The Impossible Compromise

During Geoffrey Stone's very intriguing lecture, he mentioned how there is a continuum between freedom and safety. In other words, the more freedom a country has, the more dangerous the territory tends to be. Whereas nations with really controlling governments tend to be safer and quieter. This is because the citizens of these countries fear the government. Therefore there is a big trade-off philosophically between the possession of civil liberties and national security. While many argue that an agreement of these two viewpoints cannot be reached, I believe that the obstacle to finding national security is not personal freedom, but rather people's maturity. When people are awarded civil liberties, many do not understand the responsibility that comes with them. People are not the right forms of dissent. They would rather burn flags in violent protests than sit down talk peacefully about change. It could be argued that these people are not mature enough to deserve many of their rights. If citizens were to use their rights responsibility, the country would be able to achieve that impossible compromise. Maybe the secret to making the most out of your rights is not using them every chance you get, but knowing that you can use them at anytime and choosing not to. That, to me, is a more powerful use of civil liberties.

The Frontline in your Backyard

As we analyzed WWII propaganda posters this week in class, we noticed a few common themes between them. One of these themes was the idea of a domestic threat. "Conserve resources or Hitler will attack YOU!" Therefore personalizing the war. This tactic is used very commonly today as well. A few weeks ago President Bush urged congress to renew the Protect America Act by saying that the country would no longer be safe if the bill was not passed by friday. This also targets congress as a threat that is putting the country in danger by not following this order. Mitt Romney also used this tactic when he pulled out of the race for president. He vowed that he could not let his campaign aid a surrender to terror; therefore implying that if you vote for a democrat, the terrorists will win. For those who do not think critically of authority, this is an easy trap to fall into. Unfortunatly that has been the downfall of many American citizens.

Unhappy Medium

In the 08 election, it has seemed like it has been almost impossible for Hillary Clinton to be judged positively for her character. She just can't get it right. If she shows any emotion, she's a weak little girl; but if she plays it straight, she's a robot. If a man is stone cold, he means business; that's how he is needs to be in order to get the job done. If a woman holds a straight face, she's not human; and therefore she cannot trusted to lead a country composed of strongly opinionated people. She still strives to find that place in between where she can't enrage her fellow Americans. Will she ever find it?

Comfort Zone

While reading Huck Finn this week, I came across a fascinating passage. Huck, afraid of being found, refuses to move a muscle; even when he has and itch, he "dasn't scratch it". This feat of strength lead me to conclude that Huck has no desire to conform to society's standards. Instead of a wild animal to be tamed, he is a strangled pet to be unleashed. Otherwise he will never find happiness. He can't stand being confined to his "good" clothes; therefore, he "got into his old rags, and was free and satisfied" Everyone has they're own comfort zone. Why should they be told how to live. Do what suits you; who cares what others think.