Week 17 - HAPPY NEW YEAR
1984 by George Orwell
Written in 1949, George Orwell'a dystopic novel 1984 has always been a book of high interest; but, never before have its eerie details seemed more accurate and relevant in today's society of technology, surveillance and suspicion. In our post-9/11 world, everyone seems to be watching someone else and some believe the government gains more power every day. Reading 1984 will provide a venue for a variety of topics; it will open a door through which you will learn about totalitarian rule, control and power. Orwell show us how language can be manipulated and how history can be revised or erased. There are areas of the text that are sexual and violent in nature, and the overall mood of the novel is, to say to least, incredibly somber.
Why did Orwell write the book? To show us what the world would be like and to warn us.
Check out the 1984 PowerPoint located to the left side of the Blog under DOCUMENTS.
Please keep pace with the readings and the in-class discussions. Your insight to those discussions and the timed writings will determine your success...do not be parasitic in the classroom...you owe it to your peers to contribute...take a RISK!
Have a great week and remember, be empathetic to each other and work diligently...I always notice!! Smile, too!
READING SCHEDULE FOR 1984 and OTHER DATES:
CH I-III for Mon., January 7
CH IV-VI for Wed., January 9
Finish BOOK 1 for Monday, January 14
Independent Reading Assessment is scheduled for Friday, Jan 18.
Poetry Professor is scheduled for Friday, Jan 11 and Thursday, Jan 17.
Here are your assignments/Agenda for Week 17:
If you have questions about these assignments, please leave a comment or email me directly. Remember, I will check the blog until 9:59 pm. You know I need my Seinfeld fix.
posted by fdileo @ 12:02 PM
53 Comments:
hello Mr. Di Leo
for the Orwellian web search, for number eight I can only find "the fourteen characteristics of Fascism" not just three. So I was wondering if i should just choose three or keep researching.
thanx!
that is fine Misty
Hi Mr.DiLeo!!! I have 2 questions regarding O.W.S. First, shoud we cite our sources as (author[or group],title,date[is it last revised or when we visted it?])after our last sentance? Second, do we put our other source after the first one(same structure as before)?
Wow did I confuse you yet?...yeah I'm done now...
Hello lbeharry...my advice is to parenthetically cite the source at the end of your statement. For Internet sources... copy and paste this link
http://www.citationmachine.net/index.php?reqstyleid=1&reqsrcid=14&mode=form&more=
Essentially, it is from Landmark citation located on the CHS website under library link.
From this site you could plug in any data from the source you are working from...
Hope this helps...
for the parenthetical citation all it says is to put the authors name or the web page's name , no other info, is that ok?
That is fine Ayed...just follow the instructions...
So its ok if i just put the title or do you prefer author.
Title is fine...happy new year
Mr. Di Leo, I read the blog and it said that we need to annotate chapters 1-3 by next Tuesday but I don't have 1984 or the $20.50 because of my financial stae. What should I do?
- 8. For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it.
This comment can be seen in a number of ways, but it is held false in my mind. This is due to the fact that an idea can exist and be expressed through a number of mediums, not just spoken word. For example, images, body language, science and numbers, and touch are all ways to express ideas and thoughts. Furthermore, many scientists and inventors do not need words to spark an idea for something new within their minds, they simply begin work on a model or blue prints, visual ways to express their notions.
Then again, people must have the means to accomplish these different ways of communicating; words can be found in a dictionary, but constructing a model, drawing a picture, or knowing enough science and math to get your point across is much more difficult. So in the sense of sharing an idea it is much more helpful to have words to express your thoughts, but not necessary.
Thanks for the insightful comment Misty!
Julia Morrissey
Period 1
Patriotism means supporting your government during times of war. This statement should not be followed, as it allows for blind trust in governments, something that should not be allowed. A perfect example is the “War on Terror”. President Bush sent the United States to war and few protested vocally at the time, because it was believed that the federal government would not send us into an unnecessary war.
