In the article "Why 'security' keeps winning out over privacy," Daniel J. Solove states that too often, privacy is overlooked by the government in favour of security. The article reveals many arguments, showing their effects and the reasoning behind their flaws. Solove includes the all-or-nothing fallacy, the deference argument, the pendulum argument, the war-powers argument, and the luddite argument. I agree with the all-or-nothing fallacy, the deference argument, and the luddite argument. However, I do not quite grasp the concepts of the pendulum argument and I do not think it is a reliable source. In regards to the war-power argument, I do not trust it because it shows that the rule of law can be voided. This article reminds me of the "All the Troubles of the World" short story because there is such a strong desire for change, as there was to rebel in the story. Also, it is similar to the short story in concerns of too much protection. In addition, the way they talk about the 'naked scanners' in airports (luddite argument) reminds me of Multivac: they have too much knowledge. Overall, I agree with Solove's opinion about the government needing to pay more attention to privacy rights when concerning sercurity, but not to the same extent.
In our past two classes, we read a short story called Once Upon a Time by Nadine Gordimer. The story was a parody of a fairy tale which explored darker world themes including racism and segregation. I had some understanding of the story when we read it in class, but I acquired most of my understanding when answering critical thinking questions afterwards with the class. While reading it, I was shocked by it's gruesome ending. When taking a second thought, I realized the harsh ending was necessary to show how our own fear and paranoia about society can lead us into insanity and can cause us to hurt ourselves as opposed to our intention of protecting ourselves. I was able to identify some elements, but others took great thought to figure out, such as the evil witch and the symbolism of the brick wall. My strengths in story analysis and comprehension are understanding the mood/tone and message of short stories and my areas that I need to improve are understanding symbolism and irony.
Stephen Fry made many good points in his open letter to David Cameron and the IOC. In my opinion, Putin's law against gays should not be associated with the olympics in any way. Athletes are travelling to Russia to compete in the olympics; their personal lives have nothing to do with that. Although I do not agree with sports and politics being connected, they are and Fry shows that by stating: "Olympic events used not only to be athletic, they used to include cultural competitions." It is not right for Putin to restrict competitors of their sexuality, as it is not right for Hitler to use the Jews as scapegoats. Despite Stephen Fry's biased view on the matter, he is completely right. If the country of Russia cannot be civil with the athletes because of an LGBT barrier, the Olympics should be held elsewhere.