Blog Feed

Create a Post

Enemy of the State:Thoughts and Connections

Posted by Symone Smith in American Government - Herman on
Enemy Of the State is definitely an action packed movie with drama nicely woven into the plot. Personally I enjoyed this movie and would watch it repeatedly. Although this particular story was fiction it seemed real.It really made me wonder about what the government is up to behind the scenes. It also made me question how appropriate and “safe” government surveillance is. I do have my doubts about the government behaving in the same manner as they were portrayed in this movie. In the movie the government essentially had the power to take over a persons life without them knowing because they had the means to do so. One line from the movie that stood out to me was “Let’s get into his life”. There was a lot of secrecy and bribery going on. I thought it was noteworthy that they politician had others to do the “dirty work”. The overall feel of the government seemed less helpful and more cynical. There was nothing that they could not access thus there was no privacy. Personal phone calls and emails were no longer personal.In the movie phone conversations were document and one wrong word made a person suspect. I guess that if there was privacy there would be no way of finding “suspects” or people that disrupted the safety. In my opnion I don’t think that the government should get so personal that they know a persons every move as they move around their home. The government should have access to the basic information so they can contact a person without stalking them. In the movie there was not a moment that came across as safety trying to be established by means of surveillance.All in all its hard to agree that restricting freedoms were necessary for the safety of the community based on how extreme things got in the movie. In my eyes there is a thin line between trying to maintain safety and going overboard. No doubt the restrictions in the movie were categorized as overboard. I think that individual freedoms should be restricted for the safety of the community when it has proven to be a threat to safety of the community. But someone has to then determine what is a threat and what isn’t.Robert wasn’t proven a threat to the community until after his freedoms were restricted.The idea of when individual freedom should be restricted is complicated.

Msanders 3rd movie Analyst.

Posted by Michael Sanders in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
​I believed the third film about the deaf lady made me experience a different feel of a movie. For the most of my life I have seen movies with dialogue and I relay on dialogue to explain parts of the movie. This movie for the most part relay on emotions and feelings. You can look at the woman's face an see emotion to it. For the story the story really interested me. The plot was a romantic-drama plot. The woman knew that on 9/11 that something bad was going to happen and her husband will get hurt. But she never knew what exactly happened. You could get the 9/11 message from her face and her concern will she was typing on her laptop. She was also very hostile towards letting her husband leave.

The writers could of left it at she was going to not see him again but she had hope. She had hope that she will see her husband again. That hope was probably enough to save him at the end. You could see the husband was hurt by all of the stage propped debris. Also the guys crying look on his face that he was hurt not only from 9/11 but also leaving her when she warned him about the day. The funny part was though the deaf wife had the tv on the breaking news but never watched the TV after 7 and never knew that the towers were falling. 

Msanders Enemy of State response.

Posted by Michael Sanders in American Government - Herman on
​Enemy of the State was an alright film. I believed that the film's story really interested me and the theme taught me something new about the government. I loved the special effects portrayed by our government. Would if our government is watching my laptop right now. I'm pretty paranoid right now. They portrayed the government like some evil secret organization that that will try to ruin anyone that knows their true form. It makes me more careful in certain situations.

Individuals really have no privacy. Like what someone quoted in the movie: " You can't say Bomb, President or any other words related to the two with privacy. And even if you did absolutely nothing, the government could still be out against you. I believe that the government is taking situations to the extreme and needs to consider peoples privacy unless they are "BAD". Even  that do not ruin the man's job and especially their love life.

Like mentioned before our citizens privacy should be contained unless the government knows they are terrorist and the government shouldn't spy for personal reasons. I believe an individuals can defend for themselves on small situations.

Enemy of the State

Posted by Terrance Oliveri-Wiliams in American Government - Herman on
First, I'd just like to ask a quick question. In this movie who exactly was the enemy of the state? Was it Dean (Will Smith) or the NSA (National Security Agency).

