Does Domestic Spying Help the United States?

It’s safe to say the U.S. has experienced an increase in domestic spying. Some argue that an increase in National security is violation of the Fourth Amendment giving citizens the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. While others argue that having high national security, including domestic spying, prevents situations such as 9/11 from occurring. In the packet Charles Krauthammer argues that domestic spying helps the U.S. and prevents terrorist events from happening. Charles states, “We have not been hit again because we’ve been capturing high-level operatives and getting them to talk in secret prisons, where they’re incommunicado and disoriented and desperate” (229). However he weakens his argument by stating in the first paragraphs how this tramples civil liberties and violates the Constitution, “jeopardizing the very idea of freedom and otherwise destroying all that is sacred in America” (229). And is our security stopping terrorists or are there really no more attacks like 9/11 in the works. The question then would be when is too much? Bob Barr states that domestic spying is snooping and damages our nation. Barr says, “Executive power that could easily be applied to virtually any other area of domestic activity as long as a link to a national security is asserted” (231). Spying or Security could extend to unreasonable amounts and by Executive power our government would be asserting our national security not spying. Everyone has the right under the Constitution to personal property and privacy; our civil liberties should not be taken. However, if we need to stand in line at an airport a few more minutes or place a finger on a scanner in order to clock in, a few minutes of inconvenience should not cause problems. If our National security is increasing in order to prevent events such as 9/11 from happening I believe every American should be more than willing to sacrifice a bit of privacy for their country.

Final Analysis 1984

Orwell wasn’t accurate in his vision of the future. The society in the book was more advanced then we are today not to mention 1984. The whole idea of the Party and rewriting history doesn’t happen today. Maybe it does to a small extent but people are aware of what happened in the past and aren’t brainwashed into believing lies. The telescreens in the novel are a good representation of today’s national security or spying. The government is developing security in order to prevent from a national crisis however; when does it become too much. When will the government start to know too much about our personal lives. Orwell could also be correct when he talks about family at the end. O’Brien explains how the party has cut the link between child and parent, man and man, woman and man. “No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer” (267). Orwell is on the right track with this frame of mind. If society continues to rely on technology, including cell phones, computers, emails, we will lose touch of each other. There will no longer be socialized friendships or relationships even between family members. If people aren’t aware of what could happen to future generations and the risk of moving forward too fast with technology and new ideas, it is very likely that society will lose family, friendships, trust. Everything will become a lie; even our history.

North Korea

Should the United States seek negotiations and engagement with North Korea?
Although Victor D. Cha seems like he would know more about the situation with North Korea, being in Asian Studies and Asia director, I believe David C. Kang makes a better argument. David Kang points out the facts. The U.S. and North Korea are in a relationship depending on suspicion. Kang makes the point that with the views the U.S. holds on North Korea it's no doubt they feel threatened. And as North Korea feels threatened they will remain on guard and unwilling to cooperate. "A North Korea that feels threatened and perceives the U.S. administration to be actively attempting to increase pressure on it is unlikely to trust the United States" (176). Both the United States and North Korea need to work and begin to trust each other by "building confidence in the other". No relationship works without trust; even a relationship between countries. Both countries need to work to fulfill responsibilities on the framework. "The United States and North Korea are still technically at war--the 1953 armistice was never replaced with a peace treaty" (179). So yes, the United States needs to seek negotiations with North Korea, not simply sit back or refuse because of our past with the country. Isolating and continuing to pressure North Korea will only heighten their threatened emotion and cause more conflict.

Thin Gruel

Censorship from the right
The censorship of religious and moral issues. Excluding stories that would cause children to be disobedient and damage family life. Textbooks must be patriotic and teach the positive view of the nation. “The parents complained that the textbooks promoted secular humanism, satanism, witchcraft, fantasy, magic, the occult, disobedience, dishonesty, feminism, evolution, telepathy, one-world government, and New Age religion” (article). Parents also complained about books including sex, race, religion and violence wanting to ban them. Recently books like Harry Potter containing magic, witchcraft and fantasy have also been questioned.

Censorship from the left
The censorship of feminist and liberal views. Want to ban specific words, phrases and images in textbooks. Encourage realistic and accurate stories of our history. The left sees characters from fairytales as sexist. Fairytales displaying girls as poor souls while the boys are courageous. There is also materialism in which most fairytale characters have to rise to riches.

Heroine – This word is how to describe a female hero. How is this sexist if hero isn’t??
Homosexual – This is a description word. How can you ban it?
Pop
Snowball
Soda

The story that was banned on the blind mountain climber. For one, this story was true. It wasn't fictional it was a true story. Banning it for regional and disadvantage of blind people is ridiculous. People don't pay attention to regional description in terms of making themselves feel better for living in that specific location. And saying that blind people are worse off is true; they are blind! Banning this story is ridiculous.

1982 #2

In this section of the book Winston meets Julia. Julia is the dark haired girl that he has dreamt of. Winston is happy to find out that Julia has had sex with many people because the men were Party members, which means that he is not the only one participating in an unacceptable act. “Their embrace had been a battle, the climax a victory. It was a blow struck against the Party. It was a political act” (126). Winston wants to know that there are corrupt people and perhaps the Party itself is corrupt. After meeting in the clearing Julia and Winston set up their rendezvous in the poorer quarters where there is an open market; a crowded and safe place to meet in order to avoid anyone from watching them. Syme vanishes in this section of the book. “But Syme was not only dead, he was abolished, an unperson” (157). Winston is afraid of anyone finding out about Julia, being caught and killed.