Patriot Act with Colleges

Is the United States government kidding me? I feel that it is a joke that the US government is spying on colleges. There is no reason for colleges to have to give out students directories, medical history or complications, and family financials to the government. Also why does it matter to the US what major a student is studying.This is an absolute outrage. The libraries have to give the FBI records of what the individual ask taken out or what they looked up online. So I am guessing if a student is doing research or how easy it was to make a bomb for terrorist, that student becomes a threat to the nation? No, he is just simply doing work for class, but this work may lead for him to geting arrested, especially if he is of Arab or Muslim decent.

It is also an outrage that the Colleges may restrict protest/rallies. They also can restrict what we learn or write about. The government views these aspects as threatening to our nations safety. So lets take away some of our bill of right to protect ourselves, I don't think so. Immigrants even have it worse, if they are Arab or Muslim they are likely to get arrested once they enter the nation. Isn't the nation supposed to be the land of the free.

A student may be in class not knowing that a FBI or CIA operative is in their room destroying personal things inorder to find some evidence of terroism. Are you serious? It is the students property and the government has no right. I believe the public should speak up, but one person can not start this, a group of people have to join together, and hopefully get the whole student body across the nation, to stand up to this nonsense.

Brave New World

This author really worries me on how a nation might change with the new medical advances today. If a new dictator came and really wanted a powerful race they may take this oppurtunitty. For someone to controll human reproduction and having the government take the children scares me. What happens if the government feels the child is inadaquet to the success of the nation.

I feel that if a nation or leader gets too caught up in the thought of a perfect society, they might take these extreme measures to do so. Which is very fightning, but I feel that the public would revolt instantly.

V for Vendetta

This movie opens my mind to what the future may hold each and everytime I watch it. Yes not one person will single handingly save a country by his sword mastery, but the movie can open the eyes of the public, if they are smart enough, to realize the path a country may lead them. I do not believe the US will drug their youth inorder for a person to take charge and have asolute control of the nation.

I do believe that aspects of the movie does occur today. For example the gorvenment was taping and listening to every conversation around the city listening if anyone is against the government, or breaking one of the many laws. I see this today in the patriot act where the government is looking into people emails, phone calls, what people are searching in the library inorder to get a hint of a terrorist attack. But spying on the general public and not allowing civilians the right to privacy I believe is ridiculous.

Also I saw how Bush used fear tactics just like the leader in V for Vendetta inorder to get their way. There was no evidence for nuclear weapons, and Iraq had no threat to us, but Bush was able to use fear from 9/11 inorder to maybe try and finish off what his father started. The leader in V used the same tactics in order to get his power by spreading a virus and being the only one to have a cure.

I believe the public has to open their eyes and realize where a government may be wrong, and they should stand up for their right, but not alone. They would have to stand up for their rights together, united as one.

This is What Democracy Looks Like

The film documentary "This is What Democracy Looks Like" intrigued me, the fact that it appeared our democratic society was more of a Chinese/North Korean communist society. I was fascinated how the major corporations controlled the media to show people around the US that the protestors in Seattle were creating a huge disturbance, being physical which made the police take action. Also how the police said on television that nomore than 20 people were injured, meanwhile that was only a glimpse of the people who were beated, pepper sprayed, and i think it was OC spray which led to chromosomal mutation, birth defect, and more problems.

It was amazing how many people came together united for one purpose and that was to stop WTO. I was very suprised to find out that this event where over 5000 people joined together for this purpose only occured 9 years ago. When I was watching the documentary I was thinking to myself, "Where the hell was I? Why have I not heard of this?" Yea I was only 9 years old but you think something at this magnitude of an event, that I would at least remember hearing something related on the news.

What also amazed me is how the mayor, and the police took away the protestors rights to asemble and freedom of speech. At one point people were not even able to have pis or look like they were part of the protestors. The protestors were very peaceful and it was astonishing how they were treated by the police. After a couple days, most of the people were being arrested, even people who were not even part of the group. The police would constantly lie to the media. The best part of the documentary was when the corporation leaders were complaining that its unfair how the protestors are preventing people from not going to their stores. That it is such a tragedy because its in peak season where they get the most money.