Of course this movie makes me think that the government definitely abuses it's ability to surveil citizens, but I honestly cannot believe America is that corrupt to have the power and audacity to do what they did in "The Enemy of the State" and refuse to go after the "bigger fish" that pose much more critical threats- for example, the dude that lost his mind and hit up that theater. Like, they will go through hell to get a tape they could have prevented from being created by simply have a better persuasion technique, but in reality they didn't realize some dude just bought tear gas and assault rifles, that's ridiculous. But, to look at the bigger picture, I still think it is kind of messed up for enough people to suspect the government is that f*cked up. Like, if they want to surveil me, go ahead. As long as they keep the terrorists out of the country, and we aren't doing anything illegal, then what do we really have to hide. I mean, I'd prefer they not surveil me, and I know a lot of you do too, but in all actuality, they do have bigger fish to fry then say, someone is seen smoking a blunt, or drinking under age. It just makes a lot more sense when you put it in perspective. "Should I go stakeout at a corner store and see how many teenagers I see doing something illegal, or actually help this country with my expertise in something more serious, like say, anti-terrorism. But, as far as how much access they should haveuse and when they can use it, it's kind of you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you give a kid a BB gun, and tell them they can only use it on pests like raccoons and stuff, chances are they'll probably shoot some other stuff too. That's what people do when they get power, so I think we should give the government full access or none at all. But, on a smaller scale, citizens should never be under surveillance if they don't know about it. So, in a nut-shell we kind of have to put our trust in something we may not trust a whole lot, but we kind of just hope for the best. We can only take their word that they are doing what they say. 

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Dylan Cordivari in American Government - Herman on
​- In the film to me the government seemed to be portrayed as intelligent, two-faced and twisted. They had a darkness to them throughout the movie, even within the first few minutes. They seemed to act above the law entirely in a very behind the scenes and "under the radar" type manner. 

- The privacy of people were definitely not respected in this film because they were able to disrespect it in almost every way possible. In the movie they used tons and tons of different bugs that were placed, quite literally, everywhere. From pens to clothing articles etc. 

- Personally I think that the government should have a limited amount of access when it comes to the everyday privacy of people. The government does have a responsibility to protect its people yes, but there are ways to go about that, that don't require bugging its citizens. They shouldn't have to resort to invading our personal lives. 

- Honestly I don't think that individual freedom should ever be restricted i believe that there are fair and sensible ways to go about everything and if we were to just sit down and think we could come up with ways to keep people safe without having to break the constitution. 

enemy of the state.

Posted by Taylor Stover in American Government - Herman on
-In the film the government is portrayed as effiecent and intelligent. But the thing about them is that they are fruads. 

-When privacy is lost, I consider that completly arbitrarry. The community doesnt deserve to have its privacy invaded. After 9-11 a lot of people's privacy was invaded, some people didnt deserve to have that happen to them. Setting up wires to track people is completely and utterly crazy. Of course if this person has committed a felony in the past its understandable, but if they're just suspcious i dont think its ok. 

-I feel as though the governmetn shouldn't have access to anyone life unless the person has committed a previous felony. I feel this way because I wouldnt want the government tapping into my phone seeing texts that cause absolutly no harm. I know this wouldn't happen but its just an example. People shouldn't be sayign things such as "i'm going to kill the president" or I'm going to cause destruction or things along those lines. Its unesscary and if they say things like that, they need to check themselves before they wreck themselves. 

-Indivuduals freedom should be restricted when they seriously hurt somebody or they have made continuous threats and nothing stops them. Then at that point they should be put into a mental instituttion 

AmerGovt, EnemyState, BlogPost1

Posted by Christian Fichera on
​From the movie, I felt like the government could just invade in your whole life . I say this because they found out every single piece of information about Robert Dean (Will Smith). Who he was calling, what he was doing. Every single move he made, the gov. knew exactly what he was doing. But one of the main things they did not know was, did he let the guy that got hit by the train slip the tape in his bag? Clearly we seen that he didn't even know it. The government has no rights going that far with breaking into his house and recording him without a warrant. A citizens privacy is respected without camera's being set all over the world. The most information that the gov't should have to your personal information is as far as social security numbers, bank accounts, birth certificates, jobs, and schools. The only time when one's freedom should be taken away is when harm is done. Beside's that, the Gov't has no right to take anyone's freedom away. The movie was a first time view for me, and it was actually pretty nice, intense, and well set out. 