Patriotism is, according to Princeton, “love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it”. No where in the previous statement it anything that states that you should agree with what is happening. A person can fight for their country in hopes of protecting it, and defending in it. Most people do not want to go to war, and would wish it never happened, or that we would withdraw. It is only when people realize that there is something wrong with the government and speak out against it that the problem can be solved. If you have to support the government because there is a war going on, then there can not be an unbiased evaluation of what is happening. Better decisions are made when there is the option of people criticizing your ideas. If there is no negative view than the government can continue in a war that could destroy the very nation it is trying to protect.
Good evening Mr. DiLeo! I'm sorry that I wasn't able to finish the "Orwellian" web search for today. Do we need our results this week, or later?
Here is my take on the Deep Thoughts - response:
1. “Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither.”
I agree with this statement, quoted to Benjamin Franklin, wholeheartedly. First of all, freedom is possibly the most important thing a human being can (metaphorically) possess. Without freedom, we are reduced to mere automatons, slaves to either other people or to even our selves.
Why would some of the world’s leaders then attempt to reduce the people’s freedoms, if they are so important to everyone? Or, why would the people they rule allow their freedoms to be reduced? One common thing that leaders have used in the past and continue to use even in modern day is fear. They attempt to invoke a fear of an external force, be it a deity, a foreign nation or ideology. Usually, this has worked, and the people submit to being ruled, but then, if we believe Franklin words to be true, do they deserve the security they (might) gain from submission?
In modern times, however, in at least partly democratic nations, the people haven’t succumbed to blindly following their leaders on such a scale as in the past, though there have been unfortunate exceptions, such as the Nazis rise to power in Germany.
okay, so for the anticipation guide are we allowed to choose one of the statements that we were unsure of for our belief? because that would be good fun. thanks mr. DiLeo!!
7. Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals.
To some, putting cameras in public places seems like an invasion of people’s privacy, but these cameras can also be seen as a source of protection. It seems to me, that the people who have the most reservations about the cameras, are the ones who would most often be getting in trouble. A great example of this is what is going on in Buffalo right now. Mayor Byron Brown wants to install (and already has in some places) cameras, to capture and identify criminals. These cameras would truly help to downsize Buffalo’s high crime rate. However, many people are opposed to these cameras because they know they will be caught for their wrongdoings. The mayor’s office would be able to see what is going on in areas of Buffalo at all times, and this would greatly help them to make Buffalo a safer place. Another aspect of the installment of cameras is where. Cameras should not be placed in strictly residential, mostly safe neighborhoods, because this is an invasion of people’s privacy. However, in the rough areas of the city where crime is largely prevalent, these cameras will do more good than harm.
Yes, Jessica that would be fine.
Anticipation guide!
I agree strongly with the intriguing statement that “The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war.” If someone is trying to attain or force peace onto another person or even a country, you must be prepared for the worst. It is to be expected that not everyone will be willing to accept your personal views or ways of life, in which case it is imperative that you are prepared for your plan to backfire. Sometimes even if you are trying to help, by making peace, others do not want your help. This is demonstrated through the war in Iraq today, and in many cases someone trying to help makes matters worse thus causing conflict and war. I believe that it is better to be well prepared for the worst scenario possible when trying to make peace or war.
ellen
3.Patriotism means supporting your government during times of war.
I disagree with the statement. Patriotism simply means that you have love for your country. You do not have to agree with the decisions of government leaders in order to show devotion to your nation. Patriotism can be shown in several different ways. Something as simple as cleaning up a park in a local neighborhood can show pride and devotion to one's country. Disagreeing with choices such as going to war does not reflect on whether or not a person has patriotism towards their country.
10. The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war.
I strongly disagree with this statement for the simple reason that peace, true peace can never be achieved through force. Rather people need to realize that peace can only be achieved when all people see that war is only a way to make money and is not any good. Only when people find the peace in themselves can they actually bring peace to any one else. Forced peace like in 1984 is shown to cause much unrest and the people were never really happy. To obtain peace that lasts and causes happiness is to have people all over agree and to have everyone get rid of weapons or any thing else that causes unrest. The only way to real happiness is to have everyone just relax and chill.