Overall I was amazed how a simple very peaceful protest would turn wrong because the buisnesses did not want to lose money. I am happy that the protestors achieved their goals. I believe the major cororations and WTO can shove it.

Milstein on Anarchism

Cindy Milstein points out many ways in which Anarchism, Liberalism, and Socialism, have interacting themes, and she also points out how anarchism is not all negative. The three ideologies push for individualistic freedoms/impowerment. The difference between the three is how they recieve or achieve the freedom or sense of impowerment. Anarchism and Socialism are probably most similar in being that " All anarchist are socialist, but not every socialist is an anarchist". She states that "anarchist maintained that people could attempt to build the new world in the shell of the old", which is how anarchist difer from socialist, since socialist wait until the old world withers away. I do not believe this would work for anarchist because, I do not see how implimenting a new system into an old one would work. I do not see everyone accepting a new system because most people belive that there is nothing wrong with the old, and what's not broken does not need fixing.

Soviet Propoganda

The Soviet propoganda had an abbundance of interesting posters, but only a couple, or group with same idea, really stood out to me. What really stood out to me was that in the Soviet's propoganda they should that they have more interest in the safety and well being of the children(the nation's future) than the adults. Also they promoted excersize and fitness for the citizens. Lastly what really stood out was how the Soviets used propoganda to try and show the civilians that the US is planning to attack, or willing to attack, meanwhile the soviets "just want peace".

The propoganda posters showed an importance in the developement and safety of the youth. For example if a disaster were to occur the main emergancy response would be put towards looking for the children. Also th adults must teach the children how to put on emergancy mask incase of attack, or they have to teach them how what to do incase of an emergancy. They also made education and excersize an important aspect of a kids life. They made certain childhood groups that helped the children learn the Soviets ideas. I believe the importance of the youth in the Soviet's mind is that the youth is their future, and if socialist ideas were to succeed in the Soviet Union the children would have to be well educated.

Other propoganda posters harped on the importance of excersize. One poster in particular showed a man who would not excersize, then missed excersize classes, and then missed sports activites. At the sametime everyone esle is excersizing and playing sports. Then the poster shows him struggling to carry something that a girl is easily carrying in the front. I believe that the Soviet Union really wanted their citizens to be fight inorder to possibly get called for to go to war. Or possibly the are to be fight so they could so theyre dominance.

Socialism (Heywood)

Socialism arose in Europe as a reaction against the social and economic conditions generated by the growth of industrial capitalism. Socialist's birth has closely been linked to the development of a new but growing class of industrial workers. These workers suffered from poverty and degradation. Socialism has the idea of collectivsm stating that humans are capable of overcoming social and economic problems by drawing upon the power of community rather than individual effort. They also believe that the relationship between humans should be one of cooperation rather than competition. Socialist disagree with the thought of competition because it promotes selfishness and agression in the community. Socialist believe that social class is the deepest and most politically significant division in society. They believe that class divisions should be removed since the class system is founded upon exploitation and injustice.

I agree with many of the points that socialist bring up. I am however disappointed that groups took these ideas and sort of manipulated them into their form of government. Like the Soviet Union, they took these ideas, got the publics support, and once the government had controll the economy went on a downward spiral and the people were suffering dramatically. I feel that if a government took these ideas and did not manipulate them at all, the government can be very prosperous and the people would lead a happy life.

John Dewey

What I get from Dewey's article is that liberty is directly parrallel to the amount of power you have. If you have more power, you have the liberty to do more than someone with less power. "It (Liberty) is power, effective power to do specific things". Liberty has to do with the fact of "what a person can do and what a person cannot do".

He goes on saying that the possesion of power has to deal with the distributuion of power. Also thirdly he goes on to say how there is no absolute liberty. That a persons freedom can be taken away at any moment.

I believe that many of the things Dewey states is true, but it should not be this way. Everyone should have equal liberty, and liberty should be absolute.

William Graham Sumner

"Is it wicked to be rich? Is it mean to be a capitalist?" an who should bring up the point of which a person is too rich. These are questions Sumner brings up in his writing. The only anwer I could come up with is that, it is only wicked to be rich, or be a capitalist, if you do not put money back into society to help your fellow man. The only people who should not be rich are the greedy ones who won't put a peny into society or people who did not work to be rich. People like Paris Hilton do not deserve the nurishment of being rich, because the main reason they are at their status is because of their father. Don't get me wrong, I know there are rich people who put money into society, btu it is not enough.

