Blog Feed

Create a Post

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 :)

Short Films: Long Nu Nhan

Posted by Longnu Nhan in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
Where do I even start? I guess I could say that I like all the videos but not all of them struck me in a certain way. But I can definitely say that each director used their brains very intellectually. To start off, I want to say that the video with the little kids was the most heart warming one because of the characters. I just want to point out that I think serious movies with little kids are more effective. The reason why is because it shows you that not only does the event affect us adults, but it also has a role in a 7 year's old mind and heart. When we first watched this video, no one knew what the children were saying so we started to use our visual techniques and tried to comprehend what was going on. When the children were putting mud into the bricks, I thought that they were just really poor and it was child labor. We can forget that the little girls were so cute and talkative. Not the point, but I thought that they were just talking about things that little kids do. Come to find out, I was totally wrong. The way the director used the children was so strong. When we were able to understand what the children were saying, it shocked me and made me giggle because all they were talking about throughout the entire movie was about someone dying. It was also a strong piece because they involve religion into the script. They were taught that God has a cycle. He creates the human beings, destroys them, and then makes again. I thought that was interesting because they're so used to people dying and whatnot. That's not how a kid's mind should be like. I think at this point, I didn't really care about the camera angles, I just cared about the script. And the script just took me to a whole different mindset.

I also like the video with the guy who was accused of being a terrorist because he's not a typical American and the way that the government treated him was not cool. I wasn't originally from America and I would be super pissed if the government did that to me. USA is known for their freedom, speech, and to bare arms. Where was his speech in this movie? They didn't even give him a chance to say anything. They just assumed that he was a terrorist because of his race and it just so happened that he was there during the attack. America was accusing him of something that he's not and created this big issue about him, and after 6 months, they want to act like nothing happened and call him a hero. I think that America should be less judgmental towards people because not everyone is a criminal. And ANYONE can be a hero. Just because you're white, it doesn't make you a hero. 

Blog Post 1:Enemy of the State -Lianna Jordan

Posted by Lianna Jordan in American Government - Herman on

Lianna Jordan

Public Enemy of the State Reflection

 

      Everything started with a video of a murder and fights for possession. This movie made me realize the importance of the government all together. I learned that not only congressman but people will do what ever it takes to make it through. An example from the movie is when Reynolds kills Hammersley because of his firm opposition for the passing of new legislation that would expand the power of intelligence. The movie was good and I learned that the people on the inside have a lot of power and are able to access a lot of powerful information, which again makes them powerful. They killed Roberts girlfriend and frames him for her murder.

Enemy of The State: Long Nu Nhan

Posted by Longnu Nhan in American Government - Herman on
I have watched this movie before, but I never really paid attention to concept of it and the meaning behind it. I just thought that Will Smith's character just has something that the "bad guys" wanted, which was the tape. For some reason, I just didn't think that those guys were part of the government. But now that I know about the bill and what was the point of the movie, it was a bit more interesting. For the past day or two, we've been talking about the 9/11 and how it affected us all individually. And I thought it was interesting that the congress man said "When buildings stop blowing up, people's priorities tends to change." It made me think about how people didn't really care much about the government and how our world is working, but once the 9/11 attack happened, it was like a slap in the face for everyone. I thought it was interesting how the director used all different types of cameras and cameras angles. Because of that, it put me in the position of knowing what it feel likes to be part of the government and knowing that our government is constantly watching us 24/7. There's not one angle that the camera cannot catch. "This little bitch is not going to be the final chapter of my life" says Reynold Brian. He's saying that he wants to use everything possible to get what he needs. But I mean, is he doing this because it's the right thing to do or is it because he doesn't want anyone to know what he did.


Here's the thing that got me really confused. I didn't understand why Reynold Brian killed the other white crusted man. Not only that, but if he's part of the government. Aren't you suppose to obey the laws and do the right thing? And the right thing is to not murder someone! I feel like he was so guilty with what he had done and it caused him to lose himself and his men. The rule is that if you kill someone, you go to jail. Since he's part of the government, I'm going to assume that he knows that rule. And since he's part of the government, he should know better. Anyways, I just don't think that he shouldn't promise to do the right thing for his people if he's doing criminal things. I'm all for the USA to defend their country and make it stronger, but if they're using that bill to invade in innocent people's privacy, I don't think that should be part of the bill. Everyone deserves to have their own privacy. It's their information and I don't think anyone should know but themselves or their family members. Also, invading someone's property is not cool either. You are not allow to invade someone's house if you don't have a warrant or if the resident is not home. That's their property, not yours. Let's just say, I'm not all for someone invading my privacy, but if you get my permission, then I really don't care.