Enemy Of The State

Posted by Charles Norman in American Government - Herman on
-how the government is portrayed in the film
In this film the government is portrayed as the bad guys. They seem like "the nosey old lady that lives on the corner of the block." They didn't respect privacy and they did what they wanted how they wanted whenever they wanted. They were kind of like the "Stone Cold Steve Austin" of the WWF.
-how individual citizens' privacy is respected
There is no such thing as privacy in this movie. Just like the old lady in the corner house the government had its nose in everything. They didn't give a damn about individual privacy.
-your opinion on level of access the govt should have to your personal info
I think if you are a criminal that causes harm to the country multiple times ou should not have no type of privacy. If you a regular good citizen I think the government should be able to swoop in on you at least 2 times a year just to check on you. The government has to keep us all safe. They shouldn't be in our daily business everyday. They should not be able to give me a list of things that I have done everyday.
-when individual freedoms can/should be restricted for safety of community
Whenever the individual has caused harm to the country multiple times, their freedom should be restricted. We can't have people out here planning stuff to hurt the whole country or President Obama. If they try to do something to President Obama then they should no longer have freedom. The same goes if it was President Romney (which it won't be.). If someone put his life in danger and he's our president they should no longer have freedom. #ObamaBiden2012

Rough Cut Video Response! 9/11

Posted by Charles Norman in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
I am going to talk about the video with the widower in it. The video started out with those dead flowers on the screen. To be honest I did not think those were dead flowers. I thought that the image on the screen was an image of the twin towers that were crashed into. I thought that was a good connection between the flowers and the towers.

I can’t lie that old guy was confusing the crap for the most part. I at first thought he was crazy, but then I realized he missed his wife that passed away. Then I got confused again because I thought his wife died in the twin towers. She didn’t though. I didn’t realize that until the attacks actually happened. I did notice that he was complaining about it being to dark, and that’s why the flowers wouldn’t grow.

Then the towers were attacked, and the flowers grew. He realized his wife died I think. He just started crying. I thought he was happy because the flowers grew, but he was crying. This is another point where I was confused. I liked this video though it kept my attention unlike the other ones.

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Vincent Russell in American Government - Herman on

This movie pretty much puts the government in a bad way. Or at least a team of rogue NSA agents. They could do just about anything they wanted or get anything they wanted. Their SSN, finical records, credit cards, address etc, seemed to be easy access with out needing a warrant. There is no privacy for citizens in this movie, or respect for it because if these people want to do it they can. The government shouldn't have this so easy access to all this information, there should be some balance to their power. There is some law maker that is trying to get this bill passed, and the scary thing is its recent. Privacies should be respected until suspicious circumstances. Just like warrants to search your house, etc, they don't have that for a lot of things online.

Enemy of the State Reflection

Posted by Dre'quan Taylor in American Government - Herman on
​In Enemy of the state i believe the government is portrayed as a persistent group of people. I also think they can are being portrayed as secretly bad in a way. I say this because throughout the whole movie they are chasing Will Smith to try and get what he has. They also wouldn't have a problem with killing him either. They also portray them to be an all knowing source. What I mean by that is in the movie the government knows everything that goes on anywhere in the U.S. and they are allowed to tap people's clothes, shoes, phones etc... which most people see as a serious invasion of privacy. In the movie it seems that the government really could care less about an average citizens "privacy" because as i just said they tap peoples phone, record their actions, listen in on everything that goes on in their everyday life etc... In this movie i see it as the government has no respect for peoples so called privacy. It's like they're always secretly in our business. If this is a free country as it is portrayed to be then i feel that the government should only have legal access to things that the people know the government has access to. I don't think they should be able to hear everyone's conversations or be able to follow their every move, but I also understand that the things that they do could be necessary in order to keep our country safe and free. I really don't feel like individual freedoms should be violated by any means because as citizens of America we have the right to privacy, but I think that can and most likely will be violated if the government feels that there is a legitimate threat against our great country. I believe that if what happened in the movie actually occurred in real life that government would actually handle matters in the same type of way though. I believe that there is a lot of secrecy that goes on in our government, but the average American citizen could care less unless it effects them in any way. That is why on average less than half of America votes every four years, and 68% was such a shocking number of people voting in 2008.

