This event was very interesting, and opened my mind to various opinions and suggestions. However, there are many different ways to look at this issue, and almost every opinion has its good points and bad points. Each opinion allows you to view the issue in a different way, not necessarily in the way the speaker expresses their viewpoint but each one allows your mind to view something in a very different way.
So what should we do?
I honestly don't have a clue. I have heard so many different suggestions, so many different biases, so many different viewpoints, and so much discrimination and racism. What I do believe comprises of what I have heard. And this is what I believe, if you come here illegally you are not abiding by the law so the law cannot protect you. However, I also hold this fact to be true, that we are all human beings, and as humans we must all treat each other with respect.
And as Reverend quoted Zaccharias, "we are all prisoners of hope."
I can only hope for the best, and do what I know is right. Although that can be interpreted differently, for example if everybody does what they believe is right, who's to say that what they believe is right, is humane and morally right.
I can help by helping others, researching on the issue, reseaching different viewpoints, and conveying this information to the rest of the world. (or whoever i can) Just to open people's eyes would help this issue.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Reaction to 16 November 2007
This event was very interesting and opened my mind to a number of different perspectives. However one thing I have yet to forget about that event is when one person said (roughly reiterated), 'women do not deserve the same rights men do because they have the potential to get pregnant.'
Why is that? Why is our ability to bear children considered a hinderance to the work place? Why is it that since we are able to do something men cannot, we must suffer degradation and sexism?
No...This viewpoint is unbeneficial to our society and the world as a whole. First of all, this can either motivate women to perform better in a response as competition in the workplace, or ruin women's incentive altogether. Thus, benefitting or destroying the workplace. There must be equal rights in the workplace, and salaries and things of that sort must be judged accordingly. Salaries cannot be gender based, race based...salaries must be based on experience and skill.
Why is that? Why is our ability to bear children considered a hinderance to the work place? Why is it that since we are able to do something men cannot, we must suffer degradation and sexism?
No...This viewpoint is unbeneficial to our society and the world as a whole. First of all, this can either motivate women to perform better in a response as competition in the workplace, or ruin women's incentive altogether. Thus, benefitting or destroying the workplace. There must be equal rights in the workplace, and salaries and things of that sort must be judged accordingly. Salaries cannot be gender based, race based...salaries must be based on experience and skill.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Amendment Blog
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The fourth amendment outlines the wish of the government to allow people time and privacy of their own. But, like all other amendments, this amendment does not clearly outline what the government can and cannot do, and what the people are completely protected from. However the system was written to be open to interpretation which presents a problem to government and the people.
If the system is open to interpretation, then it is seemingly set up for everyone's interpretation. Leaving the government and the people in a pickle they don't wholly know how escape.
The fourth amendment protects people's privacy but it also presents a problem for government; concerning its ability to perform search and seizures etc. The amendment calls for proper reason and warrants for a search to take place. But we do not know where to draw the line between 'protecting people's privacy and catching criminals.'
I believe it is hard to draw this line. People should be concerned with protecting privacy but also protecting society as a whole. If there is a very dangerous threat out there then I believe that that person's privacy is of no value to me, as long as the rest of society is safe. But we may never know which contains more good unless we perform a search.
The fourth amendment outlines the wish of the government to allow people time and privacy of their own. But, like all other amendments, this amendment does not clearly outline what the government can and cannot do, and what the people are completely protected from. However the system was written to be open to interpretation which presents a problem to government and the people.
If the system is open to interpretation, then it is seemingly set up for everyone's interpretation. Leaving the government and the people in a pickle they don't wholly know how escape.
The fourth amendment protects people's privacy but it also presents a problem for government; concerning its ability to perform search and seizures etc. The amendment calls for proper reason and warrants for a search to take place. But we do not know where to draw the line between 'protecting people's privacy and catching criminals.'
I believe it is hard to draw this line. People should be concerned with protecting privacy but also protecting society as a whole. If there is a very dangerous threat out there then I believe that that person's privacy is of no value to me, as long as the rest of society is safe. But we may never know which contains more good unless we perform a search.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The Family Jewels
The CIA has taken several steps to ensure the safety of our country. But are their steps really necessary and do their actions lead to more safety or to more chaos? For me, I believe we are safe, is that because our security has taken steps to ensure that I feel this way, or because there really are no threats. Doubtful, there are many threats out there, and our security is taking steps to make sure that we as a nation do not just feel safe but are safe. But are there consequences to such a forboding task? Yes there are...I believe we have to be aware of what we are doing, and if we are willing to inflict harm and everlasting pain on others for information. (And is this information going to benefit us greatly?) If yes, like the example in class about an ambush on her brother-in-laws group, then yes, I would be willing to accept the consequences of gaining information from that individual to protect my family. But how do we know if they really have information? I guess like Colby's # 6 we barge in and do all necessary to gain the information or bring out some evidence. But the line is hard to draw...the question that continues to run in my head is: do we end up saving lives or destroying a life in our pursuit of safety?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
