The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Technical Writing · Exposition & Argumentation · Grammar and Usage of Standard English · The Structure of English · Analysis of Shakespeare · Analysis of Literary Language
Advanced Professional Papers · The History of the English Language · First Internship: Tutoring in a Writing Workshop · Second Internship: Advanced Instruction: Tutoring Writing
Visual Literacy Seminar (A First Course in Methodology) · Theories of Communication & Technology (A Second Course in Methodology) · Language in Society (A Third Course in Methodology)
UMBC'S Conservative Newspaper: "The Retriever's Right Eye" · UMBC'S University Newspaper: "The Retriever Weekly" · Introduction to Journalism · Feature Writing · Science Writing Papers
Non-fiction Creative Essay 1 · Non-fiction Creative Essay 3 · Non-fiction Creative Essay 4 · Non-fiction Creative Essay 5 · Non-fiction Creative Essay 6
Non-fiction Creative Essay 7 · Non-fiction Creative Essay 8 · Non-fiction Creative Essay 9 · Non-fiction Creative Essay 10 · Non-fiction Creative Essay 11
"Questions are a burden to others.
Answers a burden to one's self."
Patrick McGoohan, lead role in the television series, "The Prisoner."
The year is 2066 and I'm 106 years old. Science has made many advances, which have extended our natural life span to a statistical mean of 135 years. In four more years I can finally retire. Allow me to describe the changes by discussing my typical day. When I wake, I slip into my clothes and several beeps go off. The beeps are safety checks letting me know that all the sensors are functioning properly. Within my clothes are sensors that monitor all my vital signs. In the event that I begin to have a heart attack, break a leg or any other type of medical emergency, the sensors would send the information to a central processing unit. From there, global positioning sensors record the information indicating where I am on the planet, transfers my coordinates and informs the central processing unit the reason for my distress to the hospital nearest me. Within minutes a medical emergency team will be on the scene seeing to my needs.
As I walk out of my house, I see a strange man walking up in a service uniform, which indicates he's affiliated with "Environmental Comforts Inc." I immediately ask for identification on the man from my personal identification unit and a screen appears behind my eyeglasses verifying that he is from Environmental Comforts Inc., informing me of his name, how many years he's been with the company, his specialties and other vital statistics.
"Good morning Mr. Paul," he said, "I received a call from your Home Central Processing Unit that there was a malfunction in the central heating unit and I'm here to check out the problem."
"Very good Bill, Be seeing you." I give him a halfhearted flip with my hand from my right eye with the index finger and thumb in the shape of a circle.
"And you," he says. He returns the same hand motion.
It's a sort of a salute, for everyone is watching everyone and everyone is being watched at all times. The salute is just a subtle reminder in the village.
I step into my vehicle and start on my way to work. As I pass under a trestle, an invisible scanner records all the contents in my vehicle and sends the information to a government computer for further processing. It's a simple precaution, checking to make sure all the contents of the vehicle have been legally purchased and that I'm not carrying any "black market" products. I arrive at the entrance of the interstate and there's a security check. When I reach the officer at the check, I roll down my window and we both exchange the same halfhearted salute that I exchanged with the service man.
"Good Morning sir," the officer says in a diplomatic yet authoritative tone, "We seem to have some undesirables on the loose that we are in the process of apprehending so I need you to provide me with an identity sample, merely a precaution sir."
"Sure, I'm happy to oblige," I reply with a tone of annoyance in my voice.
I open my mouth and the officer takes a cotton swab and wipes some saliva from my mouth and puts it into his scanner. The officer is taking a DNA sample and comparing it to a central database to be sure that I am who I appear to be. Within moments my face appears on the screen telling the officer who I am, my identification number and a few other vital statistics.
The officer takes a good look at me and says, "Everything is fine Mr. Paul, thank you for your continuing cooperation. Be seeing you."
"And you."
I'm off on my way. When I arrive at work, in order to pass the security gates I have to submit to an "Iris Scan." The computer finds me in the database and opens the gates. I arrive at the building and once inside there are two doors, "Ladies" and "Gentlemen." I enter the door marked "Gentlemen" where Doctor Samuel Goddard stands by his machines.
"Good morning Mr. Paul."
"Good morning Dr. Goddard."
