Extra Credit: A Reading of Vietnam War

"Only Unjust Wars Require a Draft."


As we can see, the title conveys a direct negative attitude toward war, especially pointing to Vietnam War. It was one of a few wars where the U.S. government had daft. Its cost last forever. Like a quote from the article, "War itself is a doubtful necessity at best; a costly waste of life and liberty at worst," the purpose of starting the Vietnam War should be doubted and questioned.


During the World War First, Wilson said that "chosen upon the principle of universal liability, to service" as a draft. And this "universal liability to serve" was pursued by presidents. It is sad that they did this to gain political fames and whatever.


I think draft is a form of enslaving that has already lost its original liberty and democracy. 

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010484215&mode=view

Some Thoughts for Vietnam War

Just a make-up post for last Sunday.

Well, Sturken was talking about the difference between a monument and a memorial in the beginning of the article.  He said that "While a monument most often signifies victory, a memorial refers to the life or lives sacrificed for a particulate set of value."  That being said, "we erect monuments so that we shall always remember, and build memorials so that shall never forget" evokes Arthur Danto.

I think people who have been through Vietnam War don't necessarily know more than people born in this new generation.  But they definitely have greater resonance with the soldiers in Vietnam, which we don't have.   We have to write about it, however.  So we should go find more first-hand sources written by the people who were bore during that war.  Because the experience of death really matters.

Finally

I don't like the topic honestly.

First, I have done this topic for over three times even though it is classic.  I got bored.
Second, objectively speaking, this issue has more thing to do with politics, which we never be able to touch upon.  By economical point of view, this issue doesn't have any certain answer about costs and benefits because it is not countable.
Third, the logic of this issue is too easy to be ever challenging because people can basically list an pros and cons and then pull the quotes they want to compose the essay.  That simple.

Overall, I wouldn't like it anymore if ENGL 1B was going to give me the same topic.

Again for Illegal Aliens

I think the way we think about SB1070 is inappropriate--we barely think standing in other people's shoes.  Like how the police in Arizona perceive this policy and how they did it (I was told that they didn't stop people as frequently as thought).  And how the Arizonian think about it.  We should think before talking about it.

Some bossiness such as meatpacking plants or farms usually hire illegal immigrants to lower the costs.  Of course it works.  But sometimes by our perception, it is just inhumane.  Just like the people from the sweatshops.

But they are making a living!  To survive here, they just have to.  Plus, this society is rational, meaning that somebody gotta do some jobs at a bottom position.  This situation will be changed gradually by the replacement of technology.  Anyway, would it ever hurt to have them to work here?

Their wages are low.  But every coin counts when a people is making a living.

They certainly drain some society resources, meaning that I should lower the number of 12 million.  Just find a balance, and then let go.

For SB1070

I heard about the issue that police could ask somebody on the street for ID.  It was just not what I heard about before I came here.  I was told it was a deliberate country where police cannot get into one's house or ask one's ID card without permission.  You can even shoot them.  Well, thing turned out that it was no the way it was.

There are illegal immigrants in Arizona.  Actually, I have seen a lot here.  They were waiting for jobs on El Camino.  I don't think they have ever destroyed the economy or pollute the society.  Nothing wrong with them regarding to the fact that they have already been here.  I think what we have made to enforce these illegal immigrants to get out of here is some politics' self-interest to show off.  That simple.

Last Thought for Financial Crisis

It's almost gone, some economists said.

We are still in the darkest day, some people who are struggling to find jobs said.

As an international student, I don't see too much sadness going around Bay Area.  Just feel it is quite comfortable living here as an immigrant.

Logically speaking, American people should have migrated to China which didn't suffer from Financial Crisis.  But why not?  Of course it's because the finest financial system and the whole society which attracted them here.

And I wish the refresh and reboot to this nation.  It deserves it if it has had it.  

Examine the Credit Crunch and Avoid Double-Dip Contraction

^_^

            There was a classic anecdote: during the Financial Crisis, when firms and factories were shut down ubiquitously due to the sluggis­h economy, the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing­ department was the only place where working schedule was 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.  All the cash printers were fueled fully waiting for the order of Washington.

