Persuasive Paragraph
Should the government spy on its Allies? This is a big question. In my opinion, no they should not spy on them. If you are allies you should be able to trust them or you simply shouldn’t be alliance with them. Canada is allies with Germany, Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, to name a few. So if we don't believe in something that one of our allies is doing , then we cut our alliance with them. For Example Canada is no longer allies with Iran because “Harper's government’s…[believes]Iran poses the greatest threat to international peace and security.” We, broke our Alliance with Iran because we as a Country don’t believe in Nuclear threats, and Iran does. So because we don’t share the same belief system,
“There is one evil I dread, and that is, their spies. I could wish therefore the most attentive watch be kept… I wish a dozen or more honest sensible and diligent men, were employed… in order to question, cross-question, etc., all such persons as are unknown, and cannot give an account of themselves in a straight and satisfactory manner… I think it a matter of importance to prevent these [Tory spies] from obtaining intelligence of our situation. ” – George Washington
I thought the first few chapters of 1984 were a bit ridiculous. In what world would a government ever act like that and get away with it? It's just way too extreme. But as I continued reading I realised that the government is doing some of these things already, even if it’s in a subtle way. One major example of this is internet spying. In the past few months there have been several controversies surrounding governments using the internet to spy on business, organizations, individuals and even civilians of their own nations. One recent example of this is the case of Edward Snowden, a former technician for the Natio...
After September 11th, Americans looked to the government for protection and reassurance. However, they did not expect to find out thirteen years later that the government did this by using technology to spy on Americans, as well as other countries. George W. Bush began the policy shortly after the terrorist attack and Barack Obama continued it. There have been many confrontations over the years about the extent of the N.S.A.’s spying; however, the most recent whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, leaked information that caused much upset throughout America (EFF). It has also brought many people to question: is he a hero or a traitor?
Domestic Surveillance: Is domestic surveillance worth the hassle? In 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the American people that the National Security Agency had been spying on them. Not only that, but also on world leaders. Domestic surveillance is understood as the first line of defense against terrorism, but it has many downsides, not only it violates Americans lives, also it spies on our social media, it puts a fine line on their privacy, and it is a big stab at the freedom of speech. According to John W. Whitehead, “The fact that the government can now, at any time, access entire phone conversations, e-mail exchanges, and other communications from months or years past should frighten every American.”
Budgeting is a familiar term to most American families. Dictionary.com defines budgeting as an estimate, often itemized, of expected income and expense for a given period in the future. In order to avoid debt, bankruptcy, or overspending it is common to create a spreadsheet of some sort tracking your spending and income. On a grander scheme, the Unites States has to budget as well.
Current advancements in technology has given the government more tools for surveillance and thus leads to growing concerns for privacy. The two main categories of surveillance technologies are the ones that allow the government to gather information where previously unavailable or harder to obtain, and the ones that allow the government to process public information more quickly and efficiently (Simmons, 2007). The first category includes technologies like eavesdropping devices and hidden cameras. These are clear offenders of privacy because they are capable of gathering information while being largely unnoticed. The second category would include technologies that are used in a public space, like cameras in a public park. While these devices
After the horrific incident on September 9, 2001, the Patriot Act was passed to help “reduce” terrorist attacks, but they have only restricted us from our rights and feeling free. Regardless of whether we have anything to hide, we deserve to feel comfortable in our own homes. They can even hack into our TVs and cameras! This is unacceptable! We have been dealing with the violation of our privacy due the Patriot Act, but this act led to the abuse of governments’ power, violation of our natural rights, and the government has been going through our texts, internet history, social media, which is breaching into the laws of the constitution.
Many people live in fear that they are constantly being watched. Michael Jackson sang it best in the 80 's by saying, "I always feel like, somebody 's watching me," in his hit song with Rockwell. That 's exactly what the NSA and other government organizations are doing today with domestic surveillance. Everywhere Americans go and every corner they turn there is a camera, and every website or email they send is being monitored closely. So what can society do about this? Educate others on the situation and stand up for what is right. Some people believe they must give up some freedoms for protection, but at what cost? What is happening in America is not what the founding fathers fought for. Domestic surveillance should not be allowed because
The United States is an extremely affluent country, however, the U.S. government does not allocate its funds correctly. The government spends entirely too much of the budget on military spending. A segment of the military budget should go towards education. Education is completely undervalued in America and is often pushed to the side in political debates. Conversely, several of the top-ranked countries in education are also flourishing economically. Even though the U.S. is struggling to compete in education, the government has all but given up at this point. There are no signs of increased education spending or a decrease in military spending. How is this country supposed to continue to grow and move forward if the citizens
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
Everyone in Canada should not be photographed or fingerprinted because it infringes on the Charter Rights all Canadian citizen are entitled to. Section 7 of the Charter states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security” but not everyone might feel that a database about them is upholding that right. People would feel like they are being monitored and watched even if they have done nothing wrong. Fingerprinting or photographing everyone (or even people accused of a crime) could lead people to believe that they themselves are considered criminals and that the government needs tabs on them to make sure no one commits a crime even if they never had the intention of committing the crime.
The U.S. military is a strong force and body that protects and serves the American people. Many people support the military and some even disagree with it. What people forget is that without a military the U.S. would be totally over run by foreign countries claiming ground. The military also helps with the nation’s economy boosting the balance of money in the works. Families have trouble with members who serve since there is always chance that they never return but it is because of their service that we are still a free country. Even though the military causes pain to families when a loved one is lost, the U.S. needs a military because with a military the economy increases and that without a military we would be invaded by a dictator or foreign
"The soldier is the Army. No army is better than its soldiers. The Soldier is also a citizen. In fact, the highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms for one’s country” (-General George S. Patton Jr). Here within our borders we are the lucky ones, we have been blessed with the pleasure of so many brave men and women; to volunteer in the world's greatest military; and put their lives on the line for something that they believe is a moral obligation. But, think of some other countries, that have conscription (the practice of ordering people by law to serve in the armed forces) laws. We as a nation have some laws on conscription, and if you are male and above the age of 18 you have already signed the slip of paper stating that in the time of war; if our great nation re-instated the draft then there is a great chance you will be serving on the frontline of the next Great War. This brings me to my first topic of this page, is it ethical to have a draft? My second topic that I will discuss will be on if it is morally acceptable to "draft dodge". What I mean on the second topic is if you have a right; that morally allows you to not go fight in the war.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).
People decided that the traditional concepts of national security were not enough, and did not necessarily reflect current values or the needs of the people. Traditional concepts of national security place the nation-state at the center of the playing field, and use military and economic power to protect the state’s political and physical sovereignty from external threats. Human security places individuals at the center of the playing field, and focuses on issues that are both transnational and local.