"You know the drill," he said.
"Yes, I certainly do."
I urinate into a small vessel for him while Dr. Goddard observes making sure that there is no tampering with the urine sample. Within moments my face appears on his screen with my identification number and other vital statistics of my identity.
"Thank you Mr. Paul and have a great day. Be seeing you."
"And you."
I pass through the entrance door to my work place.
This very easily could become our Post-911 world if we so choose. I assume that we are in unanimous agreement that we perceive one of our government's top priorities is to see to the security of its citizens. To achieve that security we are going to have to give up a great deal of our rights to privacy that we so cherish in this country. It becomes a question of balance. How much privacy are we willing to give up in order to gain the security we so desire?
There are two main philosophies in this country, which diametrically oppose each other. On one hand, we have the philosophy that "Government will provide," the Democrat Philosophy or the liberal left. On the other hand, the opposing view is, "Government that governs least, governs best," this is the Republican Philosophy, or the conservative right. This issue has existed since the inception of this great experiment in democracy. We dug in on both sides and fought among ourselves over this issue - The Civil War or The War Between the States.
On the issue of protecting citizen's right to privacy both Democrats and Republicans fear President Bush's proposed anti-terrorism bill. In the recent debate over the Bush Administration's anti-terrorism bill, Representative Bob Barr, a conservative Republican of Georgia, and Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat of Massachusetts, have stood together against the proposal. The reason: Both fear that the Bush bill could trample people's privacy by giving police more power to wiretap and spy on e-mail. "On these issues, we see eye-to-eye," says Representative Barr, in the 11/05/2002 issue of Business Week. The Post-September Eleventh privacy-protection coalition has lead by a broad spectrum of interest groups - ranging from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and the Free Congress Foundation on the right to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on the left. Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat of New York, and Senator John Edwards, a Democrat of North Carolina, are not only concerned about Internet spying and unchecked camera surveillance, but they're also concerned that if nothing is done to protect privacy immediately in this anti-terrorism climate, citizens will never gain back some of the freedoms that existed just a year ago. Schumer and Edwards are pushing for clearer definitions.
I oppose this collecting of information first; because once the government takes away civil liberties for a good cause, once the threat no longer exists, it will be extremely difficult to get back those civil liberties once the cause is over. Second, from what I understand, the government and the private sector already know too much about us. I see this as a breach of my fourth amendment rights. As a technologist, I understand that a great deal of technology is created with good intentions, but the same technology in the wrong hands can be used for perverse means.
The latest buzzwords in the business sector as far as utilizing Information Systems are data warehousing and data mining. According to Dr. Jeff Campbell, Ph.D. In Information Systems and Associate Professor at University of Maryland Baltimore County, stores such as Giant, are using these technologies to their advantage to target consumers in ways never imagined. One gives Giant what appears to be some harmless information in exchange for a bonus card that entitles one to some handsome discounts on purchases. Giant warehouses this information in their computer systems and then mines the data to come up with correlations in consumer purchasing that normally would go unnoticed. As an example, there is a direct correlation between the purchase of beer and diapers. Who knew? So in order to target the consumer, Giant places beer and diapers on sale right next to each other. The other purpose of this database is to determine who their loyal customers are. In the near future, pricing on goods will be determined this way. People who make huge purchases at the store will receive handsome discounts and those of us who just run in to take advantage of special pricing for the week will no longer receive those advantages once they have accumulated enough information.
Another case in the consumer arena is that in the third quarter of this year, Gillette will be testing a new technology that is available. I learned of this while listening to Art Bell's "Coast to Coast" AM radio broadcast late one night. The product will have a microchip built into it and will have its own unique identification code. This will be a test in preventing store theft. The target store chain will be Wal-Mart. If all goes well, these chips will begin to show up in all products made after the end of 2004. The original purpose of this chip was to speed up the process of receiving merchandise. A material handler scans the pallet with a wand providing a count of the merchandise received versus breaking down the skid and checking the count by hand against the receiving records. The U.S. Navy has also jumped on board with this method finding that it reduces time in material handling. Not only would this deter theft, but they could also be used to eliminate cashiers as a consequence. One would simply roll out of the store with a basket full of goodies, passing the scanners and everything would be electronically accounted for and debited to one's banking account. In addition, these scanners could be placed in bridges and trestles, which could scan your car, collect the information and send it to a centralized government database to track your consuming habits. My objection to this is doesn't the federal government already have enough data on us? How much more do they need?