Enemy of the State review.

Posted by Anonymous in American Government - Herman on
Well, the movie starts off very dramatic, setting the scene and mood with music and sudden killing. That alone establishes the government as crooked and twisted. So, just because of that I tried to think in an unbiased way and even tried to defend the actions of the government. I wanted to think in the terms that they truly set the Patriot Act for the protection and security of the American people however, I really couldn't ... good director skills. In the movie they didn't particularly cover how they handled the citizens' privacy because they only showed the extremes that one man and his team would go to cover up their own secret. I think, however, that it  clearly showed the lack of surveillance that they themselves get considering the many people they watch. I think, despite the overall movie, that the amount of access that they have is effective, they did after all locate their target, but based off of the movie there should be a more secure system of checks and balances within the agency that helps with keeping their tools for appropriate uses. Of course, appropriate referring to their keywords i.e terrorist,bomb,president as they mention in the movie. There has to be at least half of the evidence that one would need to convict someone in order to bug and surveillance to such extremes. I think there is a definitive line between using the act for personal and criminal purposes rather than for national security and that is where our freedoms end and injustice begins. 

AmerGovt,EnemeyState,BlogPost1

Posted by Taahir Henry in American Government - Herman on
​Normally when I think of the government, I'm reminded of order and law.  Order is peace, and laws keep things in check.  Growing up, I have heard conspiracy theories and why people should never trust the government, but for the most part I've never seen or experienced any of these things in real life.  Coming into the movie, I already expected somethings to be exaggerated for the sake of keeping things interesting and moving at a good pace. In the opening of the movie, the government is painted in a much darker way than it is usually portrayed. It makes me feel as though the government can't be trusted with the better interest of it's people because of corruption. I thought it was interesting that there were government agents watching Will smith, and one of the mob members from the floor of an adjacent building. This could be a little annoying after a while, but it doesn't violate the rights of anyone, considering they are in public, and not making physical contact. The (NSA?) took it too far , however, when they decided to break into Will smiths home, and plant hidden cameras. Another thing I thought was both amazing and unnerving, was how easily and quickly they gained access to his financial reports, full name, adress, social security information, and the people he contacted. Seeing as how they government keeps track of this information anyway, I think its still wrong to go in and grab this information at the loose chance that there may be a connection. I think it would be acceptable for an individuals freedoms to be restricted, when they have known connections to terrorist acts, organizations, or have been convicted of more serious crimes. On the same hand, its kind of tough to combat violent attacks in today's world, considering the fact that people can decide to plan there own terrorist attacks after being persuaded to do so by actual terrorist organizations, or for no apparent reason at all. There needs to be some type balance that keeps people safe, without taking away their rights to privacy.

Room for Debate

Posted by Anonymous on
The purpose of the Patriot Act was to prevent terrorism. And while this law does help prevent terrorism, there are parts of it that breach my rights as an American citizen. The truth is, this law is a necessity for the United States, but if it's going to infringe upon the rights of the citizens its meant to protect, then it must be refined, regulated, and then represented to congress.

In order to have security, while maintaing liberty, we first need to get rid of complete titles in the Patriot Act, such as Title V. Title V is mainly the use of NSL's (National Security Letters). NSL's stipulate the release of information and other documents that has even the most remote thing to do with persons under investigations. But this does not only apply to terrorists, it can also be used against U.S. citizens. These letters can also implement gag orders, that can prevent people from speaking about this. Another Title that can be removed is Title X. Title X is full of unnecessary, miscellaneous provisions that can be removed without having any negative effect on the law as a whole. 

