Security Vs. Civil Rights Essay

Since the founding of this country, surveillance has been allowed but with the unspoken rule that it was not to be done inside of the U.S. This changed when the PATRIOT Act was passed in 2001. Under this law, U.S. law enforcement agencies (such as the CIA and FBI) were allowed to monitor private information of U.S. citizens in an attempt to protect against terrorists. Since then, various agencies, such as the NSA (National Security Agency) and FBI have been secretly monitoring information such as phone calls, web history and business records. Another thing this law allows is for these agencies to get National Security Letters (a type of subpoena) without going to court. These are sent of to casinos and other organizations (such as Choicepoint and Lexis Nexis) that gather terabytes (one thousand gigabytes) of information on U.S. citizens. This can range from spending habits, to who a person calls to where they vacation and beyond.

The response of an ethical democratic citizen would be to allow these information searches, to a point. If the agencies that are rooting out terrorists have the information they need, they can more effectively do their job. If they more effectively do their job, then that means it is less likely that there will be another terrorist attack. This could save lives. However, the Patriot Act as it is now is not ethical. One of the ideas this country is founded on is privacy. The Fourth Amendment guarantees us safety from searches and seizures unless there is a warrant, which requires probable cause. Many people’s information is being taken simply because they are in a certain area. Take the at&t telephone company for example. The NSA collected vast amounts of information from the company's system for no specific reason. This is not probable cause. Furthermore, the defense agencies can now bypass the courts and do what the president orders. This unrestrained and unregulated power of the president violates the checks and balances set down in our Constitution.

In conclusion, information gathering is okay so long as it does not too far overstep the boundaries of civil rights. It is ethical to allow the gathering because it could possibly save the country from another attack. However, the ethical democratic citizen would push for a reform of the Patriot Act to make it more constitutional.

Walking Tour

Here is my walking Tour project. It is on Lincoln Park, which is in Nashua, New Hampshire.

Nihilism

In the beginning of the podcast, Bob Reiman poses the question “what is the best society?” Throughout the podcast, he examines what he considers the best society and how America does not stand up to his expectations. One theme that is present throughout the podcast is that we are a nihilistic society. Reiman defines nihilism as a philosophy where “there are no intrinsic values”. He also paraphrases this by saying “That is what nihilism is: the cultivation of meaninglessness. This relates to America in that we are a heavily materialistic society and want instant gratification of our wants and needs. It is clear to any thinking person that the media today spews forth (quite frequently) tons of useless garbage that does nothing but desensitize the masses. As an example of this, consider movies like “Saw”, and “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre”. These movies are full of senseless violence and do nothing to contribute to the overall character of the viewer. Reiman shares this point of view. He also thinks that America needs more of the arts today, which I completely agree with.

I disagree that fundamentalists are bad. I find nothing wrong with fundamentalism. Fundamentalists do not necessarily encourage meaninglessness. In fact, some fundamentalists found their philosophies on the classics, which are generally considered to have great meaning. Thousands of meaningful songs, hymns, poems and books have been written on the Bible, for instance. I think the problem is that the some of the wrong types fundamentalists are in places of influence now, thus encouraging nihilism. Despite the fact that the people that are in power may be somewhat corrupt, and the fact that America needs more art, we are most certainly still a democracy. We simply need to change our course, which is not all that simple to do. This relates perfectly to what Reiman says, “… [these life giving qualities] are not for free.” Not only do people need more education in certain areas, which is definitely costly in time, but also people may need to change their lifestyles somewhat. This could be even more costly to a person than their time.

In conclusion, it is my belief that the best society would be one with a balance between artistic values and practicality. Neither of these make a society that is healthy for its citizens when they exist by themselves. However, when you combine the two, you can make advancements in science, etc. and also gain insight and meaning from great literature and other forms of art. With both, you can look to the future with a head that is well grounded in the wisdom of the past.

Eulogy

When I think of John, I think back to countless number of sleepovers we had at his house. I think of the time the two of us laughed for five minutes straight, over nothing at all. Then I think of all the times he saved me a seat on the crowded bus. I think of how he would go out of his way to help those who asked him to. I will never forget the times when he would help me with math homework. This may seem inconsecuential, but it meant the world to me.

These things are just a few examples of what John meant to me. How could I describe John? Would it be enough to say that he was a friend? No, he was more than a friend to many people. No matter how bad of a day he had had, he would always be kind to you. Would it be enough to say that he was helpful? No, he was more than helpful; he was willing to make sacrifices for you. He was always persistent, always accepting of people and always willing to talk things over. He was true to his word; if he said he would do something, you could bet that he would do it. Would it be too much to say that he was my best friend? No, he was exactly that.

Relativism: Premise and Conclusion

Premise: Two opposing statements cannot both be wholly correct.

Conclusion: Therefore, when two or more directly opposing statements are presented, it is only possible for one statement to be wholly correct.

Relativism

Relativism is the concept that everything is relative, no absolutes exist. In other words, there are no "hard facts". Truth, or more to the point of relativism, truths depend solely upon the person's point of view, culture or anything else about the person. It is your own personal brand of truth, if you will. For this reason, there can be more than one truth concerning a specific topic, according to relativism. Basically, there are no black or white areas, only gray.

Consider the following situation. A poor man breaks into the house of another man. The poor man then takes all of the jewelry, expensive electronics and money in the house. However, as he is taking the stuff, the owner catches him. The poor man pleads to the owner, "please don't send me to jail for taking your stuff, I am poor and have a wife and three kids." Now, was what the poor man did right? By no means! Although, he was poor and he needed to support his family, it was absolutely wrong of him to steal from the other man.

Relativism is not a reasonable approach to ethics. There are three reasons for this. First of all, ethics by definition deals with right and wrong. Without those two things, there can be no ethics. The second reason is morals. There is a standard of morals that everyone should obey. This only applies to morals issues, though. For instance, there can be no "best tasting food", because that is solely a matter of preference, not a moral problem. The third reason is the fact that relativism is a self contradicting philosophy. As stated above, relativism states that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Well, what do you think relativists consider that statement to be? An ABSOLUTE TRUTH. By its very nature relativism is a paradox. It simply cannot exist because it is based on an absolute.

Is Love Essential to Democratic Citizenship?

I think that “brotherly love” is an essential component of ethical democratic citizenship. You may wonder what a democracy truly is. Some people have made the definition complicated, but the actual definition is quite simple. The word comes from two Greek words meaning "rule by the people". So democracy is simply a form of government in which the citizens have power. Think about this question, "what is the reason for having a democracy?" The answer is this "sure that our individual rights are upheld". Some may say that it is their job to make sure that they themselves have rights, not to make sure that their neighbor has rights. But think about this: what if your neighbor had a similar philosophy concerning your rights? If this was the case with everyone, no one would have rights and we would have downright anarchy. Then there is the matter of ethics. Is it ethical to be selfish? Is it ethical to take someone else’s rights away so you can have yours? Basically, if we don’t have this brotherly love toward our fellow citizens, then there cannot be a true democracy.

The Gifts of Black Folk, Part 2

Quotes

"Maturity is always about mustering the courage to look forms of death in the face and to not hold it at arm's length and not escape from it, but work through it."

- Maturity is facing your problems (in this case the problem is death) and working through it (if possible).

"Tell me what you attend to and I'll tell you what kind of a person you are."

- Actions are a better judge of character than words.

“Sooner or later life is going to knock you against the wall and push you to your knees"

- There are certain unavoidable facts of life, one of which is death.

"Imitation is suicide."

- When you try to be like someone else you 'kill' your individuality.

"Success is only a means to greatness."

-?