Blog Pots 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by William Potts in American Government - Herman on
Watching the film made me concerned about the power that is held by the government and politicians. That power can be very dangerous because it can fall into the wrong hands, and be used by a person with their own agenda. The power of such surveillance methods can really be useful for monitoring and capturing criminals and terrorists, but the film portrayed how it could also be used to ruin an innocent persons life. If there is any lesson from the film it is that the surveillance technology should be monitored and restricted to trusted officials.   

Enemy of State- Maggie Long

Posted by Margaret Long in American Government - Herman on
​ This would be the first time I've ever watched this movie and within the first 20 minutes I can already tell that this movie will make me a bit mad. They are showing the government in the beginning as shady criminals who can kill whoever they want and make a cover for it without getting into any sort of trouble. They show the NSA as sort of like a "cleanup crew" when they first talk about getting the film that the guy had across the lake. They bring up tapping into phone liines also very easily. The guy in the desk at the NSA said he wanted wires on the man with the tape. Personally, I don't think it should be that easy to tap into someones personal life like that. They have no proof that he did anything wrong or that he is going to hurt someone. They also covered up the name to hide the fact that this is a hit. They are calling it a PY training op. 

In my opinion, it shouldn't be this easy to kill 2 men without any evidence (before they tapped his lines) of him doing anything wrong. Why weren't people questioning his death or Lenny's death? There were obviously 2 men after him and when he got hit by the firetruck they immediately patted him down searching for the copy of the tape. Did anyone realize this? It seemed like people thought it was normal to watch 2 men in black trench coats pat down a dead man in the street. 

"I want to use every means possible to get what we need" This quote is saying much more than it seems. It is 1. Saying that our privacy is completely disregarded and not taken seriously at all. And 2. That the government has so much power that they can do this and get away with it. This in my head is just wrong and needs to be fixed. The government should NOT have these kinds of powers without some kind of evidence to go off of. In the movie, they bugged pretty much everything he owns and made it look like a robbery. Just because the officials have more power than some other US citizens, doesnt mean they can take advantage of that and abuse their power. 




Allen Yang - Enemy of the State

Posted by Anonymous in American Government - Herman on
This wouldn't be the first time I've watched the movie and I can say the movie's amazing. It gives the audience a sense of awareness that they are not alone. They can be tracked and located almost wherever they are with the modern technologies we all carry with us on a day-to-day basis. And it shows you, part of what the government can do and the powers they possess to track an individual or his/her family down. 

The movie portrays the government agency, as a whole group of corrupts or at least the followers under the commands of the corrupt NSA leader. And as every other movie goes with their consequences, the individual they're tracking down and trying to rid out, becomes more and more clever with the help of a former NSA Agent. The longer they track them the consequences become bigger, as the agency begins to unfoil and exploit their dark matters. The dark projects they've been conducting and not showing to the public. 

Would I let the government spy on me? Of course not, spying is already a word that offends its victim or specified target. Clearly I wouldn't ever let it happen, but that would only be a reality if they weren't under my radar. The government possesses so much power, there's almost no way to know that maybe they have be boxed in and processing my personal informations with all the security clearance they have. 

I believe that the level of access can be what they have now, but none of them are to be revealed or released if the person's not an impending threat or imminent. Just like personal informations or room numbers are not permitted to strangers from hotel lobby employees. 

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Matthew Walker in American Government - Herman on
​ After watching the film a lot of my perspectives changed. I remember that when people said stuff like "Don't say that the government can hear you" I used to just think that they were just messing around or crazy but after watching this I'm starting to believe those people. Now I don't feel like they are watching/Listening to everybody 24/7 but now I do feel that if they really want to know what you are doing they can find out with no problem. In the film I feel that the government is portrayed as they will do whatever it takes to get what they want. I feel that the government should not have as much access to a humans personal info as they do but still a significant amount to know about you. As for when individual freedoms should be restricted for safety it is hard to say, because no matter how far you go its always a question whether or not a persons personal freedom is greater than the safety of a community. All in all right now I do feel the government has to much power. 