Furthermore certain titles while overall good, still have parts to them that infringe upon our rights. Title I is one of said titles. Title I is in the law to protect civil liberties, but it also allows the president to seize any foreign persons (including foreign citizens)  assets if said person is suspected to be (with or without evidence) involved in a terror plot, or has conspired to harm the United State. This is all done in secret without said persons knowledge until said seizure has begun, or has happened. Also Title II which involves wire taps and such, it also has delayed notification warrants. Delayed notification warrants, allow law enforcement to search a persons how with out them being notified until after the search is complete. This goes for terrorists as well as United States citizens as well, therefore both should be taken out of the Patriot Act.

I do believe that this law is very much needed, terrorism is still a threat and needs to be prevented as soon as possible, that don't infract citizens rights. And with these changes, the law that was meant to help protect us from terrorist will do just that, with out violating any United States citizens rights.

Enemy Of The State

Posted by Martha Robles on
I had never watched the movie enemy of the state so I was a little confused at the in certain parts but overaal I think it was a good movie. I think the opening scene where the guy is killed was a good way to open up the movie and gain my interest. I liked the whole way that the guy with the video was some way tied with Will Smith because of georgetown. I think overall my favorite scene was the one when the agents are trying to get a hold of the tape containing the evidence that would basically end him. The different shots and stuff really made the scene. I think that this takes it back to the control the government has. Im not sure if it all works how it was shown in the movie but its kind of weird to know that a few clicks and knowing a few things about one person can open up so much more. Jack Black was able to find a whole lot of information about Will Smith just using the business card that the agents found. Maybe at times this making all this information so easy to get will be helpful but what if at times government officials are just able to use them to their advantage just like in the movie? 

Enemy of the State Respone

Posted by Jennifer Wright in American Government - Herman on
​This film really freaked me out for the most part. On it's face there is a lot of action and there's Will Smith, but the implications of what was portrayed in the movie kept me up last night. I have dreams where I can't escape from someone chasing me and this was the epitome of it.

The government basically can do what they please. Listen to calls, check. Videotape everything, check. Kill people and (try to) cover it up, check. Pretty much wreak havoc to get the intended target, check. They are ruthless and perverse.

Individual privacy is not respected whatsoever. There is not a rock unturned, because they all have wiretaps under them now. I especially liked the part when Dean and the real Brill put the camera and taps in the politicians home/office. It really brought it home that privacy is non-existent and not just by means of the government. These non-government people are able to take advantage of the videotaping to use as incriminating blackmail. 

I understand the dramatizations in the movie, but what concerned me most was the lack of procedure. When Reynolds gave the order, someone was going down. There as no question of authority let alone necessity. They were willing to go to any means necessary to dispose of the tape. 

I'm conflicted as to whether anyone should have their privacy restricted. There is such a thin line between doing this to a few suspected people versus anyone and everyone. The problem with letting this happen would be that in order to cut down on corruption and bad judgement a lot of people would have to be involved in this. The more people know they less of a "secret undercover" operation it would be maybe making it less effective.

Who would have the ultimate authority to choose who gets followed and who does not? I don't believe any one person should have that God-like power. 

Imani's Idea on Enemy of the State

Posted by Imani Johnson on
​Enemy of the State basically is a movie that shows the corruption behind the well trusted government and the extremes they go through when they feel like they are threatened. The part of government that stars in the movie is the NSA (National Security Agency.) Every move the NSA made had was unjust and completely obliterated the idea of privacy and freedom an American citizen is supposed to have. The scene that really stuck out to me was when the NSA sent two men to go and break into Robert’s house, without a warrant, and totally trashed the house, along with bugging his wardrobe and house. If I remember correctly, any government agent needs to have a warrant of the property before entering which Robert did state when they first politely entered the house, but the NSA totally ignored that rule and broke in. That scene really made me see the carelessness of the NSA. They were given a job and were ruthless with their actions which tested the line of their authority. 


