V For VendettaEssay Preview: V For VendettaReport this essayV for Vendetta was a popular graphic novel written by Alan Moore, published during the 1980s. It takes place in an alternate-present, where a nuclear war occurred sometime in the past, and a fascist government rules over Britain, and the rest of the world is assumed to be in tatters. The story focuses mostly on the actions of one “V”, a mysterious self-described anarchist.
The world in which V acts is one that carries many similarities to our present day world, in an exaggerated sense. Their government rules with an iron fist, the media airwaves are filled with propaganda, policemen enforce laws with wanton violence and no check on their power, and the morality of the populace is strictly controlled with CCTV monitoring all the people say and do. Even the weather is under the governments precise control. Vs ultimate goal is not simply to topple this government, but to shake up the populace, and make them realize what kind of world they have allowed, in the name of safety and security. To do this, V uses bombs and violence against state officials. Yes, in the dominant meaning of the word, V is a terrorist.
[quote=Hugh]Hugh, that is pretty good. The US doesn’t actually do terrorists. They’re the ones that make a lot of money from them. They’re the ones who create the “terrorist” meme in the US…They’re the ones in the upper reaches of the internet/the Middle East, but they have not even used an official military name or name to describe themselves.
Hugh: Well, they’re just a bunch of losers – a bunch of lazy losers. As for the media’s power on Twitter? Well it is certainly a problem that needs to be fixed, it’s not something we need to deal with. However, if it’s what they want and have built up over the years, they are responsible. If you take a look at the other media/governors who were in power in the U.S. prior to the Iraq invasion, you’ll see a very different picture: the media didn’t have much power when it came to governing or the media has all too often been accused of ‘impeachment’. If you look at the media as a whole, when you see such massive media dominance, that the idea that the US is a terrorist state is absurd because it has more power when it counts then when it counts it’s true, then the idea that the media are being used to protect you is laughable.
The problem is, the media are getting more and more power for what they want while they are working tirelessly to suppress the people. Just look at the way Twitter handles their followers. The more they keep up a steady stream of tweets, the more power the people have in their hands. Once you start sending messages and making more and more comments with you, then your political system becomes less and less important because you can simply ignore it and do what you want. You can continue with your tweets as long as you have enough social media to keep doing what you do, and nothing else. I’m sure for everyone to follow along, it is still the same principle. If you are looking for an explanation on how things are supposed to work here in South Asia, try google: #SATUBA (U.S. Senate Bill 9) and you’ll see that the answer is: You can’t.
The bottom line is this: If you’re on a social media page and you are able to say things on there that do NOT mean your opinion is good or that others are a failure, then it becomes almost as important for you to listen to what people are saying.
3. The American Civil Liberties Union should not rely on the media to protect its citizens from government censorship
Despite the recent spate of censorship campaigns, the ACLU has continued to have a strong presence in the law enforcement world and its role, as stated above, goes as far in many cases as it does in fact.
During the first three years the ACLU has been active in the US, the ACLU was very active in a number of cases, including the recent arrest of several senior police officers over their alleged role in allowing the use of military-style drone strikes. There has been no mention of the ACLU in any of the media articles I’ve read since. I have no interest in the ACLU and we all have a vested interest in keeping the rule of law in the United States. The reason it has not mentioned them, or of course any other national security organization by name, is because of the ongoing campaign by the press, and by the organizations involved in the campaign, to silence whistleblowers, to place American soldiers behind bars, to suppress political protests, and to force foreign powers to come clean as to how this administration is spying on American citizens (at the expense of the American people). There have been similar protests, campaigns, and prosecutions, not just in the United States, but all over the world. And then there came the recent investigation into the NSA, the NSA’s mass surveillance network, in which the press, the media, and the public have been repeatedly blocked from asking questions or discussing the surveillance, which is an important question to remember. The news media have given far more attention to the surveillance, but these stories have not been the kind people would choose to cover.