Sumner brings up the point that if a clergyman were to work his way up from a man of poverty to a rich man is a good member of society. But as soon as he becomes rich, society views him as being suspicious, as a danger to the betterment of society. I agree with Sumner that this is wrong for society to view him as being a danger to society. The man worked he way up to being rich which is a great achievement for him and it should not be taken away from him.

Also I belive Sumner tries to bring up the point that there are naturally gifted/smart people in society who deserve the best. And that there are also people who just slack or are stupid and they deserve what they get. Also Sumner points out how the rich are good people, that if the working people ask the poor ask the rich to do something for them, the rich will comply.

After reading this document I still believe that people are do not deserve being rich only if they do not put money back into society. I think that if the rich are as good of people that Sumner states they are, the rich would put as much money as they could into fundations, charity, taxes, and more, since they have the money to put it in. They do not need the five cars and million dollar jewelry.

Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League

Right off the bat, the author goes to the point theat the policy of imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends to point towards militarianism. As Lincoln, and Washignton both viewed that all men, race or color not being a factor, are entitled to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Also governments only recieve their power rightfully from the people they govern. They league insist that imperialist ideas is "crimianl aggression".

Imperialism takes away both of these facts. A country under imperialism, like the Philipines in the article, lose their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Also imperialist governments do not recieve their right to govern rightfully, since they basically take over the government. Also in the Philipines many lives will be lost at the hands of America, which is one of the things humans are entitled to.

I believe this article is right, that countries should not imperialism. People have the right to choose their own government, and another country should not have the right to come and take over another countries government. A national law states that a strogner country may take over a weaker country, which I believe is wrong. Like Washington stated after the American revolution, "America should not interact with other countries, we should be isolated"

Frederick Douglas

Frederick Douglas right from the start with the title shows that in 1852, 4th of July, Independance Day, was not a day that they should be very proud of. He shows this because INDEPENDANCE DAY, was meant to be a day to celebrate the freedom from Englands opression, and that everyone is a free man. But that is not the case for the black men and women, most of which were held as slaves at white males plantation farms. As he stated "Opression makes a wise man mad", which he pointed out the fathers of America who were victims of grievous wrongs. He knows what it means to be independant.

He points out how the fathers of America were great men. How they were brave enough to stand up for their independance from England. He goes on about the past of America and why the 4th of July, Independance day, should be a great holiday. Except for the fact that "the nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July!" Now that the Americans are free of opression from England, now they are doing relatively the samething to the blacks.

He points out the wrong doings by stating, " What am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of our liberty, to work the without wages......." He asks the audience/reader "if slavery is not divine: that God did not establish it" that our doctors of divinity are mistaken?" Frederick Douglas then goes on about the corruptiveness of judges during slave trade, on how they would recieve 10 dollars for every victim he cosigns to slavery.

I believe Frederick Douglas is right, that 4th of July was a black day in America up until everyone recieved equall rights. That the independance we fought for is deminished when we oppress minorities ourselves. If we belive America shold be the land of the free, and independant, then the blacks should not have been reduced to slaves, that we could beat, rape, and use to pick crops.

Thomas Hobbes political ideas

Thomas Hobbes has many great ideas on how a government should be ran. If you look at our government, you can see many of Hobbes ideas, such as the sovereigns 9th right which is the right to start a war or create a treaty. Another example of he ideas being seen in our present day government is that the majority rules, which is the sovereigns 3rd right. In the United States if the majority votes for democratic so that they controll senate, the house, and president, then we all have to follow their disciplines, and the same can be said for republicans. Also like the United States government and many others throughout the world, the leader decides the rights, and laws that people have to foolow (sovereigns 7th right). These ideas were used to try and make the people less worried about the hassels of the government by having someone they elected as their sovereign.
Eventhough Hobbes has many great ideas on how to run a government, there are some major flaws. If the sovereign turns out to be corrupt there is no way that the people could overthrow him, as stated in the 4th and 5th right of sovereign. The people may not kill the sovereign or be overthrown. This idea of a government would not work for these reasons, because the leader of society should fear the people of being overthrown, so that he or she works for the betterment of society.