Thursday, May 24, 2007
Response to Bekah's Very First Blog (6)
I agree with Bekah on how extreme the Party' s government goes to control all of the people. If it actually got to this point in our own world like it is in this story, I do not know what I would do. I enjoy my freedom without so much control like there is in this story even though I still do have my own boundaries in what I can and cannot do which controls myself from doing or not doing those things. I think that if it got to such an extreme in our own world/country like it is in this story, the government doing this would eventually get overthrown by all of the citizens who do not like it. I think I would be one of those many, many people doing so. What I do not completely agree with Bekah on is when she says, "I don't think that I'll ever have a government that reads my thoughts or has a telescreen with the ability to hear and see my every move, but just the idea is pretty strange." I do not agree with this completely because our own president of the United States of America is allowing people to listen into our own conversation on the phone, computer, etc. With this action taken by Bush, the government is having the ability to hear what you say. Who knows. Maybe someday we will be at a point that the government will be able to hear AND see our ever moves, which no offense, will make her prediction even more false. If our president(s) allow more of these actions to be taken place, it might come to that point. It would be probably considered "Invasion of privacy." What the government is doing right now, though, does have a good side to it. Listening into anyone's conversations can protect many of us from terrorism and other dangers. This can prevent a planning of a terrorist attack somewhere that we may not know about, but we could if the government taps into that line and hears about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Teddy, I didn't know it was possible to write so much about such an undeveloped piece! Oh well, I guess you proved me wrong there. Did you read Mr. Burell's comment to me about my statement,"I don't think that I'll ever have a government that reads my thoughts or has a telescreen with the ability to hear and see my every move, but just the idea is pretty strange."? He also drew a connection between 1984 and our world now, like you did. I do realize that our government being able to tap into our phone conversations could be interpreted as the government being able to,"hear and see my every move". Although you make some valid points, I still stand firm on my first statement. The act of tapping in on our phone conversations isn't in order to get into our personal lives, or to take away our freedom- like you said, it's for our protection. If our government was just nosy, then I'd be more concerned. I think your thought is: where do they draw the line? Phone conversations for now, but as time goes on, will there be cameras and thought police too? Teddy, in that case, I think that's being a little too paranoid, no offense. There are enough laws and protections over our freedom that make it so that the government can't invade our lives completely. I also think that they're are enough people out there that are on there toes- looking out for ways that the government invades their personal space- that we're pretty safe. So I guess, in a way I should thank you, because you aren't sitting back relaxed...you're on your toes.
I hesitate to jump in here at the risk of stirring up a political debate, rather than a text-based debate, but here goes...
I'm going to focus on one piece of Bekah's response to Teddy's post on her post (or something like that). Bekah says "There are enough laws and protections over our freedom that make it so that the government can't invade our lives completely." I think if Orwell were alive today he'd be concerned whenever the government changes the laws to suit it's whims. For example, the domestic wiretapping initiative sidesteps laws that are in place and was kept secret by the government. When it was secret, there could be no debate about the merits of the program. However, once it was revealed, their can be a debate - out in the open, in public, not behind the closed doors of some bureaucrat's offices. Winston Smith never got chances like that. The government even controlled those so-called debates, staging fake rallies and holding two minute hates to focus the public's attention away from itself. It was fiendishly effective, wasn't it. Orwell would get nervous if he saw government inching in that direction.
Just some thoughts...
Post a Comment