J. Caplan and J. Torpey in their book, "Documenting Individual Identity," published by Princeton University Press, 2001, had this to say;
"With the rise of ever more varied organizational means of classification, we are increasingly subjected to inputted identities of which we are unaware. At one level these are generic, such as in the dividing of the U.S. by zip codes into clusters for mass marketing or participation in a network. But they are also individualized, such as scores for assessing credit or health risks."
I recently learned my own credit score, but I have no idea what the value means since it is relative to other rankings and its meaning will vary depending on the standards of the organization using it. The other problem for my self as a consumer is that I cannot effectively lobby that my real number is something other than what has been reported. Caplan and Torpey continue saying, "Organizations, which comb and combine public and private records and repackage this in formation for sale to mass marketers, insurers, employers and others, are another example. Even where individuals are aware and sought classification - as with SAT scores, the classification rests with a third party rather than with the individual. Such organizational classifications play a major (and often unduly sub-rosa) role in effecting life chances."
The most compelling issue in the private sector is how easily available your health and medical records are between doctors, hospitals and medical insurance companies. When switching health insurance, one company will request the records from your last company and one may find themselves without medical insurance or limited insurance because the new company refuses to provide coverage due to a pre-existing medical condition. Looking at this from the view of the insurance company, this person is a high risk and will cut into the company's profits and the profits of its shareholders. This isn't science fiction folks, it's already in the making. These are just a few examples of what's happening on the consumer side.
If you're not already aware of it, there are many cities that have surveillance cameras running 24/7 in order to make our cites safer. This phenomenon was been reported in several places, such as Matt Drudge on WCBM 680 AM Talk Radio, police shows on the Discovery Channel and the evening news of the commercial broadcast television stations. Virginia Beach, VA, Miami, FL, Manhattan, NY, Chicago, IL, Los Angeles, CA, and London England all have this crime fighting technology installed in various locations. There are also many web sites where you can find out which cities have these cameras and exactly where they are located within the city.
An article in Business Week's 11/05/2001 issue had this to say,
"Indeed, the prospect of cameras popping up on street corners and widespread use of facial-recognition systems gives privacy advocates of every stripe the willies. 'We shouldn't roll these technologies out without carefully thinking through what the ground rules are,' says David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a leading civil liberties group. Using cameras for security checks of employees at government facilities is one thing, says J. Bradley Jansen, a deputy director at the Free Congress Foundation. 'But cameras in public places are a gross violation of privacy without due cause.'"
In addition, there is also a category of software known as biometric technology, which can identify who the person is by their facial characteristics. The software is still in its infancy so it's approximately 67% accurate, but it can recognize a person even with changes in facial hair. This facial identification technology was used at the 2001 Super Bowl searching for known felons within the spectator's seats. Local government and the police claim that this is a very effective way of finding these known felons and also saves costs and manpower trying to locate them. In the February 2003 issue of Vision Systems Design, George Kotelly, Editor in Chief of PennWell Publishing addresses the issue of Face Recognition Software and the need for mandating social planning. Mr. Kotelly's view is, "On its technical merits, face-recognition technology hold the promise of increased efficiency and effectively in accomplishing person protection. However, for social acceptance, an open, controlled and detailed technology-approved procedure is necessary to ensure implementation by a concerned populace." Mr. Kotelly's article also confirms the usage of such surveillance cameras and software being used in Virginia Beach, VA. Deputy Police Chief Greg Mullen reports that, "Prior to system approval, an extensive public education process was undertaken, hearings were held, and citizen groups and minority groups helped formulate usage policies."
This may be true, but I for one don't care for it. I have nothing to hide and I'm not a felon, but still I don't like it because once biometric technology is perfected invariably it will be used for other means. What those means are at present is not clear to me. I'd have to apply my some imagination. This is one of the leading problems with new technology. The technology is created in order to determine if it can be done. Scientists are only concerned with "can we do this?" They are not concerned with how it will be used. That's the job of the engineers. Once it's been proven that it can be done, it may not be readily apparent what the technology is useful in until a later date. I'm not wasting time thinking about what possible ways facial identification software could be used for the future. For now, I won't frequent Virginia Beach and spend my hard earned vacation dollars there. It's rather unfortunate because I do enjoy Virginia Beach and the Mayor has done wonderful things to the community to make it an attractive family oriented vacation spot. She did a great deal of work in restoring Virginia Beach from its seedy condition of the 1980's, but the fact that all these cameras watching my every move makes me uneasy. What will they do with all this information?
