"The Things They Carried"

Thesis: In gaining an understanding of the perspectives of people in "The Things They Carried", Tim O'Brien helps his reader to better understand the Vietnam conflict.

Wrapping up the migrant debate...

Now that blogger is actually working, I want you guys to post any last thoughts on immigration on your blog. How did you feel about immigration and migrant workers before the unit started? Did your feelings change? Why or why not? How has your knowledge of SB1070 changed? Do you feel like your a more informed citizen after analyzing it? These are just a few questions to consider.

Prior to our unit on migrant workers began I was very much a proponet of immigration reform, and I had a deep respect for migrant workers and the importance that they play in our economy. Since beginning our unit, has my feelings changed? My feeling have not changed on the subject. I think this has to do with my experiecnces with migrant workers in the past. I have worked with many; in Nebraska, Colorado and now California in different occupations. They were all very different, but the one thing that they shared in common was their work ethic and their love for this country. Nobody who is a U.S. citizen works as hard as this group of people, nor have they had to fight as many uphill battles just to be given the opportunity to work hard, and I have tremendous respect for that.

migrant workers.

Knowing what we know about SB1070 and its heavy approach to illegal workers, what is your feeling on the issue. Do migrant workers take jobs from U.S. workers? In thinking about this issue, it is important to consider what industries migrant workers tend to work in and what the wages are. Would a U.S. citizen work in these industries and/or for these wages? What role does the recession play in this debate?

I feel that SB1070 is a highly excessive response to a perceived economic and criminal threat by migrant workers in Arizona. Although there is a criminal element associated with some illegal immigrants and drug cartels in Arizona, I believe this threat has been exaggerated. The claim that Arizona had the second highest amount of kidnappings in the world was a blatant lie, in attempts to justify a law that so obviously skirted civil liberties.
I think people need to take a step back at the big picture here. Foreign born workers make up 15% of our entire labor force in America, that is 1 in 7 people. There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants today working in jobs that American workers simply won't do. As the recession hit and more people began losing their jobs, they looked for someone to blame. Instead on focusing on the thiefs on Wall Street, many people focused on illegal immigrants who "took" the jobs they didn't even want. Using illegal immigrants as a scape goat, when in reality, these are jobs that they would not even apply for. For instance, if an American were to lose their office job or mid management position, would they be more likely to go apply for that landscaping job, bus boy position, or strawberry picker (common jobs for illegal immigrants)- absolutely not! The only thing they would be applying for is unemployment. Those types of jobs aren't even on their radar, and yet people scream about illegal immigrants stealing our jobs. It's a very ignorant argument because in the end most of these people benefit one way or another from this source of cheap labor, either through the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables, cheap service and/or labor. If they truly had a problem with that then the smart and effective thing to do would be to stop benefitting from the cheap labor all together. They would need to stop buying fruit and vegetables, stop going out to eat, stop hiring handy men around the house. People just don't see that they are protesting something they are directly benefiting from.

SB1070: Racial profiling or radical enforcement?

What is your overall reaction to SB1070 after reading it? What justifications do the Arizona lawmakers present for passing such a controversial bill? What do you think the purpose of the law is? (And I don't mean the legalization of racial profiling . . . go deeper). And, of course, make sure you respond to two posts

After reading SB1070 I was filled with disappointment and anger. It seems that the state of Arizona has effectively legalized racial profiling. Granting law enforcement the right to detain persons on suspicion of immigration status is ridiculous. Our country is one made up of immigrants, but because people naturally tend to be biased it is those who appear to be Latino or Black that will be most effected by this. Arizona law maker defend this law as the last resort solution to a problem that the federal government has ignored. One that will protect the safety and economic future of its residents. I believe that purpose of this law is to stop immigration on both sides: the illegal immigrants themselves and those who hire them. However I saw very little in the original bill that mentioned the punishment for those who hire illegal immigrants. I believe it's a two sided problem. Often times, companies get a mere slap on the wrist for employing illegal immigrants while the immigrants whole life is destroyed. We cannot expect people to keep coming over here when we have job opportunities for them. Legislation must go further to punish those who hire and often times exploit these immigrants.

There's enough blame to go around

There's enough blame to go around

Since the financial crisis began in 2007 over 2.3 million homes have been foreclosed in the United States (cnn.com). This figure does not account for any of the other financial losses that would naturally accompany a home foreclosure ,such as: loss of pensions and savings, car repossessions and defaulted credit card debt. These figures do not even take into account the loss of self worth when one losses everything they had, and can no longer provide for one's family.

