Reaction to Patriot Act Readings

The excerpt from the "USA Patriot Act: How to be Response Ready" article showed how difficult it is for schools to provide protection and privacy from the Patriot Act. With the great length of the Patriot Act, 342 pages, and how unclear it is, schools are having difficult where to begin with no existing models. The Patriot Act centers around avoiding terrorism and monitoring terrorist activity. However, what comes into question is the definition of terrorism. Also school administrators struggle with helping the war on terrorism while at the same time maintaining the civil liberties of the institution, faculty, staff, and students.

Although I understood that the Patriot Act compromised many of our rights, I didn't realize how it affected me as a college student. Reading the article written by the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah really surprise me. I would have never thought that as college students I would be on the radar as a potential terrorists. I had heard previously that the government could seize our library records and understood that the government would probably have access to our student records. In fact I know that in my hometown library the librarians have begun to shred library records to avoid these records from being seized by the government. I never imagined the scope of the actions the government could take.

Monitoring our Internet and E-mail seems very invasive and makes a person wonder what they might have mentioned or discussed in E-mails or searched on the web that could cause them to be a victim of government investigation. I was also stunned that campus security was permitted, due to rights granted by the FBI and CIA, to gather information from religions and political meetings on campus. This could then lead to these groups being deemed potential terrorists threats

After reading that article it was a relief to read the fact sheet provided by Student Peace Action Network. In this article the author provides students with a list of things they can do to protect their civil liberties. I would have never guessed that you would have to ask the Registrar's Office not to release information about your student records. I assumed that would already be the case given the amount of information colleges collect on students. I also liked the idea of posting signs in the library warning students of the Patriot Act.

Reaction to V for Vendetta (first half)

In the movie V for Vendetta social order is maintained through the use of fear. The fascist government control of the society was established based on the threats of disease and war. The chancellor was given the power of control when people surrendered to him, instead of facing what they feared. The chancellor, knowing that the society was motivated by fear to follow him, enforced strict regulations and censoring to avoid defiance. The military and law enforcement was used to maintain order and make sure people didn't disobey the laws of the chancellor. The chancellor desired silent obedient consent from the society.

An important concept for the chancellor and the government was to avoid doubt. They believed that doubt in the government would cause chaos among the citizens. The chancellor and government insisted on stricter regulations and censorship to avoid any possibility of doubt that the government was not working properly. When a famous news anchor was killed by V the government insisted on covering up the true death. This would keep people feeling safe under the control of the government. The less doubt there was, the less people questioned the motives and overbearing control of the government.

One of the slogans the chancellor and government was "Strength through unity, unity through faith." This was very fitting for the society in V for Vendetta. The chancellor stressed that through obedience the community would work for the better good of everybody. The strength they received through unity was based of faith that what the chancellor was doing was for the best. If the community maintained their faith that the chancellor would protect them and keep them safe from what they feared, the chancellor would be able to maintain power. By asking for the society's faith, the chancellor was ensuring that he would remain in power with obedient citizens. It was only until a deviant, who could not be silenced or stopped, questioned the authority and rallied the society that the government fell.

Reaction to Brave New World (first half)

In the novel Brave New World social order is maintained through the use of cloning. Individuals no longer are given birth to and raised by mothers and fathers. Embryos are divided multiple times to produce almost one hundred separate eggs. These eggs produce identical human beings. Each group of eggs is treated different based on what they are to become in society.

There are alphas, betas, deltas, gammas, and epsilons, which each have a different social order. Alphas are the elite members of society and are responsible for more work than others. Epsilons are the lower class and are created to become drones who are taught to preform mindless tasks.

People are taught their place within the society when they are young through hypnosis and shock therapy. This teaches them what they are supposed to like and how they are supposed to respond to things.

It was difficult to read this novel and understand how everyone accepted the ideals of the society. As I was reading the beginning as the director taught the students about how the reproduction process was conducted, I felt like the student that kept questioning the procedure. There was one student that asked what the advantages of the new reproduction process were, and I was asking myself the same question. It seems to create a mundane life where many people just live day to day preforming the same task with no hope of change.