In response to statement three, “Patriotism means supporting your government during times of war,” I must answer with a most obvious (for me, that is), “It absolutely does not.”
Patriotism is love/admiration for one’s country, and the desire to better that country and make life easier for its citizens. To be a patriot is to defend and love a country, not to defend and love a government. In fact, it is frequently quite the opposite. The patriots of the American Revolution attested the government forced upon them and revolted.
If a war is deserved – and always as a last resort – it does help to have a government that you support. However, if the existing government is based off a policy of lies, corporate tie-ins, and corruption, or if the war itself is a complete ruse pulled for profit and greed, a true patriot would realize the harm such things did to their beloved country, and make an adamant stand against those in charge. If the leading powers use war-generated terror and emotions to infringe upon rights and systematically destroy a country, patriotism demands people rise up, overthrow the instigators, and reinstate a decent government.
--not a horribly big deal, but I apologize for not correcting one of my words. 'Attested' should be 'protested'... They are completely different, so I have no idea why I made that mistake.
Sadie Catalano- period 3
(Sorry if my sentences sound a little repetitive, it's just the way my thoughts are)
I disagree with “Torture of a person who is a threat to the country is acceptable as long as the person does not die.” because torture of any living thing is wrong and most likely ineffective. Just because information is needed from the person, or some thing of similar circumstance, does not mean that torture is the best interrogation method. Inhuman and crude, torture will lead the interrogation no where, seeming as most of the time, people who would be high threats are working with other people of the same stature, and are train to resist torture. If some one who is a threat to the country believes in something, making them a threat, the things they are willing top do for what they believe in will surpass in the difficulty of resisting torture. If they are willing to do things that would make them a threat, they’re not going to give into torture to destroy something they have worked for and believe in. Just because a person doesn’t die does not make the torture acceptable either because then the person has memories of the torture, and if the person was a threat to the country because of resentment toward the country or the government, then the persons resentment will grow and if the person is ever released into society, they will be a greate4r threat then before.
8. For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it.
I am not sure if I agree on this topic because ideas are abstract objects. Based on experience, a person should be able to identify an idea within a certain range of classifications set by previous ideas and objects that exist. For instance, if a person thinks of an idea, they have a conscious thought of what it is, even if it is presented as an image or as a way to solve a problem, which usually must be described in words. An existing idea will be brought about in a circumstance by a person who has some make-up of the idea that had been thought about, therefore an idea exists if a person has thought about it. And like the transitive property in math, an idea is a thought, and a thought is something that exists, therefore, the idea exists abstractly until someone finds the necessity to communicate it to someone else. However, this question is a very difficult one, and requires a lot of thought. This statement itself represents an “idea” that I cannot simply grasp in words therefore I think that it is a trick question. I should be able to answer this question based off of my own experience, but I cannot find the words to express it in. So in that case I am simply sitting on the fence because even though I cannot answer it, someone else must be able to, and it cant be impossible to express it in words, right?
~Jessica!!!
9.Reporters should submit their work to government officials so they may determine if it's a threat to the country:
I strongly disagree with this viewpoint for many reasons. Firstly, it is a direct violation of the first amendment, which states “Congress shall make no law…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The duty of the government is simply to monitor the nation as a whole, and the idea of attempting to cross the line into censoring the thoughts of a single member of that nation is a breach of personal rights. If reporters have to submit their work and dispose of anything deemed “a threat”, it also opens the door to unawareness by the people of the nation about the things around them. If they are exposed to only the viewpoints of the government, it is in a way brainwashing, because they will never experience an alternative way of thinking. Reading another persons work is a way of gaining more intelligence, because it opens up the readers mind to another person’s perspective. There is no way of telling what the government would try to monitor next, and surely the submission of written work would be only the first step in an eventual loss of one’s individual rights.
