The fundamental question facing Americans today is not the false tradeoff between security and liberty, but rather how we can use security to protect liberty. Any debate over security and liberty must start with the recognition that the primary threat to American freedom comes from al-Qaeda and other groups that seek to kill Americans, not from the men and women of law enforcement agencies who protect them from that danger. That the American homeland has not suffered another terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, is a testament to the remarkable efforts of law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security personnel... Their hard work, dedication, and increased coordination have been greatly aided by the tools, resources, and guidance that Congress provided in the Patriot Act.
This passage is taken from Viet D. Dinh's How the USA Patriot Act Defends Democracy. I believe Dinh makes several faulty claims in his essay. He seems to think that the US government is unable to make a mistake and seeks ONLY for the destruction of all terrorists and in no way wants to control their own citizens with laws such as the USA Patriot Act. He claims that "the primary threat... comes from al-Qaeda". Though this may possibly have been true in 2004 when this essay was originally published, the US government has always had other goals in mind. Most governments want more power than they already have and to think that they will always want what is best for its citizens is illogical.
In addition, he seems to think that this Act has stopped all terrorist attacks on the American homeland. This seems improbable, since we took the war to them and have taken down a number of their leaders, including Osama bin Laden in 2011. The belief that the only reasons that no more attacks have landed in domestic America is because of homeland security seems oversimplified.
Dinh also claims later that parts of the Patriot Act were announced in 2003 to not even be in use, but the possibility that the FBI would not use such tools later on is foolish. I don't believe we need to be terrified that the government is reading over our shoulders 24/7, but I also believe that its unwise to believe that the government only has its citizens' own good in mind, regardless of what they claim.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Heart of Darkness
'I shall see this eloquent phantom as long as I live, and I shall see her, too, a tragic and familiar Shade, resembling in this gesture another one, tragic also and bedecked with powerless charms, stretching bare brown arms over the glitter of the infernal stream, the stream of darkness. She said suddenly, "He died as he lived."
'"His end," said I, with dull anger stirring in me, "was in every way worthy of his life. ... I heard his very last words..." I stopped in fright.
'"Repeat them," she murmured in a heartbroken tone. ... "Don't you understand I loved him -- I loved him -- I loved him!"
'I pulled myself together and spoke slowly.
'"The last word he pronounced was -- your name."'
This is part of the last scene in Marlow's narrative from Conrad's Heart of Darkness. I thought this scene was very interesting. Conrad here compares Kurtz' fiance with the witch doctor lady from Africa, specifically their pleading for Kurtz to come back to them. Also, the fact that the fiance's name is never mentioned, but instead is referred to as the "Shade" is odd. This may be because of the way she looks -- dressed in black with a pale mourning face, another similarity to the native -- or because with the word "shade", Conrad links her to the overlying theme of the story, which is darkness. The whole tone of the book is dark, ominous, and depressing, yet the highlight is when Kurtz utters his last words, which are not her name, but "The horror! the horror!" and Marlow believes Kurtz has finally broken through the dark madness that had captured Kurtz's mind, returning to the path of light he had lived before going to Africa, making her words "He died as he lived" very possibly true. I found this scene and book highly complicated and in depth, very beautiful and still dark.
Conrad seems to believe that when living a life of darkness, the light comes out at the very end, before it goes out forever. Marlow became very ill and nearly died, but seemed to reach a point of "enlightenment" as the Buddha he is compared to. And also, that even if the actions of one's life become selfish and distorted as Kurtz' seemed to have, if they find the light at the end, their life is one of justice and worthy of honor.
'"His end," said I, with dull anger stirring in me, "was in every way worthy of his life. ... I heard his very last words..." I stopped in fright.
'"Repeat them," she murmured in a heartbroken tone. ... "Don't you understand I loved him -- I loved him -- I loved him!"
'I pulled myself together and spoke slowly.
'"The last word he pronounced was -- your name."'
This is part of the last scene in Marlow's narrative from Conrad's Heart of Darkness. I thought this scene was very interesting. Conrad here compares Kurtz' fiance with the witch doctor lady from Africa, specifically their pleading for Kurtz to come back to them. Also, the fact that the fiance's name is never mentioned, but instead is referred to as the "Shade" is odd. This may be because of the way she looks -- dressed in black with a pale mourning face, another similarity to the native -- or because with the word "shade", Conrad links her to the overlying theme of the story, which is darkness. The whole tone of the book is dark, ominous, and depressing, yet the highlight is when Kurtz utters his last words, which are not her name, but "The horror! the horror!" and Marlow believes Kurtz has finally broken through the dark madness that had captured Kurtz's mind, returning to the path of light he had lived before going to Africa, making her words "He died as he lived" very possibly true. I found this scene and book highly complicated and in depth, very beautiful and still dark.
Conrad seems to believe that when living a life of darkness, the light comes out at the very end, before it goes out forever. Marlow became very ill and nearly died, but seemed to reach a point of "enlightenment" as the Buddha he is compared to. And also, that even if the actions of one's life become selfish and distorted as Kurtz' seemed to have, if they find the light at the end, their life is one of justice and worthy of honor.
Monday, February 11, 2013
On "Being a Chink"
"In her essay 'The Meaning of a Word', Gloria Naylor examines the various meanings of the word 'nigger', definitions that have consensual meanings throughout society and others that vary according to how and when the word is used. In this piece, Naylor uses personal examples to describe how 'the people in her grandmother's living room took a word that whites used to signify worthlessness or degradation and rendered it impotent'...
...I do not remember how it happened exactly. I just know that we [her friends] have been calling each other 'chink' for quite a long while now. The word has never been used to belittle or degrade, but rather as a term of endearment, a loving insult between friends..."
This passage is taken from Christine Leong's essay "Being a Chink". I found it very interesting that she quoted Naylor, who had written her essay "The Meaning of a Word" ten years prior, and whose essay I had read a few minutes before Leong's. Leong had obviously been introduced to Naylor's works at some point, very possibly in college, where she was when she wrote "Being a Chink". The two of them basically wrote on the same topic, how words only have as much power as you give them, and meanings which are defined in context, not simply on paper.
Their essay structures are even similar. They start with a paragraph concerning the power and definitions of words, and then give a childhood memory of a word whose definition was quite different depending on its context. They write about how their families and friends have dealt with these words, and conclude their essays again explaining their meaning of the words. More than a generation apart in age, these women were dealing with the same things, and confronting their culture head on, by rendering the common insults harmless, and instead "terms of endearment".
...I do not remember how it happened exactly. I just know that we [her friends] have been calling each other 'chink' for quite a long while now. The word has never been used to belittle or degrade, but rather as a term of endearment, a loving insult between friends..."
This passage is taken from Christine Leong's essay "Being a Chink". I found it very interesting that she quoted Naylor, who had written her essay "The Meaning of a Word" ten years prior, and whose essay I had read a few minutes before Leong's. Leong had obviously been introduced to Naylor's works at some point, very possibly in college, where she was when she wrote "Being a Chink". The two of them basically wrote on the same topic, how words only have as much power as you give them, and meanings which are defined in context, not simply on paper.
Their essay structures are even similar. They start with a paragraph concerning the power and definitions of words, and then give a childhood memory of a word whose definition was quite different depending on its context. They write about how their families and friends have dealt with these words, and conclude their essays again explaining their meaning of the words. More than a generation apart in age, these women were dealing with the same things, and confronting their culture head on, by rendering the common insults harmless, and instead "terms of endearment".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