I also was shocked at the lengths the society went to to prevent natural births. It was a horrible thing to become a mother, so women were taught to use contraceptives ritually. Giving birth to a baby was wrong and unheard of. Many younger children didn't understand the concept of birth or parents.

Also the idea of sex and relationships seemed very skewed to me. Everyone was for everyone, a motto of the society, was used with sex and relationships too. You didn't just have one partner, you could have limitless partners. Promiscuity was seen as the norm and monogamy was feared.

Reaction to "Skinheads USA: Soldiers of the Race War" Video

The Skinheads video was extremely disturbing. I think the most disturbing part for me was the brainwashing of the youth. Many of the people involved were so young it is hard to believe that they have their own opinions on this topic. Instead these kids are cared for and allowed to deviate from the norms of society, a wish that every child possesses, and in turn are told to hate all other races.

The children shown in the video, no nothing more than to agree with people that support them. I'm sure when you were little you looked up to some, maybe a parent, guardian or another adult. We admired the people that took care of us and hoped to be like them someday. Many of the children in the movie had been abused or disowned by their own parents. When Bill Riccio offered to take them in and provide for them, these children become easy targets for deception.

Bill Riccio also was a rebel, which many children admire. Many children want to deviate from the rules they are told to obey. Riccio, as a deviant, who believes that the one true race for America is the white race, goes against the common views and norms on race. Children are taught to respect all races, yet when they begin to admire someone like Riccio you can see why this concept goes awry.

As stated, one of the goals of White Supremacy is to allow people to be proud of their race. This is a concept that many individuals could agree with. Who isn't proud of who they are and their background. However, White Supremacy takes this concept to a whole new level by suggesting that there should be separation between races and that ultimately there will be a war among races. It is this attitude that stumps the possible of a country free of racism.

Reaction to Graeber and Lerner Readings

The idea of Freeskool is very linked to anarchism. It is free education that allows people to choose what they want to learn and teach what they are willing to teach. Even the teacher is not considered an authority. It's more as though they are sharing knowledge. To help eliminate the authority figures, many of the teachers (facilitators) choose not to have a format. This allows for more class participation and makes the system more voluntary.

Freeskool believes that education that is not forced down a persons throat is more likely to provoke their interest. Anarchy believes that people that are not enslaved by their government will be more likely to look out for the community interest, instead of selfish interests.

Freeskool's motto is "no grades, no masters", which was designed to play off of the anarchist slogan "no gods, no masters." There is no government or authority forcing people to comply with an anarchist society. The same is true for Freeskool, people are allowed to participate if they choose and their participation is not judged by an authority. This way knowledge can be built collectively.

The disadvantages of the Freeskool model are the same as can be seen in anarchy. There is a lack of quality control. Without a government wealth, health care, and well being of communities cannot be regulated. Within Freeskool there is no way to tell if the knowledge being shared by the community is accurate.

These downfalls are what make people so afraid of anarchy. Because there is no sort of control, there is no underlying protection. People are afraid that others who do not have the means to support themselves will turn to crime to provide for themselves. This will lead to a community that is constantly fearful and afraid of what others can do to them.

As the article stated, another form of social cooperation can be seen in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that is built, added to, and edited by anyone who chooses to do so. People can create their own topic page on Wikipedia and provide all the content they wish. From there others are allowed to add to and edit the page. This has the same disadvantage as Freeskool. There can be no way to main to the quality of the website with having some sort of authority to regulate it.

Reaction to Goldman Reading

One of the most interesting parts of the Goldman article on Anarchism was the definition she present for the concept. According to Goldman, Anarchism is "the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary." I thought this definition was interesting because it states that government leads to violence and destruction, whereas many opposed to anarchism believe that this form of no government leads to violence and destruction.

Goldman believes that ignorance is the reason few understand or believe in the potential success of anarchism. The strive for power and supremacy combats the notion of anarchism, which allows each man to control himself and only himself. The economy is part of the source of opposition. The constant goal of gaining wealth constructs a hierarchy, which leaves some men with more power over others.