8. For an idea to exist, we must have the words to express it.
I disagree with this because if one has never learned the words to express something they can still believe in it and express it trough actions. Although taking away the words will make it harder for one to attain a full understanding of a concept and pass it to others, it still exists within that person and subconsciously affects the decisions that they make in life. The problem with taking away words is that it cannot be universally understood by everyone in the world. Even between different languages the meaning can be translated but with no words it is hard to make an idea available to everyone so taking away the words would effectively slow down or completely stop the diffusion of that concept, in the case of 1984 the concept is that of freedom. A good example is to try and explain the colors of a rainbow to a color blind person, no matter how hard you try that person can only grasp so much about colors without ever seeing them that he might give up trying to understand because it is so difficult, but if he tries hard enough he can imagine the colors. But the problem starts when he tries to explain the colors to another color blind person, since he never actually saw them for himself he will not be able to explain them that well and the message will loose some of it’s meaning along the way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry i posted under a different account, the one from deyanimay is mine.
Here are my thoughts on the following statement:
2. " to assure our country's freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens."
I strongly disagree with this statement. If the government spies on you, then you are not free. It means you have a constant body watching your every move limiting your everyday actions. So to say that you are guaranteeing freedom by spying on one person, is actually accomplishing the opposite. For example, if that one person is being spied on by the government, they almost certainly have no knowledge of it and therefore believe that they are free. However, if that one person does have knowledge that the government is spying on them, they would presumably feel violated, and confined in their personal surroundings. The government has control over its citizens to a certain extent. To push the limit is, in my opinion, unsuitable to the people and to the government itself. The government should not be allowed to spy on its citizens because it is an invasion of privacy. It could make a person feel distressed in their own surroundings, and potentially in their own home. Freedom means to be able to do what makes you happy and content. Freedom allows a person to express what they are feeling and do so in a way that suits them. If you spy on a person, that sense of freedom diminishes, making a person feel uneasy and trapped.
9. “Reporters should submit their work to government officials so they may determine if it’s a threat to the country.”
I disagree with this statement. Something that a reporter writes is based on their gathering of facts and the fair presentation of them. The work of the reporter themselves is not the threat, although perhaps the subject of the article could be a threat to the government or country. Reporters have the freedom of speech and their work should not have to be submitted to government officials to see if it is a threat. Something that is written by a reporter will very rarely ever be a threat, and if the article does contain material that could be seen as hazardous then that is an issue that needs to be dealt with regarding that individual. It is not unusual for something a reporter writes to provoke a reaction in people, depending on their view of the subject being written about. Hardly ever will anything a reporter writes cause anything but controversy, since not everyone shares the same opinion. Writing is not the same as direct actions, if one country drops a nuclear bomb on another country; it is not the same as one country just saying they are going to drop a nuclear bomb. Although it is assumed that the action may occur in the future there is no definite possibility, therefore the writing would not be a threat if the action never happened.
BRAVO! Well done my AP Bloggers. I read through the first batch of comments; I am impressed with the insights and details presented. The comments will lead to an interesting discussion in class tomorrow...
Cheers!
Big Brother....
1. "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither."
I completely disagree with the aforementioned statement. As intelligent and sophisticated as we think we are, we as people are still driven by basic fundamental instincts, such as the need for self preservation. It's hardwired in our DNA for us to do whatever it takes to survive, because that's all this life is really, surviving in varying degrees of comfort.
In an effort for increased survival- that sense of security- people banded together, giving certain people power over them to protect them. The job of a leader is to lead, obviously, but also to protect. People like to have faith in their leaders- their governments- and will give into their demands eventually if they believe it's for the best.
In my opinion, all governments are corrupt, to varying degrees of course, and some are better at hiding it then others. People in power will lie, will bend the truth to achieve their ends, to gain more power. A sure way to bend the massess to their will is to convince them that they are not safe, so that eventually they won't mind so much that their private business might not be so private anymore. No one should be faulted for wanting to feel safe.
“Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals.” I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, a declaration which is, conveniently enough, of particular relevance to the city of Buffalo, considering the recent action taken by Mayor Brown. With the installment of several security cameras throughout the city, the mayor and his personnel will be, and have been, provided with a view of many of the most highly-trafficked and crime-ridden areas in the city, 24/7. This capability enables the city’s law enforcement to monitor these areas and, in the event of suspicious activity, react quickly and accordingly. Some believe that these cameras represent an invasion of one’s privacy; that they breach the sacred realm that is one’s personal space. I would argue that, the moment you walk out your door, you forfeit such luxuries. Walking down the street, you are subject to countless glances. Security cameras would only add a few more, and would provide improved safety in return. While I cannot imagine that these devices would serve any use when placed in strictly residential areas, I believe that cameras would, if placed in busy and potentially risky areas, act not as invasive pests, but as benevolent, ever-present watchmen. But then, if it ever comes to the point where our televisions are watching us, we will have gone entirely too far.
6. The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who might be a threat.
I strongly disagree with this statement, because we give up too many freedoms when the government invades our privacy. For example, after 9/11, our government asked our country if we would mind giving up a little privacy for national security by allowing them to read our emails , tap our phone lines, track our cell phones, place surveillance cameras all over from our city streets to residential areas, and virtually having no privacy in airports. The government does have the right to certain "freedoms" during wartime for national security. However, they have taken it beyond national security when a simple email between a mother and a daughter, or a boyfriend and girlfriend
are read simply because a "target" word is typed in an email. The government knows what we read by checking what book we take out of the library and by being able to see what we purchase online at Amazon.com for example. If we are reading about other governments or other religions or infamous people, they could consider us a threat simply because a person could have been working on their thesis for college. To me, I think that is taking it too far, and this is a blatant display display of government's stronghold over our constitutional freedoms.
The statement I chose and agree with is that “Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals.” I believe that this could help prevent some of the crime in these areas. It would make people think twice before committing an action that they probably shouldn’t be doing or will regret. It would help make neighborhoods and streets safer also. My feeling is that if you have nothing to hide why should you care whether you’re being watched or not. Their there to further your feeling of safety. As long as it’s being used for the public’s benefit I see no problem with it. I think there are more “pros” that could come out of this than “cons”. Our society has changed so drastically over the years that these ideas that previously would have been viewed as unnecessary, now actually have to be integrated into our society for our safety.
8. For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it.
I disagree with this statement because even if we can’t find words to address something, we can find combinations of words to explain it. An idea is a thought, and thoughts are abstract. Somewhere throughout history, someone must have made up words, or languages, developed out of cavemen grunts, and how could they just make up words for ideas if there were no words to begin with. In class you used an example of the word “rebellion”. If rebellion didn’t exist, no one would know how to rebel. I disagree with that also, because even if the word wasn’t in the dictionary, people would still have the desire to do so. Every year, new words are added to the dictionary, and if there wasn’t words to describe them before that, how did they exist? For example, in 2007, the words hoodie, crunk , and bahookie were added to the dictionary. These ideas existed long before they were put into the dictionary, and they definitely existed. Hoodie means a youth wearing a hooded sweatshirt. Crunk means a person full of energy, and bahookie means buttocks. The ideas these words express have been around long before they were put in the dictionary, which disproves the statement above.
“Torture of a person who is a threat to the country is acceptable as long as the person does not die.”
I strongly disagree with this statement because although the person does not die doesn' mean they are't left in a worst position. Torture inflicts massive amounts of pain and tons of emotional scarring. How could you prove that this person is indeed a threat to the country in the first place? You can'. For all anybody knows anybody could be a threat to the country and my torturing a person to discover this id pointless and at the root hypocritical. My damaging a person because of the belief that they could potentially damage another is hypocritical. As for dying, by the time the person comes through the torture death may seem like a better option. No person deserves to be in that position and to have that much physical, emotional, and mental pain no matter what supposed crime they are accused of. Torture will not only effect the person but also the torturer the person will most likely have bitter feelings and take acts of revenge against whoever they can creating the threat initially feared. So in the long run there are better interrogation techniques with better outcomes than the use of torture.