The Federal Government already has a tremendous amount of information on us. The problem the government has is that its databases are all separate islands of information that are not integrated. Each agency has its own record of information on us, but they do not share information across agencies. The idea of having an "Enterprise System," one in which all computer databases speak with each other regardless of their specific platforms, is relatively new design infrastructure. The private sector has already realized the power in having such a system and most businesses that wish to survive in the 21st century have their Information Systems Departments working towards this reality.
The other side of this argument is that if the Federal Government were to enemas a huge central database or to have a distributed database where all agencies could see all the information on a particular citizen, this would create a highly attractive target for hackers, crackers, terrorists or even other governments to break in to retrieve information or wreak havoc with the system. The technologies do exist to protect such a system, but the name of the game is for every technology there is an anti-technology in progress to crack the system.
Establishing a National Identity Card? Who needs it! We've already got one. It's called your Social Security Card. The Social Security Card was never meant to be used as an ID card according to Woodrow Wilson, but "give them an inch, they'll take a mile," which is exactly what has happened with the Social Security Number. It's used for identification everywhere you go and in some cases quite inappropriately. The only way to know if the Social Security ID number is being used appropriately is by asking exactly what they require it for. How many of us actually think this far ahead? Not very many, I'm sure. In addition, when one asks the person who's asking for one's number watch the look one gets from them. More than likely what's going through their mind is, "You must be one of those freaks who just loves confrontations and generating arguments." My point is that you have the right to know what the number is being used for and it's up to the individual to determine whether they want their social security number used in this manner.
Jane Black of BusinessWeek Online, on October 4, 2001 had this to say about National ID cards,
"Creating a national ID system is precisely the kind of reactionary policy the U.S. should avoid. Contrary to what Ellison believes, it would reduce privacy by creating a government-sponsored tracking system for all citizens. More to the point, unless Americans were required to present their ID's everywhere they went ("Papers, please!"), a sweeping approach like a national ID system would do little to increase security, whereas more targeted strategies could be just as effective. A national ID system would have done nothing to prevent the four deadly hijackings of Sept. 11."
Why is that, Jane?
"Because these men were not going out of their way to hide their identities. In fact, they lived their lives in plain sight of the authorities. Most of them anyway. Two of the hijackers were on a U.S. government watch list after one was spotted with a Malaysian suspected of being involved with the U.S.S. Cole bombing. But even with sophisticated surveillance, the FBI was unable to locate them."
I fully agree with what Jane Black is saying here because I've seen the projected visions of a government out of control and I can't say that I like it nor do I want to live in a country where the government wields that much power.
Confidential - Not For Distribution - January 9, 2003
Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003
This is the heading of the document known as "The Patriot Act II," which can be found at http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf. By providing you with the full web address I am inviting you to read the document for yourself and not just rely on my commentary or anyone else's for the facts. It's a very compelling read and I believe it's time well spent. As an American Citizen, it affects all of us. Also, bear in mind that I am simply touching on only a few parts of this pending legislation. A great deal of the documentation is written in legalese, which is beyond my comprehension.
An article in The Economist published 03/08/2003, titled, "A Question of Freedom," The Economist said the most persistent complaint about the Bush administration's efforts to expand its powers is its desire to circumnavigate review by both Congress and the courts. The main complaint by Civil libertarians is that Mr. Ashcroft rammed the Patriot Act through Congress with no consultation. This is unfair: Democrats did manage to change some things in the bill. More alarming, the administration has repeatedly refused congressional requests to report on how the new law is functioning, or to consult Congress about any new legislation, despite the administration's preparing a full draft of Patriot II.