Goldman believes that ideas of religion that cause people to believe the are no more than a speck on Earth cause people to be less conscious of themselves. With superior powers controlling people such as God, government, and society, man has no reason to believe in the power of himself. Goldman believes that anarchism is the only philosophy that encourages man to be conscious of himself. Anarchy teaches unity, through the mere idea that men are not considered subordinates or slaves to superior powers.

Anarchism believes, that contrary to what government states, law is not natural. However, government has not survived its purpose in preventing crime, violence, force, and coercion. Goldman believes that crime is inevitable and government regulation only increases the inevitability of it. Under government people are responsible to follow strict rules, which increase the chance of deviation.

Reaction to The Ithacan article and Hahnel Reading

The article from The Ithacan titled "Helping workers make ends meat" was a very interesting story. The article discusses the opening of a new, upscale hotel in the commons. The author of the article believes that the new hotel should pay its workers living wage as opposed to minimum wage. Living wage is basically what minimum wage was meant to be but as living costs have risen all throughout the country minimum wage has fallen behind. Living wage is what it costs a person or family to survive, in their region of the country, which includes food, shelter, health care, etc. As the minimum wage no longer suffices, many families have fallen below the level of poverty.

This concept is very controversial. It is easy to say that all employees should make the living wage for their region. Despite the simplicity of this statement, there are many other factors holding the minimum wage at its current level. Requiring employers to pay living wage means that to maintain their profits and growth the employer must in turn raise there costs. As costs rise, so will living wage.

I appreciate the concept, but if it were that simple, I wonder why the change has already happened. It will be interesting to see the outcome of Maryland paying living wages. I hope from their experiment with paying employees living wage, they will be able to work out any issues before it becomes a national trend.

In the article by Hahnel, "Fighting for Reforms without becoming Reformist", she fights the concept that reform is a bad thing. Reform, especially in terms of socialism, has a bad stigma is a capitalist society because people are afraid that the opportunity for wealth and competition will be lost.

Hahnel states that, in fact, "If winning a reform further empowers people, and whets their appetite for more democracy, more economic justice, and more environmental protection than capitalism can provide, it can hasten the democratic creation of an alternative to capitalism." What she means is that reform should not be feared if it in fact will move us toward a more democratic society, increasing our freedoms and protections at the same time.

Hahnel proposes "combining reform work with work to establish and expand imperfect experiments in equitable cooperation." She believes that neither would be successful alone. Hahnel also believes the success of this strategy must come with political support.

Hahnel believes that proof of the possibility of a more equitable and democratic society that is less environmental destructive is necessary. She believes that simply fighting for the cause will not bring upon change.

Reaction to Berstein and Luxemburg Reading

The main difference in ideology between the two authors was that Bernstein believed in Social Democracy and Luxemburg believed in scientific socialism. Bernstein believed that the impending collapse of capitalism, that Marx and Engels predicted in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, would take a lot longer than predicted. This led Bernstein to hypothesis that capitalism would not fail, but democracy would be able to balance the issues with capitalism. Luxemburg, on the other hand, said that if capitalism was not going to result in its own demise, then socialism would cease to exist.

Bernstein believed that capitalism was not going to lead to a catastrophe, in which, socialism would arise as the dominant form of government. On the contrary, Bernstein believed that capitalism would not fail, but adapt. Capitalism will be able to adapt by the organizing the working class, which would allow them to gain political power, and fight for reforms. Bernstein believes that the more a country's government moves towards democracy, the less likely there will be a collapse in capitalism.

Luxemburg disagreed with Bernstein's critique of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Luxemburg believed that if Bernstein was correct, then there would be no use for socialism. Luxemburg believed that capitalism would ultimately lead to its own ruin. Socialism would no longer be necessary if capitalism did not fail, because socialism is to be the result of the material development of society (capitalism). Socialism believes that the growing anarchy or capitalism, is what ultimate leads to the working class gaining power and over throwing the bourgeoisie.

