages have declined in real value. The system isn’t set up to allow many people to succeed. So no, most illegal immigrants do not have money to gain legal status and a person’s finances has nothing to do with working hard.

Giving that most people won’t think outside their culture when considering the question of whether one would go as far as blowing oneself up as a form of protest for the deaths of family members, the answers here will be very predictable.
My point here is it is extremely difficult to think about the lives of people who would go as far as to kill themselves and others to denounce the current war. This is not to say that killing others is ever ok, but if you saw your family and friends killed, what would you really do?
I mean sure, we all would say we wouldn’t kill someone, but think back to class and living amidst a war that is occurring for reasons you don’t see valid what would you really do?
When I try to understand suicide bombers I think back to movements in the U.S., women’s suffrage, civil rights, and health care, what did people do . . . protest. If we saw our mothers, fathers, partners, friends, sisters, brothers dying, I think we would feel the need to take some sort of action. In the case of war, people may see suicide bombing as the only effective way to make a statement. This is terrible, but by really putting myself in the situation, it makes a little more sense.

I mean come on, isn’t it clear that the U.S. should be teaching foreign languages? You would have to be pretty close-minded to think we shouldn’t be teaching our children other languages. In addition to close-mindedness you probably haven’t spent very much time abroad if you think it isn’t useful to know multiple languages.
Shifting towards a bilingual population is another story. Foreign language programs cost money. With school funding decreasing, and school priorities focused on standardized tests, languages have become less important. But I do think there are valid reasons against add foreign language training in schools.
I agree with Sam that learning four years of a language isn’t going to make someone fluent, but it certainly gives students a head start. It is crazy to think that not all universities require students to take foreign language classes. I guess for people who never plan to leave the U.S. language training isn’t urgent, but the future will certainly bring more language diversity to this country. Shifts in power are also unpredictable, I mean let’s be serious - the world is speaking English because Europeans and the U.S. have the majority of international power, but that certainly doesn’t mean that power is everlasting.
For anyone who plans to have a career that will involve international interactions, language training is a must. I mean think about it, why wouldn’t a company higher a bilingual candidate over a candidate who only speaks English.
I too believe Mandarin is the way to go, China is a very powerful country, and speaking their language will become ever more important as time passes. To work in business, Mandarin would be a major advantage.
Ok, so sure we should all learn another language, I mean leave the U.S. and you probably are going to wish you could speak the language. But I think it is a lot easier said than done. Learning a language is not easy, especially without in country experience. Cultural submersion programs are great, and I think the majority of people who have learned foreign languages would attest that being submersed in a cultural, where all you’re doing is speaking that language, is a big help in developing conversation skills.
But let’s be serious, is it really feasible to send every kid who wants to become fluent in a language abroad? So in order to create bilingual citizens we will need to develop better language training programs. Too often language training is solely classroom based. In classroom only programs people do not retain the information. In order to really create people who can speak multiple or at least two languages more interactive programs need to be develop with opportunities for conversations.
If the U.S. wants maintain its place in the global economy and international community we need to be training our citizens, and language is the first start.

The second step is definitely difficult, mainly because the world is so interconnected. To simply stop purchasing things is not the right solution. I mean think about it, if the market collapsed for a particular good, then the people working in these terribly conditions would no longer have jobs. What’s worse a terrible job or no job? And what does ending a market do for the rooted problem. Since we all need food it would be almost impossible to stop buying everything that was produced in unfair conditions, so stopping some production doesn’t do very much to fix the problem. Instead as consumers we can demand products from fair working conditions. Buying fair trade is an easy way first step to demanding better food, without flesh in the product. But buying fair trade may not be far enough, there needs to be people who are regulating exactly how fair trade is defined. Without regulation fair trade could easily become an abused label. In other words for fair trade to really be fair we need to regulate so that the percentage that goes back to the farmers in ensured.
With considering the reality of the U.S. culture I think the second step is not to end consumerism, but instead demand better quality goods produced in better conditions. Sure consuming less should also be incorporated into the solution, but with the culture of the U.S. that will be a slow progression. People from the United States will not be happy to work towards better working conditions around the work. Sure initially I would hope that no one would want to consume things made in slave conditions, but when the bill comes around and people do not see the suffering that occurs people will not be happy. Basically people may need to pay more for the things they buy. I doubt if many people in the U.S. would even care that people in the global south are suffering in order to fuel our consumerism.
The important thing here is that people are talking about these issues. Every time we make a purchase we are voting. In a capitalistic society, we vote without money. So to start buying products like fair trade items that are made in better conditions the demand increases. And when the demand increases the supply needs to be increased. It is comparable to the green movement, people started talking about global warming and consumers started to care and now there are many green options. But, we must be careful that even as products change to contain less flesh we need to make sure that things are indeed better and not just an extra sticker on a product. Ultimately we need to keep questioning things.

Definitely a good direction for the conversation. I too would like to explore how different cultures deal with women's periods. I would guess it would have something to do with the status of women in the society. These conversationswould probably address many aspects of the culture based on how they treat women during that time of the month. And since cultures differ so much it would be interesting to compare. I would say I've traveled a good bit, but I have never talked to native people about menstruating. I guess that says a lot about period talks. . . no one is talking about it.

This menstruating thing is relatively random for a race relations class. I mean personally I get Sam’s point, and I think it is a valid one. We should definitely take into account what women go through and how their lives are different from men, and certainly have increase hurdles like hormonal fluctuations that cause crazy feelings. I do not think most men truly understand what the like of a woman is like. Sure most women strive to be equal, when physiologically they are not, I think it would be a different world if men really tired to understand how different women’s lives are.
So I’m all for the bleeding talk, but at the same time think it’s a little weird. I also think it’s good to have this talk, because there are many women who do not have similar bleeding issue to Laurie. I have plenty of friends who have light periods without much uncomfort, besides dealing with the hassle of dealing with blood. So cheers to the bleeding talk. We should all be more considerate for women, especially those who menstrual issues.
I guess that’s why there is a push to make bad menstrual symptoms a clinical problem. It’s just as much a condition as allergies or something else. I think the real conversation should be based around the stigma associated with women and their “periods.” Because by making heavy bleeding and intense menstrual problems a medical condition you bring along the stigma of a disease. And who wants to have a problem anyway?
So I don’t know if that’s the right choice either. . . Instead, maybe we should just be considerate of women and how their bodily functions differ from men’s. Women have added complications to deal with in their day to day lives.
Oh if women ruled the world. How would things be different? From a past post, I don’t think tampons would be free, but maybe we would all get a week off a month. . . who knows, but things we certainly be different.
I commend Laurie for talking about her menstrual cycle and how it has changed many life experiences. I really resonated with me when Sam talked about how Laurie needed to plan her life on a 28-day cycle. I can’t imagine how my life would differ by planning according to a cycle, and knowing that each month I would suffer. And men wonder why women can be moody or short-tempered . . . you name it. Men should learn to respect women and understand why they may be acting the way they are.
Overall, this is a difficult topic, especially when it only affects 50 percent of the populations and they divide that percent by however many women do not have severe symptoms.