Atley
Period #1
8. For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it.
I completely disagree with this statement because in order for language to exist it must have been at one time an idea. Thus one of the largest advancements in human history was that created without words to express it. I view art as language without letters. If you see a picture of a dog you think of a dog, you see a cat you will think of a cat, and if you see an X over the face of Big Brother you will consider reform, renew, remove, or other words not allowed in literature found inside the novel 1984. Architectural blue prints can consist of only lines, numbers, and symbols. For even the largest structures, language is unneeded. Music has been passed down through the ages orally for centuries. Many of the readers know that when I am at a shortage of words I will take out a pen and make an amateur sketch of my idea, most likely I fail and must continue revising my artwork until my peers can fill in the language that I lack to express my idea.
2. “Torture of a person who is a threat to our country’s freedom is acceptable as long as the person does not die.”
I disagree with this statement because I believe that in no circumstance is torture a proper solution to a problem. The act of torture is completely inhumane and is no better than threatening a country’s freedom. Though a person is proved to be a threat and seems to be barbaric, the victims of the threat would only be degrading themselves down to the suspected threat’s cruel level by enforcing sufferance onto them. I believe that people who are convinced that torture is acceptable “as long as the person does not die” are ignorant and don’t understand how much pain and suffering can occur before a person’s actual death. Inflicting pain strips a free country of humanity, moral values, and respect leading to revolt and disaster.
1. Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither
I, for the most part, do not agree with this statement. I feel that it is a person's own choice to live the type of life he or she chooses as long as it doesn't affect another person. Everybody is different and although many people would never give up there freedom for anything, if a person is happy with the decision of security over freedom then he or she should be permitted to make that decision without judgment or criticism. For example if a person felt threatened by another person or other people and had their house under constant surveillance and there phone lines tapped that is there own business. That is what they do to feel safe and it does not make them any less worthy of freedom or security. If circumstances were to be altered and say a person joined the mafia for security, where they would in turn lose their freedom, I would not agree with this. This is an illegal and harmful way to gain security and if measures like this is taken; security and freedom are not deserved because this person having freedom would jeopardize the lives of other people.
4.) "Torture of a person who is a threat to our country's freedom is acceptable as long as the person does not die."
I disagree with this statement. Torture in a society creates chaos among the people. All standards and morals that are built up to be "good" are completely disregarded to make another being suffer. This creates a terrifying setting for the future, because things will get worse and worse because people will have no concern about life, and it's value. It also creates monstrosity the rest of the people. They will be finding false happiness in the destruction of those who try to progress in advancing the human race. In short, this torture will have an effect on all of society, even those uninvolved. It will slowly build up, as a whole, to all destruction of innocence and peace as we know it. This concept also leads to another controversy, does making another suffer really teach them that the crimes they committed were wrong? These harsh actions may drive the criminal to be more mentally unstable, and frankly make things worse for that individual. Also, relating back to my previous point, it only teaches the people that it is okay to make other people suffer by your own hand.
“For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it.”
This quote is very debatable and can be considered a matter of opinion even when all factors are considered. Because the way that most humans communicate is through verbal and written language, an idea can’t be shared among others without words. Therefore it can’t be analyzed and reviewed. If there is no word for “rebellion” as discussed in class therefore it does not exist. However human nature suggests that at a certain point in ones adolescent life a person feels the need to rebel from their parents without noticing or doing so purposely. This habit is not unusual and is considered completely normal. For generations this notion has occurred-without words. The feeling “happy” still occurs when one achieves something or has been treated kindly. When a person trips another, the idea of being “angry” goes without being said and writing something down is unnecessary. However sharing to another person that you are feeling angry at them is very difficult if you can’t express yourself through words.