Enemy Of State

Posted by Andrew Chalfen in American Government - Herman on
"Those guido mother fuckers"... This sentence does three things. First and foremost its an insult and a derogatory substitute for Italians. Second its a generalization that just because the men looked and seemed Italian that they were in fact "Guido Motherfuckers". Finally its an bias opinion that judges a group of people based on their appearance and actions.

This sentence was used in the second scene of the movie Enemy Of State when a man describes his beating. Now the part that I get caught up on is the generalization. All Italians aren't "guidos" just as all blacks aren't gangsters, all jews aren't rich, and all muslims aren't terrorists. However especially in America generalization occurs even more so then racism (speaking in modern day). These generalizations aren't just by the uneducated or ill-witted either many of our most powerful leaders have the same stereotypical mindset as the character who used the phrase I quoted above. 

Privacy is an important right that helps protect against stereotypes. Take away privacy and people will be judged on even their most intimate moments. 
Intimacy is not to be taken lightly but neither is violence. When muslim terrorists attacked the world trade center they burned an image of their religion being evil in the minds of the American people (with a little help from the Bush administration). The American governments response was to take away privacy to ensure that all citizens were constantly kept in some sort of check. However when you take away that privacy, you also take away all of the intimacy that goes along with it. Also taking away privacy leads to a constant judging and in the eyes of the wrong judge something as harmless as "eating to much bubba ganush (the daily show reference)" can be considered a red flag.


 The American government does not like red flags.... especially if you look anything like the people of the country who just bombed their big buildings. 



(Sorry I know I kinda left the topic of Enemy Of State but I feel like what I wrote needed to be said) 





Blog Post 1: Enemy of the state

Posted by Alysha Ortiz in American Government - Herman on
Im disgusted of the fact the government is tapping our phones. I understand certain things need to be done but theres a certain amount they got to do. The fact they search the guy house and put spy equipment in my point of view was over board. I feels although as a citizen we should have our privacy and rights. I believed that they went over board with the tracking down.

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Kimberly Cayamcela in American Government - Herman on
​I recall hearing my dad telling me that the government could hear my phone calls and see every move I make, but I didn't actually think that what he told me was fully true. Watching Enemy of the State, has made me realize how much more a government can be corrupt. Of course, this movie was a little exaggerated. Overall I will admit that it is crazy to think that the government can just come into my house and set up cameras to spy on me. The image that is given to the government in this film was very negative. To see investigators, who should be people the nation can trust walk around and make their own rules, I'd say is not a good thing. In the film, the privacy of our citizens is not respected one bit. Today, I believe that it is our responsibility to keep our lives private. Having Facebook, Kik, Instagram, etc. is our own decision and we decide to share to the world what we are up to at that exact second that we post up something on a social media network. With that said, I do believe that the government should have the right to have some sort of level of access with each individual's personal info. Not completely, but somewhat. You never know, someone who has been a good samaritan could be the new Al Qaeda. Though, it should be stressed to keep the safety of each citizens/community. But there should be boundaries. If the NSA has enough evidence of proving that you are a terrorist, the government should be capable of breaking the rules and hunt you down. 

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Michelle Torelli in American Government - Herman on
​This film truly made me think about the society that we live in now- full of fear. The government is capable of hiding things from the public from corrupted actions such as portrayed in the film. The government in the film is demonstrated as a no-good criminal in which can over power all civilians; no one is safe, especially when one tries to do something for the right of mankind. 

There must be restrictions on the people of the US, but that leaves so much room for corruption. This may sound controversial, but I personally believe the government should have access to all records of privacy but the access cannot be granted without evidence or complete urgency of the threat to the country. Citizens can sometimes pose a threat to the country rather than outsiders.

Enemy of the State- Trosario

Posted by Taina Rosario in American Government - Herman on
This was an amazing movie, with out our class I would have never know about it. 

Though out the movie I was completely interested. They painted the government as "trying to help" but though the eyes of a citizen who is targeted it seems that the government just didn't know when enough was enough. 

How pathetic is it that they had to use black mailing to cover up their own dirt. This is a reason to never do something you are ashamed of or ever will be. During the film it seemed like there was no end to how much information was or could be uncovered by the NSA. 