Luxemburg, throughout the entire piece, never states his true feelings on the matter. Instead Luxemburg concentrates on clarifying the fact that socialism would cease to exist if capitalism was able to adapt rather then fail. Luxemburg implies that Bernstein's argument shows him to be a social democrat. According to Luxemburg this means that Bernstein believes that the working class "should not direct its daily activity toward the conquest of political power, but toward the betterment of the condition of the working class." (Luxemburg 4)

Reaction to Engels and Marx Reading

I believe Engels and Marx are directing their writing in the Manifesto of the Communist Party to the bourgeoisie. When the authors begin discussing the ideology of communism they begin statements with you. You is the bourgeois, that would be most opposed to the ideas of communism. However, I believe the target audience is actually the proletarians. The proletarians have the majority to rise against the bourgeoisie. The authors are offering the idea of communism, with no private property, as a reason and incentive for the proletarian to act.

Bourgeoisie are the oppressors of a country. The bourgeoisie is a small minority of middle class owners of property. The bourgeoisie believe in capitalism which encompasses the idea of free trade, and free buying and selling. The bourgeoisie supports capitalism because it allows its members to gain wealth and property while paying the proletarians, or working class, the minimum wage. Minimum wage in this sense is the minimum amount of money necessary to continue to live.

The Manifesto of the Communist Party is directed at the bourgeoisie because it discusses how "you" would be horrified to hear of abolishing private property. These and other statements are directed at ideas that the bourgeoisie would be opposed to in terms of communism. The authors also state that the bourgeoisie would be opposed because it would cause individuality to vanish once private property is abolished. These statements are used to point fingers at the bourgeoisie while empowering the proletariat.

Proletarians are the oppressed. They are the working class, who are employed by members of the bourgeois. The proletariat maintains a large majority of the population. They typically don't own property and must continuously work to maintain a living.

"The Proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority." (Engels & Marx, 6) The proletarian movement is assisted by those on the lower edges of the bourgeois such as shopkeepers, landlords, manufactures, etc. And a small section of the bourgeoisie join the proletarian revolution because it is the class the holds the future in its hands. Also the "dangerous class", the people from the lowest layers of the old society can also be swept in to support the proletariat.

Reaction to Burke Reading

Burke is completely against the adoption of democracy in France. At the time France was run with an absolute monarchy and had been for quite sometime. Burke believed that "by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society; hazarding to leave to those who come after them, a ruin instead of an habitation" Burke felt that any change in the current absolute monarchy would result in individuals solely looking out for their own interest. That there needed to be some government above them to keep men humble and obedient.

Burke believes that democracy and liberty for all would result in a return to the state of nature, or anarchy. With people arrogant to one another and thinking that they are the wisest and know the best way to run this country. Burke believed that people looking out for though own interest would only be a temporary interest before it led the country to shambles. "By this unprincipled facility of changing the state as often, and as much, and in as many ways as there are floating fancies and fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth would be broken." Burke believed that democracy was continuously changing and therefore would not be able to exist. That whatever was preferred or fancied at that instant could become rule to the people.

Burke also believed that the end of absolute anarchy and a switch to democracy would lead to corruption and chaos. He didn't feel that the world as France knew it could maintain under a democracy. "Barbarism with regard to science and literature, unskillfulness with regard to arts and manufactures, would infallibly succeed to the want of steady education and settled principle." Burke felt that practices such as education would instead turn into corruption. The more knowledge a person had, the more able they were to corrupt other individuals.

In order to convince people to maintain an absolute monarchy, Burke discussed how government should be treated. People of a nation "should approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solitude." In other words, the problems of an absolute monarchy should be viewed as if they were faults of your father. Instead of changing these faults, as a child, we must wait and hope that the government makes the necessary changes to correct itself.

Burke basically argues should be very difficult to change and cannot be due to temporary fancies or fashions. To Burke government is a partnership that is formed through government links the living, dead, and the unborn. Therefore, any adjustments must be for the good of all involved, including those to come.

Burke discusses the current government as a "worthy offering on the high altar of universal praise." This notion is used to convince those reading it that the state is the only way to reach perfection in society. As a gift from above, who would dare attempt to change what God has handed down?

