As I sifted through the comments, I noticed many people were saddened by the fact that the overall reaction to these stories was shock (sadness too of course, but shock that good people are out there). In response to that I just want to say that I know there are a lot of good people out there and that there are a lot of good people here at Penn State. The main thing we need to appreciate is that is doesn’t take a kidney donation to really be a “great guy.” Sure we were all amazed at how selfless that man was, but there are many great acts of selflessness happening right in front of us that we either take for granted or don’t even see. CNN made that man an international hero (to an extent), but not everyone’s story makes it to CNN and not everyone has the opportunity to act so courageously. If we all look more closely at the people around us, I think we would be surprised to see how many great people there actually are.

Thursday’s class was pretty cool. Although staring at a random partner for minute after minute after minute was about as awkward as it gets, I thought the message was a good one. I liked how Sam constructed the class, allowing students to ask questions that had arisen throughout the semester but really didn’t fit into what we were talking about at the time. I think a lot of people got to know Sam better in that last class, and saw more of the person he is as opposed to the instructor (there is definitely a distinction). It was a great finish to an eye opening class.

I must say it is nice to see some quality “feel good” stories, especially during this time when so many of us are over-stressing and worrying endlessly about our lives. The first video is quite a story (and as some have pointed out, a little extreme). To think that someone would willingly give their kidney to a complete stranger and undergo the risks of surgery and a life with one kidney is truly remarkable. It is a great example of how such a strong and necessary connection can be made with someone you barely even speak to. When I was in Paris this past winter break, I went to the same bar every night I was there for a “night cap” drink. I don’t speak a lick of French and the owner didn’t speak but two words in English. Yet some how, night after night we would “talk” for sometimes hours about the most random of events and topics through some convoluted and half assed form of communication. Watching this video made me think of that because it is clear that although this man knows the woman only through their interactions at the grocery store check out line, he has still established an amazing connection with her and one he views valuable enough to risk his life for.

The second video is very different than the first and yet still is very much a “feel good” clip. As many people have pointed out, the kid’s answers and reactions are just hilarious and he truly gives the video its strong impact. It is easy to watch the video and only think of the childhood love aspects of it, thus ignoring the actual message it is supposed to convey: those two kids should not be together for reasons far beyond their understanding. Videos like this provide us with some type of hope that grudges and prejudices will eventually fade out, and that people one day really will be able to live freely everywhere. However hopeless the reality of this may actually be, I am content with being ignorant to reality sometimes.

As somewhat of an aside to these two videos, I also wanted to comment on the AIDS story Sam presented to us at the end of class. The quote from the young boy who died from AIDS was truly remarkable, and as Sam said, is one that all of us could easily live our daily lives in accordance to. Amidst all the stress of finals week and the fates of our lives it is extremely easy to be overcome by the tasks we face. In my opinion, the best way for us to succeed is to operate as the young boy stated: facing the challenges that are in front of us right now, not looking ahead, and basically just giving it our best shot.

The South Park incident just goes to show the horrifying nature a radicalism (of anything). Despite how controversial South Park is, I think we all agree that no one deserves these kinds of threats over a cartoon television show that makes fun of EVERYONE. To be honest, I am surprised this doesn’t happen more often, as these radical followers don’t seem to have much leeway. The ironic thing in all of this is that it happened in America where freedom of speech is utilized everyday, often in much the same way the South Park producers use it on their show. This is America, this is how we operate and some people will inherently dislike that. My answer? Ignorance is bliss. Don’t come here. Don’t watch comedy central.

Should it be enough? Ya probably. But is/will it ever be enough? No way. The problem with this hard work hypothesis is that you can’t measure hard work. You can’t line up potential immigrants for the “hard work test” and rank them for their departure to the US. It simply can’t be done. What can be measured however is money. Ergo, the reason it is used as a premise for who can travel and migrate. Although it certainly is not a perfect system, there is undoubtedly some type of correlation (stronger in some places than others) between hard work and money.

Drawing the lines to designate the respective parameters of health care is a daunting and near impossible task. Who deserves it? Who needs it? Who will get the best? It is all very difficult to assess. I think the major problem is being able to say no to someone that may potentially have a serious illness. No one wants to be the person that has to do that, but if we approach health care with a “no illegals” attitude, someone will ultimately have to fill this role. On the other hand, allowing these illegal immigrants to consume our resources and drive up health care costs with unpaid for procedures is completely unacceptable and detrimental to the economy. Clearly there is quite a debate at hand.

