Secrets

The book I read for my junior theme was Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, and it was about Daniel Ellsberg's experience in releasing the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg's experience was a great example of a whistleblowing case, and the story from his perspective is an invaluable source. On page 387, Ellsberg wrote, “The Nixon Justice Department was making a pioneering experiment, asking federal courts to violate or ignore the Constitution or in effect to abrogate the First Amendment”. Whistleblowing regulations are strictly in place to cover up the government's secrets. It all comes down to the public's right to know vs. national security, and in the government's eyes national security trumps the public's right to know. In perilous times, such as the Vietnam War, Nixon took it even further, and had courts "violate the Constitution". The right to blow the whistle is in the constitution under freedom of speech rights, and it still isn't given to federal employees. Secrets documents Ellsberg's entire experience of releasing the documents, including his intentions for doing so. The common perception of whistleblowers is that they are troublemakers who only speak out to stir the pot, but Ellsberg did what he did because he thought it was right. The intentions of the Vietnam war were unjust and Ellsberg did everything he had to to stop it. His story is unbelievable, and this book is a must read.
 

Whistleblowers

For my junior theme this semester I will be focusing on the question of, why are whistleblowers not protected. Many people don't even know what a whistleblower is, so I will get into that a little. A "whistleblower" is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "one who reveals something covert or who informs against another". Now the interesting part of the whole dilemma of whistleblowers is that the idea of whether they should or should not be protected could be decided with the First Amendment. Many argue that whistleblowing should be allowed, and fully supported, because it is a constitutional right. Whistleblowing expert, Stephen Kohn, said in an interview that, "The First Amendment was enacted to prevent precisely what we're seen unfolding today. People in the government witness abuses and they have the right to blow the whistle on them." First amendment issues are something that I have found myself blogging about repeatedly this year, because they aren't as clear cut as they seem. The problem with federal whistleblowing is that it comes down to national security. Is it worth it to risk national security for federal employees to have their constitutional free speech rights? Or should they be limited? There have been many successful whistleblowing cases that have had no negative effects to our security, but there has also been many that have risked security. Defense Department secretary, George Morell, was quoted in an article saying, "We know terrorist organizations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for information to use against us." The leaked documents he was referring to was part of the collection United States soldier,Bradley Manning, leaked to the whistleblowing website, WikiLeaks. Where should the line be drawn? I'm focusing on the reasons why the government restricts whistleblowing, so I won't be able to get into this side of the argument in my paper, so I'm curious what your opinions on the subject are.

TV Tokenism

SOURCE

SOURCE

Jericho is about the struggles of one town in Kansas to survive after multiple nuclear explosions across the United States. No one knows who is behind the attack, and the town, Jericho, is cut off from the rest of the country, and is on their own to survive. Hawkins, the character in the blue shirt on the far left, is the show's token minority character. He is a CIA operative that just moved to Jericho, and the rest of his character is sort of a mystery. He is given little air time during the pilot, but begins to develop into a main character as Jake's - the main character in the center wearing the red shirt - "go to guy". He becomes a significant part of the show, and then it gets cancelled. It ran for 2 seasons, but the second was cut short.

Who Makes Freedom Count?

In class the past few weeks, we have seemed to be falling on the same train of thought time and time again. It all started when we our teacher noticed the frenzy of high school seniors trying to register to vote before school. Two students saw the line and decided to go another day. We fell into the conversation of the history of voting, and what intrigued me was the minimal number of black office holders, most specifically senators. The train of thought that kept resurfacing was maybe black candidates just don't want to run for office. Its the easiest answer to let the topic slip from your mind, but I came across an article that disproved this so passive response.


The article is about the additional "hoops" states have been implementing for possible voters to jump through. My immediate thought was back to the Alabama literacy test that was required for citizens whose grandfathers hadn't voted, more specifically freed men, but then my conscious quickly kicked in and I thought there is no way. As I read on, I learned that a specific hoop that the Florida government added was that, "the state imposed new rules restricting third-party voter registration drives". I read that line a few times, let it sink in, and decided that our country hasn't advanced at all from literacy tests. Why does it need to be made so much harder for people to register to vote?  Attorneys have argued that the law will, "disproportionately harm members of minority communities who rely on community-based group to help them overcome barriers to registering to vote". This law is clearly targeting minorities and hindering their say in our "democratic system". Volunteer groups are being shut down in helping minority groups register to vote, on the basis of voter fraud? I don't understand how it is so hard for the government to give these people the right to vote that they constitutionally deserve.