1. "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither."
I disagree with this quote. This statement leads people to believe that ideas like freedom or security are privileges that human beings either “deserve” or don’t deserve. Whether it is possible to exist in an environment where both are achieved I am not sure, but it is not a one or the other deal. When one desires security they seek protection, but protection requires one to depend on the person protecting them, and to protect someone one must watch over that which they are protecting. So if someone is constantly watched in exchange for protection does this take away his or her freedom? It depends upon trust, and how much trust you can put in the one who is protecting you, but no matter how much trust you can have in someone they can always deceive you, so there is not necessarily freedom within this protected idea of security. So i agree with half of this quote, freedom and security cannot coexist with one another, but nobody does not deserve either, in a perfect world, one would get both, but this world is imperfect and freedom and security have yet to be able to coexist with one another and balance each other out, because the idea of putting your trust in other people for this security automatically relinquishes your freedom because it transfers control over self in the hands of other people.
7. “Societies would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals.”
I do not agree with this statement, including the whole idea. Yes, societies would be a little safer with security cameras in public, but it invades the privacy of anyone in that region, making innocent civilians feel uncomfortable. It would only cause criminals to do the right thing out of fear, rather than a change of judgment. It makes everyone think that they are constantly being watched. Buffalo’s mayor Byron Brown has recently proposed to put highly powerful security cameras at every major transit intersection, which can read the numbers of license plates or detect the face of a criminal. Crime would decrease with the addition of the cameras, but how much are they expecting? Criminals would realize where the cameras are and simply do their business elsewhere. To me, the city is throwing away a lot of money for security cameras that won’t catch a thing. Stores and banks already have cameras, but they are robbed! Crime rarely happens at intersections except for traffic violations, and how many times do you hear “A man was assaulted at the Delaware- Hetel intersection”? Almost never, because people in the area act as their own cameras and witnesses. Bottom line, we don’t need to be watched.
3. Patriotism means supporting your government during times of war.
I don’t agree with this statement. Patriotism means being devoted to your country, not those who lead it in the government. In a democratic country, citizens are supposedly guaranteed the freedom of expression. Therefore, they are completely justified in disagreeing with any decisions their leader makes. Unlike those living under dictatorship, those governed democratically should not, legally, be persecuted for differing in thought with their government. For example, those who believe invading Iraq was a poor decision are not traitors to the United States. War is a time that the government and country demands support from its citizens in an attempt to keep morale high. While many citizens allow themselves to be brainwashed by the government as the Bush Administration garners multiple NCTE Doublespeak Awards, many others retain their independent thought. Such individuals may support our troops and wish for our country’s victory, yet not support our government’s decision to go to war in the first place. A patriot is one who proudly supports or defends his or her country and its way of life. A citizen or soldier can proudly support and defend his or her country, but not support their government’s handling of the situation.
“Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither.”
I agree with this quote because of freedom people who give up freedom also give up the option of security of self. Freedom gives the option of providing security for oneself and giving up freedom stops not only the ability of self-security but also that of self-development in all ways. The limiting of a persons options not only hurts the person but allows for the taking away of free will, which being a prime characteristic of all human beings, essential takes away from their identity as a race which in all ways can’t be good for the race as a whole. Security is something that like all other things must be earned, and the mistake of giving up freewill stops the ability to earn, only allowing for what is given. This stops development for all things including the maturing of an individual, making those who give up their freedom into a faceless mass. Freedom allows for something like security to be earned so to give up your freedom for security isn’t giving up something key to mankind but in a way is taking the easy way out. The giving up of freedom to some higher form is also foolish in the sense that it is becoming a sheep and there will always be those who will take advantage and shear the sheep in someway.
This comment has been removed by the author.