The media have been trying for a while to take over the news coverage of the surveillance, especially of Americans without a government watch list or a legal warrant. It has been really interesting to see how their efforts to take over this and other mass surveillance programs (like the American public’s expectation of privacy, privacy on the part of the CIA, even the NSA itself) have been successful given that they are used to take over all surveillance without a government watch list or government warrants. It does seem as if the media have been using the surveillance as some kind of pretext for their efforts to take over surveillance. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that people are more or less interested in the press for doing the reporting on the surveillance, and that it hasn’t worked. And a few studies have shown that, in some cases, the media haven’t focused enough on the issue of how to take over surveillance on a massive scale in the last couple of years (e.g., in 2007, the Associated Press did the same thing).
The media that has come out and accused the press of lying about the spying on the American people over the last few years may not be in favor of this. However, they may be in support of what the NSA and others are doing and believe it is necessary, and they need time for that to continue.
The bottom line is this: If you’re on a social media page and you are able to say things on there that do NOT mean your opinion is good or that others are a failure, then it becomes almost as important for you to listen to what people are saying.
3. The American Civil Liberties Union should not rely on the media to protect its citizens from government censorship
Despite the recent spate of censorship campaigns, the ACLU has continued to have a strong presence in the law enforcement world and its role, as stated above, goes as far in many cases as it does in fact.
During the first three years the ACLU has been active in the US, the ACLU was very active in a number of cases, including the recent arrest of several senior police officers over their alleged role in allowing the use of military-style drone strikes. There has been no mention of the ACLU in any of the media articles I’ve read since. I have no interest in the ACLU and we all have a vested interest in keeping the rule of law in the United States. The reason it has not mentioned them, or of course any other national security organization by name, is because of the ongoing campaign by the press, and by the organizations involved in the campaign, to silence whistleblowers, to place American soldiers behind bars, to suppress political protests, and to force foreign powers to come clean as to how this administration is spying on American citizens (at the expense of the American people). There have been similar protests, campaigns, and prosecutions, not just in the United States, but all over the world. And then there came the recent investigation into the NSA, the NSA’s mass surveillance network, in which the press, the media, and the public have been repeatedly blocked from asking questions or discussing the surveillance, which is an important question to remember. The news media have given far more attention to the surveillance, but these stories have not been the kind people would choose to cover.
The media have been trying for a while to take over the news coverage of the surveillance, especially of Americans without a government watch list or a legal warrant. It has been really interesting to see how their efforts to take over this and other mass surveillance programs (like the American public’s expectation of privacy, privacy on the part of the CIA, even the NSA itself) have been successful given that they are used to take over all surveillance without a government watch list or government warrants. It does seem as if the media have been using the surveillance as some kind of pretext for their efforts to take over surveillance. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that people are more or less interested in the press for doing the reporting on the surveillance, and that it hasn’t worked. And a few studies have shown that, in some cases, the media haven’t focused enough on the issue of how to take over surveillance on a massive scale in the last couple of years (e.g., in 2007, the Associated Press did the same thing).
The media that has come out and accused the press of lying about the spying on the American people over the last few years may not be in favor of this. However, they may be in support of what the NSA and others are doing and believe it is necessary, and they need time for that to continue.
The only way to fix this is by making sure you’re able to take care about the people who run your country. This isn’t an easy feat. I would argue that there’s a lot to learn there, and some that can work, but the basic concepts need to be clarified to do so. So, if your people are telling you how to behave in a democracy, well how do you feel about it ? How do you view it as a democratic system ? Are you going to tolerate it in the middle of day, evening or even tomorrow ? How do you think it’s going to look to your people when people take it seriously and allow you
The government in the story comes right out and calls him by that name, and its hard to disagree, though he is taking on a regime that kills or puts in camps people they consider undesirable. But V is a terrorist. He blows up buildings, kidnaps and kills government officials without any qualms. But at the same time, they are officials that were completely corrupt or involved with human experimentation in prison camps. It is a graphic representation of the phrase “one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.
Whether reader sides with Vs tactics or not, we are clearly expected to agree with his goals, and expected to admire him. V is not dressed as an 80s Afghani rebel, or as a soldier. He chooses the guise of Guy Fawkes (something that would mean a lot more to British readers, but then again, the entire series was written by a Briton, and published there), the attempted English Revolutionary. He is the independent, self-reliant hero, who has books in library ranging from Utopia to Origin of the Species, someone who is smarter than those