Honestly, I can't fathom the idea of the government really working like this and directing their attention to smaller issues that was created by their own sloppiness. I have no problem with the government trying to seriously protect their country and their people in their organizations but harassing a citizen without evidence is completely out of line. If you look back at the film remember that the NSA really did have no idea if Robert had the device/video on him. But they continued to harass him although they had no idea if he had the video or not. 


This movie brought me back to what we learned about the PATRIOT act. At first I was all for the law but then after learning about it during class, then watching this movie I feel like America is slowly turning into a country under the influence of a dictator. Almost like how China's government is, who basically monitors everything their citizens do. I don't want to live in a country where I can't live the way I want with the government OR the people around thinking there's a double meaning to my actions. I do understand that it is vital that people with suspicious actions should be monitored but only if there is more than an accusation and more evidence. There is a fine line between crossing an American citizens rights and keeping the country safe, and that line has been crossed when they passed the PATRIOT act.

Enemy of the State - Response

Posted by Matt Rinaldi in American Government - Herman on
The first thing I want to say is that the movie was pretty good. Sure it had a few minor flaws that I couldn't help but notice, but it did a great job portraying the effects of surveillance technology that the NSA has put in place for us. And to top it all of, the movie was scary to say the least. 

I already knew about how the government already has the technology and power to keep tabs on whoever they feel needed to be monitored. But actually seeing how they operate is scary. Michael Westen (Burn Notice) definitely makes it look easy. I can't help but feel a little more paranoid than I was before watching the movie. The way that the people that you are suppose to trust and depend on will break in your house and turn against you in the slightest moment is ridiculous. The one question that lingered in my mind throughout the entire movie was: How much freedom are we willing to give up in the name of safety? It reminded me of prison in a sense where everyone is monitored, whether you like it or not. 

In the film, they focused more on the bad egg of the government. It really brought home the idea that in the wrong hands, the surveillance technology available can be used against us. And in a way, it seems that the film is saying that anyone in the government has the ability to cause harm with said surveillance technology. I understand the concept of safety (especially national saftey), but how much is too much? There should be a limit on how much access of information someone has on you. Because if not, do we actually have "freedom?" 

USA Patriot Act

Posted by Longnu Nhan in American Government - Herman on

First off, let me just say, I don't mind the government protecting their country. That is one awesome thing, but I don't think that it's right for them to invade in a innocent citizen or permanent resident. I'm not a considered a citizen, but I am a permanent resident and I'm already going through a lot with the United State alone, so imagine someone else. What if I was from Afghanistan or something, would they accuse me of being a terrorist right off the bat? Probably would. That's what you call discrimination. I don't think the voting members really thought about anything when the bill came across. They were just doing this because the attack was very hurtful. Yeah, they thought about their country, but they didn't think about other innocent souls from the third world. 

The main purpose of this act was for the government to spy on American, which in this case is used through technology. In this link, it talked about how most Americans thinks that is this bill is about catching the predator, but in reality, it's about them. I think that the Patriot Act is good for criminals and ACTUAL terrorists, but if they're using their "tools" on innocent people, then I don't agree. When I was watching the Enemy of The State, the government were using their special "tools" for their own personal reasonings, not for their country. I guess, I could just say that the government should be more fair. Don't get me wrong, safety is very important to every human being, but then again, no one is ever safe everyday of their life. Why does the government always want to have control and more power? I think everyone is equal, except the president. He has more power of making a change and moving us forward. If it wasn't for power and control, would we be in the position that we are in now? Shouldn't us citizen have the rights to say yes or no to invading our privacy? Are they really protecting us or harming us in a certain way? I think it's best for me to say that I agree and disagree with the Patriot Act. 