9. Reporters should submit their work to government officials so they may determine if it's a threat to the country.
I strongly disagree with this statement. The job of reporters in today's situation is to inform the public on what's going on from a neutral perspective, regardless of the government's opinion on the subject. Censorship to that extent in the news is an unnecessary security measure that takes away a portion of the already meager knowledge citizens are spoon-fed concerning foreign affairs. Citizens of a country should have the right to know what's going on in other countries, particularly in matters that concern the citizen's country (such as the war in iraq, for American citizens.) This prevents people from making uneducated conclusions about their country and furthering the generalization of "ignorant American". It is also unlikely that a threat to a country would be solely expressed by news reporters and not by first-hand primary sources who witnessed the event, whom the government could reach much easier than by filtering through thousands of daily news stories. Ultimately this would be a very time-consuming effort to protect a country, that would likely warrant no purpose and simply expend more budget money and time that could be better spent figuring out methods to solve more serious problems.
2. - To assure our country’s freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens.
By invading the privacy of the population, the government goes against the foundation of freedom which allows the populace to live their life as they please, without intrusion. One could make the argument that the government disturbs personal life for the good of the nation by using it in the hunt for threats to national security but in effect, it only destroys a person’s sense of privacy. Tapping into phone lines and bugging houses to garner information serve no other purpose other than alienating the individual in question, thereby eliminating their freedom as a citizen and crushing the unity they created among the rest of the population. Our nation was built on the properties that all men are equal and have the right to live freely, and by spying on the civilians, the government goes against those properties, thus they go against the foundations on which the nation was built upon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
2. To assure our country’s freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens.
I disagree that to assure our country’s freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens. This is because if you are always being watched and your privacy is constantly being invaded then you can never be free in the first place. Freedom can be defined as ease of facility of movement or action, the power to determine action without restraint, or to have personal liberty as opposed to bondage or slavery. You see it is impossible to have freedom in the first place if you are being spied on constantly. It is ironic because it’s like saying the only way to keep your freedom is to take it away. It is okay however to place security cameras outside if needed, but not on every street corner, there must be the perfect balance. If there is too much spying than it can result in dictatorship or even to the extreme of slavery or absolute control of every aspect of people’s life. This method of ruling reminds me a bit of communism, it seems to work perfect on pen and paper, but if you weigh in people’s opinions and feelings, it is just impossible to accomplish in the real world.
10.) My current thoughts pertaining to the statement “the only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war” is unresolved. The old saying “it’s better to be safe than sorry” offers some enlightenment into the resolution of this topic through the voice of experience. It would be ignorant of us, as advanced beings, to ignore history and jump to the automatic assertion of an imminent war rather than “to be prepared for” a war that might not rear its ugly head. However, I can identify with those who feel hostile with the looming fear of conflict surrounded by readiness. The thought of combat is generally looked upon as either an unnecessary loss of innocent lives to restore our previous “stable” situation or as a way of public protection. The distrust accumulated by citizens concerning the governments past “cover ups” may indicate the use of doublespeak. Individuals become weary about the simple usage of prevention as being interpreted as needing direct warfare. They wonder if this route is the “only” way to remedy the world’s tension. Is turning a dystopia into a utopia by using force the “only” acceptable answer? As an intelligent race, we may be able to talk about our dreams of peace, but the efforts in making these ambitions possible is fated to be destroyed by the corruptness of human nature. Thus, a possible solution to foreseen failure can be found through an efficient fall back plan.
7. Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals.
I highly disagree with this statement. Just because you’re putting cameras in public places doesn't mean the number of crimes will decrease. People can sneak around the cameras just as they do now. Putting the cameras there would make things harder but doesn't mean it will make them stop. They would use their heads more and plan things out more carefully. The cameras might minimize the number of crimes but not ignorantly. But you have to look at all the people who aren't criminals; it would feel like their privacy is being invaded. Also, if people did decide to change it wouldn't be because they wanted to or because they wanted to do right it would be because of the fear of them getting caught. If the criminals did get to a place where there weren't any cameras they would still do what they destined to do.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home