My personal position is on the side of a “no illegals” approach. I do not feel that millions of illegal immigrants have the right to our use resources and drive up our costs when they have demonstrated no concrete affiliation with out government and our system of operations. Unpaid for visits to the ER exponentially drive up costs and under the current rules and guidelines for hospitals, they simply can’t refute care. I don’t want to make it seem like you have to have money to receive health care, but you have to at least be accounted for. I don’t think the answer is completely refusing care for these people, but strict regulations and protocols undoubtedly need to be put in place.

I have no problem with legal immigrants, and actually have several in my family who simply choose not to become citizens. That is completely fine and completely acceptable because, as Sam mentioned, it is documented. The problems arise when there are millions upon millions of people who are undocumented and unaccounted for, using resources. It is not hard to see why this presents a problem. However I am not a fan of kicking the illegal immigrants who are already here out of the country as many people suggest. I believe that we should grant the illegal immigrants who are already here citizenship in exchange for their abidance by our laws (ie paying taxes, etc). I don’t think this is too much to ask for, and I feel that it addresses the major problems the illegal immigrants are causing.

I would also like to point out that this type of debate (“who deserve health care”) is not only a problem with illegal immigrants. Just to show what a mess our health care system is, not only do we have millions of unaccounted for individuals but we also have millions of individuals without health insurance. Even though these people are indeed legal, the fact that they don’t have health insurance puts them in a similar boat with the illegals, making health care a quite expensive aspect of our lives. But perhaps this is another discussion…

I don't doubt that this number came from somewhere, and I don't doubt that it probably came from someone in the pentagon, however, just look at the sentence above: "the guy," "in the basement" --> those are hardly references. Perhaps you can't reveal your source, which would be understandable, but at the same time it just makes your information difficult to absorb and impossible to rely on. My main point of what I said was less about where the number came from and more about the fact that there is no concrete number for how many people can die; we want some people a lot more than others and I am sure we would risk a lot more than that to get them.

Was that a blindside though? I don't think you can parallel that, especially considering the Kuwait factor of the sanctions.

The lecture today, I must admit, was pretty interesting. I think Sam’s lectures are most effective when they involve numerous video clips periodically interjected throughout his speeches, since his speeches alone are often redundant and rambling. That said, I don’t necessarily agree with everything that was presented, but I do admire the methodology behind what this particular class was supposed to accomplish.
Although it is very difficult to actually imagine what it would be like to be in the shoes of a middle-eastern teen, I think for the most part people got the point. I think the analogies were set up fairly well, or at least well enough for people to grasp what Sam was trying to get across. One thing that still strikes me as vastly different, is the presence of a 9/11-esque event on the Iraqi/Afghani side. There really is no such event that one can say we have done to the middle-easterners that would merit a rebellious action by them (as we have demonstrated with our war-filled reaction). Without such an event I truly feel it is impossible to parallel these two scenarios. It has always been my opinion that the U.S. wrongfully gets a bad rep for being “bullies” largely due to the events we have faced in the course of our history. The fact of the matter is that when we get blind sided or hit with a cheap shot, we get fucken pissed! And what’s wrong with that? Sure, the current scenario with the war is undoubtedly drawn out and is very likely being fueled (no pun) by oil resources, but I’d like to think that was not the sole goal in the beginning. We went into Afghanistan (just like Hiroshima) and fought back for the pain that others had caused us when they wrongfully attacked us with an unacceptable form of warfare. That’s my bit on the US, but back to lecture…
So the Iraqis and Afghanis have no cheap shot event to truly parallel their scenarios, point made. This aside, I still think it is radical to think that we would become insurgents in their shoes. I think people want to believe that they would because it is fun to get caught up in the awe of the lecture, but I don’t believe nearly as many people would become insurgents as the lecture had suggested. First of all, there is no honor in being an insurgent. It is cheap-shot warfare. The reason they have dubbed this war as being significantly more dangerous than others is the very fact that the enemies simply don’t care. I can’t claim that I have seen war first hand, but I know that that isn’t war. War is gruesome but there is no doubting the honor of the warrior, which I can truly say the insurgents do not have.

Despite the fact that I did compliment Sam on today’s lecture, I do question (as usual) some of his statistics and argumentative material. For example, "twenty nine is the limit of civilian casualties to kill one “bad guy.”" I’m sorry but where the hell does that number come from? To actually argue that there is a set limit of civilian casualties in order to kill/capture one “bad guy” is just absurd. I’m pretty sure we’d kill well into the hundreds to catch bin laden, but nevertheless to say there is a set number is ridiculous. Not really anything to do with the topic, just a tid bit that made me roll my eyes.