It is safe to say that almost everyone in world was affected, one way or another by the global financial crisis, some greatly more than others. In response to this crisis the public has looked for someone to blame; who should be held accountable for the global economic losses? Most people blame the financial institutions of Wall Street. While others contend it was the government's lack of oversight that helped to perpetuate the financial collapse. There are even those who blame the average citizen and consumerism. While there are definitely good reasons that each of these should be charged with the crime of the global collapse, I believe that the global financial crisis was the result of the combined failures of all three.

Let's start with the obvious: we are in a recession caused by banking greed and an over inflated housing market. No one would argue that the practices of Wall Street directly led to the financial crisis. The use of structured finance that allowed small amounts of money to leverage large investments with little to no capital backing them (Global Issues 139) was risky and shortsighted to begin with. Billions of dollars where invested with the expectations of high returns. Only to be found out later that these high priced funds were essentially worthless containing little to no real money value. What they actually possessed was a myriad of high priced, un-payable loans and foreclosed mortgages. When it was finally discovered that these loans were worthless it was already too late, millions of people had already lost their savings, pensions and homes.

While the banking industry was out offering these faulty loans to the masses, where was Big Brother? Isn't there an elected government body in place to protect individuals from these predatory practices? Apparently not. For a government to interfere in its financial market would be un-American. To do so would violate the basic tenets of a free-market economy. So the government took a giant step back. The deregulation and lack of oversight allowed the financial institutions to make their own rules. Financial companies were buying and selling packaged loans with the contents being unknown to the consumer. Little to no disclosure became the norm, resulting in loans in which people didn't even know what they had.

Last but not least we come to the consumer: you, me and everyone else who purchased anything in the last five years. While it is true that Wall Street provided us with faulty loans, and the government sat by and let it happen in the name of free-market; when it comes down to it we can no more blame the banking industry for our financial woes, than a drug addict can blame his dealer. While there is a certain amount of responsibility in the hands of the drug dealer/banking industry, ultimately the decision was ours to begin with. We were all 塗igh on prosperity and our drug of choice: easily accessed credit. Since 1988, U.S. individual consumer debt has tripled (Global Issues 140). Americans have become accustomed to debt; owing more than one owns has become the national standard. Our society has become ingrained in the notion that possessions equates happiness, therefore buying is the pathway to that happiness. This dangerous fallacy that has been fed to us since Capitalism began.

So again the question is asked, who is to blame? I would like to pose the answer: Who is not to blame. From the gilded towers of Wall Street to the condos on main street, people everywhere were caught up in the frenzy of cheap buying. Politicians sat around congress while CEO's and Wall Street big wigs took advantage of the deregulation. Mortgage companies gave out housing loans with barely more than a signature required, and of course there was Joe Schmo- ready and waiting with a pen and paper.

The global financial crisis was an enormous failure caused by all parties involved. No one person, industry or government can be blamed. Even though the global financial crisis was a hard lesson to learn for everyone, it was one that needed to be taught. So where do we go from here? There is no easy answer to this questions, and no issue is as simple as I have laid out here. However, there are some valuable lessons to be had. Deregulation and lack of government oversight does not work. People will always take the advantage if given the opportunity, even if those advantages cause harm to others. A government body must be in place to oversee financial industry and ensure the protection of its citizens. After all, it was the taxpayers who ended up paying the largest price in this crisis. Another lesson that should be taken away from all this is

There's enough blame to go around

Since the financial crisis began in 2007 over 2.3 million homes have been foreclosed in the United States (cnn.com). This figure does not account for any of the other financial losses that would naturally accompany a home foreclosure ,such as: loss of pensions and savings, car repossessions and defaulted credit card debt. These figures do not even take into account the loss of self worth when one losses everything they had, and can no longer provide for one's family.

It is safe to say that almost everyone in world was affected, one way or another by the global financial crisis, some greatly more than others. In response to this crisis the public has looked for someone to blame; who should be held accountable for the global economic losses? Most people blame the financial institutions of Wall Street. While others contend it was the government's lack of oversight that helped to perpetuate the financial collapse. There are even those who blame the average citizen and consumerism. While there are definitely good reasons that each of these should be charged with the crime of the global collapse, I believe that the global financial crisis was the result of the combined failures of all three.