            Behind the scene of this anecdote, a perfect storm had been brewing for years.  As June Johnson says, “the crash of the global financial market in fall 2008 swept up average citizens around the world, seriously disrupting jobs, the cost of living, the availability of credit, and the economic stability of countries” (138).  “In the second half of 2008, the world economy came to a halt, whose GDP growth sharply slowed from 5 percent to 2 percent according to “The World Bank” website. It also says, “The World Bank estimates that about 55 million more people will live on less than $1.25 a day (in 2005 purchasing power parity terms) in developing countries this year than expected pre-crisis.”  We had also seen many severe consequences in rich counties such as Iceland’s bankrupt and Greece’s protests and violence.  The domestic impact in the U.S. was even more destructive.  Some counties’ unemployment rates were as shockingly high as 16.1% such as in Merced County and Monterey County according to NPR. The Commerce Department just said that the economy grew just at a 1.8 percent in the first quarter in 2011, which was way far away from 3%, which is considered as the healthiest growth rate for America.  The whole economy is not as energetic as it used to be, and neither are many people.

            The deregulation of the financial markets in the late 1990s and early 2000s is to blame and deep permanent reform in federal standard should be pursued seriously before it gets worse.  Here are my arguments:

·         Some bankers who intentionally manipulated the financial system and benefited from it were the major cause of this financial crisis.  Before the recession functioned, investment bankers just simply bought risky and toxic mortgages and resold them by packaging with other subprime mortgages together as CDO as AAA investments verified by rating agencies.  They were fundamentally shuffling paper of loans and risks but not creating any value to this society.  As Greg Smithsimon, an assist professor, says, “the inevitability of privately owned banks wriggling free of regulation and engaging in dangerous speculative activity for private gain is by now clear” and “the cost is unacceptably high.”  The cost was inexcusable.  A study shows that from 2005 through 2007 “the top 25 subprime lenders were responsible for nearly a trillion dollars of subprime lending, or 72 percent of all reported high-interest loans” (Ronald D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit).  When borrowers began to fail to pay back loans, these ticking time bombs, subprime mortgages, finally exploded, which triggered the recession of the whole economy.  The banking system became a mess because of these bankers’ jeopardizing.

·         After we dig deeper, we can find that lacking of supervision in securitization market is indeed the key factors of this subprime mortgage crisis.  According to Ronald D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit, “a look at the historical record shows that Washington was warned repeatedly over the last decade—by consumer advocates and a handful of regulators and lawmakers—that these high-cost loans represented a systemic risk to the economy.”  But because many of these subprime lenders “were forced to pay billions of dollars to settle government charges of abusive or predatory lending practices,” the regulators chose to let it go with eyes wide open.  This acted as a very important factor in allowing this economic crisis happen.

·         In addition, government’s intervention in the housing market should not be ignored.  In 1999, the U.S. government erased some of the regulation of financial markets, which set the financial industry free at some point.  Holding the hope of supporting more homebuyers, regulators later on supported housing subsidies, which promoted the supply of subprime mortgages.  Some critics also believe that “the U.S government contributed to the problem by lowering interest rate too much after 9/11,” when a lot of “hot money” were held by overseas investors seeking housing investment with low interests in America (Johnson 142).  This series of government intervention made somehow bankers’ scheme possible. 

Here is what we should do:

·         Government should keep bailing out the financial institutions by buying bad debts that these institutions are holding along with implementing more restrict regulations.  It is ironic to rescue the failing financial giants that once hurt us a lot. Since the economy has been so fragile, somehow we have to do so.  As Ryan says, “this is something no one wants to see as it would ripple through our economy and into the world markets in a matter of hours, potentially causing a worldwide meltdown.”  Punishment should be implemented after settling down the whole economy. 

·         After the economy goes stable again, government should consider nationalizing banks.  In Greg Smithsimon’s article, he argues the two advantages that nationalizing banks can bring to us.  “As retail banks, they will provide consumers with healthy, stable replacements for the bankrupt zombie banks now paralyzing the economy. As democratized versions of the Federal Reserve Bank, they can oversee financial reform and fiscal policy that serve the needs of real Americans” (Smithsimon).  By nationalizing banks, the double-dip economic contraction will be effectively avoided and thus lead us clime out the recession.

I admit that the cause of this credit crunch is far more complex than sole blaming on greedy bankers and irresponsible regulators.  I also agree with other people who hold the views that the 2008 Financial Crisis might be the by-product of the dot-com bubble of the 1990s.  And overseas’ investors’ greed could contribute to this financial crisis. However, I believe what I wrote were some basic factors that triggered the beginning of this credit crunch. 

It is narrow to say that had the regulators implemented more restrictive financial laws or had people been less greedy there would not have been such a sluggish economy.  Regret and blame do not help at all.  Government should keep on working on the bad debts that trap some financial institutions. We ordinary people should be happy every day—we should keep optimistic on this country’s economy no matter how bad it goes.  We should never be depressed or fear by the current disappointing news.  Because fear cannot drive out fear, only love can do that.