Friday, May 25, 2007

My first post

While I'm in the mood, I'd like to refer back to my first posting. It has, for some reason or another, become an object of discussion here as well as on my actual post. Not that I really mind, I like attention, but I feel like it deserves some more explanation.

The most controversial line in that posting was, "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 had 3 people tell me that they agreed with my post, but I'm not really addressing their comments here, I'd rather explain myself to those who don't understand.

Personally, I think that it comes down to politics; whether or not you agree with our government's phone-tapping. I believe that, in order to protect its citizens, our country has the right to intrude on some of our freedoms. Mr. Burell suggested that I search for, " domestic surveillance wiretapping Bush" while Teddy said, "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." It seems that others are concerned that our country will overstep its boundaries, and although it was trying to protect us at first, it will enjoy its control and begin to abuse its power---->if my analysis of others (which may mean you) is completely off, please feel free to let me know.

I also think you're probably watching too much CNN if you think that the government can listen to anybody's phone calls. Unless you're making phone calls outside of the country, the government cannot, in fact, listen to your phone conversations. I did a tiny bit of research and found a BBC News article about Bush defending wire-tapping, "Mr Bush emphasised that only international calls were monitored without a court order - those originating in the US, or those placed from overseas to individuals living in the US." Honestly, is that really so intrusive on our rights? Seriously, answer that question.

Oh right, I'm suppossed to be discussing a book. George Orwell was trying to warn us of what we might become, but his warning was a bit extreme. Is it possible that our country in its current position could become that bad? I'd say no. Why? Well right now we have enough rights and our country doesn't have enough control over its citizens to put us in such a predicament. If you were to tell me that in 10 years our country could be like Winston's, then I'd believe you. It's not that I'm paranoid, but I think that 10 years is enough time for our leadership to change and enough brainwashing to occur for us to become like Oceania. As long as President Bush is in power, I believe that we have enough protection to keep us from such a situation. However, next year, elections are coming and, with some unpromising candidates, it's possible that our government could become so extreme (although I doubt it).

1 comment:

Clay Burell said...

Accepting an authority's explanation for a questionable (and unconstitutional) act is like believing Squealer's explanations of Napoleon's behavior in Animal Farm, or like believing Big Brother in 1984.

Prof. Naomi Wolf of Harvard recently published an article called "Fascist American in 10 Easy Steps." It requires a bit more mental energy and follow-up research than saying, "If the president said it, it must be true." (And see the Guardian's "Comment is Free" debate between Wolf and another Wolfe who disagrees with her.)

Boxer dies at the end of Animal Farm, a victim of Napoleon, who lied and said he was sending Boxer to a hospital--when actually he was selling him to a glue factory.

The tragic irony is that Boxer believed whatever his leader said. His motto was, "Napoleon is always right."

Politics aside, on a purely literary and philosophical level, there's a lot more thinking to be done about these questions than you seem willing to do.