Ms. Jenkins

Hello Everyone!
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. Access to Internet has been challenging here in Ghana, but I have enjoyed reading many of your responses to the overriding statements as well as one another’s responses. Many of you are making excellent points and backing them up well with evidence. I may not be able to reply from here (Internet is slow), but will do so upon my return. Hopefully you are all enjoying the book!

Our trip to Ghana has been amazing so far. We have met incredible people, visited Mr. Labi’s village in Dunkwa, participated in ceremonies, eaten wonderful food (bananas, oranges, pineapple, banku, chicken, tilapia…), danced, played soccer, met amazing people, swam in the ocean, and much more. It has truly been an eye-opening and perspective-changing experience. I hope you are all doing well and are having a relaxing vacation. See you soon!

Ms. Jenkins

Jessica K -"The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who might be a threat."

I strongly disagree with this statement. This would work in some cases, but not all of them. Everyone has different interests, including in what they read. Right now we're all reading 1984. Does that mean I'm interested in being like Winston, and plotting ways of going against the government? Or maybe someone's reading a book about weapons. Are they planning to somehow obtain them so they can destroy our country? Everyone has the right to read whatever they like as long as they aren't breaking the law. One's interests in books doesn't really have anything to do with if they're a threat to our country or not. It's also one's choice to not have others knowing what they read if they choose to.

Jessica K- "Reporters should submit their work to government officials so they may determine if it's a threat to the country."

I disagree with this statement. Reporters have the right to write whatever they want as long as it's not going against the law and ethics. Let's say the government was making a poor decision and a reporter wanted to write about it. Then this reporter should have the right to tell the general public and inform them what is going on. The government might find it threatening to their publicity, but everyone deserves to know what's going on.
It's not the job of a government official to determine what should be printed and what shouldn't be, but between the reporter and their editor after considering the public's view of whether or not an article should be printed.

Jessica K -"Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals."

I disagree with this statement. Everyone has the right to go into public places. We also have the right to refuse to be watched such as through cameras. It's invading one's privacy to have security cameras capturing their every move.
I can agree that with security cameras, in case a criminal act did take place, then we would have evidence and know what to do. But if you think about it, it might not even be effective at all. Someone can have weird behaviors that might appear to be threatening, but actually isn't. If their behavior leads to a misunderstanding that this person is threatening, then is this fair for them? It's somewhat discrimination to consider if one is threatening based on their appearance and what we see them doing. Someone who is actually a potential criminal can also pretend to be perfectly innocent. How is that going to help then? The idea of having these cameras isn't fair to those who don't want to be watched.

Briyana Bembry

"Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither."

I disagree with this statement. Security provides safety and and keeping the peace. Without laws we would all be living in a state of nature. To some that may sound like fun but think of all the crime that would be commited. I think security it good but only to an extent.

Paige Paulsen

"Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither"

I have mixed feelings about this statement mostly because it is too sweeping. There can't be freedom if that freedom is not secured. It's human nature to try and get and maintain power over fellow man, sad as it is, and everybody knows this. If people are afraid that they won't be alive the next day then they won't exercize the freedoms they nominally have. You don't say that the rising power is corrupt, you don't have the freedom if there is no guarentee that it will last and won't come back to haunt you.

This quote is similar to one by Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up a little liberty for a a little security deserve neither, and lose both". I think this quote is a little closer to the truth, but it can't be applied to an entire situation or society. If you change the focus from protecting the citizens from oppresion to protecting the citizens from themselves by any means, you have become the oppressor.

Amelia Holmes

"The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war."

I agree with this statement. Peace isn't something that you can prepare for alone, so in some ways the only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war, if you are ready for one you would most likely be ready for the other. To prepare for war is easy, because it is something that people who start wars need to think about how to do it. People who are peaceful, don't prepare for peace, it is just natural to them. The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for any kind of situation, which of course includes war. Preparing for war and preparing for peace are intertwined but we cant fully understand this statement unless you can answer your self the question: How does someone go about preparing for peace?