Monday, March 22, 2010
Blog Four- Movie Review
I have chosen to write a review about my personal favorite movie, Moulin Rouge. It was directed by Baz Luhrmann who also happened to direct William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. He did an amazing job in directing Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge because in my opinion it is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I find it refreshing to see that the stars of this musical used their actual voices and was pleasantly surprised to witness their talents. This movie is incredibly unique, witty and entertaining. Even though the movie was incredibly hyperactive and dramatic it simply made the movie that much more unforgettable. As soon as I saw the movie on t.v i knew I had to buy it, and to this day I try to share it with as many people as possible. Moulin Rouge is a fantasia filled with heart and songs that will make you want to sing along as it draws you in more and more.
"Less Privacy is Good for Us (And You)" by Amitai Etzioni
How does Etzioni's article help readers to see the complexity of privacy issues?
Etzioni begins his article by stating that privacy is not so much as mentioned in the Constitution and that most Americans today see it as a God given right. We are horrified when we see privacy being slowly stripped away from average Americans in the media, be it by their employers or neighbors. It wasn't until I read this article that I realized toll booth operators could track your every move, and let me tell you I am slightly horrified by this new awareness. The government must be behind all of this, they must use it as a means to invade people's privacy. Well, that's my cynical subconscious speaking anyways, I'm sure it's just another precaution to maintain public safety. The author makes light of many other ways the government allows invasion of privacy for the good of humanity such as bosses reading your e-mails, neighbors listening in on your cell phone conversations and HIV testing of infants. The HIV testing of infants is a very delicate issue because to save the child from getting HIV and eventually possibly spreading this disease to others, we must test the mother for HIV and therefore invade her privacy. I'm not exactly sure where I stand with this issue, but I may be leaning more towards making such a test mandatory since it is concerning public health. Like Etzioni mentioned, a suggestion to ask the mother to take the test is not enough because many of those women who are drug addicts are particularly prone to be carrying the virus do not even show up for prenatal care. Not to mention the occasional woman who may be offended when asked to be tested for such a virus and actually ends up having it, well at least we saved a life.
This new biometrics machine that uses natural features such as voice, eye pattern etc to recognize a person will definitely be useful for our future. We simply have to know our limits as to when it would be appropriate to use it. I feel that it would be appropriate to use such a machine as a means of background checking for jobs like teaching children, or working for the government and that every information attained would need to be classified.
Etzioni's article brings up many issues and how delicate the invasion of privacy can be. I agree with the author when he states that privacy is one very important right but it is not above public safety and health.
Etzioni begins his article by stating that privacy is not so much as mentioned in the Constitution and that most Americans today see it as a God given right. We are horrified when we see privacy being slowly stripped away from average Americans in the media, be it by their employers or neighbors. It wasn't until I read this article that I realized toll booth operators could track your every move, and let me tell you I am slightly horrified by this new awareness. The government must be behind all of this, they must use it as a means to invade people's privacy. Well, that's my cynical subconscious speaking anyways, I'm sure it's just another precaution to maintain public safety. The author makes light of many other ways the government allows invasion of privacy for the good of humanity such as bosses reading your e-mails, neighbors listening in on your cell phone conversations and HIV testing of infants. The HIV testing of infants is a very delicate issue because to save the child from getting HIV and eventually possibly spreading this disease to others, we must test the mother for HIV and therefore invade her privacy. I'm not exactly sure where I stand with this issue, but I may be leaning more towards making such a test mandatory since it is concerning public health. Like Etzioni mentioned, a suggestion to ask the mother to take the test is not enough because many of those women who are drug addicts are particularly prone to be carrying the virus do not even show up for prenatal care. Not to mention the occasional woman who may be offended when asked to be tested for such a virus and actually ends up having it, well at least we saved a life.
This new biometrics machine that uses natural features such as voice, eye pattern etc to recognize a person will definitely be useful for our future. We simply have to know our limits as to when it would be appropriate to use it. I feel that it would be appropriate to use such a machine as a means of background checking for jobs like teaching children, or working for the government and that every information attained would need to be classified.
Etzioni's article brings up many issues and how delicate the invasion of privacy can be. I agree with the author when he states that privacy is one very important right but it is not above public safety and health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