According to this legislation, if this bill is passed, the federal government will have the ability to secretly obtain anyone's credit report without his or her consent and without any judicial procedure. The statue greatly expands access to credit reports by authorizing the government to obtain these reports without consent or notice to the person to whom the credit report pertains, and without a court order. Under current laws business with a legitimate business need may obtain credit reports, but only with the consent of the person who is being examined, such as when a person applies for a loan or a job.
Another clause within this bill threatens public health by severely restricting access to crucial information about environmental health risks posed by facilities that use dangerous chemicals. This section would deprive communities and environmental organizations of crucial information concerning risks to the community contained in "worst case scenarios" prepared under federal environmental laws. Under the Clean Air Act, corporations that use potentially dangerous chemicals must prepare an analysis of consequences of the release of such chemicals in surrounding communities. This information is absolutely critical for community activists and environmental organizations seeking to protect public health and safety, the environment and ensuring compliance by private corporations with environmental and health standards, alerting local residents to the hazards to which they may be exposed.
The Patriot Act of 2003 would allow for the sampling and cataloging of innocent American’s genetic information without court order and without consent. The proposed bill authorizes collection of genetic information of persons who have not been convicted of a crime for terrorism investigation purposes, and entering that sensitive information into a database.
Drawing a DNA sample involves an intrusion of personal privacy that is far more invasive than simply taking a fingerprint. A fingerprint is useful only as a form of identification. By contrast, a DNA sample includes such intimate, personal information as the markers for thousands of diseases, legitimacy at birth, or as science advances, aspects of an individual’s personality such as his or her temperament. In addition, this personal information is not unique to the individual alone, but also provides clues to the genetic traits of everyone in that individual bloodline. The potential misuse of DNA information contained in a database requires careful safeguards before such information is collected, in addition to storage of such information. For example, no forensic purpose is served by saving the DNA itself, as opposed to just the information contained in the DNA that proves identity. The proposed legislation fails to include such safeguards. In my mind, I find this to be very dangerous legislation. Once the Federal Government has these rights where will it stop? Also what will the government do to ensure that this database will not be compromised in some way or that the information will fall into the wrong hands? If I was a hacker, this seems like an absolute goldmine of information, which has an extremely high economic value on the black market. How many millions or billions would another government or organization be willing to pay for such information? An inefficient state can never repress its people as effectively as an efficient one. Also those who choose not to remember history are doomed to repeat it. Adolph Hitler had his scientists working on similar atrocities through his experiments in creating a superior “Aryan Race.” Vast genetic experiments were conducted at Auschwitz extermination camp by Josef Mengele also known as “The Angel of Death” and his associate Dr. Carl Clauberg.
But wait, that’s too easy, after all, all of these war crimes were highly politicized. Allow me to refresh one's memory of history when our own beloved government performed similar experiments on US citizens. Oh how quickly we forget, case in point, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study of 1932. Two hundred poor black men with syphilis began a long-term experiment in this study. They were never told of their illness, and they were denied treatment. As many as 100 of the original 200 died as a direct or indirect result of the illness. The wives and children of the subjects also suffered as a result of their spouse's death. The government office supervising the study was the predecessor to today's Centers for Disease Control (CDC). If that’s not enough to convince one, how about from 1946 to 1974, the Atomic Energy Commission authorized a series of experiments in which radioactive materials were given to individuals in many cases without being informed they were the subject of an experiment. In some cases, there was not even an expectation of a positive benefit to the subjects. Most test subjects were selected from vulnerable populations such as the poor, elderly, and mentally retarded children who were fed radioactive oatmeal without parental consent. And one last case, in 1965 a three-year study was conducted. Seventy volunteer prisoners at the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia were subjected to tests of dioxin, the highly toxic chemical contaminant in Agent Orange. Lesions, which the men developed, were not treated and remained for up to seven months. None of the subjects were informed that they would later be studied for the development of cancer. This was the second such experiment, which Dow Chemical undertook on volunteers who did not receive the information, which the world proclaimed, was necessary for informed consent at the Nuremberg trials. Because I have ended my research components here at 1965, don't get the impression that our government is no longer doing things of this nature. Be forewarned, that if you do a search on the topic, you’ll find information out there all the way up to 1997, and that’s only what has been uncovered.