MPyfrom- Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Marina Pyfrom in American Government - Herman on

After watching Enemy of the State, I must admit I am a scared of what the government is actually capable of.  In the movie the government had absolutely all the power in regards to its citizens. The people had no privacy in their home, work, and etc. If there was a top secret government issue anything would be done to handle it without a disturbance. When the NSA officials raided actor, Will Smith's home they had no consideration for him or his family. Clearly, they can care less as to who gets hurt in the process of solving the problem. They killed innocent people and along with disturbing the peaceful environment. I believe if Will Smith would have gave them the tape in the beginning they would have still most likely killed him anyway. As innocent as he was, it didn't matter to National Security. They wouldn't have trusted his word anyway. 

Personally, I think how the government invaded the people's privacy was unnecessary. I believe their should be a balance but to an extent. Similar to crime shows, they hack your phone records, cross referencing people, and bank statement. I think that is okay but when you go beyond those boundaries it becomes a problem. I rather the government see who I've been talking to versus them tapping into my phone call. I find that to be so drastic. We as citizens should have the right to live privately. 

Now if someone is seen as threatening its hard to say what the right thing to do is. Do you invade their privacy to get answers or do you respect it?  That is a very difficult question. I have no idea how to answer it. Part of me is saying check them! Then other part is saying but what happen to respecting ones' privacy? I don't exactly now what I would do to even handle that situation because its such a contradiction. We want to catch the bad guys but we also want to respect our people. I learned that you can please everyone so we have to compromise somehow. 

RoughCut Sept,11 Blogpost1

Posted by Jakobi Martin-Howard on
​I decided to write about the video of the mother losing her son.  The film made me feel some what sad.  It was upsetting to see how muslims were treated after 9/11.  It was sad to know that most of them were seen as terrorist, even with those whom they had a relatively good relationship with, before the tragedy, an example of that would be the neighbor.  Before 9/11 the mother and and the neighbor were on a speaking basis where they'd say "Hi" and "Bye" and wave at each other, but after 9/11, when the news was suspecting her son as a terrorist, the neighbor no longer spoke, and treated her as if they had never even met each other.  The way the director made it obvious that the neighbor no longer wanted to associate with the mother, made it much more dramatic and you truly felt the pain, of the mother, because when the neighbor ignored the mother, you noticed in the background, that the other neighbors were on their stoop just staring at the mother and watching the man look her off.

Enemy of the State-NGiello

Posted by Nathan Giello in American Government - Herman on
​As I watched the movie I notice that the government was made out to be these sneaky, manipulative, and nefarious. They had no regard for citizens, and were a bit homicidal. I mean lets do a body count they killed, Rachel Banks, Lenny (guy in the book store), Congressman Phil Hammersley, 3-5 mobsters, and arguably Daniel Zavits, and all this in only a few days. It would seem that they have no regard for the laws and rights that they swore to protect. But even all that isn't as bad as the wires, and bugs.

The way they broke into Dean's house was ridiculous, and bugged it was not ok, fire alarm, cloths, phones, they made it so that there was no privacy. Also the way they would use the satellites really sketched me out. For all I know they could be doing that to me right now, how would I know? I wouldn't, and thats what makes this so imoral, citizens have the right to know when they are being watched, nobody should ever feel like they need to be anyone but them selfs because they can be arrested for it.

I don't really agree with wire taps, and all that, but I understand why its done. So if they government feels that its essential to tap some phones to protect us from LEGITIMATE terror attacks the ok, but do not tap my phone because I said "bomb", or "I gonna kill the president", I mean I said that all the time while G.W. Bush was in office, along with most people I know. And I mean I feel as though I provide the government with enough of my personal information, and if they want more they should arrest me for some illegal act I committed, they shouldn't just wire tap my house. I feel like there should be a checks and balances system when tapping peoples homes, cloths, cars, etc. 