Reaction to Heywood and Kirk Readings

From Andrew Heywood's excerpt, Conservatism has been thought of as a "negative" philosophy because of the nature in which the conservative philosophy came about. Conservatism was established as an ideology that resisted constant change in economic and political policies. Because of how conservatism ideals emerged it is a reaction to change. This is negative because it allows conservative ideals to exist as a resistance to change. Conservatism is seen as a defense to change. Even those that consider themselves conservative don't like to acknowledge it as a ideology. Instead followers feel it is more an "attitude of mind" or "approach to life". Conservatism has been able to continue, in this sense, because "it has been unwilling to be tied down to a fixed system of ideas."

The conservative perspective on change varies between different types of conservatism. British conservatism believes that strict resistance to change is not the best method. Instead the British conservatives feel that change must come about when change is needed to preserve the country, the country's values, etc. On the other hand, Authoritarian conservatism either refuses change or attempts to bring the state of the country back to a better time in the past. The New Right has been seen as an attempt to balance traditions and values toward libertarianism. The New Right believes in free market economics, which distinguishes it from most other types of conservatism.

Russel Kirk's ten principles of conservatism have some similarities with the excerpt by Andrew Heywood. The fourth principle states that "conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence." Which means that conservatives judge everything by the long-term consequences. This idea can also be seen in the conservative excerpt because Heywood states that conservatives for the most part are only willing to "change in order to conserve". Both replicate the idea that conservatives would rather not change, but when necessary why their options and take their time making decisions.

Also the tenth principle of Kirk's states that a "conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society." A conservative believes that while society progresses it also declines. The excerpt states that conservatism attempts to maintain traditional beliefs and values. They believe that progress compromises other liberties and thus should be avoided when necessary. Change to a conservative is only used to preserve the existing order, not to adopt new principles.

Reaction to Friedman Reading

In Friedman's piece, he discussed our day-to-day lives as if they were a game. In this game the players needed to agree upon the rules of the game and to have an umpire to regulate the game. Friedman stated that government acted as the umpire. He stated that unless all the players of a game agreed that the rules were fair then there were would be no set of rules that would prevail. The umpire, or government, was responsible for allowing the players a way of adjusting the rules, mediation between players, and enforce that the rules were followed.

The government must decide the best way ti resolve issues among individuals to protect the freedom of all. Friedman states that "men's freedom can conflict, and when they do, one man's freedom must be limited to preserve another's." Because nobody in a free society should have to have their freedoms limited by another the government must create consequences for these instances.

Freidman states that the role of government "is to do something that the market cannot do for itself." Without government it would be difficult for men to determine what rules are necessary for a free society and even more difficult to enforce them. A government also has the responsiblility of intervening in the game if consequences of a free society are causing individual's freedoms to be impaired. This is specifically the case with monopolies and neighborhood effects. Monopolies require government intervention because they defeat the concept of a free society. A free society must be voluntary and offer alternatives. Monopolies are the absence of alternatives. Neighborhood effects, on the other hand, are when "actions of individuals have effects on other individuals for which it is not feasible to charge or recompense them.

Friedman's perspective of government as an umpire in a democratic society seems to be an accurate description. For the most part people are able to go about their day-to-day lives without government interference. However, when a problem arises or a player is breaking the rules of the game it is the government's responsible to deal with the situation. The government employs many tools to attempt to keep the game as fair and free as possible. The government has police officers and courts to enforce rules and to give consequences when rules are not followed.

National Woman Suffrage Association Reading Reaction

After reading the "Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States" I was most intrigued with the closing paragraph. The closing paragraph of this piece began with the sentence, "We ask of our rulers, at this hour, no special favors, no special privileges, no special legislation." I appreciated this sentence because the title "our rulers" does not seem to imply the government of our nation. Instead I feel as though the women writing this piece meant all the men "above" them. I think that the women were using "our rulers" in a sarcastic way to strengthen their point that women deserve to be granted the same rights that men in the country receive.