Brill spoke of machines that monitored words during a conversation, it seems like a better idea then humans listening in on our conversations but what would happen if I say some thing is "da bomb" technically that would be a monitored word. Would this mean that I would know be under surveillance. 

The government needs to be capable of finding 'terrorist' but that does not mean that American citizens should have to give put their freedom, especially with out permission asked. 

Blog Post 1: Enemy of the State

Posted by Jordan McLaughlin in American Government - Herman on
I feel as if the government in this movie is portrayed on the extremely radical side of the spectrum, what makes me feel this way is that people in this movie don't know what is happening to and around them and the government is killing citizens. Which was a controversial topic when a terrorist who was a US citizen was killed and was big controversy, a guy in libia I want to say.
Individual Citizens privacy in this movie is not being respected and being used for purposes that are not condoned by the governments higher officials. Although I do believe that if this was used for the right situation and to curb terrorism then I think if your a terrorist you should be able to be tracked. Also I think they should track suspicious behavior. 
I think if you live in the states that they should have access they would need to find terrorist, so any possible documents that would link to a terrorist or help the government find terrorist should be viewable by the government. 
I believe if the government needs something to catch bad guys and protect our national security that they should be able to access whatever they need, so they aren't hassled by regulations and different things like can't listen to calls because of this, or can't use this because of that.

Blog post1: September 11th shorts

Posted by Dylan Cordivari in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
The film that touched me the most was the one directed by sean penn. The film caught my attention in the first minute just by showing the setting. I felt like i was in a sort of time machine seeing the way the older man's apartment was set up. He was older and a lot of the things in his house and even some of his mannerisms were very old fashioned which was interesting to see when it was related to something that had happened in a more modern time period. The film was able to grab my attention in many ways and make me really feel for the man with use of the music, camera angles, effects and dialogue. The dialogue i think is what got me most because the man's actions and speech were so dark to a point of almost insanity throughout the film and that really threw my emotions around. Sean penn has an amazing style of directing and it was shown very well through this piece. 

Blog Post 1- Enemy Of State

Posted by Mohamed Marzouk in American Government - Herman on
​ The Government is portrayed in a sinister way. Especially the NSA; they are shown to be ruthless with nothing other to complete their mission. In the beginning of the movie, there is a new legislation that is about to be passes. This could be a good or bad thing for the human population, so the agenda of the US Government might seem evil on the outside but to the American People's best interests at it's deep core.I feel like the Government can access too much about our lives too easily. I know, the Government can say it's a matter of National Security, but what is considered a "threat" anymore. The Government didn't respect anyone's privacy, it felt like what they were doing was to help their own cause. I feel like if the Government issued everything, they could look at it like they want to. In many schools, Teachers and other officials can look at a student's personal records whenever they want. If you are a felon or anyone who's trying to be above the law in anyway, I think the Government should be able to look up your personal information. But If they look up your information in order to save their own skin, then they shouldn't be allowed to do that. I think safety should be the number one concern for the US Government and if that takes lessening someone's freedom, then by all means, take it away. 

Blog Post 1 Enemy of the State

Posted by Chelsea Smith in American Government - Herman on
This was my first time watching this movie and from the first time seeing this I was amazed at just how much the government will try and get everything and anything they want. I feel as though the government has so much power that they abuse the power. If they need something instead of having a warrant they can parade a person's life with or without consent. 

With the citizens in this movie I think about how much Will Smith had to do just to try and stay safe. From the moment they broke into his house until the moment everyone was killed in the restaurant. When I think about how our privacy as a citizen is I think that we really don't have any privacy. Just from our technology the government was able to tap into Bobby's (Will Smith) life and find everything about him and more. Between his family, personal life, work, and any other aspect.After seeing this movie it made me think about how much the government does have on our lives and everything they can do. When I think about it our privacy really isn't private. I think that the government shouldn't be able to get such easy access to our lives. I feel as though it should remain our private life until the government needs reason to even try to dig into our life like that. Another point I want to make is how corrupt the government can be. All this running around that Bobby had to do in order to try and get his life back together is because of something the government did and was trying to remain hidden. So in that aspect the government is just as hard to be trusted with so many corrupt people in it.