Let's start with the obvious: we are in a recession caused by banking greed and an over inflated housing market. No one would argue that the practices of Wall Street directly led to the financial crisis. The use of structured finance that allowed small amounts of money to leverage large investments with little to no capital backing them (Global Issues 139) was risky and shortsighted to begin with. Billions of dollars where invested with the expectations of high returns. Only to be found out later that these high priced funds were essentially worthless containing little to no real money value. What they actually possessed was a myriad of high priced, un-payable loans and foreclosed mortgages. When it was finally discovered that these loans were worthless it was already too late, millions of people had already lost their savings, pensions and homes.

While the banking industry was out offering these faulty loans to the masses, where was Big Brother? Isn't there an elected government body in place to protect individuals from these predatory practices? Apparently not. For a government to interfere in its financial market would be un-American. To do so would violate the basic tenets of a free-market economy. So the government took a giant step back. The deregulation and lack of oversight allowed the financial institutions to make their own rules. Financial companies were buying and selling packaged loans with the contents being unknown to the consumer. Little to no disclosure became the norm, resulting in loans in which people didn't even know what they had.

Last but not least we come to the consumer: you, me and everyone else who purchased anything in the last five years. While it is true that Wall Street provided us with faulty loans, and the government sat by and let it happen in the name of free-market; when it comes down to it we can no more blame the banking industry for our financial woes, than a drug addict can blame his dealer. While there is a certain amount of responsibility in the hands of the drug dealer/banking industry, ultimately the decision was ours to begin with. We were all 塗igh on prosperity and our drug of choice: easily accessed credit. Since 1988, U.S. individual consumer debt has tripled (Global Issues 140). Americans have become accustomed to debt; owing more than one owns has become the national standard. Our society has become ingrained in the notion that possessions equates happiness, therefore buying is the pathway to that happiness. This dangerous fallacy that has been fed to us since Capitalism began.

So again the question is asked, who is to blame? I would like to pose the answer: Who is not to blame. From the gilded towers of Wall Street to the condos on main street, people everywhere were caught up in the frenzy of cheap buying. Politicians sat around congress while CEO's and Wall Street big wigs took advantage of the deregulation. Mortgage companies gave out housing loans with barely more than a signature required, and of course there was Joe Schmo- ready and waiting with a pen and paper.

The global financial crisis was an enormous failure caused by all parties involved. No one person, industry or government can be blamed. Even though the global financial crisis was a hard lesson to learn for everyone, it was one that needed to be taught. So where do we go from here? There is no easy answer to this questions, and no issue is as simple as I have laid out here. However, there are some valuable lessons to be had. Deregulation and lack of government oversight does not work. People will always take the advantage if given the opportunity, even if those advantages cause harm to others. A government body must be in place to oversee financial industry and ensure the protection of its citizens. After all, it was the taxpayers who ended up paying the largest price in this crisis. Another lesson we should take away from this is that as consumers and as Americans we must recognize the dangers of the consumer culture we are constantly buying into. The “buy now, pay later” mind frame is not a sustainable model for which to build financial success, we can see it only leads to failure.

As you wrap up your essay, I want you all to post any last thoughts on the global financial crisis. The era that the financial crisis ushered in may be one of the most important times in our lives. This is especially true for all of you looking to graduate in the next couple of years as unemployment remains high and the availability of good jobs remains low. These consequences linger as the big corporations are again making huge profits and the government flirts with inflation in order to appease Wall Street. Just reflect on these facts and comment on two other blogs.

It is a scary time that we live in. I don't want to sound to overly dramatized but the future is uncertain for those of us who are looking to start our "lives" after we finish school. Never before has a generation faced this lack of economic opportunity available to them, as we do now. This does not even take into account the the fact that the quality of life, economic opportunity and the income disparity in the last twenty years have been increasing for the working middle class. With unemployment at one of the highest rates in decades and the cost of living sky rocketing while the real wage of workers is going down; the future looks grim.

Overpaid CEO and over charged taxpayers

San Francisco's own Wells Fargo Bank was one of the first and largest financial institutions to receive a TARP bailout, one to the tune of $25 billion. Wells Fargo is the largest U.S. home lending institution. At the beginning of 2008 before the bailout the stock prices for Wells Fargo were at $35.18 today the stock price is at $28.54.
In the fall of 2008 Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia for $15.1 billion further consolidating power and monopolizing the banking industry. After the bailout the company has swayed back and forth between profits and losses in its various industries.
In 2009, John Stumph was rewarded a $5 million bonus while still owing the government the $25 billion for the TARP payment. This is very disappointing and somewhat alarming that such a large industry can be so cavalier with money that belongs to the American people.