5th Reader's Blog

Summary:

In Osterweil’s essay about the idea of governmental surveillance and the recurring films that show such a strong watchful eye, he writes about the ability of some of these movies to describe the surveillance state. He connects these pieces to the given purpose of the surveillance system (security), but then disproves their purpose of common good in themselves when aligning them with our reality. Hitting another idea of governmental control is highlighted in Vasquez’s essay dealing with immigration. She portrays the cultural significance of these bands, but also sheds light on the behind-the-scenes. Where these people are afraid of anti-immigration and being deemed illegal, she challenges the government’s interpretation of these people searching for better lives.

Comment:

While both readings hit on two seemingly different points, they are both connected back to the ideas of the government. Whether it be over surveillance or tightened immigration, they highlight the idea that the government is dealing with these problems in the wrong ways. Obviously, there must be surveillance for national security and there must be restrictions on immigration for the same reason, but the size and scope it is being taken to is being challenged by both authors. They are making the argument that by the government trying to deal with these problems, they are also diminishing American values simultaneously.

Question:

Do you believe these authors are pushing for the elimination of governmental restrictions and abilities such as immigration restrictions and internal surveillance? Or are they simply saying it is being taken to extremes that are unneeded? Which author seems to believe what?