I’m not suggesting that Hitler’s atrocities are what our federal government has in store for us. What I am suggesting is being aware of what is being proposed in Congress and what has happened in past governments when allowed to run amok. We should always keep in mind that it is our job to keep a check on government and to constantly question authority. Even our Federal Government, like any other organization has an agenda and it isn’t always in the best interest of the citizens it’s supposed to protect. Also I am suggesting that once legislation is passed and data has been compiled it will be very, very difficult to destroy the information once it has been processed. Take a good look at the number of amendments to the Constitution. When one really thinks about it, considering the time that has gone by since its inception, not all that many amendments have been made. Some may say that this is proof of how well thought out the writing of the original Constitution was. On the other hand, it also represents how difficult it is to pass an amendment to the Constitution. We in this country have to decide exactly how much privacy we are willing to give up in order to feel more secure in our daily lives.
I take responsibility for my own security through various means. There are times when I’m using the Internet that a web site requests some basic information from me in exchange to explore their web site. I give them fictitious names, addresses, and demographics. Depending how I feel, one day I’m a woman, another day I’m a man. I fluctuate between my age, income, address and even e-mail addresses when possible. If I make any purchases on the Internet, I have a special credit card for that purpose. The card has a small line of credit so in the event someone does obtain the number or any other information, the damage they can do is minimal. Credit cards are also a great source to determine how people spend their money; therefore I keep my credit usage down to a minimum and pay cash wherever possible. Most of us don’t think of this, but a credit card database records where one shops, what time one shops, what days one shops, what kind of stores one frequents, and it even provides an itemized list of the services and products one purchased. The information can be used to determine consumer trends in spending and other types of information about us that I can’t even imagine.
I shred any paperwork with my name on it and any paperwork with any type of account numbers to prevent someone from picking the garbage and scanning the information. When I applied for my Giant card they didn’t verify the information so I falsified that information too. In most cases, if I don’t have to give them the correct information, I don’t. If you try to look me up in the phone book, you won’t find me because my phone number is unlisted. These are some of the ways I protect my right to privacy.
I grew up in a very quiet neighborhood in Westbury, Long Island, a community similar to Columbia, MD. It was a typical suburban community, which for the most part was considered safe. I didn’t worry about being mugged or robbed as I walked the streets at night. This does not imply that I didn’t apply street sense; it’s just that for the most part we didn’t have major crime problems. I’ve moved several times since then and have lived in secure neighborhoods and dreadfully insecure neighborhoods. Presently I live in the DeSoto Industrial Park area of Baltimore City, which is extremely insecure. I have hookers and drug dealers just blocks away conducting their business. I don’t go out at night in my neighborhood and conduct all of my business in Catonsville and Arbutus during the daytime. I take my walks for exercise on the UMBC campus where I feel more secure. I rent a room in an apartment with three other men whom I know nothing about. The tenants change from time to time so I never know what will be coming through the door next. My mother and father once said to me when I was a child being beaten up by bullies on the schoolyard, “I can’t be there for you, and you’re going to have to learn to defend yourself.” I’ve been attacked by groups of hoodlums several times therefore; I’m a big advocate of self-defense. As the old saying goes, “Where’s a cop when you need one?” Well they’re usually nowhere to be found so you sometimes have to provide your own security measures.
Measures such as not going into dimly lit areas at night or trying to maintain a buddy system when out on the streets at night can go a long way in avoiding problems. Wearing sensible shoes in case you need to run, being observant of your surroundings and the people around you, making sure of where the fire exits exist in an unfamiliar place are all things that we can do to ensure our own safety.
I carry a flashlight in my pocket in case the power goes out wherever I am so I can walk out and help out a few others. I carry a good-sized knife on me in case I’m confronted in a situation where running is not an option. I sleep with a stiletto knife under my pillow in case someone breaks in while I’m sleeping. Attached to my bedpost is an eighteen-inch samurai sword which works well in closed quarters such as my bedroom and by door I have a U.S. Army issued machete for self defense. I keep several 5-gallon jugs of water, canned foods and dry foods in case of emergency. I maintain a reasonable stock of emergency medical supplies in my room and in my car. This is really nothing new for me, I’ve been doing this since Hurricane Gloria ripped through Long Island some time ago. It took a good three weeks for life to return somewhat to normal. I also have fire extinguishers in my room and my car in case of fire. I have a fire escape ladder because my only way out of my room is out my only bedroom window and it's three floors down. It's just too far to jump safely. I take my safety and privacy into my own hands, I don't expect the police, the military or my government to be there when my time of need comes.