I also found the article intriguing for the descriptive way women symbolized men. In the article the authors did not always use the term male and men, instead the authors found other ways to strengthen their points. In one part of the article the authors talked about the fact that women were not given the opportunity to go to universities and law schools, the authors then stated that sons of China, Japan and Africa are welcomed there. And when discussing the aristocracies of the world, stated that the son was above the mother who bore him. The authors used these ways to describe men to deliver there points in a manner that was more moving to the reader.

This piece discussed the contradictions of the Constitution towards women. The women writing this declaration went through each aspect of the Constitution which afforded women rights that they were not receiving. The strongest of those points being that women are not given the right to vote. Our country amended the Constitution to make all people citizens, allowing blacks to vote. When the Constitution was amended they decided that women, though citizens, did not deserve the right to vote.

Women at that time were not given the right to vote, yet were expected to cooperate with ever aspect of the government. Women were expected to pay their taxes, despite one our nations reasons for leaving England being "no taxation without representation". In most states a women's property and earnings were owned by her husband.

I feel as though this article was similar to Douglass' article, however, I felt as though Douglass' was more powerful. First of all Douglass concentrated on the accomplishments of the nation much more than this article did. This article quickly gave praise to the nation and then went on about each aspect where the Constitution was not working properly for women. Douglass seemed to be more powerful in his words inciting action. This article read more like a petition asking these items to be considered.

Douglass Reading Reaction

Douglass' speech on the Fourth of July used the past of our country to shame the state that our nation was presently in. Douglass discussed the struggle our founding fathers went through to free themselves, and thus us, from oppression. Douglass discussed this in great length to remind the audience of the reasons why their fathers seeked liberty and freedom. This remembrance of the creation of our nation allowed the audience to grow increasingly proud of our history.

Douglass then took on the voice of a slave in our nation. Douglass discussed the fact that the Fourth of July to a slave is a mockery. The fact that the nation prides themselves on how they were able to free themselves from slavery, while they continue to enslave people in their own country is hypocritical. Douglass called slavery the cruelest practice existing in the world at that time.

Douglass argued that there was no need to prove to the audience that slaves deserved freedom just as much as slave owners did. Douglass used pieces of our nations Constitution and practices to show how hypocritical slavery was.

Douglass attempted to draw a link between both the past and the present. Douglass wanted the audience to remember what they're fathers went through to get their freedom from oppression, and now our own country is oppressing people in the same way sense that they freed themselves from. This connection between the past and present allows Douglass to make his audience feel shame from being so ignorant.

Reading this speech from Douglass is incredible. I think it is impressive that a person would make such a controversial speech on the Fourth of July. With slavery being such a prominent and accepted aspect of our nation at the time, it seems daring to express such a dissenting opinion on the day our nation gained our freedom.

Locke Reading Reaction

After reading the Locke reading I was surprised at how closely his work matched the way our government is constructed in this country. Obviously the Founding Fathers of our country considered many ideas about the best way to shape a government before constructing an outline for it, but it seems as though Locke's beliefs and writings had a profound effect on them.

Locke's ideas seemed to be a response to his feelings on an absolute monarchy. The reading we did on Hobbes he explains an absolute monarchy where one sovereign had total control. The sovereign had all rights to the government, while all those being governed had no write to judge or object to the government. This allowed the sovereign to have absolute power. The point of Hobbes absolute monarch was to take them out of the state of nature. The state of nature is when everyone is living in fear, acting for and protecting themselves, with no trust or companionship with anyone else.

Locke argues that an absolute monarchy doesn't take them out of the state of nature because the sovereign has absolute power and thus can do whatever he wants without being judge. This leaves the people under the sovereign in fear with no power to fight back. Locke stressed that one person could not control all aspects of the government without any control over the one leader. Lock, thus, developed the concept of checks and balances. Locke believed that there must be different branches of government that each have their own responsibilities.

Reading Locke's ideas, that seem to be the heart of our government, astonishes me that his idea of government have carried on for so long. I would suspect that ideas written so long ago would be out of date. However, despite the expected flaws that every government has, I feel as though a democracy is a very effective and efficient way of running a government.