Cecelia Baez, Enemy of the State Response

Posted by Cecelia Baez in American Government - Herman on
Cecelia Baez, Enemy of the State Response


OH MY GOLLY. Let me say, that movie was good. Aside from that it EXTREMELY changed my perspective to what I believed about the privacy I claim. At first, there wasn't much refusal with allowing the government to look through my life. It doesn't bother me, I have nothing to hide. But that movie only led me to go against ONE thing.. even the ones who are watching us, may need someone to watch them. And them someone to watch them, and someone to watch them. I found it funny, how, someone from the government could cut off surveillance from themselves, but we can't. People who have the power in stalking other people, can use it to their advantage. And that's something horrible. I'd rather have a terrorist attack, then have someone extremely important INSIDE the government, turn against and betray their own country. Because with that power, they could up with a more devious and deadly plan than someone outside the country. So it scares me. We can't monitor everyone in the world. Especially the people who are doing the monitoring. Privacy is respected and not respected no matter where we go or what country we are in. That has been the case for years with abiding the law and giving us freedom. As long as I am allowed to continue to fulfill my dreams, I could care less about anything privacy that the government finds out about me. They can't ruin my life over possible illegally downloading a book. IN all honesty, I feel they have more important things with "terrorism" to do, than with me. Unless I'm guilty, than I don't care. But I do care about how you truly can't trust anyone. I find it hilarious.. well deviating that ONE powerful man could severely ruin the life of an ordinary man because of a video. He could take advantage of his power and kill the innocent because he can. and he could hide it without anyone knowing it was him. Honestly, thats horrible. &Even though it's a movie.. I'm more than sure that something like that could have happened. It makes me scared.. it makes me freaked. That if I mistakenly had something important, but didn't know about it, they could ruin my life. For their own greed? I say either take extreme charge over who is IN charge, or just find another way to help the country with danger. But it truly scares me, thinking my government is more of a threat to me than the real killers in the world. 

RoughCut, Sept11, BlogPost1

Posted by Anonymous in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
​I decided to write about the video of the mother losing her son.  The film made me feel some what sad.  It was upsetting to see how muslims were treated after 9/11.  It was sad to know that most of them were seen as terrorist, even with those whom they had a relatively good relationship with, before the tragedy, an example of that would be the neighbor.  Before 9/11 the mother and and the neighbor were on a speaking basis where they'd say "Hi" and "Bye" and wave at each other, but after 9/11, when the news was suspecting her son as a terrorist, the neighbor no longer spoke, and treated her as if they had never even met each other.  The way the director made it obvious that the neighbor no longer wanted to associate with the mother, made it much more dramatic and you truly felt the pain, of the mother, because when the neighbor ignored the mother, you noticed in the background, that the other neighbors were on their stoop just staring at the mother and watching the man look her off.

Cecelia Baez, Short Video Response

Posted by Cecelia Baez in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
Cecelia Baez, Short Video Response


My absolute favorite  video that was viewed during class would have had to be the old man and his blockage towards reality. At first glance of the film, I began to think that his wife died during 9/11 and that his whole life he never knew what happened. Abe brought up that he realized it wasn't because of his wife dying, but the towers that fell in which helped him to see the light of reality. Aside from the sad love story of an old man, which touched my heart, I saw that the act of 9/11 opened the eyes of many individuals. It opened the eyes for truth, reality, and that doesn't mean for just terrorism schemes from other countries. I allowed people to value each others lives, and allowed people to actually LIVE, because you never know when something like that could happen again. It faced us with reality that we don't live in the best or worst country. That aside from our bubbles we are always in war being one… or the top country in the world. That there is more than the next party, or the next crush, but doing something with your life. That's what I felt towards it. I also believed that finally seeing the light, isn't always the high light of anyones day. Some individuals cannot take the truth. The old man wheeping for his love, that he finally realized was gone, it hurt. He could finally move on.. but it hurt. Some people are happier not knowing what happen. I take that example from the Children who were unable to grasp the true meaning of 9/11. I think of it.. would it really benefit them or hurt them to see how cruel or sad the world could be? Would I really want my children to know that terrible things could happen like that, or allow their innocent minds to learn things later in life. It;s touching.. and confusing :)