I'm also an advocate for the right of American citizens to carry a gun openly. Years ago I didn't think this way, but I do now. Having lived a bit I feel there is a strong need for it. If you carry a gun and provide for your own personal defense your chances of survival increase. States with the largest increase in gun ownership have the largest drops in violent crimes. Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. The penalty being than the victim they choose may be armed. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront a victim who is able to defend themselves. There is a strong negative correlation between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits to carry and the crime rate - as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by three percent, rape by two percent, and robberies by over two percent. The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during an eighteen-year period from 1977 to 1994. Such statistics are easily obtained from www.fedstats.gov. The purpose of the second amendment was in the event that this government becomes oppressive, we the people have the right to take up arms against and overthrow our government. Registering your guns is self-defeating because you're telling the government exactly what you have. It's really none of their business as to what weapons you possess for self-defense. Plus by registering guns, the government knows in the event of a problem, what places to hit first just because of the sheer number of weapons maintained at that particular site. I don't like guns nor do I own any, but I can understand the argument for having them and not registering them.
At the beginning of this paper I opened with a quote from a television series which aired during the mid 1960's named "The Prisoner". The sixties were a time of civil unrest and most people were at the very least somewhat skeptical and no longer trusted the federal government or any authority for that matter. We believed we were being told lies about the Vietnam War, the shooting of the students at Kent State University and there were suspicions of government involvement in JFK's assassination just to mention a few. The other important fact of the time period was the movement towards individuality and a Cultural Revolution against conformity. Some people were experimenting with communal living versus the traditional nucleus family. Free Love was the slogan of the hippies. People were emerging from their typical societal roles and exploring aspects of individuality. On the surface level, "The Prisoner" in the first few episodes appears to have a spy versus spy theme. The main character, No. 6, played by Patrick McGoohan has resigned from his position from Her Majesty's Service. He is abducted and brought to a place know only as "The Village."
In the village, no one has names and everyone must wear a sort of campaign button on their clothes with their number. Everyone is addressed by his or her number. Escape from the village is virtually impossible. If you escape, within forty-eight hours you will find yourself right back in the village. Everyone is under constant audio and visual surveillance twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Go ahead, smash a camera, stomp on a microphone, everything has a sensor and "Electric's" will be there Johnny on the spot to repair it. Yes, we will "Be Seeing You." Everyone in the community is spying on each other and no one knows who is working for whom.
Everything is provided for in the village. No one enters and no one leaves. A dollar is passed by Number 6 to Number 42 will eventually work its way back to Number 6. The village is a completely closed community. Everyone is well protected and everyone is well provided for. Essentially there is cradle to grave coverage in of each person's needs. You need clothes, why we have four styles to choose from. When you die, we have a gravesite where you will be buried. The Village even provides a tombstone with your own personal number, artistically engraved, in your marble headstone. Automobiles are unnecessary; everything you need to do in life is within walking distance. Everyone is employed and everyone earns the same pay. The Village Broadcasting Company provides for your entertainment. All news is local. There is no outside world. The village is your community, your society, your government, your state, your country, and your entire world. It is a microcosm onto itself. In essence, we are all but a school of fish in a fishbowl. The Village will provide.
"The Prisoner" is a story of one man, the common man sticking to his ideals believing in his God given rights to privacy, freedom and his right to individuality and not only rising up to meet the challenge, but in the end beating the system at its own game. He does this not through outright revolt and complete ignorance of the system as youth sometimes does, nor does he accomplish it though means of understanding the system and manipulating it through its loopholes as some middle-aged white collar criminals do. He stands against the system and defeats it not by breaking the rules, but by manipulating the system within its own rules. In essence, this is a revisited and updated version of George Orwell's "1984."
George Orwell's vision of the future does not appeal to me and I've seen my fair share of oppressive governments in my time. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Only when we travel to other counties and see other lifestyles do we truly understand how precious freedom really is. When freedom is given up, getting that freedom back will be an extremely difficult task. As for myself, I'm not willing to trade any of my rights to privacy for the sake of gaining security.
The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Contact Me · FAQ · Useful Links